Here Today... Gone To Hell!

interesting....

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46919

Cindy Sheehan, the so-called "peace mom" on a crusade to end U.S. involvement in the Iraq war, is publicly blasting Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., for her continued support of the ongoing conflict.

"I think she is a political animal who believes she has to be a war hawk to keep up with the big boys," Sheehan writes in an open letter posted on anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore's website. "I would love to support Hillary for president if she would come out against the travesty in Iraq. But I don't think she can speak out against the occupation, because she supports it. I will not make the mistake of supporting another pro-war Democrat for president again: As I won't support a pro-war Republican."

"I believe that the intelligent thing for Democrats to do for 2006 and 2008 would be to come out strongly and correctly against the botched, bungled, illegal, and immoral occupation of Iraq," Sheehan added.

The California woman, whose son Casey was killed fighting insurgents in Iraq, launched an anti-war movement when she camped outside President Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch in August and demanded to meet with the commander in chief, drawing national media attention.

She was granted a meeting with Sen. Clinton to discuss the war effort, but says the Democrat "apparently" didn't listen, as the senator told a reporter for the Village Voice, "My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain. ... I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. ... I don't think it's the right time to withdraw."

"That sounds like Rush Limbaugh to me," Sheehan said. "That doesn't sound like an opposition party leader speaking to me. What Sen. Clinton said after our meeting sounds exactly like the Republican Party talking points I heard from Senators Dole and McCain."

"There's trouble in paradise out there on the far left extreme which has become the Democrat base," Limbaugh responded today on his national radio program.

"You don't do this, folks. You don't publicly as a Democrat disavow a Clinton and live to do it again. Well, you just don't do it again and again without something happening. So she's one gutsy lady or stupid, one of the two. But something's going to happen to this woman. Something's going to silence her."

On a political messageboard online, one writer notes, "Who would have thought that Hillary's candidacy could be in trouble because she's not far enough to the left?"

Sheehan = nutjob

Imagine she thinks just because she meets with someone (in this case Hillary) and argues her point of view that that person should automatically start thinking like her.  ::)

Hillary has bigger things to worry about than siding with a far left wing nutjob...she is trying to position herself to run for president and, as was seen in the last election, its not smart to take an anti-war position during war time if you want to run for the presidency.

Why is this hard for Sheehan to see?

ah no ! i love hillary i think she is/was sexy ! and i hope she gets to be president.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I don't think Hillary or Bill are taking a pro-war standpoint.  Just because they have said we can't just withdraw doesn't mean they support the war.  I don't think we should be involved in that war, but to think we can just pull our troops out and go home is foolish.  That's what I thought she was saying, anyway.  Not that she was supportive of the war at all.

I am not a big Hillary fan, but I will give her credit on being realistic concerning Iraq.

 :(............judging by the title i expected a fight

i would say a catfight !!!


(http://www.preshing.com/kramer/catfight.jpg)
Elaine: Ok, why? Why do guys do this? What is so appealing to men about a cat fight?
Kramer: Yeye cat fight

Well she voted for it.  I am sick of the free ride the left gets for this war.  They have brilliantly placed the entire war on the shoulders of GWB.  Of course Bush orchestrated the war, but I can't believe people listen to these people placing the entire blame on Bush and none on themselves. 

Yet, despite the facts that there is quote after quote after quote from those in the Clinton admin. and the far left talking about Suddam's wmds, people still think that Bush created this WMD thing so that the US could go to war for oil and make money for Halliburton.  It is so absurd it is almost funny. 

I think Cindy Sheehan hit the nail on the head.

Still, I'll vote for Clinton in 2008.

Let me get this straight DickNixon

U support the US pulling out of Iraq therefore allowing the insurgents to run rampant and murder innocent civilians by the hundreds of thousands?


U support that? How could u support that?

Cindy Sheehan is a lunatic who needs prozac. Your son got killed doing something HE BELIEVED IN, so go home and bake some cookies or something.

I mean Jesus on a ten speed this woman is really fucked up to me.


I dont understand why others cant understand that even though the war is not a good thing, we have a commitment to the Iraqi people now and have to see it through.

First of all they voted to give the President power to decide to go to war. They did not vote to go to war. Big difference. Please don't try to change history here.

Second is that Bush took us to war, while Clinton did not. Bush ignored evidence that strongly suggested that WMD did not exist. The burden IS ON Bush's shoulders, since he is the one who took us to war. Period.

Since we have gone to war Halliburton's stock has doubled, Chenney's has skyrocketed to 8 million. Of course people are going to ask questions; as they should!

Nothing absurd or funny about that GNRNighttrain.

How about a commitement to our men and women who were supposed to protect this country?

Not nation build?

Just curious D. Would you have given a green light if the president said he wanted to send troops to Iraq for a regime change? Because that is all he wanted to do.......it was time for a regime change and he used our military, he lied to them, to do it.

I can think of nothing lower, with the exception of still supporting it.

We need to get the hell out of Iraq. Or at least have a plan. Staying there forever is not an option either. Mark my words, there will NEVER be a Western style democracy in Iraq. 90 percent of the Sunni's didn't take part in the elections or drafting of the constitution. There is already a civil war. Cindy Sheehan's son died because of a lie. He didn't die for what he believed in.  It's a lost cause now and we need to leave.

I think this woman is getting way too much coverage on the media. I get it, she lost a son, and it's bad, and she feels that she needs to go demonstrating against the war. But she's "just" a mother, with no experience on the bigger scenario, how leaving now would effect everything. Something has to be learnt from this for future (one would've thought that would've been done about 40 years ago) , but you can't fix what's already been done.

I think, that at this point setting a 'set-in-stone-date' for withdrawl would be idiotic and dangerous. The Bush administration fucked up big time on Iraq, but it has to see this thing through, or it could be even a bigger of a disaster than it already is. Now they're involved. They have a responsibility. They can't just say "whoops, we fucked, up, our bad.. good bye". I think the only thing that could top this mistake-after-mistake-scenario would be to leave now and leave the country in total chaos.

Having said that. More effort should be put to having a solid exit strategy. There will be a point after which the US will have to leave, and trust that Iraq will be able to take care of itself. It's a fucked up situation with no obvious answers.

You are changing history, as if this is significant at all.  I didn't see Hillary Clinton or John Kerry standing up crying to let the UN run its course.  Why weren't they more opposed to the war then than now?  I think its a convenient excuse to prevent sharing any blame. 

Exactly my point, you refuse to place any blame on any one else.  Sure Bush fucked up, I said this time and time  again.  But why can't you guys also place blame on these other people.  You let them sit and doublespeak and use conspiracy theories when they actually supported the war and thought Bush Suddam had WMDs.

For example, Nagin and Blanco were completely incompetent about Katrina.  However, any conservative that comes on here and tries to shift all of the blame to them and give Bush a free ride is just blinded by partisanship.

And France was making tons of money before the war because of the oil for foods program.  Does that mean that is why they opposed the war.  And OK ::)

it's funny you mention the amount of media attention she is getting. because a month ago she was on the news much more than she is now. in fact, this hillary story was barely reported by the main stream press.

could it be because now she's taking on the presidnetial hopeful on the left? hmmmm.

also, hillary has supported the war the entire time. can't spin it any other way. and she won't make the mistake of backing off her vote the way that idiot kerry did.

I've always thought she's had way too much attention.. After a while, I thought it was just fucking ridiculous how much attention she was getting when compared to the expertiese (sp?) she had on the situation. Out here, in Finland though... the media hasn't covered her basically at all.. the way it should be. After all, she really didn't effect any of our lives.? I haven't been following what Hillary has said about the war, nor at this point, do I care. We'll see about that a bit closer to the election.

I've never supported the war, and I never will. But I do think that you have to see the damn thing through now that you're out there.

Whether you support the war or are against it, leaving now would tell the world we don't follow through with anything. Abandoning the Iraqis would not be a good idea. It would turn into a terrorist state, right next door to our good buddies in Iran who want to get the bomb so they can nuke Israel.

We do not need to set a date on when we are going to leave, but we do need to let the Iraqis know we won't be there to wipe their ass forever.

You are changing history, as if this is significant at all.  I didn't see Hillary Clinton or John Kerry standing up crying to let the UN run its course.  Why weren't they more opposed to the war then than now?  I think its a convenient excuse to prevent sharing any blame. 

I'm not rewriting anything. They voted to give him the power, not to defy UN and go into Iraq like the wild west. They have been very clear on this.

Exactly my point, you refuse to place any blame on any one else.  Sure Bush fucked up, I said this time and time  again.  But why can't you guys also place blame on these other people.

I don't "blame" anybody, because nobody else launched the Iraq War except Bush and his cronies.

And France was making tons of money before the war because of the oil for foods program.  Does that mean that is why they opposed the war.  And OK ::)


So were American companies homespice...........

France was opossed to Iraq because it was wrong. And guess what? France was right.

Nice that you switch it right to France when I point out Chenney's profits and Haliburtons stock increase.

People should be ashamed of that. People died for them to make money.

SLC, I know you like to be partisan and blame everything on Republicans while excusing pretty much anything Democrats do, but you can't use the way the constitution delineates separation of powers between Congress and the President to avoid blaming Democrats for this war. The record is clear:


?Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There?s no question about that.? - House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, November, 17 2002

"If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late." - Delaware Senator Joe Biden, September 4, 2002

"We have to secure Iraq for our safety's sake" - Delaware Senator Joe Biden, September 2003

"Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations." New York Senator Hillary Clinton, February 5, 2003

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." - Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, September 4, 2002

"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." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


You can't rewrite history SLC. Though, I must admit, people like you have done a good job out of turning this into a political football and hoodwinking plenty of people into thinking that Bush created the WMD thing to go to war for oil and to make money. It's you who should be ashamed for playing politics with an issue like this.

Great Post Skeba, I am not articulate sometimes but this is essentially what I was tryin to say.

Let me get this straight Dick Nixon, Cindy Sheehan's son going to war, getting out of the war and being free but yet Re enlisting and volunteering to go back is somehow Bush's fault?

How was he being lied to if he volunteered to go back?

Someone explain that to me.

Bush fucked up going to war, but lets dont all sit here and act like it was Bush alone who felt the need to go to war.

Its easy to live in hindsight SLC and shoulda,woulda,coulda, but u cant do that.

the majority felt Something had to be done about Sadaam, post 9/11 made it impossible to put up with his stalling and his bullshit.

Once he was removed they were locked into Iraq for the long haul to get that country on their feet.

Bush now, however is fucked, cause either he stays and American lives are lost, or he leaves and innocent Iraqi's by the millions are lost.


I find it repulsive that u all support the mass slaughter of innocent human beings in Iraq. and support a country goin to Civil War and mass chaos.

I agree. If the US left, it will result in a civil war.

Gun battle sees Iraq near civil war
Fri 28 Oct 2005

GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN
CHIEF NEWS CORRESPONDENT

THE conflict in Iraq took another significant step in the direction of civil war yesterday when rival Sunni and Shiite militias fought a gun battle outside Baghdad in which 15 people were killed.

The fighting broke out after Sunni insurgents kidnapped a member of militant Shiite cleric Muqtadr al Sadr's Mahdi Army.

The kidnapped man's colleagues then mounted a raid on a house in Nahrawan, 15 miles south-east of Baghdad, freeing him and snatching two of the Sunni insurgents.

But Amer al-Husseini, an aide to Mr Sadr, said they were ambushed on their way out of the town.

Falah al-Mohammadawi, a police major, said the 15 deaths included 14 Madhi Army members and a policeman.

The incident underscores tensions among hard-line elements in Iraq's rival religious and ethnic communities at a time when the United States is struggling to promote a political process seen as key to calming the insurgency.

Yesterday's gun battle appears to have been the first such clash between Sunni and Shiite militias. Earlier this week, Sunni insurgents mounted attacks on Kurdish targets in northern Iraq.

The significance of the clashes is not yet clear. There have been previous warnings of a slide towards civil war, but the majority of Iraqis have so far kept faith with the democratic process, despite scepticism and outright opposition to the new constitution among Sunnis.

Most Sunnis opposed the constitution, fearing it could lead to the break-up of the country into semi-autonomous regions favouring rival Kurds and majority Shiites. Sunni Arabs also largely boycotted the January parliamentary election, enabling the Shiites and Kurds to win an overwhelming majority and shape the constitution.

US officials see Sunni participation in campaigning for the 15 December election as a hopeful sign that more members of the community will forsake the insurgency, enabling the US-led coalition to begin drawing down its forces next year.

But even as Sunni groups are coming together, the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance, which swept most of the parliament seats in January, appears to be fraying.

Iraq's leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has decided not to endorse the Shiite coalition which ran under his banner in January, according to sources on both sides.

Close associates said Mr Sistani's decision reflected his disappointment with prime minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's Shiite-led government.

Six Iraqis died and 12 were wounded in other attacks yesterday and the US military command said three US soldiers had died in separate attacks the day before.

In Baghdad, a suicide attacker rammed his car into a US military convoy in Karradah, killing one Iraqi passer-by and wounding nine.

In Dora, one of the capital's most violent areas, a drive-by shooting by insurgents killed a policeman. A similar attack killed a pedestrian in central Baghdad.

In Kirkuk , 180 miles north of the capital, a police officer died after a drive-by shooting, and two bomb attacks aimed at police patrols killed one and wounded six. In Fallujah, insurgents fired a mortar round at the Iraqi army headquarters, leading soldiers to return fire randomly and hit a nearby car carrying three teachers to a school, killing one of them.

On Wednesday, US aircraft destroyed more militant safe houses near the Syrian border, and apparently killed a senior al-Qaeda in Iraq figure who was using religious courts to try Iraqis who supported coalition forces.
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2155582005
---------------------



If the US abandons Iraq, it would be a betrayal to the majority of Iraqis who want to see the political process succeed, and it would pave the way for the insurgency to to nudge the situation from "near" civil war into a full blown civil war.

On the news I was watching some new recruits at boot camp the other week. They were saying (paraphrasing) ?After 911, everything changed. I need to do this. I love the country. We need to go into Iraq and spread democracy, because after 911??

These are great kids, don?t get me wrong, but they are incredibly naive. Most of the soldiers fighting in Iraq have been brainwashed by the military, the media, and of course, by Bush.

It is sad that they see everything that's happening now, as a direct result of 9/11. It's really astonishing to see how strongly the propaganda machine has tied what happened in New York, a hunt to get Osama, to the target not being Osama, but to take down Saddam, and to get the alleged WMDs.

Of course, anyone who doesn't agree with you is braniwashed.? This always amazes me about the left.? When soldiers support the war that THEY are actually fighting, they must be brainwashed.? Did any of you ever think that maybe just maybe they believe in what they're doing and have the mental makeup and desire to do something hard rather than goto anti-war rallies and preach parasitic, communist ideals.? If someone is youngand liberal, they're enlightened but if they're young and a soldier they're brainwashed.? In essence what you're really saying is that these soldiers are fucking morons who can't think for themselves and need your guidance on what to do.? Here's a little tip, these brainwashed soldiers have a better idea and grasp of the real world than 90% of the members here.

Great Post, Again, Opinions arent facts.

I use to be a die hard left winger but to be honest left wingers have turned me off because most I have encountered are too one sided for my taste.

I just find that extreme left wingers and extreme right wingers believe that there opinions are fact and are the only possible opinions and if u dont agree u are an idiot.

This is the main thing wrong with this country.

Me personally, I dont give a fuck if u are left or right, I just wanna hear your ideas and then judge them based on that.

We gotta get out of this Nut Job Leftwing/rightwing shit cause it just hurts everything.


The soldiers know what they are doing, and most would sign up and do it again if they had the option.

I dont understand why Left Wingers have such a hard time realizing that not everyone disagrees with the war.

Yes they are brainwashed. There aren?t two sides to everything. Some times one side is on the right. You could have said in 1939 that the German soldiers are "fighting for what they believe in??

They are brainwashed because when they talk about why they are fighting the war in Iraq they bring up 911. And I don?t know how many times this has to be said: IRAQ WAS NOT BEHIND 911!!!!!!

The whole pretext for was WMD. THERE WAS NO WMD FOUND!

So you see, those good men and women who are getting shot at are brainwashed if they think this war was necessary.

As for your comment about every one against the war ?preaching parasitic, communist ideals,? you are really grasping at straws and obviously have no idea about what the anti-war movement is like.? That's just a method right-wing, armchair generals employ, with that kind of name calling.

1) I like how instead of responding to D's post, you went and attacked the intelligence of the men and women in uniform ::)

2) Isn't it funny how you started this post with "On the news I was watching..." and ended saying that the "media" has brainwashed most of the soldiers fighting in Iraq :hihi: Maybe the media really is brainwashing someone? Somehow I don't think it's the soldiers.

1. I never said soilders were stupid. But the ones who believe that Iraq was somehow behind 911 have been misled.

2. Sure I watch the news. What's wrong with that? So what. I don't see what your point is. People can be exposed to all outlets and arrive to any conclusion they want.

U are missing the point Richard


Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that isnt what we are discussing.

Post 9/11 means u take every potential threat seriously.


Before 9/11 we put up with Sadaam's games and bullshit cause we had this inferior attitude like we were invincible.

After 9/11 every and any thing became possible.


U live in hindsight Richard and u cant do that man, why should u be allowed to live in hindsight?

So Iraq had no WMD, fine but did u know that?  No of course not.

thing is we went there because after 9/11 the motto was better safe than sorry.


I relate it to this, its like you thinking your GF is cheating on u and when u try to go through her cell phone she wont let u when she never had a problem with it before.

If she had nothing to hide, she wouldnt object to u goin through it.

same here, if Sadaam had no WMD, why didnt he let the UN do their jobs? Id rather they went to Iraq and found nothing, then turn a blind eye like with 9/11 and then a nuclear bomb go off in NY.

But go ahead and live in Hindsight DIckNixon, cause when u live in hindsight u are assured of always being 100 percent correct, thats pretty self righteous to do that shit though.


They went to Iraq, found nothing but after they found nothing it was too late to turn back, they couldnt just put Sadaam back into power and walk away, so u get what we have now, a war to set up some kind of resolution once and for all in Iraq.

We should have let the inspectors do there work. They would have determined there were no WMD. Bush and his cronies used the tragedy of 911 to further their agenda. The Neo-cons wanted to go into Iraq since 1996. 911 was the perfect excuse. The American public was scared and needed someone to blame. Darth Cheney, Rummy, Wolfawitz(sp) and jr jumped at the chance to exploit America's fear. Sadam was never a threat.

The US was wrong to go to war, PERIOD! The rational for going to war was WMD. Remember that? And now we have this big mess. 2000 American soldiers dead, 30,000 Iraqis dead. Not to mention the millions on both sides that will suffer a lifetime of psychological damage. This war was a mistake period.

There are lots of dictators in the world. Why aren't we spreading democracy all over world? Answer me this, do you think we would have gone into Iraq if they had been sitting on top of Olive Oil?

"saddam was never a threat"  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

that's gotta be the quote of the year in these threads.

i can understand people being against the war from the beginning. but to make a claim like this shows how partisanship makes you blind to reality.

And the biggest threat was Iraq?




Some other people seemed to be sure they didn't have anything they weren't supposed to have.






Look, they went to get the WMDs, then it changed to going there to liberate Iraq. Why wasn't the liberation of Iraq the main priority from the start?


The last Gulf War had a clear mission. Liberate Kuwait. Everyody could see that.

Same thing in Afghanistan. Get rid off the Taliban goverment. Easy to see why the soldiers went there and everybody supported it.


This time, things are a bit different.





Khadaffi was a huge threat (Lockerbie anyone?) but you never saw USA go into Libya to liberate the people.


I don't think Saddam was the #1 enemy they want you to think he was.



/jarmo

Saddam was never, never, never, never, ever a threat to the US. Axl Rose is a bigger threat to national security than Saddam was.

Actually, I rather think that asserting he WAS a threat, at any point during THIS administration, is the demonstration of partisanship.  Maybe he was PERCEIVED as a threat, but...well, the facts are the facts, hindsight or not.  Economic Sactions, we now know, had crippled his ability to actually BE a threat to anyone.  He had no chemical or biological ordinance, and, if he did, no way to deliver it to us.

 In addition, he certainly was NEVER, EVER a direct threat to the US, even during the first Gulf War.  He didn't have the technology to deliver anything dangerous anywhere NEAR us.  And what dangerous material he DID have was too bulky and obvious to deliver "in person" (ie: a suicide terrorist attack) on these shores.  A threat to foreign holdings or allies? Maybe.  But not a direct threat to this country.  And that's an undeniable fact.

Sadaam had sanctions, he didnt live up to them, that alone was enough to overthrow him.

Richard Nixon I use to think that u at least had a clue but after your last post, i dont think I wanna debate with u any longer, If u think Sadaam and Axl are on the same level as a threat to our country, u are in need for some deep guidance and are too far gone to save.

Was Sadaam our biggest threat? I dont know, I leave that up to the elected officials who we grant the power to make those decisions.

John Kerry thought he was a threat, Bill Clinton thought he was a threat, Blair, countless others.

Its easy to jump off a sinking ship when it comes back u were wrong but Bush doesnt have that luxury.

They couldve returned Sadaam to power and forgot the whole thing but what kind of message would that have sent to the world?

The message the current president's dad sent when they didn't get rid off the guy in the 1990s?


You trust your goverment, but not all of us are like that. Politicians very often forget they're supposed to serve the people and instead serve the purposes of their friends and their corporations. Happens all over the world. Not just in "uncivilized" and corrupt countries that nobody can even spell the names of.




/jarmo

I will definitely concede that point to u, I have no idea why they didnt do the job right the first time, that to me is unexcusable.

I dont agree or trust our government 100 percent, but they have access to info that I dont, plus a whole bunch of reputable world leaders thought Sadaam was a threat. Bush did jump the gun and mistakes were made but after 9/11, I feel Bush legitimately felt we had to act now.

hindsight is 20/20, I dont think its fair using the tool of hindsight to crucify someone.

When I said Axl was a bigger threat to US security than Saddam, that was tongue-in-cheek, although it's true. John Kerry and the Clinton's jumped on the bandwagon, like most Democrats, so they wouldn't look weak. Although some stood up to Bush's bullshit from day one, like my hero, Ted Kennedy.

BTW, anyone who can't type out "you" instead of "U" demonstrates how ignorant they are.

And what "kind of message" have we sent to the world now?

Because they were afraid it would turn into a mess?



That's why I don't trust them. Like with everything else, you hear what they want you to hear. If you're lucky, you'll hear more than one side of the story. In many cases we don't.

In this case they had access to info that turned out that it wasn't very good....



/jarmo

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=23348.0

Turns out, though, it's not just hindsight.  They had information that their intel wasn't rock solid....even then.

They just didn't share it with everyone else.

The point is that even with the knowledge that the intel was not rock solid, you don't want to take the chance that it is and not do anything about it in a post 9/11 world.

Nobody was 100% sure that the evidence was solid, just as nobody was 100% sure it was not solid. Had Bush failed to act, and we later found out, say after a chemical bomb went off in Tel Aviv, that Iraq still had WMDs and was willing to sell them to terrorists, Bush would have been ripped apart a lot worse for failing to disarm Saddam than he is now. The only reason you're now able to slam Bush now is because it turned out the intelligence was wrong, and you have the advantage of hindsight.

So why not bomb the whole world? After all, who knows who has what? Better to be safe than sorry.

There is no reason to believe that India or France or Japan or United Arab Emirates or South Korea or most countries in the world are doing anything malicious. They aren't lying, delaying, and deceiving inspectors, and they aren't violating UN resolutions. Why bomb them?

Better to be safe than sorry. After 911, who knows. We can't wait for the final proof to be a mushroom cloud. Fuck the world. Bunch of liberal, pinkos, what do they know. We should bomb everyone just to be on the safe side (sorry Jarmo, that means Sweden too, can't trust those guys). USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!USA!!!

Wilson said the evidence was not there.

And guess what they did? The outed his undercover CIA wife, that is what they did.

So........

Who is the traitor to the American people, and military here? The Bush run White house, that is who. These guys lied through their teeth to go into Iraq, dismissing all reports showing a lack of sufficient evidence.

What is so funny, is how you guys still defend it, even though we all know the truth now.

Just stop it already. Fucking stop.

Bush's camp is imploding now. There is no denying this any longer.

They have just given Libby 5  counts, he is facing serious time. While at the same time they have not charged anybody else. Wonder why that is? They want him to role over on Chenney and Rove. With the time he is facing, he will give them up to save his ass. Nobody is doing 30 yrs for those dickheads I can tell you that much.

How much more do you guys want here?

I'm waiting for you to attack Fitz, along with the rest of the right. It is your style afterall. Anybody who reports the truth, or asks for accountability of this administration is automatically attacked as quickly as possible.

I've said the same thing since the very begining and it all is happening right now. However I never would have guessed that man of such integrity would stand up and say "enough", as Fitz is now. It is a great day in America when somebody decides to hold thugs and liars to the TRUE standard of America.

Do you really think he was serious?  ::)

Or do you think maybe it was an analogy to make a point?

I think he was dead serious.

He basically said Sadaam wasnt a dangerous man, I dont understand how anyone could believe he wasnt. Ask the kurds if he is dangerous or not.

After 9/11 u had to start asking the question What If.

IF Sadaam had nothing to hide, why was he being so deceitful?? He brought it upon himself.

All I hear is Left Wing anti War mumbo Jumbo all day long but I havent heard anybody give a strategy of how exactly to pull out of Iraq and avoid the mass slaughter of innocent people.

Monday Morning Quarterbacks can sit behind a screen and say, "Fuck Iraq, pull out, Fuck em"

But these are real lives here, Human beings who value life as much as u and I and everyone else, So how is it U Left Wingers are heartless and have absolutely no sympathy for what consequences pulling out of Iraq would bring?


I dont wanna hear about Rove or Bush, i dont wanna hear about Sheehan, I dont wanna hear about Mier

I wanna hear some kind of logical strategy.

Until then, U have no right to criticize and crucify someone with your hindsight.

The intelligence was wrong, Bush and the US fucked up, that is 100 percent correct, We know that already, but they tried to right a wrong and do something that shouldve been done a decade earlier.

Now we are in a war right or wrong, what can be done about it besides the ever so popular and intelligent; Pull out!

Oh So its Ok for Democrats to Jump on a bandwagon and brainwash soldiers and send them to die so they won't look weak, but George Bush is a murderer?

U are a fuckin hypocrite dude.

Those Democrats are JUST AS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT IS GOIN ON RIGHT NOW AS BUSH IS.

so why is Bush the evil one?

I think Bush is a shitty president but I hate how he is singled out when he wasnt the only one who believed in this.

Because Bush is the President and got us into this, this is his war. Yes, the dems were weak not to stand up to him, and many are hawks. But the buck stops with the president.

I think he was dead serious.

Then you are a damn fool.

He basically said Sadaam wasnt a dangerous man, I dont understand how anyone could believe he wasnt. Ask the kurds if he is dangerous or not.

He said he was not an immediate threat to the USA, which he WAS NOT.



Monday Morning Quarterbacks can sit behind a screen and say, "Fuck Iraq, pull out, Fuck em"

Better not even think about including me in that. Or hardly anyone else around here. I have said the SAME THING the entire time, as most people here have. So better get your facts straight.

But these are real lives here, Human beings who value life as much as u and I and everyone else, So how is it U Left Wingers are heartless and have absolutely no sympathy for what consequences pulling out of Iraq would bring?

You are building up something that is not true and tearing it down. Nobody hear has said they don't care about lives in Iraq. Yet I see double talk from your posts. First you say we gotta stick the war out, in which case more civilians will die. Then say the left is "heartless" towards those very same civilians for "wanting to pull out". Gimmie a fucking break.


I dont wanna hear about Rove or Bush, i dont wanna hear about Sheehan, I dont wanna hear about Mier

I bet you don't, because then you might have to answer some tough questions.

I wanna hear some kind of logical strategy.

I gave it...twice.

Until then, U have no right to criticize and crucify someone with your hindsight.

There is no hindsight dude. You had better get you facts straight before typing out this crap.

The reason that Bush gets most the blame is, because he is the president. The call was - in the end - his.

And after all the info that's been leaked into the public, about how the white house lied to persuade people behind the war, I think, shows pretty well how premeditated, and thought out the whole plan was. It shows that they had chosen to go to Iraq, WMDs or not. There were a lot of democrats backing Bush's plans to attack, but as far as we know, they had the same amount of info as we did. I don't think almost anyone outside the white house had access to the latest intel on Iraq like George Bush had. He, and his crew _knew_ that the public wouldn't get behind an attack with the actual info that they had, so the bullshit idea of liberating Iraq was made. I remember seeing a thing on the news about a phone conversation or a letter (can't remember which) about how the intel did not justify an attack, and how it would not go over well as such to the general public.

I think the whole thing spun out of control when Osama turned out to be a bit harder to catch than people thought it would be. Something had to be done, and the no. 1 enemy changed from Osama to the "terrorist world". And since it's nice to have a face for an other wise distant term "terrorist world", Saddam was just perfect. The general public knows him, so no introduction was needed... This, of course, is not the full story, or the 100% truth, but from where I'm standing and what I've read, it's not all that far from the truth.

So he, and that administration is to blame for this mess. They had the facts, they distorted the truth about what Saddam was, and was not capable of. They made the calls. That's why the blame doesn't get "shared"  with everyone who was behind the attack. (I believe this was mentioned by someone already)

Word is Bush 41 didn't approve of the invasion...

To call people against the war/invasion heartless is just bullshiit. In March/April of 2003, we took to the streets, all around the world and called a spade a spade, and said this was a terrible mistake. While you just shouted "USA! USA! USA!" and tied a yellow ribbon around your front tree and said "support the troops."

So fuck you, you self-righteous douche.


2 personal attacks against D.   :o
i thought personal attacks were discouraged on this site.  ???
oh wait, i forgot, you're on the liberal side so it's ok.  ::)


back on topic, i generally lean a little to the right. but if my views are in line with hillary, i don't think i'm being too partisan.

I resent being called "heartless" because I was against the invasion of Iraq. The implication that I don't care about US soldiers or Iraqi civilians because I don't support the war is unfounded and makes no sense.  And I consider that a personal attack. I thought I made that clear.

Labeling people "liberal" (as though it were a bad thing) is just another stupid attempt to smudge opposition.

we can agree to disagree.

IMO, anyone who has several UN Resolutions passed to try to control them, must be somewhat of a threat.

the guy is on trial for genocide and he had unlimited financial means.

clinton demanded a regime change. i think in part because he was a threat.

Everybody has to stop with the name calling, and start discussing the issues instead. It's stupid, and if someone has to think that they need to use name calling as a way to drive their point through, they're at the wrong board. That goes for every conservative, liberal, non partial, whatever guy and girl here. And you all know better.. So why the fuck do I find ?that some of you need to be reminded of this rule every 2 weeks? If you feel that you're insulted by a member, count to ten before posting, don't just throw shit back at them.

To say someone is ignorrant just by the way they write isn't cool, just like calling people heartless isn't. Especially if they've opposed the war from the get go.

And please try to only quote the last thing you're replying to. If you don't know how, ask.

Okay... Back to matter at hand.

where did anyone use the "liberal" term in a negative way???

i certainly didn't. so please don't try to say i'm making personal attacks.

take a deep breath and have a beer, bro. you seem really angry.
 :beer:

   "oh wait, i forgot, you're on the liberal side so it's ok"
 
The use of the term "liberal" there is pejorative 

And no I am not angry.

But I don't understand why my cloths are all shredded and why is there a big whole in the wall? And what's this news story about a green giant running rampant in my town?

I love how Richard twists shit around.

Did I say people who didnt support the war were Heartless?  NO


I said people who think we can just pull out and have no regard for the Iraqi people there are heartless.

In the US we have this imaginary belief that our lives are more valuable and important than everyone else's lives.  I hear people all the time say "Fuck Iraq" 2,000 US soldiers are killed, 2,000 more will be killed, so fuck 1 million Iraqi's etc etc. I just dont understand how anyone can support Cindy Sheehan, I have no problem with LIberals hating Bush cause I dont like Bush either, but when it gets to the point that your hatred for Bush is so much, u start siding with nutjobs like Sheehan and then u have people believing Bush attacked his own country, it starts getting scary and out of hand.

There is a poster on my 2ksportsforum that has a thread saying he has video proof that Bush committed 9/11. Is our country so fucked that this possibility could exist? I mean its ludicrous to believe that.

SLC if u have given an exit strategy, I sure as fuck have missed it, cause I see a whole lot of bitching but no possible solutions.

Anyone can say, Impeach Bush, Kick him out of office but realisitically that wont happen.

i hear Democrats yellin to pull out, but how can we?


I dont wanna read 45 paragraphs, I want a post dedicated to a plausible, Possible exit strategy, nothing more or less.

That is the problem, you don't want to READ. Go read already dude. There is endless information about all of this, beyond the headlines, beyond the hyper inflated fake patriotism, behind the pseudo-villians, behind it all are facts. Facts which require reading and lots of it.

The first domino has been pushed down: Libby. Bush probably won't be impeached, but you never know. Certainly what is going on now is much worse than what Nixon was involved with, and certainly worse than Clinton lying about a blow job (which I know everybody loves to bring up when it gets tough for them.)

I think people who don't hold the president accountable for his lies which caused the deaths of thousands of human beings HEARTLESS. That is what I think. And if you also consider that "bitching" then I would call that heartless as well.

The argument is pure mud anyway. Person 1 points out Bush's lies and wrong doings, while Person 2 (avoiding the initial point) puts the person on the defense asking "what do we do now?" What an absolute crock of shit that is, yet typical. When push comes to shove, the pro-war crowd ALWAYS turns the point away and goes into attack mode. Worked for Rove for years.........but not much longer.

My point has been made. Dig it up, unless reading is too much for you.

Yah, check out moveon.org, mediamatters.com, or http://www.thetinfoilhatlinux.tk/.

Facts based on inferences and conspiracy theories.  Basically you keep reading until you find what you want to hear.

Bush had nothing to do with this, and noone has even come close to suggesting that he did.? Are you suggesting he had a role in this?? Nixon was being impeached for authorizing the breaking and entering of the watergate hotel.? He would have been charged with the conspiracy.? Here, Libby is not charged with the actual offense, but with obstruction of justice and perjury, which ironically all of the sudden have become actual crimes in the eyes of the left.

What lies?? Oh... the ones based on the facts that you previously mentioned.? Misjudgment and incompetence, yes.? But lies, no.

Actually its not a crock of shit.? We got into this war, it was discussed during the last election and Bush won.? Now the argument should be not over whether we should have went to war, but what should we do next.? Since many don't have any idea of how to do anything better than the administration, they tend to dodge this question and resort to discussing the merits of the war.

Very Nice Berkeley.

When In doubt, go back to the "We shouldnt have went to Iraq" argument.

We are there, like I said, right or wrong, we are there, Bush didnt lie, he had info that didnt pan out, Some act like Bush is so evil that he has this plan to kill americans just to get oil.

I mean think of how ridiculous that is, there have only been a handful of leaders in the history of the world that evil, Bush is a bad president, not very intelligent, but he isnt evil, he is just in a mess he that he cant win either way.

2,000 American troops, or Genocide? U decide, the troops will make u look bad in the US, the Genocide will ruin u worldwide.

Why does Bush get all the blame? arent there almost 30 other countries believing in this as well?

Why doesnt Tony Blair get any of this?

Oh yeah I forgot, I guess Bush has him brainwashed as well.

Why is it so hard to believe that not everyone shares the opinion of the Left?  SLC your problem is, u think u know it all and that your opinion is somehow greater and mightier than anyone elses and that is bullshit. there is plenty of room for more than just one opinion.

U talk and talk and talk about bias in the media but u yourself advertised moveon.org and that is a die hard left wing site, so how can u bitch about biased medias when u yourself believe everything hook,line, and sinker that those extreme left wing sites advertise.

I am not reading through 100 posts to find your idea of exit strategy, so Ill assume since u refuse to re-post it, that u in fact dont have one, or are waiting for moveon.org or someplace like that to post one for u to copy.

OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHH  BURN!!!! :rofl:

Somebody makes an excuse as to why Bush should get the blame:
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=23320.msg408352#msg408352

It gets shot down:
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=23320.msg408954#msg408954

So you guys go and contrive a new one:
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=23320.msg410086#msg410086

I don't know if it's funny or sad at this point, but it appears like you guys are DESPERATE to find excuses to vilify Bush and rip on him. It's as if your entire universe will collapse if Bush is not the evil greedy oil war monger you paint him to be.

You talking about "facts"? LOL! You have no shame SLC  :rofl:

Let's look at this here:

So the Bush run White House outed his wife. Can you back this up with "facts"?
If the White House outed his wife, why was nobody in the White House even charged for outing her name, Mr Conspiracy Theory?

He probably doesn't get "attacked" here because the invasion wasn't a British idea from the start.




/jarmo

No, he said he wasn't a threat. As in, a threat to us. There are LOTS of dangerous people in the world.? Dangerous does not equal threat.


He complied with the resolutions, in the end.? He provided the list he was required to provide.? There WERE issues with the list, but, as the UN inspectors said, those inconsistencies were well withing their means to investigate.? We said the list was garbage because it didn't list a current WMD program, or any material from it.? How do you prove you don't have what you don't have?

You do know, as well, that Israel has violated more UN resolutions than any country since the UN came into existance.? They also have WMD's.? Maybe we should bomb them?


I gave what I think is a pretty logical strategy for exit not long ago.? I'm not going to go hunting for it and repost it, though.? ?You can search my posts to find it.? Not that it matters.? We're not in charge.....

(Edit: In this thread: http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22706.msg396578#msg396578)

And I think many of those against the war would actually be pretty happy if this administration simply communicated a viable and comprehensive exit strategy with actual measurable goals and outcomes.? But, as Sr. Members (current and former) of this administration have admitted: There never has been an exit strategy.

Wow.? Israel must be the biggest threat to the world since the UN's inception, then.


Clinton demanded a regime change because the guy was a proven loose cannon, and he was loony.? Those 2 things, in and of themselves, are not great qualities to have but when they manifest in a world leader...well, they're not great for geopolitical stability, either.? ?So, you express the opinion that the world might be better off without Saddam in power.? That's not any indication that Saddam was a direct threat to the US (to his own people, maybe...)

D, you gotta understand...you're sort of a "johnny come lately" to these discussions.  There are some things (and I'm not saying SLC's strategy is one of them...) that have been posted 2,3,4,5 times in varying threads.  At some point, it gets tiring saying the same things or posting the same links over and over again.  It's just easier to refer you to our post hisory if you REALLY care to find out the answer to your question....and if you're going to level accusations at people, and they tell you they're unfounded, why, and where to find the info....the onus is really on you, at that point.  You either put in the effort required or you walk away from the discussion.

Its not that Bush shouldn't get any blame, but many chose to give others free rides.  People that openly supported the war have pulled a 180 on their stance.  Some of these people actually call Bush a liar etc.

He complied with the resolutions?  I don't think so.  He refused to let us interview certain scientists; he would not let us into all of the facilities; and he would not provide evidence that he destroyed certain things. 

Of course the inspectors thought they could figure everything out.  However, the US got tired of playing the games after 10 years.  No one thought he was complying at the time, the only question was whether we should continue to play the game and give him more time to comply.

Not true.? Weeks before the "invasion" he WAS giving us access to all the facilities inspectors requested access to, including the presidential palaces.? There is a LOT of news coverage on the subject.? He also allowed us to interview all the people we wanted to...what he DIDN'T allow was one on one interviews, without representation from his government present.? I can see what his objections would be, considering he saw the UN as a puppet of the US.? On his side (and I'm certainly not supporting the view), he would say it was in his best interest to ensure that "proper" interviewing was taking place and no one was being strong armed by the UN investigators into making a false statement OR even just ensuring that what UN inspectors SAY the scientists were saying was what they were saying.? On our side, we insisted that having ANY representative of Iraq present was, in itself, a strong arm tactic by that govt to ensure that the scientists weren't talking.

They also DID provide proof of destruction of material.? That was much of what "the list" concerned.? SOME of that information inspectors knew to be incorrect, but not a majority of it (according to the UN inspectors, themselves).? What discrepancies there WERE, the inspectors said they could easily track down in a relatively short period of time.?

What they couldn't provide was proof of destruction of material that didn't exist, had never existed, but that we insisted DID exist.

So, yes, he was in the process of complying with the resolutions in question.


True enough.? Of course, the REST of the UN was saying he should have more time, given the level or cooperation he had begun to display.? ? Turns out, they were right.? And we were basing our "being tired of playing games" on faulty intel that we had good reason to suspect was faulty.  We insisted that giving the inspectors more time would be dangrous as it would give Saddam more time to construct more weapons.?We insisted Saddam was an IMMINENT threat, and that he could attack at any minute. So, we chose, rather than to use a bit of discretion given the information at hand, to rush to action. 

now you're spinning things. there's plenty of loose cannon leaders out there. clinton talked frequently about "containing" saddam. he did an ok job at that. but clinton would not have tried to contain him if he was not a threat to U.S. interests.

I'm not spinning anything.  You gave your opinion on what you think Clinton meant.  I gave mine.  Were he an actual, imminenent threat, more appropriate action would have been taken, I think, rather than words and political/economic maneuvering.

Here's a recap of what actually happened in January of '99:

"In an interview with Kuwait Television, Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk says the Clinton Administration has developed a new approach to Iraq which is, "containment plus regime change." This policy, he says, has two basic principles: the change must come from the Iraqi people themselves and from inside Iraq, and the U.S. will maintain its commitment to the territorial integrity of Iraq. "

That's pretty telling.  Clinton's policy was that Saddam was Iraqs problem and that we would prevent him from becoming ANYONE elses by "maintianing the commitment to the territorial integrity of Iraq" (in other words, not letting them invade other countries along his borders).  To me, that says Saddam was only a threat to his own people, and, perhaps, his direct neighbors.

You think he was a threat to this country. Not dangerous, not a POTENTIAL threat, or a PERCIEVED threat, but an actual threat to the US.

So, then prove it.

I've given you definitive fact that he was not a direct threat, all verifiable.  He had not the means to be a threat to this country.  He just didn't. 

You're giving me opinion on what Clinton "meant".

you give a quote from 1999. hilarous. cause clinton had been dealing with saddam and taken several actions against him for the previous 6 years. just more spin by you.

So you put words in my mouth, don't take it back when I point it out to you, talk about something you really have no idea about, then are too lazy to look up my post (that I have made and am not looking up for you) and then have the nerve to come on here and tell me I'm waiting to clip and paste an opinion from somebody else as my own?

Pardon my French, but you are an asshole.

Since it's too much trouble for SLC to post it himself, apparently he's too busy calling people assholes ::) ,I'll help him out
Here's what SLC thinks we should do in Iraq:



http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22340.msg386616#msg386616

again, someone on the left uses an obsenity towards a poster.

Will - wasn't you that recently said if those on the right could stop insulting the left, you'd begin to take us seriously. you should really look at who typically insults who in these threads.

SLC - instead of calling people "ASSHOLES", wouldn't just be easier to state your position for those of us who do not read every thread in on these boards. afterall, it's a pretty basic, simple and straight forward strategy you have...."we should, pull out."

Thing about u is, U use to be a real cool guy, but somewhere in your crusade to save the universe u became a condescending prick.

U feel that everyone should bow down to the almighty SLC and believe what u believe, and if not u actually take it personally and let it affect relationships.

U need to realize that everyone has their own opinions.

U arent right, I am not right, when it comes to things such as politics and religion, there are no definitive right or wrong answers, only various opinions.

U need to get over yourself and thinking u have everything figured out and that u have all the answers and start realizing that the entire world doesnt reflect your opinions and those people are no less or no more intelligent or right than u are.


The War sucks, it is horrible, it never shouldve happened. I agree 100 percent, but now we are there.

Exit strategy is very very simple.

Iraq is trying to pass their constitution.

Our country has to babysit them until their government is in place and strong and their military is in place and strong.

Once this happens, The US will slowly start withdrawing from Iraq.

In about 20 years, Iraq will be one of the biggest exporters in Oil and in turn will become a very rich,very prosperous country and down the road, Bush may be looked upon as one of the better presidents in american history, if this does come to fruition.

You said he called for a regime change.  That's when he did it, publically.  It was the publicized "policy change" that you refer to in your original post.

How is that spin?

Or, if you were referring to a seperate time when he called for a regime change, perhaps you could actually put it in context and post some proof?

As for other actions...did he invade? No.  He furthered economic sanctions to ensure that Saddam was NOT A THREAT, by strangling their capability to be one.

and conducting a a few bombing campaigns

and conducting a a few bombing campaigns

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

From the man himself.

The bombings were conducted to pre-emptively prevent him from being a threat.? They were to prevent him from rebuiliding his WMD program.

In addition, I've not said he wasn't a threat to his neighbors.  He was.

And he was certainly dangerous.

But he was not, ever, a direct threat to the United States of America.

first off, i've never said he was threat to the U.S.

second, this discussion is going towards arguing the definition of a "threat", which i will not do.

Well, here's the post you responded to from Richard Nixon:


I think the inference of the threat being to the US is pretty obvious, but, just to clarify, the poster later said:


Aside from the hyperbole, he made it quite clear what he was saying in the intial post.? And MY post was directly after that.

So, you either misunderstood his post, and argued my post after his clarification (which was clearly and specifically that he wasn't a threat to the US) anyway, or you did understand his post and purposefully misstated his intent for an easy tear down point, or you were just wrong.

You can take your pick.  I rather think you just misunderstood the original post...but that begs the question why you continued to argue the point after it was clarified.

You have two choices in life D.

One is to work as hard as you can on every level. In regards to most things, you can never learn enough. Mostly because things are always changing. You can read until you drop, and still only have scratched the surface. It actually (unless you enjoy that sort of thing) is work to most people. I do not expect everybody to be like me, nor agree with me. I am hyper focused on many things. Working a lot and also reading a lot. I read non stop, surf the net non stop, eat non stop, and sleep little. I am hyper focused on life and information.  Current events, and history require you to read.  That is why most people go to choice number two.


Choice two, is to be lazy. Choice two lets you sit in front of the tube and get swayed into dinner table discussions. It is easier to let somebody else be mad about something (that you don't really know too much about ) for you, and back that person. That is what most of America does, and that is also why (IMO) Bush got elected again. Most Americans don't know the difference between a Ba'thist and a Bathtub; they don't read. The thing about choice number two, is it is the easy way. Easy to not read, easy to let somebody else do the thinking for you  (doesn?t mean they are right, they are just thinking for you.) Easy not to think too critically.

You put words in my mouth, then insulted me. Period. Hey, if you wanted to disagree with me, fine, be my guest, knock yourself out. But to come here and say things I said that were totally false, and then tell me what a jerk I was for "saying" them, is a bit too much. Also disappointing, because it means you have decided to go with choice number two.

I should not have to defend myself against your silly comments and will not. I obviously don't think that anybody should "bow down to me." And that is the kind of thing I am talking about. You seem to be reading my mind, and speaking for me, making up things I say or think. You claimed I was against the police in one thread. False. You said I was against our military. False. You said I never made my opinion known on an exit Strategy. False. Then you insulted me because I wasn't giving you the answer you wanted. Real bummer to read something like that.

 I prefer to keep personal things to PMs, but you have decided to lay things out on the table, and personally I think you have really overstepped the bounds of good taste. I also keep my private life just that: private. I felt that I had gone above and beyond to help you and give you advice on certain things in your life. I always wrote you back and tried to help you. Tried to be a good friend to you. For this I wanted nothing. Not one thing. All I wanted to do was help a guy that seemed to be looking for answers. You could have come on here and disagreed with me all day long on Iraq or anything else. I would not have cared. But instead you came on here and exercised choice number two. You lied and put words in my mouth and insulted me. I was very patient with you on this. More patient then I would have been with anybody else. Many of your posts I ignored altogether, letting them slide off my back. But the last few ones were downright nasty and uncalled for; and for that I called you an asshole.

I remember Axl talking about an review once to his crowd. He said something like "If you don't like it, that's great, I don't care, but if you are going to lie........". That is how I feel about anybody really. Disagree with me all day long, I'll make my case, you make yours. But don't lie and put words in my mouth; that is low. Considering our history together, I find it more insulting that you would turn on me in such a way. Disapointed too, because you could have taken choice one and argued me that way. But you took the easy way instead.

Good luck.

actually, his original post does not say threat to america. maybe that's what he meant. but i'm not a mind reader.

also, like i said already, WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE. i believe saddam was a threat to U.S. interests. you don't. that's fine. i'm not gonna argue this. in the end, none of us know for sure. therefore it is an opinion. and arguing in these threads are no longer any fun. (which is quite depressing).
 

No, but he clarified his post before I posted. Thus, when I made the comments I did, it was obvious I was talking about his "clarified" post.  You took issue with it anyway, to argue the point.  The question still remains: why do that? 

And you're right, we can agree to disagree.  You are perfectly entitled to hold any opinion, baseless or not, that you wish.  I provided you with quantifiable, verifiable evidence that bolsters the opinion I hold.  Evidence you can't really refute.  Yet, you still wish to maintain you opinion.  As you said, we can certainly agree to disagree.....

this question is for anyone....

IF saddam had the capabilities, do you think he would have attacked the U.S.?



"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."
   - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Saddam had no love for the US. I think if he had the capabilities to strike the US, he would use it to blackmail us or even use it. He had the means to use chemical weapons & used them against Iran and his own people. He invaded Kuwait.

Overall not a good guy.

Depends.? Mostly on exactly what capabilities he has in the "what if" scenario.

If he had the capability to deliver a payload that could wipe out large sections of the US and completely cripple our ability to respond? Maybe.  Even then, given the worlds response, I'm not sure he would have.

But, if you're saying he simply had the same material and weapons he did have, but with longer range? Nope. Never happen.? Not unless we backed him into a corner and left him absolutely no escape route that would actually preserve his hide (Sun Tzu, The Art of War, "Always leave your enemy an escape route").? That's why we found him in a hidey hole rather than in his palace giving his troops direction.

If you look at the way Saddam dealt with the US, expecially since the first Gulf War (when we pretty much proved to him that the threats of using force were not empty), he yelled, screamed, swaggered, boasted, cajoled and needled us, but, when push came to shove, ultimately backed down.? I think he would have used his weapons capability to do the same kinds of stuff.

He knew that any direct attack on the US would have been a death sentence for him if we were left with any ablity to respond.? His own hide was far too important to him for that, I think.