- Thread starter
- Banned
- #41
of course I have a link. Do you have answers to my previously posed questions?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Quinnipiac Poll May 1st, 2007
- Thread starter maineman
- Start date
of course I have a link. Do you have answers to my previously posed questions?
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
of course I have a link. Do you have answers to my previously posed questions?
Why not share it? Or are you worried when we see all the questions and sample breakdown your thread will crash and burn?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #43
please read this for comprehension:
Gosh... I thought I made my position quite clear yesterday, but, to reiterate: I have absolutely no intention of answering any of your questions going forward until you have addressed the backlog of questions that I have posed to you and that you have continued to run away from.
It only seems fair. I seem to be able to carry on intelligent discussions with a variety of conservatives on this board....but not you. I have been quite clear on the fact that dialog requires more than insults at my party....but it requires responses to the things that I have written to you and the legitimate questions that your own posts have raised. When you decide to answer questions posed to you, you will find that I will, again, answer your questions posed to me.... it only seems fair.
if you are suggesting that we formulate our national position on how to use the military for the execution of our forign policy by polling the members of the military, I would beg to disagree. I have no doubt that miliary members have a good idea of the conditions on the ground in Iraq. I am also aware that 70% of the forces in Iraq believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that we found them, and that he had a connection to 9/11....so their are clearly limits to the prescience and indepth understanding of the rank and file active duty member.
The quinnipiac poll is instructive.... I suggested what I thought it meant and what had driven the shift in public opinion. If you would care to debate that with me, I look forward to the conversation!
I would suggest that National security trumps any poll you care to bring forward. I would further stipulate that since the press refuses to be honest about the conditions in Iraq the rank and file civilian is clueless.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #45
I would suggest that National security trumps any poll you care to bring forward. I would further stipulate that since the press refuses to be honest about the conditions in Iraq the rank and file civilian is clueless.
I would agree that national security trumps polls.....absolutely. I do NOT agree that military attitudes determine national security priorities.
And the people believe what they are fed.... they were fed fear and 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction.... and they ate it up.
and I do not consider my self as clueless about the middle east as the average american civilian. I did a tour of duty as a UN Military observer in lebanon and have read and studied the region pretty extensively before and after that tour. I maintain close contact with many former UN officers and with civilians - muslim, christian, and jew - in Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt.
Ahh yes Bush the evil mind controlling antichrist defense.
Are you suggesting that the media were hoodwinked by Bush? That the democrats and liberals were all to stupid to see through his manipulations?
Lets get a few things straight....
Saddam Hussein never met the requirements to disarm. he never explained where large numbers of chemical and biological weapons stocks KNOWN to exist went, neither providing proof of destruction or even denying he had them.
Saddam Hussein tried to have a President of the United States assassinated. He attacked US and British air craft for 12 years. He refused to allow inspectors in the country for over 4 years. He was searching for a terrorist organization to attack the United States.
Saddam Hussein was bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. He maintained the team and critical equipment to do just that. He maintained the infrastructure and stocks to mass produce chemical and biological weapons as well as the teams to do so.
Saddam Hussein HAD gassed his enemies. Iraq and Iran.
EVERY intelligence agency in the world agreed he had weapons and was capable of making more, some even believed he was still working on nuclear weapons.
Last but not least, all Saddam Hussein had to do to prevent war was live up to his cease fire agreements. What does it say that he couldn't do that?
Furthermore No one in the Whitehouse invoked images of mushroom clouds. WMDs were simply one of numerous reasons to invade.
Lets get a few things straight....
Saddam Hussein never met the requirements to disarm. he never explained where large numbers of chemical and biological weapons stocks KNOWN to exist went, neither providing proof of destruction or even denying he had them.
Saddam Hussein tried to have a President of the United States assassinated. He attacked US and British air craft for 12 years. He refused to allow inspectors in the country for over 4 years. He was searching for a terrorist organization to attack the United States.
Saddam Hussein was bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. He maintained the team and critical equipment to do just that. He maintained the infrastructure and stocks to mass produce chemical and biological weapons as well as the teams to do so.
Saddam Hussein HAD gassed his enemies. Iraq and Iran.
EVERY intelligence agency in the world agreed he had weapons and was capable of making more, some even believed he was still working on nuclear weapons.
Last but not least, all Saddam Hussein had to do to prevent war was live up to his cease fire agreements. What does it say that he couldn't do that?
Furthermore No one in the Whitehouse invoked images of mushroom clouds. WMDs were simply one of numerous reasons to invade.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #49
Are you suggesting that the media were hoodwinked by Bush? That the democrats and liberals were all to stupid to see through his manipulations?
I can only speak for myself. I saw right through them from day one
Lets get a few things straight....
Saddam Hussein never met the requirements to disarm. he never explained where large numbers of chemical and biological weapons stocks KNOWN to exist went, neither providing proof of destruction or even denying he had them.
he was a paper tiger...even COlin Powell, six months before 9/11 clearly stated that he did not have the ability to project power beyond his own borders and that sanctions were working and that he had not reconstituted his WMD program
Saddam Hussein tried to have a President of the United States assassinated. He attacked US and British air craft for 12 years. He refused to allow inspectors in the country for over 4 years. He was searching for a terrorist organization to attack the United States.
inspectors were back in his country and were asked to leave by Dubya so he could hurry up and invade before they would tell him what we now all know: that Saddam did not have stockpiles of WMD's. I don't know what Saddam was searching for, and I am not sure you do either, but I am fairly certain that he would not have given any WMD's (even if he had them) to an organization like AQ that was bent on his destruction as well as ours
Saddam Hussein was bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. He maintained the team and critical equipment to do just that. He maintained the infrastructure and stocks to mass produce chemical and biological weapons as well as the teams to do so.
like I said...Colin Powell was pretty clear about that in his press conference with the Egyptian foreign minister in february of 2001. But maybe you know more than General Powell, eh gunny?
Saddam Hussein HAD gassed his enemies. Iraq and Iran.
before the first gulf war.... with weapons we gave him
EVERY intelligence agency in the world agreed he had weapons and was capable of making more, some even believed he was still working on nuclear weapons.
but the inspectors WERE there, and if Bush had just had the patience to wait a few more weeks, we would have known that we needn't invade in order to disarm
Last but not least, all Saddam Hussein had to do to prevent war was live up to his cease fire agreements. What does it say that he couldn't do that?
He had let the inspectors back in.... Blix said he was getting access to all suspected sites
Furthermore No one in the Whitehouse invoked images of mushroom clouds. WMDs were simply one of numerous reasons to invade.
you are saying that no one in the Bush administration said anything about not wanting the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over an american city?
I can only speak for myself. I saw right through them from day one
Lets get a few things straight....
Saddam Hussein never met the requirements to disarm. he never explained where large numbers of chemical and biological weapons stocks KNOWN to exist went, neither providing proof of destruction or even denying he had them.
he was a paper tiger...even COlin Powell, six months before 9/11 clearly stated that he did not have the ability to project power beyond his own borders and that sanctions were working and that he had not reconstituted his WMD program
Saddam Hussein tried to have a President of the United States assassinated. He attacked US and British air craft for 12 years. He refused to allow inspectors in the country for over 4 years. He was searching for a terrorist organization to attack the United States.
inspectors were back in his country and were asked to leave by Dubya so he could hurry up and invade before they would tell him what we now all know: that Saddam did not have stockpiles of WMD's. I don't know what Saddam was searching for, and I am not sure you do either, but I am fairly certain that he would not have given any WMD's (even if he had them) to an organization like AQ that was bent on his destruction as well as ours
Saddam Hussein was bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. He maintained the team and critical equipment to do just that. He maintained the infrastructure and stocks to mass produce chemical and biological weapons as well as the teams to do so.
like I said...Colin Powell was pretty clear about that in his press conference with the Egyptian foreign minister in february of 2001. But maybe you know more than General Powell, eh gunny?
Saddam Hussein HAD gassed his enemies. Iraq and Iran.
before the first gulf war.... with weapons we gave him
EVERY intelligence agency in the world agreed he had weapons and was capable of making more, some even believed he was still working on nuclear weapons.
but the inspectors WERE there, and if Bush had just had the patience to wait a few more weeks, we would have known that we needn't invade in order to disarm
Last but not least, all Saddam Hussein had to do to prevent war was live up to his cease fire agreements. What does it say that he couldn't do that?
He had let the inspectors back in.... Blix said he was getting access to all suspected sites
Furthermore No one in the Whitehouse invoked images of mushroom clouds. WMDs were simply one of numerous reasons to invade.
you are saying that no one in the Bush administration said anything about not wanting the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over an american city?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #50
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/08/le.00.html
RICE: You will get different estimates about precisely how close he is. We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments going into Iran, for instance -- into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to -- high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.
We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought, maybe six months from a crude nuclear device.
The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't what the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
oops
RICE: You will get different estimates about precisely how close he is. We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments going into Iran, for instance -- into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to -- high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.
We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought, maybe six months from a crude nuclear device.
The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't what the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
oops
Provide some evidence we gave Saddam Hussein any chemical weapons. That is the oldest tiredest lie out there.
I suggest you read what Blix actually said. he stated that Iraq was NOT meeting its requirements, that he was still denied unfettered access, that he was still getting the run around. Of course being a good UN stooge he wanted more time, time that would have derailed any invasion till September forcing the US to either pay to keep those troops deployed or recalling them only to redeploy to the same song and dance later in the year. France tried that shell game also.
We all knew before the invasion he had no weapons? We being you and of course none of the worlds intelligence agencies that all in fact believed he had weapons. We being all the liberal democrats that voted to go to war knowing what you claim? We being all the Countries that joined us in that war, knowing there was no threat? You are aware that of European Countries almost everyone supported us in 2003? Only France, Germany and Belgium were against it, and France was paid off.
So which is it? Bush is an evil genius or a sniveling moron that cant even tie his own shoes? I cant keep up.
I suggest you read what Blix actually said. he stated that Iraq was NOT meeting its requirements, that he was still denied unfettered access, that he was still getting the run around. Of course being a good UN stooge he wanted more time, time that would have derailed any invasion till September forcing the US to either pay to keep those troops deployed or recalling them only to redeploy to the same song and dance later in the year. France tried that shell game also.
We all knew before the invasion he had no weapons? We being you and of course none of the worlds intelligence agencies that all in fact believed he had weapons. We being all the liberal democrats that voted to go to war knowing what you claim? We being all the Countries that joined us in that war, knowing there was no threat? You are aware that of European Countries almost everyone supported us in 2003? Only France, Germany and Belgium were against it, and France was paid off.
So which is it? Bush is an evil genius or a sniveling moron that cant even tie his own shoes? I cant keep up.
Further more after the invasion we have documented proof that Saddam hussein was paying off France, Russia and China to get sanctions lifted. that when sanctions were lifted he intended to return to mass production of chemical and biological weapons and to return to development of nuclear weapons. We have documented proof he was actively searching for terrorist groups to attack the US. That he intended to rearm his military and modernize.
But hey keep intoning the chant " No WMDs"
But hey keep intoning the chant " No WMDs"
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #53
Further more after the invasion we have documented proof that Saddam hussein was paying off France, Russia and China to get sanctions lifted. that when sanctions were lifted he intended to return to mass production of chemical and biological weapons and to return to development of nuclear weapons. We have documented proof he was actively searching for terrorist groups to attack the US. That he intended to rearm his military and modernize.
But hey keep intoning the chant " No WMDs"
I'd love to see that and furthermore, would love to see you show how that would have been AQ in any case, given the strategic goals of that organization.
and I missed your reply to the mushroom cloud post.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/040.html
those are just two "off the top of my head"
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
Provide some evidence we gave Saddam Hussein any chemical weapons. That is the oldest tiredest lie out there.
I suggest you read what Blix actually said. he stated that Iraq was NOT meeting its requirements, that he was still denied unfettered access, that he was still getting the run around. Of course being a good UN stooge he wanted more time, time that would have derailed any invasion till September forcing the US to either pay to keep those troops deployed or recalling them only to redeploy to the same song and dance later in the year. France tried that shell game also.
We all knew before the invasion he had no weapons? We being you and of course none of the worlds intelligence agencies that all in fact believed he had weapons. We being all the liberal democrats that voted to go to war knowing what you claim? We being all the Countries that joined us in that war, knowing there was no threat? You are aware that of European Countries almost everyone supported us in 2003? Only France, Germany and Belgium were against it, and France was paid off.
So which is it? Bush is an evil genius or a sniveling moron that cant even tie his own shoes? I cant keep up.
Dems were saying what a threat Saddam was with his WMD's BEFORE Pres Bush was President
Clinton said how Saddam had to be taken care of
Of course, Dems get a pass on what they said
TheStripey1
Member
SURE!
All based on a poll taken at a bastion of liberalism in backwoods Maine. Makes about as much sense as taking a poll of soldiers and asking them what we should or should not do...as I recall that was something you were dead set against.
Maine has two republican senators, are you sure it's a bastion of liberalism? But... I can see why you don't like maineman's TO... it goes against your support of bush and the war.... so...
How about the Iraqi parliment? Do they have a say? It IS their country afterall... Or is the Iraqi government subservient to the wishes of Washington?
Iraqi bill on troop pullout discussed
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA Associated Press Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press
May 10, 2007, 12:07PM
BAGHDAD A majority of Iraqi lawmakers endorsed a draft bill calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops and demanding a freeze on the number already in the country, lawmakers said Thursday.
The legislation was being discussed even as U.S. lawmakers were locked in a dispute with the White House over their call to start reducing the size of the U.S. force in the coming months.
The proposed Iraqi legislation, drafted by the parliamentary bloc loyal to anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, was signed by 144 members of the 275-member house, said Nassar al-Rubaie, the leader of the Sadrist bloc.
The Sadrist bloc, which holds 30 parliamentary seats and sees the U.S.-led forces as an occupying army, has pushed similar bills before, but this was the first time it garnered the support of a majority of lawmakers.
...snip
TheStripey1
Member
Dems were saying what a threat Saddam was with his WMD's BEFORE Pres Bush was President
Clinton said how Saddam had to be taken care of
Of course, Dems get a pass on what they said
Have you ever taken a position on something and then, after more research changed your mind about it?
I have. And I'm sure that many many others have as well... cuz only the truly idiotic remains steadfast in their opinion when evidence proves otherwise.
TheStripey1
Member
Further more after the invasion we have documented proof that Saddam hussein was paying off France, Russia and China to get sanctions lifted. that when sanctions were lifted he intended to return to mass production of chemical and biological weapons and to return to development of nuclear weapons. We have documented proof he was actively searching for terrorist groups to attack the US. That he intended to rearm his military and modernize.
But hey keep intoning the chant " No WMDs"
I know it's been said before and will no doubt be said again... but... Where are they? Bush said they had them... so? where are they?
Do you like being lied to time and time again? why?
CSM
Senior Member
Maine has two republican senators, are you sure it's a bastion of liberalism? But... I can see why you don't like maineman's TO... it goes against your support of bush and the war.... so...
oh yeah you got it.
How about the Iraqi parliment? Do they have a say? Nope. It IS their country afterall... Or is the Iraqi government subservient to the wishes of Washington? Yep.
Don't know much about me do ya!
TheStripey1
Member
Don't know much about me do ya!
nope... I just got here... and my USMB players' program is woefully incomplete...
but after conversing with you on the other thread, I now realize that you may not be as much of a bush supporter as I originally thought...
CSM
Senior Member
nope... I just got here... and my USMB players' program is woefully incomplete...
but after conversing with you on the other thread, I now realize that you may not be as much of a bush supporter as I originally thought...
Presidents come and go...some good, some bad. So far, the country has managed to survive them all.
I detest politicians with the possible exception of the Founding Farthers and soem of them I am not so sure about!
Similar threads
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 330
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 413
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 180
- Replies
- 70
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 107
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 45
- Views
- 260
- Replies
- 30
- Views
- 121
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 9
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8036
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-