The W
Views: 101550578
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.12.14 1357
The W - Current Events & Politics - What Are The Odds? (Page 2)
This thread has 6 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.20
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
(537 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (44 total)
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter








Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 641 days
Last activity: 257 days
AIM:  
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.89

    The very first thing Bush said about the CIA Prisons were that he was able to speak about them now, because the information about them had just been DECLASSIFIED. Which means, he couldnt legally talk about them beforehand. So, while he may have denied they existed, it wasnt because he was hiding the truth, it was because he couldnt talk about them by law, since they were classified.


Im sorry, but this is a little ridiculous considering that Bush created the prisons and could declassify whatever information about them whenever he wanted it.




"I could be wrong, but I doubt it"---Charles Barkley
Stephanie
Landjager








Since: 2.1.02
From: Madison, WI

Since last post: 581 days
Last activity: 50 days
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.93
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    I am sure you would have been upset about how bad we were losing to the Japs in '42 also. We spent a lot on that war too.


Perhaps if I had been making these complaints in 2004, I'd agree with you. But this is September 12, 2006 - 1272 days since the Iraq War began (that's three years, five months, and twenty-three days). For comparison's sake, let's see where we were 1272 days after the US entered into these 20th century wars:

WWI (9/29/1920): The War is over - a decisive win for the US. 459 days since the Treaty of Versailles was signed. The majority of the troops are home.

WWII (6/2/1945): One month following the surrender of Germany; 73 days before the surrender of Japan, which is shambles with their army on the run/conducting kamikaze maneuvers. A decisive win for the Allies. A portion of the troops is heading home.

Korean War (12/18/1953): 144 days past the signing of the armistice halting the war (no peace treaty is ever signed). No decisive win; the border between North and South returned to practically where it was previously. Many of the troops have left, though a large "peacekeeping" contingent remains.

Vietnam War (1/31/1968, based on Gulf of Tonkin Resolution): The day after the Tet Offensive began; this occurred after General Westmoreland claimed that the US forces could be "phased out" in favor of South Vietnamese forces "within two years". 184,000+ US troops in Vietnam. Anti-War protests in full swing.

Gulf War 1 (7/7/1994): 1225 days after President GHW Bush declared a cease-fire and the liberation of Kuwait. The majority of the troops are home; 146 killed in action. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney states (in 1992): "How many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? (T)he answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

We're much closer to Vietnam than WWII at this point, AWArulz. Practically the only item we're lacking is the Islamic version of a Tet Offensive (and the Damascus embassy attack doesn't count).

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    The very first thing Bush said about the CIA Prisons were that he was able to speak about them now, because the information about them had just been DECLASSIFIED. Which means, he couldnt legally talk about them beforehand. So, while he may have denied they existed, it wasnt because he was hiding the truth, it was because he couldnt talk about them by law, since they were classified.


If he hadn't classified it in the first place, he wouldn't have needed to wait for it to be "declassified". Additionally, this administration is classifying everything in sight, even the irrelevant. I doubt that this is due to need; rather, I believe this is due to a compulsion to regulate what is known and what is said. That is a feature of a totalitarian government, not a democracy or a republic.

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Secondly, the GOP controlled congress hasn't passed a balanced budget, medicare reform, social security reform and a handfull of other things Bush wanted.


The money that could have been used for that - $314 billion plus - was spent on Iraq instead. There are now calculations that the total cost of the Iraq War may approach one trillion dollars, once factors such as long-term care for the veterans and rebuilding of what's been destroyed are included. (That, of course, provides that the country keeps our end of the bargain with our veterans in the first place; there's no guarantee on that.)

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Don'tcha wish a certain former president could have said that about Monica time?


Ah yes...the attempted impeachment of a President for covering up a dalliance with an intern. W has done far worse over the past five years - including using false testimony to draw his country into a war - with impunity. Why? Because the legislative branch is no longer the check on the executive branch that it was designed to be; rather, those two branches are ganging up on the judicial branch to usurp the check power of that branch.

This country is engaged in something dangerous: trying to fight an idea - an "ism" - with a conventional army. To quote V, "ideas are bulletproof". How do you determine when a war on an idea is finished? If our war on drugs is any example, we are incapable of discovering either a winning strategy or an exit strategy.

Steph



I'm going twenty-four hours a day...I can't seem to stop
- "Turn Up The Radio", Autograph

Wiener Of The Day - June 10th, 2003
W Of The Day - September 11th, 2004 (add spooky music here)
CHAPLOW
Morcilla








Since: 14.5.04
From: right behind you

Since last post: 188 days
Last activity: 188 days
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.13
Ya, its weird how it all works. People are more outraged and willing to impeach a president over a blowjob than over rampant incompetence and lies to the people, its all about an image rather than reality...

I guess the biggest crime of all is ignorance.

Also, if we let the government take away more of our rights- in a way we are letting the terrorists win;

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

in the words of Mr. Franklin





"Know this, one of you... is a Decepticon!"
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.70
    Originally posted by Stephanie

    This country is engaged in something dangerous: trying to fight an idea - an "ism" - with a conventional army. To quote V, "ideas are bulletproof". How do you determine when a war on an idea is finished? If our war on drugs is any example, we are incapable of discovering either a winning strategy or an exit strategy.


I won't comment of some of you assertions, other than to say that the president did not testify falsely in any case (to my knowledge he has entered no testimony of any sort since his inauguration), although there is still some question about whether some of the intelligence regarding WMDs was true. I point out that the Brits stand by their intelligence regarding Uranium purchase attempts by Iraq.

But I think you hit the nail on the head with this last statement. It is a war against an Ism. Wahabism. And I think we have won those wars before. Or are at least in the final stages of winning one.

Communism. For all intents, the war against communism started after WW2. We let it get away from us in the 20s, 30s and 40s, even allied ourselves with it from time to time. (we have done with with radical Wahabi Islam too). After WW2 and the Communists made their play in eastern Europe and elsewhere, we started fighting back.

We won some battles (kept Berlin Free, same for several African states), lost some battles (most notably, Vietnam), drew some battles (Korea) but have eventually more or less prevailed. It still exists, but it is not much of a threat anymore. 1989 was a dramatic representation of a policy of fighting an Ism for 40 years and, if not having the ultimate victory yet, winning a huge and decisive battle.

That did take forty-plus years and included several generations of freedom fighters going against it on many fronts (of which I am proud to have been one of).

I'd be surprised if this fight took any less. We're still in Europe, which was because we were fighting communism there. Radical Islam is probably an even tougher nut to crack.

By the way: was the battle against Communism from 1946 to 1989 costly. Unbelievably so. One of the reasons a certain president was able to have so many budget surpluses is that he was the first one since WW2 that wasn't fighting this Ism and could stand some things down. Too bad he didn't recognize and start fighting the next one earlier. Ike had a lot of that same issue during his term from 52 to 60. He didn't spend a lot of time fighting communism and it grew in power during that decade.



Signature
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.33
AWA, I agree with what you say re communism but I don't think you can compare that to this ism because there we were dealing with organized nation states and people who weren't this nuts.

We could make the "Commies" stand down because they weren't in a hurry to die and get to those virgins. This is like fighting Medusa.



Perception is reality
Stephanie
Landjager








Since: 2.1.02
From: Madison, WI

Since last post: 581 days
Last activity: 50 days
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.93
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    I won't comment of some of you assertions, other than to say that the president did not testify falsely in any case (to my knowledge he has entered no testimony of any sort since his inauguration)


Yes, I'm including W's speeches to Congress as "testimony", for I am fully aware that this President doesn't like to testify on anything. I find it alarming that a President cloaks himself so completely in "executive privilege".

    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Communism.


Yes, the US did muster troops and materiel against Communist forces at many times and in many locations during the 20th Century. However, when MacArthur tried to extend the Korean War into China, the Chinese nearly drove him back into the sea. Additionally, though the Tet Offensive was a military success for the US (many more Viet Cong were killed), the fallout of the offensive fairly wrecked that war.

I assert that it wasn't military might that won us the Cold War; it was the underlying soft financial and - if you will - spiritual ground on which Soviet Communism was based. The Soviets simply could no longer support their brand of Communism once the resources were spent and the populace began to understand life outside Communism. Chinese Communism is still strong, supported by insatiable desire for cheaply-produced consumer goods; Cuban Communism keeps itself alive on tourism from outside the US (though it will be interesting to see what happens when Fidel Castro passes on).

DrDirt has a point - few Communists were or are as committed to Communism as these radical Muslims are to their brand of Islam ("Wahabism"). Additionally, their base of support - the Middle East - is overwhelmingly rich, courtesy of the world's avarice for oil (and I'm not immune to this - I've two Volkswagens to feed ). An all-out assault on this base of support - as some advise - I believe would provoke a response even more remarkable that if the US had invaded the USSR during the Cold War. It would be more like fighting a Hydra than a Medusa, and - Patriot Act or no - it would be right here, despite the "fight them there so we won't have to fight them here" rhetoric.

Steph

(edited by Stephanie on 13.9.06 0705)

I'm going twenty-four hours a day...I can't seem to stop
- "Turn Up The Radio", Autograph

Wiener Of The Day - June 10th, 2003
W Of The Day - September 11th, 2004 (add spooky music here)
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.33
Stephanie, there was also another large factor in the fall of the USSR and there puppet states, When Ronald Reagan became President and initiated SDI, etc., the Soviets tried to keep up. Reagan essentially spent them into oblivion as they ried to keep up with our arms buildup. We were able to cope with our megadeficits of the 1980s but they couldn't and it destroyed them.



Perception is reality
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.70
    Originally posted by Stephanie
    I am fully aware that this President doesn't like to testify on anything. I find it alarming that a President cloaks himself so completely in "executive privilege".


Poor guy hasn't even been indicted ONCE. How many times did that happen to Clinton?

    Originally posted by Stephanie
    I assert that it wasn't military might that won us the Cold War; it was the underlying soft financial and - if you will - spiritual ground on which Soviet Communism was based.


I won't disagree completely. War's a tricky deal. It gets fought in the trenches, so to speak, and in the arena of life. The So-called 100 years war between the English and French was "won" by the French - they "beat" the English. But they ended up having they form of government changed from basic feudalism to a stronger monarchy and a loss of some lands to what eventually became Holland.

The European/Asian communists were beaten by a combination of military might, diplomatic strength and internal weakness at the end. But that internal weakness was fed by years of small losses inflicted by 1 and 2. The final straw, at least the opinion of most writers is that the rebuild of our forces by Reagan was financially unable to be met by the Sovs, and therefore, they had to change.

We need to find that same way to break the Wahabis. I assert that guys like Lenin and Stalin and Mao were no more and no less addicted to power and the need to rule than the Mullahs that rule the Wahabi sect of the Sunni branch of Islam. The Mullahs want to rule the world (not just there, but here too) because their philosophy says that God wants them to. Not much different than workers of the world unite.

There's a way. One way is to show that Sunnis and Shia'tes can live together without killing each other over who the succesor of Muhammud was - and without a dictator of one sect or the other fiercely putting one branch or the other down. The only major country with a large mix of the two branches is Iraq. If we can make democracy go there - even if Sharia law is part of the lawset - then other countries will learn that Muslims don't have to kill each other.

Remember: we have lost a couple thousand heroic troops in the war on Terror, but Iraq has lost tens of thousands - Shia' fighting Sunni, mostly.

The cool thing is watching the ones who want their country to be free showing up for the Cop jobs and showing up to be in the Military, even though they know the attacks will come against them.

    Originally posted by Stephanie
    the populace began to understand life outside Communism.


Ah, yes, that's why we are in Iraq, ultimately. Again, compare the timelines.

    Originally posted by Stephanie

    Chinese Communism is still strong, supported by insatiable desire for cheaply-produced consumer goods; Cuban Communism keeps itself alive on tourism from outside the US (though it will be interesting to see what happens when Fidel Castro passes on).


While China professes communism, they have free markets at this point. They're certainly stil a distatorship, but moving in the right direction. Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam - well, they are still works in progress. Vietnam is certainly moving towards free markets. Look, as I said in my post, we haven't beaten communism, but we have won a very decisive battle. It goes on. And so will it go on in this battle.

    Originally posted by Stephanie
    DrDirt has a point - few Communists were or are as committed to Communism as these radical Muslims are to their brand of Islam ("Wahabism").


I like the Doc, but he's wrong here. I think there have been many communists (or, if you like Totalitarianists who used communism as their buzzword) who were just as committed. Stalin killed millions of people to further his brand of communism, and Mao did the same. So far, at least, the Wahabis are still under Stalin's world record for commitment to a Ism.

    Originally posted by Stephanie

    Additionally, their base of support - the Middle East - is overwhelmingly rich, courtesy of the world's avarice for oil


and if they could be freemarket, instead of all the money going to Usay's playtoys and Saddam's torture chambers and Prince whoever of Saudi Arabia's Palaces, then the poor guys living in Tikrit will actually have real jobs and make real money from their country's resources instead of all of it going to the leaders. Sure, there will be big companies with the evil profits, but people will have jobs and all that comes with them.

But it is all part of a war that is just starting, and, like the war on communism that is mostly over, it will probably outlive the ones who were adults when it started. My Dad, who is 79 now, was just a boy when it got going.


(edited by CRZ on 13.9.06 1159)

Signature
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 132 days
Last activity: 132 days
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
If you're going to compare the current mess to the struggle with communsim, the collapse of the USSR is not an apt comparison - the Soviet Union going under didn't signal the death of communism. Nor will China, Cuba, the Vietnamese or any other nation converting. There will always be people believing in communism, whether a nation is practicing it or not.

The government's current debacle is much more similar to the actions of Joseph McCarthy: suspending basic American rights for a witch hunt, thinking you can rid the entire world of an idea, etc.

Not coincidently, I don't think history looks too fondly on McCarthy. Sure, Anne Coulter defends him, but she, like McCarthy in the 1950's, is insane.



"I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it."

--George Carlin
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 days
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.80
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Communism. For all intents, the war against communism started after WW2. We let it get away from us in the 20s, 30s and 40s, even allied ourselves with it from time to time. (we have done with with radical Wahabi Islam too). After WW2 and the Communists made their play in eastern Europe and elsewhere, we started fighting back.


NATO was established prior to the Warsaw Pact. NATO was established as a direct "response" to the threat of the Soviet Union - three years after the end of WW2. The Warsaw pact was the Soviets response, so the idea that we were somehow "fighting back" is a bit misleading.

The Soviets had lost somewhere around 30 million people in WW2 - 10 million military personel - they were in no position to be a substantial military threat that soon after the war.

    Originally posted by AWArulz
    We won some battles (kept Berlin Free, same for several African states), lost some battles (most notably, Vietnam), drew some battles (Korea) but have eventually more or less prevailed.


And areas of Latin America - which was being decimated by totalitarian regimes until socialist revolutions started taking place. The U.S., of course, provided money to these dictators to help quell - allowing many of those people to be killed or disappeared en masse.

    Originally posted by AWArulz

    There's a way. One way is to show that Sunnis and Shia'tes can live together without killing each other over who the successor of Muhammad was - and without a dictator of one sect or the other fiercely putting one branch or the other down.


And we have NO IDEA how to do that. Even worse, we didn't even THINK about it before we invaded. The region is either going to stabilize after they fight it out, or we figure out a way to broker peace and get them to work together - which, again, we didn't even start thinking about until they went after each other.

    Originally posted by AWArulz
    if they could be free market, instead of all the money going to Usay's playtoys and Saddam's torture chambers and Prince whoever of Saudi Arabia's Palaces, then the poor guys living in Tikrit will actually have real jobs and make real money from their country's resources instead of all of it going to the leaders.


Are we going to then mandate that they have some free-trade agreement to OUR liking - since we're the ones who "liberated" them - and thus, their "freedom" should be structured in a way that we approve?

(edited by Leroy on 13.9.06 1114)


"Oh my God! They have a shit-load of Cockapoo stuff!"
-Jennifer's greatest quote... ever.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.70
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    If you're going to compare the current mess to the struggle with communism, the collapse of the USSR is not an apt comparison - the Soviet Union going under didn't signal the death of communism. Nor will China, Cuba, the Vietnamese or any other nation converting. There will always be people believing in communism, whether a nation is practicing it or not.



I would disagree. The communist "threat" as we used to call it, is more or less over. Of course, people will believe in things, but their danger to others is reduced.

We have people believing that blacks are inferior, but their danger to the African-Americans in this country is almost zero today. Any person with wit and sense and gumption can do what they want. Not so a few years back. But people from Fredrick Douglass to Martin Luther King Jr and a lot in between won the majority of that war. A few battles left? Yes. Mostly won? yes.

Outside of Cuba and N Korea - I'd guess the "belief" in communism is almost nil. That's what we need to do to Wahabism if possible. Few people believe in radical advent ism today (ie: stopping work and waiting for the Lord), but that was one of the most popular religious beliefs of the 19th Century. Read "The great Disappointment" for more info on that.

So even religious movements lose their steam. The Wahabi sect's not that old. We just have to convince Muslims that their ideas are not in line with the Submission.



Signature
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 132 days
Last activity: 132 days
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      If you're going to compare the current mess to the struggle with communism, the collapse of the USSR is not an apt comparison - the Soviet Union going under didn't signal the death of communism. Nor will China, Cuba, the Vietnamese or any other nation converting. There will always be people believing in communism, whether a nation is practicing it or not.



    I would disagree. The communist "threat" as we used to call it, is more or less over. Of course, people will believe in things, but their danger to others is reduced.

    We have people believing that blacks are inferior, but their danger to the African-Americans in this country is almost zero today. Any person with wit and sense and gumption can do what they want. Not so a few years back. But people from Fredrick Douglass to Martin Luther King Jr and a lot in between won the majority of that war. A few battles left? Yes. Mostly won? yes.

    Outside of Cuba and N Korea - I'd guess the "belief" in communism is almost nil. That's what we need to do to Wahabism if possible. Few people believe in radical advent ism today (ie: stopping work and waiting for the Lord), but that was one of the most popular religious beliefs of the 19th Century. Read "The great Disappointment" for more info on that.

    So even religious movements lose their steam. The Wahabi sect's not that old. We just have to convince Muslims that their ideas are not in line with the Submission.


I'm sorry, I didn't make my point clear enough. If the struggle with the Soviets, the United States was not targeting communism - they were targeting the Soviets. McCarthy was fighting communism, and it's a fight he could never win. The U.S. prevailed in the Cold War because it wasnt a fight against communism in general, but rather a fight against the Soviets practicing communism.

Also, as you alluded to, belief in communism does not go hand-in-hand with hating America or being a threat to this country. Being an anti-American, radical terrorist, well ... it does, by definition. Bush wants to get rid of all "terrorists," but it won't happen, because it can't happen. A goal of removing anti-American or anti-democratic regimes in certain countries is slightly more realistic, but that's not really what the government seems to be vocalizing. Sure, it became justification after the fact in Iraq, but "liberating" the Iraqi people wasn't an issue until after the "Saddam and Osama are friends" lie was exposed.



"I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it."

--George Carlin
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.33
AWA, I must not have been clear. What I meant by committed was willingness to personally die for their cause. Plenty are committed enough to help others die. These nutjobs are willing to kill themselves in droves Stalin was willing to kill others in droves.

And I agree, we really never defeated communism since there has never been a true communist state.



Perception is reality
Canard
Cotechino








Since: 25.7.05
From: England

Since last post: 148 days
Last activity: 1 day
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.30
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    I won't comment of some of you assertions, other than to say that the president did not testify falsely in any case (to my knowledge he has entered no testimony of any sort since his inauguration), although there is still some question about whether some of the intelligence regarding WMDs was true. I point out that the Brits stand by their intelligence regarding Uranium purchase attempts by Iraq.


That's news to me. Most commentators (both left and right leaning) over here have long since given up on the alleged Uranium purchase from Niger being even remotely true. It has been alleged that the information came from a source within in Iraq whose other tip-offs have all since been found to be wild goose chases and so have been withdrawn - the only reason this one is still around is because it has never been completely disproved.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.70
    Originally posted by Canard
    Most commentators (both left and right leaning) over here have long since given up on the alleged Uranium purchase from Niger being even remotely true.


Well, I clearly remember a statement regarging British Intelligence standing by their intelligence as true, well after the fact, perhaps in the last 18 months or so.

From the Review of Intelligence
on
Weapons of Mass Destruction

By the Butler Commision on 14 Jul 2004
http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/

"We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded."



(edited by AWArulz on 13.9.06 1617)


Signature
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    So even religious movements lose their steam. The Wahabi sect's not that old. We just have to convince Muslims that their ideas are not in line with the Submission.

This is the part that interests me more than the rest of the thread. I don't really see the West being able to do any convincing on this front as we have absolutely no credibility or moral capital at this point, and likely never will so long as we are seen as the steadfast allies of Israel. That's not saying we should or shouldn't be said allies. Simply that, as long as we are pretty much in the eyes of the Muslim world the people who have given Israel clearance to do whatever they want, be it keep down Palestine or kill thousands of Lebanese civilians or what have you, I can't in any way envision anything we do or say somehow leading to greater moderation of views.



Now I'll never be able to lead SPF's spfers! (The W)
Canard
Cotechino








Since: 25.7.05
From: England

Since last post: 148 days
Last activity: 1 day
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.30
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Well, I clearly remember a statement regarging British Intelligence standing by their intelligence as true, well after the fact, perhaps in the last 18 months or so.

    From the Review of Intelligence
    on
    Weapons of Mass Destruction

    By the Butler Commision on 14 Jul 2004
    http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/

    "We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded."

I don't doubt that at the time of the Butler Report that the intelligence was still considered to be accurate, but a lot has happened in the two years since it came out.

Sources in the intelligence community have since admitted that most of the claims made about Iraq's nuclear ambitions came from one key defector. A number of his other claims have since proved to be false and it is alledged he had a habit of telling people what they wanted to hear, rather than what was actually happening in Iraq. There is still a chance that this is one of the things he was right about. But there has been no further proof one way or the other.

It's certainly true that Saddam WANTED to make a nuclear bomb, but who knows how far he got. I remember reading a report not long after his capture that said most of the 'top' scientists on Iraq's WMD programs were so in fear of being punished for failure that they would report back to Saddam that everything was on course, even though nothing was actually happening.

(edited by Canard on 14.9.06 1201)
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 285 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.59
    Originally posted by spf
    Simply that, as long as we are pretty much in the eyes of the Muslim world the people who have given Israel clearance to do whatever they want, be it keep down Palestine or kill thousands of Lebanese civilians or what have you...


Before I react to this statement, I want to make sure I understand what you are saying SPF.

Are you saying that the Muslim world sees Israel as keeping down palestine & killing "thousands of Lebanese civilians", or are you saying that you see Israel keeping down palestine & killing "thousands of Lebanese civilians"?
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
      Originally posted by spf
      Simply that, as long as we are pretty much in the eyes of the Muslim world the people who have given Israel clearance to do whatever they want, be it keep down Palestine or kill thousands of Lebanese civilians or what have you...


    Before I react to this statement, I want to make sure I understand what you are saying SPF.

    Are you saying that the Muslim world sees Israel as keeping down palestine & killing "thousands of Lebanese civilians", or are you saying that you see Israel keeping down palestine & killing "thousands of Lebanese civilians"?

I am saying that the perception in the great majority of the Muslim community is that those things are incontrovertible facts as much as the Quran is the word of Allah as given to Mohammed. We are pretty much seen as joined at the hip to Israel, and Israel is seen as basically the sum of all evil actions.



Now I'll never be able to lead SPF's spfers! (The W)
Stephanie
Landjager








Since: 2.1.02
From: Madison, WI

Since last post: 581 days
Last activity: 50 days
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.73
The latest in world diplomacy from the White House:

    Originally posted by Associated Press
    With Osama bin Laden still at large five years after the 9/11 attacks, Bush said he could not send thousands of troops into Pakistan to search without an invitation from the government. "Pakistan's a sovereign nation," Bush said.

    At the same time, Bush expressed frustration that the United Nations had not sent peacekeepers into the Darfur region of Sudan. "What you'll hear is, well, the government of Sudan must invite the United Nations in for us to act. Well, there are other alternatives, like passing a resolution saying, we're coming in with a U.N. force, in order to save lives."


OK - the US won't enter a sovereign nation with troops without an invitation. However, we're advising the UN to send "peacekeepers" (read: troops) into another sovereign country without their invitation; that sounds a lot like advising an invasion. Perhaps we should just declare a "resolution" and enter Pakistan - that seems to make anything all right.

Steph



I'm going twenty-four hours a day...I can't seem to stop
- "Turn Up The Radio", Autograph

Wiener Of The Day - June 10th, 2003
W Of The Day - September 11th, 2004 (add spooky music here)
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 6.20
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: Osama Dead?
Next thread: Hugo Chavez calls George Bush "The Devil".
Previous thread: ...they just seem a little weird
(537 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Thoughts from the time this aired: http://wienerboard.com/thread.php/id=9537
- Mr. Heat Miser, We Decide, You Shut Up (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - What Are The Odds? (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.147 seconds.