Mazda World Forum banner

41 - 60 of 221 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,659 Posts
Discussion Starter #41
Originally posted by ///BHRpowered+May 15 2005, 10:54 PM-->
kat, the key issue is that I'm an american citizen and pay taxes to support the budget, I would have been much happier to take all that money from the wave they wer to lazy to run from and pump it into what we need here. CITIZENS are a different story.
[snapback]271894[/snapback]​
[/b]
good point

<!--QuoteBegin-HondaH8er
@May 16 2005, 07:51 AM
First of all, its documented fact that Bush was given bad intellegence about WMDs. So how you continue to insinuate that he lied about this is beyond me. If you wanna say he lied about there being any link to Al Qaeda than you might have a better point, but theres also intellegence sighting meetings between Sadaam and senior members of Al Qaeda. Then there's also the money he sent to the family's of the FUCKS that carried out the attacks on 9/11.
i dont know what planet u live on, but here nothing is done without evidence. u cant send a man to jail without proof. u really want me to belive that we started a war over intelligence that wasnt proven. In any military organization and prolly most civilian the most senior is alway responsible. If sum nutso told him that sadam had a nuke ready to fire, his first response should have been "prove it". then lets go kik ass. if u believe that weak ass cop-out about bad intellegence then ur insane. If he did get bad intelligence then him and everybody involved should be in cuffs now.
Second, there were plenty of instances when UN not just US planes were shot at while patroling the NO FLY ZONE, something that has been going on since the last conflict in Iraq.
If this was a problem why didnt the UN join our efforts.
And are you kidding me with that cruise missle shit? I seem to remember that "good ol boy" Billy Bob Clinton trying that tactic with Al Qaeda when he was pres. How did that work out for him? Oh yea I forgot. 3,000 people died on 9/11.
But you guys are right though. War is never the answer we should just hug every dictator into submission.
[snapback]271925[/snapback]​
The cruisle missile thing was an exaggeration, the piont i was trying to make is, u dont have to completely destroy and rebuild a country to kill one dude. theres other means (come'on use ur noodle). I'll say again for the iliterate, i would not be opposed, to the war if he had stated the truth to begin with not the WMD bullshit. Just say, i feel like fukkin up Iraq today or sumn truthful about the situation....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
325 Posts
Originally posted by Kat_Daddy@May 16 2005, 11:51 AM
good point

i dont know what planet u live on, but here nothing is done without evidence. u cant send a man to jail without proof. u really want me to belive that we started a war over intelligence that wasnt proven. In any military organization and prolly most civilian the most senior is alway responsible. If sum nutso told him that sadam had a nuke ready to fire, his first response should have been "prove it". then lets go kik ass. if u believe that weak ass cop-out about bad intellegence then ur insane. If he did get bad intelligence then him and everybody involved should be in cuffs now.

If this was a problem why didnt the UN join our efforts.

The cruisle missile thing was an exaggeration, the piont i was trying to make is, u dont have to completely destroy and rebuild a country to kill one dude. theres other means (come'on use ur noodle). I'll say again for the iliterate, i would not be opposed, to the war if he had stated the truth to begin with not the WMD bullshit. Just say, i feel like fukkin up Iraq today or sumn truthful about the situation....
[snapback]271949[/snapback]​
It's funny that you say everyone involved should be in cuffs, because THE UNITED STATES SENATE approved going into Iraq based on that intellegence report. Are you implying that they should all be thrown in jail. Why single out Bush? You make it sound like some hick just decided to go play cowboys and indians in Baghdad.

The point is our intellegence failed us. Everyone now knows that our intellegence community is and has been piss poor for a long time. This dates back to when Bill was president. Clinton, Bush, and everyone else who had the power to change that but didn't is at fault for that.

And as for why the UN never did anything about them shooting at planes patroling the "No Fly Zone." One word sums that up: Spineless. I'm all for using diplomacy first, but Saddam counted on that and used to his benefit. He would say we shot at them first not them at us, and so the UN would do nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,223 Posts
Not to get too involved in the US discussion here, but as an outsider looking in the fish bowl, didn't one dictator get ousted by force only so another could rule the country from afar in the Whitehouse?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
325 Posts
Originally posted by michaeltroysmith@May 16 2005, 01:51 PM
Not to get too involved in the US discussion here, but as an outsider looking in the fish bowl, didn't one dictator get ousted by force only so another could rule the country from afar in the Whitehouse?
[snapback]271960[/snapback]​
Thank You for clarifying that for me. I didn't understand utnill now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,223 Posts
Hey man it is your voted in leader, you get what you pay for. And no leader will ever satiate the masses. What needs to be ensured is that the poor guys over there get welcomed home, they are only doing the job to feed their families and doing as directed. Let's not have another Vietnam type welcoming committee.

The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.
- Ronald Reagan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,223 Posts
Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree, but I also have an objective view from the outside looking at how the public opinion is swinging on the war, similar to that of the past. That is all. I also believe that the right person was ousted, as long it was for the right reasons. There was some erroneous 'intelligence' that was acted upon, but what's done is done. Just get the guys home alive, or give them a better reason to be putting life on the line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,223 Posts
Yeah, the spineless ran up here to hide from the gov't when it came looking. They have a political party up here too, other than the 'Green' party, it is called the N.D.P or new democrats..... always after social money without a plan to pay for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,659 Posts
Discussion Starter #50
Originally posted by HondaH8er@May 16 2005, 01:24 PM
It's funny that you say everyone involved should be in cuffs, because THE UNITED STATES SENATE approved going into Iraq based on that intellegence report. Are you implying that they should all be thrown in jail. Why single out Bush? You make it sound like some hick just decided to go play cowboys and indians in Baghdad.
Now u got sumn here. But I doubt they would discuss, all the information and the means used to onquire with all the Senate. That would expose too much classified shit to too many ppl. Instead they probably took whover'sin charge of obtaining this info, and he briefed the pres. then the pres. briefed the senate/congress so on and so on.

The point is our intellegence failed us. Everyone now knows that our intellegence community is and has been piss poor for a long time. This dates back to when Bill was president. Clinton, Bush, and everyone else who had the power to change that but didn't is at fault for that.
I personally work on some of the navy's intelligence equipment, thats why i dont believe this bullshit. You'll be amazed with the shit we can track with one airplane, who's design is 20-25yrs old. Imagine what they can do with hi-tech thermal imaging satellites and all that other sci-fi shit the upper level ppl have access to. I do believe in the human error factor, but our equipment is off the chain, if we actually found something, we didnt loose it.....
And as for why the UN never did anything about them shooting at planes patroling the "No Fly Zone." One word sums that up: Spineless. I'm all for using diplomacy first, but Saddam counted on that and used to his benefit. He would say we shot at them first not them at us, and so the UN would do nothing.
[snapback]271958[/snapback]​
if they shot at U.N. planes as well as u stated, nothing sadam said could have influenced them to do anything. I personally do not remeber any planes except for the china incident, but id ont know this for a fact, so i cant argue this piont. But common sense tells me, that if he fukked with the U.N. they would jump at the opportunity for revenge....

Originally posted by michaeltroysmith+May 16 2005, 02:59 PM-->
Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree, but I also have an objective view from the outside looking at how the public opinion is swinging on the war, similar to that of the past.  That is all.  I also believe that the right person was ousted, as long it was for the right reasons.  There was some erroneous 'intelligence' that was acted upon, but what's done is done.  Just get the guys home alive, or give them a better reason to be putting life on the line.
[snapback]271977[/snapback]​
[/b]
good stuff :thumbsup:

<!--QuoteBegin-roofadoofalus
@May 16 2005, 04:25 PM
damn hippies
[snapback]271991[/snapback]​
for a med-student, i would think that u would resort to something better than name-calling in a debate when we are trying to make valid points..... typical republican :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,268 Posts
So did any of you pro-war peeps read the article I posted? It is just another bit of proof that shows that there was an INTENT before the words WMD were even mentioned to create an association between Sadaam and WMD's. This has nothing to do with intelligence; the intelligence was fixed to support the idea of Saddam being a real threat. I love how people ignore that. And yes I still blame the Bush Administration, Bush made the final decision. He was the one who stated "You are either with us or against us" during the most crucial build-up to the war. Most all of the Senate acted irrationally, but the "intelligence" they were given was truly inaccurate intelligence. The point of the article is that the intelligence the Senate had to base their vote on was shitty intelligence at best, but intelligence that the Bush Administration had no problem accepting as "any" bit of linkage between Sadaam and WMD's/Al-Qaeda created justification for their war.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
325 Posts
Originally posted by Kat_Daddy+May 16 2005, 05:53 PM-->
Now u got sumn here. But I doubt they would discuss, all the information and the means used to onquire with all the Senate. That would expose too much classified shit to too many ppl. Instead they probably took whover'sin charge of obtaining this info, and he briefed the pres. then the pres. briefed the senate/congress so on and so on.
[snapback]272007[/snapback]​
[/b]
Thats not how it works, and if it did, wouldn't they still share the blame being that they authorized force without any evidence presented to them?

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 05:53 PM
I personally work on some of the navy's intelligence equipment, thats why i dont believe this bullshit. You'll be amazed with the shit we can track with one airplane, who's design is 20-25yrs old. Imagine what they can do with hi-tech thermal imaging satellites and all that other sci-fi shit the upper level ppl have access to. I do believe in the human error factor, but our equipment is off the chain, if we actually found something, we didnt loose it.....
[snapback]272007[/snapback]​
Maybe I missunderstood, but I'm not sure how working on the equipment gives you any more insight on tactics of it's use. The fact is that all the technolagy in the world doesn't mean shit if your not looking in the right place. Anyways, the fault in our intellegence was not in our technology, but in the inability of our government agencies to cooperate with one another.

<!--QuoteBegin-Kat_Daddy
@May 16 2005, 05:53 PM
if they shot at U.N. planes as well as u stated, nothing sadam said could have influenced them to do anything. I personally do not remeber any planes except for the china incident, but id ont know this for a fact, so i cant argue this piont. But common sense tells me, that if he fukked with the U.N. they would jump at the opportunity for revenge....
[snapback]272007[/snapback]​
No, they wouldn't "jump" at the chance for revenge. They have a long history of not enforcing their own rules. Saddam refused to let weapons inspectors in and they did nothing untill Mr. Bush came around and pulled their card. They might not be afraid of Saddam as a physical threat, but they were afraid he'd spill the beans on the backend oil deals he had with France and Germany.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
I really don't care if there was intent. remember, discontent is the beginning of process in a far to comfortable environment.

if it were up to me, deport and or shoot 40 million people in the U.S, close the borders to only allow those visiting or with education visa's enter, or atleast a good reason. if your here more then a month past your exit date, we deport you and your never allowed back. then kill atleast 3 billion people worldwide, that way there will be crazy fewer problems, and our naturally resources will continue to last for hundereds of additional years..

I mean come on, there are all these 3rd world countrys that are just a drain, make the smart business decision and cut your loses, resume nuclear testing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,268 Posts
Originally posted by extermin8r@May 17 2005, 05:08 AM
So did any of you pro-war peeps read the article I posted?  It is just another bit of proof that shows that there was an INTENT before the words WMD were even mentioned to create an association between Sadaam and WMD's.  This has nothing to do with intelligence; the intelligence was fixed to support the idea of Saddam being a real threat.  I love how people ignore that.  And yes I still blame the Bush Administration, Bush made the final decision.  He was the one who stated "You are either with us or against us" during the most crucial build-up to the war.  Most all of the Senate acted irrationally, but the "intelligence" they were given was truly inaccurate intelligence.  The point of the article is that the intelligence the Senate had to base their vote on was shitty intelligence at best, but intelligence that the Bush Administration had no problem accepting as "any" bit of linkage between Sadaam and WMD's/Al-Qaeda created justification for their war.
[snapback]272093[/snapback]​

just so other people will take the time to answer it... and BHR your opinion is invalid thx though! :clap:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,659 Posts
Discussion Starter #57
Originally posted by HondaH8er@May 17 2005, 02:53 PM
Thats not how it works, and if it did, wouldn't they still share the blame being that they authorized force without any evidence presented to them?
Im sure it would have to work that way, why disclose this info to all of the senate. the president only presents what he says he's found, the senate has to believe him and decide ya or nay. If they had access to all the intellegince the president had, then there would be no distinction between the ranks. So it would even trickle down to every order given by a superior would have to be proven. So why even have a rankng system?

Maybe I missunderstood, but I'm not sure how working on the equipment gives you any more insight on tactics of it's use. The fact is that all the technolagy in the world doesn't mean shit if your not looking in the right place. Anyways, the fault in our intellegence was not in our technology, but in the inability of our government agencies to cooperate with one another.
Its simply saying that i have a small glimpse of what we can do. the human error factor would be finding the shit to be begin with. But after it was found it would be easy to track. We wouldnt have needed all these "agencies" to track the shit if it was ever found. A satellite could have easily done the trick. Or even something smaller such as a prowler....

No, they wouldn't "jump" at the chance for revenge. They have a long history of not enforcing their own rules. Saddam refused to let weapons inspectors in and they did nothing untill Mr. Bush came around and pulled their card. They might not be afraid of Saddam as a physical threat, but they were afraid he'd spill the beans on the backend oil deals he had with France and Germany.
[snapback]272220[/snapback]​
I cant really speak on this, cuzz i dont know what was going through their minds. But me personally i wouldnt allow them to shoot down my planes as frequently as you say for oil. You know jets cost money too. Bhr they could either do as u suggested or they could tax all the rich ppl 90% of their wages, since they dont need that much cash to survive anyway. Which means the benz and the milly would be in a pawnshop now :p .... come'on be reasonable
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,268 Posts
Originally posted by extermin8r@May 17 2005, 05:08 AM
So did any of you pro-war peeps read the article I posted?  It is just another bit of proof that shows that there was an INTENT before the words WMD were even mentioned to create an association between Sadaam and WMD's.  This has nothing to do with intelligence; the intelligence was fixed to support the idea of Saddam being a real threat.  I love how people ignore that.  And yes I still blame the Bush Administration, Bush made the final decision.  He was the one who stated "You are either with us or against us" during the most crucial build-up to the war.  Most all of the Senate acted irrationally, but the "intelligence" they were given was truly inaccurate intelligence.  The point of the article is that the intelligence the Senate had to base their vote on was shitty intelligence at best, but intelligence that the Bush Administration had no problem accepting as "any" bit of linkage between Sadaam and WMD's/Al-Qaeda created justification for their war.
[snapback]272093[/snapback]​

I sense people are avoiding this because they can't face the truth. Also, let's get one thing clear, the senate voted to give the president the AUTHORIZATION to use force, as an absolute last resort. Have you not read the bill that was passed? (doubt it) There are a lot of stipulations within it, and the crux of it entails using diplomacy to the complete extent possible (which it was not, the administration had a timeline as to when they wanted war to happen.) Besides, a president should almost always be given the authorization to use force when he sees it fit. But ultimately it is his decision as to when it is reasonable to do so. Bush acted with force based on complete bullshit and he knew it... this is because there was an intent from day one to go after Sadaam. You guys need to face the facts and quit defending something that you know is wrong. I would respect people a lot more if they would just be honest and say they voted for Bush because he is pro-life and anti-gay marriage (both of which i disagree, but for another thread) but instead Bush supporters insist on supporting everything he does, even when it is complete bullshit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,992 Posts
Originally posted by extermin8r@May 18 2005, 04:24 PM
Bush supporters insist on supporting everything he does, even when it is complete bullshit.
[snapback]272583[/snapback]​
This statement is 100% TRUTH!! It's truly frightening seeing how disintelligent so many Americans are for supporting a President that is making several blatant, life and death mistakes.
 
41 - 60 of 221 Posts
Top