Bush: Obliterates a country (Iraq) that has no WMD's but refuses to attack a country that does (N.K

Originally posted by DoomX
Well obviously now that you know Iraq doesn't have WMD's it so easy to say this, BUT at the time the intelligence stated different.

Manufactured intelligence isnt intelligence, its just lies...and, as much as i'm sure you would love to counter-that, i'm quite sure if i need to (which im sure i dont) I can come up with only a ton of resources that shows that the purported "intelligence" was seriously flawed.

BTW, please don't insult *my* intelligence by trying to say that there's no way the administration could have known that in advance...

Sorry that you interpreted what I said as an insult to your intelligence, didn't mean for that.

The intelligence fooled most of congress so it couldn't have been that flawed... (I'd appreciate the link you have that proves it so flawed.) In less no one in Congress cared to review the information than that's another matter.

Originally posted by DoomX
Sorry that you interpreted what I said as an insult to your intelligence, didn't mean for that.

The intelligence fooled most of congress so it couldn't have been that flawed... (I'd appreciate the link you have that proves it so flawed.) In less no one in Congress cared to review the information than that's another matter.

Actually, I didnt interpret what you had said as an insult to my intelligence, It was my "Pre-emptive strike" against you doing so lol.

Anyway, here's a link to a great article presented by Senator Dianne Feinsteins of California's office. This article is back in January of 2004 where she first questions and calls for an inquiry into the events leading up to the war in Iraq, as well as a chronological listing of the assumtions made by the administration as a result of what we now know to be flawed intelligence

Link to Senator Dianne Feinsteins Statement


And in the next link I will provide (just happens to be the Sydney Morning Herald, but it can be found almost anywhere on the internet) is where Colin Powell makes concessions to the BBC about the hows and whys the intelligence was flawed..which is why I said that we did make that confession.

Here is an excerpt from Colin Powell:

"It was not a happy moment when it started to emerge and when I started to receive word from the intelligence community that said, 'Oops, this source was not good,'" Powell told the BBC. "But we still had three other sources, and then suddenly the three other sources turned out not to be good. Now, I was not happy. I was deeply disappointed in what the intelligence community had presented to me and to the rest of us. And what really upset me more than anything else was that there were people in the intelligence community that had doubts about some of this sourcing, but those doubts never surfaced up to us."

Link Here

[edit on 11-10-2006 by alphabetaone]

Originally posted by DoomX
Sorry that you interpreted what I said as an insult to your intelligence, didn't mean for that.

The intelligence fooled most of congress so it couldn't have been that flawed... (I'd appreciate the link you have that proves it so flawed.) In less no one in Congress cared to review the information than that's another matter.

Being duped by flawed intellegence, is different from being pursuaded to follow flawed evidence...

And what evidence could they possibly of had.
I mean... If I came to you saying I had evidence of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow... you'd tell me im a fool.. because there cant possibly be evidence to convince u of something that doesnt exist.

So, what concrete, definitive proof could the USA possibly of put forward to congress, that makes you believe they followed?
If there is no WMD, there's then no EVIDENCE of WMD.
And If there's no EVIDENCE of WMDS that dont EXIST.. how can you convince congress to follow BASED on the evidence provided.

You're assuming like the Administration .

When Powell says that was that already after we went into Iraq? I think so.

Is this what Congress got to see? www.cia.gov...



[edit on 11-10-2006 by DoomX]

[edit on 11-10-2006 by DoomX]

Originally posted by DoomX
"Damned if you do, damned if you don't"

Not true. There's a significant difference between going to war with Iraq and going to war with N.K. and it has nothing to do with being on the left or the right.

Bush made a monumental first step in US history. That being to invade and occupy a country to preempt its leader from using its weapons of mass destruction even though the UN had inspectors in place to monitor the situation. Now, to make that leap… to invade a country, obliterate it’s infrastructure, kill hundreds of thousands of its people (not to mention thousands of our own), and spend billions of our tax dollars, all in order to stop its leader from using its WMDs you had better be 100% damn sure it has them in the first place, no? But Bush and Co. rammed it down our throats that they did have WMDs when in fact they did not. But Bush chose to go it alone and now we are faced with this catastrophe.

So its not like its simply "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" when either Bush straight up lied to congress, the American people, and the world OR made the biggest blunder in US history. Either way he, Bush, needs to pay for it. But the problem with you “righties” is you continue to support him… How? You just blow it off like it was just a simple little mistake, like spilling milk, and that only by occupying and killing more Iraqis will it fix the problem. It shows how little you regard human life and unfortunately is only adding fuel to the fire.

Now, N.K. has just tested a true WMD. There is proof of that. The world knows. And its leader has threatened to use it against us. I would have no problem, after we exhaust non-military options, to invade that country. Unfortunately we’re spread too thin now in a war we shouldn’t be in and the country that we should be worried about (N.K.) will be left unchecked. I guess, in a way, you can’t blame Bush for saying we’re not going to invade N.K. Who would we use?

So, please stop trying to shift blame of this debacle on us “lefties” (I’m moderate Republican by the way who initially supported the war in Iraq, after being lied to, but now am completely embarrassed by the actions of our “leaders”). Its not about left vs. right… its about right vs. wrong!


[edit on 12-10-2006 by mecheng]

Originally posted by mecheng
So, please stop trying to shift blame of this debacle on us “lefties” (I’m moderate Republican by the way who initially supported the war in Iraq, after being lied to, but now am completely embarrassed by the actions of our “leaders”). Its not about left vs. right… its about right vs. wrong!


[edit on 12-10-2006 by mecheng]

As much as I wish I could disagree with your sentiments, I dont. But im not even certain it boils down to right vs. wrong anymore...I'm beginning to believe what it truly boils down to is an uninformed uneducated unpatriotic population vs. an informed educated patriotic population.

A lot of the people who would automatically "jump the gun" in all the wrong places and choose to ignore a REAL situation, have never in their lifetime seen a war, or been in a situation where our whole way of life ACTUALLY hangs in the balance....had they, I think the general concensus would be quite different than it is at the moment. Just my honest opinion


AB1

You have voted alphabetaone for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Outstanding point. Its like its all just a big video game. Its easy for us to sit here in our barcaloungers, beer in hand, watching Bush's retoric on CNN and say yeah... kill more Iraqis... that'll fix it. But would you feel the same if you or your child had to fight this war? Would you put your life on the line for Bush? If so, why?

Could it be that any invasion would immediately result in over a million dead South Koreans? A million starving North Korean soldiers come screaming across the border, slaughtering everything in sight.

The birds go into the air, raining down explosives over Japan. Another million starving North Koreans pour across the border in China, causing riots, completely destabilizing most - if not all - of Southern China.

North Korean subs start randomly popping up around the globe, blowing away ocean liners, or worse, OIL TANKERS.

I mean seriously, why do you actually WANT us to invade?

Originally posted by brimstone735
....

I mean seriously, why do you actually WANT us to invade?

Well, thats exactly the basic question that remains unasked and unanswered. It is quite funny how both individual Americans as well as NGO and government officials oftentimes complain about the USA being considered the "World Police" by the Europeans, while at the same time they are involving themselves deeply into matters that OTHERS should care about first.

I am mostly speaking of exactly those nations that are under immediate threat by North Korea... and these do NOT involve the USA. The Chinese for example are constantly tackling US ideas on the world stage. If I were "the USA", I´d simply call on THEM to come up with a solution for their OWN backyard now, or at least call for them to actively cooperate in finding a solution.

This is just more of this current administrations hypocrisy, that's all. They pick and chose whom to attack and they go after the ones they know have nothing to attack with at all.
We leave no cave unturned, but when it comes to little Korean people, toy soldiers running around with dangerous weapons, we turn a blind eye.


Nobody is advocating "WAR"- We are just calling a spade a spade.

I've never seen anything so pathetic in my life.

Who cares what the french say. Even if it was a little dirty bomb they exploded, shouldnt we at least make them a priority right about now???

Hell no!!! There's no oil there.