• home
• people
• blogs
• forums
• events
• quizzes
• videos
• chat
• tags
• adult dating
• help

My Threads

null

page: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> of 27 pages

< previous page | next page >

Nov 24, 2008 @ 10:04 PM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     kejacks Posts: 235 Remember remember remember it was Clinton who had Bin Laden in Sudan and let him go. Clinton Clinton Clinton let Bin Laden go go go got it students. If you want to cast the blame it ultimately falls on the shoulders of William Jefferson Clinton who if he had not allowed Bin Laden to escape we would have had a huge advantage in anticipating terrorist intentions and 9/11 may not have happened at all and that would have radically changed the direction of the Bush administration and made things much different than they are today. Than all you liberals would have to find something else to bitch about. Say it as many times as you want to, The Shrub Administration had no business going into Iraq, if you think that was the best option, look at this: almost 7 years later Why did he call off the pursuit of OBL and go after Saddam? regime change or oil prospects? or both? UN Res. 1441, I don't think so......a big wet one? [Edited on 11/24/2008 10:14 PM]   Nov 24, 2008 @ 10:09 PM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     lefthandedluckie Posts: 6,386 George Bush I did not go into Baghdad because he promised other arab countries he would not do so. Of course he had other reason but, this was his main one! "I firmly believed that we should not march into Baghdad....To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter day Arab hero...assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war."...!! the link to the quoted paragraph And here are George Bush II's reasons that we attacked Iraq! This link below is very informative! there are links to each quote and statement he and others in his cabinet made   Nov 24, 2008 @ 10:57 PM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     Novalite Posts: 3,253 O In otherwords there was no exit plan. And know what, I'm not the friggin President, and I didn't take us to war based on a lie. Ask Bush and his administration what the exit plan was, not me ? Or do you care more if I have one, when it won't save any lives, than if Bush did ? Hello, earth to O. Told you twice what the exit plan was, if that is not your idea of one i asked you to supply one otherwise, the victory and achievement of the goals for entering the conflict are the exit plan. Wondering if you even know what one is if that is not your idea of one. O still waiting for that exit plan Gave it to you twice. I doubt explaining it to you a third time will enable you to read it any better. Sides, you don't even know what an exit plan would ever look like in any War so what the heck do you know? O but no one can tell me, or anyone else, what Bush's theory was to get our brave men and women out of his illegal war ? What's wrong, can't admit he had no exit plan ? Can't admit Bush sent our troops into battle without any plan to bring them out ? Yes, I can. It is called victory and the achievemnt of the goals for entering the conflict in the first place. Same as any other war in history. As for illegal, has the UNSC finally stated that they condemn the invasion of Iraq? Strange, they authorized the US to take whatever action they deemed necessary to ensure Saddam complied with the ceasefire terms and, placed no restrictions on those actions. So, you have some proof that the fifteen members of the UNSC has declared it illegal? Kejacks Why did he call off the pursuit of OBL and go after Saddam? Have you proof that OBL was not a continual target and that there was no action to find him at any point in time? If I recall, at the time he got away there were only two hundred SF in the area, now there are thousands and, have been since. so, when was the search discontinued?   Nov 24, 2008 @ 11:04 PM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     kejacks Posts: 235 Have you proof that OBL was not a continual target and that there was no action to find him at any point in time? If I recall, at the time he got away there were only two hundred SF in the area, now there are thousands and, have been since. so, when was the search discontinued? maybe we needed 150k there and a little more international support for a just cause   Nov 24, 2008 @ 11:09 PM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     lefthandedluckie Posts: 6,386 George Bush said and I quote.... "“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.” - G.W. Bush, 9/13/01 “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02"...! flashbacks George Bush wishes no one remembered [Edited on 11/24/2008 11:09 PM]   Nov 24, 2008 @ 11:09 PM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     Novalite Posts: 3,253 Kejacks maybe we needed 150k there and a little more international support for a just cause Maybe? Please explain what 150 thousand troops in Afghanistan would do for capturing OBL when he is in Pakistan. Left George Bush said and I quote.... "“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.” - G.W. Bush, 9/13/01 “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02"...! Priorities change. That's the wonder of politics. Do try to keep up though.   Nov 24, 2008 @ 11:10 PM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     kejacks Posts: 235 Explain 150k troops in iraq....is that where OBL is?   Nov 24, 2008 @ 11:15 PM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     Novalite Posts: 3,253 Thought i did already. Oh well, here it is again; - to get Iraq to comply with ceasefire terms - to stop Iraq’s Inadvertence to UNSC resolutions - to force Iraq to cease it’s violation of human rights - to stop Iraq’s material breaches of UNSC resolutions - to end Iraq’s WMD capability and aspirations - to end repression of Iraq’s civilian population - to force Iraq to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals - to force Iraq to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq, - to end Iraqi Support for terrorism - to show America has the will to help allies and destroy foes - to depose a regional threat take in Saddam that would have to be dealt with sooner or later - to force action from SA to take care of it's radicals - to pressure other regimes in the area not to provide passive or active support to Jihadists - to position US troops in the region in force to enable that pressure - to aid their global and NATO mission by placing a Strategic Air Support base - to support and help create an Arab democracy as an example to others   Nov 24, 2008 @ 11:22 PM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     kejacks Posts: 235 ok, chew on this... Why was Shrub spying on the UNSC? Why did he rush to war with Iraq, when the evidence pointed to OBL? httpwww.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/02/usa.iraq Bush Admin dirty tricks campaign to bug UN Security Council member phones & email by The (London) Observer Saturday, Mar. 01, 2003 at 11:37 AM A leaked memo reveals the US is bugging work & home communications of UN Security Council members. Nixon did this sort of thing, and he was forced to leave office or face impeachment. Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war Secret document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key Security Council members [QUOTE]Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy in New York and Peter Beaumont Sunday March 2, 2003 The Observer The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq. Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer. The disclosures were made in a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his organisation and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for its input. The memo describes orders to staff at the agency, whose work is clouded in secrecy, to step up its surveillance operations 'particularly directed at... UN Security Council Members (minus US and GBR, of course)' to provide up-to-the-minute intelligence for Bush officials on the voting intentions of UN members regarding the issue of Iraq. The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York - the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China and Russia. The memo is directed at senior NSA officials and advises them that the agency is 'mounting a surge' aimed at gleaning information not only on how delegations on the Security Council will vote on any second resolution on Iraq, but also 'policies', 'negotiating positions', 'alliances' and 'dependencies' - the 'whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises'. Dated 31 January 2003, the memo was circulated four days after the UN's chief weapons inspector Hans Blix produced his interim report on Iraqi compliance with UN resolution 1441. It was sent by Frank Koza, chief of staff in the 'Regional Targets' section of the NSA, which spies on countries that are viewed as strategically important for United States interests. Koza specifies that the information will be used for the US's 'QRC' - Quick Response Capability - 'against' the key delegations. Suggesting the levels of surveillance of both the office and home phones of UN delegation members, Koza also asks regional managers to make sure that their staff also 'pay attention to existing non-UN Security Council Member UN-related and domestic comms [office and home telephones] for anything useful related to Security Council deliberations'. Koza also addresses himself to the foreign agency, saying: 'We'd appreciate your support in getting the word to your analysts who might have similar more indirect access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines [ie, intelligence sources].' Koza makes clear it is an informal request at this juncture, but adds: 'I suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels.' Disclosure of the US operation comes in the week that Blix will make what many expect to be his final report to the Security Council. It also comes amid increasingly threatening noises from the US towards undecided countries on the Security Council who have been warned of the unpleasant economic consequences of standing up to the US. Sources in Washington familiar with the operation said last week that there had been a division among Bush administration officials over whether to pursue such a high-intensity surveillance campaign with some warning of the serious consequences of discovery. The existence of the surveillance operation, understood to have been requested by President Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, is deeply embarrassing to the Americans in the middle of their efforts to win over the undecided delegations. The language and content of the memo were judged to be authentic by three former intelligence operatives shown it by The Observer. We were also able to establish that Frank Koza does work for the NSA and could confirm his senior post in the Regional Targets section of the organisation. The NSA main switchboard put The Observer through to extension 6727 at the agency which was answered by an assistant, who confirmed it was Koza's office. However, when The Observer asked to talk to Koza about the surveillance of diplomatic missions at the United Nations, it was then told 'You have reached the wrong number'. On protesting that the assistant had just said this was Koza's ex   Nov 24, 2008 @ 11:24 PM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     kejacks Posts: 235 The email http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00265.htm The leaked NSA email which revealed the spying follows. # To: [Recipients withheld] From: FRANK KOZA, Def Chief of Staff (Regional Targets) CIV/NSA Sent on Jan 31 2003 0:16 Subject: Reflections of Iraq Debate/Votes at UN-RT Actions + Potential for Related Contributions Importance: HIGH Top Secret//COMINT//X1 All, As you've likely heard by now, the Agency is mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN Security Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR of course) for insights as to how to membership is reacting to the on-going debate RE: Iraq, plans to vote on any related resolutions, what related policies/ negotiating positions they may be considering, alliances/ dependencies, etc - the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to US goals or to head off surprises. In RT, that means a QRC surge effort to revive/ create efforts against UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, as well as extra focus on Pakistan UN matters. We've also asked ALL RT topi's to emphasize and make sure they pay attention to existing non-UNSC member UN-related and domestic comms for anything useful related to the UNSC deliberations/ debates/ votes. We have a lot of special UN-related diplomatic coverage (various UN delegations) from countries not sitting on the UNSC right now that could contribute related perspectives/ insights/ whatever. We recognize that we can't afford to ignore this possible source. We'd appreciate your support in getting the word to your analysts who might have similar, more in-direct access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines. I suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels - especially as this effort will probably peak (at least for this specific focus) in the middle of next week, following the SecState's presentation to the UNSC. Thanks for your help   Nov 24, 2008 @ 11:25 PM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     Novalite Posts: 3,253 Kejacks Why did he rush to war with Iraq, when the evidence pointed to OBL? Read my post just above you. It answers a lot of your questions. Iraq became an opportunity to accomplish a front in the war on terror as well as push the Saudis into taking action to confront their Jihadist elements which enjoyed a 50% approval rating from the population.   Nov 24, 2008 @ 11:28 PM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     lefthandedluckie Posts: 6,386 novalite....posted this...."...Iraq became an opportunity to accomplish a front in the war on terror as well as push the Saudis into taking action to confront their Jihadist elements which enjoyed a 50% approval rating from the population."...!! Just got to see some links to factual evidence to support that statement above!   Nov 24, 2008 @ 11:29 PM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     kejacks Posts: 235 Read my post and answer why did Shrub seek to influence the vote in the first place? Did he know then his reason for going to war was weak?   Nov 24, 2008 @ 11:37 PM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     kejacks Posts: 235 Iraq became an opportunity to accomplish a front in the war on terror as well as push the Saudis into taking action to confront their Jihadist elements which enjoyed a 50% approval rating from the population. Iraq became a recruiting tool for AQ Push the Saudis into what? more public be-headings of women? 50% of what population?   Nov 24, 2008 @ 11:37 PM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     lefthandedluckie Posts: 6,386 kejacks...."novalite"....just doesn't have a clue when you start talking facts!   Nov 24, 2008 @ 11:45 PM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     Novalite Posts: 3,253 Left Just got to see some links to factual evidence to support that statement above! It's all explained here on this thread complete with links. Enjoy. Kejacks Read my post and answer why did Shrub seek to influence the vote in the first place? Did he know then his reason for going to war was weak? He already had the authorization required to take action but Blair wanted something more explicit than the 'all necessary means' contained in the former resolutions so, he wished to push through the final resolution as a show of support for the action even though it was not needed. If it were shot down, then no action could legally take place so, he needed to be sure it would not be shot down or stood a good chance of that occurring. Now, if he did in fact engage in the surveillance is unknown as all sorts of BS is running around but, he would be a terrible President indeed if he were to allow that kind of thing to simply occur just by chance and be surprised by the vote. As for the US playing dirty tricks, the whole event was a staged event for natioal interests from Frances pl;ay to become head of the political EU to the German leaderships anti American rhetoric to ride in their election due to German anti US sentiment and rhetoric. If you recall Russia, one of the main benificiaries of Saddam's money and a key military supplier who were owed a lot of money had little interest in losing their little cash cow and, once again France, also had a play in threatening the Newer European Eastern states with admission into the EU if they did not vote according to their tune. So, if you find fault with the possible spying of the US, remember the rest of the dirty tricks involved by other countries and, don't forget the Oil for Food scam. Oh, wondering what happened to the contention that Bush said that Saddam was in on 911, do you still believe that Saddam was in on it? [Edited on 11/24/2008 11:52 PM]   Nov 24, 2008 @ 11:55 PM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     lefthandedluckie Posts: 6,386 novalite....you really need to answer my question instead of pawning off another thread! You need to furnish that information. It is not my obligation to hunt "YOUR" information for you!   Nov 25, 2008 @ 12:01 AM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     Novalite Posts: 3,253 Left You need to furnish that information. It is not my obligation to hunt "YOUR" information for you! Sure. Saudi Arabia is founded on the Wahabbist faith. All people there are of that faith including the Royal Family. Saudi Royalty is hated by extremists who find themselves with more than fifty percent approval rating in the Kingdom. Because the extremists say the Royal Family are Aposphates who deal with the Infidel and are therefore not true to Islam, the extremists call for their death and ouster from power. If Royal Family takes active action against extremists they are then viewed as being against the people so, they only take action against blatant attacks by Al Queda, the military arm of the extremist arm of Wahbbism in SA. In order to placate both the people and Al Qaeda, they provide funding to the Mosques and, allowed Al Qaeda to operate and train in the Kingdom. Even though they knew one of their goals was their own overthrow. The US military presence in SA was a rallying point for Al Qaeda and, a thorn in the side of the Royal Family. Al Qaeda used it to further degrade the Family's popularity, to whip the people up into a cohesive group that can be used for a revolution (much like the events on 911 were hoped to garner a US attack on SA in order to accomplish the same thing). At this point, the US needs a base other than Saudi Arabia for the reason just mentioned and, Iraq fits the bill perfectly. The US didn't need to occupy SA with a half million troops, the Royal Family knew what they had to do, they simply didn't see any equity if they swung one way or the other. At the same time, the Muslim world (who loves it when the little guy gives the big guy a bloody nose) were wondering if the US had the power that it once had and, allies, potential and real began to wonder the same. With OBL giving out his camelgrams every couple of months and Saddam playing games and Saudi Arabia afraid to take the only action that would ensure their long term survival, the US did one thing that accomplished so much; invaded Iraq. What this did for the US was to eliminate Saddam and the continual long term agitation he continued to cause and would have likely remained to cause. It proved to enemies and friends that the US had the ability and will to take action and, to deflate those that rallied behind the extremists simply because they believed the US was a paper tiger. To the Saudis however, who had for over a decade had frieindly US troops on their soil, troops that they were able to control somewhat and, even dictate how they were not to be used to attack Iraq suddenly found themselves facing a US military in Iraq that was under no such restrictions and, could even use preemption to enter and eliminate real or perceived Al Qaeda camps and whatever else they deemed as a AQ facility if the Saudis did not themselves. An action such as a divisional attack from air, sea and land on a real or pretend Al Qaeda training facility in the middle of nowhere after political broadcasting across the globe would be justified to many and therefore, could be played as self defense on the part of the US. Attack, come up with some papers to show the press and, return to Iraq in time for chow. To the Saudis, it was a real threat and, had no upside for them. They would lose political points with the US, give Al Qaeda and their extremist theological masters another rallying point and, the forty some odd percent of the population that was friendly to them would wonder why they favored letting Infidels take care of business they should be taking care of themselves. First connection was the rush to get the Saudi Royalty back home the day after 911 as it was feared the attacks would have been accompanied by a coup. It wasn't because they were Bush's buddies, it was a real possibility. Links to follow;   Nov 25, 2008 @ 12:08 AM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     kejacks Posts: 235 Oh, wondering what happened to the contention that Bush said that Saddam was in on 911, do you still believe that Saddam was in on it? Your inability to comprehend what you read is astounding, in numerous places here, you sir, are the only person that fails to get the message....It thought I wasn't getting the point across at first, but your repeated ?'s leads me to believe otherwise...start at page 1, go to page 2, etc....   Nov 25, 2008 @ 12:12 AM what do you think bush will be remembered most for     Novalite Posts: 3,253 Aug 2002 The neoconservative plan of taking down Iraq to pressure Saudi Arabia on terrorism has a major problem. Any invasion of Iraq would require the support of surrounding nations. Neoconservatives naively believe that the Saudi government, reluctant to help the United States launch an unprovoked attack on Iraq even before neoconservative thinking became public, would now cheerfully provide bases and logistical support for U.S. forces to invade Iraq when even some members of the Bush administration would like to turn the U.S. war on terrorism on Saudi oil fields once the job in Iraq is done. More Senior Pentagon civilians and members of Vice President Dick Cheney's staff reportedly see Saudi Arabia as an enemy. In fact, some neoconservatives believe that a U.S. invasion of Iraq and the institution of a democratic, pro-U.S. Iraqi government, which would become a major oil exporter to the West, would allow the United States to solve an even greater problem: Saudi support for radical Islamic terrorists. Pressuring Saudi Arabia The operations in Iraq came about as a result of the US attempting to put pressure on Saudi Arabia. Much of the funding for Al Qaeda came from sources in Saudi Arabia through channels left over from the Afghan War. The US wanting to staunch such financial support pressured the Saudi leadership to cooperate with the West. The Saudis in power, fearing an Islamic backlash if they cooperated with the US which could push them from power, refused. In order to put pressure on Saudi Arabia to cooperate, the invasion of Iraq was conceived. Such an action would demonstrate the power of the US military, put US troops near to Saudi Arabia, and demonstrate that the US did not need Saudi allies to project itself in the Middle East Interview with Dr Friedman, CEO of Stratfor Q. Why did we go into Iraq? A. We went into Iraq to isolate and frighten the Saudi government into cracking down on the flow of money to Al Qaeda. Bush never answered the question for fear of the international consequences. Early in the war, the President said that the key was shutting down Al Qaeda's financing. Most of the financing came from Saudi Arabia, but the Saudi government was refusing to cooperate. After the invasion of Iraq, they completely changed their position. We did not invade Saudi Arabia directly because of fear that the fall of the Saudi government would disrupt oil supplies: a global disaster. Sept 2002 Washington will be in a better position to influence the power struggle in Saudi Arabia over the succession, and to make sure the anti-US elements there who armed and supported al-Qaeda's terrorists are eliminated.

page: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> of 27 pages

< previous page | next page >

null