POLL: Wanted to get some feedback on the new WMD not found report

[glenn1]

Since you have moral conserns independent of what the UN deems important, I return to my question about which country you think we should invade next. What country do you think deserves attention next? There are a lot of evil dictators left. Which one is next on the hitlist? Since you supported the Iraq INvasion long before Bush took office which invasion do you support now?

Since others will undoubtedly name North Korea and the like, I'm going to say Uzbekistan, our latest "ally" in the region. Another shining example of us being on the wrong side like I've talked about. You support us in our immediate perceived interest (Afghanistan) and we'll look the other way while your supreme dictator Karimov has people boiled to death to better celebrate his cult of personality.

 

[Harvey]

Am I suprised? No. Does this change my mind? See my sig.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Since you have moral conserns independent of what the UN deems important, I return to my question about which country you think we should invade next. What country do you think deserves attention next? There are a lot of evil dictators left. Which one is next on the hitlist? Since you supported the Iraq INvasion long before Bush took office which invasion do you support now?

Since others will undoubtedly name North Korea and the like, I'm going to say Uzbekistan, our latest "ally" in the region. Another shining example of us being on the wrong side like I've talked about. You support us in our immediate perceived interest (Afghanistan) and we'll look the other way while your supreme dictator Karimov has people boiled to death to better celebrate his cult of personality.

So are you upset wtih Bush for not also attacking Uzbekistan or doing more to remove him from power?

 

[Engineer]

The results speak for themselves. Also, a 56% (and rising) of the US population now state that the war was NOT worth fighting speaks for itself.

Spin if you will, it wasn't worth fighting from the beginning and I'll eat my crow only one way...show me that big ole pile of WMD's that were threatening the US and I'll choke on the feathers. NO OTHER WAY!

 

[glenn1]

So are you upset wtih Bush for not also attacking Uzbekistan or doing more to remove him from power?

Yes, although I think the later more than the former. One can argue he doesn't rise to the level of requiring immediate military action, but likewise we shouldn't be in bed with him. Hell, we should be having nothing to do with him, much less fete him with official visits to the White House and a wink and nod to his abuses.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: glenn1

So are you upset wtih Bush for not also attacking Uzbekistan or doing more to remove him from power?

Yes, although I think the later more than the former. One can argue he doesn't rise to the level of requiring immediate military action, but likewise we shouldn't be in bed with him. Hell, we should be having nothing to do with him, much less fete him with official visits to the White House and a wink and nod to his abuses.

Fair enough. At least you are consistent on this point.

Csg, do you think Bush shouldn't be giving him official visits either? Is Bush wrong? Who's next on your list Csg?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Not a surprise and doesn't change my mind at all. Iraq was a humanitarian basketcase and if you can't justify to yourself going in there to remove the Saddam regime, then talking about efforts in other crisis areas like Sudan, Yugoslavia, or Rwanda is equally futile. I also find it equally disgusting that many are using the premise that since we can't take out all evil regimes or stop all horrors from taking place, that somehow we shouldn't have taken out this one either. If you want to parse why genocide of Hutus or Croatians is something we need to stand up against with force if necessary but not Kurds or Shi'ite Marsh Arabs then be my guest. But leave me out of your moral gymnastics of why you only deem it appropriate if the subject of intervention is an area of no strategic interest to us like Liberia, instead of one of supreme importance like Iraq.

Iraq would be the equivilent of invading rwanda next year to prevent the genocide of the hutus. Horrible logic.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY Unfortunately not only were our leaders not strong enough against him, but also the world(UN). If the UN is going to take the time to pass resolution after resolution condemning Saddam's actions and "forcing" him to comply -then they better ACT when their resolutions are not heeded. Without action their resolutions are meaningless and toothless words.

CsG

So when should the UN act against israel?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I already addressed that issue. You might try to "FOCUS"

Oh, and I thought you said this was about WMDs? :laugh:

CsG

The thread is about WMDs. I admit I shouldn't have given you a hard time about your general war comments since I talked about the other stuff.

But no you did not address the which country should we attack next issue. You responded with a question.

Who said we have to invade/attack? There are many ways to deal with nations. As I asked - which nations do we currently have cease-fire agreements with? It is a very relevant part of the equation.

And again, different situations afford different outcomes so just because we invaded to remove Saddam - does not mean we MUST do the same everywhere else.

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Who said we have to invade/attack? There are many ways to deal with nations. As I asked - which nations do we currently have cease-fire agreements with? It is a very relevant part of the equation.

And again, different situations afford different outcomes so just because we invaded to remove Saddam - does not mean we MUST do the same everywhere else.

CsG

Apparently glenn1 pointed out a country where people are boiled to death? What do you think we should be doing about that leader? Or does that hinge on us having a cease-fire with them?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Not a surprise and doesn't change my mind at all. Iraq was a humanitarian basketcase and if you can't justify to yourself going in there to remove the Saddam regime, then talking about efforts in other crisis areas like Sudan, Yugoslavia, or Rwanda is equally futile. I also find it equally disgusting that many are using the premise that since we can't take out all evil regimes or stop all horrors from taking place, that somehow we shouldn't have taken out this one either. If you want to parse why genocide of Hutus or Croatians is something we need to stand up against with force if necessary but not Kurds or Shi'ite Marsh Arabs then be my guest. But leave me out of your moral gymnastics of why you only deem it appropriate if the subject of intervention is an area of no strategic interest to us like Liberia, instead of one of supreme importance like Iraq.

Well you can try that one on me Glenn. If you recall I objected to this war, and I find it disturbing that you completely dismiss the fact that we were tricked into this war, and that there was absolutely no attempt to really get a grip on the iraqi situation short of war. We had this discussion, and after all is said and done. We (the Anti-Bush crowd) were proven right. That someone defends this war as some kind if humanitarian aid is BS. We went to war to kill or remove saddam and the Iraqis be damned. This democracy BS is an answer to a problem of how to cover you ass when caught.

It isn't that the Iraqis were freed from Saddam, but we decided to attack them regardless of consequences, justification, evidence, or even a solid moral argument.

The Iraqis better off? Well we opened the door for the bombings in Baghdad, which any idiot could and should have seen coming. We decided we wanted another Palestinian crisis, except we get to hide across the ocean and polish our halo while unleashing a new evil on the Iraqis.

Gah, I can't heap enough scorn on this admistration.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: glenn1

So are you upset wtih Bush for not also attacking Uzbekistan or doing more to remove him from power?

Yes, although I think the later more than the former. One can argue he doesn't rise to the level of requiring immediate military action, but likewise we shouldn't be in bed with him. Hell, we should be having nothing to do with him, much less fete him with official visits to the White House and a wink and nod to his abuses.

Fair enough. At least you are consistent on this point.

Csg, do you think Bush shouldn't be giving him official visits either? Is Bush wrong? Who's next on your list Csg?

I agree with glenn1. I think we are on the same page when it comes to alot of these sorts of foreign policy type issues. If I were Bush I might invite him to the Whitehouse but only to tell him where the bear sh!ts. People of his type need to be condemned, not wholly embraced.

Although this case makes quite a few assumptions on our part - that Bush is turning a blind eye to the situation. Maybe he is ignoring it, but then again we need to make sure we understand that we are assuming. This however does not excuse an embrace at the Whitehouse.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Who said we have to invade/attack? There are many ways to deal with nations. As I asked - which nations do we currently have cease-fire agreements with? It is a very relevant part of the equation.

And again, different situations afford different outcomes so just because we invaded to remove Saddam - does not mean we MUST do the same everywhere else.

CsG

Apparently glenn1 pointed out a country where people are boiled to death? What do you think we should be doing about that leader? Or does that hinge on us having a cease-fire with them?

Slow down chief - I can only respond to one post at a time. But you are more than welcome to come hold my new daughter so I can type faster

CsG

 

[Ozoned]

"Wanted to get some feedback on the new WMD not found report"




WTF is this crap?
How about a link to this WMD not found report?




"Did the official result of no WMDs found surprise you"



And WTF is this crap?
How about a link to this official report?

 

[Infohawk]

I am fairly suprised that you are even coming close to suggesting that Bush is mistaken in his dealing with that guy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY Unfortunately not only were our leaders not strong enough against him, but also the world(UN). If the UN is going to take the time to pass resolution after resolution condemning Saddam's actions and "forcing" him to comply -then they better ACT when their resolutions are not heeded. Without action their resolutions are meaningless and toothless words.

CsG

So when should the UN act against israel?

When the UN acts against the Palestinians?

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I am fairly suprised that you are even coming close to suggesting that Bush is mistaken in his dealing with that guy.

There are many things I don't think the Bush Administration handles correctly. You'd be surprised. However, I don't spend my every waking hour getting worked up over them and posting some mock outrage over them.

CsG

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
"Wanted to get some feedback on the new WMD not found report"




WTF is this crap?
How about a link to this WMD not found report?




"Did the official result of no WMDs found surprise you"



And WTF is this crap?
How about a link to this official report?

Infohawk, Are we going to get a Link on this (at this point) fiction or not.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Infohawk, Are we going to get a Link on this (at this point) fiction or not.

Do it yourself. It's headline news. This isn't even my thread.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Infohawk, Are we going to get a Link on this (at this point) fiction or not.

Do it yourself. It's headline news. This isn't even my thread.

Lozina is offline, your the main cheerleader, and you just claimed that it is headline news.

Now how about a link to back up your claim? I will even say, please...

 

[Sheepathon]

Text

 

[glenn1]

Infohawk, Are we going to get a Link on this (at this point) fiction or not.

story link

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
[
CsG

So CsG, do you think those WMDs still exist? :laugh:

Also, since you are so altruistic, what other countries do you think the US shoudl invade right now to get rid of evil dictators?[/quote]

The whereabouts of the WMDs are not known. They existed and have not been accounted for.


CsG[/quote]

Smoke another doob dude! The WMDs didn't exist which is why they have not been accounted for. Read the reports! Don't just trot out the party line, use your brain. We spent $1 bil looking for the stuff and not only found no WMDs but no evidence of a program or system to produce them. Oh sorry, Cheney/Bush said they were there so believe them?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Infohawk, Are we going to get a Link on this (at this point) fiction or not.

story link

Nothing in there about a "WMD not Found report"
Nothing in there about a "official result of no WMDs found"

No, I am not being facetious.

I think I made my point.

[Now, back to the fiction based thread]

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
[
CsG

So CsG, do you think those WMDs still exist? :laugh:

Also, since you are so altruistic, what other countries do you think the US shoudl invade right now to get rid of evil dictators?

The whereabouts of the WMDs are not known. They existed and have not been accounted for.


CsG[/quote]

Smoke another doob dude! The WMDs didn't exist which is why they have not been accounted for. Read the reports! Don't just trot out the party line, use your brain. We spent $1 bil looking for the stuff and not only found no WMDs but no evidence of a program or system to produce them. Oh sorry, Cheney/Bush said they were there so believe them?
[/quote]

Uhh.. umm... they were there, and never accounted for by Saddam and still have not been found. Have you not been paying attention? No, we didn't find them, but that still doesn't account for their whereabouts. This has nothing to with Bush or Cheney nor is it about the "party line".

CsG