Snipe, the fact you choose to believe all the talking points out there doesn’t make them accurate, complete or even true.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You can disagree. You have that right in America…for now. However, the truth is, much of this is hear-say and even FOX news recognized that this morning on that same issue. The documents that are said to prove this are supposedly unavailable without high security clearance. That means you are all too ready to believe “he said she said” instead of proof. I would prefer to wait for real truth rather than your desire to point blame other than on the man who has allowed many more deaths since 9/11.[/quote]
I find it odd that you can find the hear-say in this when it deflects the blame expressly intended for Bush away from him. Yet at the same time, you have no qaulms about the whole “Bush Lied People Died” crap that the anti-war/ABB folk have been pushing ad nauseum.
The fact that Able Danger was presented to the Commission on at least two occasions has not been disputed. And the architect of The Wall who probably should bare most of the blame for 9/11 was sitting on the Commission. Hardly a suprise that Able Danger would be so quickly shuffled under the rug. CYA way after the fact.
But yeah - we’re just running off of hear-say. Nothing like the “facts” that you have to support “Bush Lied People Died”.
I think that was the tried and true “deflect” tactic… don’t discuss the merits of the post, simply deflect it based on some unrelated issue.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I think that was the tried and true “deflect” tactic… don’t discuss the merits of the post, simply deflect it based on some unrelated issue.[/quote]
What the hell are you even talking about, vroom? Use the quotey thingies, or something. Just be a little more freakin vague about who you direct your little comments at.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
But yeah - we’re just running off of hear-say. Nothing like the “facts” that you have to support “Bush Lied People Died”.
[/quote]
Aren’t those facts common knowledge? They said there were WMD’s. There were not. People are still dying and even more are losing lives recently than before. Please point out the discrepancy. This administration lied. People are still dying. Wouldn’t it be great if we could decrease the lives lost over there and bring these men and women home? Are we trying to match one soldier for every person lost in the towers?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Aren’t those facts common knowledge? They said there were WMD’s. There were not. People are still dying and even more are losing lives recently than before. Please point out the discrepancy. This administration lied. People are still dying. Wouldn’t it be great if we could decrease the lives lost over there and bring these men and women home? Are we trying to match one soldier for every person lost in the towers?
[/quote]
I guess what you are calling “facts” to support your postition are subjective at best.
I don’t buy it - nor does a vast majority of the american people. Granted we are all getting frustrated with the prosecution of this war - but that is a far cry form indicting the President as a liar and putting the blood of 1800 volunteers on his head.
As long as we are at war people will die. I don’t think that there is a rational thinking person out there that WANTS a war. But the anti-war folks seem to think that Bush sits up late at night and tries to come up with new ways to put americans in harm’s way.
I don’t believe that. But this is another subject for another thread.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
But yeah - we’re just running off of hear-say. Nothing like the “facts” that you have to support “Bush Lied People Died”.
Aren’t those facts common knowledge? They said there were WMD’s. There were not. People are still dying and even more are losing lives recently than before. Please point out the discrepancy. This administration lied. People are still dying. Wouldn’t it be great if we could decrease the lives lost over there and bring these men and women home? Are we trying to match one soldier for every person lost in the towers?
[/quote]
Professor X I believe maybe it was a lie about W.M.D.s ,but it was a lie told by Sadam Husane him self .He wanted all the countries around him to believe he was nuclear capable for his own protection. If Iran thought they could get away with acquiring prime parts of Iraq they would have done so.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
But yeah - we’re just running off of hear-say. Nothing like the “facts” that you have to support “Bush Lied People Died”.
Aren’t those facts common knowledge? They said there were WMD’s. There were not. People are still dying and even more are losing lives recently than before. Please point out the discrepancy. This administration lied. People are still dying. Wouldn’t it be great if we could decrease the lives lost over there and bring these men and women home? Are we trying to match one soldier for every person lost in the towers?
Professor X I believe maybe it was a lie about W.M.D.s ,but it was a lie told by Sadam Husane him self .He wanted all the countries around him to believe he was nuclear capable for his own protection. If Iran thought they could get away with acquiring prime parts of Iraq they would have done so.
[/quote]
And look, we now have China to worry about which would be a much larger problem than one crazy guy in a sand pit.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
But yeah - we’re just running off of hear-say. Nothing like the “facts” that you have to support “Bush Lied People Died”.
Aren’t those facts common knowledge? They said there were WMD’s. There were not. People are still dying and even more are losing lives recently than before. Please point out the discrepancy. This administration lied. People are still dying. Wouldn’t it be great if we could decrease the lives lost over there and bring these men and women home? Are we trying to match one soldier for every person lost in the towers?
Professor X I believe maybe it was a lie about W.M.D.s ,but it was a lie told by Sadam Husane him self .He wanted all the countries around him to believe he was nuclear capable for his own protection. If Iran thought they could get away with acquiring prime parts of Iraq they would have done so.
[/quote]
That’s your new angle for justification? Well, golly, we just believed what the bogey man told us. No shit he wanted to portray a tough guy I hold the keys to world destruction in my hands picture. This was the same guy who promised “The Mother of All Battles” and then his army surrendered in droves.
He was of a, which we have many examples here on the forums, a macho, blow hard, strutting, ego driven, narcissistic, liar.
This I believe was known to a great extent by those currently in office, but it didn’t fit well into their plans for strategic and oil commandeering action. So, again we have the great “Mushroom cloud over Manhattan” propaganda that paved the way to Iraq II.
Lest we forget all the things the clinton administration said in relation to the hussein regime? It’s quite convienient for the anti-Bush crowd to discount the fact that even clinton recognized hussein as a threat. Anyone in the military in '98 remember Operation Desert Fox? That was clintons half assed attempt to enforce the no fly zone against hussein. The only difference with what Bush is doing here and what clinton tried to do in somalia, bosnia, kosovo and haiti is that Bush is not cutting and running at the first site of American blood. The somali incident involving 19 rangers and some delta operators was a disgrace. Clinton cut and ran, GW and his boys would have treated it like fallujah and steam rolled the whole area of opposition. when you look at the last 13 or so years the difference between Gw and slick willy militarily has only been that willy made us look like weak cowards and GW has shown this nations resolve in the war on terror.
Elk, so then explain to me why hussein should have been left alone to intimidate the entire middle east and sponsor terrorism and why we removed milosevic during his balkan campaign. milosevic killed hundreds of thousands less people yet we still bombed his cities into submission, occupied their land(still to this day) and brought this guy to justice. Explain the difference here. somali warlords?
Um, the “not sharing information between intelligence agencies” has been law since the intelligence agencies were established. Neither Clinton nor Bush had anything to do with that law. The CIA was never intended to spy on people on American soil, just as the FBI was never intended to investigate overseas affairs. Defense Intelligence has similar rules. Clearly this needs to change, but I don’t think you can blame Clinton or Bush for following a law that had been in place for decades.
Rainjack, for a group of people that don’t want a war, there is a lot of rhetoric in these parts about nuking and paving the Middle East…
The rest is not directed at you, but rambling based on the above.
–
I’ll say it again, and I’ll try to be careful to not have anyone think I am talking about appeasement or apologism, but it will take something MORE or something DIFFERENT AND AS WELL AS force to put an end to this situation.
I don’t think force represents the solution to all of our problems, I think it points out that there are in fact very serious problems. I’ve talked before about the fact we may need idealogical warfare, clandestine operations and/or other means of combatting the overall issue. And yes, there might even be some ability to influence the future via diplomatic efforts, as well.
Excuse this analogy, but war is like a fight. It sure feels good to throw some punches and make the other guy eat your fist, but at the end of the day you both get bloodied, dust off and go about your business.
So, again, to be very clear, I think that quite possibly the only realistic way to deal with those that are already fanatics and terrorists is with deadly force. The rest of the population, the majority of the people in the Middle East, may just need to be dealt with in some other manner.
[I’d question the very humanity of anyone who’d want to kill millions of innocents because it was difficult to tell apart the good and the bad.]
I for one, haven’t seen some all encompassing strategy coming out of the current administration. The only answer I’ve seen is that with Iraq in place as a democracy, maybe, just maybe, the place will spontaneously turn into a happy area.
Bush, in my estimation, has one answer, and only one answer… force. He is either not creative enough or chooses not to listen to those that want to employ a multifaceted strategy to make the world a better place while showing some respect for humanity of all stripes.
All of this is of course of prime importance to everyone since the 9/11 disaster, which in my estimation changed the world.
The Able Danger situation and all the other bullshit prior to 9/11 simply are from a different era with vastly different realities.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
Elk, so then explain to me why hussein should have been left alone to intimidate the entire middle east and sponsor terrorism and why we removed milosevic during his balkan campaign. milosevic killed hundreds of thousands less people yet we still bombed his cities into submission, occupied their land(still to this day) and brought this guy to justice. Explain the difference here. somali warlords?[/quote]
In the case of Milosevic, as you know, ground troops weren’t introduced into a meat grinding environment. Airpower was used to halt active ethnic cleansing and rape camps and then the UN was involved. That is called weighing the cost and determine if it is acceptable and there is enough justification.
Yeah, yeah, I know Saddam gassed the Kurds, but that was in the early eighties when we were friends. He wasn’t gassing villages every day, week, month, or year. His other big killing was after Desert Storm when we hung the shia’s out to dry when they tried their uprising thinking he was weak after Desert Storm.
He wasn’t just operating killing fields indiscriminately. He did kill large numbers of Iraqi Kurds and Shia’s but it was namely two different occasions the early eighties and nineties. Little Kim is killing tons of his people right now through starvation and political assassination shall we go invade him?
Shooting at plane in the fly zone. He did order his SAM site to light up American Planes in the no fly zone and guess what happened to those SAM site? They had ordinance dropped on them and they were obliterated. Suicidal for those crews manning them. Did we have one plane shot down after Desert Storm? I don’t believe we did. So, using that as an argument or justification is pretty weak.
Offering money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The bombers were taking this action before this and would have continued even if Saddam hadn’t done this. That was grandstanding on Saddams part and again not a justifiable reason to send our troops into a meat grinder.
Well, there it is, but again if you want strategic control and oil you have to create a great Satan who can obliterate America with a snap of his fingers.
Honestly,
I don’t get a hard on about “who is to blame for 9/11.”
I do agree with Rainjack that some of the most recent investigations have been decidedly Anti-Bush.
Maybe it’s simply because I couldn’t possibly think any less of bill “fly the somalian warlord to the Kenyan peace conference after our soldier’s where dragged through the streets by his henchmen” clinton.
The only real positive from all of these investigations would be to learn lessons. I think finger pointing has just about run it’s course on this one.
CONSERVATIVE
All you liberal whack jobs are against war 99% of the time, I guess we should have just gone with that fine institution the UN. No corruption or misguided intentions in that organization…
On the topic of honesty, I’d rather not see investigations be overtly partisan. However, at the same times, these things should neither be a whitewash.
In both cases they become useless.
A question though, would you not expect investigations to be naturally against whoever is in power… especially if the investigations are concerning policies and actions that weren’t inherited from a previous administration?
Hmmm.
I take it everyone who doesn’t see things the way you do is a whack job?
[quote]snipeout wrote:
All you liberal whack jobs are against war 99% of the time, I guess we should have just gone with that fine institution the UN. No corruption or misguided intentions in that organization…[/quote]
You do realize you and Archie Bunker possess the same reasoning skills don’t you?
“All you liberal whack jobs are against war 99% of the time,”
War junkie, would you kill all of the liberal wack jobs if your leader asked you to?
[quote]snipeout wrote:
All you liberal whack jobs are against war 99% of the time, I guess we should have just gone with that fine institution the UN. No corruption or misguided intentions in that organization…[/quote]
That argument is weak. Every organisaton that is large enough has its scandals. If we shut down every institution where someone, somehow fucks things up…