Posted: Jun 2nd 2003, 3:14 pm
Unacceptable!mglenn wrote:Sorry, had to work on my real job and was delayed in posting...
Unacceptable!mglenn wrote:Sorry, had to work on my real job and was delayed in posting...
Ha ha ha! No doubt that the intelligence was definitely based on something, but the validity has come under VERY serious question as of late. I'll quote agonist.org and post their links:mglenn wrote:Oh and then there's the fact that every intel agency in the world believed that they had them (Were they all wrong? What does it mean if they were?).
I don't mean to pick on you, but you make it so easy. (All in good fun )mglenn wrote:And yet you can't appreciate that neither of them has their network of power that they had when we started this. . . . As it stands now both are on the run and using want resources they have to stay hidden and not to plan attacks on the US.....yet I still don't see Saddam or Osama's heads on sticks
Was this according to Baghdad Bob? Seriously though... The US is has already begun pulling its assests out of Saudia Arabia and will almost certainly setting up long term points of persence in Iraq. Will we face attacks from the extremists? Sure... But Saddam returning to power... not likely. How would he do it? What forces would he have to secure himself against the US?Saddam Hussein is alive and hiding inside Iraq with his two sons, according to exiled former Iraqi generals
Yet containment did work with the Soviets.mglenn wrote:Lance, interesting article, but as soon as they made the argument for containment it lost its crediblity with me. Containment did not work with Hitler, Did not work with N. Vietnam, has not worked with Cuba, and certainly isn't working with N. Korea. And yet this same site tries to convince you that Bush is as bad if not worse than Hitler... One side or the other folks... one side or the other.
I moved fnordboys post and my response to A New Tax Discussion.
I don't necessarily buy the whole "Bush is a shoe in" deal. That's buying into spin at the moment. His poll numbers on domestic issues are down to pre 9/11 levels. And it is a loooong way to November 2004, anything can happen.fnordboy wrote:Actually I doubt they will need to. The majority of this country praise this crook now. He did a great thing, some buildings fall down, wage war with no real world backing, bomb the s**t out of them till we "win"....yet I still don't see Saddam or Osama's heads on sticks hmmmm, and best of all he gave the majority of his voters a nice tax cut. Of course if you are poor and democrat you won't be seeing much...ooopslance wrote: The Supreme Court intervened on Bush's behalf in 2000, so will they do so again 2004?
Best,
Lance Man
He is a shoe in next election. The Democratic candidates are a friggin joke. It is a sad election where the best people running are either Al Sharpton or Hillary Clinton (if she does, which i doubt till 2008). Scary
It is not so much of him being a "shoe in" that bothers me about the whole thing. It is more that there are just no good Democratic candidates (that I am aware of). That is what will hurt us most.lance wrote: I don't necessarily buy the whole "Bush is a shoe in" deal. That's buying into spin at the moment. His poll numbers on domestic issues are down to pre 9/11 levels. And it is a loooong way to November 2004, anything can happen.
Granted, at the moment things don't look great (unless you like Bush, then it is quite ducky), but don't give up quite yet.
Hate when that happens.mglenn wrote:Sorry, had to work on my real job and was delayed in posting...
Been some talk of Kerry hooking up with McCain. That would be interesting.fnordboy wrote:It is not so much of him being a "shoe in" that bothers me about the whole thing. It is more that there are just no good Democratic candidates (that I am aware of). That is what will hurt us most.lance wrote: I don't necessarily buy the whole "Bush is a shoe in" deal. That's buying into spin at the moment. His poll numbers on domestic issues are down to pre 9/11 levels. And it is a loooong way to November 2004, anything can happen.
Granted, at the moment things don't look great (unless you like Bush, then it is quite ducky), but don't give up quite yet.
Nope, our CIA:mglenn wrote:Was this according to Baghdad Bob? Seriously though...
So, when they say they have to move you out of your house, and arrest your parents, and the only explaination they give is "national security", you'd be ok with that?mglenn wrote:When it comes to intelligence and proof one thing always shocks me. Why does the american/world public need to know? How does it help the situation?
But given the argument so far we should dismiss this out of hand because it’s just the Administration lying to us?The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has internal documents...
Containment did not work with the soviets! We beat them by out spending them on military development. We ran their economy dry trying to keep up with us.lance wrote:Yet containment did work with the Soviets.
Neither of these were true interventions. JFK did not support the invasion of Cuba. And Vietnam was not a war if you remember it was a Police Action. It was containment all the way. We attempted to just keep the North at bay and never did any real damage to them. Meanwhile the Chinese and Soviets just kept flooding equipment and aid in.Intervention worked with N.Vietnam? With Cuba? (Remember Bay of Pigs)When?
I'm not saying he'll ever become a great threat, but it seems as if he'll be quite a thorn in our side until we can get "his head on a stick". From what I remember, the French Resistance in WWII was quite bothersome to Germany. Before this started, I figured the same thing could happen with Saddam. You don't need a large military force to still cause some havoc.mglenn wrote:But given the argument so far we should dismiss this out of hand because it’s just the Administration lying to us?
Once again I'm not saying that Hussein is dead, but given that it took the US only days to wipe out his military, where is he going to get the forces needed to regain power when we have a presence already established there?
Why not? The last Bush lied about Iraq:mglenn wrote:But given the argument so far we should dismiss this out of hand because it’s just the Administration lying to us?
Quoted from:The first Bush administration did not feel that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait provided sufficient justification for a U.S. military response in the eyes of the American public. But this problem would go away if it became apparent that Iraq wasn't going to stop with Kuwait, but also planned to attack Saudi Arabia.
The Bush administration also had the problem of where to stage its troops for a U.S. invasion of Kuwait and Iraq. Saudi Arabia was needed to provide a starting point for the American force. To address these problems the Bush administration told the Saudis that Iraqi troops were massing to invade them. The Saudis sent out investigators to check the U.S. claim and found nothing. So the Bush administration provided the Saudis with secret satellite photos showing a huge Iraqi force massed on their border. At the same time the Bush administration also ordered commercial satellite firms to turn off their coverage of the border between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. But there was one loophole in their plans—Russia's satellites.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, images from Russia's spy satellites have become commercially available. And what do the Russian images from that time show for the border between Iraq and Saudi Arabia? Absolutely nothing. No Iraqi tanks, no trucks, no planes, no soldiers. American fighter planes can be seen, parked tip-to-tip, but no Iraqi military presence is anywhere near the Saudi border.
The first Bush administration faked satellite photos to gain Saudi participation in its war, and to convince the American people that Hussein must be stopped from conquering the whole region.