pajarito 0 #126 October 7, 2004 QuoteIf it was a threat to the US then no you don't need international consencus. But even the "prohibited" weapons that Saddam was developing only had a 100km (60 mile) range which mean't that they could POSSIBLY reach bases in Cypress but not much else. No one knew exactly what he had until we invaded and saw for ourselves. That's the whole point. It wasn't made clear by Saddam to the international community and wasn't going to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #127 October 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo, what is worse? A CIC that sends troops to their death for petty, personal reasons (he tried to kill my pappa!) Or someone that hesitates before sending them to their death? You have no proof of that assertion. Sounds like just more "Bush Bashing" hatred. Bush has even come out and said that SH tried to kill his Dad as to how evil the guy is. His words, not mine. I know if a cop is personally involved in a case they remove him/her from it due to conflict of interest. Maybe we should have done the same for Bush. Once again. It's simple. The CIA said that there were no WMD for years, over a decade even. Which makes you wonder - where did Bush Jr get the idea that SH had "tons" and could reproduce it quickly. He owes it to this country to prove that right now._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #128 October 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteHe voted to authorize the use of force. He didn't vote to use force. It's kind of like the difference between buying a gun, and using it. If I, as an SF team leader, authorize my troops to use deadly force because the situation is such that we all agree it is required, I am also responsible for them acting on that authorization. If they use deadly force, I can't then come back, point my finger at them, and say it's all their fault. Unless, they break the rules of war. I don't think the President has been found to have done that in regard to using the authorization that was given him. I think it is shameful to try and hang him over what even John Kerry himself said was necessary. QuoteThere were quite a few speeches made about that time suggesting that force was the last resort, not the next one. It is the last resort. I think 12 years to comply was adequate. I think any reasonable person would. According to the UNMOVIC inspectors and now Bush's OWN GUY, they had complied. They even submitted a report to that effect. BUSH's team rejected the report and wouldn't let UNMOVIC stay in Iraq to finish their job of verification. How soon you forget. This war was started under false pretenses by an impatient, arrogant, incompetent president who refused to listen to any evidence contrary to his own position. The war was (and is being) prosecuted incompetently due to over optimistic predictions by the Bush administration.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #129 October 7, 2004 QuoteIt makes him someone who looks at 2 completely different situations and views them differently. That's your opinion... In mine, I call it blowing with the political winds, and election year BS... It is a shame for the Democrats, that the best they could put forward this year was Kerry/Edwards... it should have been a runaway election for them... Bush was ripe to fall, not becasue he went to Iraq, but because how the post-war was prosecuted at the national level... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #130 October 7, 2004 QuoteSupposing you are referring to Kerry, he did NOT vote for going to war BEFORE the weapons inspectors had finished their job. He did NOT vote to ask UNMOVIC to leave Iraq before its job was done so the US could hastily invade. That was a poor foreign policy decision by Bush alone. The weapons inspectors were not being allowed to properly do their job. They were kicked out for a number of years before. They were also not allowed to go anywhere they wanted to. AND THEY HAD 12 YEARS TO TRY. QuoteBTW, since it turns out that I was correct and Bush was wrong wrong WRONG, maybe he should consult me Consulting you on issues like that would be a much more dangerous choice on my part than even voting Kerry into the Presidency. If you think I'm a radical, you're hanging by the fingernails of your one hand off the left side of the diving board. As for who's wrong, most everybody at that level was also. In the end, a very good deed for the world was done and we are safer because of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 568 #131 October 7, 2004 Not even the exaggerated intel claimed that Saddam had Intercontinential ballistic missiles. There was absolutely NO evidence or intel that he had such capabilities. The banned SCUD missiles where not ICBM's either? For that matter how many countries even possess ICBM capabilities? Possibly only you and Russia - I am not even sure that the UK has the means? The UK government allowed and encouraged our tabloid press to portray the false impression that we were less than 60 miles from Iraq's borders and hence were threatened.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #132 October 7, 2004 QuoteBush has even come out and said that SH tried to kill his Dad as to how evil the guy is. His words, not mine. I know if a cop is personally involved in a case they remove him/her from it due to conflict of interest. Maybe we should have done the same for Bush. That’s pretty silly. Yes, I agree that SH tried to kill GWB’s Dad. You have not proof whatsoever that it was the reason he went to war. I’m sure it affected SH’s likeability on GWB’s part but your opinion here is just plain and simple “Bush Bashing” hatred. QuoteOnce again. It's simple. The CIA said that there were no WMD for years, over a decade even. Which makes you wonder - where did Bush Jr get the idea that SH had "tons" and could reproduce it quickly. He owes it to this country to prove that right now. Our CIA obviously had conflicting information which they presented as true as did other intelligence agencies abroad. We weren’t the only ones and certainly not Bush or his administration alone, who thought that WMD was there. You can’t accurately say that the CIA was completely against it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #133 October 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt makes him someone who looks at 2 completely different situations and views them differently. That's your opinion... In mine, I call it blowing with the political winds, and election year BS... It is a shame for the Democrats, that the best they could put forward this year was Kerry/Edwards... it should have been a runaway election for them... Bush was ripe to fall, not becasue he went to Iraq, but because how the post-war was prosecuted at the national level... J Agreed. The strongest candidate the Dems had was roaasted by the media after his growl/yodel/yell rally._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #134 October 7, 2004 QuoteAccording to the UNMOVIC inspectors and now Bush's OWN GUY, they had complied. They even submitted a report to that effect. BUSH's team rejected the report and wouldn't let UNMOVIC stay in Iraq to finish their job of verification. How soon you forget. And now the UN is implicated in a massive "Oil for Food" scandal. Conflict of interest? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #135 October 7, 2004 QuoteThe banned SCUD missiles where not ICBM's either? Let's do a little geography... Iraq is in Asia, he had missiles that could reach Turkey, which is in Europe (as defined by the EU, it actually spans both)... Intercontinental... 150km was the limit impossed by the UN... he had missiles that could go further, that were developed during the 12 year inter-war period... he only destroyed them when faced with invasion. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #136 October 7, 2004 QuoteThis administration is totally shameful and a disgrace to the USA. How so? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #137 October 7, 2004 QuoteThe strongest candidate the Dems had was roaasted by the media after his growl/yodel/yell rally. Yeah, even by CBS and CNN... how bad is that? JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #138 October 7, 2004 QuoteBush ignored all other options. Bullshit... You are out of your fucking mind... The UN was sitting on their thimbs and twirling... They were bought... Had we waited to "pass the global test" Sadham would be a maniac on a rampage right now.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #139 October 7, 2004 QuoteThe USA is a major and dominant player in the UN - are you saying that your government colluded in this? I'm saying you are a moron for asking me such a dumb fucking question.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #140 October 7, 2004 QuoteNot even the exaggerated intel claimed that Saddam had Intercontinential ballistic missiles. There was absolutely NO evidence or intel that he had such capabilities. The banned SCUD missiles where not ICBM's either? For that matter how many countries even possess ICBM capabilities? Possibly only you and Russia - I am not even sure that the UK has the means?Quote Harbored terrorists. Provided financial support. Clearly demonstrated would use chemical weapons. Reputation clearly suggests would share with terrorists (i.e. WMD proliferation) Clearly hated the US and allies. 12 years of not complying with many UN resolutions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #141 October 7, 2004 QuoteThat's your opinion... In mine, I call it blowing with the political winds, and election year BS... Bingo... More intelligent life in this thread.. Refreshing.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #142 October 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteAccording to the UNMOVIC inspectors and now Bush's OWN GUY, they had complied. They even submitted a report to that effect. BUSH's team rejected the report and wouldn't let UNMOVIC stay in Iraq to finish their job of verification. How soon you forget. And now the UN is implicated in a massive "Oil for Food" scandal. Conflict of interest? Irrelevant to the issue at hand. No-one has criticized Blix or Baroudi or Kay or Duelfer or accused them of corruption. Another lame attempt at distraction. FACT - every competent inspector on the ground in Iraq has said no WMDs. Even Bush's own appointee says it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #143 October 7, 2004 QuoteI'm saying you are a moron for asking me such a dumb fucking question.. Whoa... "Get some!" Until we get locked... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #144 October 7, 2004 Quote 12 years of not complying with many UN resolutions. Well, we now know that he WAS complying. Even Bush's appointee says so.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #145 October 7, 2004 QuoteIn the end, a very good deed for the world was done and we are safer because of it. I'm not quite sure what you are basing that statement on. It was a good deed how? And in what way are we safer than we were prior to the invasion? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #146 October 7, 2004 QuoteIrrelevant to the issue at hand. No-one has criticized Blix or Baroudi or Kay or Duelfer or accused them of corruption. Another lame attempt at distraction. Is it? The organization that you tout as being the authority for international law? Credibility? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #147 October 7, 2004 QuoteIrrelevant to the issue at hand. It is TOTALLY relevant... Let's ask permission from an organization that has been partially infiltrated by Sadham's money?? Good move... NOT!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nigel99 568 #148 October 7, 2004 Quote150km was the limit impossed by the UN... he had missiles that could go further, that were developed during the 12 year inter-war period... he only destroyed them when faced with invasion. Ok well I do not think that Asia/Europe border is the classical definition of an ICBM - heck one of Kallends toy rockets is an ICBM in that case Ok so I stand corrected it was not 100km but 100 miles (150km is aproximately 100miles). However it was documented PRIOR to war that the extended range missiles could achieve a whole 193km!!! Wow that means that it could go less than 10% of the distance to the USA! http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/samoud.htmExperienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #149 October 7, 2004 Quoteit could go less than 10% of the distance to the USA! Are you saying we should have waited until their missiles were capable of hitting our allies or even our own soil? Sadham already proved he would use them against civilians.. Isreal and Kuwait for example. Sure.. Let's just wait and then negotiate... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #150 October 7, 2004 QuoteI'm not quite sure what you are basing that statement on. It was a good deed how? And in what way are we safer than we were prior to the invasion? Nothing's changed as far as the Middle East hatred of the US despite the invasion of Iraq. They hate us as much as they ever did. I know some want to say that we've just stirred up a hornets nest and that we're in more danger because of it. I say we're in just as much danger as before and the proper course of action is to hit them before they hit us. One more brutal dictator bites the dust. Bonus: Kadafi relinquished his WMD. How about that? Show some backbone – get some results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rhino 0 #141 October 7, 2004 QuoteThat's your opinion... In mine, I call it blowing with the political winds, and election year BS... Bingo... More intelligent life in this thread.. Refreshing.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #142 October 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteAccording to the UNMOVIC inspectors and now Bush's OWN GUY, they had complied. They even submitted a report to that effect. BUSH's team rejected the report and wouldn't let UNMOVIC stay in Iraq to finish their job of verification. How soon you forget. And now the UN is implicated in a massive "Oil for Food" scandal. Conflict of interest? Irrelevant to the issue at hand. No-one has criticized Blix or Baroudi or Kay or Duelfer or accused them of corruption. Another lame attempt at distraction. FACT - every competent inspector on the ground in Iraq has said no WMDs. Even Bush's own appointee says it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #143 October 7, 2004 QuoteI'm saying you are a moron for asking me such a dumb fucking question.. Whoa... "Get some!" Until we get locked... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #144 October 7, 2004 Quote 12 years of not complying with many UN resolutions. Well, we now know that he WAS complying. Even Bush's appointee says so.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #145 October 7, 2004 QuoteIn the end, a very good deed for the world was done and we are safer because of it. I'm not quite sure what you are basing that statement on. It was a good deed how? And in what way are we safer than we were prior to the invasion? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #146 October 7, 2004 QuoteIrrelevant to the issue at hand. No-one has criticized Blix or Baroudi or Kay or Duelfer or accused them of corruption. Another lame attempt at distraction. Is it? The organization that you tout as being the authority for international law? Credibility? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #147 October 7, 2004 QuoteIrrelevant to the issue at hand. It is TOTALLY relevant... Let's ask permission from an organization that has been partially infiltrated by Sadham's money?? Good move... NOT!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 568 #148 October 7, 2004 Quote150km was the limit impossed by the UN... he had missiles that could go further, that were developed during the 12 year inter-war period... he only destroyed them when faced with invasion. Ok well I do not think that Asia/Europe border is the classical definition of an ICBM - heck one of Kallends toy rockets is an ICBM in that case Ok so I stand corrected it was not 100km but 100 miles (150km is aproximately 100miles). However it was documented PRIOR to war that the extended range missiles could achieve a whole 193km!!! Wow that means that it could go less than 10% of the distance to the USA! http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/samoud.htmExperienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #149 October 7, 2004 Quoteit could go less than 10% of the distance to the USA! Are you saying we should have waited until their missiles were capable of hitting our allies or even our own soil? Sadham already proved he would use them against civilians.. Isreal and Kuwait for example. Sure.. Let's just wait and then negotiate... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #150 October 7, 2004 QuoteI'm not quite sure what you are basing that statement on. It was a good deed how? And in what way are we safer than we were prior to the invasion? Nothing's changed as far as the Middle East hatred of the US despite the invasion of Iraq. They hate us as much as they ever did. I know some want to say that we've just stirred up a hornets nest and that we're in more danger because of it. I say we're in just as much danger as before and the proper course of action is to hit them before they hit us. One more brutal dictator bites the dust. Bonus: Kadafi relinquished his WMD. How about that? Show some backbone – get some results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
