Does Bush really deserve all the bad press?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:04 am

SnoozeControl wrote: Oh, I see. So basically the prez can disregard what the majority of the population wants and go off on his own little agenda. Why? Because he can, apparently.
The leader's not a leader unless somebody's following. There are hundreds in Congress who can stop him.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:50 am

Adam Zapple wrote: OK, I'll get the thread back on topic.

Bush's mannerisms can be annoying but that goes for most politicians. It's how comedians make a living. Things that annoy me about Bush - the way he bobs his head and pauses everytime he says something as if it is really profound. The way he stands and walks with his arms away from his body as if he is waiting to be deconed.

What I like about him - he is driven by core beliefs and principles not opinion polls. Even if I don't always agree with him, I admire him for it. It is a quality that is rare in politicians.

What happens when you get "deconed"? sounds painful. I respect Bush for winning the second term, but I still don't like him, perhaps he sould be deconed, it might make him more appealing, not that he has to worry as being a shifty foreigner I don't have a vote in the U.S. anyway.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:56 pm

HI Scrat!! the thing is that scumwad clinton should have been prosecuted for buying real cuban cigars when i have to smuggle to get them!

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:04 pm

Hi Scrat! Welcome back? Just what is this job his Texas town in missing out on? School janitor?

Come on...you don't honestly believe that a man who's conections are good enough to keep him out of Vietnam and cover up busted drug-screens would actually go back to that, do you?:wah:

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:06 pm

i certainly did not mean to compare the two...i just like to tweak that embarrassment of a president. and his whore wife who would have had to had her grasping bloody nails removed from the oval office curtains nomatter what he did.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 2:35 am

Clintons Cuban cigars didn't cost 2000+ American lives

True, but only time will tell how many lives may be lost by his selling secret nuklar technology to China for campaign contributions.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:02 am

Scrat wrote: Now that's an ubiased opinion!!!!!:yh_rotfl

Alot of people don't like Dum Dum because he has the intellect of a chimp and is only a figurehead at best. He couldn't make a decision to **** his pants if they were on fire without consulting his staff.

This fool has lied to us all, he is owned by all around him and all around him are owned. To date this administration is the pennical of division between Americans citizens and their government.

This dumbass TEXAS IDIOT should go back to the town he is depriving of his services.
I wasn't sure which you were talking about until that last sentence. :wah:

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:58 am

far rider

The technology that runs the nukes is the battle zone and Clinton gave some of that technology away. That was stupid.

The technology is not that big a secret any more, arguably never was, it's getting it together that's difficult. Remember (not literally) John F Campbell editor of astounding stories go arrested in 1942 for publishing a story featuring nuclear weapons and a theory on how to make them-he had a heck of a ime convincing the FBI that he wasn't giving away secrets but extrapolating from the science of the day.

I would worry more about a terrorist dropping something in the water supply. The likes of the IRA,red brigade etc had nothing to gain by such an action but al queda? what do they have to lose.

India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons and the means to use them, Pakistan in particular is hardly a stable democracy

posted by far rider

Ahhh... wait a minute there, he supposedly has the "bigger picture" we elected him to represent us in the big picture, somewhere along the line we have to relinquish some trust to him to act on our behalf...

I would respectfully suggest that the words "trust" and "politician" should ideally not be used in the same sentence unless the "word" don't appears before the word trust.

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:22 pm

Adam Zapple wrote: True, but only time will tell how many lives may be lost by his selling secret nuklar technology to China for campaign contributions.

Do you have a source for this?

Hannity, Rush, Ann?

These bogus comments must stop

there are Americans lives being lost just about every day now.

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 1:06 pm

lady cop wrote: HI Scrat!! the thing is that scumwad clinton should have been prosecuted for buying real cuban cigars when i have to smuggle to get them!
You may be able to buy some from Rush, he needs money for his defense team. The ACLU can only help him so much.......teehehe:p

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 1:53 pm

posted by far rider

Agreed, so then the technology of deploying them becomes very important. Also the technology of rendering them oblosete... the arms race isnt just in the weapon itself but also in the delivery systems. Break the chain anywhere you can and its a useless weapon.

Control or disrupt delivery and you control the weapon. Technology is the key to that.

But I do see your point as well, the greatest threat is still in small drity nukes. Point well taken.

All the more reason to pursue after terrorists wherever they may be.

Think simple. you don't need fancy technology to do everything.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/2038549.stm

Missing materials

Two million locations in America are licensed to have radioactive materials, according to a recent report by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

It said that annually about 300 pieces of radioactive material went missing. There have been 1,500 such disappearances in the past five years alone.

A recent report by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in the US found that a 4,000-lb (1,800-kg) dirty bomb detonated in central Washington containing just a few ounces (grams) of radioactive material would contaminate only a few blocks.

However, it would lead to widespread panic, with hundreds of thousands of people trying to flee the area to avoid being affected.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/2037056.stm

A "dirty bomb" is the type of weapon you would build if you could not construct a conventional nuclear device.

It would be messy but effective for many reasons.

Chicago skyline It would consist of a bomb made of conventional explosives such as TNT, salted with radioactive material.

Such a bomb would be straightforward to construct if terrorists had access to radioactive material and were able to transport it without detection.

The obvious place to obtain radioactive material would be from a nuclear weapon. It is not unknown for criminals to offer such material.

But to most experts' knowledge, no such dirty bomb has actually been built.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:35 pm

Galbally wrote: I don't like getting into debate about American politics, cause I'm not an American, logically enough. But what would you find more disturbing. A man who used his position to have a dirty weekend with an intern, or a man who uses his position to start a meaningless war, based on a false premise, that has cost thousands of lives for no observable benefit to his country's interests? I know what I think.

So Bush was the ONLY one that thought Saddam Insane was a threat and a loose cannon?

Look again ............. Perhaps we ALL have Alzheimer's?

October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002

"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."

Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry > January 23, 2003

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

Sandy (The Bungler) Berger > February 18, 1998

"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."

Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

John Kerry > October 9, 2002 "I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002

Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Jane Harman > August 27, 2002

"I certainly think (Hussein's) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."

Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999

"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002

"[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam

has chemical and biological weapons,

and I expect that he is trying to develop

a nuclear weapon. So at some point,

we might have to act precipitously."

Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."

Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002

"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002

"(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002

"With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."

Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003

"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003

"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

John Kerry > January 31, 2003

"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein

is a threat with nuclear weapons, then

you shouldn't vote for me."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."

Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002

"I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."

Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003

"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."

Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998

"The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 2002"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998

"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."

John Kerry > February 23, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Al Gore > December 16, 1998

"f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:01 pm

Scrat wrote: It was the Bush Admin that collected and utilized the available data from the CIA and twisted it to suit their needs.

Bush is the head of that corrupt administration.

Get it?

Maybe he hasn't got it yet.

Apparently the American people are getting it (in more way's then one) This Emperor wears no clothes he is a facade and his polls are down, down, down!:-3

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:29 pm

posted by BTS

So Bush was the ONLY one that thought Saddam Insane was a threat and a loose cannon?

Look again ............. Perhaps we ALL have Alzheimer's?

Good point, maybe it's like the king/presidents new clothes, politicians so desperate to get re-elected and conform to the accepted view they all read from the same script and were frightened to speak out.

Never mind america, personally i only recognise a few of the names.

I watched with disbelief the debate in parliament as all our so called mp's fell in to line-it was like watching lemmings in action, all of them so scared of not being part of the group they jumped off the cliff rather than speak out. Especially the ludicrous claim that he was within 45 minutes of being able to launch a wmd attack on the UK. If that was true he would have done it before the war started

From Robin Cook's resignation speech

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm

Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.

Threat questioned

Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.

It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?

Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?

Too bad he died recently, bet he would have been able to give Gordon brown a contest for the leadership even if he did look like a gnome-unbraw as we say in this neckof the woods.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:12 pm

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: You may be able to buy some from Rush, he needs money for his defense team. The ACLU can only help him so much.......teehehe:p
You sillly guy! You must be really busy & not keep up. That Rush stuff is really old. You're supposed to be railing on Hannity now.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:53 pm

Scrat wrote: It was the Bush Admin that collected and utilized the available data from the CIA and twisted it to suit their needs.

Bush is the head of that corrupt administration.

Get it?
So what about the quotes from the 90's???????

GET IT???????????

Naw probably not........

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:09 pm

gmc wrote: Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?

Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?

WHY?

Does 9/11 ring a bell.

I know the song and dance you will reply to this..........

Saddam did not attack the US.......

I agree, but then in war there are strategies and if you got a globe out you might see the country that is right between the two countries we are trying to democratize... They are the real threat and would have been a much tougher foe than Iraq. We can contain them without firing a shot at them. After all, they do have nuclear abilities and have tested them......

When we accomplish this I believe the whole mid east will want democracy.

Have you ever looked at the big picture?

War is War......We are fighting a invisible enemy. Sorta like swatting flies.

UN inspectors............. what a joke.

The UN was TOO busy working with Saddam robbing the "OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM"

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 8:13 pm

Right well we are getting to the jist of the problem. What was the "War" for. It is finally abvious that apart from some stocks of old chemical weapons that were not really servicable, there has been one one significant WMD in Iraq following the war. So are they being hidden? Very unlkely as if they had been hidden (though how such devices and the facilities needed to maintain them could be hidden from the U.S. forces by an army that basically ceased to function as an army after a few days of the invasion is beyond me) why were they not used by Saddam while he still had the chance, once he know the reality of the military position became clear to him I'm sure that he would have used them. Or even if he didn't then why arern't the current insurgents using them now, a chemical or gas attact on a U.S. or British army compound or the "Green Zone" in central Bagdad would be far more effective than the car and suicide bombings, which are bad enough. Even the administration has tacitly admitted that it has prooven almost impossible to find evidence of the WMD's they believed Iraq to be in possession of.

I think that the WMD issue was a pretext for invasion sold to the American and particularly the British people by governments who know that there was no link between Sadam and Sept 11, but needed something to shore up support for a very unpopular war, in Britain this is certainly the case, though Blair has jet again managed to breeze through it. As to the link between Saddam and Al Queda, in fact anyone who knows even a little about middle-east politics knows that Saddam's Iraq and Syria are detested by jihaddists and fundamentalist islamic militants, this is becouse both were run by B'aathist parties that were secular, proto-fascist, with some elements of socialism thrown in. This is an anathema to the extremists as they use the Islamic faith and the Koran as the justification of what they are doing. Therefore they saw Hussein as a traitor to Islam as his own state was secular, there is no way (except in the situation we are in now) that the 2 groups would ever cooperate, in fact Hussein ruthlessly suppressed all radical Islamic groups in his own country.

In fact the U.S. and Britain have done the terrorists a favour by destroying the old Iraqi regieme as thats what AL Queda wants itself, and would prefer to see a Iraq that is more like Iran, a theocracy. Iran itself is getting into the conflict supplying weapons to insurrgents. The British are becomming worried that Iran might try to intervene more directly in Iraq in future. So there were no WMDs to find, the middle-east is less rather than more stable, it has become even virulently more anti-US, and the oil situation has not been improved as the facilities and supply lines are under constat threat, so even the real and only war aim that ever really made any sense is not being fulfilled.

So even taken the cold hard logical approach and say the war could be in some way justified if in increased the secuity of the source of our imported oil and gas, has not been achieved with this war, in fact its made the only people on whom we could depend on for secure Oil supplies from the region Saudi Arabia become more militant in its OPEC policies, to teach the West and teh U.S. in particular for trying to destabilize OPEC by gaining unfettered access to Iraqi oil. So nothing to any lasting merit has been achieved. I mean the people in Iraq are freer now than they could ever have hoped to be, but lets not kid ourselves that this was the reason why this or any simmilar war was ever fought, but some good has come out of it, but I still think that the cost of that war in terms of loss of life, unfufillment of key objectives, not even securing Iraqi oil supplies is far far too high and will continue to mount as the war drags on.

Bush has done enormous damage to his own country in this war, he last lost 2,000 solders, nearly 50,000 wounded men, many innocent Iraqis have died as well, a full-blown civil war is brewing, there are no WMDs, the neighboring states are being dragged into the conflict, (Jordan was bombed yesterday), the international community and the UN have been at this stage renderred completely ineffective in dealing with disputes such as this, and of course the anger in the muslim world is very great at the war in Iraq, thereby giving Al Queda the biggest recuitment sergeant it could ever hope for to indoctrinate another generaltion of muslim boys to turn into fanatical killers. It has also done a lot of damage to the wider alliances and partnership agreements that the U.S. shares with the rest of the rest of the world. And what does he have to show the U.S. people for his decision, oh yeah the tax bill for all teh financial costs of the war.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:40 am

Galbally wrote: Right well we are getting to the jist of the problem. What was the "War" for. It is finally abvious that apart from some stocks of old chemical weapons that were not really servicable, there has been one one significant WMD in Iraq following the war..

Yah right u r..........The WMD was.... Saddam.. before we liberated

Galbally wrote: So are they being hidden? Very unlkely as if they had been hidden (though how such devices and the facilities needed to maintain them could be hidden from the U.S. forces by an army that basically ceased to function as an army after a few days of the invasion is beyond me) why were they not used by Saddam while he still had the chance, once he know the reality of the military position became clear to him I'm sure that he would have used them. Or even if he didn't then why arern't the current insurgents using them now, a chemical or gas attact on a U.S. or British army compound or the "Green Zone" in central Bagdad would be far more effective than the car and suicide bombings, which are bad enough. Even the administration has tacitly admitted that it has prooven almost impossible to find evidence of the WMD's they believed Iraq to be in possession of. .

Ok.......... If they existed they might have been moved to Syria when he realized that the USA meant what it said, for a change???? (my opinion) If your poster boy (Saddam) was SOOOOOO innocent, why did he NOT let the UN inspectors have FREE rein to inspect? Why 12 resolutions?

Or I found this possibility that makes some sense:

It is likely that if Saddam no longer had a WMD program he did not know it. Why else would he endure over a decade of crippling sanctions? If Saddam had ended his quest for WMDs, it would have been in his best interest to open the doors wide and let the world see. By playing as the model citizen he would have regained control of his oil wealth and quickly been able to make Iraq a regional superpower again.

Instead, his henchmen did everything possible to obfuscate the true WMD picture and to thwart any inspection teams. If they had nothing to hide, they sure worked hard at trying to hide it. What if they were not just hiding a possible WMD program from inspectors, but also hiding from Saddam the fact that no such program existed?

Outlandish? Maybe not. Consider, for instance, that a WMD program is expensive. It has already been proven that the Saddam regime was siphoning off billions of dollars through black-market oil deals and other under-the-table methods. However, there were numerous claims on these funds. Buying the loyalty of the Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard did not come cheap. Just trying to keep the military in good enough order to crush internal revolts was already prohibitively expensive. Throw in the cost of presidential palaces, reconstructing Babylon, paying off Bath-party loyalists, and it is not long before you would be scraping for nickels. Iraq was not even able to find money and parts to maintain oil-production levels. The golden goose was dying.

There are already reports that Saddam's family members had drawn down on the dictator's overseas wealth to the tune of $6 billion in order to finance palace construction Ã¢â‚¬ they would not have done this if there were other alternatives available. Consider, too, the system-wide corruption in Iraq. Saddam and his family may have been the biggest looters of Iraqi wealth, but they were not alone. At every level there were people with their hands out, siphoning off funds for their own private use.

On top of all of this, Saddam was making demands, probably on his sons, that a WMD program remain a top priority. If they loyally followed daddy's wishes they would have had to overcome a number of serious impediments. First off, they would have had to rebuild the program almost from scratch, after it was destroyed or mostly dismantled after Gulf War I. That would have required overcoming stringent import bans and dealing with a brain drain that witnessed five million of Iraq's best-educated citizens heading overseas. All of this would have to be done under the watchful eye of the U.S.

What was in it for Saddam's minions, including his sons, if they were to scrape up the billions of dollars needed to start and maintain a WMD program? All such a program did, from their perspective, is drain off funds they needed for other projects, and draw the unwanted attention of bombers and cruise missiles. In their corrupt minds, a new "love palace" would always be a priority over a WMD site that was likely to be turned into dust as soon as it was discovered. If they shortchanged Saddam on a palace or his Babylon reconstruction there was a strong chance he might notice. However, it would be easy enough to hide that he did not have a WMD program.

Saddam was unlikely to be able to tell the difference between nuclear-grade graphite and pencil lead. What are the chances that the uneducated dictator could tell a centrifuge from a cow-milking machine? By claiming that the program was disbursed at hundreds of different sites, it would ensure that Saddam was never able to visit more then a handful and therefore would not be able to uncover the fraud.

This would explain both why U.S. intelligence reportedly intercepted orders from the top, possibly Saddam himself, authorizing local commanders to use chemical weapons and also why they were not used. Saddam ordered their use because he was convinced he had them to use. However, commanders never fired any because they were not really available.

Galbally wrote: As to the link between Saddam and Al Queda, in fact anyone who knows even a little about middle-east politics knows that Saddam's Iraq and Syria are detested by jihaddists and fundamentalist islamic militants, this is becouse both were run by B'aathist parties that were secular, proto-fascist, with some elements of socialism thrown in. This is an anathema to the extremists as they use the Islamic faith and the Koran as the justification of what they are doing. Therefore they saw Hussein as a traitor to Islam as his own state was secular, there is no way (except in the situation we are in now) that the 2 groups would ever cooperate, in fact Hussein ruthlessly suppressed all radical Islamic groups in his own country.

In fact the U.S. and Britain have done the terrorists a favour by destroying the old Iraqi regieme as thats what AL Queda wants itself, and would prefer to see a Iraq that is more like Iran, a theocracy. Iran itself is getting into the conflict supplying weapons to insurrgents. The British are becomming worried that Iran might try to intervene more directly in Iraq in future. So there were no WMDs to find, the middle-east is less rather than more stable, it has become even virulently more anti-US, and the oil situation has not been improved as the facilities and supply lines are under constat threat, so even the real and only war aim that ever really made any sense is not being fulfilled. .

Gee wizz........ If I were Iran I would be a little antsie too.

Its northern and southern borders in the future will be countries with democracies. Democracies that will spread.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:05 am

To the people who got annoyed with the last post I will say this. What I'm trying to say is that this war is just not good or sensible policy, I couldn't give a toss about sadam hussien, he is a monster and shoud be shot forthwith, great. I am also not arguing this to advocate the policies of the hopless and corrupt totalitarian regieme in the region. What I am saying is that this war has not served our interests in the west any good, what I care about is our well being and security, not theirs, thats their problem. I suported the war in Afganistan because it made some sense as a war to fight. I'm not some do-gooder peacenik who has a moral ojbection against war, but I would object to unessesccary wars or wars fought by small elites to satisfy their own self-serving agenda, as war is a rotten business and should only be contemplated by a nation when you are entirely sure of what and why your doing it, whether its is right, and more importantly how you are going to win and end it. I can understand why people feel patriotic and proud on issues like this, but you have to look rationally at situations and ask yourself is what has happened done us any good? None of this seems reflected in this war, anyway I said earlier that the argument against the war is pointless now, its more about how to get out of the current situation with as little damage as possible. Thats a different thread I guess.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:58 am

SnoozeControl wrote: Just a random thought:

When does a present-day war become a thing-of-the-past police action? Who decides?
The winner always gets to decide how the history books will spin it. That's why Lincoln's raping of the Constitution is now viewed as a good thing. It's why Rome and Greece were great and the Japanese Empire was evil.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:08 am

SnoozeControl wrote: Well, using that logic, who "won" the Vietnam War (which is now being called a police action.)... by us! What are they calling it? I'm sure our revolution had a very different description in the old English papers.

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:16 pm

Accountable wrote: You sillly guy! You must be really busy & not keep up. That Rush stuff is really old. You're supposed to be railing on Hannity now.
Like Clinton and cigars are not?

What about Hananinny? Rush ain't off the hook yet.

:wah:

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:33 pm

Scrat wrote: That has yet to be seen. I suspect we will be in Iraq for decades at great cost. Just like Korea. The rigime we have installed will never stand alone. You forget how corrupt a "democracy" is and how bad it can be in a rebuilding effort that Iraq needs.

Stalin held Russia together through the 20's and the 30's and it was not a democracy that he ran. A strong democracy cannot survive in the arena of mafia corruption and clannish minded people. Stalin took care of the Kulaks and the warring clans of Russia in a harsh manner and accomplished something.

Stalin is 'credited' for the deaths of far more people than Adolf Hitler...an incredibly evil man...

To ensure his position and to push forward "socialism in one country," he put the Soviet Union on a course of crash collectivization and industrialization. An estimated 25 million farmers were forced onto state farms. Collectivization alone killed as many as 14.5 million people, and Soviet agricultural output was reduced by 25 percent, according to some estimates.

In the 1930s, Stalin launched his Great Purge, ridding the Communist Party of all the people who had brought him to power. Soviet nuclear physicist and academician Andrei Sakharov estimated that more than 1.2 million party members -- more than half the party -- were arrested between 1936 and 1939, of which 600,000 died by torture, execution or perished in the Gulag.

Stalin also purged the military leadership, executing a large percentage of the officer corps and leaving the U.S.S.R. unprepared when World War II broke out. In an effort to avoid war with Germany, Stalin agreed to a non-aggression pact with German leader Adolf Hitler in August 1939.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:49 am

posted by BTS

WHY?

Does 9/11 ring a bell.

I know the song and dance you will reply to this..........

Saddam did not attack the US.......

I agree, but then in war there are strategies and if you got a globe out you might see the country that is right between the two countries we are trying to democratize... They are the real threat and would have been a much tougher foe than Iraq. We can contain them without firing a shot at them. After all, they do have nuclear abilities and have tested them......

When we accomplish this I believe the whole mid east will want democracy.

Have you ever looked at the big picture?

So you do do you. I wonder if you see the whole picture. Not least how what you do in the past always comes back to bite you.

If Iraq had nothing to do wuth 911 why invade and give islamic terrorists a fertile recruiting ground instead of going after the terrorists responsible? MNore to the point how id you become convinced this was a sensible thing to do.

This isn't some kind of mass movement to end western democracy it has everything to do with the political situation in those countries the terrorists come from and resentment of the part western democracies have played in it pursuing their own interests. Maybe if the west had supported democratic movements in the middle east instead of backing up repressive regimes because they supported western interests things might have been different and they wouldn't have become perverted into islamic fundamentalism.

Democracy comes from below it can't be imposed from outside. It took us hundreds of years to get to this point. it's only forty years or so since america had it's civil rights movement-you're hardly a mature democracy yourselves. To go from middle eastern medeivalism to 21st century liberal democracy takes some doing.

Saddam would eventually have fallen and been dealt with by his own people with considerable internal conflict as the factions fight it out. The internal conflict will still happen but with british and american troops in the middle of it all and Iraq as a fertile training ground for would be terrorists.

As to Iran, the best thing an unpopular regime can have is an outside enemy to distract attention

Hope it all works out but it will be interesting to see if all US troops will be pulled out or will they retain a base to protect oil interests.

Just out of curiosity have you read the 911 commission report, also what do ou make of project for the new american century? Not trying to wind you up here that is a serious question.

You might not agree with the song and dance but isn't karaoke is fun.

posted bt scrat

Stalin held Russia together through the 20's and the 30's and it was not a democracy that he ran. A strong democracy cannot survive in the arena of mafia corruption and clannish minded people. Stalin took care of the Kulaks and the warring clans of Russia in a harsh manner and accomplished something.

I think you could more realistically argue that he destroyed something that could have been rather than accomplish anything. A strong democracy can survive but only by the will of the people. Strong leaders are all very well but they need to be reminded that they do not have a right to rule and that bjust becausse they believe a thing does not make it so.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 8:14 pm

http://www.gop.com/Default.aspx?s=video

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:16 am

Far Rider wrote: My guess is Air Force... probably in accounting, payroll'd be my best guess. She's too smart to be in supply! (thats is a joke BTW) A little smile never hurt anything!:)

Far, you are so off-base with this comment, not to mention CONDESCENDING!!

First off, I am a Air Force brat. My father & mother & brother all served our country. How DARE you imply that Air Force was less than the other branches!!

Secondly, I have a friend who served in the Army. After she did her time there, enlisted in the Air Force Reserve. She could take a rifle apart & put it back together faster than any man in her battalion... and with very long nails, to boot!!!

What you said was so biased, I'm shocked.

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:25 am

Far Rider wrote: Yep youre right. Snooze and I talked it out. But thanks for bringing it up.

Thank you Far, much appreciated.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:30 pm

President Bush has been attacked for recent surveillance actions taken by the National Security Agency (NSA). Similar actions have been taken by our government over the past fifty (50) years. Where was the outrage during that period of time for other presidents?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCH ... helon.html

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:05 am

Here's a little irony having just passed the national holiday celebrating Martin Luther King. There is a steady drumbeat by Democrats calling for the "impeachment" of President Bush because of his alleged wire-tapping of American citizens in violation of the Constitution. The Kennedy and Johnson administrations (Democrats) are known to have wire-tapped phones used by Martin Luther King, but there was no call for the impeachment of those presidents based on those actions. Hmmmmm......

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:46 pm

Scrat wrote: I agree Beef that on some things Bush takes heat for things that are wrong or just do not matter. I blame this type of stuff on the media and my conspiratorial side makes me think it is a diversion from other problems we have.

American politics are full of hypocrisy, it's how they keep from ever getting anything done.

Worthless freaking bastards.
Amen to that. Throw the bums out!

Benjamin · Post by **Benjamin** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:59 pm

Scrat wrote: I agree Beef that on some things Bush takes heat for things that are wrong or just do not matter. I blame this type of stuff on the media and my conspiratorial side makes me think it is a diversion from other problems we have.

The problem with Bush is he doesn't ACCEPT the blame for anything. And while every president throughout U.S. history has screwed up in one way or another, they've all done some good things as well. That is, until Bush. See the thread where I challenged Bush supporters to describe his top five accomplishments. Nobody could come up with anything of any substance.