Newspapers overwhelmingly endorsing Obama

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
Here's a thought. Surround the soviet empire with bases, forcing them to do the same. Pursue a system of defensive missile bases capable of shooting down incoming ICBMs. Pursue development of a string of offensive and defensive satellites. Contest soviet expansion and soviet backed communist dictatorships world wide. Finely, wage a war of words in the court of public opinion, by openly calling the soviets, the evil immoral empire that they are.

This idea will force the Soviets into a economic and moral corner, which will cause their collapse. Oh wait, all this was already done. Thank God for Ronald Reagan. :)



Obviously, we can't contend for world domination. I have no interest in attacking every country that is an evil socialist dictatorship. That said, when we have just cause, we should act. We had more than enough reason to go into Iraq, and it was the right thing to do.



No... there is a massive difference between the people of China, and the government of China. We respect their people. Chinese people are wonderful awesome people. Their government still sucks. Most of the Chinese people here, are here because they had a second child, and their government requires them to murder additional children.



Absolutely. If a country does something that requires our attention, and demonstrates the need to deal with it militarily, then we shouldn't just contain it, or put in a no fly zone, or have some sort of conditional surrender with a tyrannical dictator who gasses his own people.

We should wipe out that entire government, and rebuild the country with a domestically elected government, such as what Iraq has now. Imagine if we had followed that in 91. This wouldn't even be an issue today.

Are you still speaking of "non democratic" governments, as Libsmasher was advocating above, or is there some other criteria for "doing something that requires our attention?"


If you're referencing non democratic governments, which one would you depose to start? How about Saudi Arabia?

If they have to "do something to get our attention", does that something have to be a threat to our national security, or simply somethig we find mildly offensive?

Just how do we decide when to go in and bomb and/or invade another nation?
 
Werbung:

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Would you respect the "internal affairs" of nazi germany, if it never invaded another country? Do you respect the soviet union's gulag, show trials, the Great Terror, and the deliberately engineered Ukrainian Famine?

Since Nazi Germany did invade other countries, that's a moot point.

No, you just missed the point. BEFORE it invaded anyone, the nazi regime conducted political murders and all the other well-known acts of dictatorships.

As for the Soviet Union, there wasn't much anyone could have done about their human rights abuses other than to condemn them, was there? Would an invasion of the Soviets been a good idea?

Straw man. The issue is whether or not one "respects" the internal affairs of a "sovereign state", just because it exists. Obviously for RATIONAL, MORAL people, that would depend on exactly how the internal affairs are conducted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Do your respect the Armenian Genocide - 5 million people killed as part of the internal affairs of Turkey in 1915?

Respect it? Of course not.

Ewwwwww - backpeddle mode detector beeping - aren't we supposed to "respect" "sovereign states"?

Does that mean we should have invaded Turkey?

Because it is a "sovereign state", does that mean we shouldn't have??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Do you "respect the internal affairs" of the PRC in the twentieth century, responsible for approximately 50 million deaths?

I certainly don't advocate a war with China.

Did I suggest a war with China? I don't remember doing that.

I suppose the rest of the world must respect them, as they do a lot of business with that country.

Does trading for commercial gain imply respect?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Do you respect the "internal affairs" of the Khmer Rouge when it ruled cambodia, and killed a quarter of the population?

Not really. We should never have recognized the Khymer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia.

Why wouldn't you respect them as a "sovereign state" and not interfere in their "internal affairs"? Why do you think they're not a sovereign state - because the regime took power by force? But that's what happened in China, didn't it? Do you think the PRC regime is illigitimate? Why or why not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
No non-democratic governing regime has the right to exist, and should be eliminated when possible and convenient by democratic states.

Does that mean you advocate deposing all non democratic governments by force whenever it looks as if it might be "convenient" to do so?

And possible - yes - why not? Because they're sovereign states, and nobody should be concerned with anything like mass murder as long as it's kept within their borders, and hence is an "internal affair"??
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
Are you still speaking of "non democratic" governments, as Libsmasher was advocating above, or is there some other criteria for "doing something that requires our attention?"

Well, attacking an ally, violating the term of a cease fire, supporting terrorist groups, and attempting to get nuclear weapons, all seem to be things that require our attention. You disagree?

If you're referencing non democratic governments, which one would you depose to start? How about Saudi Arabia?

Sure. What has Saudi Arabia done that requires our attention?

If they have to "do something to get our attention", does that something have to be a threat to our national security, or simply somethig we find mildly offensive?

A threat to us, or our allies.

Just how do we decide when to go in and bomb and/or invade another nation?

That's a little beyond the scope of this discussion. There is no scientific formula for international policy. You can't boil it down to an equation: "If Nation B, does X + Y / Z = Bomb". This is why national security policy is such a difficult and hard job. One must consider dozens of possibilities, and then make a choice that he believes is best. This is also why no matter what choice is made, there will always be people who will look at the situation and oppose the choice made.

For example, prior to WW2, what if the allied nations had attacked when Germany and Russia first opened hostilities against Poland? It's possible the war could have been snuffed out before the Nazi gained so much power, and the Soviets may never have become the massive empire and world threat that it was (since a lot of their growth was from war spoils). Millions, if not billions of lives could have been saved.

This is all hypothetical, but the point is, a leader has to grapple with these issues. We need to deal with terrorist camps in Pakistan, but what are the risks of having a favorable Pakistan government collapse to a hostile one that has nuclear capabilities? Do we attack Iran, or wait for Israel to attack? Should we intervene on Israel's behalf? Do we try and prevent Israel from attacking, when they are likely the target of an Iranian government that denies the holocaust? Do we risk uniting the muslim world against us?

There are hundreds of inter-connected issues that all must be considered and dealt with. I for one, am in no way informed enough, or qualified to make those choices. What I hate though, is when a president, who is in a position to make those choices, and surrounded with very intelligent advisors, makes the best possible choice in the moment, and then all these know-nothings pop up all over the place attacking him, as if they would have had a clue the size of a snow flake on the sun, as to what to do if they were in charge.
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
No, you just missed the point. BEFORE it invaded anyone, the nazi regime conducted political murders and all the other well-known acts of dictatorships.



Straw man. The issue is whether or not one "respects" the internal affairs of a "sovereign state", just because it exists. Obviously for RATIONAL, MORAL people, that would depend on exactly how the internal affairs are conducted.



Ewwwwww - backpeddle mode detector beeping - aren't we supposed to "respect" "sovereign states"?



Because it is a "sovereign state", does that mean we shouldn't have??



Did I suggest a war with China? I don't remember doing that.



Does trading for commercial gain imply respect?



Why wouldn't you respect them as a "sovereign state" and not interfere in their "internal affairs"? Why do you think they're not a sovereign state - because the regime took power by force? But that's what happened in China, didn't it? Do you think the PRC regime is illigitimate? Why or why not?



And possible - yes - why not? Because they're sovereign states, and nobody should be concerned with anything like mass murder as long as it's kept within their borders, and hence is an "internal affair"??

Obviously, respecting the sovereignty of foreign states, and agreeing with their internal politics are two vastly different things.
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
Well, attacking an ally, violating the term of a cease fire, supporting terrorist groups, and attempting to get nuclear weapons, all seem to be things that require our attention. You disagree?



Sure. What has Saudi Arabia done that requires our attention?



A threat to us, or our allies.



That's a little beyond the scope of this discussion. There is no scientific formula for international policy. You can't boil it down to an equation: "If Nation B, does X + Y / Z = Bomb". This is why national security policy is such a difficult and hard job. One must consider dozens of possibilities, and then make a choice that he believes is best. This is also why no matter what choice is made, there will always be people who will look at the situation and oppose the choice made.

For example, prior to WW2, what if the allied nations had attacked when Germany and Russia first opened hostilities against Poland? It's possible the war could have been snuffed out before the Nazi gained so much power, and the Soviets may never have become the massive empire and world threat that it was (since a lot of their growth was from war spoils). Millions, if not billions of lives could have been saved.

This is all hypothetical, but the point is, a leader has to grapple with these issues. We need to deal with terrorist camps in Pakistan, but what are the risks of having a favorable Pakistan government collapse to a hostile one that has nuclear capabilities? Do we attack Iran, or wait for Israel to attack? Should we intervene on Israel's behalf? Do we try and prevent Israel from attacking, when they are likely the target of an Iranian government that denies the holocaust? Do we risk uniting the muslim world against us?

There are hundreds of inter-connected issues that all must be considered and dealt with. I for one, am in no way informed enough, or qualified to make those choices. What I hate though, is when a president, who is in a position to make those choices, and surrounded with very intelligent advisors, makes the best possible choice in the moment, and then all these know-nothings pop up all over the place attacking him, as if they would have had a clue the size of a snow flake on the sun, as to what to do if they were in charge.

Sure, if another nation is a threat to the US or our allies, and if diplomacy fails, then military action may be necessary. I'm not going to try to argue the "pacificism is always the answer" mantra.

Invading other nations that are not a threat to the US, on the other hand, is not something that a democratic nation should be doing. Having done so in Iraq has led to an expensive debacle that none of the advocates of such invasion foresaw or were in any way prepared for.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US responded by sending Saddam Hussain and his army back home, then Bush I did exactly what he should have done: He called the troops home.

I wondered at the time just why we were allowing a defeated enemy leader to remain in power, but now I know. It was far better to allow even a tinpot dicatator like Hussain to remain in power than to deal with the power vacuum left when he is deposed, or, even worse, go in and try to run the country ourselves.

Then, I read the declarations of the PNAC, and wondered whether Bush II would follow their advocated position. Sadly, he has, and the result is now obvious to anyone who has been paying attention.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
Obviously, respecting the sovereignty of foreign states, and agreeing with their internal politics are two vastly different things.

What exactly is this "respecting the sovereignty of foreign states"?? Why should anyone respect any dictatorship? Speak up - quit the evasion.
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
What exactly is this "respecting the sovereignty of foreign states"?? Why should anyone respect any dictatorship? Speak up - quit the evasion.

I thought that was obvious.

It means that we don't think we should go in and run someone else's affairs just because we don't agree with their policies.

What else could it possibly mean?:confused:
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
Invading other nations that are not a threat to the US, on the other hand, is not something that a democratic nation should be doing. Having done so in Iraq has led to an expensive debacle that none of the advocates of such invasion foresaw or were in any way prepared for.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US responded by sending Saddam Hussain and his army back home, then Bush I did exactly what he should have done: He called the troops home.

I wondered at the time just why we were allowing a defeated enemy leader to remain in power, but now I know. It was far better to allow even a tinpot dicatator like Hussain to remain in power than to deal with the power vacuum left when he is deposed, or, even worse, go in and try to run the country ourselves.

Then, I read the declarations of the PNAC, and wondered whether Bush II would follow their advocated position. Sadly, he has, and the result is now obvious to anyone who has been paying attention.

You are operating from a presupposition I do not believe.

A: You claim Iraq was not a threat.

I disagree. The intelligence information clearly showed Iraq was a threat.

Further, if Saddam has abided by the cease-fire agreement, we would never had to go back. Fact is, Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire for more than 10 years, and would have continued to do so until we dealt with him.

B: You claim Bush did what he should have.

I disagree. Everyone who is well taught in military and political history, knows that wars are never finished with cease fires. Wars are won and finished, when one side completely defeats the other. Vietnam proved that.

As long as the opposing side still exists, and remains in power, the war will never end. Saddam proved that by continuing to pursue military power, despite the agreement not to.

C: You claim it was better to allow a tinpot dictator stay in power, than an expensive pro-longed war.

I disagree.

FINANCIAL COST
First, from the cost side, at this point, we have spent roughly $600 Billion on the Iraq war according to the democrats. This is actually inflated because part of it is money spent on Afghanistan. Note: That's $600 Billion, total, over the last 5 years.

The current federal budget is $3,226 Billion. So the total spending on Iraq over the last 5 years is roughly 15% of the total spending of the federal government in 1 single year.

Another way to compare it, is to realize that Obama's federal plans includes $800 billion in additional spending. So Obama plans to increase federal spending by $200 billion more than we have currently spent on Iraq over the past 5 years.

SADDAM IN POWER
I also disagree with Saddam in power being better. Saddam purchased uranium from Niger. Confirmed by Brittish intel, up to 1.8 Tons of Saddams 500 tons of Uranium was enriched. Saddam's enrichment program was completely unknown to UN inspectors. Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, a physicist who work for Saddam, said that although the majority of Saddam's nuclear equipment was in fact dismantled, and some buried to prevent discovery, Saddam still funded the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission right up till before the war, and that he himself was working in that department to develop centrifuges for making weapons grade enriched Uranium all during the 90s.

This ignores the chemical and biological weapons Saddam already had, that were shipped our, or hidden prior to the war. Saddam only dismantled his biological delivery tipped Scud missiles when it was clear American would invade. The remains of SCUD missiles capable of delivering a biological payload were discovered.

Conclusion.
In short, just like the Rockefeller report clearly proved, our reasons for going into Iraq were backed by intelligence data, and largely proven true.
 

BigRob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
7,541
Location
USA
What exactly is this "respecting the sovereignty of foreign states"?? Why should anyone respect any dictatorship? Speak up - quit the evasion.

Because they are supporting United States interests... that would be a good reason to me.
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
You are operating from a presupposition I do not believe.

A: You claim Iraq was not a threat.

I disagree. The intelligence information clearly showed Iraq was a threat.

Are you referring to the intelligence about WMD and nuclear weapons, the intelligence that has been shown to have been faulty?

Further, if Saddam has abided by the cease-fire agreement, we would never had to go back. Fact is, Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire for more than 10 years, and would have continued to do so until we dealt with him.

He had a nation crawling with UN inspectors. He was hardly going to get anywhere with his flying in the no fly zone, or violating any cease fire. He was powerless.

B: You claim Bush did what he should have.
I disagree. Everyone who is well taught in military and political history, knows that wars are never finished with cease fires. Wars are won and finished, when one side completely defeats the other. Vietnam proved that.

As long as the opposing side still exists, and remains in power, the war will never end. Saddam proved that by continuing to pursue military power, despite the agreement not to.

The facts are that the war ended when Bush I pulled out of Kuwait, Iraq didn't try to go back into that nation, nor did it continue to invade its neighbors.

The fact is that the war against Vietnam is won and finished, even if Vietnam didn't totally defeat the US and left our leaders in power.

C: You claim it was better to allow a tinpot dictator stay in power, than an expensive pro-longed war.

I disagree.

FINANCIAL COST
First, from the cost side, at this point, we have spent roughly $600 Billion on the Iraq war according to the democrats. This is actually inflated because part of it is money spent on Afghanistan. Note: That's $600 Billion, total, over the last 5 years.

The current federal budget is $3,226 Billion. So the total spending on Iraq over the last 5 years is roughly 15% of the total spending of the federal government in 1 single year.

Another way to compare it, is to realize that Obama's federal plans includes $800 billion in additional spending. So Obama plans to increase federal spending by $200 billion more than we have currently spent on Iraq over the past 5 years.

I'm not sure where you got your figures, but even allowing that the war "only" cost $600 billion, it still cost 4,000 soldiers lives, plus countless Iraqi lives, plus thousands more lives shattered, and the credibility of the US at an all time low.

SADDAM IN POWER
I also disagree with Saddam in power being better. Saddam purchased uranium from Niger. Confirmed by Brittish intel, up to 1.8 Tons of Saddams 500 tons of Uranium was enriched. Saddam's enrichment program was completely unknown to UN inspectors. Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, a physicist who work for Saddam, said that although the majority of Saddam's nuclear equipment was in fact dismantled, and some buried to prevent discovery, Saddam still funded the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission right up till before the war, and that he himself was working in that department to develop centrifuges for making weapons grade enriched Uranium all during the 90s.

Ah, yes, the yellow cake uranium from Niger, of course. That's part of the same faulty intelligence you cited above.

This ignores the chemical and biological weapons Saddam already had, that were shipped our, or hidden prior to the war. Saddam only dismantled his biological delivery tipped Scud missiles when it was clear American would invade. The remains of SCUD missiles capable of delivering a biological payload were discovered.

Which were never found nor confirmed.

Conclusion.
In short, just like the Rockefeller report clearly proved, our reasons for going into Iraq were backed by intelligence data, and largely proven true.

Largely proven untrue.
 

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
Are you referring to the intelligence about WMD and nuclear weapons, the intelligence that has been shown to have been faulty?

'Bush lied'? If only it were that simple

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

It wasn't shown to be faulty. It was shown to be largely true.

He had a nation crawling with UN inspectors. He was hardly going to get anywhere with his flying in the no fly zone, or violating any cease fire. He was powerless.

Crawling? They were prevented from inspecting any of the areas where the WMD were supposed to have been, and then they were kicked out. How do you claim this was "a nation crawling with UN inspectors"?

The facts are that the war ended when Bush I pulled out of Kuwait, Iraq didn't try to go back into that nation, nor did it continue to invade its neighbors.

Irrelevant. If a police officer pulls you over for speeding, and revokes your license because you have two many tickets, you don't continue driving, but just not speed, and claim you followed the rule.

Iraq was not just supposed to leave Kuwait, Iraq was supposed to disarm his weapons of mass destruction, and show evidence for the weapons dismantlement to UN inspectors, and at the same time, completely end all attempts to gain nuclear weapons. In both of these, he failed. He diliberately moved and played "where's waldo?" games with the weapons, refusing to allow the inspectors in military installations, including the infamous Saddam Palace routine, where a rule said the UN couldn't inspect a palace of Saddam's, when he was there. So he named a bunch of military installations as his palace, and had look-a-like Saddam impersonators at each one.

Finely, he kicked the UN out of Iraq altogether. Where are you getting this stuff? It's like an alternative universe to the one I lived through in the 90s?

The fact is that the war against Vietnam is won and finished, even if Vietnam didn't totally defeat the US and left our leaders in power.

Which doesn't change the fact, that if democrats are allowed to prematurely end our support of Iraq, they will lose there as well.

I'm not sure where you got your figures, but even allowing that the war "only" cost $600 billion, it still cost 4,000 soldiers lives, plus countless Iraqi lives, plus thousands more lives shattered, and the credibility of the US at an all time low.

Freedom is not free. Things worth fighting for, have a cost to them. If you want to have a universal peace, you must enslave the planet to dictators.

Funny, accord to the Iraqis, our credibility is pretty high, just like it was in South Veitnam prior to us leaving. Our credibility is damaged when we turn our backs on our allies, and doom millions to Ho Chi Mhin mass slaughters.

Ah, yes, the yellow cake uranium from Niger, of course. That's part of the same faulty intelligence you cited above.

One problem. It wasn't faulty. The entire story had been proven true. This is a common tactic of anti-war leftist, to twist statements into things that were not said, and then attack the un-said statements as false.

Al-Zahawie was one of the top dogs in Saddam's government, and was the key player in the Iraq nuclear program. It was he who dealt with the fallout from Israels distruction of Iraqs first reactor, and it was he who dealt the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, in dealing with Iraq's nuclear department. It was him who arranged the original deal for Uranium.

Al-Zahawie did go to Niger. He did meet with government officials. He did arrange for government official to have a followup meeting in Iraq, with him. The idea that, Saddam's top nuclear negotiator would have 2 separate low profile meetings with Niger, the closest source of yellow cake Urainum, was just so they could relax in the middle east sun with a spot of tea, is a crazy speculation of the highest insanity.

Which were never found nor confirmed.

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria
Discovered stock piles of ammunitions with Sarin Gas, Mustard, and many with nerve agents.

David Kay's Iraq Survey Group, said this: "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."

Dozens. That to me, says it was found and confirmed.

Largely proven untrue.

The rockefeller report? The democrats own report was proven untrue? They wrote the report to attack Bush with, and only had to begrudgingly admit he was right.
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
'Bush lied'? If only it were that simple


It wasn't shown to be faulty. It was shown to be largely true.



Crawling? They were prevented from inspecting any of the areas where the WMD were supposed to have been, and then they were kicked out. How do you claim this was "a nation crawling with UN inspectors"?



Irrelevant. If a police officer pulls you over for speeding, and revokes your license because you have two many tickets, you don't continue driving, but just not speed, and claim you followed the rule.

Iraq was not just supposed to leave Kuwait, Iraq was supposed to disarm his weapons of mass destruction, and show evidence for the weapons dismantlement to UN inspectors, and at the same time, completely end all attempts to gain nuclear weapons. In both of these, he failed. He diliberately moved and played "where's waldo?" games with the weapons, refusing to allow the inspectors in military installations, including the infamous Saddam Palace routine, where a rule said the UN couldn't inspect a palace of Saddam's, when he was there. So he named a bunch of military installations as his palace, and had look-a-like Saddam impersonators at each one.

Finely, he kicked the UN out of Iraq altogether. Where are you getting this stuff? It's like an alternative universe to the one I lived through in the 90s?



Which doesn't change the fact, that if democrats are allowed to prematurely end our support of Iraq, they will lose there as well.



Freedom is not free. Things worth fighting for, have a cost to them. If you want to have a universal peace, you must enslave the planet to dictators.

Funny, accord to the Iraqis, our credibility is pretty high, just like it was in South Veitnam prior to us leaving. Our credibility is damaged when we turn our backs on our allies, and doom millions to Ho Chi Mhin mass slaughters.



One problem. It wasn't faulty. The entire story had been proven true. This is a common tactic of anti-war leftist, to twist statements into things that were not said, and then attack the un-said statements as false.

Al-Zahawie was one of the top dogs in Saddam's government, and was the key player in the Iraq nuclear program. It was he who dealt with the fallout from Israels distruction of Iraqs first reactor, and it was he who dealt the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, in dealing with Iraq's nuclear department. It was him who arranged the original deal for Uranium.

Al-Zahawie did go to Niger. He did meet with government officials. He did arrange for government official to have a followup meeting in Iraq, with him. The idea that, Saddam's top nuclear negotiator would have 2 separate low profile meetings with Niger, the closest source of yellow cake Urainum, was just so they could relax in the middle east sun with a spot of tea, is a crazy speculation of the highest insanity.



Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria
Discovered stock piles of ammunitions with Sarin Gas, Mustard, and many with nerve agents.

David Kay's Iraq Survey Group, said this: "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."

Dozens. That to me, says it was found and confirmed.



The rockefeller report? The democrats own report was proven untrue? They wrote the report to attack Bush with, and only had to begrudgingly admit he was right.

Substantiated by intelligence information that was available to the White House before the invasion.

Why has George Bush ordered an inquiry into Iraqi WMDs?

When David Kay, the former head weapons inspector for the US in Iraq, admitted last week that "we were almost all wrong" to believe before last year's war that Saddam Hussein had large stockpiles of chemical or biological arms, he made waves on both sides of the Atlantic. It was no longer possible for George Bush to resist Democrat calls for an inquiry by arguing that the weapons hunt was not over. Mr Kay, a CIA man close to the Republicans, blamed a failure in pre-war intelligence-gathering for the mismatch between what the US said Iraq had and its actual capability. Soon after, Condoleezza Rice, Mr Bush's national security adviser, acknowledged there were "differences between what we knew going in and what we found out on the ground".
link
No, Bush didn't lie. The mantra that Bush lied, people died, is simply a simplistic bumper sticker that doesn't hold up to the facts.

What really happened is that the US invaded Iraq on the basis of faulty information, pure and simple.

There were, indeed, differences between what we "knew" going in and what we found on the ground.

The decision to invade Iraq was done rashly and without properly checking out the facts. The result was a long and costly war that is still going on, and still must go on for a while yet.

The administration further compounded the error by believing Dan Rumsfeld when he said that the war wouldn't last more than six months. That led to going in with an insufficient force to keep the peace after the invasion, and led to the establishment of Al Qaeda in Iraq after the war started. The whole thing was a fiasco from the start.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
I thought that was obvious.

It means that we don't think we should go in and run someone else's affairs just because we don't agree with their policies.

Why don't we?? Was occupying post war germany going in and running someone else's affairs just because we don't agree with their policies? :D


Now I know what McCain meant when he said nailing obama down on policy is like chasing jello around a wet plate.
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
Why don't we?? Was occupying post war germany going in and running someone else's affairs just because we don't agree with their policies? :D


Now I know what McCain meant when he said nailing obama down on policy is like chasing jello around a wet plate.

Occupying post war Germany was dealing with a defeated enemy that had tried to take over the world.

I can see why you think I'm difficult to nail down. I don't fit into any of your pre conceived categories.

I don't much care for Jello myself.
 
Werbung:

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
Occupying post war Germany was dealing with a defeated enemy that had tried to take over the world.

And the islamofascists would be exactly what, einstein........? :D

I can see why you think I'm difficult to nail down. I don't fit into any of your pre conceived categories.

"Categories" has nothing to do with it. You regurgitate irrelevent crap like "internal affairs" (murder, rape, torture, genocide) and "sovereign states" (countries that have been taken over by fascist thugs) - you are unable to come to grips with the real issue which is EVIL IN THE WORLD, and what just men should do about it.
 
Top