PDA

View Full Version : Bush did NOT lie about WMD



Phinzone
08-04-2004, 12:05 PM
FYI The UNITED NATIONS that is the SAME UNITED NATIONS that did not support our going into Iraq SAID about a month ago that Iraq DID HAVE WMD. THEY JUST MOVED THEM!

So PLEASE will the liberals quit with "Bush lied about WMD". On one hand you whine because we should have listened to the rest of the UN, yet you people fail to admit that the UN says he DID have WMD but moved them.

Sheesh, selective hearing at it's best.

baracuda
08-04-2004, 12:11 PM
Liberals would sell their souls to the French if it thought we could appease Al Qaeda. They lie about everything, and spin the truth (with is relative to every situation for them anyway) for convenience purposes.

If John Kerry told me the grass was green I wouldn't believe him. Because tomorrow he'd turn around and tell me it was something else.

A sKerry presidency won't be boring, because every day we wake up we'll know he'll say something different from the previous day, just for the convenience of the pollsters. If 50.1% of the people supported something, he'd be for it. If 49.9% of the people were against something he'd go with the 50.1% that approved of something.

sKerry will be the second pollster president if he gets elected. He doesn't do what is right or what is best for the country, but rather, whatever a pollster tells him the people are saying at that particular moment. Leadership by polls. Just like Mr. Clinton - only more liberal.

ABrownLamp
08-04-2004, 01:17 PM
Liberals would sell their souls to the French if it thought we could appease Al Qaeda.
This is just stupid.



sKerry will be the second pollster president if he gets elected. He doesn't do what is right or what is best for the country, but rather, whatever a pollster tells him the people are saying at that particular moment. Leadership by polls. Just like Mr. Clinton - only more liberal.
Do you guys ever think you will stop talking about Clinton? Just curious.

baracuda
08-04-2004, 01:26 PM
This is just stupid.
My momma always told me that stupid is as stupid does - John.



Do you guys ever think you will stop talking about Clinton? Just curious.Clinton is the best example of everything that is just wrong with the Democratic party. He'd sell his soul to the devil if it meant just one more dollar and an ounce more of fame and time in the limelight. He never wanted to leave the Whitehouse because he had too good of a time having 100 staffers kiss up to his every whim - inclunding BJ's in the oval office.


I had sex in the oval office because I could.
:rolleyes:

DolFan31
08-04-2004, 01:28 PM
Bush told Saddam to get rid of his weapons. He did, obviously.

ohall
08-04-2004, 03:18 PM
Bush told Saddam to get rid of his weapons. He did, obviously.

Even with this simplistic thought process and this was true, why so much whinning about the invasion from the DEM's then? You would think DEM's would be much happier that the madman was no longer killing dozens of ppl on a daily basis?

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
08-04-2004, 03:26 PM
This is just stupid.



Do you guys ever think you will stop talking about Clinton? Just curious.


This coming from the group who talks about Clintons Surplus more than Dolphins fans talk about the Perfect Season?

Meatwad
08-04-2004, 03:40 PM
FYI The UNITED NATIONS that is the SAME UNITED NATIONS that did not support our going into Iraq SAID about a month ago that Iraq DID HAVE WMD. THEY JUST MOVED THEM!

So PLEASE will the liberals quit with "Bush lied about WMD". On one hand you whine because we should have listened to the rest of the UN, yet you people fail to admit that the UN says he DID have WMD but moved them.

Sheesh, selective hearing at it's best.
How about a link?

ohall
08-04-2004, 04:03 PM
How about a link?

Just switch from any other news channel than CNN!

Oliver...

Phinzone
08-04-2004, 04:17 PM
How about a link?

Dude, it was all of a month ago and all over the news. It's undisputable, if you want a link dig yourself. The UN themselves said Iraq had WMD and moved them in trucks right before we went in.

Here's A link though this isn't your FOX or CNN one it's the same story. Search their sites if you want a more reputable source

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1151984/posts

Marino1983
08-04-2004, 04:34 PM
My momma always told me that stupid is as stupid does - John.


So this would explain why YOU are soooooooooooo infatuated with W then ...

:roflmao:

Marino1983

TerryTate
08-04-2004, 05:05 PM
They can say that Iraq had WMD's ALL THEY WANT...the bottom line was that the basis of going into Iraq was to seize these WMDs, and that is what i was told by my government....if the United States didnt think that they could find WMD's since Saddam moved them elsewhere, then im sure they wouldve thought twice before invading.

PhinPhan1227
08-04-2004, 06:25 PM
They can say that Iraq had WMD's ALL THEY WANT...the bottom line was that the basis of going into Iraq was to seize these WMDs, and that is what i was told by my government....if the United States didnt think that they could find WMD's since Saddam moved them elsewhere, then im sure they wouldve thought twice before invading.


And the people who told you that told you the truth. At least, that's what Senate Democrats said.

ohall
08-04-2004, 06:29 PM
They can say that Iraq had WMD's ALL THEY WANT...the bottom line was that the basis of going into Iraq was to seize these WMDs, and that is what i was told by my government....if the United States didnt think that they could find WMD's since Saddam moved them elsewhere, then im sure they wouldve thought twice before invading.

They being the ENTIRE FLIPPING WORLD? Then why blame Bush alone? When you answer that question honestly then you'll get some where.

Oliver...

ABrownLamp
08-04-2004, 08:12 PM
They being the ENTIRE FLIPPING WORLD? Then why blame Bush alone? When you answer that question honestly then you'll get some where.

Oliver...
I don't know why you REPS have such a hard time admitting that the whole Bush administration had an agenda with invading Iraq.
Before we even invaded we had numerous people telling him that there were no WMDs. For instance Richard Clarke. Or the ambassador (forget his name) that went in, and came back saying that there was no yellow cake exportation and whose wife's name (who works for intelligence) was subsequently released by Robert Novak. There was an agenda there outside of WMDs. I'm not saying they went in with bad intentions. I'm sure they went in thinking they were going to be welcomed with open arms and immediate success. But let's be honest, they used 9/11 as an excuse for forging into the middle east.

DolFan31
08-04-2004, 08:13 PM
Dude, it was all of a month ago and all over the news. It's undisputable, if you want a link dig yourself. The UN themselves said Iraq had WMD and moved them in trucks right before we went in.

Here's A link though this isn't your FOX or CNN one it's the same story. Search their sites if you want a more reputable source

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1151984/posts

Um freerepublic.com is a right-wing news source...

Phinzone
08-04-2004, 08:18 PM
They can say that Iraq had WMD's ALL THEY WANT...the bottom line was that the basis of going into Iraq was to seize these WMDs, and that is what i was told by my government....if the United States didnt think that they could find WMD's since Saddam moved them elsewhere, then im sure they wouldve thought twice before invading.

Iraq sent them elsewhere when they KNEW we were coming. Until that point they held onto them. The US (and the UN didn't know for that matter) that he had moved them BEFORE we went in.

We were there to take away Iraq's WMD's...well now Iraq doesn't have WMD's. You could say that Bush delivered on his promise 10 fold. Had the UN not drug their feet on an issue that THEY AGREED UPON YEARS AGO then we might have acted fast enough and got the damn weapons.

Phinzone
08-04-2004, 08:20 PM
Um freerepublic.com is a right-wing news source...

yeah and this was on FOX and CNN all of a month ago. I said to dig for it yourself. Hell if you go to CNN and run a search they give a link to the article. THis is not a subject that is "open to debate". It was said a month ago, to argue the validity of this claim is like trying to ice skate uphill. The UN said it if you missed it your best excuse is having been in a 3rd world country :rolleyes:

DolFan31
08-04-2004, 08:33 PM
yeah and this was on FOX and CNN all of a month ago. I said to dig for it yourself. Hell if you go to CNN and run a search they give a link to the article. THis is not a subject that is "open to debate". It was said a month ago, to argue the validity of this claim is like trying to ice skate uphill. The UN said it if you missed it your best excuse is having been in a 3rd world country :rolleyes:

Every subject, like it or not, is open to debate. If you dont like it, then dont come here to debate.

Phinzone
08-04-2004, 10:31 PM
Every subject, like it or not, is open to debate. If you dont like it, then dont come here to debate.

An official report from the UN inspectors is open to debate? Ok then, why don't YOU tell us what they found out :shakeno: I mean because it's so debatable and all....no really, in your professional opinion, and in all of your experience exactly what happened to the WMD?

The UNITED NATIONS said that Iraq had WMD but moved them. THAT is not up to debate. Like I said, go try to ice skate up hill if you want but that was the UN's findings. If you want to live in Michael Moore's world and think that they never existed go ahead. But the world's findings were that he did.

FYI that site and report are brought up doing CNN searches, as well as these sites

http://cshink.com/united_nations_inspectors.htm

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

http://www.standwithus.com/news_post.asp?NPI=73

i don't know what to say buddy, look it up yourself. It's what the UN found. Dispute it if you want.

PhinPhan1227
08-04-2004, 11:15 PM
I don't know why you REPS have such a hard time admitting that the whole Bush administration had an agenda with invading Iraq.
Before we even invaded we had numerous people telling him that there were no WMDs. For instance Richard Clarke. Or the ambassador (forget his name) that went in, and came back saying that there was no yellow cake exportation and whose wife's name (who works for intelligence) was subsequently released by Robert Novak. There was an agenda there outside of WMDs. I'm not saying they went in with bad intentions. I'm sure they went in thinking they were going to be welcomed with open arms and immediate success. But let's be honest, they used 9/11 as an excuse for forging into the middle east.


Um...9/11 WAS an excuse to forge into the Middle East. When the people who just sucker punched you come from the Middle East is that an excuse to forge into Brazil? Two points...#1, any incorrect information was honestly incorrect, Democrat Senators say so. #2-Bringing stability to the region is still the best reason for invading IRaq, and that's still ongoing.

Clumpy
08-04-2004, 11:21 PM
FYI The UNITED NATIONS that is the SAME UNITED NATIONS that did not support our going into Iraq SAID about a month ago that Iraq DID HAVE WMD. THEY JUST MOVED THEM!

So PLEASE will the liberals quit with "Bush lied about WMD". On one hand you whine because we should have listened to the rest of the UN, yet you people fail to admit that the UN says he DID have WMD but moved them.

Sheesh, selective hearing at it's best.

:shakeno:

ohall
08-05-2004, 01:52 AM
I don't know why you REPS have such a hard time admitting that the whole Bush administration had an agenda with invading Iraq.
Before we even invaded we had numerous people telling him that there were no WMDs. For instance Richard Clarke. Or the ambassador (forget his name) that went in, and came back saying that there was no yellow cake exportation and whose wife's name (who works for intelligence) was subsequently released by Robert Novak. There was an agenda there outside of WMDs. I'm not saying they went in with bad intentions. I'm sure they went in thinking they were going to be welcomed with open arms and immediate success. But let's be honest, they used 9/11 as an excuse for forging into the middle east.

Any President will have ppl who have an opinion, opinions from all sides in fact. However when the head of the CIA tells you it's a slam dunk case for WMD in Iraq you'd have to be an idiot as President to not act upon that. Nevermind the rest of the world all agreeing Saddam had WMD. Let's not talk about the Clintons, Gore, Kerry and Edwards who all came to the same conclusion about Saddam based on the same INTEL the President got. In fact all those American politicians I just listed all thought Saddam had a large scale nucler program. Why? Because that was the INTEL they all got. If you want to blame one man for all that great for you!

You guys can spin reality away as much as you like but there are ppl out there that remember how things really were.

ohall
08-05-2004, 01:53 AM
Every subject, like it or not, is open to debate. If you dont like it, then dont come here to debate.

I know see what the problem is.

Oliver...

TerryTate
08-05-2004, 06:47 AM
Iraq sent them elsewhere when they KNEW we were coming. Until that point they held onto them. The US (and the UN didn't know for that matter) that he had moved them BEFORE we went in.

We were there to take away Iraq's WMD's...well now Iraq doesn't have WMD's. You could say that Bush delivered on his promise 10 fold. Had the UN not drug their feet on an issue that THEY AGREED UPON YEARS AGO then we might have acted fast enough and got the damn weapons.

Delivered on his promise 10-fold? :lol: yea, lets just give our WMDs to Al-Qaeda cause the Americans are coming :rolleyes: ....if speeding up the process of distributing WMDs to dangerous hands is delivering 10-fold, yikes...

DolFan31
08-05-2004, 03:42 PM
I know see what the problem is.

Oliver...

I now see what your problem is as well.

ohall
08-05-2004, 03:54 PM
I now see what your problem is as well.

That I see what your problem is?

Ya that makes sense!

LoL!

Oliver...

DolFan31
08-05-2004, 04:05 PM
That I see what your problem is?

Ya that makes sense!

LoL!

Oliver...

I was talking about your spelling. Notice the bold word?

ohall
08-05-2004, 10:57 PM
I was talking about your spelling. Notice the bold word?

Are you certain you want to start grading how ppl type on a MBoard? I promise you your spelling on here is nothing to write home about.

Your choice tough guy.

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-05-2004, 11:06 PM
FYI The UNITED NATIONS that is the SAME UNITED NATIONS that did not support our going into Iraq SAID about a month ago that Iraq DID HAVE WMD. THEY JUST MOVED THEM!

So PLEASE will the liberals quit with "Bush lied about WMD". On one hand you whine because we should have listened to the rest of the UN, yet you people fail to admit that the UN says he DID have WMD but moved them.

Sheesh, selective hearing at it's best.

And where did they move them..that same UN was trying to finish the inspections if I remember correctly...Please people, everyone assume Iraq had them, because they really didn't know, so it's easier to be on the cautious side, Now we know the truth. It took a lot of our Americans lives to found out there's none..

MDFINFAN
08-05-2004, 11:10 PM
Any President will have ppl who have an opinion, opinions from all sides in fact. However when the head of the CIA tells you it's a slam dunk case for WMD in Iraq you'd have to be an idiot as President to not act upon that. Nevermind the rest of the world all agreeing Saddam had WMD. Let's not talk about the Clintons, Gore, Kerry and Edwards who all came to the same conclusion about Saddam based on the same INTEL the President got. In fact all those American politicians I just listed all thought Saddam had a large scale nucler program. Why? Because that was the INTEL they all got. If you want to blame one man for all that great for you!

You guys can spin reality away as much as you like but there are ppl out there that remember how things really were.

Do you not remember some of the people of the CIA who was talking of the pressure by the administration to say there was WMD in Iraq..please don't telll you believe your statement, it pretty simple to see that the admin was going on this road no matter what was said and fabricate anything to support it...I can't believe you guys aren't being earnest about this.

PhinPhan1227
08-05-2004, 11:15 PM
Do you not remember some of the people of the CIA who was talking of the pressure by the administration to say there was WMD in Iraq..please don't telll you believe your statement, it pretty simple to see that the admin was going on this road no matter what was said and fabricate anything to support it...I can't believe you guys aren't being earnest about this.

Do you not remember Senate Democrats saying there was no pressure and no fabrication? Senate DEMOCRATS. KERRY'S OWN PARTY SAYS THERE WAS NO PRESSURE AND NO FABRICATION!!! What kind of an idiot keeps repeating this drivel when even the DEMOCRATS have admitted it never happened?

MDFINFAN
08-05-2004, 11:23 PM
Do you not remember Senate Democrats saying there was no pressure and no fabrication? Senate DEMOCRATS. KERRY'S OWN PARTY SAYS THERE WAS NO PRESSURE AND NO FABRICATION!!! What kind of an idiot keeps repeating this drivel when even the DEMOCRATS have admitted it never happened?

:roflmao: :roflmao:

Please, they were being civil...they know the deal

ohall
08-05-2004, 11:24 PM
Do you not remember some of the people of the CIA who was talking of the pressure by the administration to say there was WMD in Iraq..please don't telll you believe your statement, it pretty simple to see that the admin was going on this road no matter what was said and fabricate anything to support it...I can't believe you guys aren't being earnest about this.

OK please show me where Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards and Bush #43/Cheeny fabricated anything. As far as I know all these ppl came to the same conclusions as Bush #43/Cheeny did and none of them had anything to do with the WORLDWIDE INTEL gathered. Tell me how did they ALL get the Russian President to fabricate his opinion about Saddam's WMD programs?

Oliver...

ABrownLamp
08-05-2004, 11:46 PM
OK please show me where Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards and Bush #43/Cheeny fabricated anything. As far as I know all these ppl came to the same conclusions as Bush #43/Cheeny did and none of them had anything to do with the WORLDWIDE INTEL gathered. Tell me how did they ALL get the Russian President to fabricate his opinion about Saddam's WMD programs?

Oliver...
Bush cherry picked the information he wanted to hear. I can't beleive you guys still think that Bush did not have a hidden agenda with Iraq. How do you dispute the information given to him by his own people. Richard Clarke. How about our ambassador (forget his name) who came back saying there was no yellow cake importation, and that he didn't know what the Bush administration was talking about. You know, the guy with the wife who works in Intelligence, whose name was released by Robert Novak in a nationally syndicated newspaper. WHAT A JERK. Why do you think Novak would have done that? To dissuade anyone else from coming forward maybe?

DolFan31
08-05-2004, 11:53 PM
Bush cherry picked the information he wanted to hear. I can't beleive you guys still think that Bush did not have a hidden agenda with Iraq. How do you dispute the information given to him by his own people. Richard Clarke. How about our ambassador (forget his name) who came back saying there was no yellow cake importation, and that he didn't know what the Bush administration was talking about. You know, the guy with the wife who works in Intelligence, whose name was released by Robert Novak in a nationally syndicated newspaper. WHAT A JERK. Why do you think Novak would have done that? To dissuade anyone else from coming forward maybe?

And they complain when I cherry pick!

MDFINFAN
08-05-2004, 11:54 PM
OK please show me where Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards and Bush #43/Cheeny fabricated anything. As far as I know all these ppl came to the same conclusions as Bush #43/Cheeny did and none of them had anything to do with the WORLDWIDE INTEL gathered. Tell me how did they ALL get the Russian President to fabricate his opinion about Saddam's WMD programs?

Oliver...


As I said no one knew for sure, that was the purpose of the un INSPECTIONS
that this administration couldn't for Remember. Everyone took the safe out of saying they probably do..but know one before the war could show proof..and still can't..but the Iraq think was they were tied to Al quida..and now we know they weren't...you going to go with anything that will support your point of view, I'm just going with the facts as they were presented.
1. Some CIA people say there was pressure to produce evidence.
2. No real proof was presented...Powell did as best as he could, but even I couldn't see any proof in his presentation to the UN..and you know you would be lying if you said he showed some. It was all specutive.
3. Saddam was hated by most Middle east countries and Al Quaida, I knew that from my military days.
4. The UN inspectors were trying to finish an inspection and we wouldn't let them complete it.
5. Bush stated Saddam tried to kill his father..I thought that not appropriative when sending American troops in harms way.
6. Iraq Army was not found..proof of what he didn't have and what he didn't pose as a threat.
7. We never found WDM.
8. Change after by Admin by stating we're eliminating a dictator because the people there wanted to have a democracy, and the region doesn't have a threat like Saddam...the Al Quaida connection is dropped..which is why we were in this in the first place, it's called 9/11, that seems to be forgotten in this whole mess. Al quaida attacked us, not Iraq, no matter how you slice, pretty it up, twrist it or anything else, Bin Laden is who i wanted, not Saddam..we have Sadam, because he was bottled up in his country and couldn't go anywhere, why, because he was hated everywhere else. No thread to anyone because he didn't have anything. BIN Laden, Bin Laden attacked us, ,,get that thought your heads, you guys keep talking about saddam and he hasn't done anything to us...IT'S BIN LADEN.

ohall
08-05-2004, 11:56 PM
Bush cherry picked the information he wanted to hear. I can't beleive you guys still think that Bush did not have a hidden agenda with Iraq. How do you dispute the information given to him by his own people. Richard Clarke. How about our ambassador (forget his name) who came back saying there was no yellow cake importation, and that he didn't know what the Bush administration was talking about. You know, the guy with the wife who works in Intelligence, whose name was released by Robert Novak in a nationally syndicated newspaper. WHAT A JERK. Why do you think Novak would have done that? To dissuade anyone else from coming forward maybe?

OK, what did he cherry pick, and does this mean the Clintons, Gore, Kerry and Edwards cherry picked as well?

When you can show me that they were involved in this then I'll buy what you're saying. Please remember all these ppl agreed with the assessment that Saddam had a WMD program, and most of them also believed he had a nuclear program as well.

While you're at it explain to me the Putin's POV on this and the yellow cake from Niger and how Bush #43 fabricated this info and then cherry picked it.

Oliver...

ohall
08-06-2004, 12:01 AM
As I said no one knew for sure, that was the purpose of the un INSPECTIONS
that this administration couldn't for Remember. Everyone took the safe out of saying they probably do..but know one before the war could show proof..and still can't..but the Iraq think was they were tied to Al quida..and now we know they weren't...you going to go with anything that will support your point of view, I'm just going with the facts as they were presented.
1. Some CIA people say there was pressure to produce evidence.
2. No real proof was presented...Powell did as best as he could, but even I couldn't see any proof in his presentation to the UN..and you know you would be lying if you said he showed some. It was all specutive.
3. Saddam was hated by most Middle east countries and Al Quaida, I knew that from my military days.
4. The UN inspectors were trying to finish an inspection and we wouldn't let them complete it.
5. Bush stated Saddam tried to kill his father..I thought that not appropriative when sending American troops in harms way.
6. Iraq Army was not found..proof of what he didn't have and what he didn't pose as a threat.
7. We never found WDM.
8. Change after by Admin by stating we're eliminating a dictator because the people there wanted to have a democracy, and the region doesn't have a threat like Saddam...the Al Quaida connection is dropped..which is why we were in this in the first place, it's called 9/11, that seems to be forgotten in this whole mess. Al quaida attacked us, not Iraq, no matter how you slice, pretty it up, twrist it or anything else, Bin Laden is who i wanted, not Saddam..we have Sadam, because he was bottled up in his country and couldn't go anywhere, why, because he was hated everywhere else. No thread to anyone because he didn't have anything. BIN Laden, Bin Laden attacked us, ,,get that thought your heads, you guys keep talking about saddam and he hasn't done anything to us...IT'S BIN LADEN.

Honestly, I can't justify the time to myself it would take to refute almost everything you just typed. If you are comfortable believing the lies you believe who am I to judge you?

Oliver...

DolFan31
08-06-2004, 12:08 AM
Honestly, I can't justify the time to myself it would take to refute almost everything you just typed. If you are comfortable believing the lies you believe who am I to judge you?

Oliver...

In other words, you were :0wned:

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 12:16 AM
Honestly, I can't justify the time to myself it would take to refute almost everything you just typed. If you are comfortable believing the lies you believe who am I to judge you?

Oliver...

You can only reflute it with the words of the administration, no facts..eveything I wrote, I know you saw too. I didn't write one thing that wasn't apart of history as you and I saw it. If you could show one document to prove that there was WMD before the war...what about a picture?, I'd love it, except don't show the document that Powell used which was the writings of a college student, remember that... :roflmao:

Clumpy
08-06-2004, 12:17 AM
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=134880

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 12:18 AM
On 2nd thought, don't laugh at that, I forgot for a moment, that document got a lot of our soldiers killed.

DolFan31
08-06-2004, 12:21 AM
You can only reflute it with the words of the administration, no facts..eveything I wrote, I know you saw too. I didn't write one thing that wasn't apart of history as you and I saw it. If you could show one document to prove that there was WMD before the war...what about a picture?, I'd love it, except don't show the document that Powell used which was the writings of a college student, remember that... :roflmao:

We could prove Cuba had missiles in the 60's but we couldnt prove Iraq had WMDs in the 2000's. What a shame. :shakeno:

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 12:27 AM
We could prove Cuba had missiles in the 60's but we couldnt prove Iraq had WMDs in the 2000's. What a shame. :shakeno:

We had higher standards then, Kennedy showed Pictures, Bush only had to show words, that why we were alone when it came to our major allies..
They knew he was lying and didn't won't to put themselves in it...now we stand alone likes fools with no WMD to show for all the lives and headaches..no connection to Al Quida, no proof of Saddam being a threat to his neighbors...that's why the Administrator has switched gears to we were liberating the iraqis...what does that have to do with 9/11? Bin Laden, Bin Laden..and he's still out there, just like we can't find him, we couldn't find WMD's..we look like a joke around the world...and with Bush speaking, we are.

DolFan31
08-06-2004, 12:36 AM
We had higher standards then, Kennedy showed Pictures, Bush only had to show words, that why we were alone when it came to our major allies..
They knew he was lying and didn't won't to put themselves in it...now we stand alone likes fools with no WMD to show for all the lives and headaches..no connection to Al Quida, no proof of Saddam being a threat to his neighbors...that's why the Administrator has switched gears to we were liberating the iraqis...what does that have to do with 9/11? Bin Laden, Bin Laden..and he's still out there, just like we can't find him, we couldn't find WMD's..we look like a joke around the world...and with Bush speaking, we are.

nicely put, but sad at the same time. :(

ohall
08-06-2004, 12:49 AM
You can only reflute it with the words of the administration, no facts..eveything I wrote, I know you saw too. I didn't write one thing that wasn't apart of history as you and I saw it. If you could show one document to prove that there was WMD before the war...what about a picture?, I'd love it, except don't show the document that Powell used which was the writings of a college student, remember that... :roflmao:

You do understand that it has since been proven that Saddam did receive shipments of yellow cake from Niger? It happens to be a fact. Granted these are the same world INTEL agencies that all said Saddam had WMD and has since moved them to other countries.

Saddam used WMD on his own ppl, nuff said. Further the US has found 24 pieces of ordinance that had sarin and mustard gas within them. When you say we have not found WMD you are simply confused and 100% wrong. If you or anyone else thinks there were only 24 pieces of artillery that contained WMD within Iraq you are more gone than I ever could have imagined.

I cannot for the life of me understand why so many of you will trust a madman like Saddam over an American President. You hate him so much you will even bash your own candidate while bashing him. Don't you all understand Kerry and Bush #43 are step in step when it comes to the WMD in Iraq? Every time you bash Bush #43 you are bashing your own guy!

It's an embarrassment as far as I'm concerned how some of you act. This is why madmen like Hitler and Saddam are able to do what they do. People like you enable these idiots into power.

Oliver...

Clumpy
08-06-2004, 12:53 AM
They knew.....

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=134880

PhinPhan1227
08-06-2004, 01:33 AM
:roflmao: :roflmao:

Please, they were being civil...they know the deal


What kind of whacked out nutjob are you? First you make up stories about serving in the military(or did you just conveniently disapear when I asked you repeatedly to share your MOS and unit?), and now you're in such deep denial that you think Senate Democrats would be "civil" and not nail Bush in a lie if they could? Are you a pathological liar or just developmentally challenged?

Clumpy
08-06-2004, 02:27 AM
As expected, no one on the right has made any comment on the article link provided.

Wait, maybe the article is just too long

ohall
08-06-2004, 02:46 AM
As expected, no one on the right has made any comment on the article link provided.

Wait, maybe the article is just too long

The article was laced with lies. 1st we did find WMD in Iraq and "They knew the Iraq-uranium claims were not supported." that has since been proven to be supported by multiple sources since President Bush's state of the union speach last year. Yellow cake was bought by Saddam from Nigeria, that's a fact.

Oliver...

Clumpy
08-06-2004, 02:54 AM
The article was laced with lies. 1st we did find WMD in Iraq and "They knew the Iraq-uranium claims were not supported." that has since been proven to be supported by multiple sources since President Bush's state of the union speach last year. Yellow cake was bought by Saddam from Nigeria, that's a fact.

Oliver...


:rofl:

IF your statement is true, then I'm sure the Facist News Channel would have devoted a month or two to cover it. What proof do you have that refutes the content of that article? Finding an artillery shell w/ Sarin residue from c. Iran-iraq War doers not constitute "WMDs"

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 02:58 AM
What kind of whacked out nutjob are you? First you make up stories about serving in the military(or did you just conveniently disapear when I asked you repeatedly to share your MOS and unit?), and now you're in such deep denial that you think Senate Democrats would be "civil" and not nail Bush in a lie if they could? Are you a pathological liar or just developmentally challenged?

I've never called you a name, I did get bored of this and didn't post for awhile, so I never read your request..I was a Field Artillery Officer with a secondary in Weapons developement, which mean in that capacity I was in the black programs of the military and knew exactly why we had certain weapon system for certain threats and I also worked in DC, which is how I got here in the first place, this was my last duty station before I got out of the military..I was stationed at Fort Sill, Ok before coming here. FA is the 13 series in terms of MOS, since I was a Officer, I represented the whole series based on what job I had. The Democrate have been civil throughout Bush's whole Admin. From the hidejacking by the supreme court to giving power to fight a war...they have taken for whatever reason the high road of not speaking publicly negative stuff about him, taking the other way of disagreeing with his policy..Do you also know there's an investigation going on involving Cheney when he was the CEO of YOur favorite Company who don't have to bid against others. Notice that the Dem's aren't asking for 50 milliions dollars to investigate this. Notice it's not even the headlines in the news..but when Clinton was in office..whitewater, this gate, that gate, impreach, impeach...the dem's are not even investigating the relationship of Bush and the Royal Families, you could best believe we'd have a investigation if these allegations were made about Clinton..hypocrites..but the Republicians are in charge and they've done a great job of bringing our county together...but you couldn't know anything about this, you're too caught in the party lines...son believe me I know a lot of what I can't put on the public internet..unless you've been where I've been, you're not qualified to questioned me..I got that from the bush admininstration way handling things,,you're not patriotic, how dare you question me.. :D

ohall
08-06-2004, 02:59 AM
:rofl:

IF your statement is true, then I'm sure the Facist News Channel would have devoted a month or two to cover it. What proof do you have that refutes the content of that article? Finding an artillery shell w/ Sarin residue from c. Iran-iraq War doers not constitute "WMDs"

LoL, really 24 artillery shells laced with CHEM and BIO materials is not WMD? Sheesh, then what are they, a meal? Get real!

What about the yellow cake, why don't you go after that? It's in that URL you gave that said the President was a liar when he talked about yellow cake from Nigeria last year. The fact is the claims in the Presidents state of the union address have been proven 100% correct. Your URL is out of date, out of touch, and full of errors and left leaning lies. I cannot make it any clearer than that.

That URL is a joke, and so are your claims against this President. Everytime you bash him on the Iraq invasion and WMD you are bashing your own canidate. I swear I'm trying to help you guys out here. It's so very sad that you all don't get this. You need to get this message to your canidate because his current tact is going to lose him this election.

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 03:02 AM
The article was laced with lies. 1st we did find WMD in Iraq and "They knew the Iraq-uranium claims were not supported." that has since been proven to be supported by multiple sources since President Bush's state of the union speach last year. Yellow cake was bought by Saddam from Nigeria, that's a fact.

Oliver...

And what WMD was this stuff in? If we had found legitimate WMD's it would all over the place, because the Republicians wouldn't let us forget it...I do believe we're find some planted material of WDM at some point...you know you won't be able to question how the stuff got there..u're not patriotic is you do...you know how the repub's work. :shakeno:

ohall
08-06-2004, 03:34 AM
And what WMD was this stuff in? If we had found legitimate WMD's it would all over the place, because the Republicians wouldn't let us forget it...I do believe we're find some planted material of WDM at some point...you know you won't be able to question how the stuff got there..u're not patriotic is you do...you know how the repub's work. :shakeno:

It was a big story for about a week, about 1.5 months ago. It was on CNN and all the LIBERAL news sources as well. They have not found large scaled WMD programs. That however does not make it correct or true to say we have not found WMD in Iraq.

They were 105 mm artillery shells I believe. The terrorist were using them as IED's, and it is also believed that they didn't even know they were laced with WMD. This makes the whole thing even scarier.

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 03:43 AM
It was a big story for about a week, about 1.5 months ago. It was on CNN and all the LIBERAL news sources as well. They have not found large scaled WMD programs. That however does not make it correct or true to say we have not found WMD in Iraq.

They were 105 mm artillery shells I believe. The terrorist were using them as IED's, and it is also believed that they didn't even know they were laced with WMD. This makes the whole thing even scarier.

Oliver...

Well if it was that long ago I can't talk you about it, because I don't remember thoses stories, but I do know that this WMD was support to be related to Al Quaida, which is really the story to me, the link was a lie..there was no Al Quida\Sadam link and that's the lie in all this..bottom Bin laden attacked us and this Iraq business is shakey at best...I do know that Saddam was no threat to us. That I know wihtout a doubt, and I don't care what anyone says

ohall
08-06-2004, 03:48 AM
Well if it was that long ago I can't talk you about it, because I don't remember thoses stories, but I do know that this WMD was support to be related to Al Quaida, which is really the story to me, the link was a lie..there was no Al Quida\Sadam link and that's the lie in all this..bottom Bin laden attacked us and this Iraq business is shakey at best...I do know that Saddam was no threat to us. That I know wihtout a doubt, and I don't care what anyone says

We didn't go into Iraq because of 9/11, no one ever said that was why. Kerry, Edwards, the Clintons and Bush #43 all said we should go into Iraq because of their WMD and how those WMD could easily be turned over to the wrong hands to attack this country.

I am just ashamed that your political party is playing this immature game of gotcha. They are so confused they don't even realize they are getting gtocha'd by themselves as well. I think they'll figure this a lil too late.

Well if you feel Saddam was not a THREAT to the USA as strongly as you do then you need to vote for Nader. Currently he's the only Presidential canidate who was against the war before the war.

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 04:13 AM
We didn't go into Iraq because of 9/11, no one ever said that was why. Kerry, Edwards, the Clintons and Bush #43 all said we should go into Iraq because of their WMD and how those WMD could easily be turned over to the wrong hands to attack this country.

I am just ashamed that your political party is playing this immature game of gotcha. They are so confused they don't even realize they are getting gtocha'd by themselves as well. I think they'll figure this a lil too late.

Well if you feel Saddam was not a THREAT to the USA as strongly as you do then you need to vote for Nader. Currently he's the only Presidential canidate who was against the war before the war.

Oliver...

You are kidding, you don't remember Bush stating in his speech that Sadam was linked to Al Quaida, are you saying you don't remember that why the commission made the point of stating that there was no ties between al quaida and sadam..because that was one of the questions..you don't even know what party i'm in..I'm free to talk about any one I want because I don't submit to a party line. it was a tie between sadam and al quida before the war and we'll freeing the iraqis after the war...we were afaid that sadam would give WMD to al quida to use against us..Dam I can't believe the short memories of people when something so important like that was said as to why we're going after Iraq..we were bin laden, al quida down at that time, and then the admin started trying to add iraq as a part of it..not living in denial and at least tell the truth..go back and reread someone of the press and Bushes speeches from that time..you just told a blaten lie there buddy. We tried to tie Saddam to Al quida in the beginning..and then tried to convince the rest of the world to buy into it..we're the only one with egg on our face after no WMD was found, had we let the inspectors finish, it might have save us some American lives..since it's not your blood, I guess you don't care, but I served with this military and I care about how they are used. They are real people with hopes and dreams just like any one else..and the reasons they were sent has not materialized..and that's the fact...I'm out..this piss me off when a blatant lie like this is prepertrated afterwards, I know what was said.

PhinPhan1227
08-06-2004, 04:24 AM
I've never called you a name, I did get bored of this and didn't post for awhile, so I never read your request..I was a Field Artillery Officer with a secondary in Weapons developement, which mean in that capacity I was in the black programs of the military and knew exactly why we had certain weapon system for certain threats and I also worked in DC, which is how I got here in the first place, this was my last duty station before I got out of the military..I was stationed at Fort Sill, Ok before coming here. FA is the 13 series in terms of MOS, since I was a Officer, I represented the whole series based on what job I had. The Democrate have been civil throughout Bush's whole Admin. From the hidejacking by the supreme court to giving power to fight a war...they have taken for whatever reason the high road of not speaking publicly negative stuff about him, taking the other way of disagreeing with his policy..Do you also know there's an investigation going on involving Cheney when he was the CEO of YOur favorite Company who don't have to bid against others. Notice that the Dem's aren't asking for 50 milliions dollars to investigate this. Notice it's not even the headlines in the news..but when Clinton was in office..whitewater, this gate, that gate, impreach, impeach...the dem's are not even investigating the relationship of Bush and the Royal Families, you could best believe we'd have a investigation if these allegations were made about Clinton..hypocrites..but the Republicians are in charge and they've done a great job of bringing our county together...but you couldn't know anything about this, you're too caught in the party lines...son believe me I know a lot of what I can't put on the public internet..unless you've been where I've been, you're not qualified to questioned me..I got that from the bush admininstration way handling things,,you're not patriotic, how dare you question me.. :D

Well done!! Google still works I see. Now, 13 is certainly the Field Arty, and Sill is the home of the Arty, but one thing you slipped on...weapons development doesn't mean black programs. Black programs are only those programs which don't officially exist. Programs like the F117, for example. LAst time I checked, artillery didn't fall into the black programs scope. Nobody is terribly interested in an ultra top secret howitzer. Just to continue the charade, what unit where you in at Sill? Lastly, as for the Democrats...they filed SEVERAL court actions concerning the election. There have been calls from the Dems for Bush's impeachment. Dems went to the Middle East and called Bush a liar. Dems have attacked Bush for wasting 7 minutes when the first plane hit the WTC. NOW they are going to be so CIVIL that they pass up the chance to PROVE that Bush lied? Once again, do you actually believe this crap or are you just lying for effect? Oh, and one last point, neither West Point or the VMI would graduate an officer with your poor diction, spelling, and syntax. Jesus man, I've got the worst spelling on the planet and you make me look like Mr Webster!!

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 05:12 PM
Well done!! Google still works I see. Now, 13 is certainly the Field Arty, and Sill is the home of the Arty, but one thing you slipped on...weapons development doesn't mean black programs. Black programs are only those programs which don't officially exist. Programs like the F117, for example. LAst time I checked, artillery didn't fall into the black programs scope. Nobody is terribly interested in an ultra top secret howitzer. Just to continue the charade, what unit where you in at Sill? Lastly, as for the Democrats...they filed SEVERAL court actions concerning the election. There have been calls from the Dems for Bush's impeachment. Dems went to the Middle East and called Bush a liar. Dems have attacked Bush for wasting 7 minutes when the first plane hit the WTC. NOW they are going to be so CIVIL that they pass up the chance to PROVE that Bush lied? Once again, do you actually believe this crap or are you just lying for effect? Oh, and one last point, neither West Point or the VMI would graduate an officer with your poor diction, spelling, and syntax. Jesus man, I've got the worst spelling on the planet and you make me look like Mr Webster!!

Didn't slipped, obviously you don't know as much as you think..do you know anything about the 54 series..in other words our research and development branch. it's pretty interesting. Black programs abound in that branch. O worked in the same building as everyone else who worked on projects. FA do have black programs as well, you would be amazed, but all the mos's worked in the same building, so we pretty much new what was going on with each other...but that's something you really wouldn't understand based on your response, so I'll quit there..it's clear you've looked on goggle to see if I was correct..think about it..no can't let you do that, you guys don't think for yourselves. you only put out what the party tells you and ignore things that don't make sense in terms of what they say about it. You will question me, but you will never question the antic's of this administration, only because they are the party you participate in..that's a shame..but that's the way it is. oh btw the way I was in 3rd of the 9th FA..it's MLRS unit now, use to be Pershing.

ABrownLamp
08-06-2004, 05:17 PM
Didn't slipped, obviously you don't know as much as you think..do you know anything about the 54 series..in other words our research and development branch. it's pretty interesting. Black programs abound in that branch. O worked in the same building as everyone else who worked on projects. FA do have black programs as well, you would be amazed, but all the mos's worked in the same building, so we pretty much new what was going on with each other...but that's something you really wouldn't understand based on your response, so I'll quit there..it's clear you've looked on goggle to see if I was correct..think about it..no can't let you do that, you guys don't think for yourselves. you only put out what the party tells you and ignore things that don't make sense in terms of what they say about it. You will question me, but you will never question the antic's of this administration, only because they are the party you participate in..that's a shame..but that's the way it is. oh btw the way I was in 3rd of the 9th FA..it's MLRS unit now, use to be Pershing.
You know PhinPhan, I don't do this very often but...:0wned:

ohall
08-06-2004, 05:25 PM
You are kidding, you don't remember Bush stating in his speech that Sadam was linked to Al Quaida, are you saying you don't remember that why the commission made the point of stating that there was no ties between al quaida and sadam..because that was one of the questions..you don't even know what party i'm in..I'm free to talk about any one I want because I don't submit to a party line. it was a tie between sadam and al quida before the war and we'll freeing the iraqis after the war...we were afaid that sadam would give WMD to al quida to use against us..Dam I can't believe the short memories of people when something so important like that was said as to why we're going after Iraq..we were bin laden, al quida down at that time, and then the admin started trying to add iraq as a part of it..not living in denial and at least tell the truth..go back and reread someone of the press and Bushes speeches from that time..you just told a blaten lie there buddy. We tried to tie Saddam to Al quida in the beginning..and then tried to convince the rest of the world to buy into it..we're the only one with egg on our face after no WMD was found, had we let the inspectors finish, it might have save us some American lives..since it's not your blood, I guess you don't care, but I served with this military and I care about how they are used. They are real people with hopes and dreams just like any one else..and the reasons they were sent has not materialized..and that's the fact...I'm out..this piss me off when a blatant lie like this is prepertrated afterwards, I know what was said.

No he didn't, he said there were ties. Those ties have been confirmed over and over. Being linked meaning linked to 9/11 that was never asserted by anyone in this administration.

They made a strong case about the ties, but the implications that some jumped to 9/11 was a jump made by themselves, not one made by this administration.

Call it a lie all you want to, but there were no lies told.

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 05:34 PM
No he didn't, he said there were ties. Those ties have been confirmed over and over. Being linked meaning linked to 9/11 that was never asserted by anyone in this administration.

They made a strong case about the ties, but the implications that some jumped to 9/11 was a jump made by themselves, not one made by this administration.

Call it a lie all you want to, but there were no lies told.

Oliver...

The commission report just validated that there weren't any ties, so what ties are you talking about? That thing about some person of Iraq met the taliban..in other words there's no credible evidence to link Iraq to al quaida for 9/11...and that's what started us down this path in the first place.

ohall
08-06-2004, 05:38 PM
The commission report just validated that there weren't any ties, so what ties are you talking about? That thing about some person of Iraq met the taliban..in other words there's no credible evidence to link Iraq to al quaida for 9/11...and that's what started us down this path in the first place.

UGH!

They made it clear there were no ties with Saddam and al-Qaeda to the 9/11 attacks! What's wrong with you anyway?

There are long ties to al-Qaeda and Saddam however. This however does not mean they ever worked together to attack anything belonging to the US. However it does make sense that if they had long lasting ties it is probable they did work together in the past or working to work together in the future to attack the US. President Putin made it clear to the US right after 9/11 that Saddam was going to attempt an 9/11 style attack on the USA. Where do you think Saddam would have learned how to make such a plan work?

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 05:51 PM
UGH!

They made it clear there were no ties with Saddam and al-Qaeda to the 9/11 attacks! What's wrong with you anyway?

There are long ties to al-Qaeda and Saddam however. This however does not mean they ever worked together to attack anything belonging to the US. However it does make sense that if they had long lasting ties it is probable they did work together in the past or working to work together in the future to attack the US. President Putin made it clear to the US right after 9/11 that Saddam was going to attempt an 9/11 style attack on the USA. Where do you think Saddam would have learned how to make such a plan work?

Oliver...

My point was Bush tried to tie Saddam to al quaida doing that time as one of the reasons we should go to war with, don't act ignorant. Bottom line I knew Saddam was hated by al quaida for his non religious views..he played religion when it served him. Look up some of the history of that reigion you understand a lot more, and find what I'll role was in that region...please do this before you reply to this..Please..thanks.

ohall
08-06-2004, 06:11 PM
My point was Bush tried to tie Saddam to al quaida doing that time as one of the reasons we should go to war with, don't act ignorant. Bottom line I knew Saddam was hated by al quaida for his non religious views..he played religion when it served him. Look up some of the history of that reigion you understand a lot more, and find what I'll role was in that region...please do this before you reply to this..Please..thanks.

Yes I agree with that, yes Bush did do that and he had every right to. Saddam and al-Qaeda have long lasting ties. Those are facts. Again none of these ties are proof that they ever worked together in terrorist acts. However again, you'd have to be one very trusting individual that they were not exploring at the very least of doing so after the success of the 9/11 attacks were for al-Qaeda.

Yes Saddam also hates Iran, but that didn't stop him from flying his Mig 29's over to Iran during the 1st Gulf War even though he knew he'd never see those planes again. It's better for your enemy’s enemy to have those planes because one day they may be able to use those planes against the BIG Satan the USA. This is how these ppl think. They are not rational, and there's no point trying to use rational thinking or logic to explain why they do things. This is also why he had ties with al-Qaeda, they were having success against the US, and that was all Saddam cared about. He declared war on us, and I have no doubt he would have gone thru with the plans to attack the US in a 9/11 fashion like President Putin had warned us about that was in the works with Saddam. UBL liked Saddam because he obviously had $, and it is well established Saddam was already paying for homicide bombings directed at innocent Israeli citizens. I suggest you do a lil research about that region and their long history of clans who kill each other day in day out come together to fight the Christian infidels, and when that is over they go back to killing each other uninterrupted for another 400 years.

This is why I think this an immature gotcha game your political party is involved in. I cannot believe for one second anyone would buy into any argument that results in Saddam still being in power in Iraq. Anyone with a brain knows the world is a safer place with him out of power. After all if he was in power it would be one more serious problem facing our world. As it stands now that problem no longer exists.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
08-06-2004, 06:18 PM
Didn't slipped, obviously you don't know as much as you think..do you know anything about the 54 series..in other words our research and development branch. it's pretty interesting. Black programs abound in that branch. O worked in the same building as everyone else who worked on projects. FA do have black programs as well, you would be amazed, but all the mos's worked in the same building, so we pretty much new what was going on with each other...but that's something you really wouldn't understand based on your response, so I'll quit there..it's clear you've looked on goggle to see if I was correct..think about it..no can't let you do that, you guys don't think for yourselves. you only put out what the party tells you and ignore things that don't make sense in terms of what they say about it. You will question me, but you will never question the antic's of this administration, only because they are the party you participate in..that's a shame..but that's the way it is. oh btw the way I was in 3rd of the 9th FA..it's MLRS unit now, use to be Pershing.


As I said in another post, I don't expect you to be concerned about my doubts. I do know a bit about weapons development programs since my cousin(by marriage) was in the Navy and was involved with missile systems development. Actually, I never learned a darned thing about it from him since he never talked to me about it, but his wife(my cousin by birth) did. That's why it raises a red flag with me that you are willing to bring it up so often and so freely. It's a variariation of the old teaching motto. Those who did it, don't talk about it...those who didn't...do. Sorry, but there's no value to making the statement that "if I could tell you what I know, you'd understand". If you can't tell us, than we won't understand, so why did you bring it up in the first place? BTW, no Google search neede to check what you have shared. FA is the 13 MOS designator since it goes in order after Infantry and Armor. And I'm somewhat familiar with Sill because I had to do some FO training there(the beauty of being 11H). Funny thing is, other than a notation about the Pershing program being lumped in the the 3rd of the 9th(as it was being phased out), I can't find a single link to the 3rd of the 9th. In fact...3rd of the 9th doesn't even appear in Fort Sills phone book. http://sill-www.army.mil/doim/Staff_Dir/Internet.pdf

Must be a b!tch for family members when there's nobody to call.

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 06:29 PM
As I said in another post, I don't expect you to be concerned about my doubts. I do know a bit about weapons development programs since my cousin(by marriage) was in the Navy and was involved with missile systems development. Actually, I never learned a darned thing about it from him since he never talked to me about it, but his wife(my cousin by birth) did. That's why it raises a red flag with me that you are willing to bring it up so often and so freely. It's a variariation of the old teaching motto. Those who did it, don't talk about it...those who didn't...do. Sorry, but there's no value to making the statement that "if I could tell you what I know, you'd understand". If you can't tell us, than we won't understand, so why did you bring it up in the first place? BTW, no Google search neede to check what you have shared. FA is the 13 MOS designator since it goes in order after Infantry and Armor. And I'm somewhat familiar with Sill because I had to do some FO training there(the beauty of being 11H). Funny thing is, other than a notation about the Pershing program being lumped in the the 3rd of the 9th(as it was being phased out), I can't find a single link to the 3rd of the 9th. In fact...3rd of the 9th doesn't even appear in Fort Sills phone book. http://sill-www.army.mil/doim/Staff_Dir/Internet.pdf

Must be a b!tch for family members when there's nobody to call.

As I said I was gone from sill by 89, are you telling me that the 3/9th FA isn't at Sill anymore? Wow, amazing, I wonder if they really did deploy them. That was apart of talks back them, that they would get sent to Germany. Thanks for the update..I talk about my pass and apparently having say enough to let you know that I was in places that made me study the area in question and I learned and know a lot about it. Stop trying to be so secretive of black programs, we've heard about them for years. You actually did some FO'ing at Sill? What year?

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 06:41 PM
Oh I forgot, when I first got in the army and went to germany, my first unit was 2/33 FA, do you know it was dissolved and we became a part of 4 of the 5th, so I guess you know units to change, especially doing the down sizing years and become part of other units..at the time I was in Sill, we were a part of the 214 Brigade, More combat units on Sill were a part of 3 corps, I don't know if any of that has changed either, but that's what was there when I last grace the post..LOL

PhinPhan1227
08-06-2004, 06:41 PM
As I said I was gone from sill by 89, are you telling me that the 3/9th FA isn't at Sill anymore? Wow, amazing, I wonder if they really did deploy them. That was apart of talks back them, that they would get sent to Germany. Thanks for the update..I talk about my pass and apparently having say enough to let you know that I was in places that made me study the area in question and I learned and know a lot about it. Stop trying to be so secretive of black programs, we've heard about them for years. You actually did some FO'ing at Sill? What year?

I was only there for five days during the summer of '94. Honestly I went, I trained, I left...not exactly thrilling. Seemed like a more interesting base than Drum though. That's not saying much of course since there's nothing around Drum of ANY interest until you get to Montreal. As for the 3rd of the 9th...they aren't in the phone book at Sill. No mention of them in the Base's history either. Must have been a very quiet battalion :lol:

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 06:48 PM
I was only there for five days during the summer of '94. Honestly I went, I trained, I left...not exactly thrilling. Seemed like a more interesting base than Drum though. That's not saying much of course since there's nothing around Drum of ANY interest until you get to Montreal. As for the 3rd of the 9th...they aren't in the phone book at Sill. No mention of them in the Base's history either. Must have been a very quiet battalion :lol:

I agree with you there, Drum --no wonder you're pissed at me. Wow, then you were there while I was there..I had just got back from Germany and was in the Advance Officer course that started in Mar of that year. Now only if I'd known, while we were out firing Howiters, I might have spotted you and >>> :D Just having fun, as I said I don't get upset by someone cutting on me...and You've had a field day on my inability to write...enjoy it for now..Now that I know you were enlisted I can understand the attacks on me. :lol:

Phinzone
08-06-2004, 08:26 PM
MDPHINFAN

READ WHAT THEY ARE POSTING! I'll try to spell it out for you...

1. Bush did NOT say Saddam was responsible for 9/11. If YOU got that from the speeches then YOU jumped to a conclusion. He NEVER said Iraq helped plan 9/11.

2. Bush DID say this was the war on TERRORISM. Saddam WAS a terrorist, he had numerous AL Quaeda ties, paid off suicide bombers from Pallestine, and AND used WMD on his own people.

3. Being a TERRORIST does NOT mean you serve Bin Laden.

Get it? This is a war on TERRORISTS NOT Osama Bin Laden. You need to wrap your head around that before you can have an intelligent discussion on this matter. No one blamed Saddam for 9/11 our attack on his was PRE-EMPTIVE rather than in Retalliation. We stopped him before he could grow into a threat again (with the WMD that we know he had, the rest of the world admits he had, and the few that we DID find).


If you don't believe me that bush NEVER tied Saddam to 9/11. Sheesh you have no idea how many people I hear spout that crap every day "Saddam didn't cause 9/11 why are we going after him?"

Well unless you want a 5/15 or 6/13 or whatever random date Saddam would launch an attack on us to happen then you step in BEFORE another 9/11 happens. It's not rocket science.

ABrownLamp
08-06-2004, 08:43 PM
MDPHINFAN

READ WHAT THEY ARE POSTING! I'll try to spell it out for you...

1. Bush did NOT say Saddam was responsible for 9/11. If YOU got that from the speeches then YOU jumped to a conclusion. He NEVER said Iraq helped plan 9/11.

2. Bush DID say this was the war on TERRORISM. Saddam WAS a terrorist, he had numerous AL Quaeda ties, paid off suicide bombers from Pallestine, and AND used WMD on his own people.

3. Being a TERRORIST does NOT mean you serve Bin Laden.

Get it? This is a war on TERRORISTS NOT Osama Bin Laden. You need to wrap your head around that before you can have an intelligent discussion on this matter. No one blamed Saddam for 9/11 our attack on his was PRE-EMPTIVE rather than in Retalliation. We stopped him before he could grow into a threat again (with the WMD that we know he had, the rest of the world admits he had, and the few that we DID find).


If you don't believe me that bush NEVER tied Saddam to 9/11. Sheesh you have no idea how many people I hear spout that crap every day "Saddam didn't cause 9/11 why are we going after him?"

Well unless you want a 5/15 or 6/13 or whatever random date Saddam would launch an attack on us to happen then you step in BEFORE another 9/11 happens. It's not rocket science.
1- he absolutely said that Iraq had a connection to 9/11, that's how he fooled us into invading

2-He did all those things you mentioned over ten years ago. He was a non threat.

3- Terrorism exists all over the middle east. Do you suggest we invade each and every country that hates the US, that wants to bomb us, has nuclear ties, and kills their own people?

I don't know where you received this information that he had WMDs when we invaded, but if that was true, DONT YOU THINK IT WOULD BE ALL OVER THE NEWS? DONT YOU THINK GWB WOULD SITE THIS AS EVIDENCE???? This war was not pre-emptive, it was preventative...there is a difference. So if we can all have pre emptive wars, why can't Pakistan invade India? Pre emptive wars are the watershed to the world's end. Think about it. Anyone can strike based on preemption. It's a stupid concept.

MDFINFAN
08-06-2004, 11:10 PM
MDPHINFAN

READ WHAT THEY ARE POSTING! I'll try to spell it out for you...

1. Bush did NOT say Saddam was responsible for 9/11. If YOU got that from the speeches then YOU jumped to a conclusion. He NEVER said Iraq helped plan 9/11.

2. Bush DID say this was the war on TERRORISM. Saddam WAS a terrorist, he had numerous AL Quaeda ties, paid off suicide bombers from Pallestine, and AND used WMD on his own people.

3. Being a TERRORIST does NOT mean you serve Bin Laden.

Get it? This is a war on TERRORISTS NOT Osama Bin Laden. You need to wrap your head around that before you can have an intelligent discussion on this matter. No one blamed Saddam for 9/11 our attack on his was PRE-EMPTIVE rather than in Retalliation. We stopped him before he could grow into a threat again (with the WMD that we know he had, the rest of the world admits he had, and the few that we DID find).


If you don't believe me that bush NEVER tied Saddam to 9/11. Sheesh you have no idea how many people I hear spout that crap every day "Saddam didn't cause 9/11 why are we going after him?"

Well unless you want a 5/15 or 6/13 or whatever random date Saddam would launch an attack on us to happen then you step in BEFORE another 9/11 happens. It's not rocket science.

PHINFAN,

BUSH DID TRY TO TIE SADAM TO AL QUAIDA and imply he was funding them and in the future may give them WMD to use against us. If this wasn't a part of the attack of 9/11 why add them. If he didn't tie Saddam to this 9/11, why did we go after them? Are you saying that it was just to free his people like we're hearing now. Now that they can't find WMD's. Bottom line we had no reason to fear Saddam. The UN weapons inspectors had resume their inspections, Saddam didn't have a military and we knew it, we do careful evaluations of troop strength before we do any Military actions. Notice in the first gulf war, you heard about the 5 million man army he had. Notice you heard nothing of the size of his army this time...notice Rumfelds was convince he didn't need that many troops to fight this war. That totally contradicts the air land battle doctrine. Even Phin knows that the doctrine calls for over welming force both from the air and land, and enough soldiers to secure the peace. You've been had..and can't even think independently enough to see it...the blind being led by the blind, the leading blind knows he's lying..the blind followers, I don't know what to say about them. Al quaida and especially Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 day...that's who attacked us. Now, there's I don't know who taking pot shots at our troops and Al quida is still trying to strick us again..but it was the part of Al quaida that was led by Bin Laden who attacked us and that's who we should have concentrated on, his organization and him...Period.

PhinPhan1227
08-07-2004, 12:03 AM
1- he absolutely said that Iraq had a connection to 9/11, that's how he fooled us into invading
.

Either you are ignorant of the facts, or you are outright lying. Bush NEVER statd that Iraq had a conection to 9/11. He said they had a connection to Al-Quida, which is not the same thing.

Phinzone
08-07-2004, 01:40 AM
1- he absolutely said that Iraq had a connection to 9/11, that's how he fooled us into invading

2-He did all those things you mentioned over ten years ago. He was a non threat.

3- Terrorism exists all over the middle east. Do you suggest we invade each and every country that hates the US, that wants to bomb us, has nuclear ties, and kills their own people?

I don't know where you received this information that he had WMDs when we invaded, but if that was true, DONT YOU THINK IT WOULD BE ALL OVER THE NEWS? DONT YOU THINK GWB WOULD SITE THIS AS EVIDENCE???? This war was not pre-emptive, it was preventative...there is a difference. So if we can all have pre emptive wars, why can't Pakistan invade India? Pre emptive wars are the watershed to the world's end. Think about it. Anyone can strike based on preemption. It's a stupid concept.

1. Find the quote, surprise yourself buddy.

2. Saddam was STILL a terrosist threat. He paid suicide bombers to go into Israel, that is TERRORISM that was still active. Not to mention the WMD that everyone said he DID have.

3. Iraq was a hotbed for terroristic activity, to deny that would be ignorant.

ANd i HAVE given multiple links to the proof that the UNITED NATIONS said he had WMD and MOVED them once we went in. It was on CNN the first time I saw it they even had fricking pictures of the trucks that he used to move the weapons!

And on pre-emptive strikes being a stupid concept let's point out a REALLY stupid concept.

After having a history of attacking US interests, having hate towards the US, and knowing he was plotting against us Democrats attacked Bush because he missed the "obvious" smoking gun and didn't stop 9/11 BEFORE it happened.

Yet on the other hand they dog him for going after Saddam BEFORE something happened.

SAME history of hate and violence against the US. So did Bush miss the signs of 9/11? Or was he wrong for going after Saddam?

He sits on his hands he's an idiot, he goes in he's a war monger. You liberals are sickening in that manner. Pick a damn angle and stick with it. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Phinzone
08-07-2004, 02:00 AM
PHINFAN,

BUSH DID TRY TO TIE SADAM TO AL QUAIDA and imply he was funding them and in the future may give them WMD to use against us. If this wasn't a part of the attack of 9/11 why add them. If he didn't tie Saddam to this 9/11, why did we go after them? Are you saying that it was just to free his people like we're hearing now. Now that they can't find WMD's. Bottom line we had no reason to fear Saddam. The UN weapons inspectors had resume their inspections, Saddam didn't have a military and we knew it, we do careful evaluations of troop strength before we do any Military actions. Notice in the first gulf war, you heard about the 5 million man army he had. Notice you heard nothing of the size of his army this time...notice Rumfelds was convince he didn't need that many troops to fight this war. That totally contradicts the air land battle doctrine. Even Phin knows that the doctrine calls for over welming force both from the air and land, and enough soldiers to secure the peace. You've been had..and can't even think independently enough to see it...the blind being led by the blind, the leading blind knows he's lying..the blind followers, I don't know what to say about them. Al quaida and especially Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 day...that's who attacked us. Now, there's I don't know who taking pot shots at our troops and Al quida is still trying to strick us again..but it was the part of Al quaida that was led by Bin Laden who attacked us and that's who we should have concentrated on, his organization and him...Period.

We did, after kicking his *** all across afghanistan, removing him from power, and attempting to freeze his funds, and driving him to the mtns. we left people in charge of searching for him and they STILL ARE searching for him. In fact there are MORE army Rangers in AFghanistan right now searching for him than are in Iraq. Blame YOUR liberal media for taking the spotlight off the search for Bin Laden and pointing it to Iraq. FYI we are STILL in Afghanistan looking for him. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening full scale. We don't need 300,000 troops to stand in a line and walk through the mtns. It doesn't work that way. We have SF there looking right now, intel people searching, as well as making the Afghans put THEMSELVES on the line rather than having it always be just our troops.

You apparently can't see past your nose or you wouldn't be arguing that "Saddam did nothing wrong". I really don't get you people

Osama HAD A HISTORY OF ATTACKING US INTERESTS and a hate against the US.

Saddam HAD A HISTORY OF ATTACKING US INTERSTS and a hate against the US.

What is the difference? oh yeah the fact that he DID HAVE WMD.

Your full of double standards. We should go against Bin Laden because he attacked us, but not after Saddam even though he spreads terror, hates the US, and had WMD.

People like you won't be happy UNTIL Saddam attacks us.

Liberal side 1.

"there were OBVIOUS signs that Osama was a threat to the US. He dropped the ball on that one."

And the double standard

"Saddam was no threat (even though he had WMD and a history of violence against the US and terrism ties), he shouldn't have gone in there

The triple standard (had Saddam been allowed to stay in power)
"What an idiot bush is. He let Osama attack us, and even with Saddam's history he STILL did nothing to defend us against him"
-------------------------------------------
Liberal side 1
"the UN said we shouldnt' go in so we shouldn't have gone in. The UN was law on this matter and bush screwed up"

The double standard

"Even though the UN knew better than to go into Iraq we shouldnt' trust their reports that Iraq moved WMD. We should listen to them when it furthers our political agenda, but ignore the facts when it woudl hurt our stance"





So what is it? Was the UN right or wrong? They said he had WMD, so should we have gone in? Yes it would be nice to have thousands of american's innocently killed before we send troops off to die :rolleyes: . Maybe you could sleep at night then.

ohall
08-07-2004, 02:01 AM
1- he absolutely said that Iraq had a connection to 9/11, that's how he fooled us into invading




Lies, Bush #43 never said Iraq was involved with 9/11. It shouldn't be too hard to produce a URL that shows this. Go on show us all Bush #43 said that.

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-07-2004, 10:43 PM
We did, after kicking his *** all across afghanistan, removing him from power, and attempting to freeze his funds, and driving him to the mtns. we left people in charge of searching for him and they STILL ARE searching for him. In fact there are MORE army Rangers in AFghanistan right now searching for him than are in Iraq. Blame YOUR liberal media for taking the spotlight off the search for Bin Laden and pointing it to Iraq. FYI we are STILL in Afghanistan looking for him. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening full scale. We don't need 300,000 troops to stand in a line and walk through the mtns. It doesn't work that way. We have SF there looking right now, intel people searching, as well as making the Afghans put THEMSELVES on the line rather than having it always be just our troops.

Blame the liberal media for taking the spotlight off the search: Dude we went to war with Iraq, did you think the media would simple igore that? Duh How many do we need in terms of looking in the mountains, obliviously we don't have enough, we haven't found him. It should be our troops, we were the ones bombed by the planes that he helped plan for. The regular Afghans are innocent of this, at least to this point I haven't heard anything about them participating in 9/11.



You apparently can't see past your nose or you wouldn't be arguing that "Saddam did nothing wrong". I really don't get you people.

Exactly what was his part in 9/11, look past your nose and find the answer and help me understand his role in 9/11, actually what could he have done even in the future, he had no army, no WMD, no one liked him in the region, and he was surrounded and guarded by us, even in his own country he couldn't fly planes passed a certain point.




Osama HAD A HISTORY OF ATTACKING US INTERESTS and a hate against the US.

Saddam HAD A HISTORY OF ATTACKING US INTERSTS and a hate against the US.

What is the difference? oh yeah the fact that he DID HAVE WMD.

Osama was armed by the US when Afgan found the Soviets, We change policies and he got caught up in it, he became the enemy, and he attacked, but I can't say we didn't attack first, we did, but it's mute point, because he over stepped his bound..when you attack us soil, I don't care what happened in the past..you are toast as far as I'm concerned.

Saddam was a partner under Regan and the first half of Bush 1 presidency. It turned when he invaded Kuwait. Don't take my word on this go do a review of history..please. Prior to that, that attacks did he make on our interests?



Your full of double standards. We should go against Bin Laden because he attacked us, but not after Saddam even though he spreads terror, hates the US, and had WMD.

People like you won't be happy UNTIL Saddam attacks us.

Liberal side 1.

"there were OBVIOUS signs that Osama was a threat to the US. He dropped the ball on that one."

And the double standard

"Saddam was no threat (even though he had WMD and a history of violence against the US and terrism ties), he shouldn't have gone in there

The triple standard (had Saddam been allowed to stay in power)
"What an idiot bush is. He let Osama attack us, and even with Saddam's history he STILL did nothing to defend us against him"
-------------------------------------------

Double standards, I've been consistent, I've stated numberous times, Saddam was no threat, we haven't proven he was, the UN didn't buy it and no one but republicians and some other americans do. And last I check NO WMD have been found..if they had WE WOULD ALL KNOW IT..it wouldn't be just a few who knew.

As you saw in the war, Saddam had no army, no way to defend his own home, less more attack us. Did Saddam hate us, Yes, wouldn't you after the gulf war..there's a lot of things about that war that has been made public on TV, but don't get a lot of air, like Saddam informed us he wanted to invade Kuwait and we said nothing. Ask your History channel to replay a show they did about that. Again don't take my word for it.

This war for me was always about Al quada and Bin Laden..In my mind, and I haven't seen or heard any that indicated that no one else had anything to do with 9/11. The plan Bush is using is indeed from a doctrine given to Clinton in the last ninties. that much I know you've seen on TV in the news.



Liberal side 1
"the UN said we shouldnt' go in so we shouldn't have gone in. The UN was law on this matter and bush screwed up"

The double standard

"Even though the UN knew better than to go into Iraq we shouldnt' trust their reports that Iraq moved WMD. We should listen to them when it furthers our political agenda, but ignore the facts when it woudl hurt our stance"

So what is it? Was the UN right or wrong? They said he had WMD, so should we have gone in? Yes it would be nice to have thousands of american's innocently killed before we send troops off to die :rolleyes: . Maybe you could sleep at night then.

The UN like every one else thought saddam at WMD, and they tried to verify this thought inspections, their position at the time we wante to go to war was to let the inspectors do their jobs, it was put out that saddam was moving the weapons, do we have proof, the fact is NO, why because we can't find them.
So at this point WE DON'T KNOW. If in the futher we find legit WMD then the UN, Bush and everyone was right, they had them. But does that justify invading him at that time. Is it right to protect ourselves, Yes, did we know for sure Saddam had what every one said he NO...was there something in place to help us know..YES..inspections, and we had jets in the air to enforce a no fly zone. We knew what was going on pretty much in Iraq, why, because we knew he was pissed at us, so i'm sure we kept a close eye on him and his activities. Dude, we did have thousands of Americans killed before we send troops, and there's some question that bush, if he paid attention may have been able to stop it. I sleep at night because God's in control and I trust Him, if it's my time to go, then I'm fine with that because I know who I belong to. The government in America is control by men and therefore I can't totally trust it. I just pray they do the right thing...but I also realize I'm dealing with men. So I keep some perspective. These type of discussions as I read now on this board is more about who people want to vote for and not the real issues or facts of what really happened or is happening now. So I've kind of learn that you really can't open peoples eyes when they have their own agenda's. so I'll probably take a break from posting here and go back to the boards, where we root for the same team. I'll come back occassionally to have some fun..but not for factual info..it's politicized here and is as fuzzy as what the candidates say in their speeches. A lot of noise, but no real substance. In the end, the corporations and people of economic's mean will stay above the law and help write the laws for others in the country, those, they themselves don't have to abide by, I quess that's why I'm not a party liner. I listen to you guys, and I see the ads on TV or the positions your Policiticians take and no questions to verify any of their claims or no questioning of their actions...They say they did something for what ever reason, give shakey proof and party line people don't question a thing..again, the fleecing and dumping down of America. I guess I've seen too much in my life and it's pointed to me questioning everything I see and hear in politics. After being in DC and doing the job I did in Research and Developments, I've seen how politics work first hand..and I've just learned to question things. Hopefully some of you will one day understand. Peace phinfans, keep the faith, go phins :D

Phinzone
08-07-2004, 11:37 PM
Blame the liberal media for taking the spotlight off the search: Dude we went to war with Iraq, did you think the media would simple igore that? Duh How many do we need in terms of looking in the mountains, obliviously we don't have enough, we haven't found him. It should be our troops, we were the ones bombed by the planes that he helped plan for. The regular Afghans are innocent of this, at least to this point I haven't heard anything about them participating in 9/11.



Exactly what was his part in 9/11, look past your nose and find the answer and help me understand his role in 9/11, actually what could he have done even in the future, he had no army, no WMD, no one liked him in the region, and he was surrounded and guarded by us, even in his own country he couldn't fly planes passed a certain point.



Osama was armed by the US when Afgan found the Soviets, We change policies and he got caught up in it, he became the enemy, and he attacked, but I can't say we didn't attack first, we did, but it's mute point, because he over stepped his bound..when you attack us soil, I don't care what happened in the past..you are toast as far as I'm concerned.

Saddam was a partner under Regan and the first half of Bush 1 presidency. It turned when he invaded Kuwait. Don't take my word on this go do a review of history..please. Prior to that, that attacks did he make on our interests?


-------------------------------------------

Double standards, I've been consistent, I've stated numberous times, Saddam was no threat, we haven't proven he was, the UN didn't buy it and no one but republicians and some other americans do. And last I check NO WMD have been found..if they had WE WOULD ALL KNOW IT..it wouldn't be just a few who knew.

As you saw in the war, Saddam had no army, no way to defend his own home, less more attack us. Did Saddam hate us, Yes, wouldn't you after the gulf war..there's a lot of things about that war that has been made public on TV, but don't get a lot of air, like Saddam informed us he wanted to invade Kuwait and we said nothing. Ask your History channel to replay a show they did about that. Again don't take my word for it.

This war for me was always about Al quada and Bin Laden..In my mind, and I haven't seen or heard any that indicated that no one else had anything to do with 9/11. The plan Bush is using is indeed from a doctrine given to Clinton in the last ninties. that much I know you've seen on TV in the news.



The UN like every one else thought saddam at WMD, and they tried to verify this thought inspections, their position at the time we wante to go to war was to let the inspectors do their jobs, it was put out that saddam was moving the weapons, do we have proof, the fact is NO, why because we can't find them.
So at this point WE DON'T KNOW. If in the futher we find legit WMD then the UN, Bush and everyone was right, they had them. But does that justify invading him at that time. Is it right to protect ourselves, Yes, did we know for sure Saddam had what every one said he NO...was there something in place to help us know..YES..inspections, and we had jets in the air to enforce a no fly zone. We knew what was going on pretty much in Iraq, why, because we knew he was pissed at us, so i'm sure we kept a close eye on him and his activities. Dude, we did have thousands of Americans killed before we send troops, and there's some question that bush, if he paid attention may have been able to stop it. I sleep at night because God's in control and I trust Him, if it's my time to go, then I'm fine with that because I know who I belong to. The government in America is control by men and therefore I can't totally trust it. I just pray they do the right thing...but I also realize I'm dealing with men. So I keep some perspective. These type of discussions as I read now on this board is more about who people want to vote for and not the real issues or facts of what really happened or is happening now. So I've kind of learn that you really can't open peoples eyes when they have their own agenda's. so I'll probably take a break from posting here and go back to the boards, where we root for the same team. I'll come back occassionally to have some fun..but not for factual info..it's politicized here and is as fuzzy as what the candidates say in their speeches. A lot of noise, but no real substance. In the end, the corporations and people of economic's mean will stay above the law and help write the laws for others in the country, those, they themselves don't have to abide by, I quess that's why I'm not a party liner. I listen to you guys, and I see the ads on TV or the positions your Policiticians take and no questions to verify any of their claims or no questioning of their actions...They say they did something for what ever reason, give shakey proof and party line people don't question a thing..again, the fleecing and dumping down of America. I guess I've seen too much in my life and it's pointed to me questioning everything I see and hear in politics. After being in DC and doing the job I did in Research and Developments, I've seen how politics work first hand..and I've just learned to question things. Hopefully some of you will one day understand. Peace phinfans, keep the faith, go phins :D

1. I never said nor implied that the would ignore the Iraqi war. But i get damn tired of hearing "why arent' we looking for Bin laden?". WE FRICKING ARE! We are STILL going after him at 100%, and NEVER quit looking. People just dont' "see" it anymore so they automatically assume it's not happening. "we should have found Bin laden before we went into Iraq" :shakeno:

2. FOR THE LAST TIME SADDAM WAS NOT INVOLVED IN 9/11. BUT NEVER MADE THIS ASSERTATION. HE CALLED THIS THE WAR ON TERROR NOT THE WAR ON THE PEOPLE THAT CAUSE 9/11. LOOK PAST YOUR NOSE MEANS THERE WERE WARNING SIGNS PRECEEING 9/11 JUST LIKE THERE WERE WARNING SIGNS THAT SADDAM WAS UP TO NO GOOD.

I will most certianly NOT show you that he was involved with 9/11! BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INVOLVED. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD NO ONE HERE NOR DID THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CLAIM SADDAM HAD ANY PART IN 9/11.

FYI BUDDY! Terrorism is NOT exclusive to 9/11!

GOD i get tired of saying that. There's two ficking pages devoted to that and you liberals are STILL SAYING "he wasn't involved in 9/11". Well no ****!

3. He DID have WMD THE UN SAID SO. That was the point of this whole fricking thread! There are sources citing that he did, you want to argue with the UN? He used the damn weapons on his OWN PEOPLE. HE MOVED THEM THE UN ALSO SAID SO!

4. He DID fly in no fly zones, and SHOOT at American planes. Happened EVERY week. Bin Laden was hunkered down and didn't have an army NOR a country yet he STILL managed to blow two buildings the **** up. Saddam has more means for jacking the US at his disposal than Bin Laden EVER did INCLUDING WMD.

5. ONCE AGAIN your pointing out an uncanny resembelence between Bin Laden and Saddam. BOTH had histories with the US, and BOTH turned their backs on it. Saddam was STILL shooting at our planes patrolling the no fly zone, and he PUBLICLY cheered the attacks on 9/11. I KNOW the history of these events, how we supported Bin Laden and reportedly put Saddam in power. Your not telling me ANYTHING new. What you ARE saying is Bin Laden attacked us on our soil, so he's fair game. Saddam did not, so he's not.

Your thinking is what started WW2! Hitler moved into the Rhineland and NO ONE did anything about it. We knew he was making an army and moving into area's that were closed to him, yet eveyone was too damn accepting and unwilling to start a small conflict, that they let it build into what happened to be WW2. (check the history this is accurate). It would have been a SMALL fight to stop him at that point like the provisions after the first world war laid out. However people let him make little move after move until it was too late.

EXACTLY what Saddam has been doing. Started by being ok with the no sly zones, then he shot at our planes above the no fly zone, then he FLEW planes into the no fly zone. Bush said enough of this **** and took his *** down. JUST like what should have happened with Hitler. HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF BUDDY.
--------------------------------------------------------
Alright i'm done. I can't lay it out any more simple than that. I take pride in the fact that I DO question things instead of just accepting. Now let's go root for those phins. They'll need it this year :)

PhinPhan1227
08-08-2004, 02:06 AM
Blame the liberal media for taking the spotlight off the search: Dude we went to war with Iraq, did you think the media would simple igore that? Duh How many do we need in terms of looking in the mountains, obliviously we don't have enough, we haven't found him. It should be our troops, we were the ones bombed by the planes that he helped plan for. The regular Afghans are innocent of this, at least to this point I haven't heard anything about them participating in 9/11.





Who is in Iraq that should be in Afganistan? We've got the vast majority of our Special Forces and Rangers, and we've got our Light Inf the 10th Mountain. Who else WOULD you send into the mountains of Afghanistan? What is an armored Division going to do there? Mech Inf? We've got everything that SHOULD be in Afghanistan IN Afghanistan. HEck man, with YOUR background you SHOULD know that already :shakeno:

Section126
08-08-2004, 12:38 PM
Who is in Iraq that should be in Afganistan? We've got the vast majority of our Special Forces and Rangers, and we've got our Light Inf the 10th Mountain. Who else WOULD you send into the mountains of Afghanistan? What is an armored Division going to do there? Mech Inf? We've got everything that SHOULD be in Afghanistan IN Afghanistan. HEck man, with YOUR background you SHOULD know that already :shakeno:



There are actual assets that are in Afghanistan that we can use in Iraq....it's actually the other way around.......

Read the blogs from Soldiers in theater in Afghanistan...There are ranger units that have been in Afghanistan for 6 months and have not fired a shot yet......

MDFINFAN
08-08-2004, 11:36 PM
1. I never said nor implied that the would ignore the Iraqi war. But i get damn tired of hearing "why arent' we looking for Bin laden?". WE FRICKING ARE! We are STILL going after him at 100%, and NEVER quit looking. People just dont' "see" it anymore so they automatically assume it's not happening. "we should have found Bin laden before we went into Iraq" :shakeno:

2. FOR THE LAST TIME SADDAM WAS NOT INVOLVED IN 9/11. BUT NEVER MADE THIS ASSERTATION. HE CALLED THIS THE WAR ON TERROR NOT THE WAR ON THE PEOPLE THAT CAUSE 9/11. LOOK PAST YOUR NOSE MEANS THERE WERE WARNING SIGNS PRECEEING 9/11 JUST LIKE THERE WERE WARNING SIGNS THAT SADDAM WAS UP TO NO GOOD.

I will most certianly NOT show you that he was involved with 9/11! BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INVOLVED. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD NO ONE HERE NOR DID THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CLAIM SADDAM HAD ANY PART IN 9/11.

FYI BUDDY! Terrorism is NOT exclusive to 9/11!

GOD i get tired of saying that. There's two ficking pages devoted to that and you liberals are STILL SAYING "he wasn't involved in 9/11". Well no ****!

3. He DID have WMD THE UN SAID SO. That was the point of this whole fricking thread! There are sources citing that he did, you want to argue with the UN? He used the damn weapons on his OWN PEOPLE. HE MOVED THEM THE UN ALSO SAID SO!

4. He DID fly in no fly zones, and SHOOT at American planes. Happened EVERY week. Bin Laden was hunkered down and didn't have an army NOR a country yet he STILL managed to blow two buildings the **** up. Saddam has more means for jacking the US at his disposal than Bin Laden EVER did INCLUDING WMD.

5. ONCE AGAIN your pointing out an uncanny resembelence between Bin Laden and Saddam. BOTH had histories with the US, and BOTH turned their backs on it. Saddam was STILL shooting at our planes patrolling the no fly zone, and he PUBLICLY cheered the attacks on 9/11. I KNOW the history of these events, how we supported Bin Laden and reportedly put Saddam in power. Your not telling me ANYTHING new. What you ARE saying is Bin Laden attacked us on our soil, so he's fair game. Saddam did not, so he's not.

Your thinking is what started WW2! Hitler moved into the Rhineland and NO ONE did anything about it. We knew he was making an army and moving into area's that were closed to him, yet eveyone was too damn accepting and unwilling to start a small conflict, that they let it build into what happened to be WW2. (check the history this is accurate). It would have been a SMALL fight to stop him at that point like the provisions after the first world war laid out. However people let him make little move after move until it was too late.

EXACTLY what Saddam has been doing. Started by being ok with the no sly zones, then he shot at our planes above the no fly zone, then he FLEW planes into the no fly zone. Bush said enough of this **** and took his *** down. JUST like what should have happened with Hitler. HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF BUDDY.
--------------------------------------------------------
Alright i'm done. I can't lay it out any more simple than that. I take pride in the fact that I DO question things instead of just accepting. Now let's go root for those phins. They'll need it this year :)

Phinzone, I've search and found what I think is a non bais write up of what the thinking was for going to war with Iraq. WMD's and Iraq's link to Al Quida. You keep saying that there was no talk of a link, I said there was..here's the thinking alone with the different views of the people giving reasons to go vs don't go. This was the most non bias write up I could find.
Man I never realized how heated this disbate is, before and after the war. Everyone has a view. If you can find a better write up that maybe even more balanced please link it. Now that I'm talking to you guys about it, I'm not interest. Phinzone, why do you call me a liberal, when I've told you I'm a independent, there are things I'm conservative on and there's things I'm liberal about. I'm actually sure that most people fit in that category, despite their political affiliation. Well anyway here's the link. I think it captures why we went to war and the thoughts behind it. I must point out one thing, there is a part of it that suggest that Iraq was no threat to us, as I've stated and this was from one of the inspectors who inspected Iraq. I know, I know, even through he was there, you don't care before you don't believe him and would whether believe what has been proven faulty data, and where's this WMD that you keep insisting we've found. Why isn't it widely known?

Link: UNITED STATES DEBATES WAR AGAINST IRAQ (http://www.saag.org/papers6/paper524.html)

PhinPhan1227
08-09-2004, 03:03 AM
Phinzone, I've search and found what I think is a non bais write up of what the thinking was for going to war with Iraq. WMD's and Iraq's link to Al Quida. You keep saying that there was no talk of a link, I said there was..here's the thinking alone with the different views of the people giving reasons to go vs don't go. This was the most non bias write up I could find.
Man I never realized how heated this disbate is, before and after the war. Everyone has a view. If you can find a better write up that maybe even more balanced please link it. Now that I'm talking to you guys about it, I'm not interest. Phinzone, why do you call me a liberal, when I've told you I'm a independent, there are things I'm conservative on and there's things I'm liberal about. I'm actually sure that most people fit in that category, despite their political affiliation. Well anyway here's the link. I think it captures why we went to war and the thoughts behind it. I must point out one thing, there is a part of it that suggest that Iraq was no threat to us, as I've stated and this was from one of the inspectors who inspected Iraq. I know, I know, even through he was there, you don't care before you don't believe him and would whether believe what has been proven faulty data, and where's this WMD that you keep insisting we've found. Why isn't it widely known?

Link: UNITED STATES DEBATES WAR AGAINST IRAQ (http://www.saag.org/papers6/paper524.html)


#1-It's "biased", not "bias"

#2-He's calling you a liberal for the same reasons you keep calling me a Conservative. It's easy to throw a quick label on someone as a means of dismissing/avoiding their viewpoint. On every political metering test I have ever taken I fall as close to dead center as it's mathematically possible to be without cheating. Yet you have labeled me a Republican/Conservative repeatedly. Hello Pot?...this is Kettle....

MDFINFAN
08-09-2004, 05:26 PM
#1-It's "biased", not "bias"

#2-He's calling you a liberal for the same reasons you keep calling me a Conservative. It's easy to throw a quick label on someone as a means of dismissing/avoiding their viewpoint. On every political metering test I have ever taken I fall as close to dead center as it's mathematically possible to be without cheating. Yet you have labeled me a Republican/Conservative repeatedly. Hello Pot?...this is Kettle....

Okay it Biased, Miased..thanks, sooner or later you will get me to paid attention to my grammar and spelling on this board, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. :D I thought you labeled yourself a Republican in one of your responses to me, so I called you that. I'm sorry and won't refer to you as one again. But I've stated several times I'm a independent and used it as a point to say that I think for myself. Actually unlike you guys I don't dismiss what you write, I check it out sometimes, but haven't found the evidence to support what's written. I simply disagree with a lot of what's written here. And yes, some of the things I disagree with, I know the answer because of my questioned Military service.. :lol: But also I've lived long enough to see and meet and know politicians. I know that it's about who's writing the checks for campaigns, so what you hear from them is not always what you get. So I try the "least of 2 evils" approach most of the time when voting. I do disagree with this administrations policies and tactics. I just don't think GB2 is smart enough to reason though most of the issues. That scares me in this present environment of terroists and the world economy, as well as domestic policies. We're becoming Isolationists, and that's not a good thing. With him in, I think we have to fight alone. Our allies have abandoned us, because we've abandon them. If you don't think like us screw you. That thinking will cause us more problems than help us in the long run. Most people think he's capable only because he went to war, as though that measures the worth of a man. It's like if you willing to go to war that makes you a good president, the "he man" thing people are caught up in. I don't buy that. It has to be more than just going to war for me. I can't remember, nor do I remember any of our presidents who wouldn't defend this country through war or any means neccessary, Democrats or Republicans. So I haven't brought into the republicians are better for defense than the democrats. So other than war, what is GB2 good at? for me nothing. He really is, imho, a Puppet. I'd like to see someone else get a short, something like the way our fans feel about Jay F., He's had 4 years and nothing, now let's try someone else. :roflmao:

DolFan31
08-09-2004, 06:00 PM
Okay it Biased, Miased..thanks, sooner or later you will get me to paid attention to my grammar and spelling on this board, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. :D I thought you labeled yourself a Republican in one of your responses to me, so I called you that. I'm sorry and won't refer to you as one again. But I've stated several times I'm a independent and used it as a point to say that I think for myself. Actually unlike you guys I don't dismiss what you write, I check it out sometimes, but haven't found the evidence to support what's written. I simply disagree with a lot of what's written here. And yes, some of the things I disagree with, I know the answer because of my questioned Military service.. :lol: But also I've lived long enough to see and meet and know politicians. I know that it's about who's writing the checks for campaigns, so what you hear from them is not always what you get. So I try the "least of 2 evils" approach most of the time when voting. I do disagree with this administrations policies and tactics. I just don't think GB2 is smart enough to reason though most of the issues. That scares me in this present environment of terroists and the world economy, as well as domestic policies. We're becoming Isolationists, and that's not a good thing. With him in, I think we have to fight alone. Our allies have abandoned us, because we've abandon them. If you don't think like us screw you. That thinking will cause us more problems than help us in the long run. Most people think he's capable only because he went to war, as though that measures the worth of a man. It's like if you willing to go to war that makes you a good president, the "he man" thing people are caught up in. I don't buy that. It has to be more than just going to war for me. I can't remember, nor do I remember any of our presidents who wouldn't defend this country through war or any means neccessary, Democrats or Republicans. So I haven't brought into the republicians are better for defense than the democrats. So other than war, what is GB2 good at? for me nothing. He really is, imho, a Puppet. I'd like to see someone else get a short, something like the way our fans feel about Jay F., He's had 4 years and nothing, now let's try someone else. :roflmao:

That right there is another reason for voting for Kerry. Im with ya on that.

PhinPhan1227
08-09-2004, 06:13 PM
I'd like to see someone else get a short, something like the way our fans feel about Jay F., He's had 4 years and nothing, now let's try someone else. :roflmao:


I'm a registered Ind and have always said so. As for your analogy I have four words...Ray Lucas, Brian Griese. Just because what you have is bad, doesn't mean it can't get worse. I'd vote for several other poiliticans over Bush(Liebrman, McCain, some others), but Kerry is a step back. And I can tell you a PResident who failed to defend the country...Bill Clinton. He was unwilling to make hard decisions that might have cost him votes so he lauched cruise missiles when terrorists attacked our soil. Kerry is cut from the same cloth.

MDFINFAN
08-09-2004, 06:58 PM
I'm a registered Ind and have always said so. As for your analogy I have four words...Ray Lucas, Brian Griese. Just because what you have is bad, doesn't mean it can't get worse. I'd vote for several other poiliticans over Bush(Liebrman, McCain, some others), but Kerry is a step back. And I can tell you a PResident who failed to defend the country...Bill Clinton. He was unwilling to make hard decisions that might have cost him votes so he lauched cruise missiles when terrorists attacked our soil. Kerry is cut from the same cloth.

No, no, Kerry went to Vietnam, clinton took the bush way out, (they both avoided the war) clinton tried to go at al quaida, but the repub's were too busy trying to sexgate him and wouldn't give him the money to launch a full attack. Go look it up. Kerry just by the fact he show up in Vietnam has already shown he different...anyway, the phins kept looking for a replacement for Jay because they knew he wasn't the best out there, and his stats have consistently proven that...Same with this President, his speeches, intelligence, and abilities just haven't consistently shown up. Now the phins hope AJ is the answer, can we say Kerry as you so put it, for lack of better alternatives. :D At least I can listen to Kerry speak. It's painful with Bush. :lol:

DolFan31
08-09-2004, 07:10 PM
No, no, Kerry went to Vietnam, clinton took the bush way out, (they both avoided the war) clinton tried to go at al quaida, but the repub's were too busy trying to sexgate him and wouldn't give him the money to launch a full attack. Go look it up. Kerry just by the fact he show up in Vietnam has already shown he different...anyway, the phins kept looking for a replacement for Jay because they knew he wasn't the best out there, and his stats have consistently proven that...Same with this President, his speeches, intelligence, and abilities just haven't consistently shown up. Now the phins hope AJ is the answer, can we say Kerry as you so put it, for lack of better alternatives. :D At least I can listen to Kerry speak. It's painful with Bush. :lol:

Add to that most of the QBs that are supposed to "replace" JF have been scrubs. Griese had like what? One good year? Plus he had a team built around him. I think he was a good QB, but not right for our system. I also think he was bit overrated. Lucas was just a punk. Same with Bush :goof:

PhinPhan1227
08-09-2004, 10:28 PM
No, no, Kerry went to Vietnam, clinton took the bush way out, (they both avoided the war) clinton tried to go at al quaida, but the repub's were too busy trying to sexgate him and wouldn't give him the money to launch a full attack. Go look it up. Kerry just by the fact he show up in Vietnam has already shown he different...anyway, the phins kept looking for a replacement for Jay because they knew he wasn't the best out there, and his stats have consistently proven that...Same with this President, his speeches, intelligence, and abilities just haven't consistently shown up. Now the phins hope AJ is the answer, can we say Kerry as you so put it, for lack of better alternatives. :D At least I can listen to Kerry speak. It's painful with Bush. :lol:


Kerry went to Vietnam...yippee. I served with a heck of a lot of guys...few if any of them were qualified to be President. Personally I believe that Kerry went to Vietnam because he needed a jumpstart to his political career and he wanted to follow the path of John Kennedy. Bush also obviuosly wanted to pursue a political career and chose his own path. As for Clinton BULL ****e!! The President has the power to deploy troops. He doesn't have to ask for shiite to deploy troops. That's the central tenet of a Presidents power. He may need permission to KEEP them there, but he can deploy3troops at will.

MDFINFAN
08-10-2004, 12:50 AM
Kerry went to Vietnam...yippee. I served with a heck of a lot of guys...few if any of them were qualified to be President. Personally I believe that Kerry went to Vietnam because he needed a jumpstart to his political career and he wanted to follow the path of John Kennedy. Bush also obviuosly wanted to pursue a political career and chose his own path. As for Clinton BULL ****e!! The President has the power to deploy troops. He doesn't have to ask for shiite to deploy troops. That's the central tenet of a Presidents power. He may need permission to KEEP them there, but he can deploy3troops at will.

:roflmao: I agree, a lot of guys in the Military think they could run the country though. But my point was, even if it was just to kick start his career, he went. He didn't dodge it. Since he served that makes him special in that way over the 2 who didn't. I still think Bush is a wuss. He sends people when he wouldn't go..that's a BIG wuss in my book. I atleast respect Kerry for his service. Even you and I didn't get to serve in actual war. At least I don't think I remember you saying you did. I had just given up command and come to DC when Gulf war 1 started. The power to send troops by the president is being used incorrectly now. It didn't start that way. It was suppose to be for emergency use. Now Presidents are side stepping the congress and actually almost going to war with troops. As I said before that's how Presidents are being measured now, on wheather they will send troops to battle. Bad standard and a bad way to use our most valuable resource. I would never send YOU unless I absolutely was 100% sure that what I sent you for exist or I was 100% sure that a nation was planning to attack us, not on the weak stuff Bush used, and it was weak. That, you can't change my mind on. I don't care how much more BS you guys come up with. I can think for myself and I'm not so afraid of everything that I have to over react. For the last time, Iraq was no threat to the US, nor were they going to be for any time in the foreseeable future. If a country through we were going to attack them in 10 years, does that justify them attacking us today? Would you think they were just. Take yourself from this war and think about that, don't try to answer it in the contexts of Iraq. I know I'm asking something hard, with what just happened. But just think about it. I love my country, but I also know it's not perfect and we take advantage of our Military strength to disrespect others. I don't know if you got to travel outside the US, I don't remember reading that you did, but I think you would understand where I'm coming from. There are more people in this world than us. We can get along and respect others and still be the mighty country we are through true leadership. To constantly threaten countries with our Military shows a distinct lack of leadership and character. That's why I say the president being elected solely on he'll use the Military is a weak president to me. One who can use his brains, speak slowly, while knowing he has a big stick in our Military and bring others to our point of view without the threat of our Military is a person of true character and deserving of the highest office in the land. Jesus did not once threaten people who disagree with him or even the ones he knew were planning his death, even though we knew he had all of heaven had his disposal. He spoke the truth and showed the wisdom, compassion and character to bring men together. This president has the wisdom to do one thing and that's send troops because he has no diplomatic aplumb. You've heard him speak, how can anyone who talks like that bring anyone together, even our country's divided. It's time we expect more and ask more of a leader than that. Our Military should be used as a last result only, not the first thing out of the mouth of a persident that claims to want to serve in the white house. He's had 4 years, time to change the scenary in the white house.

PhinPhan1227
08-10-2004, 02:50 AM
Ok...a few points.

#1-Bill Clinton and now George Bush have had to deal with an issue that the world hasn't really seen since about 500ad. We are the LONE Superpower. That sounds like a great thing, but it has it's drawbacks. Firstly EVERYONE is gunning for you. You are #1 and everyone else is #2 or worse. Bottom line, we CAN'T be loved. Nobody loves the top guy. Who loves the Yankees? Who loved the Cowboys? Other than the suck-ups who considered them "their" team, everyone else hated them when they were #1 year after year. Same with us. The world "liked" us, and that didn't prevent 9/11. Bush invades Iraq and already the WMD's are out of Libya, and The Sudan. You don't see that as a positive? There are also more programs to promote freedom in the Middle East. For the most part it's just local and regional officials that are being elected, but it's a BIG start, and it's because of Iraq.

#2-I honestly believe that Bush believes that he is fulfilling his oath of office. You disagree...fine, that's your right. But Bush's oath only says that HE needs to believe it. And I respect him for doing something which is hard, and unpopular because he believes it's the right thing to do. I DON'T respect Clinton because he ducked that responsability.

#3-Pretending for a moment that you actually were an officer in the Army, did you go the ROTC or OCS route? Because you obviously missed your military history classes. The leader that costs the most casualities is the one who is afraid to use his troops. As a former infantryman who was going to be the guy getting shot at, I would rather have a leader throw me into combat one day too early than one day too late. If you need a refresher, take a look at Lord Chamberlin of England, or General McClellen of America. Both men had such a huge fear of casualties that they cost MANY more than they would have had they acted earlier.

MDFINFAN
08-10-2004, 02:40 PM
Ok...a few points.

#1-Bill Clinton and now George Bush have had to deal with an issue that the world hasn't really seen since about 500ad. We are the LONE Superpower. That sounds like a great thing, but it has it's drawbacks. Firstly EVERYONE is gunning for you. You are #1 and everyone else is #2 or worse. Bottom line, we CAN'T be loved. Nobody loves the top guy. Who loves the Yankees? Who loved the Cowboys? Other than the suck-ups who considered them "their" team, everyone else hated them when they were #1 year after year. Same with us. The world "liked" us, and that didn't prevent 9/11. Bush invades Iraq and already the WMD's are out of Libya, and The Sudan. You don't see that as a positive? There are also more programs to promote freedom in the Middle East. For the most part it's just local and regional officials that are being elected, but it's a BIG start, and it's because of Iraq.

See that kind of thinking is what gets us into trouble; you missed my point on real leadership. We are the only superpower; we don't have to prove it. We can lead and still be respected by respecting others. It's like we're the super power, of course everyone hates us. It makes you fill special doesn't it? But the truth is a lot of people love where they live too. And being America, a lot of people also want to come here, why be jealous of a place you can go? We got nuclear weapons because we sought to protect ourselves, other countries think the same way, believe it or not..duh..We don't have a monopoly on that thinking.



#2-I honestly believe that Bush believes that he is fulfilling his oath of office. You disagree...fine, that's your right. But Bush's oath only says that HE needs to believe it. And I respect him for doing something which is hard, and unpopular because he believes it's the right thing to do. I DON'T respect Clinton because he ducked that responsability.

No it doesn't, it says he has to have reasonable proof. He had non, just a thought. I respected all our presidents and I even respect you because you're a human being, but I don't agree with Bush, nor see the reasonable proof in how he's using the military except for Afgan and al quida.



#3-Pretending for a moment that you actually were an officer in the Army, did you go the ROTC or OCS route? Because you obviously missed your military history classes. The leader that costs the most casualities is the one who is afraid to use his troops. As a former infantryman who was going to be the guy getting shot at, I would rather have a leader throw me into combat one day too early than one day too late. If you need a refresher, take a look at Lord Chamberlin of England, or General McClellen of America. Both men had such a huge fear of casualties that they cost MANY more than they would have had they acted earlier.

:roflmao: If you don't use your troops because you use persuasive arguments to bring the table together and iron out differences through reasonable solutions is the leader that saves the most lives. Now I fully understand you, you have no clue about a real leader and that's why it boils down to a person, who avoided the war of his day, but will send others, as the person you want. You're right, there's a big difference between the way you think and I do. My Military history taught me diplomacy before war, no matter how long it takes, if there's the possibility to save lives, then that's the option one should take. Only as a last result should I send troops, they're too precious to use unwisely. If there's no doubt, then strike, I'd fully use them in that situation. I just have a higher standard for using troops.

PhinPhan1227
08-10-2004, 02:58 PM
See that kind of thinking is what gets us into trouble; you missed my point on real leadership. We are the only superpower; we don't have to prove it. We can lead and still be respected by respecting others. It's like we're the super power, of course everyone hates us. It makes you fill special doesn't it? But the truth is a lot of people love where they live too. And being America, a lot of people also want to come here, why be jealous of a place you can go? We got nuclear weapons because we sought to protect ourselves, other countries think the same way, believe it or not..duh..We don't have a monopoly on that thinking.



No it doesn't, it says he has to have reasonable proof. He had non, just a thought. I respected all our presidents and I even respect you because you're a human being, but I don't agree with Bush, nor see the reasonable proof in how he's using the military except for Afgan and al quida.



:roflmao: If you don't use your troops because you use persuasive arguments to bring the table together and iron out differences through reasonable solutions is the leader that saves the most lives. Now I fully understand you, you have no clue about a real leader and that's why it boils down to a person, who avoided the war of his day, but will send others, as the person you want. You're right, there's a big difference between the way you think and I do. My Military history taught me diplomacy before war, no matter how long it takes, if there's the possibility to save lives, then that's the option one should take. Only as a last result should I send troops, they're too precious to use unwisely. If there's no doubt, then strike, I'd fully use them in that situation. I just have a higher standard for using troops.


Diplomacy had 12 years to work. Eventually anyone with half a clue is going to see that diplomacy isn't accomplishing anything new. You military history must have been written by either Ghandi or Jesus because they are the only two individuals who think it's ok to be shot while waiting for peace to break out. Yes, diplomacy needs a chance to work. But when that fails I want my leader to send me in when it's most advantagious to ME, not the other guy. "Diplomacy before war, no matter how long it takes" is almost synonymous with "peace at all costs", and just as much a crock. Persuasive arguments? We're dealing with a man who thought it made more sense to tell the world he had WMD's than show that he didn't. We're dealing with a man who thought it was ok to have his soccer team torutured and executed because they lost. "Persuasive arguments" work for people who aren't sociopaths. Now, lets take a look at how well we were avoiding proving the fact that we were the only Superpower. Interviews with Saddam as well as the terrorists all uncovered the fact that the didn't believe we would react with troops. They all thought that we were too afraid of casualties. They learned their lesson from Bill Clinton. No, we don't have to prove that we are the last Superpower. But we need to prove that we have the will to defend ourselves. That lesson has been learned by Lybia and the Sudan...two places where US troops won't have to lose their lives because of the invasion of Iraq. And lastly..read the Constitution and read the Presidents oath. It says that he is charged with protecting this nation. If he percieves a threat, there's nothing in his oath or the COnstitution that says that he has to prove it to ANYONE but himself. Christ man, I know you can't write but at least READ.

MDFINFAN
08-10-2004, 03:11 PM
Diplomacy had 12 years to work. Eventually anyone with half a clue is going to see that diplomacy isn't accomplishing anything new. You military history must have been written by either Ghandi or Jesus because they are the only two individuals who think it's ok to be shot while waiting for peace to break out. Yes, diplomacy needs a chance to work. But when that fails I want my leader to send me in when it's most advantagious to ME, not the other guy. "Diplomacy before war, no matter how long it takes" is almost synonymous with "peace at all costs", and just as much a crock. Persuasive arguments? We're dealing with a man who thought it made more sense to tell the world he had WMD's than show that he didn't. We're dealing with a man who thought it was ok to have his soccer team torutured and executed because they lost. "Persuasive arguments" work for people who aren't sociopaths. Now, lets take a look at how well we were avoiding proving the fact that we were the only Superpower. Interviews with Saddam as well as the terrorists all uncovered the fact that the didn't believe we would react with troops. They all thought that we were too afraid of casualties. They learned their lesson from Bill Clinton. No, we don't have to prove that we are the last Superpower. But we need to prove that we have the will to defend ourselves. That lesson has been learned by Lybia and the Sudan...two places where US troops won't have to lose their lives because of the invasion of Iraq. And lastly..read the Constitution and read the Presidents oath. It says that he is charged with protecting this nation. If he percieves a threat, there's nothing in his oath or the COnstitution that says that he has to prove it to ANYONE but himself. Christ man, I know you can't write but at least READ.

Bottom line is that we were still inspecting, and he was still surrounded and he was no threat. Protecting this nation doesn't automatically give you the right to go to war with countries because of a thought as an excuse because you want to do something. If countries who don't trust us started attacking us without proof that we're coming after them, you would cry bloody murder. We are not the only people on this earth. We don't have the right to just do what we want to people without there being consequences. All the stuff you've listed there doesn't show any proof that Iraq was or was going to be a threat to us. We've found no WMD's, no plans that stated they were going to someday attack America, no ties to Al quida, nothing that warranted attacking them. NOTHING, not even a note that says I hate Americans. The US is not always right, just because our leader says something. Apply the same rules of engagement that you've engaged me to the real reasoning behind our invasion..at least in a court of basic rights, did Iraq do anything to us?

P4E
08-10-2004, 04:09 PM
MDFINFAN, for crying out-f'ing-loud...

It is indisputable that Saddam had WMDs. He'd previously acknowledged stockpiling them, and had in fact used them against the Kurdish minority in Iraq itself.

It is indisputable that Iraq was a safe-haven for and supporter of terrorists. Multiple terrorists were in hiding there, a camp operated northeast of Baghdad, and Saddam's regime was granting Hezbollah cash awards for suicide bombings.

It is indisputable that Saddam was an enemy of the U.S. and actively sought to do us harm. His forces fired upon Americans patrolling the no-fly zone. His regime engaged in a plot to kill a former U.S. president.

It is indisputable that Iraq's borders were and are porous, and that WMDs gifted to or obtained by terrorists could be readily removed for use elsewhere.

It is indisputable that the Saddam regime was not cooperating with the UN inspections and that every day of this ridiculous charade was another day for the Saddam regime to do whatever they chose with the WMDs they were documented to have.

These are the simple facts that President George Bush faced upon entering office. They are ALSO the simple facts that President Clinton found tolerable during his term in office.

Evidently, people like you and John Kerry found this fact pattern acceptable. God bless you, fellow Dolphin fan, but God help us if anyone with that outlook becomes president.

If you choose to reply to this, please do us the honor of specifically stating which element(s) of the fact pattern I've described are FALSE and why... because if you fail to show that any part of this is false and you opposed the invasion of Iraq or found ANY delay thereof acceptable, you are/were endorsing the continued maintenance of that fact pattern. So...

Is any part of the fact pattern I described false


OR

did you and Kerry endorse the continued maintenance of that fact pattern for even ONE day?

It is ONE or THE OTHER, -- there is no middle ground. Be proud of yours and Kerry's position. State it loudly and unequivocally, -- just the way terrorists who were in and out of Iraq wanted to make a statement against Americans.

PhinPhan1227
08-10-2004, 04:35 PM
Bottom line is that we were still inspecting, and he was still surrounded and he was no threat. Protecting this nation doesn't automatically give you the right to go to war with countries because of a thought as an excuse because you want to do something. If countries who don't trust us started attacking us without proof that we're coming after them, you would cry bloody murder. We are not the only people on this earth. We don't have the right to just do what we want to people without there being consequences. All the stuff you've listed there doesn't show any proof that Iraq was or was going to be a threat to us. We've found no WMD's, no plans that stated they were going to someday attack America, no ties to Al quida, nothing that warranted attacking them. NOTHING, not even a note that says I hate Americans. The US is not always right, just because our leader says something. Apply the same rules of engagement that you've engaged me to the real reasoning behind our invasion..at least in a court of basic rights, did Iraq do anything to us?


I didn't list those things BECAUSE THEY ARE COMMON knowledge!! How much research COULD you have done on the Middle East and missed Saddams manifesto on becoming the next Saladin? How much CURRENT knowledge could you have if you aren't aware that WMD programs HAVE been found, just not the actual stockpiles of weapons! Inspections were taking place which even the INSPECTORS declared were almost useless! The only thing getting Saddam to give even THAT much cooperation was our troops massed at his border. And those massed troops were keeping our economy from moving forward...or didn't you follow CNN before the invasion? Saddam LAYED OUT HIS PLANS for controlling the Arabian peninsula. Take away the sanctions and in less than a decade Saddam could have and would have been rebuilt enough to do that very thing. Or ar you callous enough to not care that our sanctions were strangling the Iraqi people? And MOST of all...the FIRST GULF WAR NEVER ENDED. There has been a cease fire in place for a decade. Saddam didn't uphold his part of that agreement, which is ALL the justification Bush needed.

BigFinFan
08-10-2004, 05:45 PM
MDFINFAN, for crying out-f'ing-loud...

It is indisputable that Saddam had WMDs. He'd previously acknowledged stockpiling them, and had in fact used them against the Kurdish minority in Iraq itself.

It is indisputable that Iraq was a safe-haven for and supporter of terrorists. Multiple terrorists were in hiding there, a camp operated northeast of Baghdad, and Saddam's regime was granting Hezbollah cash awards for suicide bombings.

It is indisputable that Saddam was an enemy of the U.S. and actively sought to do us harm. His forces fired upon Americans patrolling the no-fly zone. His regime engaged in a plot to kill a former U.S. president.

It is indisputable that Iraq's borders were and are porous, and that WMDs gifted to or obtained by terrorists could be readily removed for use elsewhere.

It is indisputable that the Saddam regime was not cooperating with the UN inspections and that every day of this ridiculous charade was another day for the Saddam regime to do whatever they chose with the WMDs they were documented to have.

These are the simple facts that President George Bush faced upon entering office. They are ALSO the simple facts that President Clinton found tolerable during his term in office.

Evidently, people like you and John Kerry found this fact pattern acceptable. God bless you, fellow Dolphin fan, but God help us if anyone with that outlook becomes president.

If you choose to reply to this, please do us the honor of specifically stating which element(s) of the fact pattern I've described are FALSE and why... because if you fail to show that any part of this is false and you opposed the invasion of Iraq or found ANY delay thereof acceptable, you are/were endorsing the continued maintenance of that fact pattern. So...

Is any part of the fact pattern I described false


OR

did you and Kerry endorse the continued maintenance of that fact pattern for even ONE day?

It is ONE or THE OTHER, -- there is no middle ground. Be proud of yours and Kerry's position. State it loudly and unequivocally, -- just the way terrorists who were in and out of Iraq wanted to make a statement against Americans.

Very Very Nice!

:clap:

MDFINFAN
08-10-2004, 05:48 PM
Phinfan,

WMD programs, you probably could go to just about anyy country and find some type of program in that way. At this point, I don't trust a program as being a military one. Are we talking nuclear programs, chemical or what. I do remember something to the fact, but it wasn't enough to really pay attention to. If it was a nuclear program, it's very similar to how people make nuclear energy, the application could be use both ways. Saddam had chemical weapons back in the day of the Iran war, not sure of his capabilities now. A lot of his stockpile was destroyed during the inspections. But again that's not what was stated for going to war, it was he had stockpiles of WMD, and that there was a link to tie him to Al quida in some way. Whatever, it was no real proof. Can you imagine someone telling us we couldn't have a WMD program going, we'd just laugh. Your fear has been heighten and used against you, and you're buying into that fear and doing exactly what the administration wants you to do. There's no proof Kerry is worst than Bush and you know it. It's just a preference and your preference is Bush, I have no problem with that, but don't use Kerry's worst than Bush, there's no record for it. Kerry hasn't been president, Bush has.

MDFINFAN
08-10-2004, 06:18 PM
MDFINFAN, for crying out-f'ing-loud...

It is indisputable that Saddam had WMDs. He'd previously acknowledged stockpiling them, and had in fact used them against the Kurdish minority in Iraq itself.

It is indisputable that Iraq was a safe-haven for and supporter of terrorists. Multiple terrorists were in hiding there, a camp operated northeast of Baghdad, and Saddam's regime was granting Hezbollah cash awards for suicide bombings.

It is indisputable that Saddam was an enemy of the U.S. and actively sought to do us harm. His forces fired upon Americans patrolling the no-fly zone. His regime engaged in a plot to kill a former U.S. president.

It is indisputable that Iraq's borders were and are porous, and that WMDs gifted to or obtained by terrorists could be readily removed for use elsewhere.

It is indisputable that the Saddam regime was not cooperating with the UN inspections and that every day of this ridiculous charade was another day for the Saddam regime to do whatever they chose with the WMDs they were documented to have.

These are the simple facts that President George Bush faced upon entering office. They are ALSO the simple facts that President Clinton found tolerable during his term in office.

Evidently, people like you and John Kerry found this fact pattern acceptable. God bless you, fellow Dolphin fan, but God help us if anyone with that outlook becomes president.

If you choose to reply to this, please do us the honor of specifically stating which element(s) of the fact pattern I've described are FALSE and why... because if you fail to show that any part of this is false and you opposed the invasion of Iraq or found ANY delay thereof acceptable, you are/were endorsing the continued maintenance of that fact pattern. So...

Is any part of the fact pattern I described false


OR

did you and Kerry endorse the continued maintenance of that fact pattern for even ONE day?

It is ONE or THE OTHER, -- there is no middle ground. Be proud of yours and Kerry's position. State it loudly and unequivocally, -- just the way terrorists who were in and out of Iraq wanted to make a statement against Americans.

:shakeno:

Let's put it into prospective, prior to Gulf 1, Iraq had WMD. After Gulf 1, we had them dismantled thought the inspection process, the question was did we know exactly how many weapons he had. that's been the issue over the last 12 years, thus with all the destroying of weapons going on, we weren't sure if all were destroyed, so hence the conspiracy he's hiding them, he's given them to his neighbors for safe keeping, at the same time the UN inspectors were destroying all they found. I suspect they were destroying everything he had and that's why he was being a pain in the butt, we were leaving him vulnerable in an area where he didn't have many friends. If someone was doing that to the USA, do you think we would react any different? Any way that being said, a lot of his problems and invasion was due to his antics. But the fact of the matter was we weren't finding any more weapons really. Remember they showed on TV that his weapons were being destroyed. The UN inspectors were going back in and trying to find more, when we just couldn't wait. The thought of war did indeed open Iraq to further inspections, but isn't that a good way to use force, no one hurt, the flood gates opened, i.e., let the inspectors back in. We didn't have to go to war when we did. Our fears were used against Americans to justify it. Remember when anyone who would say any thing against the war was called unpatriotic. That hurt a lot of people and kept a lot of others quiet. That’s the order that this thing went down it. So to keep pouncing on WMD's as if we knew exactly before they were there is somewhat of a lie, and a convenient way to help ease your minds on an invasion that may be wasn't exactly just in the tradition of standards the US normally use to go to war.

PhinPhan1227
08-10-2004, 06:58 PM
Phinfan,

WMD programs, you probably could go to just about anyy country and find some type of program in that way. At this point, I don't trust a program as being a military one. Are we talking nuclear programs, chemical or what. I do remember something to the fact, but it wasn't enough to really pay attention to. If it was a nuclear program, it's very similar to how people make nuclear energy, the application could be use both ways. Saddam had chemical weapons back in the day of the Iran war, not sure of his capabilities now. A lot of his stockpile was destroyed during the inspections. But again that's not what was stated for going to war, it was he had stockpiles of WMD, and that there was a link to tie him to Al quida in some way. Whatever, it was no real proof. Can you imagine someone telling us we couldn't have a WMD program going, we'd just laugh. Your fear has been heighten and used against you, and you're buying into that fear and doing exactly what the administration wants you to do. There's no proof Kerry is worst than Bush and you know it. It's just a preference and your preference is Bush, I have no problem with that, but don't use Kerry's worst than Bush, there's no record for it. Kerry hasn't been president, Bush has.

Jesus man...Kerry has a Senatorial record to go by. This crap of "anybody has got to be better than Bush" is so short sighted and fueled by hate that it's tragic.

PhinPhan1227
08-10-2004, 06:59 PM
:shakeno:

Let's put it into prospective, prior to Gulf 1, .


Jesus man...PERSPECTIVE! Christ, it's like having a conversation with Don King!!

P4E
08-10-2004, 07:26 PM
:shakeno:

Let's put it into prospective, prior to Gulf 1, Iraq had WMD. After Gulf 1, we had them dismantled thought the inspection process, the question was did we know exactly how many weapons he had. that's been the issue over the last 12 years, thus with all the destroying of weapons going on, we weren't sure if all were destroyed, so hence the conspiracy he's hiding them, he's given them to his neighbors for safe keeping, at the same time the UN inspectors were destroying all they found. I suspect they were destroying everything he had and that's why he was being a pain in the butt, we were leaving him vulnerable in an area where he didn't have many friends. If someone was doing that to the USA, do you think we would react any different? Any way that being said, a lot of his problems and invasion was due to his antics. But the fact of the matter was we weren't finding any more weapons really. Remember they showed on TV that his weapons were being destroyed. The UN inspectors were going back in and trying to find more, when we just couldn't wait. The thought of war did indeed open Iraq to further inspections, but isn't that a good way to use force, no one hurt, the flood gates opened, i.e., let the inspectors back in. We didn't have to go to war when we did. Our fears were used against Americans to justify it. Remember when anyone who would say any thing against the war was called unpatriotic. That hurt a lot of people and kept a lot of others quiet. That’s the order that this thing went down it. So to keep pouncing on WMD's as if we knew exactly before they were there is somewhat of a lie, and a convenient way to help ease your minds on an invasion that may be wasn't exactly just in the tradition of standards the US normally use to go to war.
"we just couldn't wait":rolleyes:

You failed to refute any element of the fact pattern I provided. And then you endorsed our taking our chances and HOPING that a regime specifically and demonstratively hostile to the U.S. -- A REGIME TRYING TO KILL AMERICANS ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS -- wouldn't let anyone else who hates us have access to WMD, and instead you endorse the ongoing circle-jerk going on between the weapons inspectors and the Saddam regime.

Be proud of that position. You and Kerry both.

MDFINFAN
08-11-2004, 01:19 AM
"we just couldn't wait":rolleyes:

You failed to refute any element of the fact pattern I provided. And then you endorsed our taking our chances and HOPING that a regime specifically and demonstratively hostile to the U.S. -- A REGIME TRYING TO KILL AMERICANS ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS -- wouldn't let anyone else who hates us have access to WMD, and instead you endorse the ongoing circle-jerk going on between the weapons inspectors and the Saddam regime.

Be proud of that position. You and Kerry both.

I started to answer a lot of those but then I thought, he's got to know the answer, if a dog is trapped in a corner what does he do. If a person trapped you in a corner, what would you do? We would lash out if a more powerful country had us trapped, Iraq resented being held down, just like we would. with all you stated, my final analysis is that Iraq was no threat. Korea calling us out gave me more pause to worry than Iraq did.

ohall
08-11-2004, 01:56 AM
I started to answer a lot of those but then I thought, he's got to know the answer, if a dog is trapped in a corner what does he do. If a person trapped you in a corner, what would you do? We would lash out if a more powerful country had us trapped, Iraq resented being held down, just like we would. with all you stated, my final analysis is that Iraq was no threat. Korea calling us out gave me more pause to worry than Iraq did.

I don't know of too many ppl who would type what you just typed about Saddam and him not being a threat to the world and specifically to the USA after 9/11. Most DEM's question the timing of the invasion, but all pretty much agree it was something that was going to happen no matter what within 2-years of when it actually took place because of 9/11 and the new world re-shaped by terrorism.

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-11-2004, 02:53 PM
I don't know of too many ppl who would type what you just typed about Saddam and him not being a threat to the world and specifically to the USA after 9/11. Most DEM's question the timing of the invasion, but all pretty much agree it was something that was going to happen no matter what within 2-years of when it actually took place because of 9/11 and the new world re-shaped by terrorism.

Oliver...

I hear you and you're probably right, but from everything I've seen he wasn't a threat. Would he in the future, that would depend on the world allowing him access to material for WMD. I just don't see that, but anything's possible. Good point though.

ohall
08-11-2004, 03:11 PM
I hear you and you're probably right, but from everything I've seen he wasn't a threat. Would he in the future, that would depend on the world allowing him access to material for WMD. I just don't see that, but anything's possible. Good point though.

But don't you see he had WMD in Iraq? That is a fact man, he used them on his own ppl. It's not like he used all of the WMD he had that day. He either destroyed them or moved them. Now did he do that years before the 2nd war, or did he do that days or weeks before the 2nd war? Another good question is why were there thousands of chem/bio suits available for use by Saddam's troops?

If he did move them or destroy WMD's days or weeks before the 2nd war then the actions of this country and the coalition to invade Iraq was obviously a wise choice. There's just no way to know when exactly this may have taken place, but as it stands now we know for a FACT Saddam is no longer a threat to this nation or the world.

To me that seems to be the point. I don't agree with the currrent game of gotcha some ppl are playing. This is not a game, this is real life. I'd rather our President do what has to be done, even if it means the INFO he/she acted upon was wrong. At least that way we remain safe. Please understand Iraq was a unique situation, no other country in the world is currently like what Iraq was 1.5 years ago. Not Korea, nor Iran IMO.

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-11-2004, 04:31 PM
But don't you see he had WMD in Iraq? That is a fact man, he used them on his own ppl. It's not like he used all of the WMD he had that day. He either destroyed them or moved them. Now did he do that years before the 2nd war, or did he do that days or weeks before the 2nd war? Another good question is why were there thousands of chem/bio suits available for use by Saddam's troops?

If he did move them or destroy WMD's days or weeks before the 2nd war then the actions of this country and the coalition to invade Iraq was obviously a wise choice. There's just no way to know when exactly this may have taken place, but as it stands now we know for a FACT Saddam is no longer a threat to this nation or the world.

To me that seems to be the point. I don't agree with the currrent game of gotcha some ppl are playing. This is not a game, this is real life. I'd rather our President do what has to be done, even if it means the INFO he/she acted upon was wrong. At least that way we remain safe. Please understand Iraq was a unique situation, no other country in the world is currently like what Iraq was 1.5 years ago. Not Korea, nor Iran IMO.

Oliver...

See I remember that being pre Gulf war 1, after Gulf war 1 we had those weapons dismantled as a part of his surrender, that's why we had inspectors in there in the first place to monitor the WMD destruction. so I see him post Gulf war 1 and you guys keep referring to him when he used them on his people pre Gulf war 1. I think the inspectors got rid of all of his weapons, that's why we can't find any. The whole argument for the last 12 years was did he let the inspectors find all the weapons, that's the argument, I think by the fact we can't find any, that perhaps he did. He didn't like it and lash out at us. But as you can see by the war, he really didn't have anything, or else I'm use he would have used them to defend his country and himself. I'm afraid that his final claim just prior to war was correct, that he didn't have any WMD. By now it would seem like you guys could figure that out. The inspectors were there and if they had a chance to finsih, since he was afraid we would attack, we could have verified this without killing so many of our troops. With our troops on the border, I don't think he would have tried anything crazy. The inspectors could have gotten the info we needed to finish Sadam in the WMD business once and for all. That's all I'm saying.

PhinPhan1227
08-11-2004, 05:18 PM
. With our troops on the border, I don't think he would have tried anything crazy. The inspectors could have gotten the info we needed to finish Sadam in the WMD business once and for all. That's all I'm saying.

Do you remember what having those troops on the border was doing to our economy? We couldn't afford to leave them there when the country was trying to keep a recession poised to turn into a recovery from turning into a full blown depression.

ohall
08-11-2004, 06:29 PM
See I remember that being pre Gulf war 1, after Gulf war 1 we had those weapons dismantled as a part of his surrender, that's why we had inspectors in there in the first place to monitor the WMD destruction. so I see him post Gulf war 1 and you guys keep referring to him when he used them on his people pre Gulf war 1. I think the inspectors got rid of all of his weapons, that's why we can't find any. The whole argument for the last 12 years was did he let the inspectors find all the weapons, that's the argument, I think by the fact we can't find any, that perhaps he did. He didn't like it and lash out at us. But as you can see by the war, he really didn't have anything, or else I'm use he would have used them to defend his country and himself. I'm afraid that his final claim just prior to war was correct, that he didn't have any WMD. By now it would seem like you guys could figure that out. The inspectors were there and if they had a chance to finsih, since he was afraid we would attack, we could have verified this without killing so many of our troops. With our troops on the border, I don't think he would have tried anything crazy. The inspectors could have gotten the info we needed to finish Sadam in the WMD business once and for all. That's all I'm saying.

Well I now see why you think what you think. Iraqi was unable to explain away, I forget the tonnage but there were tons of WMD missing. This was acknowledged by the UN and the rest of the world after the 1st war. During those times Saddam continued to play his lil games with the inspectors. This combined with the missing WMD's led the world to believe he still had a large stockpile of WMD. Never mind him firing on our planes from time to time enforcing the no-fly zone for 13-years.

No I don't see because we have not found WMD in Iraq as of right now that he did not have them. Many have tried to explain to you he could have destroyed or moved his large scale WMD programs to another country days or weeks before the invasion. I understand you refuse to think Saddam would do that. Why you continue to think of Saddam as some rational world leader is beyond me. He was a madman.

The fundamental thing to me is that he presented a HUGE threat at that time to the world, especially after 9/11. That threat no longer exists because we have a leader that could risk having a bigger 9/11 attack coming from Saddam or a Saddam funded terrorist act directed at the USA. I don't see how anyone would want to turn that into a bad thing, and then play this immature game of gotcha some are trying to push on Bush #43 alone. If you BASH Bush #43 for his actions you have to bash the Clintons, Gore, Kerry, Edwards and the UN who all agreed Saddam had WMD pre-invasion and possibly again a growing nuclear weapons program. The only discussion some wanted to get into pre-invasion was to allow another inspection cycle to continue to line their pockets with blood money from the UN oil for food program. If you want to place blame some where I suggest you look at France and the blood money they were receiving as long as they kept the USA out of Baghdad.

Keeping our troops on the border was not working, it was not cheap, it didn't work for 13-years and 14 failed UN resolutions. What would another weapon inspection cycle have gotten anyone? It would have only lined the French with more blood Billions. The inspectors got information that led them all to believe Saddam was playing a shell game with his WMD. I'm not sure why you think what you think, but to the world pre-invasion everyone agreed as a fact Saddam had WMD, and possibly again a growing nuclear program. Those are the facts.

If you want to vote for Kerry I just hope it will be because of a different subject matter. Because Kerry didn’t disagree with Bush #43, in fact he endorsed what he was going to do to Iraq and why he was going to do it. Vote for Kerry because he is for Gay marriage, oh wait he’s not for Gay marriage. Vote for him because he’s going to TAX you more and take away more $ from you to give to the lazy ppl of this country. That I can agree with, it may not make any sense to me, but to each their own I guess.

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-12-2004, 03:55 AM
Well I now see why you think what you think. Iraqi was unable to explain away, I forget the tonnage but there were tons of WMD missing. This was acknowledged by the UN and the rest of the world after the 1st war. During those times Saddam continued to play his lil games with the inspectors. This combined with the missing WMD's led the world to believe he still had a large stockpile of WMD. Never mind him firing on our planes from time to time enforcing the no-fly zone for 13-years.

No I don't see because we have not found WMD in Iraq as of right now that he did not have them. Many have tried to explain to you he could have destroyed or moved his large scale WMD programs to another country days or weeks before the invasion. I understand you refuse to think Saddam would do that. Why you continue to think of Saddam as some rational world leader is beyond me. He was a madman.

The fundamental thing to me is that he presented a HUGE threat at that time to the world, especially after 9/11. That threat no longer exists because we have a leader that could risk having a bigger 9/11 attack coming from Saddam or a Saddam funded terrorist act directed at the USA. I don't see how anyone would want to turn that into a bad thing, and then play this immature game of gotcha some are trying to push on Bush #43 alone. If you BASH Bush #43 for his actions you have to bash the Clintons, Gore, Kerry, Edwards and the UN who all agreed Saddam had WMD pre-invasion and possibly again a growing nuclear weapons program. The only discussion some wanted to get into pre-invasion was to allow another inspection cycle to continue to line their pockets with blood money from the UN oil for food program. If you want to place blame some where I suggest you look at France and the blood money they were receiving as long as they kept the USA out of Baghdad.

Keeping our troops on the border was not working, it was not cheap, it didn't work for 13-years and 14 failed UN resolutions. What would another weapon inspection cycle have gotten anyone? It would have only lined the French with more blood Billions. The inspectors got information that led them all to believe Saddam was playing a shell game with his WMD. I'm not sure why you think what you think, but to the world pre-invasion everyone agreed as a fact Saddam had WMD, and possibly again a growing nuclear program. Those are the facts.

If you want to vote for Kerry I just hope it will be because of a different subject matter. Because Kerry didn’t disagree with Bush #43, in fact he endorsed what he was going to do to Iraq and why he was going to do it. Vote for Kerry because he is for Gay marriage, oh wait he’s not for Gay marriage. Vote for him because he’s going to TAX you more and take away more $ from you to give to the lazy ppl of this country. That I can agree with, it may not make any sense to me, but to each their own I guess.

Oliver...

See that's just it, no one really knows if Saddam had this Large stockpile of WMD, or as you said the ramblings of a madman trying to look impressive and scare people from coming or attacking his country. His war machine was pretty much salvage in Gulf War 1, the mad man would have never given his weapons to another country, he didn't trust any one in the region and that would give them an advantage over him...so no I just don't buy that. We demonized him to justify going to war, that's a part of any war effort we're involved in. It's a part of the PR campaigne the Gov't carries to the country. Make the enemy look less than human and then it's easier to have the support of the nation, CAS3 101, the art of warfare. Saddam did do some things that were horrible like killing his own people, but that's happened in just about every nation on this planet and it happening now in Africa. Saddam isn't crazy, just didn't have the resources of the USA to fight us. If he really had that many WMD's how did he get them by us, we had to be studying that country for some time prior to war. At least I know the Military would require as such intel as possible. And I just know we had to be on guard for him trying to sneak WMD out of the country. So I will have to take a bye on that part. To many things were in place to prevent his war machine from doing anything significant in the last 12 years, and by the look of this last war, those restraints must have been working, because he put up hardly any resistance. I think that's why Rumsfeld was so willing to go with a small Armed force. We knew he didn't have much. And after watching this war, I'm convinced of that.