War in Iraq
- Thread starter SmallTown
- Start date
B
Bruzilla
Guest
A couple of things to remember. First, be careful about waiting for a "smoking gun" when dealing with an unstable, egomaniac, dictator. The result of the gun smoking can be disasterous.
Second, only a fool would buy into the Germans and French being "anti-war." They are not. These countries are just holding out for a better deal. Once they manage to wedge some benefit from Hussein getting the boot they'll offer support in the form of some token "peace keeper" troops after the fighting is over and expect to get their loans repaid, oil reparations, and any other assets they can get their hands on. Their "stern" statements about being against war are always peppered with more holes than a Pittsburgh street in winter.
Lastly, I'm a government contractor who was laid off from one job due to budget cutbacks, and was immediately hired to not one but two different jobs that had just opened up. Like I said before, you never hear about how many jobs have been created to take the place of the vaunted two million that were lost. Yes Bush says the economy needs help, but that's because he's trying to avoid being strung up by the opposition like his Dad was. If he says things aren't that bad, the media and the Dems say "he's out of touch with blah, blah, blah." Three percent growth isn't great, but it's better than a lot of other G-7/8 countries have right now.
Second, only a fool would buy into the Germans and French being "anti-war." They are not. These countries are just holding out for a better deal. Once they manage to wedge some benefit from Hussein getting the boot they'll offer support in the form of some token "peace keeper" troops after the fighting is over and expect to get their loans repaid, oil reparations, and any other assets they can get their hands on. Their "stern" statements about being against war are always peppered with more holes than a Pittsburgh street in winter.
Lastly, I'm a government contractor who was laid off from one job due to budget cutbacks, and was immediately hired to not one but two different jobs that had just opened up. Like I said before, you never hear about how many jobs have been created to take the place of the vaunted two million that were lost. Yes Bush says the economy needs help, but that's because he's trying to avoid being strung up by the opposition like his Dad was. If he says things aren't that bad, the media and the Dems say "he's out of touch with blah, blah, blah." Three percent growth isn't great, but it's better than a lot of other G-7/8 countries have right now.
K
KurtS
Guest
This is what happens when you pose for photo ops.
Frank
Chairman of the Board
Originally posted by bluto
I guess next you'll be telling me this pic is a fraud, too?
Yep -
http://www.snopes.com/photos/bushbook.htm
Bush wants war
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_1587.shtml
Excerpts from the article:
Senior Pentagon officials are quietly urging President George W. Bush to slow down his headlong rush to war with Iraq, complaining the administration’s course of action represents too much of a shift of America’s longstanding "no first strike" policy and that the move could well result in conflicts with other Arab nations.
Intelligence sources say some Arab nations have told US diplomats they may side with Iraq if the U.S. attacks without the backing of the United Nations. Secretary of State Colin Powell agrees with his former colleagues at the Pentagon and has told the President he may be pursuing a "dangerous course."
"The President considers this nation to be at war," a White House source says," and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason."
While Hussein and Iraq have been linked to various terrorist groups in the past, U.S. intelligence agencies have not been able to establish a provable link with bin Laden’s al Qaeda forces.
"There may be one," says another FBI source. "There should be one. All logic says there has to be one, but we haven’t established it as a fact. Not yet."
Pentagon planners privately refer to the pending Iraq conflict as a "Bush league war," something that may be fought more for political gain than anything else.
Some Pentagon staffers point to last weekend’s antiwar rally in Washington, where they say the crowd included many veterans of Desert Storm.
"This wasn’t just a bunch of tree huggers and longhairs marching," says Arnold Giftos of Huntington, West Virginia, who served in Desert Storm and who came to march. "Go to any meeting of veterans groups in this country and you will see serious discussion on whether or not we should be getting into this war."
Reporters covering the marches on Saturday and Sunday say they counted about 500 marchers among the 30,000 who carried signs or other items identifying themselves as veterans.
"I served in Vietnam," said Robert Brighton of Detroit, who marched in Washington. "I supported Desert Storm. I don’t support this. It’s madness."
In addition, Capitol Hill Blue has learned that both House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist have told the White House that they have "increasing" numbers of Republicans in both Houses raising doubts about the war.
"Nobody in the party wants to come out publicly and tell the President he’s wrong," says one Hill source close to the GOP leadership, "but we don’t have the kind of unity we need on this thing. It could blow apart on us at any time."
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_1587.shtml
Excerpts from the article:
Senior Pentagon officials are quietly urging President George W. Bush to slow down his headlong rush to war with Iraq, complaining the administration’s course of action represents too much of a shift of America’s longstanding "no first strike" policy and that the move could well result in conflicts with other Arab nations.
Intelligence sources say some Arab nations have told US diplomats they may side with Iraq if the U.S. attacks without the backing of the United Nations. Secretary of State Colin Powell agrees with his former colleagues at the Pentagon and has told the President he may be pursuing a "dangerous course."
"The President considers this nation to be at war," a White House source says," and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason."
While Hussein and Iraq have been linked to various terrorist groups in the past, U.S. intelligence agencies have not been able to establish a provable link with bin Laden’s al Qaeda forces.
"There may be one," says another FBI source. "There should be one. All logic says there has to be one, but we haven’t established it as a fact. Not yet."
Pentagon planners privately refer to the pending Iraq conflict as a "Bush league war," something that may be fought more for political gain than anything else.
Some Pentagon staffers point to last weekend’s antiwar rally in Washington, where they say the crowd included many veterans of Desert Storm.
"This wasn’t just a bunch of tree huggers and longhairs marching," says Arnold Giftos of Huntington, West Virginia, who served in Desert Storm and who came to march. "Go to any meeting of veterans groups in this country and you will see serious discussion on whether or not we should be getting into this war."
Reporters covering the marches on Saturday and Sunday say they counted about 500 marchers among the 30,000 who carried signs or other items identifying themselves as veterans.
"I served in Vietnam," said Robert Brighton of Detroit, who marched in Washington. "I supported Desert Storm. I don’t support this. It’s madness."
In addition, Capitol Hill Blue has learned that both House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist have told the White House that they have "increasing" numbers of Republicans in both Houses raising doubts about the war.
"Nobody in the party wants to come out publicly and tell the President he’s wrong," says one Hill source close to the GOP leadership, "but we don’t have the kind of unity we need on this thing. It could blow apart on us at any time."
We might as well hang it up and learn to speak Farsi.
You're right, Maynard, and I'm wrong. Bush only wants to take on Saddam because of a long-standing grudge from his Daddy's days. All the information we've ever heard about Saddam trying to wipe out the Kurds, torturing Iraqi citizens, using children as human shields, financing various terrorist groups, etc have ALL been a media concoction and aren't true in the slightest. Saddam is a nice old guy who's been over there minding his own business all these years. Heck, he didn't even invade Kuwait - the media made that up, too.
There. Happy?
You're right, Maynard, and I'm wrong. Bush only wants to take on Saddam because of a long-standing grudge from his Daddy's days. All the information we've ever heard about Saddam trying to wipe out the Kurds, torturing Iraqi citizens, using children as human shields, financing various terrorist groups, etc have ALL been a media concoction and aren't true in the slightest. Saddam is a nice old guy who's been over there minding his own business all these years. Heck, he didn't even invade Kuwait - the media made that up, too.
There. Happy?
Frank
Chairman of the Board
To confirm their feelings about him - if they think he's an idiot, why not doctor pics to "prove" it? I don't think he is stupid, but I also don't think he is brilliant either. He was, however, smart enough to get an MBA from Harvard. He's just a little weird in front of a camera - so are a lotta people. Just remember Admiral Stockdale - just cause a man can't talk in front of a camera doesn't make him stupid or senile.
So how does this work?
We go in and secure the oil wells so saddam doesn't torch them. The Army doesn't run oil wells, so I imagine they would bring in Halliburton or a similar company. Then we are talking about keeping some of the oil revenue to pay for the bombs we dropped on them, so Halliburton makes the deposits into Chase or First Union or whoever, and pays the US treasury their cut.
Then what? After approximately 18 months Halliburton and Chase et al just hand over the keys to whoever we have installed as the new government and walk away? Or maybe they will pay themselves to install new more efficient systems, then they can get a consulting contract with the new "owners" on how to use it. Plus, they will have to repair all of the stuff we destroyed, so it will take years for them to get paid back. Would it be considered a long term loan? Or a part ownership deal?
We go in and secure the oil wells so saddam doesn't torch them. The Army doesn't run oil wells, so I imagine they would bring in Halliburton or a similar company. Then we are talking about keeping some of the oil revenue to pay for the bombs we dropped on them, so Halliburton makes the deposits into Chase or First Union or whoever, and pays the US treasury their cut.
Then what? After approximately 18 months Halliburton and Chase et al just hand over the keys to whoever we have installed as the new government and walk away? Or maybe they will pay themselves to install new more efficient systems, then they can get a consulting contract with the new "owners" on how to use it. Plus, they will have to repair all of the stuff we destroyed, so it will take years for them to get paid back. Would it be considered a long term loan? Or a part ownership deal?
Aluminum tubes
http://www.msnbc.com/news/863567.asp
Jan. 24 — When President Bush traveled to the United Nations in September to make his case against Iraq, he brought along a rare piece of evidence for what he called Iraq’s "continued appetite" for nuclear bombs. The finding: Iraq had tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes, which Bush said were "used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."
Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice both repeated the claim, with Rice describing the tubes as "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs."
After weeks of investigation, U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq are increasingly confident that the aluminum tubes were never meant for enriching uranium, according to officials familiar with the inspection process. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.-chartered nuclear watchdog, reported in a Jan. 8 preliminary assessment that the tubes were "not directly suitable" for uranium enrichment but were "consistent" with making ordinary artillery rockets — a finding that meshed with Iraq’s official explanation for the tubes. New evidence supporting that conclusion has been gathered in recent weeks and will be presented to the U.N. Security Council in a report due to be released on Monday, the officials said.
But they are a perfect fit for a well-documented 81mm conventional rocket program in place for two decades. Iraq imported the same aluminum tubes for rockets in the 1980s
To date, the Bush administration has declined to release photos or other specific evidence to bolster its contention that Iraq is actively seeking to acquire new biological, chemical and nuclear arms, and the means to deliver them.
"If the U.S. government puts out bad information it runs a risk of undermining the good information it possesses," said David Albright, a former IAEA weapons inspector who has investigated Iraq’s past nuclear programs extensively. "In this case, I fear that the information was put out there for a short-term political goal: to convince people that Saddam Hussein is close to acquiring nuclear weapons."
Significantly, there is no evidence so far that Iraq sought other materials required for centrifuges, such as motors, metal caps and special magnets, U.S. and international officials said.
According to informed officials, the IAEA concluded Iraq had indeed been running a secret procurement operation, but the intended beneficiary was not Iraq’s Atomic Energy Commission; rather, it was an established army program to replace Iraq’s aging arsenal of conventional 81mm rockets, the type used in multiple rocket launchers.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/863567.asp
Jan. 24 — When President Bush traveled to the United Nations in September to make his case against Iraq, he brought along a rare piece of evidence for what he called Iraq’s "continued appetite" for nuclear bombs. The finding: Iraq had tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes, which Bush said were "used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."
Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice both repeated the claim, with Rice describing the tubes as "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs."
After weeks of investigation, U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq are increasingly confident that the aluminum tubes were never meant for enriching uranium, according to officials familiar with the inspection process. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.-chartered nuclear watchdog, reported in a Jan. 8 preliminary assessment that the tubes were "not directly suitable" for uranium enrichment but were "consistent" with making ordinary artillery rockets — a finding that meshed with Iraq’s official explanation for the tubes. New evidence supporting that conclusion has been gathered in recent weeks and will be presented to the U.N. Security Council in a report due to be released on Monday, the officials said.
But they are a perfect fit for a well-documented 81mm conventional rocket program in place for two decades. Iraq imported the same aluminum tubes for rockets in the 1980s
To date, the Bush administration has declined to release photos or other specific evidence to bolster its contention that Iraq is actively seeking to acquire new biological, chemical and nuclear arms, and the means to deliver them.
"If the U.S. government puts out bad information it runs a risk of undermining the good information it possesses," said David Albright, a former IAEA weapons inspector who has investigated Iraq’s past nuclear programs extensively. "In this case, I fear that the information was put out there for a short-term political goal: to convince people that Saddam Hussein is close to acquiring nuclear weapons."
Significantly, there is no evidence so far that Iraq sought other materials required for centrifuges, such as motors, metal caps and special magnets, U.S. and international officials said.
According to informed officials, the IAEA concluded Iraq had indeed been running a secret procurement operation, but the intended beneficiary was not Iraq’s Atomic Energy Commission; rather, it was an established army program to replace Iraq’s aging arsenal of conventional 81mm rockets, the type used in multiple rocket launchers.
You know, Maynard, you people never answered my question. Not that I expected you to because I know how you ignore things until you can get your cult leaders to give you the proper litany.
The question was:
Uday Hussein went on television and said if we invade his country, they're going to use chemical weapons against us. Is that or is that not an admission that they have WMD?
The question was:
Uday Hussein went on television and said if we invade his country, they're going to use chemical weapons against us. Is that or is that not an admission that they have WMD?
Never mind. Apparently it was a hallucination because now I can't seem to find any references to it in any of the major news sources. Or maybe Uday was just kidding so nobody felt the need to report it after the CNN television appearance.
But I could have sworn that I saw this punk on TV and I could have sworn that he made a lot of threats against the US and I could have sworn he specifically mentioned chemical weapons. Must have just been my imagination.
But I could have sworn that I saw this punk on TV and I could have sworn that he made a lot of threats against the US and I could have sworn he specifically mentioned chemical weapons. Must have just been my imagination.
You know, that's actually happened to me before. There was a Republican debate during the 2000 election and I swore Alan Keyes was there - I had hallucinated things he said and everything. The next day I was looking for stories on the debate and there was no mention of Keyes having been there. Kind of weird. Maybe I should get some medication.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52135-2003Jan27.html
If this turns out to be accurate, presumably it would convince other nations of the neccesity for action, hopefully including some in the middle east. I also would then support military action.
If this turns out to be accurate, presumably it would convince other nations of the neccesity for action, hopefully including some in the middle east. I also would then support military action.
Wow.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml
"(CBS) They're calling it "A-Day," A as in airstrikes so devastating they would leave Saddam's soldiers unable or unwilling to fight.
"If the Pentagon sticks to its current war plan, one day in March the Air Force and Navy will launch between 300 and 400 cruise missiles at targets in Iraq. …, this is more than number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War.
"On the second day, the plan calls for launching another 300 to 400 cruise missiles.
"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml
"(CBS) They're calling it "A-Day," A as in airstrikes so devastating they would leave Saddam's soldiers unable or unwilling to fight.
"If the Pentagon sticks to its current war plan, one day in March the Air Force and Navy will launch between 300 and 400 cruise missiles at targets in Iraq. …, this is more than number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War.
"On the second day, the plan calls for launching another 300 to 400 cruise missiles.
"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan"
H
Heretic
Guest
Vrai poor Uday is just a misunderstood soul like his poor dad.
I did see what you are talking about I believe his words were "We will use every type of weapon in our arsenal"
I did see what you are talking about I believe his words were "We will use every type of weapon in our arsenal"