I get tired of hearing this! Rant!

scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
If FOX says it, then must be true...http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html
The article you linked to makes reference to this area..but here is what was actually said...
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Oct. 6, Charles Duelfer, an adviser to the CIA, did not rule out Saddam's transfer of Iraqi missiles and weapons of mass destruction to Syria
Duelfer agreed that a large amount of material had been transferred by Iraq to Syria before the March 2003 war.
Thanks for the link...supports my position
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
As added to his official ISG Report...
But on the question of Syria, Mr. Duelfer did not close the books. "ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war," Mr. Duelfer said in a report posted on the CIA's Web site Monday night.
He cited some evidence of a transfer. "Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined," he said. "There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation."
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Time to move on....hope there are no hard feelings or upset folks...we should all agree to disagree...see y'all on another thread..and let the games begin all over again.
I doubt anyone has moved from his/her original position.
Batter-Up
 
dogstar

dogstar

Active Member
darth tang

darth tang

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
The IQ ??? you can be the smartest person on earth and still make mistakes.
Bush 1 let Saddom go in the first Gulf War and were paying for that and CW let BinLaudin go at ToraBora (sp) and when we went into Iraq thinking.........So mistakes or the greatest military moves in history? The IQ runs in the family.

The reason behind lketting saddam go at the time are two. One, Iraq if they ever did anything good they kept a check on Iran. But the most important reason cited by Bush 1 for not going into Iraq and taking out Hussein was the following.............I paraphrase: Removing Saddam from power and returning stability to the region after the war will require a lengthy and long campaign. Something the American people will not be ready for with Great cost to our country in dollars and lives, not to mention political division.
Gee.........sounds spot on to me.............He said this then. What is happenning now? But not taking him out was a blunder on his part according to you....But taking him out makes this Bush stupid......You can't have it both ways.
 
dogstar

dogstar

Active Member
Darth, I understand that and thats my point,... mistake, ...the coalition, and I give Bush 1 credit for getting world support and many Arab nations was with us too. Best time and IMO, I doubt it would have been as bad. The road back to Baghdad was ugly, perhaps he didnt have the stomach for it or control of the Pentagon. ??, IMO, Iran maybe would have gone different as well.....
Perhaps we should have looked deeper at AlQaida then too....
Bush 2, ???
I will add, many mistakes from all adminstrations ( Clinton, Ragan, Carter included ) from the establishment of Isreal with the Palisteneans right up to present. Many mistakes.
History in the makeing, who knows what if, And now who knows whats to come...
 
darth tang

darth tang

Active Member
Dogstar, don't get me wrong...I agree I can find Mistakes with every president in history. They are not all perfect. I voted for Bush...yes. But my choices weren't the best. I found Kerry's convictions to be weak and disagreed with most of them. So I had no viable options. Bush has done a decent job....History will only show if he was right. I remember the same things said about Reagan and the arms race and history has shown him to be correct regarding the USSR. So I can only hope history does the same.
Did Iraq need to be dealt with, yes. At the time? I think we should have waited. But due to how the American people are it was the only time Bush could have received full support for the action without having an attack on our soil by Hussein directly being made. With Iraq out of the picture suddennly Iran has come to the forefront as a problem...when before Iraq held a check on them and their bid for power. This is a dangerous game we play in the middle east but one that we have to play.
I remember during the Iran Contra scandal North was asked why he had a 100,000 dollar security system in his home. He responded he feared for his life and family. When asked why, he said three words. Osama Bin Laden. When asked why he fears him, he states he is the epitomy of evil and the most dangerous man in the world. When asked what should be done, he said the government should have a special ops team take him out. The questioner (John Kerry) responded by saying the American country should not and will not take such actions as they are wrong, blowing him off.
History has proven North right. But then...no one even knew who Bin Laden was and people laughed at this statement and criticized it.
People place to much blame on the President.........I personally feel all of our problems are directly caused by congress. The create and pass laws. They approve actions. Everyone that voted authorizing Iraq and now bashing the President over are nothing but pandering fools. They voted for to look strong on terror. The authorized the action...and now they say it is wrong. I don't buy the lied to comments because EVERY country in the world had the same evidence and conclusions. This has been known but people ignore it. Using the he lied comment as political pandering to the mob. and People buy in to it forgetting the rest of history that was going on at the time. Ultimately if you were against the war or are now, I feel the people should blame EVERY senator and congress person that gave approval then and vote them out of office. But this won't happen...everyone shuffles ALL the blame to the the president, ignoring what their direct representative voted for. Had congress not voted approval, I doubt Bush would have gone through with it.
I don't think a coalition would helped, except to add other bodies for targeting. When we do have a coalition our troops still make up almost 90% of the fighting forces. The did in the Gulf War...so what would have changed. We sweeped into Bagdad with minimal losses just like then.......without a coalition. The majority of the deaths have come after the invasion and we had the country and Hussein. So how would a coalition prevent what is happenning now?
But we should have waited. We don't need a coalition...but we have stretched ourselves thin now. The thing we should do is pull our troops from Europe (as they aren't needed) and station them in Iraq and afghanistan, this will place more personel on the ground there without taking from home. However.....since WWII the pentagon has been reluctant to remove a significant amount of troops from Europe for some reason.
Darth (voting for Guiliani in 08) Tang
 
dogstar

dogstar

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darth Tang
....History will only show if he was right.
This I agree with,
....and I understand the conserns/reasons of both sides in most issues and its often hard to know the truth, esp. the way politics is played in the country now. I often find my self somewhere in the middle and it just seems that thats not where many think we should be.
Anyway, thanks for the respectfull reply and sorry if I offened.....
 
darth tang

darth tang

Active Member
Anytime Dogstar, I am like yourself, closer to the middle but more conservative than liberal, however. I also think congressmen should be limited in their terms.....Give a good influx of new ideas more often and new people to actually do some good.
Darth (never offended) Tang
 
aquarium1

aquarium1

Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
You have already posted that Bush is an idiot. An idiot as defined using this IQ numbering system is having an IQ of 20 or lower. I have posted the IQ of Bush based on his published SAT scores. You have been proved wrong based on fact......get it?

Oh MY GOD!!!!!!!
You don't understand(EVEN THOUGH I STATED) that it was my opinion (and a statement not taken literally, meaning that I said he's an idiot in MY PERCEPTION, that he is stupid, not a literal interpretation of a dictionary meaning. DUH!) that Bush was an idiot. He's not bright. He fumbles words, mangles sentences and really has NO IDEA of what he is talking about at times. He had to be PROMPTED with the black box mechanism to be able to fudge answers during his debate for petes sake! He doesn't know his English, his geography, nor math. I don't care how he "did" on a test. He probably had SOMEONE ELSE take it for him! I don't trust the man nor anyone who thinks he's Gods gift to America.
He can sell to the masses, because he's got people writing for him. I wouldn't put much stock in the documents. It's been known that documents relating to Bush and the family suddenly dissappear or appear after gone missing. Those documents are suspect at best. Where are all the drunk driving conviction records? How about his record of MILITARY SERVICE? Why does no one remember seeing, or rooming with him during the time when he SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE?
I have NOT been proven wrong. It's a fact, I still think George W. Bush is an idiot.
 
dogstar

dogstar

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darth Tang
Anytime Dogstar, I am like yourself, closer to the middle but more conservative than liberal, however. I also think congressmen should be limited in their terms.....Give a good influx of new ideas more often and new people to actually do some good.
Darth (never offended) Tang
I understand your point. Its valid, but I dont think we need to take that power from the people. To elect who they want. I see the special intrest and the money and the lobbiest and the system as it is as more of a problem.
Control this and make the Congress more conserned for the people. The people have the " ideas " and if the politicians would only listen to the people instead of the money.
 
darth tang

darth tang

Active Member
We wouldn't take the power from the people any further than we have taken it from them in chosing a President. Look at. How long have some senators been in office now? How many of them have presented new options lately? We limit the president to prevent a sort of heirarchy from happenning but we have allowed it to occur at the other branch of government that passes laws. We have become stagnant.
 
37g joe

37g joe

Member
Originally Posted by Aquarium1
Oh MY GOD!!!!!!!
You don't understand(EVEN THOUGH I STATED) that it was my opinion (and a statement not taken literally, meaning that I said he's an idiot in MY PERCEPTION, that he is stupid, not a literal interpretation of a dictionary meaning. DUH!) that Bush was an idiot. He's not bright. He fumbles words, mangles sentences and really has NO IDEA of what he is talking about at times. He had to be PROMPTED with the black box mechanism to be able to fudge answers during his debate for petes sake! He doesn't know his English, his geography, nor math. I don't care how he "did" on a test. He probably had SOMEONE ELSE take it for him! I don't trust the man nor anyone who thinks he's Gods gift to America.
He can sell to the masses, because he's got people writing for him. I wouldn't put much stock in the documents. It's been known that documents relating to Bush and the family suddenly dissappear or appear after gone missing. Those documents are suspect at best. Where are all the drunk driving conviction records? How about his record of MILITARY SERVICE? Why does no one remember seeing, or rooming with him during the time when he SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE?
I have NOT been proven wrong. It's a fact, I still think George W. Bush is an idiot.
just because he does not speak like a snake, slithering all his words perfectly together like Clinton did does not make him an Idiot. I guess steven hawkins is a Idiot by Your perception. Thier are alot of Brilliant people Who just arnt the Greatest speakers. Hitler was one of the most amazing masters of language we ever knew. He was able to captivate an audiance. But lok at what he was able to do. I would rather have someone who had a good heart and stood for morals than a slipery snake like Clinton as a president
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darth Tang
We wouldn't take the power from the people any further than we have taken it from them in chosing a President. Look at. How long have some senators been in office now? How many of them have presented new options lately? We limit the president to prevent a sort of heirarchy from happenning but we have allowed it to occur at the other branch of government that passes laws. We have become stagnant.
I beleive you are making reference to a monarchy?
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
David Kay left Iraq in Dec.03....
Scuba, agreed. No hard feelings at all, I understand how thoughtfull people can have different conclusions on issues. I have no conclusion myself but very cautious because of how things went early on.
If any ones intrested....
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair..._10022003.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group
Many sources out there about all this and wether there reliable or not is up to the individuals.
I have taken this directly from the March 2005 Addenda note that Wikipedia makes reference to. As you can see....Wikipedia has inaccruate info. The actual addenda can be viewed on the inernet in PDF format.
Remaining Uncertainties. Some uncertainties remain and some information will continue to emerge about the WMD programs or the former Regime. Reports cited in the Comprehensive Report concerning the possible movement of WMD or WMD materials from Iraq prior to the war remain unresolved. With the recent increase in security, planned efforts to investigate this issue were suspended. ISG developed an investigation plan that may be pursued when the security situation improves.
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
I have taken this directly from the March 2005 Addenda note that Wikipedia makes reference to. As you can see....Wikipedia has inaccruate info. The actual addenda can be viewed on the internet in PDF format.
Remaining Uncertainties. Some uncertainties remain and some information will continue to emerge about the WMD programs or the former Regime. Reports cited in the Comprehensive Report concerning the possible movement of WMD or WMD materials from Iraq prior to the war remain unresolved. With the recent increase in security, planned efforts to investigate this issue were suspended. ISG developed an investigation plan that may be pursued when the security situation improves.
better known as the we are not sure...so we thought we would cover our ass.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Aquarium1
My fav koolaid is bl.cherry.
I'm a liberal democrat and proud of it.
Bush is an idiot.
I'm still curious where exactly this statement explains that this is your opinion?
 
dogstar

dogstar

Active Member
Just some history....
Jefferson, "if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life".
Article 22 was not ratified untill 1951. That took a while !!
Two different branches, the Congress is the people, ( should be anyway ) I agree that the re-election of many members is a problem but its because of the money and how it flows. ' He/she with the most money wins ' The new members are/ would be just as holding to the money as the multi-termers.
Some people may feel that limiting the power of the people and protecting the influence of the money is whats best.... I dont, at least I can say it still.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top