Bush's Goon Squad

[rehmwa 2]

It's pronounced: in-trick'-a-sees : (this is from the Simpsons, don't expect anyone to pick up on it)

I don't want to get into the justification or not of the Japan conflict, just that world opinion can be biased either way due to large displays of strength. And these can last for generations and can bias others against us even if we are acting in what we'd consider the right.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[TheAnvil 0]

I still believe anything US intel organizations put out over the UN and maintain that GWB had/has better intel than any of us.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[juanesky 0]

Can? Has lasted already few generations, now we are the agressors to a war we did not start, nor were warned in advanced.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[billvon 2,470]

> . . .and maintain that GWB had/has better intel than any of us.

Except for the times he was wrong, and the UN/UNSCOM/IAEA had better intelligence than he did. And when our intelligence failed to connect the dots before 9/11. So other than only partially detecting the biggest terrorist attack in US history, and despite causing us to go to war on bogus information, I suppose they're doing OK.

.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Can anyone clarify to me? I'm confused.

Why is it Harry Truman's fault again????

Because Kallend said so.

[crzjp20 0]

Bill your a reasonable man... for the most part... jj... but lets take a look at intel. First off it is never 100% correct. If it is then this wourld would be a much different place.

AS for 9-11 intel, well yeah we screwed up. But are you going to lay all the blame on the bush? what about all the cutts in funding that clinton did that stripped th CIA of field agents that got the on the ground intel? Im not blaming this on clinton, but let be honest. It lays on every president over the last 12 years. So is it bushes fault? yeah, is it clintons fault? yeah. Intel takes a long time to develope and a short time to lose.

AS for iraq, iraq is an intrestig situation. First off we should have finished the job in 91 and we would not be having this coverstation. But that didnt happen. However, the world knew this man was dangerious, he gasses his own people, he murdered millions of people. We knew he was nutts, so for that reason alone i think we were justified going in to iraq. Granted that was not the reason we went to war. Was the intel wrong? well i dont know. Granted we havnt found stock piles of weapons, we have found the places where they could have been made. We have even found artiollery shells filled with chemical weapons. Somewhere around 50-60 of them... not a stock pile. But when things happen like what happened in jordan last week where the jordanians foileda terrorist plan to kill thousands of civilians using chemical weapons that they already had possession of, it makes me wonder. I dont have all the answers but one thing i do know is if the US was wrong and Bush was wrong, so was Clinton, and bush Sr., along with every intel agency in the wourld cause they all said the same thing.

--------------------------------------------------
Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage.

[billvon 2,470]

>AS for 9-11 intel, well yeah we screwed up. But are you going to lay
>all the blame on the bush?

Not at all! It was the terrorist's fault. Bush could have done more to stop it, but before 9/11, there was simply no priority on stopping terrorism because it was hard (not impossible, but hard) to imagine that terrorists would fly airliners into buildings. The FBI could have done more; the CIA could have done more. But that's all in the past. The thing to do now is admit we screwed up, fix the problem and move on to preventing future attacks.

>what about all the cutts in funding that clinton did that stripped th
> CIA of field agents that got the on the ground intel? Im not blaming
> this on clinton, but let be honest. It lays on every president over the
> last 12 years. So is it bushes fault? yeah, is it clintons fault? yeah.

I agree 100% - if you add in the FBI, CIA, and members of administrations going back to Reagan.

> However, the world knew this man was dangerious, he gasses his
>own people, he murdered millions of people. We knew he was nutts. . .

But we supported him while he was gassing people because they were people we wanted dead. We can't claim the moral high ground on that one. We can't support gassing of people then be outraged by it years later.

>Granted that was not the reason we went to war. Was the intel wrong?
> well i dont know. Granted we havnt found stock piles of weapons, we
> have found the places where they could have been made.

Well, no. We found plants that could be used to make chemical weapons in the same way my machine shop and electronics lab at work could be used to make nuclear weapons components. We didn't find any evidence at all that those chemical weapons had ever been made there. We knew he _had_ chemical weapons at one point; we sold them to him. And so I expected us to find traces of old degraded weapons, which we did. But he wasn't making new weapons.

Might he have made them in the future? Perhaps. And perhaps one of the several insurgencies we were supporting in Iraq might have killed him off before then. It would have saved the lives of ten thousand Iraqis.

But all that is beside the point. The reason we invaded Iraq is that we had plans to do it since well before 9/11; the WMD thing was just a good excuse. Now we have to deal with the aftermath.

>But when things happen like what happened in jordan last week
> where the jordanians foileda terrorist plan to kill thousands of
> civilians using chemical weapons that they already had possession
> of, it makes me wonder.

It doesn't just make me wonder, it worries me. But consider that the only recent biological attack against the US came from an anthrax culture developed in a US lab. There are plenty of more serious threats much closer to home.

>I dont have all the answers but one thing i do know is if the US was
> wrong and Bush was wrong, so was Clinton, and bush Sr., along with
> every intel agency in the wourld cause they all said the same thing.

Well, except the IAEA and UNMOVIC. But I agree that the reason 9/11 slipped under our radar was due to a series of errors and omissions, not just the errors of one man (or even one adminstration.)

[crzjp20 0]

i knew you were a reasonable man!!

good points, and yeah i do fear the whole idea of a chemical bio attack. Its scary, and we are not ready for it.

but anyways

--------------------------------------------------
Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage.

[mikkey 0]

If we can get back to topic. I find the pictures appalling. Especially the smiles on the face of the many US soldiers involved in the abuse.

Do you guys have any idea what this will do the Iraqi people? Especially that women are involved in this.

Every time people here question the tactics and operations of the US armed forces the right wingers here tell us how the army just exactly knows what it is doing and has everything under control. Apparently not - right in the middle of Baghdad.

Read the latest Time magazine how Iraqi security forces do not want to work with the US troops because of their arrogance and domination.

The whole thing is badly managed - as mentioned before the Brits are doing a much better job in the south by being much more respectful and "sensitive". But the American attitude which is also reflected on this board clearly does not work.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[kallend 1,678]

Quote

Can anyone clarify to me? I'm confused.

Why is it Harry Truman's fault again????

Please tell me that you're not really unable to make the connection.

Harry Truman was honest, and took responsibility for the consequences of the actions of his administration.

GWB is dishonest, won't admit he was wrong, and will make more mistakes because that's the nature of the man.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,678]

Quote

I still believe anything US intel organizations put out over the UN and maintain that GWB had/has better intel than any of us.

Maybe you should read the UN inspectors' reports to the UN and compare their accuracy with what Bush told us on 20th January 2003 (which was a tissue of lies).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not a Bush fan, but he can't be blamed for individual's behaviour. When people are on the sharp end of a conflict, horrible things sometimes happen when they catch each other.

t

Yep, especially when they are 300 yards from the militants on the outskirts of Fallujah, who are firing on them, killing their buddies and the diplomats won't let them defend themselves.

That would be a nice excuse for torture but....

Quote

The CBS News program "60 Minutes II" on Wednesday broadcast photos taken at the Abu Ghraib prison late last year showing American troops abusing some Iraqis held at what was once a notorious center of torture and executions under toppled President Saddam Hussein

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040430/ts_nm/iraq_pictures_dc

I don't blame Bush for this either. But I don't care what half baked excuse is used. This is inexcusable and I hope everyone involved is severely punished. Unfortunately, it's too late. Now the general thinking in Iraq will be what exactly did we save them from if we're treating them the same way Saddam did. Not that we've gone that far, but that will be the thinking.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Can anyone clarify to me? I'm confused.

Why is it Harry Truman's fault again????

Please tell me that you're not really unable to make the connection.

Harry Truman was honest, and took responsibility for the consequences of the actions of his administration.

GWB is dishonest, won't admit he was wrong, and will make more mistakes because that's the nature of the man.

You're funny

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Keith 0]

Jerry said Bush's Goon Squad did it. He didn't say Bush did it. That'd be like me saying Gawian's dogs pooped in my yard, and someone rebutting saying I said Gawain pooped in my yard.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[tcnelson 1]

if you like spineless-lying bastards, you'll like the next democratic president. hopefully there won't be one but, i'm a realist.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[WFFC 1]

Quote

We invaded per a plan that's been in place for years.

I agree the plan has been in place for years, but didn't GWB think the plan was out of date and ask for an updated one?

[b1jercat 0]

Quote

if you like spineless-lying bastards, you'll like
the next democratic president. hopefully there won't be one but, i'm a realist.

It's ok dude I know you meant to say republican president, please read what you write in the future.

blues

jerry

[PhillyKev 0]

Hmmm, now I wouldn't call Bush spineless. He definitely sticks with his convictions. In fact he's more stubborn and obstinate than spineless. He won't even take the advice of his advisors on certain issues and will jam his opinions down our throats just because Jesus told him to.

I'm not sure if he's a liar, either. More likely he's just naive and believes whatever he's told by his cabinet and the imaginary voices in his head.

[b1jercat 0]

Thats a big 10-4 on the imaginary voices, I don't think people realize how dangerous Bush is.

blues

jerry

[kmcguffee 0]

Iraq was supporting terrorism. There is no hard link to Al Qaeda but there is plenty of evidence to support the statement that Hussein supported terrorism. He provided money to the families of suicide bombers, he trained bombers, he equipped bombers. This is not a "war on Al Qaeda" it is a "war on terrorism". Asking "why aren't we attacking Sudan, or Iran, or Syria" does not call into question our right to attack Iraq based on their support of terrorism and the numerous other reasons upon which we invaded them (WMD was only one of about 8 or 9 reasons).

One quick news story that seems to have been pushed to the back by most news agencies:

Quote

BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. forces came upon a recently abandoned terrorist training camp on the outskirts of Baghdad where recruits were apparently taught how to make bombs and what to do if they got captured, the Marines said Wednesday.

Complete story here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C84291%2C00.html

I also find it very insulting that our members of the armed services (many of whom post on this board) are being called "goons". Why is this not considered a personal attack? It is serving no purpose other than to try and irritate and piss people off.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[jakee 1,276]

Quote

If I remember correctly, there was pretty uniform agreement about the existence of WMD in Iraq.

Hans Blix might disagree with you there.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[benny 0]

Quote

>Anyone or any nation that supports terrorism will be dealt with
>accordinly - That has rung true.

You mean like Sudan?

Or my favorite, Saudi Arabia.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[PhillyKev 0]

I wonder if the source for this is the same as the one who reported finding the mobile chemical weapons labs that turned out to be water treatment stations.

Quote

Hoellwarth said uniforms and gas masks were also left behind,

I guess every military base of ours is a terrorist training camp as well.

[kallend 1,678]

Quote

This is not a "war on Al Qaeda" it is a "war on terrorism". Asking "why aren't we attacking Sudan, or Iran, or Syria" does not call into question our right to attack Iraq based on their support of terrorism and the numerous other reasons upon which we invaded them (WMD was only one of about 8 or 9 reasons).

.

In the 1980s the US supported and trained the Mujahadeen terrorists in Afghanistan, and the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua. Do we now invade ourselves and imprison ex-presidents Reagan and Bush, along with their cabinets?

Your logic is faulty. The invasion of Iraq was premised on lies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

And currently support anti-Castro terrorists.