Amazon 7 #26 October 23, 2006 QuoteThe Goal was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and establish a Democracy in the M.E. That's not changed. Whatever justifications and tactics used to accomplish that goal are another issue. So I guess that whole I will not do nation building PROMISE was just a smoke screen for something else huh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #27 October 23, 2006 How is it that nearly every armchair amatuer political scientist in the world knew how this was going to go, but the administration of the most powerful nation in the world missed so badly that their tactics have been the equivalent of trying to put out a bonfire by tossing in a few marshmallows? It'll be interesting when this is over to draw up the balance sheet and see exactly what we got for what it cost in terms of lives, money, and credibility." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #28 October 23, 2006 Quote So I guess that whole I will not do nation building PROMISE was just a smoke screen for something else huh. That reminds me, I loved this one! Bush debating himself http://youtube.com/watch?v=LHB_NRIojho Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #29 October 23, 2006 QuoteHow is it that nearly every armchair amatuer political scientist in the world knew how this was going to go, but the administration of the most powerful nation in the world missed so badly that their tactics have been the equivalent of trying to put out a bonfire by tossing in a few marshmallows? One big clue is what I have been reading lately in the writings of ex-CIA agent Robert Baer, and in seeing interviews with Richard Clarke: The traditional way of utilizing the CIA has been: - Fields agent collect data. - Analysts analyze the data. - The analysis is written up in a briefing paper and presented to the presidents staff. But this is how it works in the Dubya-land: - The administration tells the CIA it wants a paper supporting a specific conclusion. - The CIA generates a paper according to that pre-drawn conclusion. When an administration dictates what is wants to hear, and has no interest in hearing anything else, it's pretty much flying blind on pre-conceived notions that are totally dis-connected from reality."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samurai136 0 #30 October 23, 2006 That's beautiful. I haven't laughed so hard in several days. Pretty much a knock-out decision for the Shrubbies."Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #31 October 23, 2006 QuoteThat's beautiful. I haven't laughed so hard in several days. Pretty much a knock-out decision for the Shrubbies. It's also funny listening to Whitehouse spokesman Snow redefining strategy as tactics, and explaining how a change in strategy isn't. Bush has stopped using the expression "stay the course", too.... 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
mr2mk1g 10 #32 October 23, 2006 QuoteThe Goal was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and establish a Democracy Um... yeah, seriously - invading to effect regime change is so SO glaringly in violation of international law that if you're right then Bush is going to have a very very unhappy retirement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #33 October 24, 2006 QuoteBush has stopped using the expression "stay the course", too. Maybe he'll stop using "nukular" too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #34 October 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe goal was to prevent a mushroom cloud from appearing over the US. Sadly enough Iraq never posed that threat. The Goal was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and establish a Democracy in the M.E. That's not changed. Whatever justifications and tactics used to accomplish that goal are another issue. - REVISIONIST! Squirming doesn't become you. Not true! Squirming looks quite good on him. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #35 October 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe Goal was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and establish a Democracy in the M.E. That's not changed. If that is the case, Bush has to be arrested and charged. He was only allowed a pre-emptive strike to protect the homeland. Hence, the goal was to keep the US safe. Removing Saddam was a stated strategy towards that goal. Cite?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #36 October 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe goal was to prevent a mushroom cloud from appearing over the US. Sadly enough Iraq never posed that threat. The Goal was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and establish a Democracy in the M.E. That's not changed. Whatever justifications and tactics used to accomplish that goal are another issue. - BALK!!!! The true goal is to establish a puppet government that resemble democracy. This administration cares not about the Iraqi people but solely about domination in the M.E.. I suspect that Iraq was initially intended to be used as a stagging ground for an eventual invasion into Iran and that the Iraqi people were to be used as part of the ground troops that would had been used. The high number of Iraqis who have fled into Iran might have squash this ambition.(mind you, this is only my speculation) There is a darker truth as to why Bush and Thugs invaded Iraq. In time it will be known and I doubt it is what they are telling the world. Prove your cite... with actual documents please, not DU agitprop.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #37 October 24, 2006 QuoteProve your cite... with actual documents please, not DU agitprop. Did you NOT see this!!!!!!!!!! (mind you, this is only my speculation) DUHHHHHHHHH"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 October 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteProve your cite... with actual documents please, not DU agitprop. Did you NOT see this!!!!!!!!!! (mind you, this is only my speculation) DUHHHHHHHHH QuoteBALK!!!! The true goal is to establish a puppet government that resemble democracy. This administration cares not about the Iraqi people but solely about domination in the M.E.. Ok...so the above is complete bullshit and just your opinion... that's cool, but you may want to put your "disclaimer" in front of the screed, next time. Makes things a bit more clear.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #39 October 24, 2006 Quote And did I say" Clinton got his dick sucked" yet LOL!!! We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #40 October 24, 2006 The bill your government voted on that allowed Bush to use force to defend the homeland. They did not vote on whether or not he was allowed to go into Iraq for the sole purpose of regime change. They voted for the use of force to protect the homeland. If that wasn't the goal from the beginning then they were obviously misled by Bush. There is also the small item of the State of the Union speech.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #41 October 24, 2006 QuoteThe bill your government voted on that allowed Bush to use force to defend the homeland. They did not vote on whether or not he was allowed to go into Iraq for the sole purpose of regime change. They voted for the use of force to protect the homeland. If that wasn't the goal from the beginning then they were obviously misled by Bush. There is also the small item of the State of the Union speech.... Care to provide the exerpt from the bill that states that?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #42 October 24, 2006 no, not really, but you are more than welcome to go look for yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #43 October 24, 2006 Quoteno, not really, but you are more than welcome to go look for yourself. Ah, so you were speaking ex cathedra from ignorance, then? I've looked - it's not there.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #44 October 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteno, not really, but you are more than welcome to go look for yourself. Ah, so you were speaking ex cathedra from ignorance, then? I've looked - it's not there. The entire document has ben posted here several times, so if you're not lazy you can look it up easily using the "search" function. Regime change is NOT given as a reason for the authorization. Protecting the US is given as a reason.... 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
mnealtx 0 #45 October 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteno, not really, but you are more than welcome to go look for yourself. Ah, so you were speaking ex cathedra from ignorance, then? I've looked - it's not there. The entire document has ben posted here several times, so if you're not lazy you can look it up easily using the "search" function. Regime change is NOT given as a reason for the authorization. Protecting the US is given as a reason. Thank you for supporting my point. He (mistakenly) said that was why we were there, and I called him on it. ETA: HOWEVER: I call your attention to Section 3 and Section 7 of Public Law 105-235, said law being mentioned in the Joint Resolution.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #46 October 24, 2006 I'm amazed so many people have insider knowledge about this administration's nefarious, sinister (yet to be stated) objectives. Did you know the 9/11 attacks were an inside job, orchestrated by none other than Vice President Cheney and that the World Trade Towers were imploded? Alex Jones says so. He knows. Also, Bill Clinton had 56 people murdered. JFK was assassinated by the mob.. Or was it Castro?... The CIA? Well, it was one of them. And FDR had foreknowledge of the attacks on Pearl Harbor, but let them happen to generate public support for his intentions to join WWII. And Thomas Jefferson was a rapist and an adulterer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #47 October 24, 2006 QuoteThank you for supporting my point. He (mistakenly) said that was why we were there, and I called him on it. I said you were there for regime change? Actually it was Gravitymaster that said that. this was the authorization given to the president: SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to— (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Don't see anything there with regards to regime change. So, if that was the main goal (as GM stated) the president is clearly in breach of that authorization. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #48 October 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteThank you for supporting my point. He (mistakenly) said that was why we were there, and I called him on it. I said you were there for regime change? Actually it was Gravitymaster that said that. Allow me to refresh your memory... QuoteThe bill your government voted on that allowed Bush to use force to defend the homeland. They did not vote on whether or not he was allowed to go into Iraq for the sole purpose of regime change. They voted for the use of force to protect the homeland. If that wasn't the goal from the beginning then they were obviously misled by Bush. There is also the small item of the State of the Union speech.... Quotethis was the authorization given to the president: SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to— (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Don't see anything there with regards to regime change. So, if that was the main goal (as GM stated) the president is clearly in breach of that authorization. I refer you back to Public Law 105-235, stated as one of the reasons for the resolution.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #49 October 24, 2006 Public Law 105-235 states: QuoteResolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations. That doesn't say, change the regime. Non of the "international obligations" involved regime change. So, we are back to the actual authroization as I quoted above. The president was authorized to enforce UN resolutions (which was a bit of a joke since they don't enforce the resolutions against Israel) which leaves one main reason, to protect the Homeland. Certainly no authorization to go into Iraq with the goal of regime change (which would also be illegal under international law). (as a complete side note, I find it funny that Gravitymaster has gone completely silent on this) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #50 October 24, 2006 From Public Law 105-235 QuoteSEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ. It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. And: QuoteSEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ UPON REPLACEMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME. It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
