Author Topic: From an Angry Soldier  (Read 10370 times)

Deedee

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5067
  • They sicken of the calm, who knew the storm.
Re: From an Angry Soldier
« Reply #150 on: May 15, 2008, 10:44:49 AM »
"The World" was never so united than it was in its condemnation of the invasion of Iraq, and no one outside of the US believed there were WMD. Doesn't anyone remember the harsh words coming from France, Germany, Canada, etc... the whole "freedom fries" thing as a result, and Bill O'Reilly's call for the boycott of French goods? Ann Coulter's dumbass condemnation of Canada?  ::)

Everyone knew it was all about oil, which is fine I suppose. Except that in the last years, these kinds of stories have been popping up in alternate news... that the war isn't really about securing oil, rather to suppress its production in order to raise prices through the roof.

This one's from 2006.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/37371/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63839
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: From an Angry Soldier
« Reply #151 on: May 15, 2008, 10:45:18 AM »
Thank you for not answering the question.

What we thought (they have WMDs) v. what we know (they don't have WMDs).

The president is the ONLY guy that can order the invasion of Iraq.

He ordered the attack to compel inspections for WMDs even though no WMDs were found through inspections.

Do you see the problem there?

I answered your question.  You just don't like my answer.  

The invasion was not ordered "to compel inspections for WMDs."  The invasion was ordered to disarm Saddam, which Congress and the world believed was approrpriate.  Including this guy:

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."—Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: From an Angry Soldier
« Reply #152 on: May 15, 2008, 10:46:43 AM »
The voters of state of Ohio.

In a courthouse in Columbus, there are paper backups of the 2004 E-voting.

Statistically (deep beath, BB)... due to exit polling disparities and historical analysis,

There is a 1 in 50,000 chance that Bush has more votes than kerry.
There is a 49,999 in 50,000 chance that kerry has more votes.

We would count them to verify the E-count, as it's required by law in close elections and there was a mysterious power outage as polls expired which paused the surprising results by 2 hours.

We can't count them, because Republican lawyers sued to have them destroyed.  They haven't been destroyed yet, and I'm sure it'll be a really cute moment one day when they discover "technically", kerry had more votes in OH in 2004.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: From an Angry Soldier
« Reply #153 on: May 15, 2008, 10:47:22 AM »
I answered your question.  You just don't like my answer.  

UN answered bush's question.  He didn't like their answer. (no wmd).


bombs away, anyway!


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63839
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: From an Angry Soldier
« Reply #154 on: May 15, 2008, 10:48:50 AM »
How so?

"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued … You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it."

Considering they set aside 20 million for a Iraq victory party, reviewing information to see if there was wrong doing is not much to do at all.

What in the world are they going to investigate?  The CIC ordered an invasion.  Congress endorsed it.  Congress funded and continues to fund it.  Countries from around the world participated.  

This is obviously an appeal to anti-war zealots.  He has his finger firmly planted on poll numbers.  This is purely partisan politics.  Just like the Walsh, Ken Starr, and current U.S. Attorney "investigations."  

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: From an Angry Soldier
« Reply #155 on: May 15, 2008, 10:49:51 AM »
Ken Starr

hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a I remember you voted for Bill Clinton.  Fcking libs.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: From an Angry Soldier
« Reply #156 on: May 15, 2008, 10:54:12 AM »
Quote
I answered your question.  You just don't like my answer. 

The invasion was not ordered "to compel inspections for WMDs."  The invasion was ordered to disarm Saddam, which Congress and the world believed was approrpriate.
You're making a point without distinction from my own.


Quote
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."—Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003.
What a shock, another Republican dead wrong about Iraq.

He's basing his opinion on 1998 evidence.

It might as well be 1888.

Keep trying though.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63839
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: From an Angry Soldier
« Reply #157 on: May 15, 2008, 10:59:40 AM »
You're making a point without distinction from my own.

What a shock, another Republican dead wrong about Iraq.

There is a major distinction.  We didn't go in to inspect.  We went in to disarm. 

So I give you a quote, consistent with all the others, from a Clinton cabinet member, a month after the invasion of Iraq, and that's the best you can do?  Dismiss him as a Republican?  What he said is entirely consistent with what all of those Democrats said.  Including this one:

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."—John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: From an Angry Soldier
« Reply #158 on: May 15, 2008, 11:08:19 AM »

Quote
There is a major distinction.  We didn't go in to inspect.  We went in to disarm. 
Fine.  We went in to disarm. 

But that assumes/implies that Iraq is armed to begin with. 

Which it wasn't. 

How did we know that? 

B/c UN resolution 1441 authorized inspections and intelligence gathering by UN forces.

UN Res. 1441 governs the matter and here's the language.


Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

 Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates

Quote
So I give you a quote, consistent with all the others, from a Clinton cabinet member, a month after the invasion of Iraq, and that's the best you can do?  Dismiss him as a Republican?  What he said is entirely consistent with what all of those Democrats said.  Including this one:

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."—John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003.
Those are nice quotes.

War-Horse

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6490
Re: From an Angry Soldier
« Reply #159 on: May 15, 2008, 09:05:11 PM »
The voters of state of Ohio.

In a courthouse in Columbus, there are paper backups of the 2004 E-voting.

Statistically (deep beath, BB)... due to exit polling disparities and historical analysis,

There is a 1 in 50,000 chance that Bush has more votes than kerry.
There is a 49,999 in 50,000 chance that kerry has more votes.

We would count them to verify the E-count, as it's required by law in close elections and there was a mysterious power outage as polls expired which paused the surprising results by 2 hours.

We can't count them, because Republican lawyers sued to have them destroyed.  They haven't been destroyed yet, and I'm sure it'll be a really cute moment one day when they discover "technically", kerry had more votes in OH in 2004.




Reason #1,260 why americans will want him imprisoned soon.    Bush works for satan.