PDA

View Full Version : Weapons of Mass Destruction


Gonz
1/29/04, 01:21am
Bush lied? It's all about oil. Haliburton made 'em do it. We aren't there to be nice guys. Et cetera et cetera.

That's what you've been saying for over a year. David Kay now agree's with you, to a point. He says it's a complete inel failure. Well, that and
"Regarding biological weapons, he said there was evidence that the Iraqis continued research and development "right up until the end" to improve their ability to produce ricin. "They were mostly researching better methods for weaponization," Dr. Kay said. "They were maintaining an infrastructure, but they didn't have large-scale production under way. which means saddam was in violation of the multiple UN resolutions.

For those of you who refuse to admit that there's ample evidence of WMD's in Iraqs immediate past, look to the liberal for confirmation.

"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Fairly impressive list of liberal leaders wouldn't you say?


This agency told slick Willie to bomb an aspirin factory
This same Intelligence agency that missed the 09/11 warnings signs
This is the same Intelligence agency that Clinton cut, drastically.
George Tenet - met with slick Willie twice
George Tenet - Meets with Bush almost daily


Question-What don't we know...if the CIA is so inept, why hasn't Tenet resigned (or been fired). There is a huge piece of the pie missing. Which is usually the case. You always only hear about intel disasters.

What is missing?

Squiggy
1/29/04, 01:53am
The proof of your claims..:shrug:

freako104
1/29/04, 05:11am
:rofl4:

Inkara1
1/29/04, 06:36am
Didn't Saddam send a few scuds to Kuwait during the latest war--scuds which were in violation of the resolution as well?

BeardofPants
1/29/04, 06:51am
:rolleyes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/23/iraq/main545485.shtml

Inkara1
1/29/04, 07:47am
:rolleyes:

http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/0/4583C10CEF7ED79E85256CF7003061B3?opendocument
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/20/sprj.irq.kuwait.rockets/

The CNN link (which is earlier than the Marine Corps link, so they seem to describe separate events) says the missiles were initially reported as scuds, but might be Al Samoud missiles, which according to this site (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/samoud.htm) are declared to be within the 150-km limit but as designed can fly 162 to 193 km.

BeardofPants
1/29/04, 08:14am
Yes, I am fully aware of the fact that the missiles fired exceeded the acceptable range - however, there is no evidence, nor has there been any found to date that they were scuds. The probability is that they were Al-Samouds which, HAD THE INSPECTORS HAD MORE TIME, would have most likely made it to the banned list as well... but they are not banned as far as I know.

Another link detailing the scud debate (what debate - there weren't scuds fired)

http://www.fair.org/activism/scuds.html

This report is from October '03
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/031003-intell1.htm

chcr
1/29/04, 09:21am
There were certainly missiles fired. Whether they were scuds or not is a moot point. The fact is that the American people were "sold" this war on the idea that Iraq was a threat to national security, a. because they had weapons of mass destruction and the UN inspectors were too stupid to find them, and b. because of their links to Al-Qaida. Both were clearly wildly inaccurate (to be charitable) and now it's is going to be the intelligence community's fault, isn't it? (Can you say scapegoat? I knew that you could.) Oops, I almost forgot the nuclear weapons material they bought from Nigeria. The administration lied about this war from the start and they're lying now to cover it up. I find it shocking how many people still support them. :shrug:

Gonz
1/29/04, 09:58am
Lies...lies...lies...

What about the entire world believing it? That isn't lies, it's either misinformation planted by Iraq to appear tougher than they are or incorrect worldwide information provided by our (everybody's) intelligence services.

Squiggy....explain Iran, & the Kurds...that's proof.

chcr - it appears more & more that we were sold in reverse...there may not have been weapons but alqieda looks more like a partner.

chcr
1/29/04, 11:09am
Perhaps it was the way so much of the rest of the worlde was against the war that confused me. :rolleyes:

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no "smoking gun" proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al Qaeda.

"I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection," Mr. Powell said, in response to a question at a news conference. "But I think the possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did."

Link (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1073280907359)

It seems confusing to them, who can blame anyone for not being able to keep up.

MrBishop
1/29/04, 11:19am
Lies...lies...lies...

What about the entire world believing it? That isn't lies, it's either misinformation planted by Iraq to appear tougher than they are or incorrect worldwide information provided by our (everybody's) intelligence services.

Squiggy....explain Iran, & the Kurds...that's proof.

chcr - it appears more & more that we were sold in reverse...there may not have been weapons but alqieda looks more like a partner.

The issue isn't wether or not we believed that he had WMDs, or that a chunk of the world believed that he had WMDs, or even that intelligence 'conjecture' indicated that by now, they should have WMDs.

The issue is that Bush said that they had PROOF that there were WMDs in Iraq. If there ws proof, they should've been able to track these WMDs via sattelite if they were moved, and find them again once the invasion part of the war was done.

I see nothing wrong with the war against Iraq and Saddam...the guy and his leadership were nothing less than animals, and particularly violent ones at that...they bit and bit and bit again, and now they've been put down like a mad-dog. Great!

It's the REASON for going in that stinks to high heaven... politicians played on the fears of the populace by mentioning WMDs over and over again instead of playing on people's rightiousness by talking about the human tragedy, the murders, the death camps etc...

I guess that fear motivates more than anger does, eh?

Squiggy
1/29/04, 11:37am
it appears more & more that we were sold in reverse...there may not have been weapons but alqieda looks more like a partner.

Is that the new campaign spin? :rolleyes:

chcr
1/29/04, 12:05pm
Is that the new campaign spin? :rolleyes:

If it is, someone forgot to tell Colin.

freako104
1/29/04, 01:02pm
Is that the new campaign spin? :rolleyes:



they have to justify it somehow

chcr
1/29/04, 03:24pm
You know, I'm thinking maybe it's a hearing problem. Could it have been weapons of mass distraction??????????????

Ms Ann Thrope
1/29/04, 03:26pm
You know, I'm thinking maybe it's a hearing problem. Could it have been weapons of mass distraction??????????????

:rofl4: Brilliant, chcr! :rofl:

Kawaii
1/29/04, 03:54pm
You know, I'm thinking maybe it's a hearing problem. Could it have been weapons of mass distraction??????????????
LOL! Priceless! :rofl:

Inkara1
1/29/04, 04:15pm
Yes, I am fully aware of the fact that the missiles fired exceeded the acceptable range - however, there is no evidence, nor has there been any found to date that they were scuds. The probability is that they were Al-Samouds which, HAD THE INSPECTORS HAD MORE TIME, would have most likely made it to the banned list as well... but they are not banned as far as I know.

I mentioned that my CNN link said they were probably not scuds, as had been initially reported. The UN inspectors had asked Iraq to destroy the al Samouds, and in fact two had been destroyed.

BeardofPants
1/29/04, 06:19pm
That is correct - Hans Blix asked Saddam to destroy them due to the fact that they exceeded the limit - BUT it had yet to be ascertained whether or not this was correct - hence my mention that there wasn't enough time for them to be put on the list of banned weapons.

freako104
1/29/04, 06:38pm
You know, I'm thinking maybe it's a hearing problem. Could it have been weapons of mass distraction??????????????



:rofl4:

Gonz
1/29/04, 06:42pm
Simply, even if saddam had no WMD's, he was breaking the multiple resolutions (formed from the UN thinking he had WMDs). He had scientists working on programs, he never proved he didn't have them, he threatened he had them, he's been know to use them....whatever, he's out of power & nothing can change the past.

Don't like our method, then you take over policing the world.(if you're American, move to Canada).

I was after something far different than old reruns of the same arguments.

Not only CIA or FBI...we're talking about MI5 & France and Germany's secret police. Australia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syrian, Brazil...the entire world knew he had them so where are they or how did some tinpot completely fool the entire world?

freako104
1/29/04, 06:51pm
considering the govts. and Bush. Id say........ tinpot :P



















ok all kidding aside i think if he had them he had them shipped to an allied country. or destroyed them.

Gonz
1/29/04, 06:53pm
The resolutions demended he prove he destroyed them. He provided no such proof.

chcr
1/29/04, 06:54pm
Simply, even if saddam had no WMD's, he was breaking the multiple resolutions

Then we would have been justified in pressuring the UN to take more definitive action, nothing more.

freako104
1/29/04, 06:56pm
The resolutions demended he prove he destroyed them. He provided no such proof.







he was asked to provide the proof he destroyed them? I thought we were there as well as the UN to look for said proof? :confuse3: I am confused

Gonz
1/29/04, 07:01pm
The UN resolutions called for, among other things, that he provide proof of destroying them if that's what they did.

The US & now the US was there verifying that he had actual weapons. They would have accepted proof of their destruction had it been presented.

chcr
1/29/04, 07:01pm
Freako, he was supposed to give access to the weapons inspectors. He did it with ill grace and dragging his feet. We invaded.

freako104
1/29/04, 07:02pm
ah ok now it makes sense thanks guys

Rose
1/29/04, 07:07pm
It seems there's too much beurocracy (sp?) in the UN - ie - they will keep dragging their feet delaying action for as long as possible, and then do it a little longer.

Gonz
1/29/04, 07:07pm
Freako, he was supposed to give access to the weapons inspectors. He did it with ill grace and dragging his feet. We invaded.


for over 12 years

chcr
1/29/04, 07:11pm
for over 12 years
Wouldn't have mattered if it was 12 days, Gonz. Dubya was always going to attack, this was just the excuse.

Gonz
1/29/04, 07:13pm
I disagree.

chcr
1/29/04, 07:15pm
I disagree.

Feel free. When I'm proved right I won't even expect you to admit it. :P

freako104
1/29/04, 11:28pm
It seems there's too much beurocracy (sp?) in the UN - ie - they will keep dragging their feet delaying action for as long as possible, and then do it a little longer.



anything involving govts of any kind will be bueraucratic.






I dont knwo if he would have but he did use the 9/11 as the excuse to invade. if it never happened do you think this war would have? I think it might but not as quickly as it did.

A.B.Normal
1/30/04, 03:06am
if it never happened do you think this war would have? I think it might but not as quickly as it did.

If they would have caught Osama the Iraq war would never have happened.

freako104
1/30/04, 05:37am
its possible but they may again have had some excuse for it somehow. but the fact is he did use it which was what made me post that question. personally I disagree i think more than likely it would have happened regardless of whether or not we got Osama or if 9/11 was just another day in 2001.

chcr
1/30/04, 09:04am
If they would have caught Osama the Iraq war would never have happened.
Sorry, from the moment Dubya was elected, war with Iraq was inevitable. Whether or not Osama had been (or has been) caught.

Hell, whether or not 9/11 had happened.

ris
1/30/04, 09:46am
I disagree.

i think it was luis who reminded me of an article back when bush was elected saying he would be going for saddam hussein. i don't think there is much question that once the pressure was on hussein there was only one way it would end.

i am not so convinced that there was a concerted government intention to mislead and fabricate intelligence to make a case for war. it is concerning at how when hans blix makes statements from the ground that now appear to be increasingly accurate he was debunked so vehemently.

the intel was certainly wrong, and not just small bits, we are talking about huge chunks of stuff deemed strong enough to present to the un with little identifying stickers. the quality of intelligence is certainly in question.

freako104
1/30/04, 11:19am
Sorry, from the moment Dubya was elected, war with Iraq was inevitable. Whether or not Osama had been (or has been) caught.

Hell, whether or not 9/11 had happened.



that I agree with.

Luis G
1/30/04, 12:38pm
Since when scuds are WMD? :rolleyes:

chcr - :rofl4:

chcr
1/30/04, 12:42pm
Since when scuds are WMD? :rolleyes:

They were on the list, Luis.

paul_valaru
1/30/04, 12:45pm
I think Mr. Bush wanted to go after saddam, one way or another, and I think he would have.

I also think that this theory that he used the WMD as an excuse to go after him is wrong.

I truly beleive that he thought that iraq had them, and maybe it stepped up his plans to invade iraq.

The war or terror was enough excuse to get him in iraq, this debacle of no weapons found is the last thing he needed, and if it was his excuse and he knew they didn't exist they would have better excuses then what they are coming out with.

as much as we like to make him out to be an idiot, he scored 1206 on his SATs 1300 being mensa level, he attended both harvard and yale, and lost his first politcal venture for being seen as to smart.

He plays the every day guy to get the votes, that mixed with his less then stellar public speaking makes people think he is less than smart.

Gonz
1/30/04, 02:34pm
ugh, who are you & what did you do with the real Paul? :D

paul_valaru
1/30/04, 02:45pm
WHAT???

not saying I agree with George W.

Just saying this WMD thing has been blown into the biggest conspiricy since kennedy, when there was no real reason for him to lie about it, he had ever reason (going with his politics, and policies) to go into iraq as part of the war on terror, all he had to say was:

"Saddam Huessan has a history of harboring, and training terrorists"

go in, invade, do some happy propiganda. Push the human rights violations iraq has, and no one would bat an eyelash (except of course the people who protest everything, and of course the belgins)

To make up this WMD would be a political mistake in the order of watergate.

Gonz
1/30/04, 03:36pm
I actually like what you wrote. It sounds like someone who's thinking as opposed to the usual bashing.

Luis G
1/30/04, 06:43pm
They were on the list, Luis.

I have no doubt of that, but do you really consider a scud to be a WMD?

Ms Ann Thrope
1/30/04, 06:50pm
To make up this WMD would be a political mistake in the order of watergate.

I don't disagree with your logic except for the fact that Watergate wasn't a political mistake, it was a crime.

Gonz
1/30/04, 06:54pm
I have no doubt of that, but do you really consider a scud to be a WMD?


Yes

Scud was first deployed by the Soviets in the mid-1960s. The missile was originally designed to carry a 100-kiloton nuclear warhead or a 2,000 pound conventional warhead, with ranges from 100 to 180 miles. Its principal threat was its warhead potential to hold chemical or biological agents.

Frontline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/scud.html)

freako104
1/30/04, 07:41pm
I don't disagree with your logic except for the fact that Watergate wasn't a political mistake, it was a crime.





it was a crime but it was a political mistake for Nixon. Nixon himself was the political mistake

chcr
1/30/04, 07:45pm
it was a crime but it was a political mistake for Nixon. Nixon himself was the political mistake

The political mistake Nixon made was the crime of trying to cover it up. If he had just let some of his underlings take the fall (can you say scapegoat, I knew that you could) he might have goten away with it. There was no way in hell he was going to lose that election to George McGovern. I never understood the reason for the break-in in the first place.

Ms Ann Thrope
1/30/04, 07:52pm
paranoia? something I believe Tricky Dick had in abundance.....

freako104
1/30/04, 07:59pm
The political mistake Nixon made was the crime of trying to cover it up. If he had just let some of his underlings take the fall (can you say scapegoat, I knew that you could) he might have goten away with it. There was no way in hell he was going to lose that election to George McGovern. I never understood the reason for the break-in in the first place.


to me the mistake was him in office. He covered it up so noone would take teh blame i thought. to make it look like he and his men were innocent. if he let his men take the blame wouldnt it look bad? the reason was so he could get info on his opponents and he did and he published them.

Gonz
1/30/04, 09:21pm
Nixon. Nixon himself was the political mistake

Only Nixon coulf have gone to China.

freako104
1/30/04, 09:29pm
and make the country go paranoid about Commies, cheat to get into office, and successfully be impeached.

Gonz
1/30/04, 09:32pm
There was damn good reason to be paranoid about commies. (Nixon, unlike Clinton, was never impeached)

freako104
1/30/04, 09:43pm
your right he left office just before he was impeached. We were paranoid about them becaue they didnt agree with us? didnt we start the arms war? and also didnt we start the cold war?

Gonz
1/30/04, 09:53pm
Eric, please, I beg you, start reading history books. Preferably ones that tell the story within context & without rhetoric. You are looking for reasons to belittle the US & it's getting tiresome (since you use nothing of originality) .

It was mutual. The arms race was played by both sides. We damn near had armageddon.

freako104
1/30/04, 09:56pm
I had been taught we had started the weapons race. then the Soviets had followed suit

Gonz
1/30/04, 09:59pm
You've been taught political half-truths

freako104
1/30/04, 10:02pm
http://www.historychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl?ID=80915




according to this we felt threatened by them. As they spread the west tried to block them from spreading too far.

freako104
1/30/04, 10:02pm
You've been taught political half-truths




so basically I was lied to or only told half the facts?

Gonz
1/30/04, 10:09pm
You were told things from a perspective. It wasn't in plain simple truth.

The link you provided...what did you immediately get out of it? "We felt threatened". Ok, yes we did. There however is more to the story if you'd bother to ask...why did we feel threatened? the answer was a few words awayby the continued expansionist policy of the Soviet Union

We weren't the ones overthrowing countries to expand our society.

freako104
1/30/04, 10:11pm
which i didnt get. I had thought it was countries deciding communism works or making the decision to.had they been forced I would have thought differently.

Gonz
1/30/04, 10:12pm
They were forced

freako104
1/30/04, 10:13pm
then I take it back we had a right to be worried. I had thought they made the decision on their own.

Gonz
1/30/04, 10:15pm
This is but one example...go reading...we aren't usually the bad guys.

freako104
1/30/04, 10:15pm
You were told things from a perspective. It wasn't in plain simple truth.

The link you provided...what did you immediately get out of it? "We felt threatened". Ok, yes we did. There however is more to the story if you'd bother to ask...why did we feel threatened? the answer was a few words away

We weren't the ones overthrowing countries to expand our society.



just curious tho were there govts we did to expand our trade?

Gonz
1/30/04, 10:19pm
no, we've not overthrown governments to expand our trade partners. we allow the mighty buck to speak instead of the mighty rifle. Not one single country is now nor has ever been forced to trade with the United States.

freako104
1/30/04, 10:22pm
more i didnt know or was taught wrong I guess. I had thought we helped rebels in South America for a while I think it was the 80s. maybe earlier.

Gonz
1/30/04, 10:27pm
Helped rebels...you're talking about the Sandanista thing & that is pure unadultereated politcs.

We supported a group who opposed turning Nicaragua into a communist country (the group was not their government).

It has nothing to do with trade.

freako104
1/30/04, 11:32pm
I didnt even know about that one. the one I was thinking happened in South America I think it was Venezuela or Peru and neither the govt nor the rebels liked us there.

Gonz
1/30/04, 11:40pm
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista)

Excellent mini-history lesson

freako104
1/31/04, 12:01am
glad to be learning new things thanks Gonz.

Squiggy
1/31/04, 12:04am
History is 'old' things, eric...:retard:

freako104
1/31/04, 12:09am
ever heard the phrase:



If we dont learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.



and I love to learn anyway. ;)

Squiggy
1/31/04, 12:12am
ever heard the phrase:

If we dont learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.

and I love to learn anyway. ;)


We still repeat it...didn't you see the part about us supporting the sandanistas and then the contras who opposed them..:tardbang: Its a game we love to play...

Gonz
1/31/04, 12:17am
let's not go there...we still haven't figured out the Iraq game yet ;)

freako104
1/31/04, 12:19am
honestly I didnt. as I said to Gonz I didnt even know about that war before today. But it is politics and it is a game that we have played. it is how we got our power isnt it? I agree we do play that game. actually I think i see the game in areas where I am more aware such as Hussein(didnt we put him in power?) Osama(didnt he get weapons from us) and did we arm both India and Palestine? I wasnt sure on that part

Gonz
1/31/04, 12:25am
We got our power by using a better type of government & economic policy to improve our lot. As that happened we were able to assist other nations. Like a snowball rolling downhill, it built & built until we are both the cavalry, riding over the horizon to save the honorable nobleman as well as the thorn - a reminder to those less fortunate that they haven't moved as far as they wished and we're an easy target.

freako104
1/31/04, 12:34am
so because our govt and economy grew so did our power. that makes the most sense. I had always thought it was because the games as Joe adn I called it where we did play both sides to get both sides to support us. the growing economy and govt would be a better way to make the power.

Gonz
1/31/04, 12:38am
We do play both sides sometimes. It's whatever is best for us (economics & national security). If playing both sides keep the balance (Iraq vs Iran) then so be it.

freako104
1/31/04, 12:45am
my only concern on that is that it makes us seem like we dont have integrity. isnt it why some countries dont trust us

Gonz
1/31/04, 12:51am
All countries trust us. No matter what the propaganda says, they know we'll do what we say. It's what we don't say that scares 'em.

Squiggy
1/31/04, 01:04am
"We are going to find the people responsible for bringing these buildings down, and bring them to justice..." ~ G. W. Bush at ground zero

I didn't hear the part about "unless they're Saudis..." :confuse3:

Gonz
1/31/04, 01:33am
Hush up you, we're busy planning the new world order

Fidel Castro accused U.S. President George W. Bush on Friday of plotting with Miami exiles to kill him as part of his administration's hardening policies against the communist-run island.

Squiggy
1/31/04, 01:35am
And you doubt it? :shrug:

freako104
1/31/04, 01:48am
gonzll have my head for this but I dont doubt it i think it is highly possible

MrBishop
2/03/04, 11:36am
:)

freako104
2/03/04, 11:57am
:rofl4: dude thats great!!

Professur
2/03/04, 02:01pm
Didya know that in french a sledge hammer is called a Mass? Maybe that's why the french didn't wanna go to war. I can see it now.

<french accent>the americans want to go to war for what??? Because Saddam has form sledge hammers?

freako104
2/06/04, 09:57am
here is something my history teacher from last semester(he didnt cover this I get the info back in 10th grade) sent to me when I asked him

Depends on what you call the first steps. We were both so suspicious tat we saw what could have been non-threatening moves as preparations for the other. For instance, the Russians believed the atomic bombs in Japan were really aimed at them---to tell them we were the top dog and they had to do what we said. We saw Russian moves in eastern Europe late in the war and just after as expansions of Soviet power. They were probably thinking of them as self-protective.
In South America are actions often seem warped, but I don't think we were ever in without some type of invite---though we may have stayed after our "allies" wanted us to go.