Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +88/-94
Posts: 1,253
"Battle is an orgy of disorder"
|
 |
« Reply #105 on: May 07, 2008, 06:47:21 AM » |
|
All the while Israel is repeatedly forgetting the basic human rights of people in Gaza... Try to keep from allowing unrelated issues to collide.....the attack on nuclear infrastructure in Syria is unrelated to Gaza. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I do not measure a mans success by how high he climbs but how high he bounces when he hits bottom.
-G.S. Patton, Jr.
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +196/-190
Posts: 3,406
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #106 on: May 07, 2008, 07:24:41 AM » |
|
Thanks Patton.
I mentioned in my last post that it was OT.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #107 on: May 14, 2008, 01:56:10 PM » |
|
He (Bush) doesn't have an original thought in his head. He simply did what almost all presidents do................what they are told.
A very good post PS. Right up to the end I was with you most of the way. Many people were against the war before March '03 and were quite vocal about it. Some opposition was based upon the concept of opposing any war and I can appreciate that while not agreeing with it. Some people truly believed Saddam had come clean about his WMD programs and there was no need to remove him. I also appreciate that opinion while not agreeing with it. But most opposed the Iraq War on political grounds alone. Many who supported the liberation of Iraq quickly "changed their minds" and turned their backs on the troops they helped send there. Many of them have been willing to tell any lie or start any hoax to defeat anything Bush. Up to and including a concerted effort to loose in Iraq. That I don't appreciate or forgive. It's caused great harm to the nation and the effort to fight those dreaming about killing as many Americans as possible. While I have my own problems with President Bush he is his own man. As with most Presidents, he stood his ground while most people around him withered under the strain and gave up any hope of winning in Iraq and the larger war on international terrorism. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #108 on: May 14, 2008, 02:32:51 PM » |
|
They're not the president of the United States.
We hold the guy to a different standard.
Come on Abraxas! Is that the best you can do? You've got one thing right. Of all of the people who believed Saddam was absolutely in possession of WMD Bush is the only one being held to a different standard and being called a liar. It's a rhetorical question anyway. It's obvious why so many believed it. Because neither side was under the employ of the other. They simply had the same goals.
I could make the same argument that Al-Quida and virtually any other country in the Middle East (with the exception of Israel) are working together in the same capacity that Iraq and Al-Quida were. Basically, it's a vague and intentionally misleading effort to isolate the relationship between Iraq and Al-Quida while ignoring the relationship between Al-Quida and everyone else - especially US allies.
He armed and funded two al-Qaeda terrorist groups. That truth speaks for itself. Very few nations on Earth have a stated national policy of arming and funding international terrorists. None of them I can think of are US allies. al-Qaeda has attacked Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and several other ME and African nations. Any ally of the US is their sworn enemy. Curveball was the entire basis for our report to the UN and despite Germany's warning against trusting him, we went ahead and did just that. He was the source of information for what we believed were mobile chemical labs.
I repeat...He (Curveball) knew nothing of Saddam's intentions to continue WMD production, his advanced missile design and development, his hidden IIS laboratories and his intentions to build nuclear weapons. All of this was reason enough not to believe Saddam had given up his long quest to develop WMD. We didn't need Curveball. Most of the evidence Powell presented to the UN was accurate. That little fact is always forgotten. BTW, mobile labs were found in Iraq. They did exist. There wasn't any proof they had been used for the production of WMD. They were so bathed in chlorine the inspectors had to wear masks. The truth is nobody has ever given a logical explanation as to what Saddam was doing with mobile laboratories hidden from UNMOVIC inspectors and banned by UN Resolutions. Some say they were just to make agricultural fertilizer. Yeah right! He didn't need to hide fertilizer factories from UN inspectors. But Saddam did in fact hide the existence of his mobile labs from them. I wonder why. In the end history has proved Bush to be correct. Saddam was guilty as charged! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #109 on: May 14, 2008, 02:55:20 PM » |
|
In the end history has proved Bush to be correct. Saddam was guilty as charged This is a lie Ron mars ...Ron Mars you are a liar. Listen to Powell in his own words tell us why we shouldn't have invaded and why the intelligence was bad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FejQH_VCB24&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTLmOoPzjs Here is how he feels about his UN address: In the February 2003 presentation to the UN Security Council, Mr Powell forcefully made the case for war on the regime of Saddam Hussein, offering "proof" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
The presentation included satellite photos of trucks that Mr Powell identified as mobile bioweapons laboratories.
After the invasion, US weapons inspectors reported finding no Iraqi nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
In an interview with American ABC TV news to be broadcast on Friday (US time), Mr Powell said "it's a blot" on his record.
"I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now," he said.
Mr Powell spent five days at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) headquarters ahead of the speech studying intelligence reports, many of which turned out to be false.
He said he felt "terrible" at being misinformed.
However, he did not blame CIA director George Tenet.
Mr Tenet "did not sit there for five days with me misleading me," he said.
"He believed what he was giving to me was accurate."
Some members of the US intelligence community "knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up," Mr Powell said.
"These are not senior people, but these are people who were aware that some of these resources should not be considered reliable," he said.
"I was enormously disappointed." |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 14, 2008, 03:00:40 PM by freethinker »
|
Logged
|
Impeach now more than ever!
|
|
|
|
Pond Scum
|
|
« Reply #110 on: May 15, 2008, 11:14:09 AM » |
|
He (Bush) doesn't have an original thought in his head. He simply did what almost all presidents do................what they are told.
A very good post PS. Right up to the end I was with you most of the way. Many people were against the war before March '03 and were quite vocal about it. Some opposition was based upon the concept of opposing any war and I can appreciate that while not agreeing with it. Some people truly believed Saddam had come clean about his WMD programs and there was no need to remove him. I also appreciate that opinion while not agreeing with it. But most opposed the Iraq War on political grounds alone. Many who supported the liberation of Iraq quickly "changed their minds" and turned their backs on the troops they helped send there. Many of them have been willing to tell any lie or start any hoax to defeat anything Bush. Up to and including a concerted effort to loose in Iraq. That I don't appreciate or forgive. It's caused great harm to the nation and the effort to fight those dreaming about killing as many Americans as possible. While I have my own problems with President Bush he is his own man. As with most Presidents, he stood his ground while most people around him withered under the strain and gave up any hope of winning in Iraq and the larger war on international terrorism. Ron, Have you ever researched the CFR or the Trilateral Commission? Have you done any reading on the Reece committee Have you read, ro watched the interview with Norman Dodd? Have you looked to see if there are any other respectable people who support Dodd's claims? Have you read the book from Rene Wormser on foundations, or at least looked fro quotes from the book? Do you know what Barry Goldwater said was the goal of the Trilateral Commission? Do you know what Admiral Chester Ward said was the goal of the CFR, a group Ward belonged to for 16 years? Do you know what Congressman Larry P. McDonald said was the goal of the Rockefellers and their allies? Do you know what Carrol Quigley said about these "elitist" groups? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Irwin
|
|
« Reply #111 on: May 15, 2008, 02:45:08 PM » |
|
He (Bush) doesn't have an original thought in his head. He simply did what almost all presidents do................what they are told.
A very good post PS. Right up to the end I was with you most of the way. Many people were against the war before March '03 and were quite vocal about it. Some opposition was based upon the concept of opposing any war and I can appreciate that while not agreeing with it. Some people truly believed Saddam had come clean about his WMD programs and there was no need to remove him. I also appreciate that opinion while not agreeing with it. But most opposed the Iraq War on political grounds alone. Many who supported the liberation of Iraq quickly "changed their minds" and turned their backs on the troops they helped send there. Many of them have been willing to tell any lie or start any hoax to defeat anything Bush. Up to and including a concerted effort to loose in Iraq. That I don't appreciate or forgive. It's caused great harm to the nation and the effort to fight those dreaming about killing as many Americans as possible. While I have my own problems with President Bush he is his own man. As with most Presidents, he stood his ground while most people around him withered under the strain and gave up any hope of winning in Iraq and the larger war on international terrorism. What the hell do you know about "most" who opposed the war? I stood in a crowd of a million of them in New York, so I think I know better than you. Most who opposed the war, opposed it because on the basis of facts it was so obvious what a stupid, insane idea it was and that it was all based on lies. Everyone else just caught up with us. You still remain without a clue. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #112 on: May 15, 2008, 03:09:44 PM » |
|
Have you ever researched the CFR or the Trilateral Commission?
Have you done any reading on the Reece committee
Researched? No. The Reece Committee was set up by Congress to look into Foundations a while back with Norman Dodd as a Congressional Investigator. (I had to look that one up.) The CFR is an American think tank and the TC is international. But they are think tanks. Influential yes, but just groups of people advocating their positions in the open. A quick google search of their mission statements and members was not exactly eyeopening. They are think tanks. They think and speak. So what. Foreign Affairs is an excellent publication. I don't go to their website but I have read articles from others. As I remember, all were well written even if I didn't agree with the point. No on all the rest of your questions. I haven't read or know anything about those issues. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #113 on: May 15, 2008, 04:04:48 PM » |
|
What the hell do you know about "most" who opposed the war?
I read. I stood in a crowd of a million of them in New York, so I think I know better than you.
I watched a crowd in NYC during one of the "candlelight vigils" in the Village myself. They looked like the same liberal crowd I saw at Bush's Inaugurations. Even before he was sworn in many already seethed with hatred over the guy. "Selected not Elected" "Stolen Elections" "No Gravitas" Any of this ring a bell? Trust me, three decades of reading is far more informative than standing amongst a group of liberals holding candles in NYC. Most who opposed the war, opposed it because on the basis of facts it was so obvious what a stupid, insane idea it was and that it was all based on lies. Everyone else just caught up with us. You still remain without a clue.
History has proved that in fact Bush did not lie. That Saddam had every intention of producing WMD and continuing to arm and fund international terrorists. The vast majority of those who opposed the war because "it was based on lies" are the ones who still haven't caught up with history. Yes Irwin, I know exactly what most of the people who opposed the war believe. They believe the same lies you do. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #114 on: May 15, 2008, 04:57:34 PM » |
|
History has proved that in fact Bush did not lie. That Saddam had every intention of producing WMD and continuing to arm and fund international terrorists. This is in it self a lie Ron Mars...Ron Mars You are a liar. You opperate on the principal that if you tell a lie long enough and often enough, people will stop refuting it and eventually some will believe it. Every time you spout your lies here and I see it I will call you on it. Ron Mars you are a LIAR. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz9Ew1UBBj0 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Impeach now more than ever!
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +86/-103
Posts: 811
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #115 on: May 15, 2008, 07:15:13 PM » |
|
He (Bush) doesn't have an original thought in his head. He simply did what almost all presidents do................what they are told.
A very good post PS. Right up to the end I was with you most of the way. Many people were against the war before March '03 and were quite vocal about it. Some opposition was based upon the concept of opposing any war and I can appreciate that while not agreeing with it. Some people truly believed Saddam had come clean about his WMD programs and there was no need to remove him. I also appreciate that opinion while not agreeing with it. But most opposed the Iraq War on political grounds alone. Many who supported the liberation of Iraq quickly "changed their minds" and turned their backs on the troops they helped send there. Many of them have been willing to tell any lie or start any hoax to defeat anything Bush. Up to and including a concerted effort to loose in Iraq. That I don't appreciate or forgive. It's caused great harm to the nation and the effort to fight those dreaming about killing as many Americans as possible. While I have my own problems with President Bush he is his own man. As with most Presidents, he stood his ground while most people around him withered under the strain and gave up any hope of winning in Iraq and the larger war on international terrorism. I don't doubt that the reasons you listed all motivated many people to oppose the invasion. You've left out an important one though. Many people, like myself though it was a poor choice strategically. I was against putting boots on the ground from the beginning, not because I didn't like who was calling the shots, nor was it because I oppose all wars. Unfortunately, sometimes violence and destruction are just what the situation calls for. I don't even believe that Saddam had "come clean" on anything, but I definitely did have serious doubts about his ability to get nukes and his intent to actually use them on us. Not because he wouldn't want to, but because it would certainly have brought a quick end to his power and most likely his life. I opposed it because I saw it as bad strategy. IMO it was costly and unnecessary. I thought we would end up being there for a long time if we went in and that our effort in Afghanistan would suffer from it. I didn't think that the prospects of waring factions in Iraq and extended influence from Iran and various terrorist groups were better than having Hussein in power. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
Pond Scum
|
|
« Reply #116 on: May 16, 2008, 12:02:15 AM » |
|
Have you ever researched the CFR or the Trilateral Commission?
Have you done any reading on the Reece committee
Researched? No. The Reece Committee was set up by Congress to look into Foundations a while back with Norman Dodd as a Congressional Investigator. (I had to look that one up.) The CFR is an American think tank and the TC is international. But they are think tanks. Influential yes, but just groups of people advocating their positions in the open. A quick google search of their mission statements and members was not exactly eyeopening. They are think tanks. They think and speak. So what. Foreign Affairs is an excellent publication. I don't go to their website but I have read articles from others. As I remember, all were well written even if I didn't agree with the point. No on all the rest of your questions. I haven't read or know anything about those issues. Well, i thank you for the very courteous reply. I am just an average guy who knew almost nothing about any of this stuff until one day I stumbled upon the some witness statements from TWA 800. I didn't believe the witness statements were true when I read them so I started digging. It was the first conspiracy I ever researched. Some 200 hours later, I was not the same person I was before I read these statements. I do not expect you to believe any particular piece of information, or any particular quote, or anything I might say, but in my opinion, the answers to the questions I asked you are all keys as to what is really going on in the world. You can take that, or leave it. It is all up to you. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #117 on: May 18, 2008, 03:50:07 AM » |
|
I don't doubt that the reasons you listed all motivated many people to oppose the invasion. You've left out an important one though. Many people, like myself though it was a poor choice strategically. I was against putting boots on the ground from the beginning, not because I didn't like who was calling the shots, nor was it because I oppose all wars. Unfortunately, sometimes violence and destruction are just what the situation calls for. I don't even believe that Saddam had "come clean" on anything, but I definitely did have serious doubts about his ability to get nukes and his intent to actually use them on us. Not because he wouldn't want to, but because it would certainly have brought a quick end to his power and most likely his life.
I opposed it because I saw it as bad strategy. IMO it was costly and unnecessary. I thought we would end up being there for a long time if we went in and that our effort in Afghanistan would suffer from it. I didn't think that the prospects of waring factions in Iraq and extended influence from Iran and various terrorist groups were better than having Hussein in power.
The purpose of invading Iraq was based upon the theory of a pre-emptive response to a direct threat. A nuclear detonation or WMD attack within Israel or the US will not have a "Made in ______" label on it. The next major successful terrorist attack will be committed by groups that have no national allegiance. There will be no definite proof that a particular nations Government is responsible. We will be left with the same dilemma as after 9/11. How and against whom do we respond? After 9/11 a foreign policy of waiting for the next terrorist attack was not an option. Attacking the Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorist in Afghanistan was an obvious military and foreign policy move. The next logical move was to destroy the support network for international terrorist groups hell bent on killing as many Americans as possible. Few nations on Earth have a national policy of state sponsored terrorism for political gain. Saddam's Iraq was one of them. Those nations needed to be confronted after 9/11 to prevent them from attacking the US or our allies through their terrorist proxies. Saddam never gave up his quest for WMD, including nuclear weapons, and had clear ties to international terrorists organizations. Of all the nations using terrorism for political gain Saddam's Iraq posed the greatest threat after 9/11. He armend and funded terrorist organizations with the stated goal of attacking the US, US interests abroad and our allies within the ME and around the world. You make a good argument for the strategic aspect against sending US military forces into Iraq. I appreciate that position but I don't agree with it. Strategically the US is in an excellent position within the ME by being in Iraq. The major terrorist sponsor in the ME has been removed. A known source of arms and funding for terrorist organizations around the world has been replaced with a Government allied with our cause. And now Iran, the worlds leading terrorist sponsor, has US forces on two borders. I definitely do not agree that Iraq was better off under Saddam. The Iraqi people don't think so either. We never intended to send more than 30-40K troops to Afghanistan. By March of '03 the Taliban and al-Qaeda had long since fled into NW Pakistan. Many even went to Iran, Iraq or Syria. Every spring for the last five years they poked their heads out for a "major offensive" and every spring they are badly mauled. Afghanistan is a NATO effort and has been for some time. This point is often overlooked when discussing Afghanistan. IMO they have not been effective. The French, Germans and Italians have ROE that practically prevent them from engaging in combat and NATO nations are not sending in reinforcements with new set of ROE. They have to fight to win. The US and Afghanistan are supplying most of the combat forces and are doing quite well. The Taliban's "Spring '08 offensive" will meet US Marines and 82nd Airborne and once again they will be mauled. And once again NATO will largely sit on the sidelines watching. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #118 on: May 18, 2008, 04:22:19 AM » |
|
Well, i thank you for the very courteous reply.
I am just an average guy who knew almost nothing about any of this stuff until one day I stumbled upon the some witness statements from TWA 800. I didn't believe the witness statements were true when I read them so I started digging. It was the first conspiracy I ever researched. Some 200 hours later, I was not the same person I was before I read these statements.
I do not expect you to believe any particular piece of information, or any particular quote, or anything I might say, but in my opinion, the answers to the questions I asked you are all keys as to what is really going on in the world.
You can take that, or leave it. It is all up to you.
I had exactly the same reaction when I started reading about US History. I found that much of what I was being taught in HS was not true or deliberately misrepresented. Same goes for our "news" organizations. I used to believe what they "reported" as well. It didn't take long before I realized that finding out the truth on any subject was going to take a lot of time and reading. The groups you mentioned are free to think, speak and write what they want. Of course some will have more influence than others but I do not believe Foundations in America control the worlds economic markets, the political direction of the US or decide who serves as the American peoples Representatives in Congress and the WH. They are think tanks. They don't set our nations economic or foreign policies. Our elected Representatives do and they haven't been terribly effective at dealing with many of the problems facing our country. Even so, 80% are likely to be reelected in '08. I'm far less worried about think tanks than I am about ineffective leadership by our elected officials. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
CharlesMartel
|
|
« Reply #119 on: May 18, 2008, 06:01:11 AM » |
|
I don't doubt that the reasons you listed all motivated many people to oppose the invasion. You've left out an important one though. Many people, like myself though it was a poor choice strategically. I was against putting boots on the ground from the beginning, not because I didn't like who was calling the shots, nor was it because I oppose all wars. Unfortunately, sometimes violence and destruction are just what the situation calls for. I don't even believe that Saddam had "come clean" on anything, but I definitely did have serious doubts about his ability to get nukes and his intent to actually use them on us. Not because he wouldn't want to, but because it would certainly have brought a quick end to his power and most likely his life.
I opposed it because I saw it as bad strategy. IMO it was costly and unnecessary. I thought we would end up being there for a long time if we went in and that our effort in Afghanistan would suffer from it. I didn't think that the prospects of waring factions in Iraq and extended influence from Iran and various terrorist groups were better than having Hussein in power.
Got a forum thread with a post # or do you want a gimme putt? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
