Kay Sera Sera

[nbdysfu]

Nah, I think you hit your thumb, and the nail went through your forefinger. Still trying to figure out what that last post of yours was saying.

 

[jones]

Bet you can't find a policy that wouldnt benifit big business, and bet you cant find ANYTHING that helps the middle class from this Bush Regime.

yah, its so easy.

 

[eric]

and bet you cant find ANYTHING that helps the middle class from this Bush Regime

Looking foolish again, hey you are good at that, my father-in-laws medicare supplement premium is dropping and he is getting some prescription drug coverage, as well as more back on his taxes. He is in the middle class and has now realized that Bush is not so bad after all !

 

[eric]

Nah, I think you hit your thumb, and the nail went through your forefinger

 

[jones]

Funny how his son is a medical lobbyist! is that you? hhahaha
Anyway, hes rare. Get your facts straight.

 

[eric]

What the hell are you saying, try and at least make a point !

 

[jones]

So you are? Thats my point.

Your one example is not typical, not that hard to understand.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by jimnyc
How do you explain the prior 10 years of sanctions and resolutions? Would Saddam have cooperated with investigators had 9/11 never happened?

12 years of Saddam's violating U.N. resolutions is a long enough waiting period.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
12 years of Saddam's violating U.N. resolutions is a long enough waiting period.

No doubt, some seem to think the first 9 years of his antics were somehow absolved when Bush took office. He agreed to resolutions. He failed to abide by said resolutions. He was forcefully removed from power. 12 years was more than enough time for him to start cooperating.

 

[spillmind]

Very hard to let between the two when little liberal fruitcakes keep reducing our military and intel budgets, what about the rest of the world, you seemed to ignore this point, as you often do when you can't argue it.

please, i've got NOTHING on your 'liberal' conspiracies! you exaggerate, and there's too much grey area, and it's not the topic.

Who said rock solid ? Sounds like a possibility to me, which we still can not be sure of.

sounds like it's much more than a POSSIBILITY to you.

You are just a little boy wet behind the ears. Of course we do business with bad people when it serves our interests. Grow up boy ! Still doesn't change the fact we took a evil person out of power !

and you are quite 'possibly' a sour evil man who thinks that america can f*** with anyone other country as long as we hold the power and have the interest. too bad this admin (and possibly you) keep up with this shortsidedness and have underestimated the problem and severity of the current situation in iraq. ain't a damn thing niave about that.

45 minutes for a nuclear weapon ? I think he was talking about chemical and biological weapons, don't you ?

ya got me there. i misspoke. point taken.


jim:

As I previously stated, I would have voted to invade regardless of the WMD claims.

too bad your vote isn't neccessarily shared by the global popular opinion. and without those WMDs, just imagine how tough it would have been to sway our public. most americans ARE living in fear. especially then.

The worst case scenario is that the intel was faulty.

They passed them off as fact because that's what they believed it to be.

i'm sorry jim, but there HAS to be some accountability from the white house. passing it off entirely on the CIA is a total wienie move, and cowardly. i for one don't like the way most people let the white house get away with lack of accountability mostly in the name of re-election. :sausage: !!!!

Do you think the fact that there are other bad people in the world somehow makes Saddam less evil or more evil?

prove to me that saddam was more of a threat to humanity (or the US, for that matter) than any other leader/country in the fabled 'axis of evil', and SEE why there is ZERO consistency with that tired old arguement!

Tell us the 'truth' then, why did the USA really invade Iraq?

great question, and here's what i think:

a) a politically demographic international power grab.

we needed a presence in the ME (for this reason, arguements are many), and iraq is a prime location.... this makes more sense if you also think american global domination is best for everyone- don't be suprised when other countries don't agree.

b) oil is(was) a factor. PERIOD. we can debate on the degree of impact on the decision all we want, but the fact is, our companies were in there with lightning speed, matched only by the effort of our troops to keep all the wells as intact as possible. it would be stupid NOT to take advantage of a resource like that. just admit it, already!

c) after a successful campaign in afghanistan, it made sense to the admin to keep the popularity machine rolling. the intial response from the american public was great, but as time went on, the case became exceedingly weak. when we went ahead without UN approval, domestic and especially international dissent for america's intention was no secret. and no coincidence. keeping the 'war on terror' going had bush's agenda in full effect. i'm sure his intentions were good, but i think they chose the wrong battle to fight.

there are theories bush had a vendetta against saddam for attempting to take the life of his father. however, i don't think this was a factor at all.

i still think that if there were an energy solution, we wouldn't even have invaded iraq, let alone saddam even having the funds to assert an attack against the US even if he wanted to!

to win this 'war on terror', you must take away the money being funnelled into the area. can't exactly STEAL it, could we? now, even you guys would admit that isn't right. eliminate the need and demand for this black gold, and watch these 'insurgents' fade away.

 

[jimnyc]

too bad your vote isn't neccessarily shared by the global popular opinion. and without those WMDs, just imagine how tough it would have been to sway our public. most americans ARE living in fear. especially then.

Maybe not the majority, but there are many millions who do agree with my line of thinking.

i'm sorry jim, but there HAS to be some accountability from the white house. passing it off entirely on the CIA is a total wienie move, and cowardly. i for one don't like the way most people let the white house get away with lack of accountability mostly in the name of re-election.

First there must be proof they did something wrong before you can expect accountability from them. All you have now is them acting on intelligence reports from the CIA and reports from weapons inspectors. Furthermore, the investigation hasn't even started yet. Accountability has yet to be placed on any shoulders.

prove to me that saddam was more of a threat to humanity (or the US, for that matter) than any other leader/country in the fabled 'axis of evil', and SEE why there is ZERO consistency with that tired old arguement!

It wasn't anyones job to provide proof other than Saddam's. He refused to cooperate and he lost. You really need to stop comparing Saddam to other leaders. Each case is different. If you want to bitch and moan elsewhere that a leader is getting away with crimes, fine, but it has zero to do with Iraq. It's been consistent since 1991 when resolutions were first drawn up against Saddam. He's been consistent in failing to abide by those resolutions. The USA has been consistent in demanding that he abide by them or action would be taken. Seems like an extremely consistent argument to me.

I'm not going to bother replying to your 'war for oil' theories. I've had enough laughs for one night.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

prove to me that saddam was more of a threat to humanity (or the US, for that matter) than any other leader/country in the fabled 'axis of evil', and SEE why there is ZERO consistency with that tired old arguement!

What does this mean? The US should go after all of the leaders/countries? None of them? Some of them? What should be the criteria.

First there must be proof they did something wrong before you can expect accountability from them. All you have now is them acting on intelligence reports from the CIA and reports from weapons inspectors.

Exactly. I don't think there is any proof. I know a lot of people want to believe that the White House pressured the CIA and others, but there is no proof of that and I doubt that it happened.

 

[modman]

I tend to go with the simplist explanation, which usally tends to be the right one. Yea I'm sure the CIA failed to determine Iraq's WMDs. (roll my eyes). These intelligence people know what you and I ate for dinner last night. They scare the hell out of us saying that Iraq was maybe not imminent, but grave, and oh my god, URGENT! And of course they find nothing, some of them contradict one another on thier explanations afterwords but basically try to stick to thier current explanation that we're better off without Saddam. Bait and switch at it's best.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by modman
I tend to go with the simplist explanation, which usally tends to be the right one. Yea I'm sure the CIA failed to determine Iraq's WMDs. (roll my eyes). These intelligence people know what you and I ate for dinner last night. They scare the hell out of us saying that Iraq was maybe not imminent, but grave, and oh my god, URGENT! And of course they find nothing, some of them contradict one another on thier explanations afterwords but basically try to stick to thier current explanation that we're better off without Saddam. Bait and switch at it's best.

I think there is a latch on the side where you can loosen your cap a bit.