Still no weapons of mass destruction

I think one of the greatest faults in our government is the incapacity to articulate a comprehensible reason for war.

Yes, Saddam was a bad man.

But society's fault is not being cogniscent of other dictatorships and genocide around the world.

Take the Hutuoo and Totsi (sp?) in Africa, these two tribes have battled for nearly a decade killing each other simply due to lineage. Yet, they don't sit on an international hotbed of oil.

This war is not for oil, but its close

The oil is a definate plus, keep in mind that the government handed the oil 'rebuilding' contracts over to Cheney's old company. We want to remove Saddam for economic and political reason, but these reasons are unilateral - in our favor.

The crisis in the middle east is nothing new, the conflict between the west and the middle east has been perpetual since the crusades.

No one in the 20th century wanted to bother with the issue because it was viewed as too risky, even by many extreme conservatives. But it was the warhawks -(wolfowitz, and the neo cons) that swayed Bush into going to war. He, initially, didn't want war, 911 was used as the beaurocratic ally in that the warhawks could no indirectly link that act to Saddam. (Far Fetched? - Trace the 'War on Terror' = Bin Laden, Al Queda, 'terrorist harboring nations,' the middle east (axis of evil), Iraq, Saddam.

Why link a terrorist attack to a dictator. Simple, internation hegemony. By establishing a democracy in Iraq the US would now benefit from an open, capitalist economy (democracy and capitalism go hand in hand). And the plan, by establishing a democracy in the middle of this turmultuous locale is that hopefully other countries would also turn, thus turning the Middle East into a US supportive place where there was trade and political extensions.

The US may want to rid the world of a terrible leader, but there are a great number of one sided advantages to winning this war as well.

-AndrewP

--------------------

East Coast

COC - Session C
 
^word

LOOK AT WHERE HER FUCKING MOUTH IS-my favourite pun of all time

Proud member of the official NS Ogre team, and NS communist party and OTC

***NEWSCHOOL UNDERGROUND***-retired
 
I agree with ItsBackFlip.. and Skiguydude or whatever.. NO sense re-stating what they said very well already

--------------------

Just Huck it
 
wow EC-Andrew good call, but still I doubt it will work out as nicely as your last paragraph described, and im sure if the us wants to it can completely take advantage of the situation and squeeze the whole region dry in all profitable area's (figurative area's that is). but hey maybe not i dont know, i dont want to be too convicting it just seems that the majority of the time things dont work out as nicely as the world would like.

 
that mita been the dumbest thing said in this thread

LOOK AT WHERE HER FUCKING MOUTH IS-my favourite pun of all time

Proud member of the official NS Ogre team, and NS communist party and OTC

***NEWSCHOOL UNDERGROUND***-retired
 
I dont know iv got the red mist covering my eyes too, come on bush, be our next genghis khan. haha your a fag ICURNOZtwo.

 
You have to realize the difference between liberating a country like Iraq and not doing it for other countries is economical. Part of the reason these countries have no order is because they have no money. They don't have the resources to be effective in the global market, they're poor because of that, they'll continue to be poor because of it, and so you just have vernacular power struggles. The reason we weren't unable to bring much stability in Afghanistan is because they're poor as the dirt they live on. If a country like Afghanistan had some oil, they'd probably be more stable. It's not practical to liberate a country that has no means of sustaining themselves as a modern nation. Simply those African countries are just not good canidates. You can speak of oil conspiracies all you want, but you need economic resources to have a chance at being a modern stable nation.

 
On an Israeli website/ that is like a newspaper too said they caught a guy that knew where some weapons were hiddin like a mile underground way out in the desert. I believed it but I don't know that much and don't follow the news.

IM out like a blind kid in laser tag--- --- I'm out like a midget in a high jump competition
 
The website is called .. www.debka.com if you wanna check it out.

IM out like a blind kid in laser tag--- --- I'm out like a midget in a high jump competition
 
Gravtek...

No order is no money? Definately true, proven throughout history. (French Revolution and bread prices - not the whole story but an innate component)

Follow the money and you'll find answers.

Iraq is in not a country unable to sustain itself. Its resources would be able to sustain the country. However, under Saddam those resources were directed in a unilateral way, the people never saw that money. You state that we can't bring stability to Afghanistan b/c it is a poor country. The US could have lifted that country out from its issues, but it was slack and it fell back down.

Those African countries were a good candidate in the scope of genocide, not resources.

The biggest problem I see in us liberating Iraq is our narrow actions. We have paid no head the Free Iraq Project. This project was designed by Iraqi exiles and democrats for a post saddam Iraq. The US has paid the project no heed and has instead gone headwall into the problem. If we were to stabalize the country we could.

We would never have allowed the looting to happen. Looting is a natural component to war, but the extent of the looting in Iraq was ridiculous and could have been restrained by troops. Also, area hospitols, even those in Bahgdad are seeing no benefits to losing Saddam. Hospitols have pleaded to the US for resources they are having to shut down key dialysis programs and cancer treatments because the US hasn't given them the small amounts of medicine they need to help their people.

Are some countries a better opportunity to help, yes. Could the countries being liberated be helped more effectively, definately.

-AndrewP

--------------------

East Coast

COC - Session C
 
I agree that we're not effective upkeepers at all. I did read about the issues about the state of Baghdad and Iraq after Saddam's downfall. Part of the problem is that the plan wasn't 100% complete, and they also didn't expect for the government to topple so quickly. So everything happened too fast for its own good really.

 
agreed.

And if you think about it...

America, as a nation as often been a peacekeeping force in the world.

But, the minute our integrity is poked at, we lash out. Pearl Harbor, A-Bomb; 911, war on terror. I'm not sure, but perhaps an American trait.

--------------------

East Coast

COC - Session C
 
I think you could make the case either way as a set of coincidences and have their own isolated circumstances, or it is actually a trend.

I read one really good journal article one time that someone had posted on here about the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. It was really thorough, deep, and involved. I'm still not sure on what I think about the general 9-11 reaction this county has had and this war. 9-11's implications are so dynamic and can be used in destructive and regressive ways. But it can also be used reasonably as the base for policies and legislation. Most cynicism I think is accredited to the administration's failure to create a balance that shows reasonability.

 
agreed, I think we have jumped in too quickly without enough conference. we've really failed in representing ourselves well and publicly making a cohesive case.

sad part is, we won't really know what to make of this for another 20 maybe 30 years after...

gotta love history

--------------------

East Coast

COC - Session C
 
from cnn today:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Although U.S. search teams in Iraq have so far produced no proof of weapons of mass destruction, President Bush said Monday he remains 'absolutely convinced' the evidence will be found.

The president gave brief comments to reporters at a Cabinet meeting hours after a key Democratic senator told CNN he believes the U.S. intelligence community deliberately manipulated intelligence to win support for the war against Iraq.

'Iraq had a weapons program,' Bush said. 'Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find they did have a weapons program.'

While Iraq was permitted to have conventional weapons under U.N. rules, it was clear Bush was referring to the banned weapons of mass destruction -- specifically chemical and biological agents.

Numerous lawmakers, mostly Democrats, have called for an investigation of pre-war intelligence and publicly questioned the veracity of some claims made by members of Bush administration in the months before the United States went to war against Iraq.

Sen. Carl Levin, ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee and a member of the Intelligence Committee, told CNN Monday, 'I do think there's evidence that the CIA did shade and embellish this information in a number of areas. ...

'We're not sure exactly what all of the facts are at this point. All I am confident of is this: There is significant evidence that the intelligence was shaded in order to support a policy, presumably, of the administration.'

CIA Director George Tenet has denied that claim.

The alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was the central U.S. argument for war.

When asked whether U.S. credibility is at stake in the search for evidence of illicit weapons, Bush replied, 'The credibility of this country is based upon our strong desire to make the world more peaceful, and the world is now more peaceful after our decision' to go to war -- a war, he said, that freed the Iraqi people.

Levin, D-Michigan, said he considers it 'very likely' that the United States will prove Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction. But, he said, that is a separate issue from how the Bush administration handled U.S. intelligence on Iraq.

If it was just 'a probability or a possibility,' rather than a certainty, that Saddam had such weapons, 'that's what we should have been told,' said Levin. 'It seems to me ... there was not certainty about this issue.'

Asked for examples, Levin cited claims by Bush advisers that Iraq had imported aluminum tubes as part of a program aimed at building nuclear weapons. The CIA had evidence, he said, that the tubes were meant to serve other, civilian purposes, and there was some 'dispute in the intelligence community' over what the tubes were to be used for.

More recently, he said, U.S. officials reported finding vans in Iraq which they said appeared to be part of a biological weapons program. But a 'third independent group used by the Department of Defense' determined the vans may not have been part of such an illicit program, Levin said. He argued that the CIA is trying to bury that information.

'We have to be able to rely on intelligence information from the CIA,' he said.

While a summary of a September 2002 report from the Defense Intelligence Agency -- the Pentagon's military intelligence wing -- said it had found 'no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons,' it also said there was intelligence Saddam was dispersing chemical weapons in advance of a possible war.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice cautioned against misreading the report or pursuing 'revisionist history.'

Speaking Sunday to CBS' Face the Nation, she said, 'The truth of the matter is that repeated directors of central intelligence, repeated reports by intelligence agencies around the world, repeated reports by U.N. inspectors asking hard questions of Saddam Hussein, and tremendous efforts by this regime to conceal and hide what it was doing clearly give a picture of a regime that had weapons of mass destruction and was determined to conceal them.'

Official NS Slut

(deemed this by the Offical NS Pimp)
 
wow I just looked at your post and thought you had for once written something intelligent. Alas, no, it was CNN.

-MiKeE LiFsHiTz-
 
'Iraq had a weapons program, Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find they did have a weapons program.'

That my friends, is our president.

Imagine that Bush a country with a weapons program. How ironic? I mean really whats the world coming to these days? haha i mean that is just such a ludicrous statement. Every fucking country has a goddamn weapons program. The US has enough bombs to blow the world up three times over.

I'm no fan of the bush administration...

--------------------

East Coast

COC - Session C
 
aluminum tubes, and vans? I hope american inteligence hade more to go on than that as a basis for war.

==================================

to be concluded... ahhhhhhhh, and I missed the trailer for revolutions!!
 
yup. even msn is pointing out the failures of this war. heres some good snippets:

Iraq’s Wahhabis used to be mercilessly persecuted by Saddam, who feared their Taliban-style version of Sunni Islam. Now, however, there is growing suspicion that the once banned extremists are teaming up with the dictator’s old Baath Party loyalists to create the beginnings of an underground insurgency.

a hit-and-run attack wounded five Americans and killed one, bringing the U.S. death toll to a dozen in only 11 days.

Saddam’s loyalists may be relatively few in number, but they’re everywhere.

And they have nothing left to lose. Under Saddam’s dictatorship, they were the most privileged people in Iraq. Now they’re outcasts.

American forces in Al Fallujah recently offered an amnesty to senior Baathist members if they would only “denounce or renounce” their connection to the former ruling party. Not one showed up.

Members of the now outlawed political group are banding together to form secret new parties with names like Al Awda (“The Return”)

In Al Fallujah the organization seems to be growing stronger every day. Townspeople often greet American patrols with jeers—and, increasingly, with open violence.

So far the Americans have made little progress against the resistance.

-------------------

'Dude, check out this nasty gouge.'

'Your mom has a nasty gouge.'

'He's from Quebec. They pee on the lawn.'

 
Saddam Huessien was no idiot.

Brash, evil, maniacil, sick, whatever you call him he was intelligent enough to keep himself alive and maintain his power.

The problem with these dictatorships is that they last. Men of such wicked caliber are aware that they must have a tight circle of friends. Saddam did this, though selectively, he surrounded himself with powerful men for his own protection. They protected him and he gave them provisions. A reciprocating friendship.

These Baath party members were sustained under Hussien to a lavish extent. They have no such garuntee under US 'rule.' They therefore use their own networks to rebell. Thus the problem.

In order to remove a dictatorship to instill democracy there must be a 100% quelch of old dictatorial links. Which is impossible.

The US Gov't has involved itself in a situation that it initially triumphed in, but will flail in as well. We did not have enough intelligence, or resources, or backing, or foresight to really know what we're getting into.

It truly is as US commanders have said, this war will not be the fleeting victory which the president spoke about. It will be years before this issue is resolved, decades until it is entirely solved.

In the 20th century, of the 18 regime changes forced by the United States, only 5 have resulted in democracy.

That is not a very good success rate.

--------------------

East Coast

COC - Session C
 
bush is just an idiot, nuff said. he fuckin waved to steevie wonder on live television. my teacher who slacked off alot during highschool scored a better SAT score than bush did. Bush got into Yale and Harvard not because he was smart, but because ol' papa bush had a shitload of power and Cash. damn i hate bush.... he is a disgrace to our country

hoked on foniks wurked fur me.kant u tel?

jigga say wha??

*OFFICIAL NS SQUID*

LISTEN TO GUNS N' ROSES
 
and my post got deleted, great

just live life and hope everything around u works out

----------------------

Do you enjoy coitus Mr. Lebowski?

Huh?

Coitus. Sex, intercourse, the act of love.

Oh, you mean coitus?
 
STILL nobody showed me something good bush did.

LOOK AT WHERE HER FUCKING MOUTH IS-my favourite pun of all time

Proud member of the official NS Ogre team, and NS communist party and OTC

***NEWSCHOOL UNDERGROUND***-retired
 
bush got into yale not only because of his daddy but also because of the cross & bones. friggen secret society shit. also a good reason why he is president today. and for anyone who doesn't believe me look the shit up on the internet, its true.

Official NS Slut

(deemed this by the Offical NS Pimp)
 
arent most of the people now a days who get into yale the people whos parents donate gyms?

IM out like a blind kid in laser tag--- --- I'm out like a midget in a high jump competition
 
You can debate all you want, but itsbackfliptime made some undeniable good points.

What we're doing is right and I'm tired of explaining it to close minded people who can not seee the greater picture.

Whether you like it or not, we're doing it.

Eat. Sleep. Breathe. Ski.

 
Why don't I run for president?

Perhaps its because I'm 15 and uneligible. We've got a right to criticism, thats something our country gives us.

Criticism is perhaps one of the greatest gifts, why without it there would be no allowance of different opinions, and with no social diversity there would be no progression.

Deviance is natural and necessary.

I'm not saying itsbackfliptime is wrong, I'm not saying I'm an anarchist, what I am saying is that we're entitled to criticize something because that entails our ability to progress.

--------------------

East Coast

COC - Session C
 
why dont I run for president?

because the last thing this world needs is another president.

Oh and another thing from an earlier post - Afganistan has huge oil reserves. Find out what you are talking about before you post.

-------------------

'Dude, check out this nasty gouge.'

'Your mom has a nasty gouge.'

'He's from Quebec. They pee on the lawn.'

 
Who cares if George Bush got into Yale because of his dad? He still had to be a decent student to get in. Yale isnt going to risk there reputation letting in someone stupid. His dad probably helped him a lot but that doesnt mean hes dumb.

FARP Trailer

'Simply put: Greatest Trailer Ever'- Resnick13
 
a203.gif'
Nuff SAid

-Pat

WBP|films
 
and for the record, bush's SAT scores and grades were not good enough to get him into yale. not by any means. but hey, having spent time in the white house didn't hurt him at all.. either did the fact that he's rich. That's pretty much all yale and the otehr ivy league schols care about now a days... money. They give out good greades simply to keep their average gpa's up, and they don't care who comes as long as they're A) RICH B) FAMOUS. don't deny it, it is true.

-Pat

WBP|films
 
Just because that 'skull and crossbones' thing is on the internet doesn't mean its true, there are things that say Bush is a great president but is that true as well?

Anyways, I doubt Bush got into Yale on his own but that's how a lot of things work I bet Chelsey Clinton got help when she got into Stanford too, but oh well who cares its obvious Bush isn't too bright theres no argument. But, i doubt he actually does a whole lot either policy wise etc. thats what advisors and a cabinet is for right?

------------------------------------------------

-Dave O'Neill

Representing the famed terrain of Ohio and New York
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top