Officials OK'd "Torture"

[superpunk]

Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned.

The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the meetings described them Thursday to the AP to confirm details first reported by ABC News on Wednesday. The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue.

Between 2002 and 2003, the Justice Department issued several memos from its Office of Legal Counsel that justified using the interrogation tactics, including ones that critics call torture.

"If you looked at the timing of the meetings and the memos you'd see a correlation," the former intelligence official said. Those who attended the dozens of meetings agreed that "there'd need to be a legal opinion on the legality of these tactics" before using them on al-Qaida detainees, the former official said.

The meetings were held in the White House Situation Room in the years immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks. Attending the sessions were Cheney, then-Bush aides Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

The White House, Justice and State departments and the CIA refused comment Thursday, as did a spokesman for Tenet. A message for Ashcroft was not immediately returned.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., lambasted what he described as "yet another astonishing disclosure about the Bush administration and its use of torture."

"Who would have thought that in the United States of America in the 21st century, the top officials of the executive branch would routinely gather in the White House to approve torture?" Kennedy said in a statement. "Long after President Bush has left office, our country will continue to pay the price for his administration's renegade repudiation of the rule of law and fundamental human rights."

The American Civil Liberties Union called on Congress to investigate.
"With each new revelation, it is beginning to look like the torture operation was managed and directed out of the White House," ACLU legislative director Caroline Fredrickson said. "This is what we suspected all along."

The former intelligence official described Cheney and the top national security officials as deeply immersed in developing the CIA's interrogation program during months of discussions over which methods should be used and when.

At times, CIA officers would demonstrate some of the tactics, or at least detail how they worked, to make sure the small group of "principals" fully understood what the al-Qaida detainees would undergo. The principals eventually authorized physical abuse such as slaps and pushes, sleep deprivation, or waterboarding. This technique involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning.

The small group then asked the Justice Department to examine whether using the interrogation methods would break domestic or international laws.
"No one at the agency wanted to operate under a notion of winks and nods and assumptions that everyone understood what was being talked about," said a second former senior intelligence official. "People wanted to be assured that everything that was conducted was understood and approved by the folks in the chain of command."

The Office of Legal Counsel issued at least two opinions on interrogation methods.

In one, dated Aug. 1, 2002, then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee defined torture as covering "only extreme acts" causing pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure. A second, dated March 14, 2003, justified using harsh tactics on detainees held overseas so long as military interrogators did not specifically intend to torture their captives.
Both legal opinions since have been withdrawn.

The second former senior intelligence official said rescinding the memos caused the CIA to seek even more detailed approvals for the interrogations.
The department issued another still-secret memo in October 2001 that, in part, sought to outline novel ways the military could be used domestically to defend the country in the face of an impending attack. The Justice Department so far has refused to release it, citing attorney-client privilege, and Attorney General Michael Mukasey declined to describe it Thursday at a Senate panel where Democrats characterized it as a "torture memo."

Not all of the principals who attended were fully comfortable with the White House meetings.

The ABC News report portrayed Ashcroft as troubled by the discussions, despite agreeing that the interrogations methods were legal.

"Why are we talking about this in the White House?" the network quoted Ashcroft as saying during one meeting. "History will not judge this kindly."

———
Associated Press writer Pete Yost contributed to this report.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/WireStory?id=4631535&page=3

[BrAinPaiNt]

Really!?!?!

I am Shocked!!!

Had No Clue!!!

:p:

[Vintage]

Our special forces are trained in anti-interrogation techniques. Rather than not talking, they talk. They inform the other side of small, unimportant things that can be confirmed. The stuff gets confirmed, and the process continues. Then, they eventually talk about stuff that can't be confirmed. Then the other side has to make a decision of whether or not they are telling the truth. They can't know for sure, since they cannot confirm it. The whole point being, it becomes a giant waste of time.

If we train our people like this; you can bet the other side does as well.


Further more, torture may help with small, tactical stuff. But the broad political purpose of any military action gets undermined. The other side can use that to undermine the legitimacy of a gov't, which is half of their goal.

[Cajuncowboy]

I have no problem with any of this.

Waterboarding torture?

Really!

They have no permanent damage done to them after it's over. Other than they just talked.

This country is becoming a country full of wussies who are afraid to hurt a terrorist because they may be violated but at the same time some of these same goofballs say that 9/11 was an inside job and such.

I say take them all and waterboard each one of them. When the word gets out that we are doing this maybe they will be quicker to give up the info.

Right now they figure that some in our own government would protect them.

For crying out loud, THEY WAT TO KILL US!

Some people don't get this.

[superpunk]

As the term ‘waterboarding’ slowly found its way into the American consciousness, some interesting facts about its history were exposed. In 1947 the U.S. charged a Japanese army officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for using the technique on an American citizen. He was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years of hard labor.

Hell, we dropped an atomic bomb on their country. I guess he was justified because we wanted to kill them. Maybe we can acquit him and clear his record posthumously?

[Cajuncowboy]

Hell, we dropped an atomic bomb on their country. I guess he was justified because we wanted to kill them. Maybe we can acquit him and clear his record posthumously?

The difference was that we didn't start that war or this one.

We just ended it.

[Vintage]

The difference was that we didn't start that war or this one.

We just ended it.


Forgot who said it.... although I know McNamara talks about in Fog of War....

"Thank God we won the war, or we'd have been prosecuted for war crimes."


Point being; justification comes not through what actions are done... but by the victor.

[superpunk]

The difference was that we didn't start that war or this one.

We just ended it.

Your justification earlier was merely that they want to kill us, and so "any means necessary" is justified - no matter what treaties it violates or moral status it dissolves. I guess since that doesn't jive with history you had to expand it a bit to :or if someone starts a war with you."

This country agreed that torture was unacceptable back in the day. They didn't agree that it was unacceptable unless your enemy wants to kill you, or starts a war with you. Now top members of the executive branch sit around in rooms deciding just how they're going to torture people. Their secrecy and disregard for principles and treaties that the country has decided to live by is appalling, and really shows their character.

[joseephuss]

The difference was that we didn't start that war or this one.

We just ended it.

Which war on you talking about? The War on Terror or the war in Iraq?

A group of Al Qaeda terrorists started the War on Terror when they attacked on 9/11 and the U.S. rightly reciprocated by going after them in Afghanistan.

Bush did start the war in Iraq. Iraq didn't invade or attack the U.S. first.

Water boarding is torture. The real question should be "is this form of torture(water boarding) going over the line or not?"

[theebs]

Which war on you talking about? The War on Terror or the war in Iraq?

A group of Al Qaeda terrorists started the War on Terror when they attacked on 9/11 and the U.S. rightly reciprocated by going after them in Afghanistan.

Bush did start the war in Iraq. Iraq didn't invade or attack the U.S. first.

Water boarding is torture. The real question should be "is this form of torture(water boarding) going over the line or not?"

George Bush says the moon is blue and puppies can fly.

Do not argue with George Bush. He speaks to the almighty daily.

I wouldnt bother arguing with his defenders either. They can admit no wrong doing of any kind. Its a waste of everyones time. He will walk off into the sunset at the end of the year and the next man or woman will step into a mess like parcells stepped into in january of 03.

[burmafrd]

Torture is pulling out fingernails or using a cattle prod on genitals, etc. Only a wuss calls waterboarding that. Unfortunately some of our own people let the wusses convince them it was torture.

Another thing for the wusses there and on this board to consider:
If the terrorists win because we were not tough enough=are you going to feel righteous as they execute you and your family?

[burmafrd]

Do you bother to ever reallylook at what you post theebs?
Talk about self righteous and arrogant.

[theebs]

Do you bother to ever reallylook at what you post theebs?
Talk about self righteous and arrogant.


Self Righteous? Hardly.

Sick of stubborn people defending parties instead of people and real issues. Yes.

[Doomsday101]

Which war on you talking about? The War on Terror or the war in Iraq?

A group of Al Qaeda terrorists started the War on Terror when they attacked on 9/11 and the U.S. rightly reciprocated by going after them in Afghanistan.

Bush did start the war in Iraq. Iraq didn't invade or attack the U.S. first.

Water boarding is torture. The real question should be "is this form of torture(water boarding) going over the line or not?"

Iraq played no part in this war? They signed an agreement for the cease fire they continued for 12 years of kicking inspectors out and locking on and firing surface to air missiles at US fighter jets who were patrolling the no fly zone. They were given fair warning of the consequents and helped choose their own fate. Personally I think the US waited a few years too long in allowing Iraq to continually break the agreement as well as circumvent the sanction which proved to be a joke

[Vintage]

Torture is pulling out fingernails or using a cattle prod on genitals, etc. Only a wuss calls waterboarding that. Unfortunately some of our own people let the wusses convince them it was torture.

Another thing for the wusses there and on this board to consider:
If the terrorists win because we were not tough enough=are you going to feel righteous as they execute you and your family?


Terrorists, when they attack, hope to draw a response. They want a response bec. it helps recruit people to their cause.

I am NOT saying they don't deserve a response NOR am I saying we should abstain from attacking when its needed.

I will now allow time for you to read that once more, before I continue.

.

.

.

.

.


The terrorists broad goal is to influence politics one way or another, for the benefit of whatever "cause" they happen to support.

One of their ways to do so is to delegitimize the other side. They have to show the common people that the government cannot provide the common people what they need. If they can do that, it creates political instability and gives the terrorists hope they can win the battle of ideals and win over the common people, gaining political power.

Torture might help at the tactical level.

But it also helps the terrorists too. They don't care if some of their members are tortured/killed. They care about perception.

If we use torture, it plays right into their hand. They will talk it up (nevermind that they use it too; that's irrelevant). They use it as propaganda to deligitimize what we are doing. And it works. Because the lack of education/access to free press prevents the common people from knowing what truly is going on.

If we are going to successfully fight the War on Terror, we cannot afford to let the terrorists delegitimize what we are doing.

[joseephuss]

Iraq played no part in this war? They signed an agreement for the cease fire they continued for 12 years of kicking inspectors out and locking on and firing surface to air missiles at US fighter jets who were patrolling the no fly zone. They were given fair warning of the consequents and helped choose their own fate. Personally I think the US waited a few years too long in allowing Iraq to continually break the agreement as well as circumvent the sanction which proved to be a joke

Of course Iraq played a part. It just is not so straight forward to say we didn't start this war. That is not accurate. We didn't start the war with Japan is accurate. We didn't start the war with Al Qaeda is accurate. There is a lot more that goes into it when talking about the war in Iraq.

[Doomsday101]

Of course Iraq played a part. It just is not so straight forward to say we didn't start this war. That is not accurate. We didn't start the war with Japan is accurate. We didn't start the war with Al Qaeda is accurate. There is a lot more that goes into it when talking about the war in Iraq.

Well we went to war with Germany yet they did not attack us and we had no intent in getting involved and only did so after Japan attack us. Were we wrong in getting involved in the war against Germany?

[ConcordCowboy]

Well we went to war with Germany yet they did not attack us and we had no intent in getting involved and only did so after Japan attack us. Were we wrong in getting involved in the war against Germany?

Germany declared War on us after Japan attacked us.

[iceberg]

>>>"Why are we talking about this in the White House?" the network quoted Ashcroft as saying during one meeting. "History will not judge this kindly."

hopefully they won't judge online beheadings too kindly either.

[theogt]

Hell, we dropped an atomic bomb on their country. I guess he was justified because we wanted to kill them. Maybe we can acquit him and clear his record posthumously?Eh...whether we prosecuted someone in the 40s for it or not, I just don't see how waterboarding is "torture" in that it's inappropriate interrogation technique.

[Doomsday101]

Germany declared War on us after Japan attacked us.

If you notice most forces and resources were sent to Europe before they ever went to places like the Philippians where MacArthur’s troops were forced to surrender. The attack by Japan gave the US reason to go to war with Germany which many in this country wanted to do when Europe 1st asked for our help. Heck US was having military volunteers who were already fighting in Germany because Britain was in need of pilots and both the US and Germany/Italy on Jan 11th declared war

[ConcordCowboy]

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2006/03/07/steve.jpg

http://jdoe.fstudio.com/images/bushTorturePolicy-toon.gifhttp://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/6/p/1/torture_proof.jpg

http://www.norcalblogs.com/bullfight/archives/torture.jpghttp://www.b12partners.net/mt/images/Torture_ta_060917.gif

[iceberg]

while we're busy making fun of ourselves and how evil big bad bush is, can we put this in perspective with what the fanatical muslems are doing as well and make fun of them too?

[ConcordCowboy]

If you notice most forces and resources were sent to Europe before they ever went to places like the Philippians where MacArthur’s troops were forced to surrender. The attack by Japan gave the US reason to go to war with Germany which many in this country wanted to do when Europe 1st asked for our help. Heck US was having military volunteers who were already fighting in Germany because Britain was in need of pilots and both the US and Germany/Italy on Jan 11th declared war

You asked the question..."Were we wrong in getting involved in the war against Germany?"

The answer is obviously NO when they declared war on us first...the rest of that stuff doesn't matter.

Comparing Germany and Iraq doesn't work.

Iraq never declared war on us. If they had I would have no problem with the war.

[superpunk]

http://www.b12partners.net/mt/images/Torture_ta_060917.gif

That's a powerful comic.

[Doomsday101]

You asked the question..."Were we wrong in getting involved in the war against Germany?"

The answer is obviously NO when they declared war on us first...the rest of that stuff doesn't matter.

Comparing Germany and Iraq doesn't work.

Iraq never declared war on us. If they had I would have no problem with the war.

No they invaded a country and we went to war with them. They signed a cease fire and never would live up to it as they continually broke the agreement. As I have said before the 1st time they locked on a US fighter Jet patrolling the No Fly zone we had the right and should have gone in. Normally when a country fires missiles at another countries jets that pretty much is a declaration by action

[ConcordCowboy]

while we're busy making fun of ourselves and how evil big bad bush is, can we put this in perspective with what the fanatical muslems are doing as well and make fun of them too?

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/behead1.jpg http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/jmg/lowres/jmgn107l.jpg

http://a.abcnews.com/images/WNT/abc_lontrain1_050727_ssv.jpghttp://drinkthis.typepad.com/main/images/beheading.jpeg

http://www.anti-caste.org/muslim_question/kar_sevak.jpg

[DFWJC]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/WireStory?id=4631535&page=3

Good grief. Heaven help us if we prevent another 9/11 using waterboarding to someone who 100% has information.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Do as I say, not as I do.

[ConcordCowboy]

No they invaded a country and we went to war with them. They signed a cease fire and never would live up to it as they continually broke the agreement. As I have said before the 1st time they locked on a US fighter Jet patrolling the No Fly zone we had the right and should have gone in. Normally when a country fires missiles at another countries jets that pretty much is a declaration by action

Look I don't agree with the war in Iraq.

You can justify it all you want...But comparing going to war with a country that had not declared war on us to one of the most powerful countries in the world at the time that HAD declared war on us just doesn't work.

Agreeing with the War in Iraq is fine (I don't agree) but it's not comparable to going to war with Germany and that's my point.

[Doomsday101]

Look I don't agree with the war in Iraq.

You can justify it all you want...But comparing going to war with a country that had not declared war on us to one of the most powerful countries in the world at the time that HAD declared war on us just doesn't work.

Agreeing with the War in Iraq is fine (I don't agree) but it's not comparable to going to war with Germany and that's my point.

I know you don't agree with it and nothing I will say will change that I understand that perfectly but to think US did not have any cause for going to war with Iraq is naive at best. When a country fires missiles at your air craft they are not doing it for grins they are trying to take down our planes and our service men that are doing a job that Iraq agreed to in order for us to stop kicking their butts across the desert. So if you disagree fine but don't paint this as US not being provoked by Iraqi action and total disregard for the cease fire agreement. As for Germany whether they declared in 1st on Jan 11, 1941 or not was a moot point as the US was going to get involved there was never a doubt.

[BrAinPaiNt]

It is so tiring seeing people continually try to use WWII in comparison to Iraq. It is not a good comparison at all.

If anything VietNam is a better comparison (I did not say GOOD comparison, just better).

[Dallas]

George Bush says the moon is blue and puppies can fly.

Do not argue with George Bush. He speaks to the almighty daily.

I wouldnt bother arguing with his defenders either. They can admit no wrong doing of any kind. Its a waste of everyones time. He will walk off into the sunset at the end of the year and the next man or woman will step into a mess like parcells stepped into in january of 03.

Arguing w/ his defenders is as good as arguing w/ his detractors. That being you.

You realize how funny your post appears now? :D

What you think you will give any ground whatsoever when it involves GW?

I didn't think so. Thanks for playing though.

[Dallas]

It is so tiring seeing people continually try to use WWII in comparison to Iraq. It is not a good comparison at all.

If anything VietNam is a better comparison (I did not say GOOD comparison, just better).

Again. Bad comparison. Please know your history. Yes we helped the French w/ supplies when they were tippy toeing around in Vietnam and getting lit up.

But....The North Vietnamese started the mess w/ the US for attacking it's destroyers.

In August 1964, the Tongking Incident occurred when two American destroyers were attacked by North Vietnamese gunboats while they were in international waters. In response to this, the American Senate gave Johnson the power to give armed support to assist any country requesting help in defence of its freedom. In March 1965, the first American ground troops landed in South Vietnam and by December 1965, there were 150,000 stationed in the country. The bombing of North Vietnam had already started in February 1965.

[ConcordCowboy]

I know you don't agree with it and nothing I will say will change that I understand that perfectly but to think US did not have any cause for going to war with Iraq is naive at best. When a country fires missiles at your air craft they are not doing it for grins they are trying to take down our planes and our service men that are doing a job that Iraq agreed to in order for us to stop kicking their butts across the desert. So if you disagree fine but don't paint this as US not being provoked by Iraqi action and total disregard for the cease fire agreement. As for Germany whether they declared in 1st on Jan 11, 1941 or not was a moot point as the US was going to get involved there was never a doubt.

Whether we were going to war with Germany or not was made moot the minute that they declared war on us.

Sorry but I don't think that a bunch of nitwits that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a missile is justification for 4000 plus dead and a 3 quarters of a trillion dollars spent.

If it was we would have went in when they did it.

We didn't...it was the WMD's remember?

My only point in this is your comparison of Iraq to Germany...sorry but it's way off.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Again. Bad comparison. Please know your history. Yes we helped the French w/ supplies when they were tippy toeing around in Vietnam and getting lit up.

But....The North Vietnamese started the mess w/ the US for attacking it's destroyers.

In August 1964, the Tongking Incident occurred when two American destroyers were attacked by North Vietnamese gunboats while they were in international waters. In response to this, the American Senate gave Johnson the power to give armed support to assist any country requesting help in defence of its freedom. In March 1965, the first American ground troops landed in South Vietnam and by December 1965, there were 150,000 stationed in the country. The bombing of North Vietnam had already started in February 1965.

Again...read ALL of my post. I said it was not a GOOD comparison, just better than WWII.

Not only for the reasons we got into it, but also because of the nature of both our allies and enemies plus the type of warfare not being the same as WWII or the beginning of the Iraq war.

Guys...you can go all day and night trying to compare WWII to the Iraq war and it just does not wash.

[superpunk]

Again...read ALL of my post.

You clearly ask too much.

[Doomsday101]

Whether we were going to war with Germany or not was made moot the minute that they declared war on us.

Sorry but I don't think that a bunch of nitwits that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a missile is justification for 4000 plus dead and a 3 quarters of a trillion dollars spent.

If it was we would have went in when they did it.

We didn't...it was the WMD's remember?

My only point in this is your comparison of Iraq to Germany...sorry but it's way off.

I remember very well why we went in was because we believed as did many others including the former president who before the invasion agreed that Iraq had WMD and even inspectors said much of it was still unaccounted for. Myself, anytime our troops are coming under fire that is reason enough regardless if you think they could hit the side of a barn or not the intent was to kill.

[Dallas]

You clearly ask too much.

I read his entire post. He's a big boy punk. Paint can defend himself. Please stick to trying to be funny and right. It wil happen sometime and you won't even realize it.

It was a bad comparison. I also never said Iraq was in any way similar to WWII. Please find where I did?

Thanks


But by all means, please continue sucking up to BP. =P

[BrAinPaiNt]

I remember very well why we went in was because we believed as did many others including the former president who before the invasion agreed that Iraq had WMD and even inspectors said much of it was still unaccounted for. Myself, anytime our troops are coming under fire that is reason enough regardless if you think they could hit the side of a barn or not the intent was to kill.

I agree, so with that in mind when are we going to start a war with Israel since they hit the USS Liberty?;)

[superpunk]

Please stick to trying to be funny and right.

http://www.davidstuff.com/usa/lincoln/bush-mission.jpg

[iceberg]

It is so tiring seeing people continually try to use WWII in comparison to Iraq. It is not a good comparison at all.

If anything VietNam is a better comparison (I did not say GOOD comparison, just better).

it depends on what you're comparing. when i compare hitler to saddam, i'm not comparing the entire war on either side.

would you want to stop a man who uses chemicals on people within his country or around his country to kill all those not of his "type"?

saddam or hitler? who are we stopping?

[ConcordCowboy]

I remember very well why we went in was because we believed as did many others including the former president who before the invasion agreed that Iraq had WMD and even inspectors said much of it was still unaccounted for. Myself, anytime our troops are coming under fire that is reason enough regardless if you think they could hit the side of a barn or not the intent was to kill.

Again...why we went to war with Iraq is not the issue for me here...you know how I feel about that.

It was comparing Iraq to Germany.

Bad comparison...IMO.

[BrAinPaiNt]

http://www.davidstuff.com/usa/lincoln/bush-mission.jpg

For the record, as much as I dislike bush, that banner and pic has been WAY overplayed and some are just either too ignorant or silly to understand what was meant by it.

It was the mission of capturing saddam and the overall standard military warfare victory in Iraq.

Afterwards was when it turned into a quagmire, just as someone on that admin predicted would happen years ago and used as a reason why Pappa Bush did not go into iraq and take out Saddam at that time.

[ConcordCowboy]

I agree, so with that in mind when are we going to start a war with Israel since they hit the USS Liberty?;)

:D

On the way as we speak.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Valiant_Shield_-_B2_Stealth_bomber_from_Missouri_leads_ariel_forma tion.jpg/800px-Valiant_Shield_-_B2_Stealth_bomber_from_Missouri_leads_ariel_forma tion.jpg

[superpunk]

For the record, as much as I dislike bush, that banner and pic has been WAY overplayed and some are just either too ignorant or silly to understand what was meant by it.

It was the mission of capturing saddam and the overall standard military warfare victory in Iraq.

Afterwards was when it turned into a quagmire, just as someone on that admin predicted would happen years ago and used as a reason why Pappa Bush did not go into iraq and take out Saddam at that time.That wasn't why I posted it. :)

[Dallas]

That wasn't why I posted it. :)


Again - another jab at humor that nobody ever understands. Now run off and claim victory. Par the course. :rolleyes:

[Doomsday101]

I agree, so with that in mind when are we going to start a war with Israel since they hit the USS Liberty?;)

Except for the fact that it was ruled friendly fire and a mistake by Israel in not being able to identify the ship. Add to it this incident took place during the height of the 6 day war. Israel eventually paid nearly US$13 million in humanitarian reparations to the United States and in compensation to the families of the victims. No doubt this does not bring a loved on home and does not change the fact that this happened but these incidents do happen and we have done the same firing on our own during times of conflict. Why do you think Israel would intentionally fire on a US ship? I suppose you have some conspiracy theory why they would intentionally do that. ;)

[BrAinPaiNt]

it depends on what you're comparing. when i compare hitler to saddam, i'm not comparing the entire war on either side.

would you want to stop a man who uses chemicals on people within his country or around his country to kill all those not of his "type"?

saddam or hitler? who are we stopping?

If I wanted to stop every person in the world that was killing off their own people we could go from here to eternity finding a person or country to fight in.

Ever wonder why we don't go into other countries with terrible dictators or areas that have HUGE amounts of genocide?

Could it possibly be that they hold no geographic or monetary value to us so we just push it off to UN aid and forces?

Now...if one of these countries would attack us, or they have a public agreement with another country that attacks us, maybe that would be different.

The reason for going into Iraq have nothing to do with WWII. The type of warfare has nothing to do with WWII after the initial invasion. WWII also did not have a sustained fight against members of it's own country, and members of other countries, coming in to fight a Religious battle and ethnic cleansing once the leader or dictators were taken out.

[superpunk]

Again - another jab at humor that nobody ever understands. Now run off and claim victory. Par the course. :rolleyes:

You're kind of an angry little man.

Who can't read.

Are you Gary Coleman, by any chance?

http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_pending_blog/images/illiterate.JPG

[Dallas]

You're kind of an angry little man.

Who can't read.

Are you Gary Coleman, by any chance?

http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_pending_blog/images/illiterate.JPG

This is all you have Punk. That is what's funny. When you can't handle it, you resort to this. That is your schtick here and elsewhere.

Hahah. That is what's so funny.

Please continue insulting me. You are proving everything I am saying.

[iceberg]

You're kind of an angry little man.

Who can't read.

Are you Gary Coleman, by any chance?



i see the beautiful poster has crossed over to here now and is gracing us with his singleminded humor and insults at every turn.

glad someone threw a stick of dynomite into a volitale situation.

[superpunk]

This is all you have Punk. That is what's funny. When you can't handle it, you resort to this. That is your schtick here and elsewhere.

Hahah. That is what's so funny.

Please continue insulting me. You are proving everything I am saying.

I didn't start the attack. BP made a point to say in his post that he was not saying it was a good comparison, just that it was better than WW2. You apparently were unable to read that, and started in on why it was a bad comparison, even though that was already established. For some people, it's too much to ask that they read the entire post before they spout off - which is what I commented on to Brain. Which got your panties all in a bunch, and led to your direct insults of my posting habits.

Maybe you don't understand how that played out.

Oh well. I can't say that I expected you to.

[ConcordCowboy]

You're kind of an angry little man.

Who can't read.

Are you Gary Coleman, by any chance?

http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_pending_blog/images/illiterate.JPG


:laugh2: <----this emoticon has been brought to you by ConcordCowboy

[Dallas]

I didn't start the attack. BP made a point to say in his post that he was not saying it was a good comparison, just that it was better than WW2. You apparently were unable to read that, and started in on why it was a bad comparison, even though that was already established. For some people, it's too much to ask that they read the entire post before they spout off - which is what I commented on to Brain. Which got your panties all in a bunch, and led to your direct insults of my posting habits.

Maybe you don't understand how that played out.

Oh well. I can't say that I expected you to.

I read his entire post. After reading that post I still felt it was a horrible comparison. I stated that. Then you got personal w/ your dig at me.

Seriously. You know that. I should not have to hand hold you on this matter.

But seriously. Place me on ignore. I don't have the time to play w/ you cuz.

[iceberg]

I didn't start the attack. BP made a point to say in his post that he was not saying it was a good comparison, just that it was better than WW2. You apparently were unable to read that, and started in on why it was a bad comparison, even though that was already established. For some people, it's too much to ask that they read the entire post before they spout off - which is what I commented on to Brain. Which got your panties all in a bunch, and led to your direct insults of my posting habits.

Maybe you don't understand how that played out.

Oh well. I can't say that I expected you to.

And I don't want you and I don't need you
Don't bother to resist, or I'll beat you
It's not your fault that you're always wrong
The weak ones are there to justify the strong

The beautiful posters, the beautiful posters
It's all relative to the size of your keyboard
You can't see the forest for the trees
You can't smell your own on your knees

There's no time to discriminate,
Hate every other poster
That's in your way

[Chorus:]
Hey you, what do you read?
Something you don't like, something to mock?
Hey you, are you trying to be mean?
If you live with apes man, it's hard to be clean

The jerks will live in every post
It's hard to pick which one they hate the most

The horrible posters, the horrible posters
It's as anatomic as the size of your keyboard
Capitalism has made it this way,
Old-fashioned posters will take it away

[Chorus]

There's no time to discriminate,
Hate every other poster
That's in your way

The beautiful posters
The beautiful posters (aahh) [x4]

[Chorus x2]

The beautiful posters [x8]

[superpunk]

I read his entire post. After reading that post I still felt it was a horrible comparison. I stated that. Then you got personal w/ your dig at me.

Seriously. You know that. I should not have to hand hold you on this matter.
No, you! :rolleyes:

But seriously. Place me on ignore. I don't have the time to play w/ you cuz.
Wouldn't it make more sense for you to put me on ignore, then? I don't know if that's funny, or right - but I think it makes sense. I'm sure you'll let me know. That is, if you can tear yourself away from your busy schedule.

srsly.:cool:

[theebs]

You're kind of an angry little man.

Who can't read.

Are you Gary Coleman, by any chance?

http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_pending_blog/images/illiterate.JPG

absolutely hillarious.

One of the funniest things I have ever read on here.

Well done SP.

[Dallas]

No, you! :rolleyes:


Wouldn't it make more sense for you to put me on ignore, then? I don't know if that's funny, or right - but I think it makes sense. I'm sure you'll let me know. That is, if you can tear yourself away from your busy schedule.

srsly.:cool:

Well cuz, you aren't bothering me. I don't need to place you on ignore. I am just calling you on your tiresome way of posting and personal attacks on folks.

I again say Paints a big boy. He doesn't need you trying to defend him. Just because I call you out on some silliness, don't take it so personal that you feel the need to start attacking me.

You do it to everyone bro. That's the issue.

Post here all you want. Just be bigger about it. You don't always have to be a JA to folks who disagree w/ you. It is very simple Punk. It really is.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Except for the fact that it was ruled friendly fire and a mistake by Israel in not being able to identify the ship. Add to it this incident took place during the height of the 6 day war. Israel eventually paid nearly US$13 million in humanitarian reparations to the United States and in compensation to the families of the victims. No doubt this does not bring a loved on home and does not change the fact that this happened but these incidents do happen and we have done the same firing on our own during times of conflict. Why do you think Israel would intentionally fire on a US ship? I suppose you have some conspiracy theory why they would intentionally do that. ;)

I don't have a conspiracy theory at all about the topic. However it does not mean those serving at the time do not...I am sure you can find that stuff if you wish.

So what you are saying is. If Saddam would have paid us reparations at the time, all would be well?

[Dallas]

absolutely hillarious.

One of the funniest things I have ever read on here.

Well done SP.

Theebs and I never agree on anything. He getting his jollies from Punk's personal attacks on me is no new revolation. :p:

[superpunk]

Well cuz, you aren't bothering me. I don't need to place you on ignore. I am just calling you on your tiresome way of posting and personal attacks on folks.

I again say Paints a big boy. He doesn't need you trying to defend him. Just because I call you out on some silliness, don't take it so personal that you feel the need to start attacking me.

You do it to everyone bro. That's the issue.

Post here all you want. Just be bigger about it. You don't always have to be a JA to folks who disagree w/ you. It is very simple Punk. It really is.

I don't know what you're talking about, or how you found time to respond to me (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2037577&postcount=55). You're full of surprises.

I didn't intend for you to take anything I said as a personal affront until the Gary Coleman post. I can't help if you did. Maybe you're bitter about me showing up your stance on people's criticism of Malcolm Kelly. I don't know. Sorry I offended you. :(

[ConcordCowboy]

Wouldn't it make more sense for you to put me on ignore, then? I don't know if that's funny, or right - but I think it makes sense. I'm sure you'll let me know. That is, if you can tear yourself away from your busy schedule.

srsly.:cool:

:laugh2:

I can't help myself.

[theebs]

Theebs and I never agree on anything. He getting his jollies from Punk's personal attacks on me is no new revolation. :p:


I dont need punk for that.

You dont like me and insult me in every thread you find I am in. Thats fine by me.

and for what its worth, when I read your posts no matter the topic that is all you ever do here, insult people and pass judgement. I never see you add anything to any threads, just judge everyone elses.

So feel free to continue. Were all dying to know how you have inside information how no one likes us.

[Dallas]

I dont need punk for that.

You dont like me and insult me in every thread you find I am in. Thats fine by me.

and for what its worth, when I read your posts no matter the topic that is all you ever do here, insult people and pass judgement. I never see you add anything to any threads, just judge everyone elses.

So feel free to continue. Were all dying to know how you have inside information how no one likes us.

WTH does that mean?

That is fine. That is your opinion of me. Ive been on the site probably longer than anyone involved in this discussion and have always been the same guy. The same posting style and everything. I have not had a single complaint nor repremand from a mod. I guess I am following the rules?

I don't know why you feel this way Punk and Theebs. I disagree w/ you. Who cares? You shouldn't take that personally though where you feel the need to pile on a poster. Be that poster me or anyone.

Look. This is my problem. I am in a debate w/ a poster over something, anything. I reply and then you get these poster pals taking pot shots at my post because I debate someone they like.

It shouldn't be that way. I call you on it and now look at this thread. We got Punk w/ his ongoing attacks and now Theebs involves himself and even CC wants to take a jab. It's silly guys. Please understand that?

Don't make my business your business. I guess that's what im saying.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I dont need punk for that.

You dont like me and insult me in every thread you find I am in. Thats fine by me.

and for what its worth, when I read your posts no matter the topic that is all you ever do here, insult people and pass judgement. I never see you add anything to any threads, just judge everyone elses.

So feel free to continue. Were all dying to know how you have inside information how no one likes us.

Oh he may trash other people's post or their threads, we all have from time to time, he may do it more than many others.

However to say you have never seen him add anything to any threads just means you are not looking hard enough.

Z and I can argue all day on some topics and yet have good debates and agree on things in other threads.

Another thing to consider...if you find someone that you believe to be that way, why not put them on ignore.

You know if you do it does not mean it will turn you into a girl or a homosexual or anything like that. I have a feeling some people feel that they are just too macho to ever consider using the ignore function...may make them a girly man or something.

[Dallas]

Oh he may trash other people's post or their threads, we all have from time to time, he may do it more than many others.

However to say you have never seen him add anything to any threads just means you are not looking hard enough.

Z and I can argue all day on some topics and yet have good debates and agree on things in other threads.

Another thing to consider...if you find someone that you believe to be that way, why not put them on ignore.

You know if you do it does not mean it will turn you into a girl or a homosexual or anything like that. I have a feeling some people feel that they are just too macho to ever consider using the ignore function...may make them a girly man or something.

This is my major issue. I have folks on ignore. There are some that I just can't understand no matter how much I try. I choose to just ignore the posts and try and get by. There is nothing wrong w/ that.

I guess its easier to continue flaming someone you happen to disagree with?

I guess so.

[superpunk]

This one guy I know used the ignore function, three months later - BAM!

Herpes.

Excercise caution.

But seriously, it does work wonders. It would work more wonders if you could code people's posts so that quoted posts from members you have on ignore don't show up. Aside from that, it saves alot of aggravation.

[Dallas]

Also -

Thanks Paint for letting this thread continue a bit even though it is OT. It's just discussion in the end. Folks trying to figure out the differences.

[BrAinPaiNt]

This one guy I know used the ignore function, three months later - BAM!

Herpes.

Excercise caution.

But seriously, it does work wonders. It would work more wonders if you could code people's posts so that quoted posts from members you have on ignore don't show up. Aside from that, it saves alot of aggravation.

Yes I agree if it is to be an ignore function it would be nice if it also at least took out the quoted sections.

I don't know if Reality could change that, however if others have heard of another VBull forum that has made that fix, give me a PM and I will talk to reality about seeing if he can fix it as well.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Also -

Thanks Paint for letting this thread continue a bit even though it is OT. It's just discussion in the end. Folks trying to figure out the differences.

NP,
I am bored today...can you tell? When I am busy I don't get into as much...mischief.:D

[vta]

You know if you do it does not mean it will turn you into a girl or a homosexual or anything like that. I have a feeling some people feel that they are just too macho to ever consider using the ignore function...may make them a girly man or something.

He once put another poster on ignore... hasn't been the same since.

http://sloth.geek.nz/000721/000722g.jpg

[Dallas]

Yes I agree if it is to be an ignore function it would be nice if it also at least took out the quoted sections.

I don't know if Reality could change that, however if others have heard of another VBull forum that has made that fix, give me a PM and I will talk to reality about seeing if he can fix it as well.


Can't be done in VB. I tried it over at DCC and it would involve a crap-load of time to re-write it. I don't think it's allowed under the licensing agreement either.

[iceberg]

Yes I agree if it is to be an ignore function it would be nice if it also at least took out the quoted sections.

I don't know if Reality could change that, however if others have heard of another VBull forum that has made that fix, give me a PM and I will talk to reality about seeing if he can fix it as well.

vb doesn't allow that as far as i know. to be honest, the only *real* ignore function would make that user 100% invisible. hard to do in threaded convos however.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Can't be done in VB. I tried it over at DCC and it would involve a crap-load of time to re-write it. I don't think it's allowed under the licensing agreement either.

Kind of figured it couldn't be done or he would have done it by now. But I really wish VBull would make that as part of an udpate for their next release.

[Doomsday101]

I don't have a conspiracy theory at all about the topic. However it does not mean those serving at the time do not...I am sure you can find that stuff if you wish.

So what you are saying is. If Saddam would have paid us reparations at the time, all would be well?

No what I said was that what took place was a mistake and was ruled and considered friendly fire. We have had incidents were US service men were killed in action due to friendly fire by our own. I doubt anyone with a straight face could consider firing at US Jets flying in the no fly zone was friendly fire or mistaken identity of the air craft. Well unless they were mistaken our planes for British plane who were also coming under fire by Saddam’s military.

[BrAinPaiNt]

No what I said was that what took place was a mistake and was ruled and considered friendly fire. We have had incidents were US service men were killed in action due to friendly fire by our own. I doubt anyone with a straight face could consider firing at US Jets flying in the no fly zone was friendly fire or mistaken identity of the air craft. Well unless they were mistaken our planes for British plane who were also coming under fire by Saddam’s military.

My point was...some, not saying I, do not believe it was friendly fire and the US just brushed it under the rug.

I don't think they cared much or did much about the firings on the jets until after 9/11 and the plan was hatched.

Colin and condi are on record prior to 9/11 as saying Saddam was not a threat.

It was only after 9/11 when they needed excuses to go into Iraq that this became a serious issue.

[joseephuss]

For the record, as much as I dislike bush, that banner and pic has been WAY overplayed and some are just either too ignorant or silly to understand what was meant by it.

It was the mission of capturing saddam and the overall standard military warfare victory in Iraq.

Afterwards was when it turned into a quagmire, just as someone on that admin predicted would happen years ago and used as a reason why Pappa Bush did not go into iraq and take out Saddam at that time.

Saddam was captured just over 7 months after Bush made that speech.

You are right. He made that statement based on the overall standard of military warfare for victory. If it was a traditional type of war he would have been right. Of course that type of standard does not truly apply to Iraq or the type of war being fought against terror.

[ConcordCowboy]

My point was...some, not saying I, do not believe it was friendly fire and the US just brushed it under the rug.

I don't think they cared much or did much about the firings on the jets until after 9/11 and the plan was hatched.

Colin and condi are on record prior to 9/11 as saying Saddam was not a threat.

It was only after 9/11 when they needed excuses to go into Iraq that this became a serious issue.

Before 9/11 Iraq firing a missile at our planes barely if ever even made the news.

It was tempest in a teapot until they needed excuses like you said.

If they REALLY gave a damn about the missiles we would have been there long before we were.

[Doomsday101]

Before 9/11 Iraq firing a missile at our planes barely if ever even made the news.

It was tempest in a teapot until they needed excuses like you said.

If they REALLY gave a damn about the missiles we would have been there long before we were.

I had no say so but it never changed my mind that we should have gone in sooner. As for it making the news yes it did quite often maybe you just did not pay attention or care about it.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Saddam was captured just over 7 months after Bush made that speech.

You are right. He made that statement based on the overall standard of military warfare for victory. If it was a traditional type of war he would have been right. Of course that type of standard does not truly apply to Iraq or the type of war being fought against terror.

You are correct however at that time Saddam had lost control and was going into hiding.

Another thing. At the initial phase of the war it was indeed a traditional war in the idea that we were fighting a national army and using traditional tactics for a standard war.

It was later, with very poor planning by the US, that we began the occupation and fight against terrorists and guerilla type warfare.

[Doomsday101]

My point was...some, not saying I, do not believe it was friendly fire and the US just brushed it under the rug.

I don't think they cared much or did much about the firings on the jets until after 9/11 and the plan was hatched.

Colin and condi are on record prior to 9/11 as saying Saddam was not a threat.

It was only after 9/11 when they needed excuses to go into Iraq that this became a serious issue.

I'm not saying what the administration felt I was talking about what I felt when saying we should have gone in sooner once the cease fire agreement was broken.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I had no say so but it never changed my mind that we should have gone in sooner. As for it making the news yes it did quite often maybe you just did not pay attention or care about it.

Or maybe the administrations (bill or w) just did not pimp it out at that time as a threat or concern.

Once again...Just months before 9/11 both Condi and Colin said he was not a threat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU

It was only used as another excuse to hype up the war.

I am sorry but that is the truth.

[joseephuss]

You are correct however at that time Saddam had lost control and was going into hiding.

Another thing. At the initial phase of the war it was indeed a traditional war in the idea that we were fighting a national army and using traditional tactics for a standard war.

It was later, with very poor planning by the US, that we began the occupation and fight against terrorists and guerilla type warfare.

Poor planning is right because it should have been expected what type of resistance would be faced. Out matched opponents typically resort to guerilla type warfare and once the national military was defeated it was pretty reasonable to expect an influx of insurgents and terrorists.

I agree that the criticism of the Mission Accomplished speech is overblown. At the same time it was a poor choice by Bush to even make that type of speech and statement. It was particularly annoying that he made a big show about it by boarding the Lincoln just outside of San Diego to do that speech, which could have been done anywhere.

[ConcordCowboy]

I had no say so but it never changed my mind that we should have gone in sooner. As for it making the news yes it did quite often maybe you just did not pay attention or care about it.

Like I said it was a tempest in a teapot.

Need an excuse when other things don't pan out bring it up.

When I saw it on the news they NEVER made it out like it was some reason for all out invasion.

Bomb some things to get even yes...but all out invasion because of it...never.

Even Bush wasn't that crazy...he knew that would never fly.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Poor planning is right because it should have been expected what type of resistance would be faced. Out matched opponents typically resort to guerilla type warfare and once the national military was defeated it was pretty reasonable to expect an influx of insurgents and terrorists.

I agree that the criticism of the Mission Accomplished speech is overblown. At the same time it was a poor choice by Bush to even make that type of speech and statement. It was particularly annoying that he made a big show about it by boarding the Lincoln just outside of San Diego to do that speech, which could have been done anywhere.

Oh they knew better and Cheney is here talking about why they did not go into Iraq after desert storm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

So is even worse because they knew the perils and STILL did it and did not plan better.

[Doomsday101]

Like I said it was a tempest in a teapot.

Need an excuse when other things don't pan out bring it up.

When I saw it on the news they NEVER made it out like it was some reason for all out invasion.

Bomb some things to get even yes...but all out invasion because of it...never.

Even Bush wasn't that crazy...he knew that would never fly.

I gave my believe not that of this or any other administration I was saying this before 9/11 so get off your high horse. Sorry I don't think coming under fire is a crazy reason for going to war. I consider that an attack on the US when our service men are coming under fire from another country.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Like I said it was a tempest in a teapot.

Need an excuse when other things don't pan out bring it up.

When I saw it on the news they NEVER made it out like it was some reason for all out invasion.

Bomb some things to get even yes...but all out invasion because of it...never.

Even Bush wasn't that crazy...he knew that would never fly.

The excuses have changed so many times it is hard to keep track. When one is proven false, they move on to another.

Do you realize that even though later bush has came out and admitted there are no WMDs...there are still people out there that think that there ARE WMDs or we HAVE found WMDs.

It is crazy.

It is that whole catapult the propaganda thing that bush talked about I guess.

[superpunk]

The excuses have changed so many times it is hard to keep track. When one is proven false, they move on to another.

Do you realize that even though later bush has came out and admitted there are no WMDs...there are still people out there that think that there ARE WMDs or we HAVE found WMDs.

It is crazy.

It is that whole catapult the propaganda thing that bush talked about I guess.

http://www.feldmangallery.com/media/1984/1984_01.jpg

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.

[Dallas]

http://pixhost.eu/avaxhome/avaxhome/2007-08-13/1984zb6_851.jpg

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.


What a lovely red-X

[ConcordCowboy]

I gave my believe not that of this or any other administration I was saying this before 9/11 so get off your high horse. Sorry I don't think coming under fire is a crazy reason for going to war. I consider that an attack on the US when our service men are coming under fire from another country.

This country besides you and maybe a few others would have NEVER supported or voted to invade Iraq because they shot a missile at a plane that they were never going to hit.

Bomb the hell out of them...OK...but no way in Hell total Invasion.

Like I said even Bush wasn't THAT crazy.

[ConcordCowboy]

The excuses have changed so many times it is hard to keep track. When one is proven false, they move on to another.

Do you realize that even though later bush has came out and admitted there are no WMDs...there are still people out there that think that there ARE WMDs or we HAVE found WMDs.

It is crazy.

It is that whole catapult the propaganda thing that bush talked about I guess.

It's amazing...just like people who still say Saddam was involved in the 9/11 plot.

It's true...if somethings repeated enough people will start to believe it's the truth...even when proven false.

It is Crazy.

[iceberg]

The excuses have changed so many times it is hard to keep track. When one is proven false, they move on to another.

Do you realize that even though later bush has came out and admitted there are no WMDs...there are still people out there that think that there ARE WMDs or we HAVE found WMDs.

It is crazy.

It is that whole catapult the propaganda thing that bush talked about I guess.

so where did the WMD's go between Clinton saying he had 'em and then Bush?

i hear people say they just "broke apart" and yes, i can see that from a chemical standpoint.

i also see a dictator who's used them in the past continue to give the illusion he had them.

yet i also see bush get more flack for trying to stop him than saddam for being the mass-murdering dictator that he is and creating the problem in the end. well, after we gave him the WMDs that he somehow used all up or they just faded out.

in my mind we'll never know the truth. can you hide a garage full of WMD in a huge desert? yep. did he? dunno. would he? probably.

and people say i bulldog on topics.

[ConcordCowboy]

so where did the WMD's go between Clinton saying he had 'em and then Bush?

i hear people say they just "broke apart" and yes, i can see that from a chemical standpoint.

i also see a dictator who's used them in the past continue to give the illusion he had them.

yet i also see bush get more flack for trying to stop him than saddam for being the mass-murdering dictator that he is and creating the problem in the end. well, after we gave him the WMDs that he somehow used all up or they just faded out.

in my mind we'll never know the truth. can you hide a garage full of WMD in a huge desert? yep. did he? dunno. would he? probably.

and people say i bulldog on topics.

No they say you're a stalker. :p:

[BrAinPaiNt]

so where did the WMD's go between Clinton saying he had 'em and then Bush?

i hear people say they just "broke apart" and yes, i can see that from a chemical standpoint.

i also see a dictator who's used them in the past continue to give the illusion he had them.

yet i also see bush get more flack for trying to stop him than saddam for being the mass-murdering dictator that he is and creating the problem in the end. well, after we gave him the WMDs that he somehow used all up or they just faded out.

in my mind we'll never know the truth. can you hide a garage full of WMD in a huge desert? yep. did he? dunno. would he? probably.

and people say i bulldog on topics.

If he had them they would have been used or found by now. Some say he shipped them off. I also say that if that was the case the terrorists would have used them by now.

He was do or die and he knew it. He knew if he was caught his goose was cooked eventually.

I believe that what they found, the ones no longer viable, were the only ones left.

It does not make a lick of doo daa if bill, hillary and the whole democratic party said it at one time, it still does not make it appear out of thin air.

[DFWJC]

so where did the WMD's go between Clinton saying he had 'em and then Bush?

i hear people say they just "broke apart" and yes, i can see that from a chemical standpoint.

i also see a dictator who's used them in the past continue to give the illusion he had them.

yet i also see bush get more flack for trying to stop him than saddam for being the mass-murdering dictator that he is and creating the problem in the end. well, after we gave him the WMDs that he somehow used all up or they just faded out.

in my mind we'll never know the truth. can you hide a garage full of WMD in a huge desert? yep. did he? dunno. would he? probably.

and people say i bulldog on topics.

In 2005, more than 20 tons of WMD (chemical and explosive) were discovered just prior to an attempt on the Jordianian leadership and the US Embasay in Jordan. If this had succeeded, the death toll estimate was 80,000 with another 200,000 innjured. Many believe that this huge stash certainly came from Syria and were most likely part of Saddam's cache of WMDs that were shipped out in the summer of 2002 (this "fact" comes from a report from a previous general in the Iraqi Army under Hussein). Take from it what you will....I really don't know.

[DFWJC]

It's amazing...just like people who still say Saddam was involved in the 9/11 plot.

It's true...if somethings repeated enough people will start to believe it's the truth...even when proven false.

It is Crazy.

Man, ain't that the truth. Most (almost all) intelligence says Saddam was not at all involved in 9/11. Terrorsits have trained in the desert there, but to say Saddam planned anything would be a Michael Moore-like connections of the dots. Or those that would say the US caused 9/11. It really is lunacy.

In the end, even if pretty much all of the Repub and Dems leadership thought there were WMDs in Iraq, it is still another level altogether to start a full-fledged war with ground troups and a decade or more of commitment. I don't have the answer and hind-site is for feeble minds unless mistakes are repeated. Everyone is a revisionist these days.

[iceberg]

If he had them they would have been used or found by now. Some say he shipped them off. I also say that if that was the case the terrorists would have used them by now.

He was do or die and he knew it. He knew if he was caught his goose was cooked eventually.

I believe that what they found, the ones no longer viable, were the only ones left.

It does not make a lick of doo daa if bill, hillary and the whole democratic party said it at one time, it still does not make it appear out of thin air.

it does make a lick of doo-daa if the president before bush said saddam had them and he's NOT a liar but bush says it he IS a liar unless you can provide proof or intel that between one president leaving and bush coming in the expriation date hit, he used them all and they were gone - or the like, and that bush had access to the UPDATED intel that shows bill wasn't lying and bush was.

if bill said it how could he make it appear out of thin air? he can't. therefor, he lied too. or was wrong.
same for bush, he either lied or was wrong. w/o some disconnection between the two, they're linked.

[iceberg]

In 2005, more than 20 tons of WMD (chemical and explosive) were discovered just prior to an attempt on the Jordianian leadership and the US Embasay in Jordan. If this had succeeded, the death toll estimate was 80,000 with another 200,000 innjured. Many believe that this huge stash certainly came from Syria and were most likely part of Saddam's cache of WMDs that were shipped out in the summer of 2002 (this "fact" comes from a report from a previous general in the Iraqi Army under Hussein). Take from it what you will....I really don't know.

like i said before - we'll never know the "truth" so people who run around in a know it all fashion one way or the other just want to believe that way. i think there's good evidence on both sides and that's easy enough to do when you lie for 12 years.

[theebs]

WTH does that mean?

That is fine. That is your opinion of me. Ive been on the site probably longer than anyone involved in this discussion and have always been the same guy. The same posting style and everything. I have not had a single complaint nor repremand from a mod. I guess I am following the rules?

I don't know why you feel this way Punk and Theebs. I disagree w/ you. Who cares? You shouldn't take that personally though where you feel the need to pile on a poster. Be that poster me or anyone.

Look. This is my problem. I am in a debate w/ a poster over something, anything. I reply and then you get these poster pals taking pot shots at my post because I debate someone they like.

It shouldn't be that way. I call you on it and now look at this thread. We got Punk w/ his ongoing attacks and now Theebs involves himself and even CC wants to take a jab. It's silly guys. Please understand that?

Don't make my business your business. I guess that's what im saying.


UGGH.

What a funny post.

Why are you whining like a baby? Go to my first post in this thread(#10). It is not addressed to Dallas, IT doesnt involve Dallas and Dallas does not have to comment on it.

Now go to Dallas Post in response. #33. Tell me Where I took a pot shot or piled on poor little Dallas. Its the opposite. This is what this guy does. He just goes around insults everyone. I see it constantly.

It is absolutely comical that he is acting like someone went after him or whatever.

I promise this will be my last post ever to the guy. In 5 years I have put one person on ignore on any forum. He happens to post here. I think its silly to use the ignore function, but I may make room for number 2. Either way I will never respond again to this guy and his nonsense. I come here for the people that I enjoy talking to not arguing like 12 year olds in every single thread for the sake of arguing, even when there really is no argument like this one!!!

[Dallas]

At the end of the day. Saddam would not allow the in-depth inspections he was supposed to allow according to the cease fire agreement.

It went on and on and on and on. How many frequent flyer miles did those inspectors rack up anyways? They would show up and he would kick them out or not allow them access to sites. Back home they would fly.

Saddam was a fool to not allow those inspections to fully clear him and his regime of not having WMD. That was a very dangerous cat and mouse game he was playing. It finally came back and got him killed.

Suddam said he would allow full unfettered access for the teams on the ground to prove he did not have the WMD's. He didn't.

[Dallas]

UGGH.

What a funny post.

Why are you whining like a baby? Go to my first post in this thread(#10). It is not addressed to Dallas, IT doesnt involve Dallas and Dallas does not have to comment on it.

Now go to Dallas Post in response. #33. Tell me Where I took a pot shot or piled on poor little Dallas. Its the opposite. This is what this guy does. He just goes around insults everyone. I see it constantly.

It is absolutely comical that he is acting like someone went after him or whatever.

I promise this will be my last post ever to the guy. In 5 years I have put one person on ignore on any forum. He happens to post here. I think its silly to use the ignore function, but I may make room for number 2. Either way I will never respond again to this guy and his nonsense. I come here for the people that I enjoy talking to not arguing like 12 year olds in every single thread for the sake of arguing, even when there really is no argument like this one!!!

Please - allow me the #2 honor? I could give a rats Theebs. Go do something else. For crying out loud that debate ended a couple hours back. Good lord.

Creepy

[BrAinPaiNt]

it does make a lick of doo-daa if the president before bush said saddam had them and he's NOT a liar but bush says it he IS a liar unless you can provide proof or intel that between one president leaving and bush coming in the expriation date hit, he used them all and they were gone - or the like, and that bush had access to the UPDATED intel that shows bill wasn't lying and bush was.

if bill said it how could he make it appear out of thin air? he can't. therefor, he lied too. or was wrong.
same for bush, he either lied or was wrong. w/o some disconnection between the two, they're linked.

I guess you think I love bill and believe him a man that does not lie.:laugh2:

[iceberg]

No they say you're a stalker. :p:

i can see where some would think it was stalking but i'm still bulldogging onto a point of . . . clarification people can't seem to make and they rage on into the sunset in their . . . opinions and never bother to clarify.

stalking is sending them PM after PM and wanting to have their baby. i just blocked one of those on ******* from my radio show. freak woman in the UK stalking the hell out of me.

[iceberg]

I guess you think I love bill and believe him a man that does not lie.:laugh2:

well while nowhere near answering the question, it is a reply.

i'm just out to share the blame. : )

in your opinion then was bill lying or wrong? if lying, what intel did he hand bush and should bush have believed it or known he was lying?

just trying to see how one admin gets a bye and the other has jimmy hoffa somewhere and killed halloween over the same opinions on the same evidence.

[Sasquatch]

It was the mission of capturing saddam and the overall standard military warfare victory in Iraq..

Wasn't Saddam captured AFTER the declaration?

[Cajuncowboy]

Which war on you talking about? The War on Terror or the war in Iraq?



It's all the same war. You can choose to separate them if you want but they are the same. The guy was a terrorist and a sponsor of terrorism that killed Americans.

Plus he was in violation of the cease fire agreement that he agreed to with us and the UN.

End of story. I'm sorry some people can not wrap their brains around that one simple fact.

[ologan]

Which war on you talking about? The War on Terror or the war in Iraq?

A group of Al Qaeda terrorists started the War on Terror when they attacked on 9/11 and the U.S. rightly reciprocated by going after them in Afghanistan.

Bush did start the war in Iraq. Iraq didn't invade or attack the U.S. first.

Water boarding is torture. The real question should be "is this form of torture(water boarding) going over the line or not?"

No,the war started when the WTC was attacked back in 1993,but the only ones who knew it were the attackers!

[BrAinPaiNt]

well while nowhere near answering the question, it is a reply.

i'm just out to share the blame. : )

in your opinion then was bill lying or wrong? if lying, what intel did he hand bush and should bush have believed it or known he was lying?

just trying to see how one admin gets a bye and the other has jimmy hoffa somewhere and killed halloween over the same opinions on the same evidence.

How does bill get a bye?

Search my history and you will see that both Bill and Bush are to blame for not acting enough to get OBL and if either had gotten OBL in time we would not have went into Iraq in the first place.

Both tried different methods and both got the same results...OBL is still walking free and planning out attacks on the USA.

See...you seem to think that just because I bash bush that I think Bill is innocent in all of this, which is far from the truth. However it is just much easier for you to think that way in order to put me into a compartment of sorts.

Whether bill is lying or bill was wrong, whether bush is lying or bush is wrong it still comes to the same conclusion...THEY screwed up.

Now I know it is easy for one side to blame another while at the same time giving "their" guy a pass on it...but that is not the way I see it.

We can argue all day long between wrong or lying...it does not change the fact that both were wrong, both failed to get OBL and if either of them would have gotten OBL we probably not be in the position we are currently in right now.

I just happen to focus on bush right now because bush IS the president right now. If it were Clinton and the same stuff was going on I would be on his chops right now doing the same. However Bill is not the president. Why in the world do you think I have all of this disdain and hate the idea of Hillary even having a chance to become President. Do you really think I could love one and find no fault with them while at the same time hate the other and find nothing but fault with them...when they are basically the same person with same mindset. Think about that for a moment. How could I think Bill is great and innocent and be so bitter towards Hillary?

A few things to consider. There was information turned over to this admin from the last admin concerning the importance and danger of OBL. There was a memo with the title of Possible Al Quada attack using Airplanes (probably not the exact words but pretty darn close).

So in that area we do know that there was information giving and a warning to the in coming admin.

THIS warning and threat proved to be very real.

The warning concerning Saddam proved NOT to be real, whether flat out wrong or flat out lying.

TWO wrongs do not make a right. If one guy screwed up, was wrong or lied it does not make it ok for the next guy to do the same. I know that seems to be the mantra in modern politics....well he did it so why are you complaining if I did it...people are to darn silly and politically polarized to their party to say...You BOTH did and and you BOTH should be held accountable.

Why is that so hard for some to grasp...I tell you why, because they are so entrenched in their own politically party that they refuse to see it.

So tell me this...If Bush is flat out wrong or flat our Lying...does it make it ok if Bill did the same. Do we give Bush a pass and say, hey bill do it so you are ok to do it as well?

What say you...is it ok for EITHER to do it?

[BrAinPaiNt]

No,the war started when the WTC was attacked back in 1993,but the only ones who knew it were the attackers!

The war started long before that. We and they have been waging war for a long time, it is just that it was not a public war so much as a war behind the scenes.

[ChldsPlay]

Iraq played no part in this war? They signed an agreement for the cease fire they continued for 12 years of kicking inspectors out and locking on and firing surface to air missiles at US fighter jets who were patrolling the no fly zone. They were given fair warning of the consequents and helped choose their own fate. Personally I think the US waited a few years too long in allowing Iraq to continually break the agreement as well as circumvent the sanction which proved to be a joke

Firing at US fighter pilots doesn't count as attacking America! They missed, so obviously it's the same as say....a football player, "running through the hold."

[iceberg]

How does bill get a bye?

Search my history and you will see that both Bill and Bush are to blame for not acting enough to get OBL and if either had gotten OBL in time we would not have went into Iraq in the first place.

Both tried different methods and both got the same results...OBL is still walking free and planning out attacks on the USA.

See...you seem to think that just because I bash bush that I think Bill is innocent in all of this, which is far from the truth. However it is just much easier for you to think that way in order to put me into a compartment of sorts.

Whether bill is lying or bill was wrong, whether bush is lying or bush is wrong it still comes to the same conclusion...THEY screwed up.

Now I know it is easy for one side to blame another while at the same time giving "their" guy a pass on it...but that is not the way I see it.

We can argue all day long between wrong or lying...it does not change the fact that both were wrong, both failed to get OBL and if either of them would have gotten OBL we probably not be in the position we are currently in right now.

I just happen to focus on bush right now because bush IS the president right now. If it were Clinton and the same stuff was going on I would be on his chops right now doing the same. However Bill is not the president. Why in the world do you think I have all of this disdain and hate the idea of Hillary even having a chance to become President. Do you really think I could love one and find no fault with them while at the same time hate the other and find nothing but fault with them...when they are basically the same person with same mindset. Think about that for a moment. How could I think Bill is great and innocent and be so bitter towards Hillary?

A few things to consider. There was information turned over to this admin from the last admin concerning the importance and danger of OBL. There was a memo with the title of Possible Al Quada attack using Airplanes (probably not the exact words but pretty darn close).

So in that area we do know that there was information giving and a warning to the in coming admin.

THIS warning and threat proved to be very real.

The warning concerning Saddam proved NOT to be real, whether flat out wrong or flat out lying.

TWO wrongs do not make a right. If one guy screwed up, was wrong or lied it does not make it ok for the next guy to do the same. I know that seems to be the mantra in modern politics....well he did it so why are you complaining if I did it...people are to darn silly and politically polarized to their party to say...You BOTH did and and you BOTH should be held accountable.

Why is that so hard for some to grasp...I tell you why, because they are so entrenched in their own politically party that they refuse to see it.

So tell me this...If Bush is flat out wrong or flat our Lying...does it make it ok if Bill did the same. Do we give Bush a pass and say, hey bill do it so you are ok to do it as well?

What say you...is it ok for EITHER to do it?

it's got nothing to do with party affiliation, bp.
i was not talking about YOU giving clinton a bye, but the general populate who shouts BUSH LIED and don't include clinton, or say clinton didn't.

look through history, you'll see a lot of those too.