-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
For all you Michael Moore fans out there...
- Thread starter Dave Shutter
- Start date
- Status
I just hope in 8 years "low slow n dumb" may change to be "low slow and i now think things through all the way before I post stupid comments on a site"
Seriously - are you that stupid to think the economy is tied to the current president? There are countless variables - the least of which is who is head of the country. You probably weren't old enough to remember then, but when Clinton was first elected, the economy was already coming out of recession. Like everything else in business, it is cyclical - and if you really thought things through there is no correlation between which president is in office and how well the economy is doing. Clinton never had the aftermath of September 11 to deal with - which is a good thing.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, the point of Iraq was that Saddam was thumbing his nose at the international community (breaking THEIR resolutions with no worries of punishment) and nobody had the balls to stand up to him (except America). Unlike Clinton, Bush was not going to waste a $2 million missle so it can be fired through a $20 tent and hit a camel in the a#s.
You saying you support the troops is the same thing as a father saying he supports his daughter's career choice to be a hooker. It doesn't make sense. A father might not like his daughter's choice, but he still loves her. The same may correlate with you and the military - but don't ever use the term "support" to clear your conscience.
If you really studied politics as you say you do, you'd recall that many prominent Democrats preceded Bush in his "lies" as you so aptly described it:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destrution and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
My apologies to everyone else for the long post. Low slow n dumber than sh#t - I don't mind that your views differ from mine. What I really dislike is that you posted your commonplace thoughts on this forum without any supporting logic - you, like so many others, jump to whatever conclusion popular culture is preaching at the time without thinking it through to the end. Come back when you have a rock to stand on...
Seriously - are you that stupid to think the economy is tied to the current president? There are countless variables - the least of which is who is head of the country. You probably weren't old enough to remember then, but when Clinton was first elected, the economy was already coming out of recession. Like everything else in business, it is cyclical - and if you really thought things through there is no correlation between which president is in office and how well the economy is doing. Clinton never had the aftermath of September 11 to deal with - which is a good thing.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, the point of Iraq was that Saddam was thumbing his nose at the international community (breaking THEIR resolutions with no worries of punishment) and nobody had the balls to stand up to him (except America). Unlike Clinton, Bush was not going to waste a $2 million missle so it can be fired through a $20 tent and hit a camel in the a#s.
You saying you support the troops is the same thing as a father saying he supports his daughter's career choice to be a hooker. It doesn't make sense. A father might not like his daughter's choice, but he still loves her. The same may correlate with you and the military - but don't ever use the term "support" to clear your conscience.
If you really studied politics as you say you do, you'd recall that many prominent Democrats preceded Bush in his "lies" as you so aptly described it:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destrution and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
My apologies to everyone else for the long post. Low slow n dumber than sh#t - I don't mind that your views differ from mine. What I really dislike is that you posted your commonplace thoughts on this forum without any supporting logic - you, like so many others, jump to whatever conclusion popular culture is preaching at the time without thinking it through to the end. Come back when you have a rock to stand on...
Anyone that believes Bush would risk his presidency and the lives of thousands of his countrymen by lying about something as easily debunked post war, as the WMD threat, either has nothing but hate in their heart for Bush or is a complete idiot. Either way, they aren't worth listening to and add nothing to the debate. If mistakes were made in analysis, planning or execution, lets debate that. Moore and Franken hate the President and they aren't qualified to debate anything of substance that relates to the current war on terror. And I take offense to the suggestion that the US military cannot hunt Bin Laden and clean up Iraq. We are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Were we to let Germany bury the UK while they murdered millions more Jews while we defeated Japan just because Japan attacked us first? BTW. I heard Moore in an interview say that at least one subject of his up coming movie will be the link between Bin Laden and the Bush family to include pay offs and that the President knows where Bin Laden is but does not pursue because of deals cut. He was serious. Tell me that view has any value depicted in film. It simply cannot be supported in any factual way. It is an attack on the President and does not move the debate forward in any useful way. It is politcal. It is hateful, not insightful, not satirical, and very hurtful to the families of men and women that have been killed in honorable service to their country.
Lies? I wonder. Not sure what intel briefs you attended to confirm these so called lies. Being part of an E-2 squadron allowed me to sit in on some interesting stuff. Maybe you were there and came to a differen conclusion, I don't know. All jokes aside, I'm not trying to change your views or how you see the world, especially in the realm of politics but there is a certain way of looking at your example. For example, lets say a certain country is only allowed to have fighter aircraft due to its recent history of aggressive action. From sat photo's, we see an airfield being built along with hardened shelters used to house fighter/attack aircraft. However, no aircraft are ever seen. Why would the country in question build these aircraft facilities if they didn't have the aircraft or plan to get the aircraft? Same could be said for the mobile chemical labs. Iraq was a known producer and user of chemical weapons. After 9/11, nothing can be taken for granted. So seeing mobile chem labs from a sat photo, one must assume worst case. Why have them, hide them under the cover of darkness, if you don't plan on using them if not already in use? Obviously a simplified example but applicable none the less.
Would this be considered a lie, bad intell, or were the Iraqi's given enough time to get rid of the bad stuff? You make the call. By the way, if you're getting your info from books written by Al Franken, I would suggest a bit more informative and accurate source. Any book written from the far left or right is going to be full of narrow minded point of views regardless.
kevin
Registered User
well put. just a side note on bin laden. is there a benefit to him still being out on the loose? yes. because we have all the reason in the world now to hunt terrorist with whatever resources are needed. what happens if/when he's caught. half the supporters of the "war on terrorism" decide that the game is over...we won! there's just one problem- he's one guy. dealing with iraq is one facet of PREVENTING the spread and resources of terrorism, not just eradicating something that's there. unfortunately, prevention is not a sales point in front of congress, existing threat is. so the "lies" are a means to an end. welcome to politics.
I really wish the majority of the American public could get a clue and see things a little more like wink, bunk and riley. People seem to be so hung up on being anti-government and jumping on bandwagons that they've lost sight of the facts. The "interesting stuff" that bunk mentioned is what ensures me that we're right in doing all that we've done. Perhaps things haven't gone exactly according to plan, but that doesn't make it the wrong thing. Unfortunately, the only interesting stuff that most folks think too much about is written by the likes of Al Franken and company. Shame.
mike moore IS an idiot. a lot of the patchouli-scented college freshmen who marched on frisco and dc last week, too, are idiots in the sense that they cannot see the world but through the rose tinge of their particular glasses and are willing to do anything - no matter how uncivil or violent - to further their beliefs. but with all due respect to all you guys, your wide ranging opinions, and your relative civility in presenting them, don't think for a second that your opinions are any more independent of your particular educations, interests and upbringings. to say, "yeh, i thought that, but then i grew up", or "anybody who thinks the president would lie about something that important is an idiot" is not even an attempt at persuasion, just a nice, smug, little smear that keeps us that further away from being able to look at this civilly. there may not be space in the world for american democracy and for bin laden radicalism, but i think there's space in america and maybe even the navy for people who love current foreign policy and people who don't. try to focus on what folks are saying, not what moral or intellectual pygmies they are for saying it.
no offense to the pygmies out there.
no offense to the pygmies out there.
do i distrust this presidential administration when it comes to sending patriotic and dedicated individuals to kill and die? hell yes. did i distrust the previous CinC in the same way? hell yes. the fact is, plenty of presidents on both sides of the aisle have deceived the american public and the world at large to achieve certain substantial military ends (lbj and rmn come immediately to mind). not because they were evil or stupid, but because, like mike moore, or pat robertson, or al franken, or bill o' reilly, they were SO dedicated to keeping their illusions of america and the world intact, they resolved to ignore reality sometimes to do it.
to me, reality suggested that we had a lot more to lose in the war on terror than to gain by an iraq campaign - by alienating the already suspicious islamic and arab spheres, by squandering the international support we had through afghanistan, by committing ourselves to a long-term, tough if not impossible occupation situation in one high-visibility nation, by expending immense volumes of US manpower and capital on the effort (hear that giant sucking sound?), and by losing focus on the innumerable other theatres in this war.
to me, the only way that such a campaign was worth these risks was if it really did prevent a clear and present danger of terrorist attacks against us - more so, in any case, than the danger we still face today from north korea, cuba, sudan, libya, and all the other countries we haven't invaded yet. but the evidence offered so far hasn't convinced me - i'm still open to new evidence... - and there's plenty of reason to belive that middle-of-road arabs hate us even more now. to me, the only way you could have a different view of reality is if you viewed saddam as a special brand of evil, somehow more special than kim jong il, hassan al-turabi, khamenei, castro, or all the others that possess big guns and an endless rancor for our way of life. you'd have to believe that he couldn't be deterred or dissuaded from attacking us, even though saddam's been relatively quiet since desert storm I, even though he was just another thug who was most occupied with killing his domestic enemies, even though he had nothing to do with 9/11 (thus far).
in other words, you'd have to have a belief in the absence of evidence - faith - which is fine, because all intel involves some guesswork; but you'd still have to explain why we should err on the side of invasion in this one country and not all the others in the world... this one country, which it just so happens already is seen by average americans as "the enemy", which is conventionally unable to put up a good fight, which is the geographical center of a vital and unstable political region, and which is an oil-producing nation.
my feeling is, iraq was an easy mark, easy to challenge, easy to best militarily if not civilly, and easy to point to as a substantive step in a war that's all too unclear and nebulous in the american mind. maybe it was a fight that needed to be picked, but not now, in my view, and not the way we're doing it. i don't think the iraq campaign was wrong - more damningly, i think it was poor strategy and policy in a wider war that we MUST win.
to me, the only way that such a campaign was worth these risks was if it really did prevent a clear and present danger of terrorist attacks against us - more so, in any case, than the danger we still face today from north korea, cuba, sudan, libya, and all the other countries we haven't invaded yet. but the evidence offered so far hasn't convinced me - i'm still open to new evidence... - and there's plenty of reason to belive that middle-of-road arabs hate us even more now. to me, the only way you could have a different view of reality is if you viewed saddam as a special brand of evil, somehow more special than kim jong il, hassan al-turabi, khamenei, castro, or all the others that possess big guns and an endless rancor for our way of life. you'd have to believe that he couldn't be deterred or dissuaded from attacking us, even though saddam's been relatively quiet since desert storm I, even though he was just another thug who was most occupied with killing his domestic enemies, even though he had nothing to do with 9/11 (thus far).
in other words, you'd have to have a belief in the absence of evidence - faith - which is fine, because all intel involves some guesswork; but you'd still have to explain why we should err on the side of invasion in this one country and not all the others in the world... this one country, which it just so happens already is seen by average americans as "the enemy", which is conventionally unable to put up a good fight, which is the geographical center of a vital and unstable political region, and which is an oil-producing nation.
my feeling is, iraq was an easy mark, easy to challenge, easy to best militarily if not civilly, and easy to point to as a substantive step in a war that's all too unclear and nebulous in the american mind. maybe it was a fight that needed to be picked, but not now, in my view, and not the way we're doing it. i don't think the iraq campaign was wrong - more damningly, i think it was poor strategy and policy in a wider war that we MUST win.
- Status