World of Pageantry

World of Pageantry

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The Liberals Were Right... Again
PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:09 pm 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Posts: 7936
Location: West Allis, WI
Big surprise.

Bush supporters who somehow, amazingly, still have not found a clue while coated in clue-musk and doing the clue mating dance in a field full of clues need to check out this article...

Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam, al Qaida
Quote:
WASHINGTON — An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East , U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.

The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.

Since I don't believe the justification to go to war in Iraq was based on "other" terrorists organizations, this is simply the 15,692nd piece of evidence that Bush & Co. are a big group of lying liars.

Excuse me while I sit here and smirk myself to death. :P


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:42 pm 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 12:38 am
Posts: 2858
Location: Los Angeles
Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism... The war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq, people just got confused when the media covers some statistics in Afghanistan and then starts talking about Iraq. I've seen both conservative and liberal biased news sources do the same thing so its very confusing.

_________________
WHS '05, UCSB '10
WOP OT Round 1 Picture Battle Champion!
WOP OT Mafia Game II: First ever mafia champions
http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com/spam/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:11 pm 
Offline
New Recruit
New Recruit

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:38 pm
Posts: 31
Location: Long Beach, CA
al Zarqawi was in Iraq before we invaded, so either they were there without Saddam's knowledge (unlikely) or he started reaching out to AQ when he knew his time was up.

Also, SH had been funding and rewarding terrorist operations in Israel for years. He's always been a serious threat to the stability of the region, even more so than Bush's half-assed attempts have brought about.

Plus, when it came to a beachhead in our attempt to drag Islam kicking and screaming into the 16th century, Iraq was a pretty good place to start. Bush's problem hasn't been his basic ideas (outside of immigration), but his effort and execution.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:57 am 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:32 pm
Posts: 220
If memory serves me correctly, which is sometimes doesn't, but didn't congress give the go ahead to invade based on information all of our elected officials had? But when things started going wrong didn't the libs conveniently forget that they voted to go ahead with the invasion? Being critical of the strategy is completely understandable but this miopic "Bush is a war monger and he alone is responsible" mantra from the left is just another democrat partisan play

_________________
Rhythm is my business, rhythm is what I sell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:16 pm 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Posts: 7936
Location: West Allis, WI
thunderdrmz wrote:
If memory serves me correctly, which is sometimes doesn't, but didn't congress give the go ahead to invade based on information all of our elected officials had?

ALL our elected officials? No. Congress gave the go ahead based on the information provided to them by the Executive Branch, most of which has since been proven erroneous (both unintentionally and intentionally erroneous). It's a little silly to think that Sen. Horton Weevilpicker from Western Dakota would have the same access to national security information as the President of the United States.

Bush is a war monger and he is primarily responsible.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:28 pm 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:34 am
Posts: 747
Location: Chino Hills
I agree with that 100%

He had to go in there and try to finish what his Daddy started.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:36 pm 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:32 pm
Posts: 220
So I'm guessing it was about the oil, as far as your perspectives? Or the benefits for the stock holders of weapons manufacturers. Sheer blood lust? Absolutely nothing to do with an entire hate generating segment of this earth that wants to kill you, your mother, and your neighbor. Oh yeah, this segment of which I speak of was killing everyone who didn't agree with them far before any Bush came into power.

Expand your thinking. This is absolutely bigger than one Texan who happened to come into power.

_________________
Rhythm is my business, rhythm is what I sell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:23 pm 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 12:38 am
Posts: 2858
Location: Los Angeles
you still fail to recognize the lack of a link between Al-Qaida and Saddam.
YES Al-Qaeda is a problem. But invading Iraq IMO was worthless. We shouldn't have gone in and it hurt our efforts in Afghanistan from capturing Osama Bin Laden.

_________________
WHS '05, UCSB '10
WOP OT Round 1 Picture Battle Champion!
WOP OT Mafia Game II: First ever mafia champions
http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com/spam/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:51 pm 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:32 pm
Posts: 220
I don't disagree with you at all. I do believe that there were different motives for the invasion that have a different perspective than terrorism, Sadaam, and their oil.

I'm not trying to start any arguements here but we live in a dangerous world and I truly believe that we are able to have this discussion through our computers (and hopefully continue for a long time) because of some unpopular actions that need to be taken TO ensure out continued freedoms that so much of the worlds population will never know in their lifetime. A truly great county we are so blessed to be living in.

LONG LIVE SCHOOL BAND PROGRAMS!!!!

:cheers:

_________________
Rhythm is my business, rhythm is what I sell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:09 pm 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Posts: 7936
Location: West Allis, WI
thunderdrmz wrote:
So I'm guessing it was about the oil, as far as your perspectives?

No.


thunderdrmz wrote:
Or the benefits for the stock holders of weapons manufacturers.

HALLIBURTON/KBR Defense Contracts
Five "Pre-War" Years (1998-2002)
1998: $316 million
1999: $676 million
2000: $612 million
2001: $452 million
2002: $491 million
TOTAL: $2.547 billion

Four "War" Years (2003-2006)
2003: $3.115 billion
2004: $8.000 billion
2005: $5.956 billion
2006: $5.972 billion
TOTAL: $23.043 BILLION

If that's not the very definition of war-time profiteering, I'm not sure what is.

But let's not just pick on Cheney's vested interest. Let's take a look at the Big Three: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop-Grummann. Pay special attention to how quickly the funding ramps up once Bush is in office.

LOCKHEED/BOEING/NORTHROP Defense Contracts
Five "Pre-War" Years (1998-2002)
1998: $27.475 billion
1999: $28.104 billion
2000: $33.799 billion
2001: $39.847 billion
2002: $42.243 billion
TOTAL: $171.468 billion

Okay, ready? Brace yourself.

Four "War" Years (2003-2006)
2003: $48.742 billion
2004: $51.834 billion
2005: $52.648 billion
2006: $64.952 billion
TOTAL: $218.176 BILLION

And yes, we're spending more and more annually on this war with every passing year, not less.

I'm not saying this was the sole motivation for war in Iraq, of course. But war has always been big business. WWII pretty much single-handedly yanked the US out of the Great Depression. Don't think $$$ weren't a factor.

thunderdrmz wrote:
Sheer blood lust? Absolutely nothing to do with an entire hate generating segment of this earth that wants to kill you, your mother, and your neighbor. Oh yeah, this segment of which I speak of was killing everyone who didn't agree with them far before any Bush came into power.

Are you talking about Muslim fundamentalists or the Catholic church? Your last sentence really muddled things up.

Expand your thinking. Please mention one single year in the course of human history when there wasn't "an entire hate generating segment of this earth" wanting to kill another segment. And why do you think shooting up their cities and blowing up their children will somehow convince them to stop hating us?

One enemy at a time. Regardless of their sponsorship or lack-thereof of terrorist organizations, Iran and Iraq were not responsible for 9/11. Pursuing al-Qaeda to attempt to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice is understandable. It's the "Global War on Terror" that I find to be such a joke.

You cannot fight ideologies with violence. IT DOES NOT WORK. It didn't work for the Romans versus the Christians, it didn't work for the Christians versus the Muslims or the Muslims versus the Christians, it didn't work for the Americans versus the Communists. IT DOES NOT WORK. But no one ever learns, so we continue our typical response: hit anyone whose ideology WE disagree with (the same fault you ascribe to the terrorists can easily be applied to US foreign policy) like a four-year-old child.

You can repeat tired, old, gung-ho cliches like "the time for talk is over!" all you want; it doesn't make them any truer.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:45 pm 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:32 pm
Posts: 220
Ridicule my cliches as much as you'd like while spouting your own. You make good points that have been brought to our attention regarding the companies that have profited during wartime. Vietnam benefited Boieng and other companies greatly as well as WWII and our current situation.

You can throw any fact or rhetoric at me that you'd like. I understand that the conservative agenda may not be perfect but to try to insinuate that our foriegn policy dilemma is based solely on one man and that we wouldn't be having these issues if a Democrat were in office is pretty ridiculous. Thank you for your history lesson regarding our worlds violence. Putting that into todays reality I wasn't aware that the Catholics are flying jumbo jets into skyscrapers these days or blowing themselves up in the middle of shopping areas killing innocent bystanders on a daily basis.

No government is perfect, I'm just glad knowing there are people out there looking after my ability to have this day long dispute over political philosophies.

_________________
Rhythm is my business, rhythm is what I sell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:49 pm 
Offline
Veteran
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 10:10 pm
Posts: 483
Location: Chino, CA
If you are going to slam W, then slam Slick Willy Clinton. His administration had the same Iraq policy that the Bush administration does. Only difference is that BJ Clinton did not actually DO anything except bomb some aspirin producing facilities. That, and interns.

Also, being attached to terrorist organizations "other" that AQ? Like there is a difference? They are all terrorists, just different brand names, and all producing the same thing... They all need to be dealt with. Them and any entity that is going to support them.

But, just sit back and lob insults and vitriolic statements at the Republicans... Those darn evil Republicans. That horrible, horrible W...

blah blah blah


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:01 pm 
Offline
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 1:28 pm
Posts: 417
Location: Chino Hills, CA
Sean,

I think you will find that the same day Clinton sent a cruise missile to the aspirin company, he also sent one to a training camp in Afghanistan which killed some of Bin Ladin's family...this will be the event that lights the fuse that will later bring down the towers and heaven knows what else.

_________________
Mark Stone, Ayala High School


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:29 pm 
Offline
Veteran
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 10:10 pm
Posts: 483
Location: Chino, CA
I just don't know why we have to keep beating a dead horse...

The "they lied! they lied! they lied! they lied!" thing is getting old... Both sides agreed on the same intel before the first person went into Iraq. The same intel that had been around for years, even back into the Clinton administration.

:hmrd:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:56 pm 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:24 am
Posts: 2490
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Hostrauser wrote:
LOCKHEED/BOEING/NORTHROP Defense Contracts
Five "Pre-War" Years (1998-2002)
1998: $27.475 billion
1999: $28.104 billion
2000: $33.799 billion
2001: $39.847 billion
2002: $42.243 billion
TOTAL: $171.468 billion

Four "War" Years (2003-2006)
2003: $48.742 billion
2004: $51.834 billion
2005: $52.648 billion
2006: $64.952 billion
TOTAL: $218.176 BILLION


Adjusted for inflation this would be:
$206.12 billion or $41.22 billion per year in "Pre-War" years (and when Clinton was CLOSING bases!)
$231.88 billion or $57.97 billion per year in "War" years

As a comparison, the Vietnam "War" was waged for 11 years at a cost of $173 billion. In today's dollars that is $800 billion (give or take) and an average of $72.72 billion per year with 3/4 of that spent by Democrat presidents (Kennedy and Johnson).

War has ALWAYS been a way to pull the world, not just the United States, out of a recession or depression, and, yes, it it very, very profitable.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
  http://www.worldofpageantry.com Copyright © 1996 - 2006 Email:  admin@worldofpageantry.com  

Site design and maintenance by Dave Schaafsma at Dave's Web Dynamics