OIbvious nowl. Thousands die to fulfill Bush's PERSONAL VENDETTA

[NEM]

..And thousands of innocent people have died, or have been maimed for life...because of this evil SOB.

WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ? WHY ARE THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS DEAD. WHAY ARE COUNTLESS THOUSANDS MORE SCARRED AND MAIMED FOR LIFE.

WHY ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT IRAQI CIVILIANS DEAD, OR MAIMED, FOR LIFE?

The answer is very obvious, moreso than ever, and for a reason I have said is the reason we are in Iraq, for years now.....for years.

GEORGE W BUSH, America's first Fascist President, and the majority of his Fascist administration, had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein from long before they stole power and used that power of the office of the Presidency to fulfill it.....NO MATTER HOW MANY LIVES IT COST.

ANd now, with what is happening around the world, it is far more obvious than ever before...but the big question remains...why are the american people so damned blind to being able to accept the truth?

Mister Bush ispressing North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear capabilities, and to reverse policies that he says is destabilizing their regions.

He has now added Syria to that list.

According to a Washington Post article by Peter Baker, Bush is avoiding using provocative language and wants to work with European and Asian allies to persuade the three maverick countries to alter course.

WHY DID HE NOT DO THIS WITH IRAQ?

Bush said that IRan is far different than Iraq, and that there is more diplomacy in his judgement to be done.

WHAT A CROCK OF CRAPOLA MISTER BUSH.

He said that he is going to withold judgement until he finds out what all the facts are.

YEAH, RIGHT, LIKE HE DID IN IRAQ.....

Iran and North Korea, and probably Syria too, are far more threatening to our security, and to the peace of their regions, and to the world , than Iraq ever was.

But Mister Bush, the Fascist that he is, went right out and attacked Iraq, and he had the plans to do it long before 9/11 ever happened.

WHY???????????????????

Because he, Rummy, Powell, Cheney, Wolfowitz and others had a long standing hatred of Saddam, they had a long time vendetta to GET EVEN, and they used the guise of 9/11 to deceive the American people to fulfill their PERSONAL VENDETTA...

AND IT WAS AT THE COST OF TENS, PERHAPS HUNDREDS, OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES.....

When are the American people going to wise up to the evil ways of this bastard?

Hopw manay more have to die to fulfill Bush's personal vendetta, while he sits comfortably in the oval office or his PHONEY ranch in Crawford , Texas.

This man is an evil bastard a dn one who needs to be stripped of his power before he ignintes, and unleases, a terror on the entire planet that may never be recovered from.

Wake up America, you have a fascist bastard occupying the White House, and he is one who just may be the catalyst for the destrucion of the entire planet.

[pookie]

At what point do you realize that people think you're crazy NEM?

I also had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein.

I think Syria sucks too NEM.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[NEM]

Originally posted by pookie

I also had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein.



:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Did you, really? Why? What did he do to us? How was OUR national security at risk?

And even if you had a personal vendetta, how many Americans, Iraqis and others would be dead because of YOUR personal vendetta.

A personall vendetta by the president of the United States is NO REASON to send young American out to die, FOR NOTHING THAT HAS ANY EFFECT ON OUR NATIONAL SECURITY OR SAFETY.

Bush is an evil bastard.

[pookie]

Originally posted by NEM
Did you, really? Why? What did he do to us? How was OUR national security at risk?

And even if you had a personal vendetta, how many Americans, Iraqis and others would be dead because of YOUR personal vendetta.

A personall vendetta by the president of the United States is NO REASON to send young American out to die, FOR NOTHING THAT HAS ANY EFFECT ON OUR NATIONAL SECURITY OR SAFETY.

Bush is an evil bastard.

Nut.

[NEM]

Originally posted by pookie
Nut.

Obviously you know that I am right cause you have no response, but you just cant bring yourself to admit it, that Bush is killing our men, and women, for his personal vendetta.

[pookie]

Originally posted by NEM
Obviously you know that I am right

Oh ya, I know you're right.

Crazy man.

The psych ward is on the 3rd floor.

[O_P_T]

Originally posted by NEM
[BAccording to a Washington Post article by Peter Baker, Bush is avoiding using provocative language and wants to work with European and Asian allies to persuade the three maverick countries to alter course.

WHY DID HE NOT DO THIS WITH IRAQ? [/B]

We did.

All throughout the 90's there were UN sanctions against Iraq.

During that time there were 15 odd UN Security Council resolutions against Iraq to "pursuade" them to alter their policy.

The final resolution, 1441, found Iraq in "material breech" of all the previous resolutuions.

The diplomatic method was tried for 12 years and Saddam refused to conceed and thumbed his nose at the western democracies.

Have we tried as long with Iran, Syria or North Korea?

Are UN Security Council resolutions in place against Iran, Syria, or North Korea?

As for why we are there and how Saddam was a threat, I've been through this before, but I'll do it again.

Look back at the history of the US since WWII.

In Korea, we decided to fight a limited war and put restrictions on our own military that gave advanatages to our opponent.

In Vietnam we did the same thing.

US forces never lost a single major engagment to the VC or the NVA, but to Giap's credit, the NVA understood the critical area of conflcit was the hearts and minds of the US civilian population.

Once the US population lost the will to continue the fight, the NVA had won.

During Carter's administration,"Students" siezed the US embassy in Tehran, and the US did nothing. The Mullahs in charge of Iran were involved in this action and we did not hold them responsible.

During Reagan's administration, hundredes of marines are killed in Beirut and we pull our forces out.

We also start the use of bomb and missle attacks as the only military response we are willing to make.

In the first gulf war, we halt our attack after images of the "road of death" become public. We stop before we completely destroy the Republican Guard and stand by as these forces ruthlessly slaughter Kurds and Shiites who had started an uprising at our suggestion.

During Clinton's administration we pull out of Somalia after "black hawk down".

We also continue to use the "cruise missle" response for any military action.

al Qaeda launches multiple terrorist attacks with little or no resposne from the US.

This now takes us to 9-11.

My purpose in presenting that timeline is not to critisize any individual decision made.

There were very sound reasons to make the decisions that were made at the time.

The point is the preception such a 60 year record presents.

The perception it presents is that the US is a paper tiger.

You can tweak our nose wuite a bit and we will do nothing.

If you manage to upset us, we will use a military response that ensures we will suffer the minimal possible casualties.

Should you actually get into a confrontation with the US, kill a few soliders and we will lose our will and go home.

As long as the world has this impression of the US, we are at risk.

Such a preception will increase the likelyhood of war.

With such a perception, deterance is not possible since no one believes that we pose a genuine threat to them.

Islamic terrorists have declared war on the US, read bin Laden's 1998 fatwah.

If we are to defeat them, then we need a credible deterance.

The first step in defeating them is to eliminate their support and sanctuairies.

If we have no credible derterance, then why should Lybia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc. be concerned if we tell them to cease their support of these groups?

The only way we could alter the perception developed from the past 60 years was to take action that is the dierct opposite of what that perception was.

Iraq is that action.

Every single aspect of the Iraq war goes in the direct opposite of what the last 60 years was.

From acting "unilaterally" to getting down and dirty in an urban insurgent conflict, it shows a far more dangerous US.

Now when the US uses threatening language, people have to stop and consider if the threat is all talk or if it is very real.

Kadafii himself said that what happend to Saddam is why he came clean and gave up his WMD program.

Why Iraq and not Iran or North Korea?

As i said before, there was a long record of Iraq flaunitng its refusal to cooperate with western democracies.

He thought he understood how far the US would go, based on the past 60 years, and pushed them to that limit.

As such, he was a very obvious choice to change policy against.

In addition, it provided additional strategic benifits to the war against the islamic terrorists.

One of bin Laden's major beefs with the US was that we had stationed troops inside Saudi Arabia. Those troops were there to counter Saddam in Iraq.

If the threat from Saddam is eliminated, the troops can leave. we are now in the process of doing that.

So this eliminates one of the terrorists complaints against us.

Iraq's location is a plus as well.

It borders Iran and Syria so as long as US forces are there, there is a far more credible threat against both countries.

This is not to say that troops must be permantly stationed there, but that they provide this bonus as long as they are.

Afghanistan showed that the US military is capable of deploying to a country with no ground support nearby.

Degree of dificulty did play a role since Iraq was the easist one to take action against.

[IndyPatriotfan]

Originally posted by O_P_T
We did.

All throughout the 90's there were UN sanctions against Iraq.

During that time there were 15 odd UN Security Council resolutions against Iraq to "pursuade" them to alter their policy.

The final resolution, 1441, found Iraq in "material breech" of all the previous resolutuions.

The diplomatic method was tried for 12 years and Saddam refused to conceed and thumbed his nose at the western democracies.

Have we tried as long with Iran, Syria or North Korea?

Are UN Security Council resolutions in place against Iran, Syria, or North Korea?

As for why we are there and how Saddam was a threat, I've been through this before, but I'll do it again.

Look back at the history of the US since WWII.

In Korea, we decided to fight a limited war and put restrictions on our own military that gave advanatages to our opponent.

In Vietnam we did the same thing.

US forces never lost a single major engagment to the VC or the NVA, but to Giap's credit, the NVA understood the critical area of conflcit was the hearts and minds of the US civilian population.

Once the US population lost the will to continue the fight, the NVA had won.

During Carter's administration,"Students" siezed the US embassy in Tehran, and the US did nothing. The Mullahs in charge of Iran were involved in this action and we did not hold them responsible.

During Reagan's administration, hundredes of marines are killed in Beirut and we pull our forces out.

We also start the use of bomb and missle attacks as the only military response we are willing to make.

In the first gulf war, we halt our attack after images of the "road of death" become public. We stop before we completely destroy the Republican Guard and stand by as these forces ruthlessly slaughter Kurds and Shiites who had started an uprising at our suggestion.

During Clinton's administration we pull out of Somalia after "black hawk down".

We also continue to use the "cruise missle" response for any military action.

al Qaeda launches multiple terrorist attacks with little or no resposne from the US.

This now takes us to 9-11.

My purpose in presenting that timeline is not to critisize any individual decision made.

There were very sound reasons to make the decisions that were made at the time.

The point is the preception such a 60 year record presents.

The perception it presents is that the US is a paper tiger.

You can tweak our nose wuite a bit and we will do nothing.

If you manage to upset us, we will use a military response that ensures we will suffer the minimal possible casualties.

Should you actually get into a confrontation with the US, kill a few soliders and we will lose our will and go home.

As long as the world has this impression of the US, we are at risk.

Such a preception will increase the likelyhood of war.

With such a perception, deterance is not possible since no one believes that we pose a genuine threat to them.

Islamic terrorists have declared war on the US, read bin Laden's 1998 fatwah.

If we are to defeat them, then we need a credible deterance.

The first step in defeating them is to eliminate their support and sanctuairies.

If we have no credible derterance, then why should Lybia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc. be concerned if we tell them to cease their support of these groups?

The only way we could alter the perception developed from the past 60 years was to take action that is the dierct opposite of what that perception was.

Iraq is that action.

Every single aspect of the Iraq war goes in the direct opposite of what the last 60 years was.

From acting "unilaterally" to getting down and dirty in an urban insurgent conflict, it shows a far more dangerous US.

Now when the US uses threatening language, people have to stop and consider if the threat is all talk or if it is very real.

Kadafii himself said that what happend to Saddam is why he came clean and gave up his WMD program.

Why Iraq and not Iran or North Korea?

As i said before, there was a long record of Iraq flaunitng its refusal to cooperate with western democracies.

He thought he understood how far the US would go, based on the past 60 years, and pushed them to that limit.

As such, he was a very obvious choice to change policy against.

In addition, it provided additional strategic benifits to the war against the islamic terrorists.

One of bin Laden's major beefs with the US was that we had stationed troops inside Saudi Arabia. Those troops were there to counter Saddam in Iraq.

If the threat from Saddam is eliminated, the troops can leave. we are now in the process of doing that.

So this eliminates one of the terrorists complaints against us.

Iraq's location is a plus as well.

It borders Iran and Syria so as long as US forces are there, there is a far more credible threat against both countries.

This is not to say that troops must be permantly stationed there, but that they provide this bonus as long as they are.

Afghanistan showed that the US military is capable of deploying to a country with no ground support nearby.

Degree of dificulty did play a role since Iraq was the easist one to take action against.
Well, there's a problem with this. Iraq and Saddam was never a threat to the United States. Never had WMD. Didn't aide Bin Laden as Bush wanted everyone to think he did (read the 9/11 report).
And the ONLY reason why Bush said that he's going to take his time and talk to Korea is because they have nuclear weapons (WMD) and have said that they will use them if Bush decides to attack.

[O_P_T]

Originally posted by IndyPatriotfan
Well, there's a problem with this. Iraq and Saddam was never a threat to the United States.

There's more than one way to be a threat.

The whole point I was trying to make was that by thumbing his nose at us for 12 odd years he was a shining example that any nation could do anything they wanted and not suffer any concequences.

I've also said before that Iraq can be compared to Italy in the 1930's.

Italy invaded Ethiopia and the League of Nations didn't do a thing.

France and the UK didn't do a thing.

France and the UK didn't have to worry about Italy attacking them, but Hitler noticed that they didn't do a thing to stop Italy.

The next year he marched into the Rhineland and started his expansion that lead to WWII.

If the UK and France had stood up to Italy, would Hitler have started his expansion?

No one will ever know for sure, but it is known that he was frightened that France would respond to his siezure of the Rhineland and gave orders that the Germans should retreat at the slightest resitance from the French.

So there is reason to believe that the course of Europe could have gone very differently had action been taken against Italy.

So was Italy a threat to France and the UK?

Their failure to take action against Italy emboldened a genuine threat.

One cannot judge a forign policy decision soley on the direct outcome of the decision.

Not deciding to take action has concequences as well.

[upstart]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IndyPatriotfan
[B]Well, there's a problem with this. Iraq and Saddam was never a threat to the United States. Never had WMD.

He killed his own people with WMDs.He killed Iranain Troops
by the busload with WMDs.Get your head out of the sand.:rolleyes:

[Ballbustah]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7331220/

[O_P_T]

Ballbustah,

Thanks for posting that link.

It supports the argument I've made that GWB did not lie about Iraq.

He was wrong about WMD's, but he did not lie about it.

For him to lie he would have had to know that Iraq did not have WMD's, but claim that they did. This report states that he was consistantly given an intelligence briefing that stated they did have WMD's.

Now this doesn't mean that such an intelligence failure is acceptable, nor that changes shouldn't be made to try and prevent future ones.

Changes are bieng made and only time will tell if they will improve or make worse the present situation.

[NEM]

Originally posted by O_P_T
Ballbustah,

Thanks for posting that link.

It supports the argument I've made that GWB did not lie about Iraq.

He was wrong about WMD's, but he did not lie about it.

For him to lie he would have had to know that Iraq did not have WMD's, but claim that they did. This report states that he was consistantly given an intelligence briefing that stated they did have WMD's.

Now this doesn't mean that such an intelligence failure is acceptable, nor that changes shouldn't be made to try and prevent future ones.

Changes are bieng made and only time will tell if they will improve or make worse the present situation.

Give me a break. As usual, Bush accepts the blame for NOTHING, and he is never willing to accept that the Buck stops with him as COmmander In Chief....He has passed the buck since he stole the presidency in 200 and to this date has never admitted one single mistake or accepted the blame for anything.

Sure, intelligence was faulty, but his rush to war, long before checking it out entirely, to fulfill his personal vendetta, is more to blame than anything else.

The man is a devious liar and misleader and still wont accept responsibility for anything.

Other presidents have made mistakes and have admitted it. Bush accepts responsibility for NOTHING. That is a fact.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by NEM
That is a fact.

Nothing that you have written in this forum has ever had anything to do with FACT. Just your personal hatred towards GW.

[NEM]

Originally posted by spiderman
Nothing that you have written in this forum has ever had anything to do with FACT. Just your personal hatred towards GW.

So, please list what he has accepted responsibility for?

[spiderman]

Originally posted by NEM
So, please list what he has accepted responsibility for?

That's not what I said.

You can't rant for an entire paragraph about how GW this and GW that, and then end it with...and that's a fact when you haven't stated any facts to begin with.

[Ballbustah]

President Bush is responsible for everything.
Even his underlings profess that there were WMD in Iraq?
The buck stops at the President.

[freak]

Originally posted by NEM
rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble

:zzz:

[O_P_T]

Originally posted by NEM
Give me a break. As usual, Bush accepts the blame for NOTHING, and he is never willing to accept that the Buck stops with him as COmmander In Chief....He has passed the buck since he stole the presidency in 200 and to this date has never admitted one single mistake or accepted the blame for anything.

Stole the election?

Well, let's look at the facts (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

So how exactly was the election stolen?

Sure, intelligence was faulty, but his rush to war, long before checking it out entirely, to fulfill his personal vendetta, is more to blame than anything else.

Checking out the intelligence?

The determination that Iraq had WMD's didn't suddenly appear after GWB was elected. It was accepted by the UN, the EU and the US for the whole of the 1990's.

Again let's look at the facts (http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/22/lkl.00.html)

Bill Clinton said the following on Larry King Live on July 22, 2003.

Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.

So Clinton thought Iraq had WMD's.

[SamBam39]

I think that evidence is coming out on both sides as to the veracity of the pre-war estimates of WMD's. Either point of view could be credible. Here is some info from the "other" side. :)

The CIA's assessment that Iraq had secret arsenals of deadly bioweapons, the report said, "was based largely on reporting from a single human source," Curveball, even though his reporting "came into question in late 2002." The failure to communicate serious concerns about him to Powell and other policy makers "represents a serious failure of management and leadership," the commission concluded.

The case began when Curveball, a chemical engineer from Baghdad, first showed up in a German refugee camp in 1998. By early 2000, he was working with Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, known as the BND, in exchange for an immigration card.

The Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, which handled Iraqi refugees in Germany, furnished the engineer with the Curveball code-name. He soon began providing technical drawings and detailed information indicating that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein secretly had built lethal germ factories on trains and trucks.
But the DIA never sought to check his background or information. Instead, the commission found, the DIA saw itself as a conduit for German intelligence, and funneled nearly 100 Curveball reports to the CIA between January 2000 and September 2001.

Except for a brief meeting between Curveball and a DIA medical technician in May 2000, German authorities refused to let U.S. intelligence officials interview their source until March 2004, a year after the war began.

But warnings mounted from the start.

After the meeting in May 2000, the DIA medical technician questioned the validity of Curveball's information. Another warning came in April 2002, when a foreign spy service told the CIA it had "doubts about Curveball's reliability," the commission reported.

With skepticism rising about Curveball, Drumheller said he arranged a lunch meeting with a German counterpart at Pavitt's behest in late September or early October 2002 to ask for an American meeting with Curveball.

By then, Drumheller said, German intelligence officials were increasingly wary of Curveball. But he said they didn't want to acknowledge their doubts in public and risk embarrassment.

Drumheller said the German intelligence officer used the lunch to convey a stark warning: "Don't even ask to see him because he's a fabricator and he's crazy."

Drumheller said he passed that warning up to Pavitt's office. He said he also informed another senior official in the European division and sent a notice to WINPAC, where the chief bioweapons analyst was considered the Curveball expert.
"Curveball" debacle reignites CIA feud. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-intel2apr02,0,5679005.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure. Its principal causes were the intelligence community's inability to collect good information about Iraq's WMD programs, serious errors in analyzing what information it could gather and a failure to make clear just how much of its analysis was based on assumptions, rather than good evidence. On a matter of this importance, we simply cannot afford failures of this magnitude.

After a thorough review, the commission found no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. What the intelligence professionals told you about Saddam Hussein's programs was what they believed. They were simply wrong.



Spy agencies called dead wrong on pre-war weapons estimates (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-letter1apr01,1,348704.story?coll=la-home-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true)

So I guess it's chose what you want to believe. But, I don't think either side can now claim it's a slam dunk for their point of view.

[O_P_T]

There are a few scenarios I can think of that would have resulted in the world's intelligence communities being very sure Saddam had WMD's when he didn't.

All it would take would them to obtain some sort of communication from within the Iraqi leadership concerning suh a program.

This could be from intercepting radio, telephone, or some other type of communication or from a planated bug or surveilance operation.

If such information was obtained this way, it would be highly classified and any intelligence service would try and keep the knowledge of its existence secret to ensure it could be used in the future.

So how could such a conversation take place if there were no WMD's?

I can envision two scenarios.

In the first one, Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMD's.

If the world ,and more importantly the other countries in the region, thought he had them, it would give him more prestige and a stronger bargining position in any negotiated conflict.

Deception plans are standard fare for every intelligence service and it wouldn't have been hard to create appropriate evidence and "provide" it to the US and EU inteligence services.

Saddam calculated that he could afford this bluff since nothing significant had happened to Iraq for the past 10 odd years, except the UN sanctions.

Based on that record, he didn't see any risk in pursuing this plan.

The other scenario is that those working on the WMD's program in Iraq lied to Saddam about the status of the program.

They lied either because they were worried that he would kill them or their family if they didn't succeed or because they had committed fraud with the money he gave them to run the program.

In either event, Saddam thought he had a WMD capability he in fact did not posses.

[Ballbustah]

Yada yada yada....

[B A Rabbit]

Geez, Don't you watch football, NEM? Simple rule: What weapons people THINK you have is just as dangerous, if not more so, than what you actually have.

It's called manipulation.