Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Curveball": More Damning News For Bush/CIA  
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3137 times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1753730.story?coll=la-home-nation

More and more evidence is piling up that this Administraiton believed what it wanted to, took dubious intel and blew it way out of proportion, all to support a war Bush wanted to start since the day he became President.

I'm sure our Bush/war apologists on here will point it it IS a liberal bias, and, after all, coming from the Euro's. Keep your blinders on, fella's. The preponderance of eveidence is growing that we were misled about this war.

158 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7965 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3118 times:

" The German authorities, speaking about the case for the first time, (...)"

I consider LA Times a good newspaper but those "news" are at least one if not two years old.

If you dig through our archive, you'll find some posts on "Curveball" and BND's claim that he wasn't a reliable source.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3111 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 1):
but those "news" are at least one if not two years old

suppose that THIS is the U.S. way of "recycling" ! why not use again what CAN be used again ?


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3097 times:

Let's say that Curveball is a screwball.....

tell me why we are in a position to ignore intelligence from a source that the Germans consider good enough to take care of when we have other sources that were telling us the same thing?

Do you guys consider the threat of germ warfare from a guy who has already used WMDs against his own people as well as other nations to be a matter of international law where we need to lay out an airtight legal case?



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3094 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
tell me why we are in a position to ignore intelligence from a source that the Germans consider good enough to take care of when we have other sources that were telling us the same thing?

No one said "ignore" the source, Ian. But obviously, Bush and friends, who wanted this war in Iraq from day 1 in office, chose to believe a source the Germans said themselves was not entirely with it, and who's information had not been backstopped by any other source. That's the point-the Administration TOOK US TO WAR, on sloppy, phony, unsubstantiated and questionable inetlligence. Shouldn't that make YOU a little pissed off at Bush and his cohorts?

Bush wanted this war from the moment he came to office-that's been corroborated by separate books by men he had in his employ at one time after 1-20-01. This is just another brick in the wall of evidence that he was willing to do and believe anything to justify a war against Iraq.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
Do you guys consider the threat of germ warfare from a guy who has already used WMDs against his own people as well as other nations to be a matter of international law where we need to lay out an airtight legal case?

So, we don't need an airtight case for sending our young men and women to war, Ian? We shouldn't backstop, corroborate and verify the intellligence? Because that's what we did. How dare you say such an irresponsible thing, dude.

1. He didn't have this threat. It was contrived. You seem to forget that in all your hosannah's for this war. The specter of WMD somehow got lost by war supporters like yourself when the truth came out, and you had to resort to new, phony reasons for this war.

2. You're damn right we should have as airtight case for going to war as we can, and not leave in the air as we did here. The fact you bring up WMD here, and the fact Bush's cronies went on the thinniest of bad intel should outrage you, who support this war, and have from the beginning.

Instaed, you apologize for it once again. How sad.


User currently offlineClipperhawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3075 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
But obviously, Bush and friends, who wanted this war in Iraq from day 1 in office

Obviously? Seems you want to believe that as much as you want to believe that Bush lied and mislead people. The world changed the night of September 11 falcon. You don't realize that do you?

Now that....IS sad.



"You Can't Beat The Experience"
User currently offlineScamp From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3069 times:

Quoting Clipperhawaii (Reply 5):
Obviously? Seems you want to believe that as much as you want to believe that Bush lied and mislead people. The world changed the night of September 11 falcon. You don't realize that do you?

Actually, in your zeal to defend George W. Ass-wad, you clearly did not read what Falcon wrote:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
Bush wanted this war from the moment he came to office-***that's been corroborated by separate books by men he had in his employ at one time after 1-20-01.*** This is just another brick in the wall of evidence that he was willing to do and believe anything to justify a war against Iraq.

You didn't realize that, did you?



If it pisses off the right, I'm all for it.
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8735 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3064 times:

Quoting Scamp (Reply 6):
Actually, in your zeal to defend George W. Ass-wad, you clearly did not read what Falcon wrote:

Careful, don't confront him with facts or he'll berate you because of your age!  rotfl 



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineClipperhawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3044 times:

Scamp, I honestly think you and others are trying to rewrite history. I have an issue with that. I also have an issue with the absolute non-stop name calling of a President of the United States. As any American, you and others should be ashamed. Disagree with his politics and that's fine. Attempt to drag people through the mud and make our enemies enjoy it in the process is not what I call being an American. You play into many hands doing that. Start realizing it for the bigger and better common good of the country which is at war by the way. In case you had not noticed.  Yeah sure

Twist all you want to. Allow me to say it for you...The End.



"You Can't Beat The Experience"
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3044 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
So, we don't need an airtight case for sending our young men and women to war, Ian? We shouldn't backstop, corroborate and verify the intellligence? Because that's what we did. How dare you say such an irresponsible thing, dude.

Number one...there is no such thing as airtight when it comes to wondering whether there is an enemy that is willing to use weapons we believe they have. There will be no 'airtight' case against most any nation that we believe to possess weapons. I personally don't want our government to send nothing but nasty notes to people that we have reason to believe want to harm us.

You call me irresponsible? I say irresponsible is waiting to get hit by these weapons. The intent to harm us has been proven over and over again. The capability of Iraq to restart their programs virtually at will is not in doubt even now. Their actions in acting squirrelly around the inspectors did not lend themselves toward credibility. You want to wait until someone finds nuclear-biological-chemical materials to justify us taking action? What do you think these things are? A couple of backpack bombs that will kill a couple hundred people? One chemical weapon deployed by a mister in a downtown here in this country could kill or maim thousands. That agent could be delivered clandestinely by any of the states who possess these weapons and are intent upon harming us.

You want to wait for that?

You assume that the intel was bad and that we knew it. You assume alot. There are always intel officers with dissenting opinions from the official line, and much of what is being focused on here is the dissenting opinion which is being seen through hindsight. I was in military intelligence as a gatherer. I will tell you right here and now that there is no such animal as "airtight" intelligence in 99.9% of all cases. You have to go on what you have, and I personally would rather our leaders err on the side of caution. I say that as a person who has been a cog in that machine that gets sent to deal with such things, and has friends...blood brothers...out there right fucking now doing that job. That's how I dare.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
in all your hosannah's for this war.

I say no hosannahs for any war, and I dare you to find any from me anywhere. War sucks. I know that for a fact. Next time I'm in CLE I'll stop by and show you the scars. But what would suck worse...no..what DOES suck worse is having an act of war brought to our homefront.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):

2. You're damn right we should have as airtight case for going to war as we can,

Refer to my earlier writing in this post. THere is no such thing. As close as possible is a matter of opinion and the effort now is to set the bar for acceptability so far back that we will get hit first. Now, tell me which city needs to get hit by some unoccupied tangos before you are ok with moving forward.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
1. He didn't have this threat. It was contrived.

Bullshit. It perhaps was overestimated....but is that better or worse than underestimated? Are we better safe than sorry? It's important to make that distinction, because we've now seen what happens when we wait around to get hit.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineScamp From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3039 times:

Quoting Clipperhawaii (Reply 8):
Scamp, I honestly think you and others are trying to rewrite history. I have an issue with that. I also have an issue with the absolute non-stop name calling of a President of the United States. As any American, you and others should be ashamed. Disagree with his politics and that's fine. Attempt to drag people through the mud and make our enemies enjoy it in the process is not what I call being an American. You play into many hands doing that. Start realizing it for the bigger and better common good of the country which is at war by the way. In case you had not noticed.

Twist all you want to. Allow me to say it for you...The End.

Ya know, it's true...as an American, I have plenty be ashamed of. The dick wads in power and the bigger dick wads that put them there are two examples. Still, you have something of a point (and I could go further with that comment, but I will demure), one simply gets to the stage when you're dealing with right wing morons fucking up your country, you dread opening your newspaper or turning on the news, there just seems to be no other way of expressing myself. Other than to say that great will be the day when the Shrub puts a glock to his head on the Capital steps. That would be a start.



If it pisses off the right, I'm all for it.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3038 times:

Quoting Clipperhawaii (Reply 5):
The world changed the night of September 11 falcon. You don't realize that do you?

So truth stopped being relevant as a basis for life-or-death issues? Wow!  Wow!


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3033 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 9):
But what would suck worse...no..what DOES suck worse is having an act of war brought to our homefront.

If I might add a caveat to your comment Ian . . . .

what does suck worse is having an act of war brought to our homefront because we didn't pay attention to small amounts of questionable intel, that when grouped together, paint a different, plausible, near coherent picture.

In other words . . . what does suck worse is having an act of war brought to our homefront because we were stupid.

Edit: Typo

[Edited 2005-11-20 20:11:44]

User currently offlineClipperhawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3032 times:

Who's truth Klaus? Yours? His? Or my own?

I'll pick my own thanks!

On a side note, did you get the video 60 gb ipod yet?  Smile



"You Can't Beat The Experience"
User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3025 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
More and more evidence is piling up that this Administraiton believed what it wanted to, took dubious intel and blew it way out of proportion, all to support a war Bush wanted to start since the day he became President.

Falcon, you know this is just another article with another claim that the intelligence agencies used vague intelligence to mislead us into a war. The problem is, you're talking about one specific person who's handlers are claiming was used as the primary source for the knowledge sought after. This asset is probably now coming forward because the Agency and other services cut him off from their resources, since it looks like he proved himself to be fairly inaccurate. There's no proof here other than German intelligence officers testifying to how the U.S. acted on their intelligence. Unfortunately, that's not something they can testify to because all they did was provide the information.....they have no idea how many other sources were being used and whether or not their specific information was actually a player in any decisions made.

This isn't mounting evidence against this Administration or the intelligence agencies. This is one asset who came forward with claims that were a little outside of his paygrade. This isn't a source of infallible information to begin with, so why would it be any different now? Just because he's coming out against the current President, which seems to be a popular trend now, doesn't make him more credible.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
I'm sure our Bush/war apologists on here will point it it IS a liberal bias, and, after all, coming from the Euro's.

No, I won't. I'm not going to question whether or not they speak the truth of what THEY actually did. They may be perfectly accurate in what they say. But what I don't buy is that they can speak for the U.S. government's use of the information they provided. The asset may have been a major one, but it was shown that he wasn't very reliable. So he can't speak to how our government used his information. That's why I don't agree with this........not because I think they are a bunch of flaming liberals trying to piss across the Atlantic. We've got enough people pissing from across the Potomac, so I don't think they would waste their time just to start shit. But they can't speak to how we used the information.....plain and simple.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
The preponderance of eveidence is growing that we were misled about this war.

No, the misguided few who are adding it all up at home are adding up every single little claim that the government shat all over the intelligence given and went about their own agenda. These claims are not all credible, but people like to consider them to be infallible. Even though it is popular to say the Administration mislead us into war, joining a popular trend doesn't give you automatic credibility. I have yet to see real credible evidence that this President and his staff just went haywire and threw us all into war for absolutely nothing. Those who think this have not taken a step outside their own box to gather every detail.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 9):
Number one...there is no such thing as airtight when it comes to wondering whether there is an enemy that is willing to use weapons we believe they have.

Exactly.  checkmark 

Quoting DL021 (Reply 9):
I say irresponsible is waiting to get hit by these weapons.

I agree completely.  checkmark 

The problem right now is that people want to see on their comfortable little TV's at home some sort of black and white evidence that Saddam was about to nuke the world. Anything short of that and people start questioning whether or not he was really that 'mean' of a guy. Even though he gassed the hell out of his own people, tortured his political opponents, threw shitballs at his neighboring countries, and wastefully spent the tax dollars of his citizens, this still isn't enough. People want to see that he had his finger on the trigger of a scud destined for America with a happy-assed grin on his face..........until then, nobody seems to think that he was a threat, even though the world was just waiting around to get hit by something with a label, 'made in Iraq.'

So, I agree completely.......the only irresponsibility would have been if we just sat around behind veils of ignorance that he would do nothing more.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3023 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
what does suck worse is having an act of war brought to our homefront because we didn't pay attention to small amounts of questionable intel, that when grouped together, paint a different, plausible, near coherent picture.

 checkmark  checkmark  checkmark  checkmark  checkmark  checkmark 



Crye me a river
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3022 times:

Quoting Clipperhawaii (Reply 13):
Who's truth Klaus? Yours? His? Or my own?

Information consistent with verifiable facts. Not preconceived wishful thinking.

Quoting Clipperhawaii (Reply 13):
I'll pick my own thanks!

Yeah, and look where that approach got you by now!  fight 

Quoting Clipperhawaii (Reply 13):
On a side note, did you get the video 60 gb ipod yet?

No, I'm still quite satisfied with my nano!  bigthumbsup 


User currently offlineN229NW From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1970 posts, RR: 32
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3020 times:

Quoting Clipperhawaii (Reply 5):
The world changed the night of September 11 falcon. You don't realize that do you?

NO "THE WORLD" DID NOT FRIGGIN CHANGE THAT DAY. I'm sick and tired of hearing that excuse trotted out for torture, for justifying anything and evertything. There is no doubt that 9/11/01 was a central event in the history of the US. But:

1.) It was just another terrorist attack of a kind that had been planned and executed in many countries all over the world by many different groups with many different goals for ages. Its destructiveness and human toll was a freak "success" for the wackos. Even OBL did not really expect the towers to collapse it seems.

2.) Not only had other parts of the world been dealing with terrorist methods for a long time (the IRA in Britain, etc. etc.), but many parts of the world had and have their own much bigger problems to deal with: natural disasters, dictators, wars, etc. To these people, exaggerated claims about the import and uniqueness of 9/11 just make the US seem isolated and selfish.

If you must, claim that the US changed on 9/11/01. It did. But claiming that the whole world should stop and think about nothing but 9/11 is just a cheap gambit to silence debate and intimidate those who disagree with your policies.



It's people like you what cause unrest!
User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 3020 times:

Quote:
Curveball's German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm.

This information has been brought up before, but, I point to the above quote, they could not confirm the information one way or the other.

We had our own CIA reports, plus the Brits, the Butler report, the Senate have launched several investigations, the 9/11 report, and all have presented information that something was going on.

In all of the reports, not once have they said that the President has lied.

Operation Desert Fox
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox/

December/1998:
MISSION:  To strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1998/n12171998_9812172.html
WASHINGTON -- President Clinton ordered a "strong and sustained"
air attack on Iraq Dec. 16 in response to continued Iraqi
attempts to build weapons of mass destruction.

Quote:
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said from the Oval Office. Clinton said he decided weeks ago to give Hussein one last chance to cooperate. But he said U.N. chief weapons inspector Richard Butler reported that Iraq had failed to cooperate -- and had in fact placed new restrictions on weapons inspectors.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the attack, named Operation Desert Fox, was necessary because Hussein never intended to abide by his pledge to give unconditional access to U.N. inspectors trying to determine if Iraq has dismantled its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

July-2000

Quote:
Nevertheless, US and British warplanes continue to bomb Iraqi targets on an every-other-day basis and insist that the punitive sanctions regime must be maintained until Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june00/iraq_1-21.html

Quote:
Iraqi leaders have refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to enter requested sites -- but have granted permission to an international atomic commission. Three experts, including a former inspector, discuss the situation, after a background report.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

The unreliability of "curveball" was well-known and publicized even before the invasion. We've had numerous discussions about that back then. This is not new.

User currently offlineDan-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 614 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 3003 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
what does suck worse is having an act of war brought to our homefront because we didn't pay attention to small amounts of questionable intel, that when grouped together, paint a different, plausible, near coherent picture.

That's four caveats by my count. In other words, we went to war on the thinnest of cases, and ignored every opportunity to avoid the quagmire that Iraq has become.

Absent an act of aggression, shouldn't a nation have an airtight case and irrefutable evidence before mounting an invasion and subsequent years-long occupation?


User currently offlineClipperhawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2994 times:

Quoting N229NW (Reply 17):
If you must, claim that the US changed on 9/11/01. It did. But claiming that the whole world should stop and think about nothing but 9/11 is just a cheap gambit to silence debate and intimidate those who disagree with your policies.

Actually the world did change because of the far reaching influence that the U.S. has. It's not an excuse, it's reality. Did peoples day to day lives change? Probably not. But did governments views and policies change? You bet they did form one degree to another. As I said, it's not an excuse just a hard fact.
Just ask the people of Bali, Madrid, London, Amman, etc. It changed for them! And it was not because of George W. Bush. Lay the blame where it needs to be laid. Radical fascist Islamic fundamentalism and the willingness to kill you for who you are. That's what people should be bitching about.

I much rather the fight be "there" (Iraq) than in the streets of Chicago or over the tall buildings in New York. Let the terrorists come to Iraq and we can conveniently kill them there.



"You Can't Beat The Experience"
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2988 times:

Quoting Dan-Air (Reply 20):
Absent an act of aggression, shouldn't a nation have an airtight case and irrefutable evidence before mounting an invasion and subsequent years-long occupation?

No.

In a word.

It is however, a very thin line.

But I'm definitely a believer in pre-emptive measures. I'd be a fool, and so would anyone else, just to wait on a situation to happen . . . any situation. Being prepared to act, and having a plan to act (whether the plan is every implemented is irrelevent - that fact is, it exists), and having multiple plans is sound judgement.

Preparing for nothing, Doing nothing (even pre- emtively), is utterly foolish.


User currently offlineClipperhawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2985 times:

Quoting Dan-Air (Reply 20):
Absent an act of aggression, shouldn't a nation have an airtight case and irrefutable evidence before mounting an invasion and subsequent years-long occupation?

Do the systematic violating of UN resolutions count? That was another reason for going to war. Or have you conveniently forgotten about those?



"You Can't Beat The Experience"
User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 19
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2965 times:

Quoting Clipperhawaii (Reply 23):
Do the systematic violating of UN resolutions count?

Since when do you support the UN? Besides, they have a military of their own.



Dear moderators: No.
25 Usnseallt82 : Anybody with half a brain knows that the UN does NOT have a military of its own. They have troops and equipment donated by member nations to help fig
26 We're Nuts : Let me elaborate: when they create a coalition, they are essentially forming their own military. True, it is comprised of members' troops, but the go
27 Post contains images Clipperhawaii : What??? Goals higher than the very members that formed them in the first place? Your signature is very appropriate in this case. Perfect in fact!
28 We're Nuts : Yeah, I think the UN has loftier goals than the US. Right now, we probably aren't thinking about world peace or worrying over who is starving and whe
29 Clipperhawaii : That's pretty ignorant coming from you, an American. I think we all can let your quote speak for itself. End of your story. *sets ignore* No time to
30 We're Nuts : I don't let that prevent me from being objective. Take a look at our priorities. I didn't think hearing that Americans are selfish would surprise or
31 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Well, that's utter . UN troops, or troops working under the auspices of the UN, are working for the goals of every member nation of the force structu
32 Clipperhawaii : That's a roger. Only to ignorance. *resumes ignore*
33 DL021 : Thanks for clarifying that for me. You are correct because we did not pay enough attention to small amounts of intel, including that provided by Able
34 Logan22L : No doubt. The stuffed animal store closes early on Sunday.
35 We're Nuts : Call me an idealist, but I think the UN is more than just the sum of its parts. Maybe it's the idea that through cooperation we can all achieve more.
36 ANCFlyer : I absolutely agree . . . . 100%. Twenty years ago - maybe ten - I'd have agreed with you. Any group of entities that comes together for the common go
37 Falcon84 : I wasn't talking about 9/11, CH. I was talking about Iraq. Maybe you didn't get the memo, but the only one who believes 9/11 had anything to do with
38 DL021 : even worse...I had to go to the opera with my wife, mother and sister plus clients..... I have to say that even then they were merely a place where t
39 Post contains images Falcon84 : And miss FOOTBALL? Just give Ian's wife the whip and tha pants, everyone.  [Edited 2005-11-21 02:55:16]
40 Post contains images Aloges : The funny thing is, no matter how hard he "ignores" someone who dares disagree with him, he still sends them the occasional IM concerning their posts
41 ANCFlyer : No? The how can you agree here? Can't be both ways, Falcon. Now there, I'll agree. But I'll caveat that with questions. Where do you draw the line? W
42 Falcon84 : I don't think I'm having it both ways, ANC. I don't think you just attack a nation like Iraq, pre-emptively, without any real, solid proof they're go
43 Post contains images DL021 : You don't know the half of it....... oh.....and I wear the pants in this family......she just tells me which ones to put on.... Opinion...not fact. M
44 Post contains images Halls120 : We waited for "airtight" intelligence on Japanese intentions prior to Pearl Harbor - look what that got us. And at least one of the books written by
45 Post contains images Falcon84 : Yeah, but she has the gun, as I remember. I never said otherwise, but the facts as we know them back up my opinion, do they not?
46 ANCFlyer : Never gonna happen . . . .ever. There is an old saying, No Operations Order survives First Contact with the Enemy. What ever info you have may be exa
47 Falcon84 : I'm certainly convinced; a boatload of Americans are convinced-more than aren't, my friend. And if they are there, why haven't we found them? Assume
48 ANCFlyer : I don't dispute your convictions . . . but I offer this analogy for your thoughts. Iraq is roughly the size of California. Eliminate immediately all
49 Falcon84 : Agreed, but it isn't that we've found it all: we've found ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. My point is that we should have found something, by now, that would poi
50 MDorBust : Please read Volume 3 Annex F of the ISG's final report relateing to Iraq's WMD program as released 30 September 2004
51 Falcon84 : Maybe try linking it.
52 Halls120 : I'm still wondering why you brought up the Libby indictment in this context, and given that you are so against preemptive attack, what would you have
53 LTBEWR : The background and history of Iraq and WMD's is well documented. They clearly prevented for years proper inspections by the UN. There is the issue of
54 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : Not only did they just prevent the inspections, but also threatened the inspectors several times during their attempts.
55 Post contains links MDorBust : http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
56 NoUFO : "A total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 "The most interesting discovery has been a (one) 152m
57 Stirling : As horrible as it may sound...there is much to be said for "Centralizing" the "War". Is it pretty? Hell no. I do not see how this can be seen as an i
58 Falcon84 : To look at contingencies is one thing-there's contingencies for military action, updated periodically, at the Pentagon, for almost any conceivable sc
59 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : We aren't sacrificing Iraqi's.......period. Iraqi's are now killing themselves and are crossing into another area of the war where they are blowing u
60 Halls120 : Not the question I asked, but in any event, I don't believe we should wait for "solid proof" if we have a reasonable and well-founded belief that an
61 Falcon84 : And what uncorked all this? Bush's war, did it not? Bush set this thing in motion, and he is to blame, no one else. Oh, and last time I checked, Amer
62 Usnseallt82 : Uh.....I'd say Saddam's coming to power uncorked all of this. Bush didn't start this mess........it was going on LONG before his Administration took
63 Falcon84 : A stretch. Now you're saying we're justified in simply getting rid of a government or a leader we don't like. No, Saddam being in power didn't start
64 Halls120 : We aren't at war with China because they have neither the current means or intent to mount a successful and sustained attack against us. "means" and
65 Post contains images Falcon84 : Neither did Iraq! That closes the case right there. Thank you. And to say China has less means than Iraq did in '03?
66 Usnseallt82 : No, I never said that and you know better than to put words in my mouth. Saddam was a threat, not just a leader we didn't like. I we took care of eve
67 Falcon84 : Well, events the last few years show that while he has a history of being a threat, his government wasn't a threat to anyone outside his own borders,
68 DL021 : That's like saying that world war two started because of Hideki Tojo or Adolf Hitler. It's a bit more complicated than that, and I think that the war
69 Post contains images Halls120 : While we now know that Iraq did not have the means or intent to attack the US, the available knowledge - subject to dispute, I realize - before we at
70 Seb146 : What the f*ck does Iraq have to do with Sept. 11? Why the f*ck did the United States need to attack a nation with barely any weapons? If I remember, d
71 Falcon84 : Whatever, Ian. I'll hold my ground. I think your coloring your remarks because you support the war, so we're even, I guess. Please. Don't tell me it
72 Halls120 : Of course China had a greater capability to attack. But they also have a correspondingly minimal intent to attack, which negates their means. As poin
73 Falcon84 : Obviously, so did Iraq, because 1. They had no weapons, a we now know, and 2. They had no military might to even get out of a paper bag. I haven't co
74 Usnseallt82 : But you haven't shown one ounce of substantial proof that Iraq was completely unjustified.
75 Falcon84 : Conversely, I've seen nothing to convince me of your argument that it was completely justified. In fact, I've given you THE BIGGEST piece of info tha
76 EZEIZA : Sorry to crash into this but... He did not want 9/11, but he did want to get his hands on Iraq even before 9/11, and the attacks were the perfect excu
77 We're Nuts : Whoa, whoa, whoa. America is the honorable nation. Any war needs to be proven completely justified, not the other way around.
78 Halls120 : Here is what you said in reply 37: "We cannot stoop to pre-emptive action. It makes us as bad as those we're fighting. It makes us worse, in some reg
79 Post contains images EZEIZA : And what exactly does the Iran-Iraq war or the invasion of Kuwait that have anything to do with the US besides the oil? Oh, and let's not forget who
80 Post contains images EA CO AS : Using that same logic, should a person stop smoking a pack a day only when tests confirm the presence of lung cancer? Question - IF at some point WMD
81 Usnseallt82 : I want you people to realize something pretty damn quick... This is what really drives me crazy. Not ONE of you who speak so confidently about Iraq's
82 EZEIZA : Why all the focus on the WMD's (or lack of) in Iraq? If the reasoning behind the war were WMD's why not go after North Korea, India or Pakistan, all n
83 Halls120 : The relevance of Iraq's attack on Kuwait and the Iran conflict? That under Saddam, Iraq did not hesitate to initiate armed conflict with it's neighbo
84 Schoenorama : And a couple of reports from David Kay, Charles Duelfer, ... What weapons? WMD? If affirmative, please provide some evidence. But parts of weapons ge
85 Post contains images EZEIZA : But Iraq did not pose a threat to the US With that logic, the US could attack any country in the world it believes to be a threat. Without proof, it
86 Halls120 : I've never claimed one should attack preemptively without proof. Because the Al Queda terrorists acted on their own, not on behalf of Saudi Arabia, w
87 EZEIZA : So please explain the proof behind Iraq And again, what was the threat of Iraq to the US? The administration first used the OBL-Saddam-9/11 link as a
88 We're Nuts : Cop-out. So everyone is wrong except you?
89 ANCFlyer : Fact. You'll just have to suck that up Nuts . . .
90 Falcon84 : We had no concrete proof-at any time, that Iraq intended to attack us in any way, shape or form. We DID have a reasonable certainty, via codes and tr
91 Halls120 : Let's put it this way. You stand in front of me holding what appears to be a loaded gun. You aren't necessarily pointing it at me, but nevertheless I
92 Falcon84 : My position is that when we deal with a nation that hasn't threatened us like Iraq, pre-emptive action is wrong. If we catch someone ready to clobber
93 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : Come on now.....its "Fly Navy." (but don't worry.....I'm stuck on an AFB right now, so we're even!) As to the following people.... except for you, Nu
94 We're Nuts : I look better in heels, though.
95 Post contains images EZEIZA : I like the comparison, but there's something missing there: Iraq had nothing that appeared to be a loaded gun. Iraq had nothing, but we were led to b
96 Schoenorama : The problem with this equation is that it is incomplete: in stead of you facing one man with what appears to be a gun in his hand there's two men: on
97 Halls120 : The problem with your equation is that you have missed entirely the point I was making. I wasn't using my scenario to suggest our decision to attack
98 Post contains images Falcon84 : I almost corrected him, dude, but it's your signature, not mine. Btw, my cousin went to Annapolis, and later flew right-seat in the A-6. I have anoth
99 EZEIZA : I see your point, it is always easier to judge a decision after actions happen. However, what this whole Iraq conflict is proving is that the Adminis
100 Post contains images Klaus : No, not at all!
101 Gilligan : First people like you say Bush and his entire administration save one person had their head in the sand and did not see 9/11 coming when it was evide
102 Falcon84 : I've never said that, Little Buddy. Never. I don't blame Bush, after being in office for 8 months, for 9/11. That was a collective American itel fail
103 Gilligan : And both those people have or had an ax to grind or needed to cover their butts. I will and I want to you to point to one single quote prior to 9/11
104 EZEIZA : They were wrong, but as you say "most likely" not a fact like Bush presented. You don't go to war until you can prove the reasons, not because of a p
105 Stirling : Sorry....I'm on this new med that causes blurry vision... I'm just sore cause Fisher is getting old and a little something called 27-24; although you
106 Halls120 : No, they won't, as dreadfully illustrated by the headline in this morning's paper. Insurgents attacked a site where US forces were giving toys to chi
107 Stirling : Interesting sidenote to history, prior to the latest Iraq Wars, most major US wars were undertaken with a Democrat in the Whitehouse. WWI Woodrow Wils
108 Gilligan : Like the Falkland Islands? At the time all the intelligence both from the U.S. and other nations pointed to Saddam having the weapons. The terrorism
109 EZEIZA : First of allm this has nothing to do with this thread, but since you bring it up, the Falkland war was a big mistake, everyone will agree with that,
110 Gilligan : I am not still trying to justify Iraq. The removal of Hussien, a free a fair election of a democratic government, a free a fair ratification of a Con
111 EZEIZA : An obvious threat to who???? too much danger of what??? those are simply assumptions! you don't invade a country based on assumptions, especially aft
112 Gilligan : and 9/11. He never said there were no links between Saddam and OBL. In whose opinion? Are hundreds of thousands of Saudis being raped and murdered by
113 We're Nuts : Slightly revisionist, don't you think?
114 Post contains links Cairo : The president and this administration WITHOUT A DOUBT wanted to invade Iraq and used 9/11 and the spectre of WMD as a pretense. see this from an admin
115 Halls120 : " target=_blank>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...shtml Wow. Paul O'Neill is you best source? The former Secretary of the Treasury? The head of a
116 Stirling : Absolutely not...the facts speak for themselves....I sensed in a previous post somewhere back; the new fad of colluding the word "War" with "Republic
117 We're Nuts : I guess the War of 1812, the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War just don't count? Not to mention our countless other conflicts. You've chosen a
118 Amy : I have to say that I agree with you. My question is this: The Bush administration felt that it needed to liberate iraq from the opression of Saddam H
119 Post contains links EZEIZA : check this link out ... yeah, he was misunderstood .... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm or this link .... you are right, i was
120 Gilligan : Then isn't every monarchy past, present, or future to be considered a dictatorship? Did Saddam? The point is that he proved that he would use poison
121 EZEIZA : I did, for many years, and I lived there during 9/11 so please inform yourself before assuming things. Oh, btw, my sister still lived there, so yes,
122 Gilligan : Exactly how would I go about figuring out where you have lived, or where your sister lives for that matter? It's still just your opinion and unless y
123 Post contains images EZEIZA : I am not, you are correct, so? I can't give an opinion? Are you a citizen of Iraq? I will assume that you are not, so why did you get involvd in thei
124 Halls120 : That is your opinion, not the truth. At most, they made a mistake in interpreting the available intelligence. No one lied about the danger posed by I
125 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : Unfortunately, not one of these people have ever known anything about war, nor have they ever served in it. Ironically, though they have no experienc
126 We're Nuts : Nor do we need a former pawn telling us what is really happening in Iraq. You know nothing more than the rest of us, and the fact of the matter is yo
127 Usnseallt82 : You need the truth....plain and simple. The more you keep buying into the popular trends, the more you will be hurt in the end by your own ignorance
128 We're Nuts : I'll believe my senators and congressmen before I believe you. They have access to real information. You? Well, I don't how you come up with your cra
129 Usnseallt82 : Again, I ask, why the popular trend? Do you think any of these politicians have seen the war we're in now? When they travel over there to parade thei
130 We're Nuts : Okay Usn, I'll bite. Tell me what you saw over there that convinced you. And please be detailed, because a thorough Q&A will follow.
131 EZEIZA : Yes, but only because the administration stated, beyond doubt, that they knew WMD's were in Iraq. if they would have said something like "there are i
132 Gilligan : Then you are unwilling to accept the dictionary definition of a lie and any further discussion on whether President Bush lied or not is useless since
133 EZEIZA : Sometimes it is very helpful to see what others feel about your country. It is always interesting to have unbiased opinions. Yup, Iraq was a real thr
134 Cairo : Support of Israel might be ok, it is the one-sided support of Israel that this the problem. The support of Israel even when it kills families and chi
135 Halls120 : I notice that you didn't address the issue of the stated goal of Israel's neighbors to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. What a surprise -
136 Gilligan : There is an old song from the early 70's called "A Canadians View of America" you should dig up a copy and take a listen. Why didn't Germany in WW2?
137 EZEIZA : This statement proves just how closed minded you are. Yes, it is your country, but Iraq is not, so why did you invade it? You don't like Iraq yet tha
138 Gilligan : You're free to give as many opinions as you wish, I never said that you weren't. When you imply that we should vote as someone else from another coun
139 EZEIZA : And you should, but not blindly, and realize that there are flaws in your country's defense. Invading iraq was never a matte rof defense. The leader
140 Gilligan : With all due respect, once again, those are your opinions. You are welcome to them but many in this country would disagree with them and I am one of
141 Post contains images EZEIZA : But what if Chavez began a nuclear program? Who would give the US (or anyone else for that matter) the right to interfere? And the US has never put p
142 Post contains images Gilligan : There are many countries that have nuclear programs. I can think of only 3 current ones that have drawn any attention from the United States. Guess t
143 Post contains images EZEIZA : ha! this time you said it not me I said "with the information you have now" Precisely, so I'm going to have to bring up the different approaches (yes
144 Gilligan : As with nations that trade with Cuba, that is their business. If India or Pakistan were to threaten us that would be an entirely different matter. I
145 EZEIZA : You would pay attention to him, but you could not lock him again until he committed the fact or unless you catch him red-handed. Bush did more that j
146 Gilligan : conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime in itself. The fact of the matter is that it was a rather poor analogy but when you factor in the differences
147 EZEIZA : True Sorry, I could never agree to take out a foreign leader and invade a country on a "maybe" argument. What would you say if some foreign country w
148 Gilligan : Who have we "threatened to attack" other than Iraq? We signed a treaty with the Soviet Union to do away with all our nerve gas and biological weapons
149 Post contains images EZEIZA : Well ... iraq, is that not enough? And indirectly, the "with us or against us" is kind of a threat. No, you are getting this wrong. He's getting all
150 Seb146 : Except the charts and photos the Gen. Colin Powell took to the UN pointing out where the WMDs are, then after the invasion, Bush saying "Well.... we
151 DL021 : I am having difficulty with this one. Exactly when was the claim made that Saddam was complicit in 9-11? Or was the charge that he was aiding terrori
152 Halls120 : Sending everyone to the Superdome - where the city had insufficient water a food supplies - wasn't FEMA's fault. Not having enough personnel to drive
153 Gilligan : I looked into that quote since you have used it several times. You are taking it out of context. The context was that if you don't harbor terrorists
154 Seb146 : Saddam did not deal with al-Qaida at all. Saddam was a secularist. Yes, he is Muslim, but his government was secular. Since Saddam did not deal with
155 EZEIZA : Let me put it this way: If a company goes bankrupt, where does the ultimate responsability lie on? On the CEo, right? If a country Invades another ba
156 Gilligan : It would be Secretary of State Powell and those charts and photos were prepared by the CIA, not President Bush so you still have no proof that he (Pr
157 Gilligan : But the government is that sense is unlike a business that in every 4 or 8 years you get a new President which doesn't neccesarily happen in a busine
158 Post contains images EZEIZA : Well, my friend, again we are going to agree to disagree (as in about 99% of this topic! ) regarding the President's responsability, so it's probably
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
More Good News For Opie & Anthony! posted Wed Sep 20 2006 02:54:44 by Dw9115
More Bad News For Introverts posted Fri May 19 2006 18:47:49 by PROSA
More Bad News For Democrats... posted Wed Nov 3 2004 23:23:22 by N771AN
New Poll/Survey: More Bad News For Democrats posted Mon Oct 18 2004 13:14:32 by L-188
More Bad News For The Kerry Camp posted Fri May 7 2004 14:57:21 by L-188
More Details About Intel Failure And "Curveball" posted Sun Jun 25 2006 18:49:53 by Falcon84
"Star Trek" Starship Cloak May Work For Real posted Wed May 3 2006 22:45:24 by AerospaceFan
"Woman Locked In Shed For 25 Years" posted Fri Sep 9 2005 21:58:48 by RedDragon
More Shame For Bush posted Wed Mar 26 2003 16:07:24 by Sebolino
"I See Dead People" & More... posted Sat Nov 17 2001 20:33:09 by Boeing757fan