punked
-
Posts
11,943 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by punked
-
-
Right, so you can get on with bashing Obama over the same things. Oh wait, you don't. You like to hold unelected people running for office to a higher standard than the actual office holder. I forgot. Carry on.
Say what you will about GostHacked but pretending he is somehow an Obama defender with out actually reading his posts takes the cake. I'll say one thing about GostHacked he holds everyone to the same ridiculous high standards and doesn't hold back on his criticism of all leaders and politicians Shady. Seriously you don't even have a leg to stand on, on that point just go read his posts.
-
You weren't sold anything...Canada begged off as irrelevant. 240,000 troops got the inspectors back in, but it was too little...too late.
According to Hans Blix the leading inspector in Iraq they were already in and it would only take a few more months to figure out all the details but the US needed its war. I mean I guess I could take the word of the weapons inspector on the ground at the time and who turned out to be right or I could listen to you the man trying to rewrite a history that is well documented by now.
You can pick up his book Disarming Iraq and read all about what was happening with inspectors if you cared to understand what was happening.
-
I agree....now they have nothing more to lose. The big sequester scare drama from the President and his party didn't work. Slash the budgets....watch 'em squirm.
Well I'll wait for the GDP numbers for that one considering most the Sequester hasn't kicked in yet seems to be a little to early to talk about it. Most of the furloughs kick in at the end of April remember the Sequester is more a tricking cut with each day bringing a different cut in for the rest of the fiscal year. So acting like a Sequester which is 10% rolled out is the whole thing is disingenuous. If GDP growth and job growth slows the President is going to blame the Republicans and if the economists and media back him up Nov 2014 might not be great a day for the GOP and the President wont be the one squirming.
-
Had nothing to do with "intel' that 'we' ??? are spending billions on. The invasion of Iraq by the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and others was the continuation of more than 12 years of conflict stemming from Gulf War I.
We know that was true now it wasn't the reasons when we were being sold a big pile of garbage called WMDs and the terrorist connection.
-
Apparently the Democrats do, as it forces them to finally write a budget of their own. Regardless, revenues vary with the economy, but entitlement spending is relentless. Starve the beast.....
No the fiscal cliff deal did that remember? I have no idea what you are talking about for your second sentence but Republicans can have a good time running on starve the beast it has done them so well the last few elections keep it up.
-
Yes....we see a lot of that here. Ryan is correctly attacking the larger risk of large, long term deficits. Bending the curve is priority one.
By blowing a 6 Trillion dollar whole in the long term budget? I don't think anyone takes this document seriously.
-
Yep, he told them that, but then went on to not allow weapons inspections for several years, as well as tell a different story of his weapons capabilities to his military leadership, as well as other countries in the region. He bluffed, and lost. That's on him. Is there ever a day you're not defending a dictator in this forum? Seriously.
You live in Bizarro World Shady. We don't start wars because a leader lies to his country sorry. That is why we spending Billions and Billions of dollars on thing called Intel and all the best intel at the time we now know pointed to him having nothing. Which makes sense.
-
Of course he pretended. You just said so yourself. As to not look weak to other countries in the region.
He told the US straight up "I don't have anything you think I have an a got rid of them all in the 90s when you asked me to". This was backed up by many intelligence agencies at the time. The Senate wrote a whole report on it Shady maybe you should read it its called "Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq". We know what happened we know where the failings are stop pretending this isn't something that has already had countless books written on it.
-
Complete and utter nonsense. There was intel of both pro-WMD and con-WMD. Nobody KNEW one way or the other. Your conspiracy theories are amusing.
Nope there was some really bad pro-WMD intel that everyone was saying was terrible and some really good con-WMD intel that almost all high ranking US intel officals agreed with. You again are trying to re write a history that is easily researched. The pro-WMD Intel was very very very bad in fact it was so bad that the President sometimes couldn't even get the US intel agencies to go on record with it and relied on intel from other nations to justify some of his reasons.
-
Right. So he pretended he had such weapons. Well, his bluff was called. I guess he should have been more upfront, and realized that such actions, along with breaking the cease fire agreement could have pretty grave consequences.
Nope he never pretended to have those weapons. He was very clear he didn't have those weapons he sent all documents requested by the UN to the UN but he did make a mistake with weapon inspectors probably thinking that the inspectors opinions that if they were give just a few more months everything would be found out would be taken seriously by the US to bad the President of the US did not care what anyone with good intel was telling him at the time eh?
-
There is no argument....a U.S. president and the prime ministers of three other nations decided to invade Iraq. So they did.
They sure did but we do get to argue about their reasons and justification to their people. History does get to judge them and that is happening already.
-
Right. So he pretended he had such weapons. Well, his bluff was called. I guess he should have been more upfront, and realized that such actions, along with breaking the cease fire agreement could have pretty grave consequences.
Doesn't change the fact that the US Admin had little to no proof and most in the US Intel community told them he didn't have those weapons, that the UN inspectors asked for more time and said they thought he didn't have weapons and that in the end they were wrong. They were wrong and now history gets to judge them. Very few people believe the war was worth it and the more evidence comes out that the Bush Admin knew there weren't any WMDs the less people think your reason is a good one in the least. I am not defending Saddam I am saying that lying to the American people about sketchy intel is wrong.
-
lol.... 'We' do not know anything.
No you do not know anything. The rest of us who read the news and who have followed the evidence know quite I bit about Iraq, but I guess you were there so it doesn't matter you don't know anything right? Which is again my point, that is the worst argument ever.
-
He wasn't going to win. Even Saddam figured that out early no matter the Iraqi Minister of Information. Why get caught with the smoking gun?
That makes no sense what do ever. His only card is WMDs and being to use them on countries in the Region or his own populace. Saddam wasn't stupid he wouldn't give up his only trump card.
-
Then why did they refuse weapons inspections for 3 years? Why did they violate the terms of the cease fire they agreed to?
We know the answer to this to. Saddam feared others in the Region (Iran) knowing how weak his military and country was so he refused to ever show the proof that the weapons didn't exist. All this is well documented go read the reports on this seriously go pick up a book and read it you might learn something.
-
So you also think Iraq did not have a chemical weapons program? Amazing.
We know for a fact Iraq developed weapons what we now also know is Iraq complied with UN orders and destroyed those weapons long ago and documented all that information for the UN and anyone else to read. You want to know what happened to the VX nerve agent read the 25 report that Iraq sent to the UN on it in 2003 when they asked that same question. You don't actually care about the answers you want to make the same arguments that were made in 2003 that we now know are wrong.
-
It makes perfect sense.
How does moving all your weapons out of your country right before a war make any sense what so ever? Seriously it only make sense in the heads of "those who were there" because they think the bull they were sold at the time trumps real facts and evidence.
-
Oh really? How do you 'get rid of' VX nerve agent, anyways?
Hard to get rid of something that doesn't exist isn't it? However in 2003 Iraq sent the UN a 25 report on how in 1991 they went about getting rid of that never agent I suggest if you care about this question you read it.
-
Like yourself, I don't think for a second that WMDs were the reason for Iraq getting the drubbing it did. But they certainly existed...and probably still do exist. They are not so easy to 'get rid of' as you seem to think.
Yes Saddam moved all his weapons out of Iraq right before a war that makes perfect sense..... No wait that makes no sense.
-
Right, the WMDs never existed, even though they were used to kill Iranians, and thousands of Iraqis. But they never existed.
No they existed and then were gotten rid of just like all the good Intel at the time said Shady. Just because South Africa at one time had a nuke doesn't mean the Us should invade them today. That is just the type of Conservative logic which cost American lives and why "well I was there so I know" attitude I am pointing out is abused.
-
Are you claiming that Syria does not have a chemical weapons program?
I am claiming and have been proven true their were no WMDs in Iraq and terrible Intel was used to trump up a war.
-
There's now more evidence that Saddam did indeed move his chemical weapons stockpiles to Syria pre-invasion....as was suggested numerous times during the build-up to the Iraq War. The spy sats even spotted the trucks...but, who knew what was in them? Must have been Saddam's beret collection.
Yah ok the right still looking for those WMDs that never existed, when they aren't found in Syria you guys will say North Korea, Russia, or anywhere else. I'll wait for that evidence with a citation because this is old and tired, stop rewriting history.
Oh yah the "spy sats" saw them eh? I'll put that BS in the pile with the other BS we were sold then. There it all is in a pile called "the made up stuff we all believed then and a few of crazy people still believe".
-
As for Iraq being about WMD, it partly was, as it was about some people's belief that Iraq had WMD - and that belief is based in part on Iraq's history. Was it so terribly unreasonable not to believe what Saddam said? That's something that might not be understood by people who didn't feel the threat from him that others did. That's why reading about history and 'being there' are two very different things.
This is my example. You were there so you believe this but we have the hindsight now. We now know that almost all the "evidence" presented to you and the rest of the public was trumped up and that this had to have very little to do with WMDs because the intel community at the time kept telling the administration their story was wrong and full of holes. This is what I am saying your vision is clouded and you are more of an unreliable narrator because you were there, your opinion means less because you were there not more. You can't spin the lies you were told and pretend because we all bought into them (because they were good lies) that they weren't lies. We can't say this had to do with WMDs when we now know the big players knew most of what they were saying was based on sketchy intel. If did have to do with WMDs then we get hammer the decision that were made even more because of how bad their intel was. The reason your opinion means less is because you were there and because of that you still justify a terrible decision as a somewhat good one.
-
This is very true, and thus we arrive at the point where all controversy ends up - discussion. "Being there" does provide a perspective that history and academia can't hope to encapsulate. The political climate of the time is often the most difficult thing to understand when looking back at a period in history.
Yes but that isn't a justification for bad decisions. When presidents look back and say "History will judge me" that is what we are doing right now. Why even say history will be your judge if when you are judged to be horrible by history you throw back "well you weren't there". Though the wrong choice is the wrong choice.
New evidence Nixon did indeed sabotage peace talks in 68
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
You are acting like the inspectors weren't there in the first place. They were there, they were reporting their findings and trying to explain why these things in all countries take time while the most powerful in the world stuck their fingers in their ears and yelled "We can't hear you". Again your side isn't going to rewrite history on this one it is to well documented, the people already know the emperor had no clothes.