Again: Keep the #$%# politics off here!

> done said:

> Max C. Webster III wrote:
>
>>>>> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had
>>>>> to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have
>>>>> simply said; SH is bad, and he has to ****ing go, so we're gonna go
>>>>> get him.
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't
>>>> have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the
>>>> support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created.
>>>
>>> Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much
>>> conjured up the justification to invade Iraq?
>
>> The justification was "conjured up" by the prior administration with the
>> "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338).


<< source snipped >>


>>> Just checking..
>>
>> With all the political obfuscation going on, it's good to check one's facts
>> to separate nonsense from reality. This is especially true for those
>> amongst
>> us with very short memories or who willingly lap up whatever the bleating
>> partisans tell them.
>
> Max,
>
> The reality is "W" was the one sitting in the Oval with the gun when
> the trigger was pulled.


Granted. But if the American people had the political will to do it 1998, it
would have been Clinton . . . and he was ready to do it. It wasn't WMD that
gave the American people the will to go into Iraq. The "threat" and our
intelligence community's opinion of it in 2003 was the same as it was in 1998.
One thing gave the American people the will, and that was 9/11. Not that Iraq
had anything to do with 9/11, but the American people realized that big ****
could happen here, too, not just "over there."

To "blame" W for Iraq is either disingenuous or a deliberate misremembering of
history.



- Max -
=======
Would you believe this man has gone as far
as tearing Dubya stickers off the bumpers of cars,
and he voted for John F. Kerry for President?
http://hometown.aol.com/maxx2112/

Just Say No to 6:5 Blackjack!
http://www.cafepress.com/justsaynoto6to5/

Spike wrote:
> On 13 Aug 2005 18:58:44 -0700, wrote:
>
>
>>Joe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had
>>>>>to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have
>>>>>simply said; SH is bad, and he has to ****ing go, so we're gonna go
>>>>>get him.
>>
>>>>It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't
>>>>have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the
>>>>support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created.
>>
>>>Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much
>>>conjured up the justification to invade Iraq? Just checking..
>>
>>Iraq is only about the size of Texas and we had a constant stream of
>>spy planes and satellites fixed on that country for more than a decade
>>so we knew Iraq didn't have major weapons programs. Here are the
>>things that all came together at the right time:
>
>
> That "steady stream" comment imparts a false illusion of surveillance
> coverage, and the abilities of both satellite and aircraft
> surveillance. While the equipment is excellent in capability, it is
> limited in scope and utilization.
>
> Why then did the UN find and order destroyed WMDs of the same type
> used against his own people and against Iran? I don't think he bought
> them at WallyMart. It has also been evidenced that, among others,
> French and German companies were supplying the same types of equipment

And prior to Gulf War I, US companies supplied equipment for making
WMD's to Iraq.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:31:21 GMT, " >
wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>> On 13 Aug 2005 18:58:44 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>

> And prior to Gulf War I, US companies supplied equipment for making
>WMD's to Iraq.

Such has been the case a lot longer back than that. We supported any
country, in any way, if it fought against the Commies. Then were
surprised when they turned on us. Even Ho Chi Minh asked us to help
him fight the Commies. We turned him down, and later ended up fighting
him.

One thing the US "should" have learned long ago.... you can't buy
friends. On the other hand, the US can't sit idle and let the Commies,
or Muslims, or whoever gain such control around the globe that the can
shut off access to all resources all industrialized nations need for
continued existence. If we fall, many of our allies will fall. If too
many of them fall, we will fall. The question is, where is the balance
point between getting involved, and sitting back?

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

Gad shat fools these morons be....

Backyard Mechanic wrote:

> No WMD's
> Short reason: SH got rid of them because he realized his units could use
> them against him, so he acted as though he STILL had them, so he could keep
> Iran et al at bay... Miscalculation!

> See how dum conspiracy theories are?

Well, that one certainly is.
Anyone who's bothered to do some basic research knows that
Scott Ritter and UNSCOM destroyed 90-95 percent of the WMDs
that Hussein acquired with the aid and blessing of his
good friends on the Reagan/Bush regime...




-


http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/pol/80315675.html

In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken
directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not
involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media.
McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl
Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion"
and "It's not true."
Yet another in the endless stirng of bu$h's lies.

"We argued, as did the security services in this country,
that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the
threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners
have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such
warnings." Respect MP George Galloway 7-7-05

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Brutal and sadistic? By what girly-man standards? Compared
to how Saddam treated his prisoners, a bit of humiliation was
a walk in the park. AFAIK, No one died or even lost any blood."
-Albert Nurick, a usenet kook and blatant liar, on the rape,
torture and murder at bu$h's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0512-10.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf Hitler

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

Spike wrote:

> >> >> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had
> >> >> to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have
> >> >> simply said; SH is bad, and he has to ****ing go, so we're gonna go
> >> >> get him.
> >
> >> > It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't
> >> > have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the
> >> > support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created.
> >
> >> Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much
> >> conjured up the justification to invade Iraq? Just checking..
> >
> >Iraq is only about the size of Texas and we had a constant stream of
> >spy planes and satellites fixed on that country for more than a decade
> >so we knew Iraq didn't have major weapons programs. Here are the
> >things that all came together at the right time:
>
> That "steady stream" comment imparts a false illusion of surveillance
> coverage, and the abilities of both satellite and aircraft
> surveillance. While the equipment is excellent in capability, it is
> limited in scope and utilization.

Spike,

Look back at Powell's UN testimony. The only description I have for it
is lame. They knew Sadamn didn't have anything. And Sadamn wouldn't
have been stupid enough not to hand it over, or at least part of it,
when his bluff was called. But Sadamn didn't have anything to handover
to cancel the impending attack.

> The rest of your points are acceptable, although a number of senators
> and congressmen from both sides of the aisle might take issue with the
> last one. As one stated, anything to do with the economy is an
> important consideration, but his votes still come down to what is in
> the best interests of the nation when the final choice is made. But
> perhaps they are the exceptions?

Well, our actions do set a precedence. And it makes you wonder what
our response will be when China decides a dictator needs to go because
he's sitting on some oil, other needed commodity... or perhaps it'll be
Taiwan because they're not cooperating?

Patrick
'93 Cobra

----

> >- Saddam always thumbing his nose at the US with the on-again off-again
> >weapons inspections it weaked our image in the Middle East.
> >
> >- 911
> >
> >- Saddam's widely known support of Palestinian suicide bombers. As
> >tight as we are with Israel, we couldn't have that.
> >
> >- Oil. The US needs a constant and steady access to huge oil reserves.
> > Especially now with China's economy and military might growing by the
> >day.
> >
> >So while the vocals were screaming the rallying cry of WMD, terrorism
> >and 911, the drum beat was oil, oil, oil...
>
>
> >
> >Did I answer your question?
> >
> >Patrick
> >'93 Cobra
>
> Spike
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
> 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
> 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.
>
> Gad shat fools these morons be....

Max C. Webster III wrote:
> > done said:
>
> > Max C. Webster III wrote:
> >
> >>>>> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had
> >>>>> to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have
> >>>>> simply said; SH is bad, and he has to ****ing go, so we're gonna go
> >>>>> get him.
> >>>>
> >>>> It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't
> >>>> have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the
> >>>> support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created.
> >>>
> >>> Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much
> >>> conjured up the justification to invade Iraq?
> >
> >> The justification was "conjured up" by the prior administration with the
> >> "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338).
>
>
> << source snipped >>
>
>
> >>> Just checking..
> >>
> >> With all the political obfuscation going on, it's good to check one's facts
> >> to separate nonsense from reality. This is especially true for those
> >> amongst
> >> us with very short memories or who willingly lap up whatever the bleating
> >> partisans tell them.

> > Max,

> > The reality is "W" was the one sitting in the Oval with the gun when
> > the trigger was pulled.

> Granted. But if the American people had the political will to do it 1998, it
> would have been Clinton . . . and he was ready to do it. It wasn't WMD that
> gave the American people the will to go into Iraq. The "threat" and our
> intelligence community's opinion of it in 2003 was the same as it was in 1998.
> One thing gave the American people the will, and that was 9/11. Not that Iraq
> had anything to do with 9/11, but the American people realized that big ****
> could happen here, too, not just "over there."

> To "blame" W for Iraq is either disingenuous or a deliberate misremembering
> of history.

No, it's not. The buck stops with him. He played a hunch... he made
the call to invade. Was his decision correct because of 911, WMD, or
terrorism? So far, the proof says no, no, and probably not. Maybe the
future will be kinder to W.

Patrick
'93 Cobra

Spike wrote:

> One thing the US "should" have learned long ago.... you can't buy
> friends. On the other hand, the US can't sit idle and let the Commies,
> or Muslims, or whoever gain such control around the globe

Spike, I know you used the term Muslims loosly, but please don't refer
to Muslims as being the enemy... they're not. Too many people, from
both sides, are trying to make this conflict a religious thing. We
need to keep religion out of it, and out of our politics.

Patrick
'93 Cobra

Hank wrote:

> "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
> he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
> -- George W. Bush

Is this a direct quote? If so, I would like to read what preceded and
proceeded this remark because by itself it's scary.

Patrick
'93 Cobra

wrote:
> Hank wrote:

> > "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
> > he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
> > -- George W. Bush

> Is this a direct quote? If so, I would like to read what preceded and
> proceeded this remark because by itself it's scary.

Correction: preceded and followed, not proceeded.

> Patrick
> '93 Cobra

"Hank" > done said:

> Backyard Mechanic wrote:
>
>> No WMD's
>> Short reason: SH got rid of them because he realized his units could use
>> them against him, so he acted as though he STILL had them, so he could keep
>> Iran et al at bay... Miscalculation!
>
>> See how dum conspiracy theories are?
>
> Well, that one certainly is.
> Anyone who's bothered to do some basic research . . .


<< snip >>


> http://www.commondreams.org/
> http://www.truthout.org/
> http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
> http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
> http://counterpunch.org/
> http://responsiblewealth.org/
> http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/pol/80315675.html


I see that "basic research" in your case means propaganda.

You should change your adjective in your organization name from "enlightened"
to "thoroughly brainwashed."

Your fake e-mail address, however, still gives your bias away.