Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
and yet you whine when others do the same....how typical of you....hypocrisy and dishonesty are your specialities
So.... is Obama a war criminal yet?
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.2
- Start date
and yet you whine when others do the same....how typical of you....hypocrisy and dishonesty are your specialities
I only complain about it after you do it 1,000 times.
The 1,001st time I do it, we can talk....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
translation - i'm a hypocritical hack and will puss out by claiming its ok for me to do it because yurt purportedly does it more
translation - i'm a hypocritical hack and will puss out by claiming its ok for me to do it because yurt purportedly does it more
This is actually really insightful. I realize that you have immense problems w/ the concept of scale - which has also affected your views on Libya & Iraq.
Scale matters. I'd wager that every poster on this board has done are "where are they" post at some point. But with you, as I've said, it's religion.
I don't really expect you to get the difference. Because, ya know - those issues that you have w/ scale & all....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
anything to excuse your hypocrisy onceler...weak, very weak and quite simply not true....but i know that you have to lie in order to defend the indefensible
Hmm, let's see; Did Obama lie to congress to promote the war? Did he invade a soveriegn nation unprovoked and against the will of the rest of the world and the U.N.?
Did he out a CIA agent that we invested millions of dollars worth of training and risk covert agents all over the world? Is the situation even remotely comparable? Are you just an incredible asshole?
Did he out a CIA agent that we invested millions of dollars worth of training and risk covert agents all over the world? Is the situation even remotely comparable? Are you just an incredible asshole?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Several things jump out at me with this. Mainly, how many similarities we find in the regime of Qadaffy and Saddam Hussein. With Hussein, we had a brutal tyrant dictator who murdered his own people for years. Literally gassed them to death in the streets. With Qadaffy, we have a tyrant dictator who murdered his own people with air bombardment, when they protested his regime. With Saddam, we had someone defiantly ignoring international law, and thumbing their nose at the UN sanctions... With Qadaffy, we have someone defiantly ignoring the UN, and we apparently skipped the sanctions. With Saddam, we had someone who vehemently hated the United States, and who was willing to allow terrorists training camps for alqaeda in his country, as he pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons... Qadaffy wasn't so ambitious, he turned over his nuclear program, and cooperated somewhat in the war on terror. He considered himself on friendly terms with the US.
Now..... In one instance, we were completely out of bounds for even thinking about acting! It was portrayed as a "war for oil" or a "war for vengeance for daddy" and "cowboy diplomacy." It was going to inflame the Arab Street, and make Muslims hate us even more.... even though Iraq was primarily secular. All of the apparent complaints against Bush for taking action against Saddam, are simply not being applied with Qadaffy! ....Where is he an imminent threat to the US? What has he done directly to the US? Sure he is a bad guy... there's lots of bad guys in the world... ALL of the issues that were raised about Bush going after Saddam, are ignored... off the table suddenly!
Oh, but this is entirely different, right? In terms of sheer humanitarian concern, Saddam was much more seditious and brutal, the atrocities he committed were unthinkable, compared to Qadaffy. What the real difference is.... now we have a Democrat president, before, we had a Republican president. When the republican was trying to oust the more brutal tyrant, he was very popular in the polls, and needed to be destroyed politically by his opponents... When the democrat is trying to oust a less brutal tyrant, he is not doing so well in the polls... so it become acceptable to let it all slide. This should be all the proof anyone needs, the left is never really concerned about war, boots on the ground, the troops, or how the Arab Street might react to anything.... what they care most about, is political opportunism.
Now..... In one instance, we were completely out of bounds for even thinking about acting! It was portrayed as a "war for oil" or a "war for vengeance for daddy" and "cowboy diplomacy." It was going to inflame the Arab Street, and make Muslims hate us even more.... even though Iraq was primarily secular. All of the apparent complaints against Bush for taking action against Saddam, are simply not being applied with Qadaffy! ....Where is he an imminent threat to the US? What has he done directly to the US? Sure he is a bad guy... there's lots of bad guys in the world... ALL of the issues that were raised about Bush going after Saddam, are ignored... off the table suddenly!
Oh, but this is entirely different, right? In terms of sheer humanitarian concern, Saddam was much more seditious and brutal, the atrocities he committed were unthinkable, compared to Qadaffy. What the real difference is.... now we have a Democrat president, before, we had a Republican president. When the republican was trying to oust the more brutal tyrant, he was very popular in the polls, and needed to be destroyed politically by his opponents... When the democrat is trying to oust a less brutal tyrant, he is not doing so well in the polls... so it become acceptable to let it all slide. This should be all the proof anyone needs, the left is never really concerned about war, boots on the ground, the troops, or how the Arab Street might react to anything.... what they care most about, is political opportunism.
Lowaicue
英語在香港
Quite apart from the legalities involved, did either Iraq or Libya threaten the shores of the US in such a way that violent defensive action was the only course?
Funny how things have reversed. Blair 'poodled' after the boy bush now Obama 'poodles' after Cammers of the Lower Fifth (although with UN agreement).
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
obama didn't say anything to congress prior...at least that is what it looks like....as to the rest of your odd comments, i don't know of anyone who has done those things...so you're the incredible asshole
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
wow...you're really naive...anything to defend your hypocrisy
there is much more to compare, while they are not identical, you can't be for the invasion of libya and against iraq and maintain any semblance of intellectual honesty
Laughable. You're unreal on this issue, Mr. "boots on the ground."
All the responses that you & Dix provide show me is how desperate you both are to try to equate the situations, and once again, apologize for Bush.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you still haven't been able to explain your hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. its an invasion that you support, but you don't support iraq. but we all know its because there is a D president now. and i'm sure we will be treated to more of your lies that i'm equating or saying the situations how identical. bravo pwned your ass yesterday over your lies and you're still doing it. despite the fact i have claimed repeatedly they are not identical and i have explained what is similar and how you can't be for one and not the other.
is a libya an imminent threat to the US? did libya attack us? what basis does obama have to invading the country with warbirds and over 150 missiles?
Very sad.
First, I'm opposed to this. As I have said quite a few times, I have supported one military action that I can think of in my lifetime, and that was under a Republican Prez.
But you want to put a cookie cutter on every military action, and all are incredibly different. By your logic, if you supported the 'invasion of Bosnia,' you'd support the 'invasion of Grenada,' the 'invasion of Iraq', the 'invasion of Kuwait,' the 'invasion of Afghanistan,' etc, etc, etc. And any one of those is interchangeable.
It's insane. You're only obsessed with "gotchas" against the left, but there is no comparable situation here. In 7 years, if we're still occupying Libya with GENUINE "boots on the ground," please get back to me.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
He didn't really ever consult congress about this. No one "lied" to Congress when Bush went in to Iraq, everyone had the same access to the same information, and drew the same conclusions based on the same faulty intelligence. You never PROVED Bush lied to Congress, or anyone else, that was merely your accusation, which remains unfounded and untrue.
Libya is a sovereign nation, they did not provoke an attack... so YES to that part. Bush didn't invade Iraq "against the will of the rest of the world and the UN" as you say... The UN Security Council voted unanimously to invoke "serious consequences" against Saddam, if he failed to comply with UN resolutions. When the vote came on implementing those "serious consequences" several nations balked, namely, Germany, Russia, and France. Against the will of the Russians, Germans, and French, Bush coordinated the largest coalition of willing nations since the first Gulf War, and they took action which was NEVER unilateral in Iraq.
Bush didn't "out" anyone, as far as I know. What did Obama's lackey have to say about the Army private who leaked classified info to Wikileaks? Oh yea... that it was a "crock of shit" and "stupid" to be perusing him legally. So why don't you just drop the whole Plame thing, that kind of put the nail in the coffin for that false outrage.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you're incredible....it doesn't matter what i say, you will twist it to such a dishonest level in or4der to make some phony point
you were against iraq immediately, yet now you want to wait 7 years.....LOL..you have no denounced obama on this and have done everything you can to defend him. where is your outrage that you had when bush was in office
lol
The outrage I had when Bush was in office? You mean when he promised guys like Dick Armey that he would only use military force if necessary, and only things like airstrikes even at that point? Or when he made the case to the American people that it was about WMD's, when Paul Wolfowicz later admitted that was the "excuse" they used to sell the war? Or when the British wrote that the intel was being fixed around the policy? Or when a Senate committee concluded that the admin did manipulate the intelligence to make the case for war? Or when Colin Powell's top aide said he was given a "chinese menu" of intel, and told to make a case for war? Or when we committed to real "boots on the ground," and actually invaded and occupied Iraq, staying there for 7 years after Dick Cheney originally predicted 6 months?
You mean like then, Yurt? Those really comparable situations?
Haven't heard your position on this, btw. Are you for or against the current action?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Bush never made such a promise.
Wolfowicz never "admitted" anything, he made some kind of bogus claim... nothing was ever substantiated or proven regarding this, after NUMEROUS inquiries, hearings, and reports.
"The British" never wrote any such a thing. A British journalist may have claimed this, is that what you meant?
Never happened in the world we all live in. Both the Senate Select Committee and the British Dulfer Report, concluded that US and British governments acted based on legitimate intelligence information, which turned out to be flawed. There was never any proof that anyone "manipulated" anything, and pinheads tried in vain for nearly 8 years, to make that case. I guess you think if you can just keep repeating the lie enough???
He was given the same intelligence Congress was given, and the president had available. His assignment was to present the case before the UN, which he did.
Cheney never predicted any such thing.
As I said before, many of the circumstances are similar, except the fact that Saddam was much more brutal to his people, and posed more of a security risk to the United States, particularly in that region. We also went through about 10 years of UN sanctions that didn't work, no-fly zones, threatening to take "serious measures" and getting Congressional approval to use force, as well as forming a coalition of nations to help. The BIG difference, is who is the president now, versus who was the president then.
None of this post is from the DailyKOS or HuffingtonPost or any similar sites
===============================================
16 different intelligence agency's combine and analyze data to create a National Intelligence Estimate for US Presidents...
October 2002 NIE
Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate
High Confidence:
• Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
• We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.
• Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.
• Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.
Moderate Confidence:
• Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009. (See INR alternative view, page 84).
Key Judgments [from October 2002 NIE]
Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction
We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)
We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq’s WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad’s vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq’s WMD programs.
Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
• Iraq’s growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad’s capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled, from $580 million in 1998 to about $3 billion this year.
• Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.
• Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.
• Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departed — December 1998.
How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.
• If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year. {p.2}
• Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.
– Most agencies believe that Saddam’s personal interest in and Iraq’s aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors — as well as Iraq’s attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools — provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad’s nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.)
– Iraq’s efforts to re-establish and enhance its cadre of weapons personnel as well as activities at several suspect nuclear sites further indicate that reconstitution is underway.
– All agencies agree that about 25,000 centrifuges based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire would be capable of producing approximately two weapons’ worth of highly enriched uranium per year.
• In a much less lively scenario, Baghdad could make enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon by 2005 to 2007 if it obtains suitable centrifuge tubes this year and has all the other materials and technological expertise necessary to build production-scale uranium enrichment facilities.
We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX; its capability probably is more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life probably have been improved.
• An array of clandestine reporting reveals that Baghdad has procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and equipment sufficient to allow limited CW agent production hidden within Iraq’s legitimate chemical industry.
• Although we have little specific information on Iraq’s CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents — much of it added in the last year.
• The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles. We assess that that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended ranges.
We judge that all key aspects — R&D, production, and weaponization — of Iraq’s offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war.
• We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives. {p.3}
– Chances are even that smallpox is part of Iraq’s offensive BW program.
– Baghdad probably has developed genetically engineered BW agents.
• Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability.
– Baghdad has mobile facilities for producing bacterial and toxin BW agents; these facilities can evade detection and are highly survivable. Within three to six months * these units probably could produce an amount of agent equal to the total that Iraq produced in the years prior to the Gulf war.
________
* (Corrected per Errata sheet issued in October 2002)
________
Iraq maintains a small missile force and several development programs, including for a UAV probably intended to deliver biological warfare agent.
• Gaps in Iraqi accounting to UNSCOM suggest that Saddam retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud-variant SRBMs with ranges of 650 to 900 km.
• Iraq is deploying its new al-Samoud and Ababil-100 SRBMs, which are capable of flying beyond the UN-authorized 150-km range limit; Iraq has tested an al-Samoud variant beyond 150 km — perhaps as far as 300 km.
• Baghdad’s UAVs could threaten Iraq’s neighbors, US forces in the Persian Gulf, and if brought close to, or into, the United States, the US Homeland.
– An Iraqi UAV procurement network attempted to procure commercially available route planning software and an associated topographic database that would be able to support targeting of the United States, according to analysis of special intelligence.
– The Director, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, US Air Force, does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents. The small size of Iraq’s new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent capability.
• Iraq is developing medium-range ballistic missile capabilities, largely through foreign assistance in building specialized facilities, including a test stand for engines more powerful than those in its current missile force.
We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD.
• Saddam could decide to use chemical and biological warfare (CBW) preemptively against US forces, friends, and allies in the region in an attempt to disrupt US war preparations and undermine the political will of the Coalition. {p.4}
• Saddam might use CBW after an initial advance into Iraqi territory, but early use of WMD could foreclose diplomatic options for stalling the US advance.
• He probably would use CBW when he perceived he irretrievably had lost control of the military and security situation, but we are unlikely to know when Saddam reaches that point.
• We judge that Saddam would be more likely to use chemical weapons than biological weapons on the battlefield.
• Saddam historically has maintained tight control over the use of WMD; however, he probably has provided contingency instructions to his commanders to use CBW in specific circumstances.
Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.
Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks — more likely with biological than chemical agents — probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.
• The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been, directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against US territory.
Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida — with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States — could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.
• In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.
I can only hope this information presents a much needed learning experience for ignorant, narrow-minded, left wing pinheads