O.T. from Afganistan

Page 2 of 6  
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:16:03 -0800, mp wrote:

As well as all these other liars:
"There is no doubt that. Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
--
-Doug


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
no no no no no no no!
Facts and history have no place in this argument. It makes it too difficult to try to discredit the current effort when it is clear that anyone else in power would to exactly the same thing (or at least try to).
Some additional people agreeing with our current administration -
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~fketchum/images/iraq_wmd_oct98.jpg
Isn't it odd that the mainstream media can't seem to report these sorts of thing?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So what you are saying is that these people should have known better than to trust the word of a dishonorably lying deserter.
That's nothing new, as we all know that. The real question is why you bush licker are so willing to disgrace yourself by sticking up for the embarrassment.
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com says...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lemmee see here. (As a comment on the general thread and not Frank's post) The USA should NOT have intervened? Despite faulty intelligence and political mishandling of it, there was still just cause for alarm.
After 9/11, if someone on board a plane says they have a weapon in their pocket and intend to take over the aircraft, I suspect the passengers or air marshalls may take some action *whether or not a weapon is produced*. The safest action is intervention.
On a global level, if a country was _known_ to have used WMDs, and had previously been attacked for developing nuclear capabilities, were to continue its belligerent posing and refuse inspectors access, then does it really surprise anyone that action was taken? If Bush had NOT taken action, and the USA was subsequently attacked again, then the Government would have been ripped from office - physically. That action would have installed a hawkish government that would destabilise more than America.
They may have got some specific facts wrong, but the general threat was dealt with. As someone from another country looking in, it's a bit sad to see people trying to re-write history now when they offered no alternatives earlier that would have protected their citizens had WMDs been used.
Greg
"Frank Ketchum" wrote in message ...

of
France.
the
start
WMD
guilty
much
and
had
would
this?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What makes you think the administations received faulty intelligence?
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
May have just flat out lied.

post)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

May have? They've been caught flat out lying on some points. WHere there is smoke, there is fire.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hi, I agree, was just trying to be nice.....

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

.. snip

... and why is that?

Hellooo, Bush never said the threat was imminent, he said, "we must act before it becomes imminent"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you
to
Saudi
players
See, the thing is that no matter what the administration does, they will be wrong. What would your criticism be if we attacked Saudi Arabia? Oh let me guess, we would never attack Saudi Arabia because we use their oil! So we are attacked by our biggest supplier of oil and we pick on a couple weak targets to retalliate. Right.
Frank
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

be
Not necessarily.

You finally pointed your weapons in the right direction.

Something like that. The US is too dependant on Saudi oil, and the Bush family has close financial ties with the Bin Ladens. For the time being, the Saudis can, and are, doing pretty much what they want to do.

It's not so much retaliation. That part is obvious. The excuses used to justify attacking both Afghanistan and Iraq are pretty lame and don't hold up under scrutiny. They're mostly strategic moves about oil and oil politics. Not only securing future supplies of oil, but controlling what other countries have access to that oil.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...and every proposal made by the Bush administration to reduce our dependence on foriegn oil was welcomed with open hands by the opposition?
If we rule out oil exploration and drilling in the US, then where do we turn? Alternative fuels? The Bush adoin was blased for not doing enough even in the face of the largest proposed increase in funding ever for that purpose.
Bottom line... President Bush can do no right.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

dependence
I'm not familiar with any proposals by the Bush admin to reduce dependency or foreign oil, whatever they may be. I do know that the Bush admin did not support legislation to force car companies to increase gas mileage, which would go a long way to reducing dependency or foreign oil.

turn?
purpose.
I haven't seen any evidence that suggests the Bush admin is even remotely interested in reducing oil consumption. It would be contrary to oil industry interests, who happen to fund a large portion of Bush's activities.
If you took the cost of the oil wars, both in Afghanistan and both times in Iraq (I'm estimating 750+ billion up to 2010) and applied that towards improving vehicle fuel economy and developing alternative energy sources, do not you think the US would be better off than it is now? Don't you think this would reduce US dependency on foreign oil supplies and and along with it eliminate the need to invade and control middle eastern oil-rich states? Even shifting as little as 10% of the military budget toward this goal (50 billion per year) would pay off in huge dividends.
Oil is a very finite resource, and at the current rate of increasing consumption it's doubtful that there's more than 100 years worth of supply left.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Apparently you missed the big controversy over the President's plans to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

With good reason, too. Here are at least three:
1) The Federal government has no authority under the Constitution to do that. Never mind that they've done it in the past anyway. There still is no authority under the Constitution.
2) History shows that the major consequence of an increase in vehicle fuel mileage is an increase in miles driven, not a decrease in fuel consumption. It can be argued that the increases in fuel mileage over the last three decades have contributed greatly to suburban sprawl, and thus to a net *increase* in fuel consumption.
3) The only way to make a significant increase in vehicle fuel mileage is by reducing vehicle weight. This in turn increases the risk of injury and death in collisions.

You don't get it, do you? Afghanistan wasn't about oil, it was about terrorism and state sponsorship of terrorism. There isn't any oil there.
Your constant repetition of this obvious falsehood makes it hard to take seriously anything else you say.
[snip]

Known oil reserves have *always* been at around 40-50 years worth, because there is no economic incentive to explore beyond that point.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

in
terrorism
No, but there will soon be a huge amount of oil flowing through Afghanistan pipelines. A potentially HUGE amount. As the Taliban refused to allow the pipeline to be built on their soil, the construction of the pipeline would not be taking place without US military intervention and the installation of a puppet government. Karzai, by the way, used to work for Unocal, the main US company involved in the construction of the pipeline. Yet another small and insignificant coincidence? Not.

And you repeatedly fail to understand the enormous strategic importance of a US controlled pipeline route from an area whose known oil reserves are greater than the all of the middle east OPEC nations combined. We're talking about trillions of dollars of oil reserves.
You seem like an person with above average intelligence. I'm surprised that you actually think the invasion was only about a few terrorist training camps.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

From those reserves that are (according to your other post) about to run out.

Maybe you've forgotten what happened to the United States on 9 Sept 2001. I have not.

Make up your mind. "Known oil reserves greater than all of the middle east ... combined" or "less than 100 years left"? Which is it?

And I'm amazed that you have swallowed this conspiracy nonsense hook, line, and sinker.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<snipped several good examples>

Yes, clearly logic and common sense does not apply and hasn't applied to most criticisms coming Bush's way. You know, it used to be that a party that disagreed with the president would offer up their solution to the current issues. Look who they are nominating. John Kerry? This guy is the definition flip flopping to both sides of every issue possible. He is a war hero, then he comes home and becomes a protestor, he testifies to congress that Vietnam vets are rapists and baby killers (never mind the question of why he did nothing about it while he was over there), then he signs his name to the congressional request to Bill Clinton to attack Iraq to get rid of weapons of mass destruction,
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~fketchum/images/iraq_wmd_oct98.jpg
then he votes for Bush to go into Iraq, now he thinks the war was the wrong move, blah blah blah blah blah. What's next? The sad part is that he is not the lunatic fringe anymore, he represents a large number of peoples like mp.
Frank
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:42:47 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote: Is this a typo or have you "forgotten"?
Renata
--snip--

--snip--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Typo, of course.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Have a look at Owen Lowe's post. There's NO OIL PIPELINE, idiot.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.