Which is it Mr. President?
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
| Which is it Mr. President |
| Removal of WMD. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Removal of Terrorists. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Liberate Iraq. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Removal of terrorists associated with 9-11. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Nobody knows, we are just making it up as we go! |
|
100% |
[ 10 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 10 |
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 06/30/05 - 07:28 Post subject:
At least the Pres. has the balls to do something about it, stick to his guns and stay the course. He is not being swayed by opinion polls. He is a man of conviction and is willing to take grief for it. I see a lot of other countries talking a lot. At least the US is taking a lead on this and trying to do something besides give the terrorists pacifiers all the time.
Again, let's see what the history books say in 25 years about all of this.
|
|
|
|
|
robp
Pyromaniac
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 16242
Location: Waiting in line at the beer store...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/05 - 07:30 Post subject:
| TOsteve wrote: |
More terrorist funding comes from the private citizens of Saudi Arabia than any other country in the world. I guess that falls under 'assisted'. |
Private citizens from the U.S. funded it also.
|
|
|
|
|
TOsteve
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Out for a run
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/05 - 08:00 Post subject:
| robp wrote: |
Private citizens from the U.S. funded it also. |
The vast majority al qaeda funding comes from some very wealthy families in Saudi Arabia. Also a large portion of the human resources come from the same nation. Yet we hear very little about what your government is doing there to fight the 'war on terror'.
Iraq's contribution to international terrorism is barely a blip on the map compared to Saudi Arabia. Mostly because the people of Iraq have been too oppressed and impoverished for too many years to be thinking about anything other than their own survival. When the US cut off their military funding in Iraq, Saddam himself could barely afford his lavish lifestyle and still maintain even the semblance of a military let alone fund terrorist organizations.
Saddam was a evil dictator who ruthlessly oppressed his people so that he could enjoy an oppulent lifestyle. But was he a major player on the world stage of international terrorism - definately not. We don't need to wait 25 years to come to this conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/05 - 08:41 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | At least the Pres. has the balls to do something about it, stick to his guns and stay the course. He is not being swayed by opinion polls. He is a man of conviction and is willing to take grief for it. I see a lot of other countries talking a lot. At least the US is taking a lead on this and trying to do something besides give the terrorists pacifiers all the time.
Again, let's see what the history books say in 25 years about all of this. |
I admire people who are willing to own up to their mistakes and try to fix them. Not those who continue to insist they could never be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/05 - 09:18 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | At least the Pres. has the balls to do something about it, stick to his guns and stay the course. He is not being swayed by opinion polls. He is a man of conviction and is willing to take grief for it. I see a lot of other countries talking a lot. At least the US is taking a lead on this and trying to do something besides give the terrorists pacifiers all the time.
Again, let's see what the history books say in 25 years about all of this. |
He is certainly concerned with opinion polls (although for reasons gretriever pointed out, I'm not sure why, the mid term elections?), thus he had the press conference.
He isn't what I'd call a man of conviction, I think of a conviction as a strong belief. President Bush has changed the reason for the war several times. If anything what gets me most about him is his unwillingness to admit his own faults in his conviction. At its most benign, he followed bad intelligence about an imminent threat. Instead of admitting to that, accepting that and going forward making the best of the situation we were already in, he keeps changing "his convictions" aka our reasons for going in, as though all along the WMD's weren't the reason for the invasion, that it was actually 9/11, or freeing Iraq or Catching Saddam or, or, or. I'm tired of it, I just want honesty. But it seems like thats a pipe dream in elected leaders anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/05 - 09:20 Post subject:
| TOsteve wrote: |
The vast majority al qaeda funding comes from some very wealthy families in Saudi Arabia. Also a large portion of the human resources come from the same nation. Yet we hear very little about what your government is doing there to fight the 'war on terror'.
Iraq's contribution to international terrorism is barely a blip on the map compared to Saudi Arabia. Mostly because the people of Iraq have been too oppressed and impoverished for too many years to be thinking about anything other than their own survival. When the US cut off their military funding in Iraq, Saddam himself could barely afford his lavish lifestyle and still maintain even the semblance of a military let alone fund terrorist organizations.
Saddam was a evil dictator who ruthlessly oppressed his people so that he could enjoy an oppulent lifestyle. But was he a major player on the world stage of international terrorism - definately not. We don't need to wait 25 years to come to this conclusion. |
I'll do my own research so this is sort of rhetorical rather than a question to lead us off topic, but what kind of oil reserves does Saudi Arabia have and is that why they are such a tight "ally"?
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/05 - 09:27 Post subject:
| cherylpf wrote: |
I'll do my own research so this is sort of rhetorical rather than a question to lead us off topic, but what kind of oil reserves does Saudi Arabia have and is that why they are such a tight "ally"? |
According to Energy Information Administration eia.doe.gov
| Quote: | With one-fourth of the world's proven oil reserves and some of the lowest production costs, Saudi Arabia is likely to remain the world's largest net oil exporter for the foreseeable future. During January-October 2004, Saudi Arabia supplied the United States with 1.5 million barrels per day of crude oil, or 15%, of U.S. crude oil imports during that period.
|
Back to the topic, questioning Bush's motivations, oil has to be a powerful motivator in keeping Saudi in a friendly place, regardless of their influence or funding or training of terrorists. So we go to the nearest neighbor?
|
|
|
|
|
TOsteve
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Out for a run
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/05 - 09:30 Post subject:
| cherylpf wrote: |
I'll do my own research so this is sort of rhetorical rather than a question to lead us off topic, but what kind of oil reserves does Saudi Arabia have and is that why they are such a tight "ally"? |
Saudi Arabia currently produces more oil than any other country in the world. To answer a rhetorical question.
|
|
|
|
|
TOsteve
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Out for a run
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/05 - 10:43 Post subject:
With China emerging as a potential economic and even military rival - the US government wants to establish a strong military presence in the mid-east before China is completely on its feet. China holds a strategic advantage over the US in its proximity to the majority of the world's oil fields (it's wedged between Russia and the Middle East). Your government feels it needs to exercise all the advantage it has now in order to protect its future as the world's superpower. If the Saudi's started showing signs of giving China preferential treatment (or even started limiting exports to the US), how fast do you think they would join the 'Axis of Evil'.
Time is running out for the world economy to switch from being oil driven, as all the evidence continues to show that we are running out of oil faster than originally estimated. Doesn't it make sense that what Bush is truly after in the middle east is first in line access to what's left? There's a strong possibility that access to this resource represents the foundation for the US's future economic and military dominance.
Hard to sell it to the masses in a TV speech though. So fire up the Right Wing Think Tanks - we need publish and broadcast reasons for war that hopefully the public can stomach. If the Democrats were in the White House the only difference, with respect to Iraq, is that the Left Wing Think Tanks would be justifying what's going on over there.
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 06/30/05 - 23:03 Post subject:
lets see sodom had WMD ask the Kurds he gassed
sodom acted like he had WMD
we didn't exactly pull a sneak attack
nice job you fooled us maybe you didn't have them but after 9/11 we're going to let an wipe like you maybe have wmd? don't think so
not rocket science here people is it
Last edited by wanttorun100 on 07/05/05 - 15:04; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
TOsteve
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Out for a run
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/01/05 - 08:51 Post subject:
| wanttorun100 wrote: | lets see sodom had WMD ask the Kurds he gassed
sodom acted like he had WMD
we didn't exactly pull a sneak attack
nice job ass hole you fooled us maybe you didn't have them but after 9/11 we're going to let an ass wipe like you maybe have wmd? don't think so |
But I thought it never really was about WMDs? I thought it was all about 9/11 terrorist connections now? That's the message your government is getting out these days. Are we flip flopping again? Fine, I'll bite....
The US government had strong suspicions about the state of Iraq's military before they invaded - its probably part of the reason they attacked when they did, part of Bush's military doctrine - attack forcefully and decisively where victory is assured and resistance will be minimal. The majority of the international community also suspected that Iraq had a lame duck military after Gulf War I. With the types of sanctions placed against Saddam after he invaded Kuwait - there was almost no chance that he had the means to stockpile in the intervening years. All weapons inspections turned up nothing. One obscure report from a British intelligence agency was ALL they had to justify the WMD argument prior to invasion.
If your government was really serious about keeping the world safe by incapacitating a potentially dangerous state - North Korea would have been the obvious choice. And then there is probably a list of about 20 other more potentially dangerous states that would have made more sense than Iraq.
| wanttorun100 wrote: | | not rocket science here people is it |
I agree with this statement.
|
|
|
|
|
robp
Pyromaniac
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 16242
Location: Waiting in line at the beer store...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/01/05 - 09:02 Post subject:
North Korea hasn't done crap but run their mouth.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/01/05 - 09:47 Post subject:
| TOsteve wrote: | | The majority of the international community also suspected that Iraq had a lame duck military after Gulf War I. |
I disagree with this statement. So does the UN. See the multiple UN resolutions against Iraq following the Gulf War.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/01/05 - 14:39 Post subject:
| Quote: | Body of Evidence
A CNN anchor gets Iraq and al Qaeda wrong. But will the network issue a correction?
by Stephen F. Hayes
06/30/2005 12:00:00 AM
"THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to al Qaeda."
So declared CNN Anchor Carol Costello in an interview yesterday with Representative Robin Hayes (no relation) from North Carolina.
Hayes politely challenged her claim. "Ma'am, I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. There's evidence everywhere. We get access to it. Unfortunately, others don't."
CNN played the exchange throughout the day. At one point, anchor Daryn Kagan even seemed to correct Rep. Hayes after replaying the clip. "And according to the record, the 9/11 Commission in its final report found no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."
The CNN claims are wrong. Not a matter of nuance. Not a matter of interpretation. Just plain incorrect. They are so mistaken, in fact, that viewers should demand an on-air correction.
But such claims are, sadly, representative of the broad media misunderstanding of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post, regularly chides the Bush administration for presenting what he calls fabricated or "fictive" links between Iraq and al Qaeda. The editor of the Los Angeles Times scolded the Bush administration for perpetuating the "myth" of such links. "Sixty Minutes" anchor Lesley Stahl put it bluntly: "There was no connection."
Conveniently, such analyses ignore statements like this one from Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission. "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." Hard to believe reporters just missed it--he made
the comments at the press conference held to release the commission's final report. And that report detailed several "friendly contacts" between Iraq and al Qaeda, and concluded only that there was no proof of Iraqi involvement in al Qaeda terrorist attacks against American interests. Details, details.
There have been several recent developments. One month ago, Jordan's King Abdullah explained to the Arabic-language newspaper al Hayat that his government had tried before the Iraq war to extradite Abu Musab al Zarqawi from Iraq. "We had information that he entered Iraq from a neighboring country, where he lived and what he was doing. We informed the Iraqi authorities about all this detailed information we had, but they didn't respond." He added: "Since Zarqawi entered Iraq before the fall of the former regime we have been trying to have him deported back to Jordan for trial, but our efforts were in vain."
One week later, former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi told the same newspaper that the new Iraqi government is in possession of documents showing that Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden's top deputy, and Zarqawi both entered Iraq in September 1999. (If the documents are authentic, they suggest that Zarqawi may have plotted the Jordanian Millennium attacks from Iraq.)
Beyond what people are saying about the Iraq-al Qaeda connection, there is the evidence. In 1992 the Iraqi Intelligence services compiled a list of its assets. On page 14 of the document, marked "Top Secret" and dated March 28, 1992, is the name of Osama bin Laden, who is reported to have a "good relationship" with the Iraqi intelligence section in Syria. The Defense Intelligence Agency has possession of the document and has assessed that it is accurate. In 1993, Saddam Hussein and bin Laden reached an "understanding" that Islamic radicals would refrain from attacking the Iraqi regime in exchange for unspecified assistance, including weapons development. This understanding, which was included in the Clinton administration's indictment of bin Laden in the spring of 1998, has been corroborated by numerous Iraqis and al Qaeda terrorists now in U.S. custody. In 1994, Faruq Hijazi, then deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, met face-to-face with bin Laden. Bin Laden requested anti-ship limpet mines and training camps in Iraq. Hijazi has detailed the meeting in a custodial interview with U.S. interrogators. In 1995, according to internal Iraqi intelligence documents first reported by the New York Times on June 25, 2004, a "former director of operations for Iraqi Intelligence Directorate 4 met with Mr. bin Laden on Feb. 19." When bin Laden left Sudan in 1996, the document states, Iraqi intelligence sough "other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location." That same year, Hussein agreed to a request from bin Laden to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state television. In 1997, al Qaeda sent an emissary with the nom de guerre Abdullah al Iraqi to Iraq for training on weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell cited this evidence in his presentation at the UN on February 5, 2003. The Senate Intelligence Committee has concluded that Powell's presentation on Iraq and terrorism was "reasonable." |
|
|
|
|
|
tdassow
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 198
Location: Way up North...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/08/05 - 01:40 Post subject:
First off, I am glad I live in a country where we can all spew our drivel on these forums. I deeply appreciate the men and women who put themselves in the line of fire because their superiors ask them to.
Iraq is yet another classic case of not understanding other cultures. It is rather surprising that the US Military is fighting wars like WWII, (haven't we learned anything from Vietnam?) Now we are going to force our values, ideals, on a land where civilization may have originated; that has never known or valued democracy. My intent is not to insult the people of Iraq, merely to acknowledge that because something works here in the U.S.--it my not be the right choice in Iraq right now.
It is a mistake to assume that the culture of Iraq can be changed quickly after thousands of years of history.
The question still remains, "Now What?"
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
