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]>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]>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]> 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]> 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]> 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]> 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]> 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]> 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]> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Mark M. Kahle, , >> www.filacoffee.com >> >> >> > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
