tyrion Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Don'tcha know mike is on the intelligence committee and has all the facts. That's why he can call people he generally likes dumasses in public. No, I was able to do it without being on the intelligence committee. It's easy with material like that to work with. I didn't say he was a dumbass only that what was written was dump, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherwood Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 I sense... a custom slogan!!! Ooh, I don't know... taken out of context that might actually be construed as a positive thing. Hardly follows the tenor of the custom title (well, my custom title). Steve, I stand by the admirable comment. The politically beneficial thing to do in Iraq would have been to leave after the major urban campaigns while popularity was still high. The fact that we have stayed and stayed and stayed amidst falling approval ratings means we're taking responsibility for the upheaval we caused there. I think that's admirable, considering the track record of American invasions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grawk Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Michael was right, there was a custom title from it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherwood Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Michael was right, there was a custom title from it Ding ding ding! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aerius Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 As a matter of fact it was brilliant if you know anything about strategy. Bush fought the war in Afghanistan where is could be won. Then he changed the battleground to one that was winnable when the enemy ran into the mountains. Sending troupes into mountains of Afghanistan is like sending sausage into a grinder. If you wanted to fight them fight them where you can win. Draw them out and you can deplete their strength. Go in and you deplete yours. Answer me a question then. If they aren't fighting in the mountains, then what the fuck is the 10th Mountain Division doing there? Sightseeing? Those here seem to be so smart but yet have no memory of all those Democrats that also supported the war in Iraq because of the intelligence information. Weapons were found after a long investigation. There is no sense in showing the evidence to those with such closed minds. It is on the net just look. Early release of the info would have lead to others hunting for it. Therefore when it was cleared then the info release but then no one wanted to hear about it. Oh yeah, you mean those rusty 10 year old barrels which had traces of some indeterminant substance on them? Apparently to some 9/11 is lost in memory as well and it's effect on our country. I could make a case that this latest phase of this centuries long war started under a Democratic president 30 years ago, Mr. Carter with his demonstration of weakness. Bzzt. Wrong. Try Eisenhower and the joint US/UK operation which deposed the Prime Minister of Iran and installed the Shah in his place. Which by the way was because of oil, Iran nationalized its oil shortly before this which majorly pissed off all the western oil companies. They lost their prime access, refused to negotiate with Iran, and made it into a security issue which forced the hands of the UK & US governments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ingwe Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Ding ding ding! Ya'll really love me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philodox Posted November 8, 2008 Report Share Posted November 8, 2008 Ok, stopped at page 4. Quite the drama, though to be expected. I'm just a Canadian, so my opinion doesn't mean squat and ultimately I don't really care, but I'm happy that America has taken the choice farthest away from Bush. That said, and sorry if this has been addressed already, McCain's concession speech was bloody brilliant! I kind of felt sorry for the guy after hearing it. Bravo. Though I tend to agree on more political issues with Obama, his speech seemed more like a sermon. Not a bad thing necessarily, but he didn't really say much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp11801 Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 As a matter of fact it was brilliant if you know anything about strategy. Bush fought the war in Afghanistan where is could be won. Then he changed the battleground to one that was winnable when the enemy ran into the mountains. Sending troupes into mountains of Afghanistan is like sending sausage into a grinder. If you wanted to fight them fight them where you can win. Draw them out and you can deplete their strength. Go in and you deplete yours. If Obama goes into mountains of Afghanistan's and Pakistan I will take that as Obama only wanting to weaken us as I believe he actually plans to do and to do so to place the blame on someone else such as Bush. Those here seem to be so smart but yet have no memory of all those Democrats that also supported the war in Iraq because of the intelligence information. Weapons were found after a long investigation. There is no sense in showing the evidence to those with such closed minds. It is on the net just look. Early release of the info would have lead to others hunting for it. Therefore when it was cleared then the info release but then no one wanted to hear about it. Apparently to some 9/11 is lost in memory as well and it's effect on our country. I could make a case that this latest phase of this centuries long war started under a Democratic president 30 years ago, Mr. Carter with his demonstration of weakness. Will the latest Democratic president elect follow President Carter's rather weak example in foreign affairs and just how much more blood will this weakness cost us in the future? Obama has shown only disrespect toward this wonderful country of ours during his public life. He has no respect for this country's military, it's constitution (his own words) or this country. I fear for her. When you have a moment try reading 'All The Shah's Men' by Kinzer for a more comprehensive understanding of the Iran situation. I honestly do not blame the Iranians for the Islamic Revolution we left then little choice. Unfortunately many of us have a fairly shallow historical understanding of the Middle East. Iran had democratically elected Prime Minister that unfortunately the CIA mistook as a communist during the height of the Cold War. We did not need to bring democracy to Iran they had it for themselves. Since 1953 we propped up the Shah, trained the Savak and armed Iran to the teeth (10 billion dollars worth between 1972-1976 alone). We then gave Sadam the green light to invade Iran after the Shah (our man in Tehran) was deposed by a popular uprising. Then Sadam uses weapons of mass destruction on Iran and his people with our full knowledge and wonder why they hate us. They do not hate us for our Freedom as GWB often states they distrust us because the Brits and Americans have screwed the Iranians over since oil was discovered there in the early 1900s. As far as Carter goes I do blame him for continuing to back the Shah and send arms to him but this situation started long ago and was policy for 20 years prior to his presidency. I am pretty sure no one has forgotten 911 particularly those that were born and raised in the shadows of those buildings but using that horrible day as an excuse to invade Iraq, gut the constitution and create mass fear as a means of extending control is Orwellian and criminal. The Democrats and Republicans both should have been less spineless in those dark days and held this administration to a higher standard prior to invading Iraq and signing into law the (un)patriot act. As far as your statement regarding Obama showing nothing but disrespect for this Nation, our military and constitution I am going to have to disagree on all points. As far as your point goes about weapons of mass destruction they were outdated and no longer viable chemical weapons held in storage and not ready for use. If he had weapons of mass destruction they would have been used during the war or at a minimum put in a state of readiness for use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hungrych Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 (sorry for the rambling 3:30 am writing style) I can't really handle reading this whole thread right now (got to page 14), but I would just like to voice my frustration with what I see as the incredibly hypocritical philosophy of the Republican party today. How can they claim to be for "small government" and when, over the last 8 years, we've seen a drastic increase in warrantless spying and a huge attack on our civil liberties, and the constant injection of beliefs (Religious or otherwise) that not everyone shares into the system that governs our lives? How can you claim to leave people to themselves while simultaneously promising to morally police them? "The Party of Values"? What if not everyone shares your values, like fighting against]/i] equality for homosexuals because it "goes against tradition/religion/whateverthefuck"? To put God into the Constitution? (Huckabee!) Do Republicans not see the complete contradiction here? The Democrats certainly have just as many problems, but at least (to me), they seem to be more upfront and less contradictory in their beliefs (please feel free to prove otherwise though). Though Obama is certainly no superhero, he seems to me to genuinely want to help people, and his life has given him quite a bit of perspective on how our system affects everyone. Hopefully he can do it correctly. I feel bad for our nation's political comedy writers though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aardvark baguette Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 Well every republican voter I know is pretty pissed off at the spending that occurred under Bush. Some to the point of calling him a bad president, but not all. The basic argument for the spending is obviously that those in charge felt it necessary, and put safety above all else. "Spend now or spend far more later". To me, Bush was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Had he not used all the resources available to him to prevent terrorist attacks, and had a repeat performance of 9/11, it would be political suicide. That said, I'm disappointed myself, but not to the point of considering him among the worst of the worst. People seem to forget the evidence presented of WMD's, and Hussein's own history of biological weapons. Pretty convenient. Its also a bit odd to me to pretend that a democrat would not have spent similar money, even if in different fields. The global warming thing became a runaway train in the press, and probably would have spawned significant damage if mandates and spending grants were given out. That too would be ridiculous to some, less ridiculous to others, the same way defense spending is now. With all the attention given to "pork" these days, its my hope that both sides of the isle will get with the program. Hopefully we can get the "Google for government" people are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrion Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 To me, Bush was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Had he not used all the resources available to him to prevent terrorist attacks, and had a repeat performance of 9/11, it would be political suicide. That said, I'm disappointed myself, but not to the point of considering him among the worst of the worst. People seem to forget the evidence presented of WMD's, and Hussein's own history of biological weapons. Pretty convenient. I'm curious as to why some blindly believe that the WMD intelligence that it is alleged led to invading Iraq was not fabricated or at best the truth about Iraq's possession of WMD ignored (that they had none). If it was fabricated or the truth ignored would you have a problem with that as a basis for invading? Would you consider all the deaths that were caused and the money spent in the name of fabricated or ignored intelligence a basis to conclude that Bush was one of the worst of the worst. Or do those deaths mean so little to you that you would ignore them just so you could put up some defense for Bush? Also, you may consider looking at the history of Iraq and the US back in the 80's in terms of the use of chemical weapons by Iraq against Iran, in particular our knowledge, acquiescence and actual assistance in terms of targeting those attacks against Iran. December 1983: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp11801 Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 Well every republican voter I know is pretty pissed off at the spending that occurred under Bush. Some to the point of calling him a bad president, but not all. The basic argument for the spending is obviously that those in charge felt it necessary, and put safety above all else. "Spend now or spend far more later". To me, Bush was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Had he not used all the resources available to him to prevent terrorist attacks, and had a repeat performance of 9/11, it would be political suicide. That said, I'm disappointed myself, but not to the point of considering him among the worst of the worst. People seem to forget the evidence presented of WMD's, and Hussein's own history of biological weapons. Pretty convenient. Its also a bit odd to me to pretend that a democrat would not have spent similar money, even if in different fields. The global warming thing became a runaway train in the press, and probably would have spawned significant damage if mandates and spending grants were given out. That too would be ridiculous to some, less ridiculous to others, the same way defense spending is now. With all the attention given to "pork" these days, its my hope that both sides of the isle will get with the program. Hopefully we can get the "Google for government" people are talking about. couple of quick points, invading Irag one of the most secular governments in the middle east as a means to prevent another 911 is a waste of resources if post 911 safety is the objective. The history of biological weapons use in Iraq occurred under the Reagan administration and then under the Bush (the father) administration. Our own people who were on the ground as weapons inspectors showed no evidence of an ongoing program. Remember Iraq at that time had been under pretty brutal sanctions that severely limited their ability to raise capital and we were flying daily missions in both northern and southern Iraq enforcing 'no fly zones'. There was no credible evidence of weapons unless you include forged documents regarding yellow cake uranium, a bunch of old metal tubes that were not specked for centrifuge use or third grade drawings of train cars with weapons labs in them provided by coerced testimony from an Iraqi living in Europe. This is the reason why intelligence agencies need to be allowed to do their work free of the executive office telling them what to find. As to a democrat spending similar on other things fair comment, for the money spent on Iraq we could have provided FREE health care for all or given out free college educations to every high school graduate or maybe fixed our crumbling infrastructure and yes as you duly noted installed a solar panel on every house in the US. I would have supported any of the options over an occupation of Iraq. I am not sure if you are aware that over 50% of the govt spend each year is on 'defense' this spend is more than the rest of all nations on earth combined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aardvark baguette Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 I'm curious as to why some blindly believe that the WMD intelligence that it is alleged led to invading Iraq was not fabricated or at best the truth about Iraq's possession of WMD ignored (that they had none). If it was fabricated or the truth ignored would you have a problem with that as a basis for invading? Would you consider all the deaths that were caused and the money spent in the name of fabricated or ignored intelligence a basis to conclude that Bush was one of the worst of the worst. Or do those deaths mean so little to you that you would ignore them just so you could put up some defense for Bush? I'm not arguing the intelligence was wrong, I'm arguing that everyone believed it at the time. If I were president, and given that information, I would have invaded too. As would Hilary and Kerry, who were both on record believing the intelligence. At the time, the choices were to believe the reports or take Hussein's word for it. I have friends and classmates in the marines, and their lives aren't trivial to me. Believe it or not, some of them side with Bush on the matter. I'm not blindly defending Bush, I'm attempting to weigh the positive and negative, something you've repeatedly refused to do. I've already stated he did things that pissed me off. But following flawed intelligence reports is not something I hold against him personally, as there was bipartisan support for the war at the time of invasion, and no amount of emotional pandering will change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrion Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 I'm not arguing the intelligence was wrong, I'm arguing that everyone believed it at the time. If I were president, and given that information, I would have invaded too. As would Hilary and Kerry, who were both on record believing the intelligence. At the time, the choices were to believe the reports or take Hussein's word for it. <snip> What I am questioning is why you believe the administration thought the intelligence was wrong as opposed to knowing it was wrong. Hillary and Kerry's access to the intelligence was controlled by those providing the intelligence. I believe the administration knew the intelligence was bs and invading because that was their plan from the beginning. I don't believe for a minute anyone can conclude that had Kerry or Hillary had been in the same position as Bush, they would have done the same thing. If they did, I would have the same opinion of them as I do of Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aerius Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 I'm not arguing the intelligence was wrong, I'm arguing that everyone believed it at the time. If I were president, and given that information, I would have invaded too. As would Hilary and Kerry, who were both on record believing the intelligence. At the time, the choices were to believe the reports or take Hussein's word for it. Fine. Prove it. I want cited statements that every single congressman & senator believed the intelligence. You said everyone, so you better come up with 535 on the record statements of "yes, Iraq had WMD's according to the intelligence we received". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp11801 Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 I'm not arguing the intelligence was wrong, I'm arguing that everyone believed it at the time. If I were president, and given that information, I would have invaded too. As would Hilary and Kerry, who were both on record believing the intelligence. At the time, the choices were to believe the reports or take Hussein's word for it. Your point is interesting as the way intelligence was managed during this administration was vastly different than in previous administrations. Intelligence was managed by the executive branch in a way that was not seen previously. You can take piles of raw intelligence and get the conclusion you seek. This is why there are analysts who sort chaff out of these things and come up with credible reports. In this case many raw data points were used over the objections of the analysts to support the claim of imminent danger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp11801 Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 What I am questioning is why you believe the administration thought the intelligence was wrong as opposed to knowing it was wrong. Hillary and Kerry's access to the intelligence was controlled by those providing the intelligence. I believe the administration knew the intelligence was bs and invading because that was their plan from the beginning. I don't believe for a minute anyone can conclude that had Kerry or Hillary had been in the same position as Bush, they would have done the same thing. If they did, I would have the same opinion of them as I do of Bush. Mike both Kerry and Clinton unfortunately did not stand up when called upon to do so primarily in my opinion because it would have been political suicide to do so. They were smart enough to know better and chose career over patriotism (IMHO). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hungrych Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 Had he not used all the resources available to him to prevent terrorist attacks, and had a repeat performance of 9/11, it would be political suicide. But he didn't! He didn't even follow all of the 9/11 commission's recommendations. And Katrina showed how completely unable the administration was to handle another disaster on such a scale. Its also a bit odd to me to pretend that a democrat would not have spent similar money, even if in different fields. Well yeah, but the Democrats aren't the "small government" party and don't spend all day telling you how little they're going to spend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrion Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 Mike both Kerry and Clinton unfortunately did not stand up when called upon to do so primarily in my opinion because it would have been political suicide to do so. They were smart enough to know better and chose career over patriotism (IMHO). I agree. That doesn't change the fact that the intelligence they received was the intelligence they were provided by the administration. As I said, had either been president and took the same action, I would be arguing that they made perhaps the single biggest foreign policy blunder in my lifetime and maybe even in Gene's lifetime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slwiser Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - Conflict in Iraq 500 Tons of Uranium Yellowcake Moved From Iraq to Canada-Truth! But no one wants the truth...just the propaganda... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefy Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 Yellowcake is your smoking gun? Minimally processed uranium ore that is MANY years away from even a single bomb, even if they had the rest of the associated equipment and the missiles with which to deliver it? I'm shaking in my boots Iran is years more advanced than this, but nobody has invaded them yet. Iraqi WMD were, and are still, a total fiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archosman Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 If memory serves Yellowcake is one of the early steps in making fuel for nuclear reactors. I believe you have to run it through gaseous diffusion or in a gas centrifuge to produce enriched uranium That was one of the problems with Chernobyl. It was designed for power and weapons grade manufacturing, which is why there was no containment building around the reactor. Had to have room for that big crane in there. Boom... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aerius Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - Conflict in Iraq 500 Tons of Uranium Yellowcake Moved From Iraq to Canada-Truth! But no one wants the truth...just the propaganda... It's called shoddy sensationalistic journalism, and you were sucked right in. There's exactly one nuclear facilities complex that's 12 miles from Baghdad, and that is Tuwaitha. It's a known storage depot, and has been since the first Gulf War in '91. Or maybe you can just read the Global Security article. It was sealed and inspected every year. 500 tons of yellowcake is not going to magically materialize there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopstretch Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 Offered without comment. Election spurs "hundreds" of race threats, crimes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aardvark baguette Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 Offered without comment. Election spurs "hundreds" of race threats, crimes "But it definitely makes you look a little different at the people who you live with, and makes you wonder what they're capable of and what they're really thinking." Right back where we started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.