Cindy Sheehan quits Anti-War movement

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by burlesontiger, May 29, 2007.

Page 6 of 8
  1. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    The dummies knew it, but foolishly disregarded it. They read the same newspapers that you and I do. None of this was a secret.
     
    red55, May 31, 2007
    #51
  2. TigerFan23

    TigerFan23 USMC Tiger

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    213
    Come on, Red, they also read the same classified daily reports that you and I don't. Is it completely out of this world that there could be some stuff that we just don't know (and possibly never will)?
     
    TigerFan23, May 31, 2007
    #52
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Sure. But enough was known to make us more wary and prudent about invading. And with George Tenet's book out and Colin Powell's still coming, it is increasingly apparent that much intelligence that went against the ideological line was ignored by the neo-cons. The generals book's make it evident that military advice from professional soldiers was ignored and generals that bucked the Rumsfeld line were sacked or threatened with same.

    Bush should have read his own father's book. There were better ways to deal with Iraq than invasion. The senior Bush knew this when he wisely decided not to invade Iraq in 1991 when we had a 500,000-man army on the ground.

    In his his 1997 memoir "A World Transformed" he said, "Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs... . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ... there was no viable 'exit strategy'. Had we gone the invasion route, The United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
     
    red55, May 31, 2007
    #53
  4. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    You are assuming and have no proof of any of this prior to the invasion of Iraq but it goes perfectly with your agenda.
    The whole problem here is that we warn any country before invading and give them 6 months to prepare for an invasion.
    Saddam's Iraq had a track record of WMD's and also had a track record of hiding and sending weapons to other countries similar to their air force during the 91 gulf war.

    EDIT:Everyone's intelligence said the same thing and I'm smart enough to know that everyone's intelligence couldn't have been wrong.
    I know you will never admit any of this because it doesn't serve your purpose.
     
    Sourdoughman, May 31, 2007
    #54
    1 person likes this.
  5. fanatic

    fanatic Habitual Line Stepper

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    13,667
    Likes Received:
    6,015
    The only problem I have with this all go back to my previous arguments. Regardless of Hussein's track record, Iraq shouldn't have been our focus at the time. Provide those same resources the Iraq now has to Afghanistan. Promote foreign policy and try to instill democracy in the country actually harboring the 9/11 terrorists. In my opinion, the transition would still be a monumental task, but at least we wouldn't be caught in the middle of the Sunni, Shia, Kurd civil war.
     
    fanatic, May 31, 2007
    #55
  6. houtiger

    houtiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    Messages:
    4,287
    Likes Received:
    390
    Our intelligence very clearly WAS WRONG. This is how it got to be wrong.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5403731

    This is from the Senate Select Committee on Iraq pre-war WMD Intelligence. There are over 100 conclusions, with the biggest errors listed first.

    We just blew it, and now we can look back and see how we blew it. Saddam had no WMD. The Kay report and the Dulfer report post war both confirm he had no WMD, and that was after 18 months of searching every nook and cranny. They did find a few old nerve gas shell from pre 1991, that the Iraqi's must have lost. They were still dangerous, but not as weapons.
     
    houtiger, May 31, 2007
    #56
    1 person likes this.
  7. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    Give it up.
    If our intelligence was wrong then so was the Brits and everyone else.
    I just don't buy it and especially anything from MSNBC or CNN.:yelwink2:
    That isn't a creditable source since certain people in this forum don't approve
    of my Fox News source.:yelwink2:

    One more thing, I am very skeptical of what any politicians say much less
    a committee of them.
    Take the Iraq commission who wants us to talk to Iran, a country that denies
    the holocaust and has said several times that he wants to wipe out a country.
    I certainly don't like politicians or committees, they are full of **** and don't
    fix important issues like social security, they would rather investigate each
    other or sports, much less important issues and prolong the important ones.

    Fanatic,
    I understand where you are coming from but I would say that the more I have
    thought about it the more I realize we would've went into Iraq sooner or later.
    I think it would've had to happen sometime, I go back and forth on this one
    honestly, part of me wishes we never would've went in the first place.
    Especially if certain powers that be makes sure we don't win.
    We can think both parties for the lack of military and equipment for downsizing after the cold war, history repeats itself once again, we did the
    same thing after WWII I believe.
    I also agree that we should've stayed in Afghanistan and then marched into Pakistan first before going anywhere else.
     
    Sourdoughman, May 31, 2007
    #57
  8. houtiger

    houtiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    Messages:
    4,287
    Likes Received:
    390
    MSNBC only quoted the senate report verbatim, here is the report from the senate in 2004 (republican control era).
    http://intelligence.senate.gov/108301.pdf Start on page 14.

    Can you show a creditable source that shows Iraq possessed WMD in 2003 when we invaded?

    Bush's appointed inspectors, Kay and Dulfer couldn't find them, and the republican controlled senate found out why our intelligence was wrong. With Bush's ratings in the toilet, don't you think if they had any shred of a WMD they'd have pulled it out to try and hold on to congress in the 2006 mid term elections? Give it up, there were no WMD. Or show a creditable source.

    The Brits intell was wrong also. They have canned Tony Blair for it.
     
    houtiger, May 31, 2007
    #58
  9. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    Just because a committee of politicians say so doesn't make it so.
    Read my post above about committee and politicians, I don't care which side they are on.

    I don't see any credible source saying they didn't have them besides we did know he had some older ones that were never destroyed, hmmm.
    If some older ones were never destroyed then maybe their is a chance a few new ones could be floating out there somewhere.

    Kay and Dulfer didn't have access to all of Iraq before the war.

    Who cares about ratings? It isn't all about WMD either, immigration and
    border security, I am one of these...
    What is the ratings of Congress? people only point to the president?:confused:
    I'm not saying anyone is hiding information.
    It took us 3 years to find Saddam in a rat hole it may take longer to find WMD.
    Keep in mind that I don't care if they had them or not, we are there.
    I was pointing out that Red had no 100% proof that he didn't have WMD.
    Matter of fact Red flat out lied when he said that Saddam didn't have them because WMD was found even though they were old.
    Maybe Saddam didn't have new WMD? I don't know but with his track record
    of hide and seek or sending his airplanes to Syria who knows the truth?

    I thought he resigned?

    One more thing about Red's post.
    I love it how he makes George Tenot he savior because of this book but he is part of the problem and the reason 9/11 happened.
    But its ok if he failed and got canned as long as he bashes his former supervisor!:yelwink2:
     
    Sourdoughman, Jun 1, 2007
    #59
  10. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001528.html

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
    I hate MSNBC but I included this one for you!
    My take is that there are conflicting reports but I see more evidence they were there but NO ONE should be saying there were NO WMD in Iraq.
    That is flat out wrong!
     
    Sourdoughman, Jun 1, 2007
    #60
Page 6 of 8

Share This Page