Why we are in Iraq

[W5MJL]

Ya know it's funny. #I would be willing to bet that the same people that are "dissenting" right now about the war were also saying that George Sr. didn't finish the job in the first Gulf war.

Here are the main reasons we are in Iraq IMO.

1. WMD #Yes believe it or not, Sadaam did have WMD. #We knew it and the UN knew it. #We had an inventory of it. #He could have destroyed it all in the presence of UN inspectors but chose not to do so. They could have been moved or destroyed. If they were destroyed it sure would have been in sadaam's best interests to allow the UN inspectors watch him destroy what he had.

2. Sadaam continues to play cat and mouse with the UN inspectors. #We let this guy go on for more than 10 years playing games. #The UN makes resolutions, but ultimately we are the only ones with the ability to enforce those resolutions. #Which proves why we don't need the UN, the UN needs us. #We also now know why some of the UN members wanted to keep the status quo. #They were personally getting rich from the food for oil scam.

3. Sadaam is doing everything in his power to attain nuclear devices. #The French and the Germans are willing to sell him whatever he wants. #He is determined, and he has the MONEY to do it.

4. # 9/11. #Since the terrorists are from many countries we knew we would have to make a policy to not only go after terrorists, but the countries that support them.

5. We have a swift victory in Afghanistan. #Now where is the most likely place the terrorists will set up camp next? #Iran and Iraq are the two most likely choices. #They are both seed beds for American hate.

6. We realize that we would have more support to go after Iraq than Iran so we chose Iraq. #We knew sadaam would support anything that could harm the U.S. #We knew that if we removed him from power we would stabilize the middle east and put more pressure on the other countries. #WE ARE USING IRAQ as an example of what can happen if you support terrorism, and yes, we are also stabilizing the oil supply to western countries.

Did Bush have a war plan before he came into office? #Probably. #We knew we were going to have to deal with sadaam one day, so yes we would be irresponsible if we were not prepared. #It's better to deal with him on OUR timetable, than on his timetable.

There is no mystery to any of this. #Nobody is trying to hide anything. #It is a perfectly logical series of events.

[K9STH]

I moved this topic to the more appropriate forum. However, I should have deleted it since FAP KNOWS BETTER than to post such a topic in the Talk & Opinions - Amateur Radio forum.

Next time I WILL delete it.

Glen, K9STH
One of the QRZ.com moderators

[W5MJL]

Sorry, I thought I posted it in the rag chew section.

[k9kxq]

Nice try, but I ain't buying.

Can you prove there were in fact WMD's ?
Can you prove the US was not misled into war with Iraq?

kxq

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] (k9kxq @ June 20 2005,10:43)]Nice try, but I ain't buying.

Can you prove there were in fact WMD's ?
Can you prove the US was not misled into war with Iraq?

kxq
Chemical and biological weapons are WMD. We knew he had them because he used them. There was an inventory taken of them by the UN. UN inspectors actually destroyed tons of wmd, we just felt he had more.

Quote[/b] ]11. Intrusive weapons inspections are a key part of the verification procedures of many arms reduction treaties. One illustration of their importance is the experience in Iraq. In the aftermath of the Gulf War, the United Nations monitored Iraqi weapons plants and other suspected sites. United Nations experts destroyed tonnes of biological and chemical agents, munitions, production equipment and related items.

This came off of a NATO sight about controlling WMD.

nato (http://www.nato.int/issues/wmd/)


We knew he had them. We knew some were destroyed. Why should we assume he is not making more especially when he is playing cat and mouse with the inspectors?

[W2ILP]

The BS we were fed was not just that Iraq had WMDs but that they were able and ready to use them in 45 hours. #Don't forget that - because that was the reason that we could not wait for the U.N. inspectors to finish the task of certifying that there were no WMDs.

If an engineer, working in an advanced systems group, wrote a proposal which included immediate action and based it on lies he would be out of work pretty soon, unless he was the owner of the business or his son.

Just my humble opinion.

w2ilp (Impeach Lying President?) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ June 20 2005,10:58)]The BS we were fed was not just that Iraq had WMDs but that they were able and ready to use them in 45 hours. #Don't forget that - because that was the reason that we could not wait for the U.N. inspectors to finish the task of certifying that there were no WMDs.

If an engineer, working in an advanced systems group, wrote a proposal which included immediate action and based it on lies he would be out of work pretty soon, unless he was the owner of the buisness or his son.

Just my humble opinion.

w2ilp (Impeach Lying President?)
I have to disagree. He was not going along with UN inspections. This had been going on for 10 years. How long is enough?

I think we didn't want to wait because we already had troops in afghanistan that could be deployed, and we knew we had to operate in the best weather conditions that we could. We knew if we didn't act exactly when we did we would have to wait another year. Lot's of things can happen in a year.

[al2i]

I don't think Bush lied, and just suggesting he lied does not mean he lied. If through the Downing Street memos or some other vehicle, it is proved that he was actually lying, I will be profoundly angry. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

73,
Dave/al2i

[W2ILP]

ka5fap

The job in the first Gulf war was to free Kuwait from Iraqi control.
This job was successfully acheived. Most Americans accepted that, as
did General Powell. It is strange to see how even very recent history is forgotten or distorted by people who are reaching for excuses for a war that did not need to start.

w2ilp (Invaders Left Peacefully)

[W5MJL]

They are not excuses. They are very real. If we left the UN to deal with sadaam he would have a nuclear weapon in pretty short order. WE ARE THE UN.

There is a difference in someone not liking the U.S., and someone working dilligently for our demise. His country was a logical country for terrorists to set up camp. Some were already started in northern iraq.

To me, it makes perfect sense.

I think you are concerned about the timing. You may be right, but no matter what, it ultimately was going to have to be done.

[W2ILP]

ka5fap

After hearing from Native Americans that there was a "fountain of youth",
explorers of the New World spent over 50 years looking for it.

Time means nothing when it comes to wanting to believe nonsense.

There never was a "fountain of youth". The natives just told a myth about it to get the explorers out of their areas and keep them busy.

It is easy to make stories up, when they are stories that people want to believe. Everyone does not want to get old and to die...Thus the promise of a "fountain of youth" seemed well worth investigating. The hate and crys for revenge after 9/11 motivated many Americans to want to invade Iraq, although there was no logical reason why this would make us free from further potential terrorism.

w2ilp (Invasions Limit Potential?) Maybe...maybe not...but you don't start a war on maybe. I told a story about a man with a jack whose car was stranded. I won't repeat it here unless you ask for it.

[KE7DFP]

Your case is well put FAP- I agree 100%

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ June 20 2005,11:24)]The hate and crys for revenge after 9/11 motivated many Americans to want to invade Iraq, although there was no logical reason why this would make us free from further potential terrorism.
Sorry, but I don't understand your thinking with that statement. How can you think that removing a man in power who would do anything to destroy the US would not help free us from potential terrorism?

If anything, it at least stopped his bounties paid to families of terrorists who died exploding bombs in civillian areas. It also prevented new terrorist camps being set up in his country.

We will never be totally free from terrorism, but we can sure limit it.

[W2ILP]

ka5fap

Saddam, in my opinion, was not working for the demise of one of his best customers of Iraqui oil. Saddam had enough trouble controlling his own people and preventing internal civil rebellions...Now we are involved in doing the same thing that Saddam was doing.

w2ilp (Insergent Liberated People?)

[KE7DFP]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ June 20 2005,09:24)]ka5fap



Time means nothing when it comes to wanting to believe nonsense.



It is easy to make stories up, when they are stories that people want to believe. #
Boy, you've got that right.

[W5MJL]

Sadaam was/is an egomaniac. If he could destroy the US, I don't think there is any question he would. He may hate the Jews more, but we are a very close second.

[KE7DFP]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ June 20 2005,09:37)]ka5fap

Saddam, in my opinion, was not working for the demise of one of his best customers of Iraqui oil. #Saddam had enough trouble controlling his own people and preventing internal civil rebellions...Now we are involved in doing the same thing that Saddam was doing.

w2ilp (Insergent Liberated People?)
The U.S. was only a minor customer, at best of Iraqi Oil. There is more oil in Canada than Iraq. Canada has half the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia in her oil sand deposits alone (N.E. Alberta). They're putting it into production, too If I'm not mistaken, it's Canada, Mexico, Venezuala, in that order, that give us the lion's share of our supply. Also, he had little trouble controlling his own people as he was not restrained. He was not constrained by pesty little rules concerning human rights, torture, etc.

[ve2nsm]

Quote[/b] (ka5fap @ June 20 2005,12:46)]Sadaam was/is an egomaniac. If he could destroy the US, I don't think there is any question he would. He may hate the Jews more, but we are a very close second.
I remember a report that I've seen on TV about six months ago... or more?
It seemed very serious, a guy sitting on a chair in front of a lot of politicians, answering question from both parties. The politicians tried desperatly to make him say what they wanted him to say... he was sweating a lot http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

What I remembered clearly, was when he said that Saddam did NOT have the capacity to strike the US, but he was dreaming about it, yes.

Dreaming about something does not make it happen http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[W2ILP]

ka5fap

What proof have you that bounties paid to terrorist families came from Iraq and not from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, PLO, Afghanistan or other Muslim sources?...or should we attack them all?...because maybe they were paying the bounties?

The President has admitted himself, that there was no direct proof that Iraq supported the terrorists of 9/11 in any way.

Every one of your reasons for attacking Iraq at the time the U.S. did has large holes in it..or is based on "Maybe".

w2ilp (I'd Like Proof)

[K8YS]

Quote[/b] (k9kxq @ June 20 2005,10:43)]Nice try, but I ain't buying.

Can you prove there were in fact WMD's ?
Can you prove the US was not misled into war with Iraq?

kxq
lets see,

Hillary said there were
Kerry said there were
the Ole Creek Jumper Kennedy said there were
saddam said there were - he even proved it
the beloved UN said there were...

I guess you would have to say that they are liars too.

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] (ve2nsm @ June 20 2005,11:53)]Dreaming about something does not make it happen #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
So based on that, we should wait until he can fulfill his dreams before we do anything?

The first thing you do before anything can happen is to make it a dream. I can dream about winning the lottery, but I cannot control that. I can dream about starting a business and becoming successful, and that, I can make happen.

He had the money, the ability, and the people willing to sell him the technology to make his dreams happen.

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ June 20 2005,11:56)]ka5fap

What proof have you that bounties paid to terrorist families came from Iraq and not from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, PLO, Afghanistan or other Muslim sources?...or should we attack them all?...because maybe they were paying the bounties?

The President has admitted himself, that there was no direct proof that Iraq supported the terrorists of 9/11 in any way.

Every one of your reasons for attacking Iraq at the time the U.S. did has large holes in it..or is based on "Maybe".

w2ilp (I'd Like Proof)
He did pay bounties. He was proud of it. It was on every news organization. I believe it was 10 or 20 thousand dollars for the family members.

If those other countries are supporting terrorism, then yes, eventually we will have to attack them all. If you are going to announce a WAR on terrorism, then I would imagine it would be prudent to back up that statement.

[W2ILP]

ve2nsm...

You can't attack anyone because "maybe" he dreamed of attacking you.
This is especially so when you are obviously more powerful than the supposed dreaming potential attacker.

If every male got punished for his wet dreams of raping some movie star there would no room in the prisons.

I'm a dreamer...Aren't we all?
In my dreams...each night it seems, My sweetheart comes to call....
---Sung by Bobby Sherwood---

w2ilp (Ideas Lack Probability)

[W2ILP]

The payments for bounties that you mention did not come directly from Iraq or Saddam Hussain. It is known that he did not have any connection to the group that made the payments. If you can prove otherwise without dreaming please do so here.

w2ilp (Inman's Life Payments?)

[W5MJL]

I was wrong. It was 25,000.
Quote[/b] ]In part it is urgent because Hussein, a hero to many Muslims, is one of the most prominent supporters of terrorism today. He is strongly suspected of involvement in the 1993 plot to assassinate former President Bush, which resulted in a retaliatory firing of cruise missiles at the Baghdad headquarters of Iraqi intelligence. Beyond mere suspicions, his support of terrorism is a matter of public record. By offering a $25,000 bounty to the families of suicide bombers, he has become a Godfather of terrorism, enlisting Palestinians as his army of hit men against Israel. As he himself put it: "[a] kiss from us on the foreheads of all [those] who face Zionism and its ally, the US, and who combat aggression with soul and substance". Hussein is obviously doing what he can to grow the next generation of Bin Ladens in the fertile lands of Palestine.

[W2ILP]

If you read Saddam's biography, you will find that unlike many Iraquis, Saddam himself did not hate Jews. He was not ultra religious.

The story was that when Saddams mother was pregnant (with the illigitimate child of a Hussain) she wanted to abort the child. A Jewish woman convinced her not to do so. If there was an abortion there would never had been a Saddam Hussain!

Now I see that you know nothing about Saddam Hussain...except what you want to believe and that is all rubbish.

I have no love for Saddam...but it is rediculus to cast him as an egomaniac. All leaders in my opinion tend to be egotistical..including most of our own. A leader who does not show strength to his own people can not survive or get his armies to fight for his protection.

w2ilp (Insufficient Logical Psychology?)

[W5MJL]

Here is a link for you.

Saddam pays terrorists (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html?oneclick=true)

[W2ILP]

Again the mistake was made!

To hate Israel or Zionists (who are Israel Nationalists) is not the same as hating all Jews.

All Jews are not Isralis or Zionists.
Saddam actually protected a Jewish temple in Iraq from the Muslim majority.

w2ilp (Interpreting Losing Position)

[ve2nsm]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ June 20 2005,13:05)]ve2nsm...

You can't attack anyone because "maybe" he dreamed of attacking you.
This is especially so when you are obviously more powerful than the supposed dreaming potential attacker.

If every male got punished for his wet dreams of raping some movie star there would no room in the prisons.

I'm a dreamer...Aren't we all?
In my dreams...each night it seems, My sweetheart comes to call....
---Sung by Bobby Sherwood---

w2ilp (Ideas Lack Probability)
That was exactly my point, sorry if it was unclear, my english is not the best http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ June 20 2005,12:23)]If you read Saddam's biography, you will find that unlike many Iraquis, Saddam himself did not hate Jews. #
I do recall missles being sent by Sadaam that actually hit Israel. I guess those missiles were just his odd way of displaying love and affection?

[W2ILP]

Why does the link come from Australia? If what you say is true and we can prove that Saddam directly paid bounties to terrorist families then why is there no such report in any American media? All American media is not controlled by Liberals or Bush haters.

A tale is only as reliable as its source.

w2ilp (Insignificent Local Proof)

[W5MJL]

I heard it on television. #I'm sorry, but I am sure with a proper search method you will find in on cnn, ap and whatever. #You wanted a newslink, and I gave it to you. #I obviously heard it in the US since I don't subscribe to that link, or any link based news service.

It is also not a news source with any US political agenda.

[W5MJL]

Here is an english source.

english source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/13/wsad13.xml)

[W2ILP]

Saddam like most Iraquis considered Israeli to be a colony of the U.S.A.
Thus war with the U.S. was tantamount to war with Israel.
Israel only stayed out of the actual war because the U.S. had asked them not to help directly.
During the Gulf War Saddam sent missiles to Israel. He did so because of the war and because he had said he would do so if attacked. He believed that he could avoid a war by saying he would attack Israel if attacked by the U.S. Obviously that didn't stop the U.S. from taking Iraq. Luckly the Iraqui missiles did not kill many people in Israel.

Saddam's plan to kill Bush Sr. was also during the Gulf war. That is what wars are all about. If the U.S. could have killed Saddam during the Gulf war don't you think we would have? I admit that there are international rules that prevent deliberately killing foreign leaders but those rules can't apply during war conditions. There were known plots to try to kill Hitler during WW2. There were suspected plots to kill Cuba's Castro without declaring war. Plots happen.

w2ilp (Illegal Lost Plots?)

[W5MJL]

One thing at a time. Will you at least agree Sadaam did pay bounties, or do I have to keep naming sources until I find one you like?

[W2ILP]

ka5fap

I will believe that there was a group known as the Arab Liberation Fund.
I am not sure if all or any part of it was funded by Saddam Hussain or it was organized initially by Saddam.

I also know that there have been groups in the U.S. that have funded Irish rebels, Zionist extremist organizations, NAZIs, Latin American Contras and the displaced peoples of Tibet. Some with and some without sponsorship of the U.S. government...some with sponbsorship of religious groups.

I dunno if Saddam could have prevented the "Arab Liberation Fund group" from paying the bounties...even if he had wanted to or dreampt about it.

The U.S. Congress couldn't stop Oliver North from sending dud missiles to Iran and using the money collected to send arms to the Contras.
Could we blame our President at that time or our Congress for North's disobedience? Nope and some Americans to this day think that North is a great hero. I think he is a war hawk...but sometimes we need war hawks here too.

BUT OK I'll admit that if the links are true.... Saddam probably was not opposed to the ALF activity. We may not know for sure...but this might happen to be proved one way or the other during Saddam's trial.


Obviously the Brits are trying to justify the war with Iraq...just as some are loyal to Tony Blair. ...but many Brits are even more anti war than most of us here.

w2ilp (It Looks Possible)

[W5MJL]

LOL, I guess I will accept that as a semi-concession that Sadaam did indeed pay terrorists to strap a bomb to themselves and kill innocent people.

Now knowing that we just took away afghanistan as a leading training camp provider for terrorists, who should be next on the list? Remember this is a war on terror, not just a hunt for Osama.

Saudi Arabia is out. They talk out of both sides of their mouth, but they have been friends from an oil standpoint. They are also VERY AFRAID of sadaam. There is no way we could get world support for attacking Saudi Arabia. I think the saudi's play both sides, and they eventually will get their do for doing so.

The next logical place is Iran or Iraq. Both countries openly support terror. One had UN resolutions against them, one did not. Who is the obvious choice to attack?

Now one might say the attack was the first unprovoked attack the US has ever done. I say its not unprovoked. On 9/11 we declared war on terror. This is a war on all terror and governments that support terror. I don't care what criteria we use to determine the ORDER of the countries to attack. I care about doing it with the least amount of lives lost, and the most bang for the buck.

Iraq just so happened to be that country.

[w0aew]

Quote[/b] (ka5fap @ June 20 2005,11:48)]LOL, I guess I will accept that as a semi-concession that Sadaam did indeed pay terrorists to strap a bomb to themselves and kill innocent people.
How did they collect?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[W5MJL]

Their families collected.

[W8EFA]

IN the FAP original post you stated that those were your opinions. #I wouldn't even call them opinions, more like ignoring the facts and trying to justify in your own mind what isn't real.
Quote[/b] ]1. WMD #Yes believe it or not, Sadaam did have WMD. #We knew it and the UN knew it. #We had an inventory of it. #He could have destroyed it all in the presence of UN inspectors but chose not to do so. #They could have been moved or destroyed. #If they were destroyed it sure would have been in sadaam's best interests to allow the UN inspectors watch him destroy what he had.

After 2 years #in Iraq, #the United States has found no weapons of mass destruction — its chief argument for overthrowing the regime.

There were no WMD! #Bush finally after years of searching had to admit it. #What a surprise... what moron thought they had them after we invaded Baghdad and they didn't use them? #It was obvious at that point they didn't have them. #Again there were no WMD - get over it and get real, those are the facts!

Quote[/b] ]2. Sadaam continues to play cat and mouse with the UN inspectors. #We let this guy go on for more than 10 years playing games. #The UN makes resolutions, but ultimately we are the only ones with the ability to enforce those resolutions. #Which proves why we don't need the UN, the UN needs us. #We also now know why some of the UN members wanted to keep the status quo. #They were personally getting rich from the food for oil scam.

Again flat out wrong. #Bush gave an ultimatum to Sadaam under threat of attack to allow inspectors back in which Saddaam complied to. #Before we invaded we had teams of weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq with complete unnanounced, unfettered access to anywhere in Iraq. #Palaces, Compunds, Industry, everything was being searched and nothing being found. #Every day they didn't find anything was making it harder and harder for Bush to do what he wanted to do and that is get his revenge on Sadaam.

Quote[/b] ]3. Sadaam is doing everything in his power to attain nuclear devices. #The French and the Germans are willing to sell him whatever he wants. #He is determined, and he has the MONEY to do it.

The final Duelfur report said there was almost no sign that a significant nuclear weapons project was under way.

Quote[/b] ]4. # 9/11. #Since the terrorists are from many countries we knew we would have to make a policy to not only go after terrorists, but the countries that support them.

What a nonsensensical statement. The majority of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. #With your "logic" we should have attacked Saudi Arabia!

911 proved that terrorists do not need to purchase any weapons of mass destruction from any foreign power. They proved that they can use materials that can be readily obtained in the US. Therefore, the US cannot prevent such attacks by disarming Iraq, the axis of evil, or any other country. Had we disarmed every single country in the world, it would not have prevented 911 because the terrorists used US-made and US-supplied weapons. So disarmament of foreign powers is not a credible solution to trerrorism. #We have to go after the terrorism network just like you penetrate a crime network. #Invading Iraq took our eye off the real enemy.


Quote[/b] ]5. We have a swift victory in Afghanistan. #Now where is the most likely place the terrorists will set up camp next? #Iran and Iraq are the two most likely choices. #They are both seed beds for American hate.

Nonsense ..... see above response.

Quote[/b] ]6. We realize that we would have more support to go after Iraq than Iran so we chose Iraq. #We knew sadaam would support anything that could harm the U.S. #We knew that if we removed him from power we would stabilize the middle east and put more pressure on the other countries. #WE ARE USING IRAQ as an example of what can happen if you support terrorism, and yes, we are also stabilizing the oil supply to western countries.

Once again 911 proved that we are vulnerable to people from friendly countries want us to change our behavior. bin Laden and 15 of the 19 hijackers are from Saudi Arabia. The others were from Egypt. These countries have denied any links to Al Qaeda. Therefore, attacking governments who we believe are sinister is not a credible solution to this new threat because it is not governments of unfriendly nations that are the problem; it is the people of friendly nations that are attacking us. Even if we had completely obliterated every "unfriendly government," 911 would still have happened. In fact, it would be much more likely to have happened. Let's also not forget that the terrorists were trained by US citizens in the US to fly the US planes that attacked us.

[W2ILP]

Muslim suicide terrorism started in Israel. It eventually spread to attacks on U.S. such as the "COLES" and eventually to the attack on 9/11/01.

To fight terror you must own up to the qustion..Why do the terorists hate us?

If you do not reduce the hatred...How can you reduce the terror. The US does not have a volunteer army large enough to fight all the Arab nations on their grounds, nor is it likely
to ever again have one. This is the fact. We can not nuke all of the Arab countries either without killing a lot of our own reps. So we have to face the reality.
That is why a "road map" has been developed to try to ease the Palistinian-Israeli situation.

No Muslims ever threatened the US with terrorism before there was an Israel. Eliminate Israeli occupation of Palistinian land and there is a very good chance of eliminating "terrorism". both here and abroad.

Bin Laden may still be hiding in Afghanistan near the Pakistani border. We or the Afghan president do not have control of all of Afghanistan and this is readily admitted by all who have been to Afghanistan. Just read the news. There is a large bounty being offered for the capture of Bin Laden.

There was a large bounty paid to the Iraqui who told U.S.troops where Saddam was hiding. I did a Google serch on "Saddam bounty" and found reports about these subjects.

w2ilp (Infidel's Large Payments?)

[KC2KFC]

I thought this was an interesting link.

What a Difference Four Years Makes (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123)

[W8EFA]

W2ILP - Good post, I think you are exactly right. The road map has been developed to try to ease the Palistinian-Israeli situation is key to terrorism against the U.S. I know the conservatives laugh at the "win the hearts and minds" phrase, but I think it would be easy to change the Muslim mind that we are the good guys, as I believe we are, if we would only act like it.

Let's face it Israel is our ally and that is who we have been siding with in the conflict. The Palestinian Extremist's then use it against us. I wish we could broker peace. Do we need to be more in the middle?

[W2ILP]

kc2kfc

that thread may be interesting but it is not cronological because it jumps back and forth without telling what happened in any logical order.
The fact is that at the time the U.SA. attacked Iraq there was a weapons inspection being carried out by the U.N. and it was not permitted to be completed by the U.S. although Saddam Hussain had finally be forced to permit total inspection by our threat of war to Iraq.

If you take any history and jump back and forth like that linked article did you can only get confused.

w2ilp ("Incriminating" Link Pukes)

[W5MJL]

What is does show is that sadaam continually played games, and the UN would not enforce it's own resolutions. If you can't enforce resolutions, then don't make them.

[W8EFA]

The past is the past. The only important fact in this "discussion" of whether we should have invaded Iraq is that they were doing the inspections, unimpeded when we invaded.

Sadaam caved on allowing us back in under threat, nothing was found, but we attacked anyway.

[W5MJL]

No that is the past as well. What is important is what is going on now.

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ June 20 2005,17:50)]To fight terror you must own up to the qustion..Why do the terorists hate us?

If you do not reduce the hatred...How can you reduce the terror. #
We have supported Israel for 58 years. How do you reduce 58 years of hatred. I'm sorry, but it won't be reduced in my lifetime. Even if we killed everyone in Israel tomorrow, and returned all of the land to the palestinians they would still hate us. Israel is not the only reason they hate us.

They don't like our lifestyle. They think all western ways are bad for the world. They are taught that. They are taught women should take a secondary role in society. Believe me, there is nothing that will stop their extreme teachings except elimination.

[KE7DFP]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ June 20 2005,10:36)]Why does the link come from Australia? #If what you say is true and we can prove that Saddam directly paid bounties to terrorist families then why is there no such report in any American media? #All American media is not controlled by Liberals or Bush haters.

A tale is only as reliable as its source.

w2ilp (Insignificent Local Proof)
It's fact, matter of record

[KE7DFP]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 20 2005,17:25)]The past is the past. #The only important fact in this "discussion" of whether we should have invaded Iraq is that they were doing the inspections, unimpeded when we invaded.

Sadaam caved on allowing us back in under threat, nothing was found, but we attacked anyway.
Good post EFA. I agree with you 100%. Let's just have a level headed debate, based on logic and the principles of eviduciary evidence. Otherwise we just spin our wheels, waste our time, and nothing ever changes-- including each others minds. I accept your premise the past is the past .......Now since inspections and the "Invasion" were in the same past, we must,logically forget them both. We can't cherry pick "pasts" because they prop up an individual construct (arguement),now can we? As far as unimpeded inspections, we never,ever, had anything like unimpeded inspections. We were never, by any stretch of the imagination, allowed to check any place we choose. To say Saadam ever cooperated in good faith is like saying there is air pressure in a vacuum Had Sadam ever cooperated in good faith we would not even be having this discussion Wait, that's in the past. The record's the record, let's just move on.. 73s Randy

[KE7DFP]

Muslim terrorism isn't unique to the Israel-Palestinian dynamic. You had your female Muslim bombers in Algiers, who's only bone was the French, and if I'm not mistaken the were some terrorist attacks around the time Egypt decided to confiscate the Suez Canal. I don't really remember because my family was too poor to afford a TV set, and though quite precocious as a child, I really wasn't too rivetted on world issues at the age of 2...HI HI..... Not really putting this forward to make a point, just thought it's one more thing to consider.

[W2ILP]

ke7dfp

You say that if there was no Israel the Arabs would still hate us.
...just because they don't like our life style?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

I can't buy that. Nobody kills themselves just because they don't like how people live on another continent. For the suicide bombers it is or was a religious war...not a political or a cultural war. It is a war between religious Jews and religious Muslims, who are just religious enough to believe that they can risk their lives or even kill themselves because their God is on their side.

Muslims praise Allah when they pull the pin on their explosives. They think that they will go straight to heaven. Most don't care or know how non-Muslims who aren't on their land live.

Some of the suicidal terrorists of 9/11 did live for a time in the U.S. I doubt if they hated what they saw here. Some of them were known to have visited bars and strip clubs and enjoyed themselves. In spite of the fact that many types of people were killed on 9/11, I dunno if the suicide bombers hated the people unfortunately involved. It is very clear to me that they hate the U.S. government for its continous support of Israel and for arming Israel. This is what has changed their homeland...not the culture of Americans in America's own homeland on another continent.

ke7dep

I liked your post and your agreement with w8efa...
BUT
The hard fact is that Sadfdam finally had given up any resistance to inspection when he learned that the plans to attack Iraq were very serious. He knew that he could not win a war against the US. Also in spite of the fact that he had gassed Kurds he knew that he should not use gas against U.S. invading troops. If it is possible put yourself in Saddam's place. After stalling and stalling he had to give in to complete unfettered inspection. He may have used the stalling time to get rid of incriminating weapons or materials for WMDS...but my hunch is, he was stalling even though he had no WMDS because he didn't want the world to know how defenseless he was. This is like saying that if you have no gun you don't want to put up a sign in front of your home that says "I guarentee everyone that I have no guns". You want to have potential enemies believe that maybe you do have guns so they will think twice before breaking into your house and robbing you.

Some of you guys could not make good detectives or troubleshooters because you don't use logic properly. If you can define all possibilities; you have to discard the ones that are not logical and stick to further investigating logical reasons for people to do what they do. This is part of social psychology.
People said that Hitler was crazy...that Castro was crazy...that Kadaffi was crazy...Yeah crazy like a fox but doing what they though was best for their own survival.
If you study any leader regardless of how terrible he was then you may use the same techniques to understand his hates and fears and methods, without being side tracked and his goals and the logic (that he may believe is logical) that he uses. This is the only way that you can try to predict what his next move might be.


Now that we have Saddam in prison we see that he is not a religious man. He does not want to die. He does not believe that God is on his side. IMHO it will take a secular leader like Saddam to rule Iraq if it is to be a democracy. This is partly because the religious sects within Iraq will never accept rule by any sect but their own..Yet they might have to accept rule by a non-religious leader who is strong and can dominate all of them. The U.S. is making a mistake if it is encouraging a pack of religious Muslims to be a Congress which can represent any Iraquis to their satisfaction in any democratic way. This is because even the U.S. does not understand that the seperation of church and state which works well here can work well anywhere.

Enuf sed.
Yeah...Lets move on....roll 'em.

w2ilp (Iraq's Last Panic?)

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] ] Now that we have Saddam in prison we see that he is not a religious man.
How many people do you know that are not religious that pray 5 times a day?

Quote[/b] ]Nobody kills themselves just because they don't like how people live on another continent

You actually expect people who kill themselves for any reason to have LOGIC?

[w5klb]

Can you say "Jihad" boys and girls? I knew you could.

This "Jihad" if left unchecked, will not just happen in the Middle East, it will happen globally. AQ is a "Gobal" organization. Although we have taken out over 75% of the organization, there are still "sleeper" terrorist cells in a lot places including here in the good ol' U.S. of A.

The people who are committing these acts of terrorism are NOT Islamic. It is my understanding that their faith forbids Muslems from harming ANYONE.

These guys want a Theocracy under their form of "Islam" (for lack of a better term). They would choose to restrict our freedoms, have our women wear burkas and have us pray five times a day. They would like to send us back to the "dark ages" and have absolute control and dominion over us. If we don't comform, WE ARE DEAD in a PUBLIC EXECUTION.

Contrary to what the liberals may claim, we got some intellegance from a Iraqi (I can't remeber his name), that the White House was favoring for Prime Minister of Iraq. He was the one that told us Saddam had WMD's which was FALSE. We found this out AFTER we invaded. If my memory serves me correctly, I believed it forced the resignation of a CIA Chief. The liberals convenantly leave out this little part of the story. Yet they claimed The President lied. Bad intellegance does not make someone a liar.

We are there. We can beat this dead horse into the ground and it would make no difference. Everyone including liberal Senators like John Kerry agree that it would a MISTAKE for us to leave now.

So go ahead, claim The President is liar if you so choose. It's wrong, but I won't stop you. But if you choose to believe Bush is liar, better back it up with some facts instead of conjecture.

NO ONE has evidence that ANYONE lied. I have yet to see it here on this forum or in the liberal press. Could it be that there is NO EVIDENCE?

If any one of you liberals have conclusive evidence that The President lied about going to Iraq, please post it. I would love to see it. Betcha can't.

[KA9VQF]

The freedom of information act is a truly marvelous/great thing.

Unfortunately it takes 50 or so years for the documents needed for this investigation to get to the public domain. {unless someone like deep throat decides to spill all}

Naturally the ‘law makers’ have better access but what about all those sealed files ALL politicians have?

[kc7flr]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ June 20 2005,09:37)]ka5fap

Saddam, in my opinion, was not working for the demise of one of his best customers of Iraqui oil. #Saddam had enough trouble controlling his own people and preventing internal civil rebellions...Now we are involved in doing the same thing that Saddam was doing.

w2ilp (Insergent Liberated People?)
We received *NO* Iraqi oil. We get most of our oil from Venezuala and Mexico.

There was a restriction on Iraqi oil. They could only "sell" it to for food and medicine for the Iraqi people. Of course, the UN was deeply involved in scamming their own restrictions. Kofi's own son was getting rich with that scam.

Saddam had *NO* problem controlling his own people. They are *STILL* unearthing mass graves!

Just what "same thing" would we be doing that Saddam did?

The "insurgents" are *NOT* Iraqis.

Where do you get your "news?"

[N6WK]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ June 22 2005,02:30)]Contrary to what the liberals may claim, we got some intellegance from a Iraqi (I can't remeber his name), that the White House was favoring for Prime Minister of Iraq. He was the one that told us Saddam had WMD's which was FALSE. We found this out AFTER we invaded. If my memory serves me correctly, I believed it forced the resignation of a CIA Chief. The liberals convenantly leave out this little part of the story. Yet they claimed The President lied. Bad intellegance does not make someone a liar.


If any one of you liberals have conclusive evidence that The President lied about going to Iraq, please post it. I would love to see it. Betcha can't.
Are you referring to the guy that was later found out to be a crook?? Nice of our intel to not figure this out ahead of time. Perhaps the US needs better Intel people!!!

I personally believe that Bush lied. You believe whatever you want (as I know you will).
I watched Bush on TV tell me (the American public) that Iraq had Weapons of mass Destruction and that it was Imperative that we go in and stop him NOW. He even belched his lies to congress to get their support and to the UN.
I also saw him on an Aircraft carrier stating that
the "Mission was Accomplished". . (In a flight suit no less) wow, how symbolic!...
So I ask, If there were these WMD,(the reason for going to war)...Where are they??? Did the Military find and lose them? Are you saying that it's the miltarys fault we can't see them?? I say, they were NOT there and Bush knew it. If you disagree, then Prove me wrong and tell me where they are!!
Otherwise, admit that Bushwacker LIED!!!
IF the "Mission is Accomplished"? Then why are we still there??

The "Mission" is not accomplished and I'm afraid it might never be.
Those are just two of many examples where I see the President lied! Perhaps I need to list more and more and More and more......

If Bush had Bad intel, as you say, then he lied by mistake, but I have yet to see him on national TV admit to the American people that he Attacked a nation for the WRONG reasons.. Did I miss his apology on TV??? Or does he still believe his own Rhetoric???

Gordon

A Liberal Republican

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] ]If any one of you liberals have conclusive evidence that The President lied about going to Iraq, please post it. I would love to see it. Betcha can't.
We have been posting it you just don't want to believe it. #The additional downing street memos are pretty clear that Bush had plans to invade Iraq 9 months to a year before we did. #Meanwhile he was telling Congress and the American people how War would be a last resort. #And insinuating WMD's and ties to Bin Laden when he knew their were none. #Let's face it the man is a liar - heck he lied on National TV in the State of the Union about Social Security! #He lied about his arrest records until it came out. #

The "intelligence" excuse is ridiculous. #Who would invade the country on one persons word? #Well either an idiot or a person that liked what that informant said. #I believe Richard Clarke who was incredulous that Bush was planning on invading Iraq with no proof of WMD. #Bush had more intelligence that there was no WMD's and also had no links to AL Queida. #He just wanted to invade.

Concerning whether this is relevant, I think it is very important that we do not let our elected leaders lie, manipulate facts, and mislead us.

Bush should be impeached.

[N6WK]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 22 2005,05:16)]I think it is very important that we do not let our elected leaders lie, manipulate facts, and mislead us.

Bush should be impeached.
I also Agree.
Bush should be impeached!!

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] ]Concerning whether this is relevant, I think it is very important that we do not let our elected leaders lie, manipulate facts, and mislead us.

I agree, and if it is proven, I will be right along side of you.

Of course you held Clinton to the lying standard as well, right?

[N6WK]

Quote[/b] (ka5fap @ June 22 2005,05:20)]Of course you held Clinton to the lying standard as well, right?
Yes I did, And Nixon also. Did you?? with Reagan and North?

[W5MJL]

I did with Nixon, but not with Reagan.

[W8EFA]

The first Bush Administration cabinet meetings in January 2001, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill reported, focused on finding ways to attack Iraq. Later that year, Bush directed Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to begin considering military options for Saddam's removal. Even after being told by his intelligence analysts that 9/11 was the work of Al Qaida and not Iraq, Rumsfeld began badgering his intelligence crew to try to include Saddam Hussein in retaliation plans. Bush himself cornered anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke and strongly suggested that he find a way to include Saddam in the mix.


In March of 2002, Time Magazine reported that Bush told several senators visiting the White House: "F*** Saddam, we're taking him out."


In July of 2002, without going to Congress for permission, Bush took $700 million from funds Congress authorized for the Afghanistan war against Al Qaida/Taliban forces and diverted them to the coming Iraq War. Meanwhile, of course, Bush was telling the American people that he hadn't made up his mind about attacking Iraq.
In the second top-secret Downing Street Memo, released by the Times of London just a few days ago, the briefing paper for that Blair-Bush meeting of July 23, 2002, reveals that the British were worried about the illegality of the war action and that both the U.S. and Britain were anxious to find some legal excuse for their pending attack. They conceived of ways to lure Saddam Hussein into doing something belligerent that would make an attack more acceptable in the U.S. and U.N.; bombing runs by U.S. jets went on for months before the invasion, to try to provoke just such a response. But Saddam, aware of what game was being played, didn't react to the bait.

Blair and Bush tried another ruse at the United Nations: they believed Saddam would object to allowing U.N. weapons inspectors back in, and thus create a casus belli, but, surprise, the Iraqi leader said the inspectors could return. Their preliminary work indicated that there were no stockpiles of WMD.

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] ]In the second top-secret Downing Street Memo, released by the Times of London just a few days ago, the briefing paper for that Blair-Bush meeting of July 23, 2002, reveals that the British were worried about the illegality of the war action and that both the U.S. and Britain were anxious to find some legal excuse for their pending attack. They conceived of ways to lure Saddam Hussein into doing something belligerent that would make an attack more acceptable in the U.S. and U.N.; bombing runs by U.S. jets went on for months before the invasion, to try to provoke just such a response. But Saddam, aware of what game was being played, didn't react to the bait.


EFA, If the above part of your accusation turns out to be true, then I would agree bush needs to be impeached.

I have no problem with the UN action by bush and blair. #It was over 10 years of non-compliance. #It was a reasonable request.

I also have no problem with preparing for war with your enemies. It's done all of the time. Preparing for war, and forcing a war are two different things.

[kc7flr]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ June 20 2005,10:51)]Saddam like most Iraquis considered Israeli to be a colony of the U.S.A.
Thus war with the U.S. was tantamount to war with Israel.
Israel only stayed out of the actual war because the U.S. had asked them not to help directly.
During the Gulf War Saddam sent missiles to Israel. #He did so because of the war and because he had said he would do so if attacked. #He believed that he could avoid a war by saying he would attack Israel if attacked by the U.S. # Obviously that didn't stop the U.S. from taking Iraq. #Luckly the Iraqui missiles did not kill many people in Israel.

Saddam's plan to kill Bush Sr. was also during the Gulf war. #That is what wars are all about. #If the U.S. could have killed Saddam during the Gulf war don't you think we would have? # I admit that there are international rules that prevent deliberately killing foreign leaders but those rules can't apply during war conditions. #There were known plots to try to kill Hitler during WW2. #There were suspected plots to kill Cuba's Castro without declaring war. # Plots happen.

w2ilp (Illegal Lost Plots?)
Why do you find it necessary to defend Saddam? You keep making excuses for him. That is rather curious.

Saddam's plan to kill George H. W. Bush was *AFTER* the first gulf war. It was during GHW Bush's visit to the middle East well after Desert Storm was over.

[W8EFA]

Sorry, #I wanted to add more "evidence",. #I think there is just too much evidence now that Bush was intending to invade Iraq long before we actually did. Where there is smoke there is fire.

I agree with the U.N. action also. But it is a fact that we had inspectors searching for WMD's and the had full access. When we pulled them out I knew something was not right, why not let them find them if they were there?

[W5MJL]

That's ok, I changed my post to reflect what parts I agree with you on.

[W5MJL]

And btw, I am on record somewhere on this board that I believe George Bush used Sept 11 to help justify the war in Iraq. #I don't see anything wrong with that, unless of course it was all pre-planned BEFORE sept 11th.

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] (kc7flr @ June 21 2005,23:37)]Why do you find it necessary to defend Saddam? You keep making excuses for him. That is rather curious.

Saddam's plan to kill George H. W. Bush was *AFTER* the first gulf war. It was during GHW Bush's visit to the middle East well after Desert Storm was over.
You are correct. Bush was already out of office and it was during the Clinton administration.

[W8EFA]

What is really irritating is after we did invade we had no plan. Even invading for the wrong reasons we could have possibly stabilized the Government.

However this administration in their incredible arrogance completely botched it.

Rumsfeld with no military experience insisted on a lightning run to Baghdad. The military wanted to secure occupied territory and munitions as we advanced. Later we are getting fired at with Ammo we passed by months before and didn't secure because we didn't have the manpower.

The Military said we didn't have enough troops, Rumsfeld refused to listen.

the state department advised we had to not let the looting happen, this administration refused to try.

The state department advised to conscript the Iraqui troops - we sent them all home, now we are trying to get them back.

The British we know now obviously warned us we had no plan for the afftermath of the removal of Sadaam, again Bush refused to listen and believed we would be welcomed with open arms.

[W5MJL]

ILP?

This is at least the second or third time you have had gross misinformation in your posts. Please try and be more accurate when you are making an argument.

[W5MJL]

LOL, just when we were agreeing you had to post that. It was a great military campaign with minimal casualties, and done in a very short period of time.

[W8EFA]

Consider this:
In June (2002), a floppy disk found near the White House turned out to contain a presentation used by Karl Rove on White House strategy for the midterm elections. Focus on war was a key point in a talk that centered on the White House's desire to, quote, "maintain a positive issue environment." Around this time, Rove was criticized for telling a Republican group that the war and terror themes could play to the GOP's advantage in the November elections. Not long after, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card was asked why the administration waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action against Iraq. Card replied, `From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.'"

[W5MJL]

That was still done after Sept 11. #I have no problem with any plans done after september 11th. #I have no problems with selling the war. #I don't even have a problem with invading with no public support. #I do have a problem with lying to the public.

I also have a probem with trying to provoke a war and make it look like the other guy started it.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] (ka5fap @ June 21 2005,22:02)]LOL, just when we were agreeing you had to post that. #It was a great military campaign with minimal casualties, and done in a very short period of time.
Well one agreement is better than none. There was a graet PBS special on the first Iraq war I believe it was called the Killing Fields. It is a real eye opener about how at the time we had no idea how we would fare in the war. If you remember Iraq had the 3rd most powerful military in the world. The documentary documents very very well how absolutely superior our technology was.

It also documents how there was really nothing left of his army after that. You call the incvasion a great military exercise when it was like sjhooting fish in a barrel. U.S. Tanks against 20 year old Toyota pick-up trucks? I hear U.s. soldiers being interviewed who actually felt sorry for them because they had absolutely no chance.

No I disagree what we should have been planning for is what the plan was after we toppled his rag-tag forces.

[kc7flr]

Quote[/b] (ka5fap @ June 21 2005,17:21)]Quote[/b] ] Now that we have Saddam in prison we see that he is not a religious man.
How many people do you know that are not religious that pray 5 times a day?

Quote[/b] ]Nobody kills themselves just because they don't like how people live on another continent

You actually expect people who kill themselves for any reason to have LOGIC?
Saddam was a member of the Ba'athist party, but he was and is still a Muslim. He prays 5 times a day facing Mecca.

Osama bin Laden and most other muslim terrorists want to establish a worldwide Kalifate (a theocracy based on Islam) and they see the US as a major obstacle in the way. They hate us because of the freedom we represent.

The terrorists who flew those planes into the WTC and the Pentagon lived here only to carry out their plan. They hated us as much as does bin Laden. For anyone to make the claim that they didn't hate us would have to be either naiive beyond belief or blind.

[W5MJL]

I think we were so surprised how little they had and how easy it was. We had no clue the war would be over so quick. I also think we were surprised that he did not use chemical weapons.

That is why I don't believe George lied about WMD. We were so overly prepared for chemical and biological weapons when we went in.

[kc7flr]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 21 2005,21:43)]Sorry, #I wanted to add more "evidence",. #I think there is just too much evidence now that Bush was intending to invade Iraq long before we actually did. Where there is smoke there is fire.

I agree with the U.N. action also. #But it is a fact that we had inspectors searching for WMD's and the had full access. #When we pulled them out I knew something was not right, why not let them find them if they were there?
Regardless of what Hans Blix might say, the UN inspectors did not have full access to search for weapons. They had to wait for Saddam's people to "get ready" for their visit before being allowed to search.

To say otherwise is to ignore the facts.

[w5klb]

Quote[/b] (N6WK @ June 21 2005,21:14)]
Are you referring to the guy that was later found out to be a crook??
Yes

Quote[/b] ]Nice of our intel to not figure this out ahead of time. #Perhaps the US needs better Intel people!!!

You got that right.

Quote[/b] ]I personally believe that Bush lied.
And your proof is...? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #
Quote[/b] ]You believe whatever you want (as I know you will).
No, I just base my beliefs on the facts.
Quote[/b] ] I watched Bush on TV tell me (the American public) that Iraq had Weapons of mass Destruction and that it was Imperative that we go in and stop him NOW. He even belched his lies to congress to get their support and to the UN.

Once again, bad intellegance does not mean Bush is a liar. You have proven my point. There is not one shred of evidence back this up. You don't have proof.
Quote[/b] ] I also saw him on an Aircraft carrier stating that
the "Mission was Accomplished". #. (In a flight suit no less) wow, how symbolic!...
And once we peel that onion back, your going to find that it wasn't Bush's idea to put that sign up. Talk to the skipper of that carrier. It was his idea. The President had no idea that sign would be there.

Quote[/b] ]So I ask, If there were these WMD,(the reason for going to war)...Where are they???
I dunno. Why don't you asked that Iraqi "crook" that you mentioned? He's the one that said they were there. Our intellegance people was trusting this "crook" and our President was trusting our intellegance people. If you accuse someone of being a "liar" Gordon, make sure you point that finger at the right person. Don't point it at the President because your liberal friends tell you that's "right" thing to do.

Quote[/b] ]Did the Military find and lose them? #Are you saying that it's the miltarys fault we can't see them??

We did find one. But he's is currently in jail awaiting his fate.
Quote[/b] ]I say, they were NOT there and Bush knew it. If you disagree, then Prove #me wrong and tell me where they are!!
Why don't ask that Iraqi "crook"? He is the one that lied, not the President.
Quote[/b] ]Otherwise, admit that Bushwacker LIED!!!
Why would I admit this? It's you and your liberal/socialist friends who are saying The President lied. But once again you have no proof. NO ONE DOES.

Quote[/b] ]IF the "Mission is #Accomplished"? #Then why are we still there??
Once again, your posing this question to the wrong person. Why don't you ask the Iraqi people. There not hard to spot. Just look for the inked index finger from last FREE election they had, courtesy of our US Military (bless you guys and gals).

Quote[/b] ]The "Mission" is not accomplished and I'm afraid it might never be.
Experts agree that we will only be there, at the most, two more years.#
Quote[/b] ]Those are just two of many examples where I see the President lied! #Perhaps I need to list more and more and More and more......
You have proven NOTHING. All we got was rhetoric with no hard evidence. You just keep proving my point. Thank you.

Quote[/b] ]If Bush had Bad intel, as you say, then he lied by mistake,...
How did he do that? Either he lied as you say (you have no proof-see above) or he didn't. You can't have it both ways.
Quote[/b] ]... but I have yet to see him on national TV admit to the American people that he Attacked a nation for the WRONG reasons..
You couldn't convince any Iraqi of this. Even *IF* we went there for the "WRONG reasons", we still got rid of a evil dictator. Do you honestly think they want him freed from jail so he can kill MORE of his people? I don't think so.

See? No Proof. When you get some HARD evidence that Bush lied, which so far you have failed to do, post them. Or write your Congressman. I am very sure that the liberal Congressmen would just LOVE to hear your "evidence" so they can start Impeachment Proceedings... yeah right <snicker>

[kc7flr]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 21 2005,21:59)]What is really irritating is after we did invade we had no plan. #Even invading for the wrong reasons we could have possibly stabilized the Government.

However this administration in their incredible arrogance completely botched it.

Rumsfeld with no military experience insisted on a lightning run to Baghdad. #The military wanted to secure occupied territory and munitions as we advanced. #Later we are getting fired at with Ammo we passed by months before and didn't secure because we didn't have the manpower.

The Military said we didn't have enough troops, Rumsfeld refused to listen.

the state department advised we had to not let the looting happen, this administration refused to try.

The state department advised to conscript the Iraqui troops - we sent them all home, now we are trying to get them back.

The British we know now obviously warned us we had no plan for the afftermath of the removal of Sadaam, again Bush refused to listen and believed we would be welcomed with open arms.
That is all a bunch of bunk! Rumsfeldt didn't come up with the plan by himself. He had the Pentagon come up with the plan. It was the very military leaders you say wanted more troops that came up with the plan.

No Secretary of Defense is going to make plans for war on his own regardless of his military experience.

You don't go into war with a country whose leader is a despot like Saddam and merely try to "stabilize the government." The entire government of Iraq was corrupt.

Just how did did they "botch" the war with Iraq?

When asked for a plan, the Pentagon will give a complete plan from the first shot to pulling the last military person from theater. If they don't, they are usually sent back to complete the plan. This war with Saddam's Iraq is no different.

There were literally thousands of ammunition stockpiles throughout Iraq. No one had any idea just how many such stockpiles there were. They had school buildings full of ammunition. They had underground bunkers full of ammo. Our troops didn't pass by and leave known stockpiles unsecured. That would be idiocy. No military could win a war if they did that. It was the unknown stockpiles that were being used by insurgents.

Not once has anyone in command said that we should have had more troops in theater. Not once.

How is the administration going to let looting happen?

Are you saying that Bush gave all the orders to the troops as they went forward?

We have been welcomed with open arms by the majority of Iraqis. How do you explain all the happy Iraqis leaving the polls in January with ink-stained fingers?

[kf4vgx]

Quote[/b] (ka5fap @ June 21 2005,22:00)]ILP? #

This is at least the second or third time you have had gross misinformation in your posts. #Please try and be more accurate when you are making an argument.
Your complaining about his post when you post crap like this ,and quote KA5FAP,


"I take my Hairy Toes wherever I go. It hasn't done much for amateur radio though."

Perhaps you need to complain about your Hairy toes to the dentist http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif .

[W5MJL]

Is there a connection here I am supposed to see?

What's the matter Johnny, are you disappointed no one voted in your little poll to ban me for personal attacks?

No wonder people tape your conversations over echoclink.

[kf4vgx]

Quote[/b] (ka5fap @ June 22 2005,05:42)]Is there a connection here I am supposed to see?
Not really. #you would miss the connection #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif .

Please don't complain about my being off " TOPIC"

As you are quite often.

[W5MJL]

I'm sorry but you are still on different wavelength than I am. You are making no sense whatsoever. Maybe you just spend too much time on echoclink, and you don't know what a REAL wavelength is anymore.

[kf4vgx]

Quote[/b] (ka5fap @ June 22 2005,05:54)]I'm sorry but you are still on different wavelength than I am. #.
Definitely on a different * plane* than you are http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .
And I am certainly Happy about that.

[W5MJL]

<span style='font-size:16pt;line-height:100%'>ME TOO!!!!</span>

[W5MJL]

Let's think about this. You compare my Hairy Toes comment in the &quot;bring your ht to work day&quot; thread with someone giving misinformation in a political thread.

Hmmm. Let's find the connection. One is a person giving the wrong information in a thread to prove a point and the other is making light of the term HT. Oh yeah, wow, they are so similar. I could certainly understand how someone could think the two are similar. Of course I would have to be on drugs, but yeah, I see the connection.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] (kc7flr @ June 21 2005,22:22)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 21 2005,21:43)]Sorry, #I wanted to add more &quot;evidence&quot;,. #I think there is just too much evidence now that Bush was intending to invade Iraq long before we actually did. Where there is smoke there is fire.

I agree with the U.N. action also. #But it is a fact that we had inspectors searching for WMD's and the had full access. #When we pulled them out I knew something was not right, why not let them find them if they were there?
Regardless of what Hans Blix might say, the UN inspectors did not have full access to search for weapons. They had to wait for Saddam's people to &quot;get ready&quot; for their visit before being allowed to search.

To say otherwise is to ignore the facts.
You better look at the facts again as you are mistaking previous searches with the last 3 month search which was ended by pulling them out before we invaded.

Sadaam to the surprise of many backed down after Bush threatened invasion and allowed them back in and allowed multiple teams full unnanounced, unimpeded acces to any facility.


Quote[/b] ]In fact, after three months' intensive work, the U.N. teams are looking ahead to ending their current investigative phase, and moving on to long-term monitoring via electronic &quot;eyes and ears.&quot; Such a system could rein in missile development for years, experts say.

after three months of unfettered U.N. access in Iraq, no signs have been reported of &quot;up to a few dozen&quot; longer-range Scud missiles the U.S. and British intelligence reports speculated were illegally hidden by the Baghdad regime. Those reports contended, without offering evidence, that the Iraqis saved some of the imported, Soviet-made missiles from U.N. destruction in the 1990s.

Along those lines, in February alone the U.N. inspectors have paid at least a half-dozen surprise visits to installations making guidance-and-control systems. They're also inspecting sites where unmanned aircraft are developed.



AP Article (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0227nomissiles.htm)

[KE7DFP]

No talking about Ham Radio!!! You are off topic!!!!! This is not the place for those kind of Discussions.!!!!! What? Echo link? oh,.....OK

[KE7DFP]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 22 2005,09:00)]Quote[/b] (kc7flr @ June 21 2005,22:22)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 21 2005,21:43)]Sorry, #I wanted to add more &quot;evidence&quot;,. #I think there is just too much evidence now that Bush was intending to invade Iraq long before we actually did. Where there is smoke there is fire.

I agree with the U.N. action also. #But it is a fact that we had inspectors searching for WMD's and the had full access. #When we pulled them out I knew something was not right, why not let them find them if they were there?
Regardless of what Hans Blix might say, the UN inspectors did not have full access to search for weapons. They had to wait for Saddam's people to &quot;get ready&quot; for their visit before being allowed to search.

To say otherwise is to ignore the facts.
You better look at the facts again as you are mistaking previous searches with the last 3 month search which was ended by pulling them out before we invaded.

Sadaam to the surprise of many backed down after Bush threatened invasion and allowed them back in and allowed multiple teams full unnanounced, unimpeded acces to any facility.


Quote[/b] ]In fact, after three months' intensive work, the U.N. teams are looking ahead to ending their current investigative phase, and moving on to long-term monitoring via electronic &quot;eyes and ears.&quot; Such a system could rein in missile development for years, experts say.

after three months of unfettered U.N. access in Iraq, no signs have been reported of &quot;up to a few dozen&quot; longer-range Scud missiles the U.S. and British intelligence reports speculated were illegally hidden by the Baghdad regime. Those reports contended, without offering evidence, that the Iraqis saved some of the imported, Soviet-made missiles from U.N. destruction in the 1990s.

Along those lines, in February alone the U.N. inspectors have paid at least a half-dozen surprise visits to installations making guidance-and-control systems. They're also inspecting sites where unmanned aircraft are developed.



AP Article (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0227nomissiles.htm)
There weren't inspecting squat, EFA, it was a ridiculous facade and the whole world knows it. They never once gave unfettered go-anywhere-you-want inspections. Therefore, they were non inspections.

[W5MJL]

According to the &quot;take your ht to work&quot; thread he gets pleasure out of inviting otters into amateur radio. I think that is very noble.

[k6bbc]

I give up. Why?

[W5MJL]

Maybe he likes things that are fury with webbed feet.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] ]There weren't inspecting squat, EFA, it was a ridiculous facade and the whole world knows it. They never once gave unfettered go-anywhere-you-want inspections. Therefore, they were non inspections
Just because you say it doesn't make it so DFP. I just posted quite a bit of material that illustrates that Iraq was complying. Can you post any bit of evidence that they were not complying?

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 22 2005,12:16)]Quote[/b] ]There weren't inspecting squat, EFA, it was a ridiculous facade and the whole world knows it. #They never once gave unfettered go-anywhere-you-want inspections. #Therefore, they were non inspections
Just because you say it doesn't make it so DFP. #I just posted quite a bit of material that illustrates that Iraq was complying. #Can you post any bit of evidence that they were not complying?
I can post there was no compliance right before the war began.

Quote[/b] ]ElBaradei faulted Iraq for &quot;the opaque nature of that Saddam Hussein regime.&quot;

&quot;We should not forget that,&quot; he said. &quot;For a couple of months, their cooperation was not by any way transparent, for whatever reason.&quot;

This was right before we attacked.

here is the link

link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/)

[W5MJL]

You also have to remember that UN inspectors were kicked out of the country for 4 years. #Who knows what has gone on for 4 years.

We should have attacked him when he kicked out the inspectors. #The agreement of the gulf war was to allow for inspectors. #He signed it, and he had no right to kick these inspectors out.

The friggin UN is such a weak organization that they could not even muster anything to combat a 4 year problem. #IT WAS A CAT AND MOUSE GAME.

Sadaam only allowed inspectors in when he &quot;got wind&quot; that we might attack. #He had plenty of time to move and hide weapons.

[KE7DFP]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 22 2005,10:16)]Quote[/b] ]There weren't inspecting squat, EFA, it was a ridiculous facade and the whole world knows it. #They never once gave unfettered go-anywhere-you-want inspections. #Therefore, they were non inspections
Just because you say it doesn't make it so DFP. #I just posted quite a bit of material that illustrates that Iraq was complying. #Can you post any bit of evidence that they were not complying?
Don't have the time....we all lived the news everyday back then. I've never heard anyone even suggest that until I read a few posts here. I'll go back and read your posts.....73s I mean if your reading the events that way it's probally a waste of time to persuade you interpret it different.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] ] I can post there was no compliance right before the war began
here is the link

link


This is your link that you would reference to refute that inspections were not being fruitful? #You have got to be kidding me.

Your link's headlines are :
Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say
Blix, ElBaradei: U.S. ignored evidence against WMDs


The whole article proves my point. #The one line you took out:
ElBaradei faulted Iraq for &quot;the opaque nature of that Saddam Hussein regime.&quot;

Has nothing to do with WMD, Inspections, etc.

[W5MJL]

I knew you would love the link. Nevertheless, he did say that sadaam was 'NOT TRANSPARENT FOR TWO MONTHS&quot;. I used the link from CNN because that is the only thing you believe. You were the one who wanted the source, so I gave you YOUR SOURCE. I personally don't believe anything from the UN.......PERIOD.

[KE7DFP]

Just quickily, can you tell me if there were any palaces, underground bunker systems, or mosques, that were ever denied inspection ? Were we ever restricted by or forced to go only to, those places deemed apropriate by Iraqi escorts where we went? I'm not trying to argue here, I just thought this was a matter of record not even deserving the time to dispute.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] (KE7DFP @ June 22 2005,10:50)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 22 2005,10:16)]Quote[/b] ]There weren't inspecting squat, EFA, it was a ridiculous facade and the whole world knows it. #They never once gave unfettered go-anywhere-you-want inspections. #Therefore, they were non inspections
Just because you say it doesn't make it so DFP. #I just posted quite a bit of material that illustrates that Iraq was complying. #Can you post any bit of evidence that they were not complying?
Don't have the time....we all lived the news everyday back then. #I've never heard anyone even suggest that until I read a few posts here. I'll go back and read your posts.....73s I mean if your reading the events that way it's probally a waste of time to persuade you interpret it different.
Well those are the facts as I remember and as history has documented them. If the inspectors had not been allowed to do there jobs it would have possibly been justification for attack. However that was not the case unless someone can show evidence that we were not being allowed free access...I don't think you will find any because that is not what happened. Prove me wrong. All I see from the other side on this are opinions not backed by any facts.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] (ka5fap @ June 22 2005,10:56)]I knew you would love the link. #Nevertheless, he did say that sadaam was 'NOT TRANSPARENT FOR TWO MONTHS&quot;. #I used the link from CNN because that is the only thing you believe. You were the one who wanted the source, so I gave you YOUR SOURCE. # I personally don't believe anything from the UN.......PERIOD.
Yes I know you don't believe the U.N., or the French, or the Germans, or world opinion in general. #You believe Bush and whether he lied or not best case scenario is he was WRONG.

And again when you use a source that the headline and 95% of the Document outlines the opposing view... well let's just say I wouldn't sign up for the debate team if I were you. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 22 2005,13:00)]Well those are the facts as I remember and as history has documented them. #If the inspectors had not been allowed to do there jobs it would have possibly been justification for attack. #However that was not the case unless someone can show evidence that we were not being allowed free access...I don't think you will find any because that is not what happened. #Prove me wrong. All I see from the other side on this are opinions not backed by any facts.
Your facts are not facts. We even have taped communications that was brought before the UN by Colin Powell that showed communications about where to take the inspectors, and where to avoid taking the inspectors by Iraqui Officers.

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 22 2005,13:03)]Yes I know you don't believe the U.N., or the French, or the Germans, or world opinion in general. #You believe Bush and whether he lied or not best case scenario is he was WRONG.
Yes, I do believe MY government before I would believe the lowly french and germans who had everything to gain by us not attacking Iraq. My question is why don't you, other than the simple fact you hate bush.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] (ka5fap @ June 22 2005,11:04)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 22 2005,13:00)]Well those are the facts as I remember and as history has documented them. #If the inspectors had not been allowed to do there jobs it would have possibly been justification for attack. #However that was not the case unless someone can show evidence that we were not being allowed free access...I don't think you will find any because that is not what happened. #Prove me wrong. All I see from the other side on this are opinions not backed by any facts.
Your facts are not facts. #We even have taped communications that was brought before the UN by Colin Powell that showed communications about where to take the inspectors, and where to avoid taking the inspectors by Iraqui Officers.
Source? Once again you are talking about previous inspections. Read what the U.N. Inspectors reported, they chose where to visit. Please quote some proof

[KE7DFP]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 21 2005,22:04)]Consider this:
In June (2002), a floppy disk found near the White House turned out to contain a presentation used by Karl Rove on White House strategy for the midterm elections. Focus on war was a key point in a talk that centered on the White House's desire to, quote, &quot;maintain a positive issue environment.&quot; Around this time, Rove was criticized for telling a Republican group that the war and terror themes could play to the GOP's advantage in the November elections. Not long after, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card was asked why the administration waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action against Iraq. Card replied, `From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.'&quot;
Before you inter that into evidence and paraphrase it for us, give us the disc to listen to. please document sourcing so we can admit it into evidnce as &quot;Carl Rove's&quot; plan. Document who is speaking on this alleged disc. Thirdly, just from what you've said I can only say, &quot;So?, that's all this is about?&quot;what's your point. Campaign strategies, deciding on issues platforms......I don't get what he did that isn't straight washington proceedure. Documentation and sourcing first please, before we spend time on the discussion. Heresay from anonymous sources is inadmissable.

[W8EFA]

Must be tough defending a known wrong position without any facts or logical analysis to back you up just undying faith. Believe what you want the evidence is there if you don't want to open your mind to it, fine, each to his own.

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 22 2005,13:08)]Quote[/b] (ka5fap @ June 22 2005,11:04)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 22 2005,13:00)]Well those are the facts as I remember and as history has documented them. #If the inspectors had not been allowed to do there jobs it would have possibly been justification for attack. #However that was not the case unless someone can show evidence that we were not being allowed free access...I don't think you will find any because that is not what happened. #Prove me wrong. All I see from the other side on this are opinions not backed by any facts.
Your facts are not facts. #We even have taped communications that was brought before the UN by Colin Powell that showed communications about where to take the inspectors, and where to avoid taking the inspectors by Iraqui Officers.
Source? #Once again you are talking about previous inspections. Read what the U.N. Inspectors reported, #they chose where to visit. #Please quote some proof
Man, I cannot believe this. DO SOME RESEARCH. The inspectors had to submit where they were going. There were NO SURPRISE INSPECTIONS.

They didn't just get into a car and go where they wanted to go. They were driven by Iraqi officers.

Now that is kind of like you getting into a cab. I ask, where do you want to go, and you tell me BEFORE I LEAVE. DON'T YOU THINK RADIOS ARE FASTER THAN CARS?

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 22 2005,13:12)]Must be tough defending a known wrong position without any facts or logical analysis to back you up just undying faith. #Believe what you want the evidence is there if you don't want to open your mind to it, fine, each to his own.
You have no facts as well. You only have speculation. If the facts are there than justice will be done. It is not a forgone conclusion, but in your eyes it is. That is a pity.

As I said before, it is sad when we care more about what is going on at gitmo and the treatment of terrorists, then we care about our own country and president.

[KE7DFP]

Hello......Presidents are suppose to plan for likely plans of actions on multitudes of future scenarios. Is that what your accussing him of. ? Ah...... there suppose to be able to pull money for emergencies where needed for emergency needs. By the way , that account was refilled days later. Saw the PBS film and they only spun a little on the soldiers they told to interview. It came off so smooth because we were so good. Scwhartzkopf played it beautifully and really did a fine job. It was not a cake walk, we made it a cake walk. We cold have had massive casualties. Was itcalled &quot;Inside the Kill Box?&quot;

[KE7DFP]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 22 2005,11:12)]Must be tough defending a known wrong position without any facts or logical analysis to back you up just undying faith. #Believe what you want the evidence is there if you don't want to open your mind to it, fine, each to his own.
Then enter it into evidence in this court room, sir. Until it has been established as such, the jury is instructed to disregard all remarks made by this witnes, your honor.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] (ka5fap @ June 22 2005,11:19)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 22 2005,13:12)]Must be tough defending a known wrong position without any facts or logical analysis to back you up just undying faith. #Believe what you want the evidence is there if you don't want to open your mind to it, fine, each to his own.
You have no facts as well. You only have speculation. #If the facts are there than justice will be done. #It is not a forgone conclusion, but in your eyes it is. #That is a pity. #

As I said before, it is sad when we care more about what is going on at gitmo and the treatment of terrorists, then we care about our own country and president.
All I can say is I have posted source after source to back up what I say. I never get a source back from you guys (besides the one you linked that proved my point). It is just rhetoric on your part just cant't debate feelings so I will leave it at that.

See ya

[W5MJL]

EFA, I showed that I HAVE AN OPEN MIND, by saying if you are right about the president PURPOSELY trying to deceive the American public by lying, I will support his impeachment.

You have shown, that YOUR MIND IS TOTALLY CLOSED, because you take all negative reports as FACTS. Our reports are hearsay, and your reports are FACTS. There is no proof who is correct at this time.

You have convicted the president with absolutely no substantiated proof. You want impeachment with absolutely no substantiated proof.

You are acting more like a lynch mob, than a debater.

[KE7DFP]

EFA-- Just send us the conspiracy blog and cut out the middle man. We'll just go read it ourselfs. ......EFA.....Is there a blog?.... you don't have a little stuart smalley sitting on your shoulder do you?...whispering little things......Look, i don't care, if you got something big, something that's really worth griping about , let's have it. Otherwise let's all go do something constructive. Besides, I've sworn off politics. Waste of time. This stuffs long over.

[KE7DFP]

EFA-- Just send us the conspiracy blog and cut out the middle man. #We'll just go read it ourselfs. #......EFA.....Is there a blog?.... #you don't have a little stuart smalley sitting on your shoulder do you?...whispering little things......Look, i don't care, if you got something big, something that's really worth griping about , let's have it. #Otherwise let's all go do something constructive. # Besides, I've sworn off politics. #Waste of time. #This stuffs long over.

[KE7DFP]

If they had the popular support of the Iraqi people, they wouldn't have to bomb hospitals, charities, civilians by the truckloads, police, judges, their own oil , electrical lines, sewage systems, hotels, ambulances. Rape children, cut off the breasts of grandmothers, Deliberately target airconditioning systems in summertime. Make old, helpless, charity worker women, plead tearfully and beg for their lives terrified in front of TV cameras. Poison food stocks, rob their own banks. Rape families daughters and sons as warnings, put people through woodchippers, lock them in semi tuck containers in the hot desert sun. Say Allah Willing as they saw heads off.......... and you say ...... Carl Rove did WHAT !!!!!..... someone claims there was a floppy disc on the white house lawn.........don't you see how sinister it all is...... we better get right on this!!

[kc7jty]

The war in Iraq is a good thing. The Bush supporters (&quot;stay the course, the Iraqi people must be free&quot;) are over there in greater numbers than the average GI.
Its a good chance to thin their herd. Maybe another 3 years or better of it? Halliburton &amp; subsidiary Kellogg, Brown, and Root are happy as hell.....I might as well be too.

[kc7flr]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 22 2005,09:00)]Quote[/b] (kc7flr @ June 21 2005,22:22)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 21 2005,21:43)]Sorry, #I wanted to add more &quot;evidence&quot;,. #I think there is just too much evidence now that Bush was intending to invade Iraq long before we actually did. Where there is smoke there is fire.

I agree with the U.N. action also. #But it is a fact that we had inspectors searching for WMD's and the had full access. #When we pulled them out I knew something was not right, why not let them find them if they were there?
Regardless of what Hans Blix might say, the UN inspectors did not have full access to search for weapons. They had to wait for Saddam's people to &quot;get ready&quot; for their visit before being allowed to search.

To say otherwise is to ignore the facts.
You better look at the facts again as you are mistaking previous searches with the last 3 month search which was ended by pulling them out before we invaded.

&quot;We&quot; pulled no one out. They left on their own. All Blix did was make excuse after excuse for why Saddam was #interfering with them. He wouldn't allow them to show up whereever they wished. He insisted that they have his people drive them around.

I HAVE looked at the facts. It appears you haven't.

Quote[/b] ]
Sadaam to the surprise of many backed down after Bush threatened invasion and allowed them back in and allowed multiple teams full unnanounced, unimpeded acces to any facility.

Nonsense! Saddam would only give them a list of facilities he knew were clean.


Quote[/b] ]In fact, after three months' intensive work, the U.N. teams are looking ahead to ending their current investigative phase, and moving on to long-term monitoring via electronic &quot;eyes and ears.&quot; Such a system could rein in missile development for years, experts say.


Rediculous!

Quote[/b] ]
after three months of unfettered U.N. access in Iraq, no signs have been reported of &quot;up to a few dozen&quot; longer-range Scud missiles the U.S. and British intelligence reports speculated were illegally hidden by the Baghdad regime. Those reports contended, without offering evidence, that the Iraqis saved some of the imported, Soviet-made missiles from U.N. destruction in the 1990s.


Where on earth do you get the idea that they had &quot;three months of unfettered... access?&quot; That assertion is based on total fantasy!

They found missles and warheads AFTER the main fighting was over long after the inspectors had been there.

Quote[/b] ]
Along those lines, in February alone the U.N. inspectors have paid at least a half-dozen surprise visits to installations making guidance-and-control systems. They're also inspecting sites where unmanned aircraft are developed.

Total nonsense. They made no &quot;surprise visits.&quot; Saddam wouldn't let them. He had to know where they were to visit 24 hours ahead of time. It was HIS people who drove the inspectors around. How on earth could that be a surprise?

Quote[/b] ]
AP Article (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0227nomissiles.htm)

Who the heck is &quot;global policy?&quot;

Ed

[kc7flr]

Quote[/b] (ka5fap @ June 22 2005,09:58)]According to the &quot;take your ht to work&quot; thread he gets pleasure out of inviting otters into amateur radio. #I think that is very noble.
We need more otters in amatuer radio. The more otters with HTs, the better, I say. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kc7flr]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 22 2005,11:12)]Must be tough defending a known wrong position without any facts or logical analysis to back you up just undying faith. #Believe what you want the evidence is there if you don't want to open your mind to it, fine, each to his own.
I wouldn't know, you tell me.

Ed

[N6WK]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ June 22 2005,06:29)]When you get some HARD evidence that Bush lied, post them.
Gary,
You and I are going to have to AGREE to Disagree about Bush and His Lying...
You don't believe he Lied. I do believe he Lied..

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] (kc7flr @ June 22 2005,19:11)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 22 2005,09:00)]Quote[/b] (kc7flr @ June 21 2005,22:22)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ June 21 2005,21:43)]Sorry, #I wanted to add more &quot;evidence&quot;,. #I think there is just too much evidence now that Bush was intending to invade Iraq long before we actually did. Where there is smoke there is fire.

I agree with the U.N. action also. #But it is a fact that we had inspectors searching for WMD's and the had full access. #When we pulled them out I knew something was not right, why not let them find them if they were there?
Regardless of what Hans Blix might say, the UN inspectors did not have full access to search for weapons. They had to wait for Saddam's people to &quot;get ready&quot; for their visit before being allowed to search.

To say otherwise is to ignore the facts.
You better look at the facts again as you are mistaking previous searches with the last 3 month search which was ended by pulling them out before we invaded.

&quot;We&quot; pulled no one out. They left on their own. All Blix did was make excuse after excuse for why Saddam was #interfering with them. He wouldn't allow them to show up whereever they wished. He insisted that they have his people drive them around.

I HAVE looked at the facts. It appears you haven't.

Quote[/b] ]
Sadaam to the surprise of many backed down after Bush threatened invasion and allowed them back in and allowed multiple teams full unnanounced, unimpeded acces to any facility.

Nonsense! Saddam would only give them a list of facilities he knew were clean.


Quote[/b] ]In fact, after three months' intensive work, the U.N. teams are looking ahead to ending their current investigative phase, and moving on to long-term monitoring via electronic &quot;eyes and ears.&quot; Such a system could rein in missile development for years, experts say.


Rediculous!

Quote[/b] ]
after three months of unfettered U.N. access in Iraq, no signs have been reported of &quot;up to a few dozen&quot; longer-range Scud missiles the U.S. and British intelligence reports speculated were illegally hidden by the Baghdad regime. Those reports contended, without offering evidence, that the Iraqis saved some of the imported, Soviet-made missiles from U.N. destruction in the 1990s.


Where on earth do you get the idea that they had &quot;three months of unfettered... access?&quot; That assertion is based on total fantasy!

They found missles and warheads AFTER the main fighting was over long after the inspectors had been there.

Quote[/b] ]
Along those lines, in February alone the U.N. inspectors have paid at least a half-dozen surprise visits to installations making guidance-and-control systems. They're also inspecting sites where unmanned aircraft are developed.

Total nonsense. They made no &quot;surprise visits.&quot; Saddam wouldn't let them. He had to know where they were to visit 24 hours ahead of time. It was HIS people who drove the inspectors around. How on earth could that be a surprise?

Quote[/b] ]
AP Article (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0227nomissiles.htm)

Who the heck is &quot;global policy?&quot;

Ed
Your whole post is nonsense. I quoted AP articles, CNN and other major sources. All your statements are false.

Again claiming things without sources has no validity.

Can you reference any article, Interview, or any information from a credible source to back your views - NO

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (N6WK @ June 22 2005,20:20)]Quote[/b] (w5klb @ June 22 2005,06:29)]When you get some HARD evidence that Bush lied, post them.
Gary,
You and I are going to have to AGREE to Disagree about Bush and His Lying...
You don't believe he Lied. I do believe he Lied..
The truth is he span, I mean spun, no... spinned, spant?

Whatever, the spin was turned up so strong that it was essentially bearing false witness. I think he really expected to find WMD there. Hugely embarrassing to not find any.

That real problem is that there were four extremely hostile governments in a row, and we only took out every other one. If there ever were any WMDs, they probably went over the right or left border when our invasion started.

[w5klb]

Quote[/b] (N6WK @ June 22 2005,20:20)]Quote[/b] (w5klb @ June 22 2005,06:29)]When you get some HARD evidence that Bush lied, #post them.
Gary,
#You and I are going to have to AGREE to Disagree about Bush and His Lying...
You don't believe he Lied. #I do believe he Lied..
Gordon, our in-resident Liberal Republican

Fair enough. I'm just tired of people blaming everthing on Bush. Although he has not been blamed for the common cold, I feel that some will accuse him that also. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

You ought to know me well enough to understand that I RESPECT your opinion even if I don't agree with it OM.

[KA9VQF]

Quote[/b] ] {edited quote}Fair enough. I'm just tired of people blaming everthing on Bush. Although he has not been blamed for the common cold, I feel that some will accuse him that also.

This may be the same way I feel when the republicans blame everything on former President Clinton.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[w5klb]

Quote[/b] (KA9VQF @ June 22 2005,21:09)]Quote[/b] ] {edited quote}Fair enough. I'm just tired of people blaming everthing on Bush. Although he has not been blamed for the common cold, I feel that some will accuse him that also.

This may be the same way I feel when the republicans blame everything on former President Clinton.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Yes, but Klinton was impeached (though not convicted) and lied to an Arkansas Grand Jury. He lost his license to practice Law in Arkansas. &quot;...depends on what your definition of 'is' is&quot;. That's on record. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

However, we do not have ANY creditable evidence that The President lied to anyone. Some point to &quot;The Downing Street Memos&quot; as &quot;creditable&quot; source but it is a well known fact that the &quot;journalist&quot; who obtained these &quot;Memos&quot; destroyed the originals and may have done some &quot;editing&quot; on his own. No one here, including the liberal press on this side of the great pond, gives them any creedance. #

The liberals need to &quot;put up&quot; or &quot;shut up&quot; on this issue. &quot;Saber rattleling&quot; isn't going to cut it with me. Give me some hard facts. Let me look at them. I'll make up my mind from there. Until then, the liberals &quot;are up chocolate creek without a popsicle stick&quot;.

If what Gordon claims is true (which I seriously doubt), I may sign up to be a &quot;Liberal Republican&quot; myself. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N6WK]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ June 23 2005,04:59)]Quote[/b] (N6WK @ June 22 2005,20:20)]Quote[/b] (w5klb @ June 22 2005,06:29)]When you get some HARD evidence that Bush lied, post them.
Gary,
You and I are going to have to AGREE to Disagree about Bush and His Lying...
You don't believe he Lied. I do believe he Lied..
Gordon, our in-resident Liberal Republican

Fair enough. I'm just tired of people blaming everthing on Bush. Although he has not been blamed for the common cold, I feel that some will accuse him that also. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

You ought to know me well enough to understand that I RESPECT your opinion even if I don't agree with it OM.
Yes Gary, And I respect your Opinion also..
Are you sure the Common cold is NOT Bush's Fault??? I was sure he was to blame for that and the Flu also... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif Just kidding ya!

[N6WK]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ June 23 2005,05:36)]If what Gordon claims is true (which I seriously doubt), I may sign up to be a &quot;Liberal Republican&quot; myself. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Hold On there...Not just anyone can be a Liberal Republican.
You have to be ACCEPTED into this exclusive fraternity... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

You must speak to my Secretary of Offense... &quot;AL2I&quot;
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[w5klb]

I'll jot that down. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Note to self:
If I ever become a Liberal Republican, I will need to consume more Shiner.

[W2ILP]

Facts:

Prior to the present war with Iraq the U.S. received about 15% of its oil from Iraq. #Since then oil shipments have varied but are stll being received by the U.S.

What I mean when I talk about LOGIC is not your logic or my logic but the logic of the people I am talking about. #As a secular humanist I don't think any religion is entirely logical...but for a devout Muslim logic differs greatly from my logic or from the logic of any non-Muslim.

w2ilp (Igniting Logical Petrol)

[W5MJL]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ June 23 2005,16:28)]Facts:

Prior to the present war with Iraq the U.S. received about 15% of its oil from Iraq. #Since then oil shipments have varied but are stll being received by the U.S.

What I mean when I talk about LOGIC is not your logic or my logic but the logic of the people I am talking about. #As a secular humanist I don't think any religion is entirely logical...but for a devout Muslim logic differs greatly from my logic or from the logic of any non-Muslim.

w2ilp (Igniting Logical Petrol)
Dang ILP, there you go with more MISINFORMATION. #The US imports less than 5% of our imported oil consumption from Iraq. #And that is 5% of all the imported oil we purchase, it does not include our domestic production.

[W2ILP]

OK guys...

Here is a question for you (or should I stasrt it on a new thread)??

Do you think that Israel should have the right to have WMDs?

Why?

Why not?

Bob w2ilp (Israels Last Pacifier?)

[W5MJL]

Here is a link that shows we only import 5% of our oil from Iraq. #It also shows that we only purchase 25% of our imports from the Persian gulf.

This 5% number was also true in 2004, and 2005.

oil imports of the united states 2003 (http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm)

[W2ILP]

ka5fap,

I remember reading the 15%