Here's a helpful clue. [video=youtube;2h8RrSGStMI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h8RrSGStMI[/video]
No one doubts the shells you saw on TV and the internet images were of old likely unreliable shells. But thousands of shells were reported to have been found. Let's see pictures of them ALL before we jump to any knee jerk conclusions. Well, its too late for you it seems,but the rest of us should see all the evidence before reaching a conclusion. Maybe your military experince would include knowing precisely how many nerve gas shells would have been used to kill the 5,000+ in Saddam's Halabja nerve gas attack on the Kurds? Let's say it was 50. I just took that number off the top of my head for this illustration. The news reports of these past two weeks or so say that about 5,000 WMD shells were found between 2004 and 2011. Can you assure us that not even 50 of those WMD shells, missiles, rockets or canisters were viably threatening? No, I think you can't. And, AGAIN, W only was trying to prevent the worst case scenario. Doing nothing as our greqatest Middle Eastern ally was dealt a blow at least as serious as our 9/11 attack losses and a potential existential threat. That was on one hand. The other hand was allowing Israel to defend herself against an undetermined but potential existential threat but by allowing that to occur we'd risk a regional; war that would make the Iraq war seem like a minor issue, comparitavely speaking. How can this not seep in and make sense to you??? I don't see how you can't or won't accept this as a plausible scenario. If you are looking to bash Bush then your position makes complete sense. It is a sure sign of Bush Derangement Syndrome, but it makes sense. But if you are looking to understand the matter wouldn't you ALWAYS welcome new FACTS??? Oh, that's right. Liberlas have little use for those pesky things unless they support your narrative. Okay. Got it.
That's why he's laid low after getting out of office; if he was captured and brought out of the country to the mid-east, he could very well be tried as a war criminal.
Can you say what condition those shells were in during Bush's window of decision making? No, I think you can't. And isn't THAT the most important factor in deciding this particular facet of the issue?
It's been a while since we last exchanged posts. You haven't changed. [video=youtube;Ksa4VjKE3RY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksa4VjKE3RY[/video]
what condition were chemical artillery shells that were obtained during Iraq's war with Iran that ended in 1988? Sarin, once put into artillery rounds, has a shelf life measured in months. Mustard gas a little bit longer. In 2001/2/3, they would be next to worthless. AND THEY WERE ARTILLERY SHELLS. they had to be fired from artillery pieces. VERY limited range. NOT a threat to Israel whatsoever. As I said, I am pretty sure you couldn't hit Jerusalem from the eastern shore of the Jordan river with an artillery shell, let alone from Baghdad.
You still haven't dealt factually with all of the variables that might have made them viable when W had to make a decision. But then again, if he had the evidence he would have known if they were "Nucular" Biological or Chemical weapons. EDIT: And how many of the 5,000 munition pieces discovered between 2004 and 2011 were NOT artillery shells? You need to deal with the facts. He didn't have that information. Get it? He had to make a decision based on incomplete knowledge. He decided right. What if he had done nothing and the shells HAD been viable in 2003 and they HAD been used to kill Israelis? And what if there HAD been enough munitions of the right kind to pose an existential threat to our ally, Israel? Would you have agreed to invading Iraq under those conditions?
You can certainly call the Bush ignorant if it comports with your agenda, of course, but I'll stick with his admission. He has never amended it, despite wishing desperately tp be able to do so.. [video=youtube;OSN-Kku_rFE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE[/video] If you bothered to actually read the NYT article that was sensationalized and distorted in the Fox clip you cling to, you'd learn that, The $ two trillion + nation-building fiasco was a disaster from the day it was contrived.
lots of ten years after the fact "what if's" in there.... too many for me to take seriously. What if Saddam had actually planned 9/11 and not OBL? What if Saddam and OBL were actually identical twins separated at birth? What if what if what if.... artillery shells are shot from artillery pieces. They don't go very far...less than ten miles. no threat to Israel. Again...how old are you and what is your experience in this area, either from a military viewpoint or a foreign affairs viewpoint? I feel like I'm talking to some kid down in his mom's basement.
, "The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West." http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...l-weapons.html
For the sake of curiosity, why would it matter if I was a kid in the basement? I'm not, but would the facts change? Or would you then feel safer in trying to insinuate you know more than I do simply because you'd think you could use your age and travels and military experience as the deciding factor in a debate you are losing? Stick to the facts and you will be okay with me. You keep trying to veer from the unmistakable facts. Israel had been attcaked in YOUR Gulf War with SCUD missiles. Fact. NO ONE KNEW FOR SURE if Saddam was bluffing or not when he made the rifle for a rifle speech giving Iran the veiled warning not to invade unless they wanted some WMD whoop ass. Fact. Saddam HAD worked on developing a Nuclear weapons capability. Fact. Saddam had used Chemical and/or Nerve agents on the Kurds and killed appx. 5,000 people. Fact. Israel knew all of this and would have understandably been concerned enough to take preventive actions in self defense. Plausible after having seen them do the same numerous times over the years in response to other potential threats, some nuclear others conventional. In your military mind is there only one type of delivery system for WMD's? Here's another fact. You saw pictures of SOME artillery shells. You haven't seen pictures of all of the 5,000 WMD's reported to have been found between 2004 and 2011. What if some of those WMD's discovered were missiles? You don't know. yet you are making conclusions based oninsufficient knowledge just as Bush had to make decisions based on incomplete intel. Could a determined Saddam have found a dead-ender (many of whom died defending Saddam even after he was caught in his spider hole) to drive a truck into or close to Israel's border to explode a WMD or a dozen? Yes. Could a nuclear warhead atop a SCUD missile be shot into the atmosphere a mile or two or more and then explode over Israel and kill thousands and fry the unhardened electronnics of everyone in the nation? Sure. Stick to the facts. Use your brain to judge whether what I'm saying makes sense. I'm trying to work with you here. Just help me a litttle, okay? LOLOL
Yes, we are responsible for Saddam's having some WMD's but does that justify his using those WMD's on israel? Does that mean we should do nothing and let him use our WMD's on us or our allies or once again, on his own people? I get the impression some Liberals feel the answer to those questions should be YES. Liberals are screwy like that. EDIT: I just looked it up. Most of Saddam's WMD's were manufactured BY IRAQ we just helped them with the process. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-weapons-program-hushed-soldiers-injured.html
I don't know what you think the video proves. Please explain it to me. What he said seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Did you not get the Downing St. Memo? I know you feel like you've been fooled and you would hate to admit it, but stop digging your heels in and admit you were fooled by Bush. Admit you were blinded by patriotism and angry about 911 and it got the best (or worst) of you.
Oh, I was anti Bush for a long period. Several months, in fact, after seeing the Micheal Moore film. However, when I got a sense of just what I believed W was trying to do for America and the World, I quickly decided he was my guy and I have been a fan ever since. I LOVE America. And even IF, (and that is a provisional IF, mind you!) the administration lied to us it wasn't for HIS personal gain. And it was to create a whole new paradigm in the M.E. which was one big spider's nest at the time and was threatening to get much worse. No, if W lied it was FOR US and to create a better situation for the people there. Too many Americans have adopted the hue and cry of the invisible FOREIGNERS who are indistinguishable online from real loyal Americans. These foreigners may have been adversely affected by the invasion and because of their internet anonymity their criticisms gained popularity with the same crowd of mostly younger Americans who stupidly made signs apologising to the world about our re-election of W. Pfft. I don't mind IF Bush lied for a great reason. And IF he lied to help free the 25,000,000 Iraqi subjects of Saddam's brutal reign... And IF W invaded to assure an undisturbed supply of oil continued flowing to our international trading partners, those upon whom our economy depends... And IF W already had plans to re-shuffle the M.E. deck of cards so that we might not HAVE to fight a bigger, hairier and much more deadly war there or elsewhere sometime down the line... Then those would be outstanding reasons. I have absolutely no problem with them. And in MY opinion, the loudest voices of dissent against Bush's invasion are those Middle Easterners who want to manipluate our gullible American mush for brains into making W the bad guy in those mush heads' judgment. Real Americans who care FIRST about America's welfare don't really give a crap about what others think of what WE AMERICANS do to improve life for ourselves and other sensibly minded people we consider our allies or those we liberate from tyranny. Furthermore, real Americans LIKE the idea of sacrificing our blessings to help others. It's been our hallmark throughout our modern existence as a nation. America is the most selfless, most giving and warm hearted people around. We have proven that with our dollars and our sweat and with our own blood and the lives of our best young people. And some Americans allow stupid uneducated foreigners, often Jihadists, to sway our opinions of our great nation? It is sickening. Well, what W succeeded in doing was in keeping with those ideals, that tradition and that noble intent.. When this all settles and the facts emerge you will feel differently than you do now with your limited imaginations, your hatefulness and your resentment of the country and the system of government which affords you the luxuries you take for granted. I'd spit but it wouldn't reach you. So I guess the only thing for you to do now is to slink away from your keyboard, get on your knees and say a prayer of thanks for GWB. You owe him for making possible your comfortable existence.
Anything which results in the death of Islamic Terrorists is a good and welcome thing. Many Islamic Terrorists died in Iraq, so the war was justified. We regret any collateral damage! God bless USA and Israel.
I add a consideration to the discussion: this shared attitude about the invasion of Iraq, that is to say at least a doubtful stance, when not a contrary opinion [originally expressed or developed during the years, now it doesn't make that great difference] puts in a curious position former Senator Clinton. As I have remembered several times, she voted to approve the Senate resolution allowing President Bush to use all the means, also the armed forces, against Saddam Hussein. And I had already occasion to remember that she has defended her decision saying that, on the base of what she knew in that moment, it was a licit decision. I have looked around and I have found a transcription of her speech at Senate. Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/...n-oldie-Hillary-s-floor-speech-to-invade-Iraq I quote some parts: This is a pivotal passage: And she goes on: Not an unilateral attack The reasoning The most meaningful passage And the conclusion
What are you railing about? As the NYT article (from which Fox cherry-picked and distorted a snippet) noted, "The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program." There was no active weapons of mass destruction program for Saddam to use against Israel. No Bushie involved in contriving the war - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. - has ever tried to contradict the findings of the Blix, Kay, and Duelfer search teams and claim that what the Bush called "the main reason for going to war" existed when the $ two-trillion+ invasion was ordered by the Bush in line with the necons' designs on Iraq stated in their 2000 PNAC, and propped up by "Curveball"'s false intel that they eagerly swallowed because it comported with their agenda. The CIA's final report concerning the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was that none were found, no evidence of the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion. Your desperate attempts to justify what was a fraudulently-pretexted, bloody, costly, nation-building fiasco with disastrous consequences merely make you look like an irrational zealot. Try to accept the truth, regardless of how much it upsets you. .
It would merely point out a possible reason for the odd way you value and prioritize your "facts"... as if maybe you'd heard your Dad talk about it and parroted his viewpoints without a lot of independent, mature analysis, that's all. I do know more than you. Whether that is because of age, or experience, or simply a larger brain is hard to tell on the internet. If I had to guess, I'd say a combination of all three. So what? The SCUD attacks were universally ineffective. No intelligence we had pointed to Saddam having greatly improved his midrange missile capacity in the intervening years. Which was why I applauded the diplomatic victory achieved by Dubya when he forced Saddam to allow Hans Blix and his inspectors back into Iraq. They were doing their job, reporting that they were getting adequate cooperation from the Iraqi government. Pulling them out just so we could "get our war on" was the act of an impatient child - that you seem to applaud... another reason I think you're a kid. So what. Lots of nations around the globe work on nuclear weapons capability. North Korea actually MADE one, detonated one, threatened to use it against our major Pacific ally, Japan, and we didn't invade, conquer, and occupy them. Saddam didn't have any. Had never even tried to test any. Was YEARS away from ever developing one. Why the rush? Why not let Blix work and tell us what we now know, and what Dubya himself admitted - Saddam didn't have any stockpiles of WMD's and things that made mushroom clouds. He was not an immediate threat. Again. So what? That's REALLY old news. That was two year old news when Dubya's Daddy kicked Saddam out of Kuwait thirteen years before Dubya invaded Iraq. His Dad - much smarter, wiser than his pampered son born with a silver spoon in his nose - did not think it would be wise to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq back then, even though Saddam had gassed the kurds in Halabja. If only his son had learned something from his father. So what? Israel's a tough country. They took out the Osirak nuclear plant all on their own. They did not need us to invade, conquer, occupy, Iraq and spent trillions of dollars doing it and suffering 40K casualties in the process to protect their butts. If they were, don't you honestly think that every news agency around the world would be talking about it nonstop. Don't you think that Dubya himself would have made a statement saying how, golly, it turns out that ol' Saddam had 'em after all? a satchel full of totally degraded chemical weapons blown up by sticks of dynamite in the back of a truck would not have done much other than kill the weeds in the Israeli crop fields on the west bank. Of course. And an Iraqi satellite with death rays could be positioned in a synchronous orbit over Jerusalem and have fired it's horrible weaponry (which would be accompanied by some high pitched eerie wavering sounds like in the sic-fi movies) and killed EVERYBODY! Saddam could have sent killer sharks with lasers on their heads to slaughter Israeli sunbathers on the beach in Tel Aviv. We can conjure up all sorts of "what if" scenarios. The FACTS are: he didn't have any killer sharks with laser beams on their heads, he didn't have any satellites with crazy sounding death rays, AND HE HADN'T DEVELOPED ANY NUCLEAR WARHEADS. And we knew all that. I did. It doesn't. No you're not. You're just trying to win an argument and you haven't done so. And you bore me.
Okay, Fredo. [video=youtube_share;2X9E9n6GHC8]http://youtu.be/2X9E9n6GHC8?list=PLJdYRfQuif3J sw8cPKvZGhRhu_YWWJBvo[/video]
when ya got nothin', it's always a cool move to copy paste a cute little video clip. Your concession is accepted. You're dismissed. amf
I get it that you only believe what the Government released and what anti Bush partisans have chosen to emphasize. Your problem is that you are not bothered or even made the laest bit curious about the OBVIOUS situations and conditions which are NOT answered by any of the facts you cling to. You really think you have access, even today, some 11+ years after the decision was made, to all of the facts behind what was undoubtedly a difficult decision? You are trying to assemble a puzzle based on a few puzzle pieces and insisting that your assemblage of pieces reveals enough for you to guess the answer. Ever watch the old TV game show called, Concentration? [video=youtube;Eih-PC5I4P0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eih-PC5I4P0[/video] I found a Concentration game episode to use as an analogy. But I was fortunate to find one which demonstrates how someone with only a few pieces of the board revealed can correctly solve the puzzle and yet others, like poor Diana (who won the game -- just as your view of the Bush administration has prevailed in our collective view of the Iraq War and the decision to invade) was barely able to solve the puzzle even with ALL of the tiles removed. See, it seems there are certain traits that the best problem solvers have in common. From (the quite Liberal) NPR And then there's this... David has the spark of analytical intelligence and the sense of playfulness. Diana seems nice. You remind me of Diana. That's not a criticism. Everyone has certain traits and characteristics which make them good at some things and not so good at others. That's all I'm saying here.
Ben Ferencz who is the world's foremost expert on the subject (he was there at Nuremburg) said traitor Bush should have been tried as a war criminal. And he is correct.
[video=youtube;NuhjglNOqg4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuhjglNOqg4[/video] I can see why Casey tolerated you.
Seen from a purely partisan point of view, the invasion of Iraq was brilliant. First, get the Congress to not declare war, but to pass a "war powers agreement" that would be supported by some of the Democrats. That makes the invasion a bi partisan sort of decision. Then, with the knowledge that the situation would go sour, and that the next president would most likely be a Democrat (since the voters would be looking for a change after a decade long war), begin the fore doomed nation building project. Finally, when the situation predictably goes south and the situation in Iraq proves worse than it was under Saddam Hussain, blame the Democratic president for having pulled out too soon. Repeat the mantra, as was done after Vietnam, that the war was "won" by the "conservatives", but the "liberals" allowed us to be defeated. Accept as frosting on the cake the fact that the new president has the same middle name as the surname of the deposed dictator. Not even the architects of the failed nation building project could have predicted that one. Brilliant.
