If it was prohibited, then why did they pass the legislation that allowed him to do it. If as you say they had been told your truth, then why did we have the 22 statements from senior dems that Saddam had WMD and other vicious materiel. And those statements were made between 1998 and 2002 by all the leaders of the Senate, the House and the President.
Mark wrote: > Clinton did not commit the US to armed conflict... it was prohibited > by a congress that had been told the truth. > > Further release date is NOT important.... it was signed in Sept. of > 2006... no wiggle room there > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:52 PM, dick thompson > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > What I threw out at you was info about the use of gas on the Kurds > (true) and about the fact that the US did not provide the nuclear > equipment that Saddam had (true) and that Clinton signed a bill > authorizing him to cause regime change in Iraq (true). Also note > that the chairman of the committee was not a Republican, we have > no idea of the bipartisan makeup and vote of the committee, the > report was released in 2008 (the Republicans were not in charge > then). Also look back on the Senate report on 9/11 and what a > load of bull that one was! Why should I accept this then. > > > Mark wrote: >> Yes it was and you decided to try a history lesson on me and >> throw out some "holier than thou" Gringo bullshit >> >> again read the ONLY empiracal repoort done on this >> http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775 then >> choke mon your BS >> >> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:31 PM, dick thompson >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> The subject was AFghanistan and Iraq >> >> Mark wrote: >>> how about the thirty oir so thousand that died in central >>> america in the same time period at thands of alzheimer >>> ronnie. ?? US forces lead by Felix Rodriguez (I know, I met >>> him there) >>> >>> please read the republican dominated "senate intelligence >>> report" from sept 2006 that says ALL the info you are trying >>> to feed me now is pure BULLSHIT.... >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Zebnick <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >Thedifference in time from having used and being >>> falsely accused of >>> having gas was 25 years..... >>> >>> Really?LOL! Did the thousands who died wretching deaths >>> come back to >>> life in those 25 years? Did Saddam act like he'd become >>> a humanitarian >>> in those 25 years? Oh WAIT! Thats right! Saddam insisted >>> that he still >>> HAD WMDs. Only when the UN sanctioned him did he say >>> they were >>> gone.....supplying no evidence of their disposal, of course. >>> >>> >as far as building that reactor in Iraq... the US >>> supplied and built >>> it AND donated the yellow cake as well..... >>> >>> ROTFLMAO. You are either a very bad liar or a complete >>> idiot. I think >>> both. Bye! >>> >>> On Jul 18, 3:26 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> > I didn't think he ahd gas or wmd's or nukes (though I >>> Knew he was >>> > sitting on a research reactor and a mountain of yellow >>> cake) The >>> > difference in time from having used and being falsely >>> accused of >>> > having gas was 25 years..... >>> > >>> > as far as building that reactor in Iraq... the US >>> supplied and built >>> > it AND donated the yellow cake as well..... You are >>> right the US is a >>> > danger even to itself. The only deluded person/people >>> seems to be you >>> > and Gringolandia. >>> > >>> > On Jul 18, 12:07 pm, Zebnick <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > >If there had been WMD, we wouldn't have gone in the >>> way we did. >>> > >>> > > We thought he had poison gas. Our soldiers were >>> equipped to confront >>> > > it. >>> > >>> > > Everybody thought he had WMDs, mostly because he not >>> only HAD them but >>> > > because he used them against his enemies. >>> > >>> > > Oh and btw, Iraq is not now and never was a nuclear >>> nation state >>> > >>> > > Actually, they were. Iraq had completed construction >>> of a nuclear >>> > > reactor (That makes you a nuclear nation state) but >>> Israel immediately >>> > > blew it up. (Thank you Israel). >>> > >>> > > Some people would say that a leader who builds a >>> nuclear reactor >>> > > despite worldwide protests and has and uses poison >>> gas on neighboring >>> > > countries and his own people was a dangerous guy. >>> Other people like >>> > > deluding themselves. >>> > >>> > > On Jul 18, 1:42 pm, Frederick The Moderate >>> > >>> > > <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> > > > If there had been WMD, we wouldn't have gone in >>> the way we did. Large, >>> > > > tight formations are easy targets and we know >>> that. Not to mention >>> > > > that we would have sent a least one division to >>> sweep and search the >>> > > > area where we "knew" the WMD's were for residual >>> (or any other) >>> > > > evidence they ever existed. We never did. Not one >>> peek. I'm former >>> > > > navy intel and i can assure you, even though Bush >>> screwed our Humint >>> > > > network fro some time to come, we still would have >>> been able to find >>> > > > evidence - if believed it was ever there. >>> > > > But I get it. You really, really, really want to >>> believe there were >>> > > > WMD's there. Okay. >>> > >>> > > > Oh and btw, Iraq is not now and never was a >>> nuclear nation state but >>> > > > again, if you really want to believe it is or was, >>> okay dokey. >>> > >>> > > > Talk about wanting to believe lies. >>> > >>> > > > I've lost five friends in Iraq. All of them >>> Psy-Ops and a couple Force >>> > > > Recon. They've made it clear for years that Iraq >>> will never appreciate >>> > > > what we've done and no matter how long we're >>> there, they'll regress >>> > > > shortly after we leave. Two thousand years of culture. >>> > > > Iraq has already made clear they view US as >>> outsiders and went out of >>> > > > the way to spit in Bush's face before he could get >>> out of office. But >>> > > > you believe what you want to believe. >>> > >>> > > > On Jul 18, 7:23 am, jgg1000a <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > > > >>> We also had the certainty that there really >>> were no WMD's >>> > >>> > > > > Not true. >>> > >>> > > > > >>> Urban warfare, their commitment to keep >>> fighting people they viewed as invaders, and the >>> complete lack of any kind of >>> > >>> > > > > exit strategy, created a no-win situation. >>> > >>> > > > > Once again you show little understanding... >>> Both AQ and the >>> > > > > Americans are outsiders... As is the harsh >>> form of Radical Islam... >>> > > > > As is the lowland Pakistani... The question >>> here is not fighting the >>> > > > > outsider BUT WHICH OUTSIDER... The exit >>> strategy? Stability and a >>> > > > > non Radical Islamic government in a nuclear >>> nation-state... >>> > >>> > > > > >>> I also agree with you on Afghanistan. The >>> Russians border them. They had easier access and more >>> troops. No success. Tactics & technology have done squat >>> for us. Thus far, we've been successful only at blowing >>> up weddings and killing civilians. Lots of them. It's a mess >>> > >>> > > > > and a mistake and we should get out. >>> > >>> > > > > Tactics and technology make a huge difference... >>> As the fact the our >>> > > > > WILLINGNESS and desire to be a long term >>> occupying power is far less >>> > > > > than the Russians or the Pakistanis as makes a >>> difference... The >>> > > > > Russian border aided in supplying their troops >>> but harmed the "Soft >>> > > > > Warfare" in being seen a a long term occupying >>> power... >>> > >>> > > > > >>> The only upside is at least we're actually >>> going after people we have truthful cause to go after. >>> > >>> > > > > Once again you proclaim Urban Lies... >>> > >>> > > > > On Jul 18, 3:58 am, Frederick The Moderate >>> > >>> > > > > <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> > > > > > I agree with you about Iraq. We had so many >>> sanctions on Iraq before >>> > > > > > invading, they couldn't import dental >>> equipment (because it could >>> > > > > > possibly be modified for weapons use - go >>> figure). We also had the >>> > > > > > certainty that there really were no WMD's. So >>> it was nothing to storm >>> > > > > > right in. Like you said, cakewalk getting >>> there. It was afterward the >>> > > > > > problems started. Urban warfare, their >>> commitment to keep fighting >>> > > > > > people they viewed as invaders, and the >>> complete lack of any kind of >>> > > > > > exit strategy, created a no-win situation. >>> > > > > > I also agree with you on Afghanistan. The >>> Russians border them. They >>> > > > > > had easier access and more troops. No success. >>> Tactics & technology >>> > > > > > have done squat for us. Thus far, we've been >>> successful only at >>> > > > > > blowing up weddings and killing civilians. >>> Lots of them. It's a mess >>> > > > > > and a mistake and we should get out. >>> > > > > > The only upside is at least we're actually >>> going after people we have >>> > > > > > truthful cause to go after. >>> > >>> > > > > > On Jul 17, 11:40 pm, "d.b.baker" >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > > > > > Iraq was [almost] a cake walk, compared to >>> what we face in >>> > > > > > > Afghanistan. Even with enough troops >>> (500,000 +/-), it'll take a >>> > > > > > > generation to pacify Afghanistan - a >>> mountainous moonscape the size of >>> > > > > > > Texas covered with 70-million ants (nomads, >>> warring tribes - barefoot, >>> > > > > > > illiterate villages). There's nothing there >>> to "rebuild," it's all >>> > > > > > > from scratch. The people are suspicious of >>> everything, even a simple, >>> > > > > > > local hydro-pump to generate electricity. >>> > >>> > > > > > > Then there's Pakistan, blood-brother to >>> Afghanistan; we'll never >>> > > > > > > subdue one without subduing the other. And >>> by that time we'll be >>> > > > > > > broke, no longer a viable nation - which >>> makes the whole surge- >>> > > > > > > strategy a lethal mistake.- Hide quoted text - >>> > >>> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >>> > >>> > > - Show quoted text - >>> >>> -- >>> Mark M. Kahle, , >>> www.filacoffee.com <http://www.filacoffee.com/> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Mark M. Kahle, , >> www.filacoffee.com <http://www.filacoffee.com/> >> >> > > > > > > -- > Mark M. Kahle, , > www.filacoffee.com <http://www.filacoffee.com> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
