|
Post by MrNice on Mar 15, 2009 14:57:44 GMT -5
you seem to be confusing actual intelligence with a public remark about it again, I repeat, you have NO IDEA what sort of stuff the russian intelligence knew and what they told their US counterparts despite (you would be a fool to you actually believe this) putin's opposition
public speeches don't mean anything you see, if an agent overhears some conversation that goes something like this:
man1:we should blow something up in USA man2:we definitely should
this technically can be presented as 'intelligence suggested that iraq was planning attacks in united states'
I am glad you admit its not a justification for war the fact that all wars have civilian casualties is irrelevant
no - I am saying they are killing civilians
its not for nothing Iraq used to have statues of saddham husein
numbers please? in any case this does not change the fact that we went to war based on LIES
we can blow up the whole middle east and get rid of most terrorists - would this be a good thing to do since we would get rid of most terrorists? probably not
you are completely ignoring the negative consequences of the war - but they are there the life in Iraq may be worse for the majority of people then it was during saddham
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Mar 15, 2009 15:46:07 GMT -5
you seem to be confusing actual intelligence with a public remark it again, I repeat, you have NO IDEA what sort of stuff the russian intelligence knew and what they told their US counterparts You're in denial about the public remark by the anti-Iraq war Putin. Example of your logic: I have no idea that 9/11 happened, because I've only seen 'public remarks' about it, not the actual thing - I wasn't there when it happened. Of course we haven't seen the actual intelligence. But we know the gist of it. If civilian casualties were irrelevenat to you wouldn't be whinning about it. That's not the question. Are they killing them on purpose, intentionally. Do you think the US and NATO forces go out and say "We're going to kill innocent civilians today"? Hussein was a dictator. So ordered that easily. The Clinton statue was done out of gratitude - he saved them from Milosevic's genocide. In other words - it was done freely, since it's a free country, while Hussein statues were ordered and forced by Hussein himself, probably. It's well known fact that violence went down dramaticly after the 2007 Iraq surge. According to estimates from independent organizations, between 6,700 and 8,000 Iraqis were killed in attacks in 2008, more than a 50 percent drop compared with 2007. CSMonitorIt's not a lie if everybody's telling you they have WMD's and they're willing to attack. The WMD were not a lie because Bush believed it was true. So did Powell and Blair. And Hillary.. Let's say you're the president. A year after 9/11 what would President MrNice do upon hearing the same WMD's reports from different intelligence organizations? Better an elected government than a dictatorship.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Mar 15, 2009 16:06:03 GMT -5
no - I completely acknowledge that putin made that remark - I have no reason to believe that he didn't
9/11 happened - and it wasn't just remarks two sky scrapers disappeared, several planes have crashed there is documented evidence having actually been near the WTC on 9/11 I especially have no reason to believe that nothing happened
putin's remarks are a completely different story
for example there are people making remarks that it was an internal conspiracy if a president of some country remarks that intelligence of some other country told them that 9/11 was an internal conspiracy, how credible would that be?
no we don't all we have is a remark by putin - a remark given much less weight then his remark about the government not going after the oil company that was broken up by the government a month later
its good to know that the number of casualties is decreasing
you don't know what anyone believed however it is a known fact that bush made public statements about certain reports that were found to be false before he made those statements so he lied
obviously it depends on the intelligence and in retrospect there was no solid evidence of WMD in Iraq
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Mar 15, 2009 16:16:56 GMT -5
Better an elected government than a dictatorship. but you seem to believe that war is the only way to support people who live under dictatorships, and that civilian deaths are really necessary to accomplish their freedom. I'd prefer no civilian casualties. But since terrorists kill their own people, on purpose, you gotta stop them. Like what? Signing a peace agreement? That doesn't work with people who aren't even interested in peace, as history showed (Hitler signed a peace agreement too). Saddam was very fond of attacking Kuwait and whiping out a certian ethnicity from his country, same way Milosevic and Hitler were. You know, I doubt talking to a murderer would do anything.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Mar 15, 2009 16:26:48 GMT -5
if a president of some country remarks that intelligence of some other country told them that 9/11 was an internal conspiracy, how credible would that be? Bush didn't say what Putin said was wrong, because it was true. In 9/11 truthers case, I doubt any president would go that far and if somebody did, we all know what Obama's reaction would be. That's an interesting argument. Well I can't read people's minds, however, I hear what they say and I assume that you're saying what you're believing. I don't think Hillary was lying, or any of these guys for that matter. Politicians may twists things in a political campaign or stretch the truth, but when they vote for something, they probably believe in it, at least at the time. Like what? Yes, in retrospect, but not in 2002.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Mar 15, 2009 16:58:13 GMT -5
wrong about what? in the example I gave above, with two guys saying that they should blow something up in USA, technically it would be true and putin wouldn't lie however it is not credible evidence of Iraq planning terrorist attacks on United States soil in my opinion I don't understand this sentence, what are you referring to? obama's reaction to what? like this www.fair.org/index.php?page=1841in retrospect for regular people who get to see classified information 5 years after - it was not retrospect for bush
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Mar 15, 2009 17:09:20 GMT -5
like not assisting people like saddham into power
when saddham attacked kuwait, we went in and kicked his ass, end of story after that he did not attack kuwait
there is a long way to go from oppressing the country's majority population in order to stay in power with wiping out an ethnicity
please don't make such simplistic comparison's without knowing what you are talking about
and invoking hitler is just cheap by the way did you know that he did those bad things to the jewish population in order to save his country?
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Mar 15, 2009 17:41:57 GMT -5
Putin wasn't wrong because Russian intel shared the info with the US gov. To a president of another country saying that 9/11 attacks were done by the US administration. Obama would say it's BS, in a nicer way. ;D Iffy. Jeff Cohen is doing well for himself to have a website called "Fair.org" while working for the far-left Huffington Post. Proof?
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Mar 15, 2009 17:43:15 GMT -5
putin's remarks are completely irrelevant www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=26507US reaction to Putin's assertions has largely been puzzlement. US State Department spokesman Adam Ereli told reporters he knew nothing about the information Putin said Moscow had given Washington, while another State Department official said, "Everybody's scratching their heads" (State.gov, Reuters, June 18). US Secretary of State Colin Powell said he was "not familiar with what the Russians might have given us" and would thus "have to yield to my friends in the intelligence community" (Moscow Times, June 21). White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said, "As you know, we have ongoing co-operation with the Russian government, including in matters of intelligence. And we don't discuss specific intelligence matters" (Agence France-Presse, June 19). ... However, Kommersant also pointed out incongruities in the story, noting, for example, that during 2002-2003, when the Bush Administration was trying to make the case for going to war with Iraq, it used "all possible sources of information," even reports about uranium from Niger that turned out to be false, but never referred to Russia's information about planned Iraqi terrorist attacks (Kommersant, June 21). The Grani.ru website quoted from a critical statement that Putin made at the start of the US-led invasion of Iraq, in which he said, among other things, that Russia never possessed any information showing that Iraq supported international terrorism (Grani.ru, June 19). ... Kremlin-connected analyst Stanislav Belkovsky, who heads National Strategy Institute, agreed that Russia is "objectively" interested in Bush's victory in November. But he also suggested that in alleging that Iraq planned to attack the US, Putin was seeking American assistance in freeing two Russian intelligence agents on trial in Qatar for assassinating former Chechen separatist president Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev (APN, June 18). In other words whatever putin said was most likely BS
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Mar 15, 2009 17:45:47 GMT -5
it is irrelevant whether you like the author or not the facts speak for themselves
proof of what? that bush had access to classified information that regular civilians don't have access to?
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Mar 15, 2009 17:52:31 GMT -5
proof of what? that bush had access to classified information that regular civilians don't have access to? Your claim is that he lied. So where in that classified information did you find that he lied?
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Mar 15, 2009 17:57:53 GMT -5
just read the article the very first couple of paragraphs the report about iraq trying to buy yellowcake uranium in africa turned out to be based on fraud bush knew that yet he proceeded to include this in his state of the union speech
and we are ignoring the issue of who was behind those fake documents in the first place I wouldn't be surprised if it was USA - however there is no proof so we'll just leave it for speculation
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Mar 15, 2009 18:02:26 GMT -5
No, no, no you bring up classified information, something you're paranoid about, I think, and you have nothing on them to support your argument, apperently. Nice.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Mar 15, 2009 18:08:25 GMT -5
ok lets try again
there was a report about iraq trying to buy yellowcake uranium in africa it was based on fake documents bush knew about it, yet decided to use the report in his state of the union speech anyway
what part do you not understand?
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Mar 15, 2009 18:16:05 GMT -5
like not assisting people like saddham into power When the US realised he was evil they destroyed him. Sure. But this Saddam is the guy that ordered the slaughter of Kurdish Iraqi's - tens of thousands died as a result of that. So, we're talking about a guy who's able to kill his own people - an evil guy. In that regard comparisons to Hitler and Milosevic are right on, I think.
|
|