RunRyder - David Kay Resigns - No WMD in Iraq.

rrTV-PHOTO

New HD TV

HOME rrTV-PHOTO GALLERIES MY GALLERY HELP-FAQ

myHOME PM pmRR MEMBERS 536 ONLINE 25 EVENTS SEARCH REGISTER START HERE

10 pages [ << < 1 ( 2 ) 3 4 NEXT >> ]

4341 views

POST REPLY

Next D	.	Fast Lad Performance	.	Ace Hobby
	.		.

Off Topics > David Kay Resigns - No WMD in Iraq.

Sealerman
Veteran
Location: Long Island, New York.

Hey Dragon,

Get real GWB used the situation to further his goal of removing Suddam, which I think was a good thing. But we have over burden our military and strand our economic strength not to mention the relationship with our traditional allies. For what, do you really think Iraq could of attacked us. We spend $400 billion on defense, thats 2 time what the entire world spends. If that was really true that Iraq was a true threat we should fire all the generals in the military and get better ones. This whole thing is about OIL, we are now sending special ops troops to Pakistan to defend President(what a joke) Musharif. He is not an a friend of the United States, he is walking a tight rope between kissing our ass and placating the radical Muslums. They have nukes and when he falls you are going to see what a real threat looks like. The idiots in the White House are pissing away are strengths to secure Oil contracts for their pay masters. Why do you think we want the world to forgive Iraqs debt, so they wouldn't taxes the oil companies when they rape the Iraqi people of there natural resources. They say it will help in the reconstruction of the economy and that would be good for everyone. That could be said of any country that owes $, what makes it insane is that Iraq is 1 of the few countries that would be able to pay this debt once it's on it's feet. So why only Iraqs debt should be forgiven and not any other countries is obviously Oil.

01-28-2004 Over year old.

spaceman spiff
Key Veteran
Location: Tucson

About oil? That is what they said about the first gulf war, the result was to ban all oil from iraq for 10 years.

Was the recent war in eastern europe about oil? no, it was about Milosevitch(sp?). Was veitnam or the Koren conflict or about oil? No. why is it so hard for some to accept that we would go to war for other reasons than oil?

01-28-2004 Over year old.

Sealerman
Veteran
Location: Long Island, New York.

Hey

I agreed with the 1st Gulf war, that was totally different and I also think we should have taken Suddam out then. GHWB did not because he feared it would destablize the region. GWB did not care about that.

01-28-2004 Over year old.

MAH
Senior Heliman
Location: Galesburg, Il.

Here we go again. The battle cry of the left. ITS ALL ABOUT OIL!.

The cost of containment of Iraq, two wars, and reconstruction
will probably amount to over a trillion dollars over a twenty year
period. The value of Iraq's oil reserves is around 400 billion.

If it was truly over oil why bother with Iraq? Why not just occupy
Kuwait? We had all the troops necessary there after the first
gulf war. Why not Saudi Arabia? Its oil reserves are greater
than all the other gulf states combined? We had all the troops
over there for the first gulf war. Why not Mexico? Not much
of a fight there. Making it our 51st state would solve a lot of
problems at a much lower cost.

Whats behind all these attacks on GWB is that we
finally have a president that will make a decision. The libs just cant stand it. Clinton set on his hands for 8 years. The intelligence suggested that Iraq MIGHT be capable of building a nuclear device.
And rather than sit and see what happens (9/11 clearly shows
what can happen if you ignore whats going on) GWB made a
decision. Perhaps in retrospect it wasnt the best decision that could
of been made but at least he did something.

Now here is a question for all you libs out there. If Gore had been elected in 2000 instead would he have gone to war in Afghanistan?
Or Iraq? The answer is no. He would of sit on his hands like Clinton.
Maybe he would of ordered a useless cruise missle strike. The Taliban
and Bin Laden would still be going and Saddam would still be in power.
But maybe the French would still like us.

Mike Hammer
Galesburg,Il

01-28-2004 Over year old.

Sealerman
Veteran
Location: Long Island, New York.

Hey Mah

It's true that the cost of the war might be more than the $ that comes out of the Iraqi oil feilds. But the cost of the war is PUBLIC in the form of our tax $'s the money that will come from the oil in Iraq is going to be PRIVATIZES in the form of profits to the oil companies. Unless you think that GWB is going to put a special tax on Oil companies to recoup our $ spent securing their oil fields. I don't think so, and even if he did we would pay for it anyway in the form of higher gas prices that had that tax $'s in it. Public cost of the war, Private profit to Oil Companies it's that simple. Oh and I'm not a Liberal, I just disagree with the war I guess that makes me anti American right.

Hey Mike if your so gong ho why don't you join the Army, I guess your 1 of those who thinks supporting the troops is waving a flag and bitching about high gas prices.

01-28-2004 Over year old.

MAH
Senior Heliman
Location: Galesburg, Il.

Time will prove you wrong. There is no fact nor extrapolation
of fact to support your premise.

Several democratic congressmen made the same charges
prior to the first gulf war. It was baseless then and its baseless now.

Sure there will be companies that make money during the
reconstruction. Believe it or not thats why they are in business.
I sure hope the companies I hold stock in make money.

Mike Hammer
Galesburg,Il

01-28-2004 Over year old.

Sealerman
Veteran
Location: Long Island, New York.

Hey Mike,

Spoken like a true Republican, the only problem is that your not going to make more $ in those stocks than you are going to have to pay in higher taxes to pay for the war. Unless of course you don't think we will ever have to pay for the debt. If being a modern American means finding ways to profit from the death of US soldiers and the people of other nations we are in big trouble.

"I sure hope the companies I hold stock in make money."
Mike Hammer
Galesburg,Il
You should be ashamed of yourself, that called war profitiering

01-28-2004 Over year old.

joey.furr
Senior Heliman
Location: Little Rock, AR

Sealerman:

Quote
We went to war on our own faulty intelligence after rushing the UN inspectors out. I thought it was very original to some how blame Clinton, you should tell the other republican excuse makers to do the same thing.

#1 If you call 14 years of messing around with Saddam 'rushing'...then it's apparent that you, as president, would never have acted, under any circumstances. Thank God for GWB's decisiveness.

#2 I wasn't blaming Clinton, I was showing his support for GWB's case.

SpaceMan Spiff
Don't be too hard on the intelligence issue. The media did a great job of twisting that one around. The actual quote from the State of the Union address is: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Bush said that the British think Saddam is looking for Uranium - not that he has bought it.

Sealerman

Quote
For what, do you really think Iraq could of attacked us. We spend $400 billion on defense, thats 2 time what the entire world spends.

I'm sure that will be very comforting to the widows, fatherless, and motherless victims of September 11th, 2001.

We did what we had to do, directly (remove a terrorism supporting bankroll from power) and indirectly (show the world some teeth). As a result, we have learned of atrocities that are no longer being committed, the Iraqi life supporting infrastructure is advanced to a point that they have never known before, which will create future opportunity for growth, and the Iraqi people are tasting the first breaths of an unfamiliar air - freedom from fear. Libya has initiated a desire to be compliant with the U.N. decrees, and North Korea has reconsidered it's increasingly aggressive stance.

What continually amazes me about liberals, is that with each report of success, compassion, and humanity that is being given to the Iraqi people, your only response is to stand up, look the American people straight in the eye, and proudly complain: "yeah, but we didn't do it for the right reasons!"

01-28-2004 Over year old.

HOMEPAGE

MAH
Senior Heliman
Location: Galesburg, Il.

And like a true democrat you twist my words to support your arguement.
I said nothing about me profiting from the war. I dont hold stock
in any company doing work in Iraq. I was merely pointing out that as
a stockholder in a company its in your best interest if that company
makes a profit from its work. Whatever that work may be.

Your earlier post equated making money as something bad.
My response was that capitalism is based on making profit
and despite what the libs think about it capitalism is good.

Sure the companies that do work in the reconstruction will make a profit
from their efforts. Why is that bad? These are publicly held companies
and their whole reason to exist is to make money. Why is that bad?

Would you be happy if these companies lost money doing the work?
If their was no profit involved who would do the work?

And your assertion that I spoke as a true republican is also false.
Im among the group of voters that really count in any election.
Im an Independant and vote not for any party line but for the
person. I hate to admit it but I actually voted for Bill Clinton in 92.
No way was I going to vote to relect him. And yes I voted for GWB
in 2000. Better than that boob Gore. Ive probably voted for more
Republicans than Democrats but thats mainly because the Democratic
party just cant seem to run anyone electable.

Mike Hammer
Galesburg,Il

01-28-2004 Over year old.

Sealerman
Veteran
Location: Long Island, New York.

Hey MAH,

What makes you think I'm a liberal or a democrat, your the 1 who labeled me a liberal. I to am an independent who thinks we should not believe anything the Gov. has to say unless they prove it.

Hey Joey,

What about the widows and motherless and fatherless people in Iraq.
I'm done with these B.S. believe what you want just don't bitch when the bill comes and believe me one day the bill will come.

01-28-2004 Over year old.

MAH
Senior Heliman
Location: Galesburg, Il.

I dont think I labeled you individiually. I meant liberals collectively.

"I to am an independent who thinks we should not believe anything the Gov. has to say unless they prove it."

That is fine as long as your view of government doesnt change
the moment a Democrat is in the White House. So much of this
anti-war rhetoric is really just poorly disguised hatred of GWB.

You came on here spouting off on how the only reason
GWB went to war in Iraq was because of the OIL. To secure
the OIL for his cronnies in the oil industry.

You made it sound like Shell/Exxon/BP/Amoco was driving
off tanker loads of Iraqi oil and selling it at huge profits
to unwitting US consumers.

Do you even know where the Iraqi oil is going? The bulk of it
goes via pipleine to Turkey and Syria. The US historically has
bought very little oil from Iraq. Check it out. Its all public knowledge.
If you educate yourself a bit on the facts maybe you might change
your attitude a bit.

Mike Hammer
Galesburg,Il

01-28-2004 Over year old.

Madman
Veteran
Location: Roswell, GA

Why do you guys let Pistole get you so fired up?

So what, there were no WMD's - GWB made a mistake - oops!

This wasn't about oil. It was about vengeance for the last time we didn't kick Saddam's ass - embarrassing dad (GB I) - and that's perfectly OK. I'm a firm believer in the "Don't tread on us or we'll drop a billion $ worth of Intel Pentium driven napalm on your wipe-your-ass-with-your-left-hand-eat-with-your-right, towel wearing butts" philosphy. Hell, I'd bitch slap a country just for LOOKING at me the wrong way if I was Prez (which is why I'm not).

It was worth every penny to give the NORMAL people in that country a chance to watch MTV and smoke some green every now and then without worrying about getting their hands cut off or whatever those cretins do to each other for punishment.

Plus, I think Malaysia is next on the hit list. Aren't banana leaves WMD's?

01-29-2004 Over year old.

HOMEPAGE

pistole
Veteran
Location: Heli Land ....

I just wanted to point out that the American Administration's entire basis for this war (ie , that Iraq does have WMDs) has been proven to be false.

More so , when David Kay is the USA's own man in charge of finding the WMDs in the first place.

Why doesn't the American Administration just come clean and say that WMDs was just an excuse ............. thats easier to swallow than the bull thats being shoveled your/our way.

As for why Israel's total contempt for UN Resolutions and the US's complicity in that is "some other issue" , well , I have nothing to say here about this. You can judge for yourself why this is so.

Cheers and good debate thus far.

No personal attacks and name calling ...... a fresh approach.

Rap70. TT70.Rap50. TT50.RD8000.

01-29-2004 Over year old.

nheather
Veteran
Location: Horsham, West Sussex, UK

Firstly, let me say that I support the war, but that I can also listen to arguments against and can have doubts about certain aspects.

Let's say for argument's sake that the administration did know - there is absolutely no way that they will come clean. The reason is that whilst it may be the honest and moral thing to do, today's society would demand that heads would have to roll.

Take the very topical example in th UK.

For those not familiar

UK government gave WMD and their possible deployment with 45 minutes as one of the main reasons to commiting to war.

BBC obtained information from a reliable source in the MOD that the information on WMDs was known to be based on very old reports but that the government 'sexed up' the information to improve the cause.

The name of the informant was leaked, Dr Kelly of UK MOD

Dr Kelly then commited suicide as a result of the subsequent pressure of publicity (assumption - no one knows for sure)

There was then lots of speculation as to whether his name had been deliberately leaked to protect the government and the Prime Minister

An inquiry was launched, and was assigned to Lord Hutton.

Speculation was that the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair would lose his job if the report findings didn't go well.

The report was released to the public yesterday. The government and Prime Minister came out totally clean, the UK MOD got a slap on the wrist, Dr Kelly was accused on acting incorrectly and the BBC have been hung out to dry (an executive has resigned already).

I suspect that debate will carry on. There are already questions as to whether inquiry was fair and whether the BBC have been made a scapegoat to protect national integrity.

So no, whilst it may be the decent thing to do, 'coming clean' would likely result in a national crisis.

Remember, I said I support the war, it's just that I'm not a fan of political wheeling and dealing.

Cheers,

Nigel

01-29-2004 Over year old.

spaceman spiff
Key Veteran
Location: Tucson

Did any of you guys read the transcript of Kays interview on CNN? I would be interested to know if any of you actually takes anything he says seriously after reading it.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/sp....kay/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/ka...ript/index.html

Rumsfeld said something interesting a month or so ago when he was asked about WMDs. he said they had found airplanes burried in the desert, but the only reason they were able to find them was the wind had blown the sand off of them.

01-29-2004 Over year old.

RotorX
Key Veteran
Location: London

Look guys,

I know its hard to say you was wrong but you have to admit that the technology used to find this stuff is top notch, they have been watching with the eye in the sky (sats) for a decade, they have been watching and learning and when they thought they had it all sus they went in.
Israel has been backing a strike on Iraq for years, like it or not the Israel is part of the US and what happened, was reflected by the wants of the israelies as well as the US

Now a decade is no short time, the US and the EU have massive resourses and intelligence spent on this - they could not find anything because there was nothing there to find, you guys had a like a 100 targets that they had been watching for years thinking there was movements of saddams WMD now everyone except our stupid PM has admitted it THERE ARE NONE, there is no shame in being wrong, except that many thousands died on the basis of reports that were wrong, but he was a tyrant the world is full of tyrants, go to any part of the world there are tyrants, difference is they play the game saddam did not, they get away scott free saddam did not - so where is the justice in that ? ? ?

01-29-2004 Over year old.

Dragon2115
Key Veteran
Location: New England

So you (not directed at anyone in particular) think that just because they haven't found anything yet then they never existed. So you (again, not directed at anyone in particular) think that because we have state-of-the-art surveillance equipment then we should be able to find anything if it is there.

Ok, let me ask you this. If we have all of this why is it that we can't stop illegal drugs, weapons, or aliens from getting into our counties? We know they're coming in. We know how they get in. We know where they get in. We have total access and search rights of anyone or anything entering our countries, yet it still gets in.

Do you still think we can find everything in Iraq in less than a year?

As for the "it's all about oil" argument. Forget it. It just doesn't pan out. There are several good reasons for going into Iraq, none of which involve oil.

Seventeen UN resolutions violated.
Burden of proof was on Iraq that they had no more WMDs, not on everyone else to prove otherwise.
Documented proof that Saddam had no reservations about using WMDs both inside and outside of his own borders.
Showing the world that we mean business. Appears to have had an effect on Libia, Iran, and North Korea to one extent or another.

In one respect however it is about oil. In the first Gulf War Iraq occupied a small amount of Saudi Arabia for a short time. The coastal city of Ramalla (sp?) if I remember correctly. Given the opportunity, Saddam would have taken Saudi Arabia. He just didn't think he could get away with it at the time so he didn't push any further. The reason is Saddam had no love loss for the Saudi's because they wouldn't forgive the war debt that he owed them from the Iran/Iraq war, which he figured he was fighting in their stead. This demonstrated that he was a threat to the region. Now whether you like it or not, oil is the basis for most of the worlds' economy. Do you still think it's a good idea to leave someone that is a demonstrated threat to one of the largest oil producing regions alone given his lack of cooperation with UN disarmament resolutions?

However, I do agree that it is a mistake for the taxpayers of other nations to finance the rebuilding of Iraq. I think that we should have loaned them the money and then once they were on their feet again they could pay everyone back using a percentage of the profits from oil sales.

As for the debts to France, Germany, and Russia. Sorry, you made a deal with a now defunct government. Example, you loan money to someone that later declares bankruptcy, you lose. Next time be more careful of your debtors credit rating. Loaning money to someone that seized the doweries of their countrys' woman to repay war debts is not a good credit risk.

01-29-2004 Over year old.

HOMEPAGE

joey.furr
Senior Heliman
Location: Little Rock, AR

pistole

Quote
just wanted to point out that the American Administration's entire basis for this war (ie , that Iraq does have WMDs) has been proven to be false.

You might educate yourself on the issues before making a fool of yourself.

Reasons for the war sourced from just one speech from Bush to the U.N. on September 12, 2002.

\"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and immediately destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missles and all other related material\"
\"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept UN administration of funds from that program to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.\"
\"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism, and act to suppress it as all states are required to do by U.N. security council resolutions.\"
\"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of the civilian population, including Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, Turks, and others.\"
\"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release, or account for, all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown and return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liabiltiy for losses resulting from the Invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with International efforts to resolve these issues as required by Security Council resolutions.\"

"If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq, and it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqi's."

All of these were conditions placed on Iraq by the United Nations, not America. All Iraq had to do was comply and - no war.

Here is the main point that you, the left, and the liberal media will have to work hard to continually suppress for your bogus argument to hold any water:

If we had gone to war for oil, we would not have put the decision of war/no war under Iraq's control. If we went for the oil, we would not have clearly stated the steps to take to avoid it. Saddam Hussein, not George W. Bush, chose war over compliance with the world body.

01-29-2004 Over year old.

HOMEPAGE

jerrythercpilot
Veteran
Location: --South Florida --

The US did find a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq.

It was hiding in a spider hole and his name is Saddam Hussein!!!!

Light travels faster than sound, thats why some people appear so bright UNTIL you hear them speak.

01-29-2004 Over year old.

Parsifal
Veteran
Location: Singapore

Not possibly being able to obtain proof does not negate the need to obtain said proof prior to prosecution, whether or not we all have a gut feel that its the right thing to do. May as well be an angry mob otherwise...

That said, its grand that sadam is caught and rotting in a tiny little cell somewhere. Hope he bites it soon.

Wonder where Osama is though...everybody's previous favourite terrorist...

Pars.

01-29-2004 Over year old.

HOMEPAGE

10 pages [ << < 1 ( 2 ) 3 4 NEXT >> ]

4341 views

POST REPLY

Esprit Model	.	Thunder Power RC	.	Mikado Modellhubschrauber
	.		.

Off Topics > David Kay Resigns - No WMD in Iraq.

PRINT TOPIC

Advertisers

Subscribe to This Topic