It's time for you to start apologizing, Mr. Bush - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-13-2005, 10:16 PM   #16
Refugee
 
ImOuttaControl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,340
Local Time: 11:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra


And they were dead wrong.

The denial is that the US administration and intelligence agencies (and those of other nations such as Britain) really thought there were WMDs. They saw "evidence" of WMD because they wanted to see evidence of WMD's, not because it was actually there. And it's not just that there are no WMD's, there is extremely little, if any, evidence that there were any (or even serious research/development) for the past several years before the was began.
Okay, then the vast majority of countries "wanted to see evidence of WMD's." Remember, Even france, russia, germany...ect all agreed there were weapons there.
__________________

__________________
ImOuttaControl is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 10:16 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 12:39 PM
I'll rephrase:

Yes, intelligence analysts assess the intelligence. However, it is up to the president to decide whether or not any given assessment he recieves, is solid and clear enough in its position to be used as a reason to act, in any way. In THIS, Bush failed, in my mind, because, the assessment was not solid or clear enough to prove that there were WMD, but Bush acted on it anyway.
__________________

__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 10:17 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra


And they were dead wrong.

The denial is that the US administration and intelligence agencies (and those of other nations such as Britain) really thought there were WMDs. They saw "evidence" of WMD because they wanted to see evidence of WMD's, not because it was actually there. And it's not just that there are no WMD's, there is extremely little, if any, evidence that there were any (or even serious research/development) for the past several years before the was began.
Yep.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 10:21 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Did you know what happened after 1991? When the war was over and Saddam declared most of what he had the intelligence services were shocked by what they saw. He had a weapons program far in advance of anything that they had imagined, his nuclear capacity was within years of completion and he had an advanced biological and chemical weapons program. The intelligence assessments prior did not consider this. They underestimated what was there and that is a very dangerous mistake, the same underestimation has occured time and time again from Libya to Egypt where the intelligence services didnt have a full picture and missed the mark.

In Iraq Saddam had obfuscated the inspectors, the logical conclusion was that he retained weapons. The inspectors were ultimately kicked out of the country and no inspections occured, the Iraqi economy suffered under sanctions which Saddam could have lifted if he showed that he disarmed fully and in compliance with the ceasefire agreements - he did not. The conclusion reached by most people was that Saddam retained some WMD capacity and his noncompliance with inspectors was because of this - that was considered the most likely reason a leader would allow sanctions to remain in place (we now know that he was making billions of dollars by illegally selling oil with the full complicity by certain individuals within the UN). With hindsight you choose to attack making out that the intelligence services were delusional in their thinking that Saddam retained WMD.

Fact is that Saddam did not verifiably disarm and the action taken was a long time coming and right. GWB made his decision to go to war with what he knew at the time. The US is in there now ensuring a longer term goal in the war against radical Islam (democratisation of the Islamic world) is able to work.

> There is no longer any threat posed by Saddam now or into the future nor the doomsday scenario of a massive Persian superpower extending its dominion over the Arab gulf states and literally controlly most of the worlds energy resources.
> A democratic Iraq is being built by the Iraqi people and it will be a significant victory in the GWOT.
> Being between two democratic neighbours will put presure on the Iranian Mullahs to liberalise.
> The US has killed a many terrorists and has diverted resources of the terrorist organisations.
> Iraqi's are coming back to their contry by the thousands (a net influx into the country) and Iraq is improving day by day from a failed socialist dictatorship to a democratic arab state where the oil wealth is not consolidated in the hands of a single dictator.
> No longer are tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians being killed by malnutrition under the sanctions which were manipulated by Saddam.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 10:57 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 01:39 PM
I can't completely doubt that Iraq had WMDs between the first Iraq war and the second. It would be something if we found them in Syria or elsewhere, who knows for sure.

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/syria.htm
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 11:00 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR
I'll rephrase:

Yes, intelligence analysts assess the intelligence. However, it is up to the president to decide whether or not any given assessment he recieves, is solid and clear enough in its position to be used as a reason to act, in any way. In THIS, Bush failed, in my mind, because, the assessment was not solid or clear enough to prove that there were WMD, but Bush acted on it anyway.
Excellent namkcuR, that is very well put!

and since Bush doesn't like to read all this "stuf" including newspapers and such, why would he bother to read intelligence reports. These decisions were not just made by W but given to him by other[s]. Actually he's not totally responsible just so totally neglectful of what was being told to him, that he took it all in and... nah bullshit there was only one plan from the get-go.
I don't believe anything he has to say, I can't stand behind him on anything he professes to do and I will never get over the fact that he is a complete and total Yale educated idiot. He is not my president, he's just the figure head of this pathetic political climate at the moment.
I don't hold him as a reflection of all the republican party, since I know too many republicans who are not behind this President at all.
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 11:13 PM   #22
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 05:39 PM
don't forget the oil for food scandal puts a slight twist in things
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 11:38 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:39 AM
It doesn't really, it verified that those nations who were opposed to the war in Iraq had a vested interest in seeing Saddam remain in power. It also demonstrates that the anti-war crowd can be totally myopic in relation to abuses that the UN is responsible for and doesnt give a stuff about the suffering of anybody until it suits their political agenda (just like most other people with agendas), one would think that the greatest heist in history would cost a few jobs in the great gravy train but then one would be dead wrong.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 11:46 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:39 AM

US President George W. Bush begins his second term with a lower approval rating than other US presidents after their reelection in the past five decades, according to the results of a poll released on Thursday. (File photo: Yahoo)
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_2459220.htm
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 06:48 AM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 12:39 PM
i don't know if he should apologize about the inaccuracy of the intelligence, but i do think he should apologize for scaring the living fucking hell out of the american people with lurid tales of "mushroom clouds" and nukes being floating up the East River that would level the UES. i think he should apologize for linking SH directly and indirectly at every single opportunity to 9-11. i think he should apologize for removing our Special Forces from the Tora Bora mountains and effectively neutering the hunt for OBL (the real bad guy) in order to move more troops and satellites to the gulf.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 06:50 AM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ImOuttaControl


You're unfortunately wrong. It was the majority of the intellligence in the world that believed there were WMD's in Iraq. Quit trying to rewrite history to suit your own purpose.

I guess in hidsight you can see things so clear.
Excellent point....

the UN SECURITY COUNCIL believed there were WMD. THey did not agree with the course of action, but they most definitely believed there were WMD.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 06:53 AM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:39 PM
While we are at it, I think all of the Democrats who sent President Bush a well detailed letter calling for military action should apologize.

I think President Clinton should apologize and Hillary for their statements about Iraq.

I think Each and Every Senator and Congressman who voted to give the President the power to invade Iraq should apologize as well.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 08:27 AM   #28
Blue Crack Supplier
 
~BrightestStar~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Gettin' hot in a photobooth....livin it up in Ikeaville
Posts: 35,735
Local Time: 01:39 PM
I don't mean to jump into the fire pot but I did a *huge* project on all of this and one thing was pretty clear..
That Iraq had never had the capabilities to make WMD's until the USA gave them to Saddam to suit the US's purposes...But when the US moved out, so did much of that capability..So really, Saddam was never any threat...however there is *no* denying he was a terrible person, and that alone is reason enough to take him out, but then if Bush wants to play world police he's got a heck of a lot of work to do...and then there's the whole North Korea isssue, a leader who has threatened the US...
__________________
~BrightestStar~ is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 08:38 AM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ~BrightestStar~
I don't mean to jump into the fire pot but I did a *huge* project on all of this and one thing was pretty clear..
That Iraq had never had the capabilities to make WMD's until the USA gave them to Saddam to suit the US's purposes...But when the US moved out, so did much of that capability..So really, Saddam was never any threat...however there is *no* denying he was a terrible person, and that alone is reason enough to take him out, but then if Bush wants to play world police he's got a heck of a lot of work to do...and then there's the whole North Korea isssue, a leader who has threatened the US...
So in doing your project, you would have come accross information that it wast the Western European Nations that supplied a majority of the technology and capabilities as opposed to the US. Or maybe you did not dig deep enough.

There have been a couple dozen threads on this......within the past two years.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 09:25 AM   #30
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
. i think he should apologize for linking SH directly and indirectly at every single opportunity to 9-11.
I don't think he ever linked Saddam directly. Perhaps you have a quote? I'm not sure about lurid tales either.
__________________

__________________
drhark is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com