Anyone still think that the war wasn't planned pre-9/11?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

No, I don't. They would spend every dime on trying to destroy Israel, instead of actually building a functioning society.
The two nations could swap lands, and in short order two things would happen. Israel would build a functioning economy, and the Palestinians would turn the place into a slum, because their only goal would be to get back over and destroy the Jews.

Your programming is apparently complete. If you're interested in learning more about what's going on over there then throw out all of your pre-conceptions of Israel and Palestine and start reading the history here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/default.stm
Then start reading then news articles objectively.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Here is a perfect example of what I think is dishonest.

What misinformation? I beleive you belive this but based on what??

Where is your proof? Back it up please!

I thought we went over this yesterday, and I did back it up. But I'll ask this question anyway. Did our leadership tell us that we were going to war in Iraq because they posed a threat to us, constantly invoking 9/11 as the backdrop, or did they tell us that we were going to war in Iraq because we were embarking on a nation building exercise in order to create a US friendly, stable government so that Israel would be more secure and that Iraq's oil resources wouldn't fall into the hands of a government that we don't like?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Here is a perfect example of what I think is dishonest.

What misinformation? I beleive you belive this but based on what??

Where is your proof? Back it up please!

I thought we went over this yesterday, and I did back it up. But I'll ask this question anyway. Did our leadership tell us that we were going to war in Iraq because they posed a threat to us, constantly invoking 9/11 as the backdrop, or did they tell us that we were going to war in Iraq because we were embarking on a nation building exercise in order to create a US friendly, stable government so that Israel would be more secure and that Iraq's oil resources wouldn't fall into the hands of a government that we don't like?

Yes our leadership did tell us Iraq was a threat and I still to this day believe that was a correcrt assesment. 911 remain a dam good reason to take on terror where ever it is.
I do not believe the "nation building" retoric and I believe (since we are not taking over the oil industry in that country) that protecting resources vital to world, not just US security is damed important.

So, as for me, I still do not see the "misinformation" you speak of??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Yes our leadership did tell us Iraq was a threat and I still to this day believe that was a correcrt assesment. 911 remain a dam good reason to take on terror where ever it is.

We left the battle with terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan so that we could send ten times as many troops into Iraq, a non-terrorist, non-threat. Even if you see Iraq as a potential future threat there's no sense in abandoning Afghanistan's reality.

I do not believe the "nation building" retoric

That rhetoric came directly from Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. Why would you not believe their own words?

and I believe (since we are not taking over the oil industry in that country) that protecting resources vital to world, not just US security is damed important.

So why didn't we say that when we were trying to sell the war to the American public? To the contrary, we repeatedly were told that "it's not about oil". That's why I consider the misleading as undisputable.

[bch7773 0]

Quote

... the devestating sanctions imposed on Iraq (for one and military suport for Israel) created a level of poverty that was unsustainable.... We have to shoulder the blame for that.

no we don't. research why we imposed sanctions... and look up why Saddam didn't do the necessary things to get rid of them.

Saddam kept the sanctions willingly, so he could have a scapegoat for keeping his citizens poor and their hatred focused anywhere but him

MB 3528, RB 1182

[rushmc 23]

>We left the battle with terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan so that we could send ten times as many troops into Iraq, a non-terrorist, non-threat. Even if you see Iraq as a potential future threat there's no sense in abandoning Afghanistan's reality.

Quote

I do not agree with the "we left Afghanistan" statement as we are still there. Just because some think to few troops are there doesn't make it true.

The oil BS was always premised on the Bushs oil buddies want the oil and profits Bull shit. Security is security regardless of the details and if I remember right (but I can't find it right now) the issue of the oil and the world economy was brought up.

Nation building is more complicated however, most of the time I have heard this was in the context of the "New World Order" consperacy crap.

Of cousrs ousting SH starts "Nation Building" but in what context do you mean Nation Building?

Most of your points (to me anyway) start from premises that I do not accept but I am enjoying learning from your point of view.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[idrankwhat 0]

I do not agree with the "we left Afghanistan" statement as we are still there. Just because some thind to few troops are there doesn't make it true.

My beef there is that we left 15 thousand troops there, where bin Laden and the Taliban still are, and sent 130-150 thousand to Iraq, which as I was trying to point out, was a goal of this administration before 9/11.

The about oil BS was always premised on the Bushs oil buddies want the oil and profits Bull shit.

From Cheney's energy task force meeting in 2001. The "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" documents caught my eye.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml

Security is security regardless of the details and if I remember right (but I can't find it right now) the issue of the oil and the world economy was brought up.

Yea, that was from the PNAC documents

Nation building is more complicated however, most of the time I have heard this was in the context of the "New World Order" consperacy crap.
Of cousrs ousting SH starts "Nation Building" but in what context do you mean Nation Building?

The PNAC's stated goals and Bush's repeated references to transforming the middle east

Most of your points (to me anyway) start from premises that I do not accept but I am enjoying learning from your point of view.

Trading different viewpoints sure beats the hell out of reducing the argument to name calling.

[rushmc 23]

>Trading different viewpoints sure beats the hell out of reducing the argument to name calling.

Quote

On this we agree!

As for pre planned. This can be good or bad depending on the agenda.

You see it as bad. Help me understand why you thing the preplanning (as you presented it, so I will try to look at your responce in that context) is bad or evil?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

As for pre planned. This can be good or bad depending on the agenda.
You see it as bad. Help me understand why you thing the preplanning (as you presented it, so I will try to look at your responce in that context) is bad or evil?

Personally I don't agree with the policy of destabilizing and restabilizing countries through war and conflict, often with a significant loss of life, so that we can create an atmosphere that is condusive to American profitability. I certainly want us to succeed but not by spilling blood. I also think that most of the American public would feel the same way. I think the administration realized this and instead of telling the world that we were implementing the PNAC plan they decided to use the attacks of 9/11 to cultivate an atmosphere of fear which allowed some to be convinced that Saddam was an immediate threat that had to be dealt with, for our security. The placing of 9/11 and Iraq together in the same sentences...repeatedly, over and over again, was no accident.
But regarding your question about planning, what I want is the "actual plan" of transforming the middle east to be brought before congress and the American people so that they/we can give the yea or nay on whether to proceed or not. As it turned out the debate was over WMD's and terrorism, the scary candy coating of the real issue.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

As for pre planned. This can be good or bad depending on the agenda.
You see it as bad. Help me understand why you thing the preplanning (as you presented it, so I will try to look at your responce in that context) is bad or evil?

Personally I don't agree with the policy of destabilizing and restabilizing countries through war and conflict, often with a significant loss of life, so that we can create an atmosphere that is condusive to American profitability. I certainly want us to succeed but not by spilling blood. I also think that most of the American public would feel the same way. I think the administration realized this and instead of telling the world that we were implementing the PNAC plan they decided to use the attacks of 9/11 to cultivate an atmosphere of fear which allowed some to be convinced that Saddam was an immediate threat that had to be dealt with, for our security. The placing of 9/11 and Iraq together in the same sentences...repeatedly, over and over again, was no accident.
But regarding your question about planning, what I want is the "actual plan" of transforming the middle east to be brought before congress and the American people so that they/we can give the yea or nay on whether to proceed or not. As it turned out the debate was over WMD's and terrorism, the scary candy coating of the real issue.

Well, I don't agree with most of your positions as I do not "read" the information the same way you do but, I do have a better understanding of your view point. Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

There's a big difference between:

A) Creating a war plan
B) Planning to create a war.

I am not surprised that the majority of posters don't see the difference.....I am surprised that some of the smarter minds on the forums don't recognize this.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I am surprised that some of the smarter minds on the forums don't recognize this.

I suspect it has much to do with the clean and crisp fresh air up nort'

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Living in the 5th largest city in North America I can tell you there is nothing crisp or fresh about the air here.....

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Living in the 5th largest city in North America I can tell you there is nothing crisp or fresh about the air here.....

then I suspect it's a mistake to assume you are "North" of me too

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[livendive 8]

Quote

Gee I wonder who gutted our Military???

Probably someone trying to balance a budget instead of rack up record deficits.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Probably someone trying to balance a budget instead of rack up record deficits

It was called the peace dividend at the end of the Cold War......hell I guess its time to bump it back up to 60 divsions since we are going to MAKE the whole world live up to our American ideals....yes 10 divisions is just not enough.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Our weapons contractors make billions when we blow shit up and the supply/rebuilding contractors make billions in the aftermath. Follow the money. Who did those groups donate to most heavily in the last two elections?

Uh, Republicans? But then again Republicans also tend to build the Defense system while Dems tend to shrink it. So it would be smart to support the guy that you think will do more for you. You assume that it was for war, but the defense contractors would also support them anyway so your argument is not valid.

As for the building supplies. More people own homes now than when Clinton was in office. So, your theory is blown there as well that the building supply people counted on a war.

BTW I don't think Bush had anything to do with more homes, or Clinton had anything to do with less...But it does shoot holes in your theories.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Your programming is apparently complete. If you're interested in learning more about what's going on over there then throw out all of your pre-conceptions of Israel and Palestine and start reading the history here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/...aps/html/default.stm
Then start reading then news articles objectively.

UH, last I saw, Israel was not vowing to destroy Palistine. Unlike the opposite.

[rushmc 23]

Didn't you here?

It is becoming popular to hate Isreal

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Your programming is apparently complete. If you're interested in learning more about what's going on over there then throw out all of your pre-conceptions of Israel and Palestine and start reading the history here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/...aps/html/default.stm
Then start reading then news articles objectively.

UH, last I saw, Israel was not vowing to destroy Palistine. Unlike the opposite.

They already did. Sometime around 1948.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

UH, last I saw, Israel was not vowing to destroy Palistine. Unlike the opposite.

Publically vow to do it? No. Actually doing it on a daily basis? Yes.

[Hawkins121 0]

Quote

Quote

UH, last I saw, Israel was not vowing to destroy Palistine. Unlike the opposite.

Publically vow to do it? No. Actually doing it on a daily basis? Yes.

lmfao @ this statement.

The only reason israel still exists is they actively pursue those who are responsible for planning and carrying out attacks against their citizens.

Then again I guess they should just let people bomb and shoot them. After all, the whole dont fight back thing worked for so many others.............

[billvon 2,990]

>Then again I guess they should just let people bomb and shoot them.

Well, heck, we're training Iraqis to let people bomb and shoot them. After all, it's for their own good.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Then again I guess they should just let people bomb and shoot them.

Well, heck, we're training Iraqis terrorists to let people bomb and shoot them. After all, it's for their own good.

Fixed that for ya...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

UH, last I saw, Israel was not vowing to destroy Palistine. Unlike the opposite.

Publically vow to do it? No. Actually doing it on a daily basis? Yes.

lmfao @ this statement.

The only reason israel still exists is they actively pursue those who are responsible for planning and carrying out attacks against their citizens.

Then again I guess they should just let people bomb and shoot them. After all, the whole dont fight back thing worked for so many others.............

Well, since the American press generally does a poor job of providing any balance in this debate, I guess I can't blame you for thinking that Israel is the poor, poor, freedom fighting victim of Palestinian terrorist abuse. There are other sources out there if you're interested.