New Poll:Majority Of Americans Don't Think Iraq War Is Worth Fighting

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Did I say 1300, I meant 1300 and counting.

and that kosovo number keeps going up as well.

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
What false reasons? To prevent genocide and to insure the stability of Europe.

stability and genocide? i didn't see a huge amount of instability in europe in the 1990's. i didn see the yugoslavs sponsering suicde attacks in other countries causing instability in europe. some genocide as well

http://www.counterpunch.org/biglie.html

"The UN figures," said Perez Pujol, director of the Instituto Anatómico Forense de Cartagena, "began with 44,000 dead, dropped to 22,000 and now stand at 11,000." He and his fellows were prepared to perform at least 2,000 autopsies in their zone. To date they've found 187 corpses.

-------------

One persistent story held that 700 Kosovars had been dumped in the Trepca lead and zinc mines. On October 12 Kelly Moore, a spokeswoman for the international tribunal, announced that the investigators had "found absolutely nothing." The Stratfor analysis cites another claim of a mass grave containing 350 bodies in Ljubenic that turned out to hold seven. In Pusto Selo, villagers said 106 had been killed by the Serbs, and NATO rushed out satellite photos of "mass graves." Nothing to buttress that charge has yet been found. Another eighty-two were allegedly killed in Kraljan. No bodies have as yet been turned up.



now if you wan to talk genocide and mass graves from the 1990's:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/14/sprj.irq.main/

MAHAWIL, Iraq (CNN) -- The head of an Iraqi forensic team said Wednesday he expects to find as many as 15,000 bodies buried at mass graves about 55 miles (90 kilometers) south of Baghdad.

Hundreds of relatives of missing Iraqis gathered at the site in Mahawil, seeking to find out the fate of their loved ones.

The forensic team has uncovered 1,500 bodies so far, identifying only a fraction of them.

if you want to talk about stability:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml

Iraq gives $10,000 to the families of those killed within 30 days of death. In total, Saddam has given more than $35 million to West Bank and Gaza Strip families of Palestinians killed during the fighting, said Ibrahim Zanen, spokesman for the Arab Liberation Front in Gaza. Initially, families of suicide bombers received $25,000 from Saddam, but now everyone receives an equal $10,000.

"President Saddam considers the Palestinian people as part of his Arab nation. Both of us, the Iraqis and the Palestinians, are in the same trench facing an ugly aggression," Zanen said. "The President considers this small gift to the families as just a symbol of support for those who have reached the highest degree of martyrdom."

"It shows that Saddam is involved in every activity that is terrorism and murderous and leads to instability in the Middle East," counters Amira Oron, a spokeswoman for Israel's Foreign Ministry.

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Besides, why do you keep reaching back for this shit when we have a gapping wound in Iraq? Who gives a shit about Yugo-Igo-Wego-aslavia?...that was six-years ago.

because all of the problems with equipment can be track back to clinton. the 40 billion dollars that clinton used in kosovo was from the defense budget not a suplemental bill. that money was for armor and spare parts and the military was billions in the hole and behind on things because of it

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And we had the NATO Alliance on-board before we went a-bombing!

thats funny but weren't you arguing againest pre emptive strikes nd no un support? thats funny because we did all those in kosov. we did them in iraq in 1998 as well.

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yes, since they have a miniscule amount of people there and many are pulling out. I would have to say yes.

really pulling out? then why did the japanese just esxtend their tour? same with the koreans? itailians have said as long as we're there so are they. same with the aussies

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
and that kosovo number keeps going up as well.

because all of the problems with equipment can be track back to clinton. the 40 billion dollars that clinton used in kosovo was from the defense budget not a suplemental bill. that money was for armor and spare parts and the military was billions in the hole and behind on things because of it

You are out of your mind! You can't even BEGIN to compare Kosovo and Iraq. And Clinton didn't send occupation troops out to face daily road side bombs in shopping carts either. Muddle the facts all you want, this war is the direct result of the PNAC Neocon agenda. Clinton has nothing to do with it. They wrote him hoping to start an invasion of Iraq, and he laughed!

Oh yeah, you got me there, Clinton didn't build up our armored forces in anticipation of roadside bomb IED's and the fact that Rummy and Dickie, and Dubya would send an understrength army to Iraq to conquer and then fail to provide adequate security.

Are you going to give Clinton credit for the armored thrust that overthrew Saddam? You talk out of two sides of your mouth Lucky.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You are out of your mind! You can't even BEGIN to compare Kosovo and Iraq. And Clinton didn't send occupation troops out to face daily road side bombs in shopping carts either. Muddle the facts all you want, this war is the direct result of the PNAC Neocon agenda. Clinton has nothing to do with it. They wrote him hoping to start an invasion of Iraq, and he laughed!

if your going to bring in the pnac bullshit go talk to ford

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh yeah, you got me there, Clinton didn't build up our armored forces in anticipation of roadside bomb IED's and the fact that Rummy and Dickie, and Dubya would send an understrength army to Iraq to conquer and then fail to provide adequate security.

you fight with what you have which would be more if it wasen't for kosovo. the money that was too be used to mordernize and equip us forces was diverted because of kosovo:

http://www.house.gov/hunter/stm-kosovo2.htm

Now let us review the facts:

Today, we have short-changed our military $13 billion worth of ammunition. That is all the way from cruise missiles to M-16 bullets. That means, if we have to go to war tomorrow, because this administration has pulled money out of the cash register that was meant for bullets and used it for peacekeeping operations, we are going to have people die because they will run out of bullets.

Today, we are 13.5 percent below the civilian pay rate for our military. That has resulted in 10,000 military families on food stamps. That is a direct result of the President's leadership or lack thereof. If my colleagues think the President has paid our men and women in the military adequately, then vote for this resolution. But I am not going to do that.

Today our mission-capable rates have dropped like a rock for lack of spare parts, and that is because the President has not put enough money in the military budget for spares, for aircraft and the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps and the Air Force. I am not going to commend the President for that.

So, Mr. Speaker, if the President wants to really do something that thanks our military families for their valiant effort in this war, I suggest that he pay them, increase their pay to the full 13.5 percent like President Reagan did when he came in and closed a 12.6 percent pay gap, and I recommend that he supply adequate ammunition so that they can fight wars without running out of ammunition, and I recommend that he come forward with all the spare parts and modernization that is required to keep 55 airplanes a year from falling out of the sky and crashing, resulting in 55 deaths in peacetime operations like we had last year.

--------------------------------------

http://www.navyleague.org/seapower/pres_msg_june_sp.htm

Which brings one back to the previously mentioned "shortage of certain smart munitions"--an understatement of colossal dimensions. Almost all of the nation's armed services also are suffering from shortages of pilots, of technicians, and of maintenance personnel. There are not enough airlift aircraft. There may, possibly, be enough front-line combat aircraft for the Kosovo campaign, but there certainly are not enough of them to carry out the administration's own two-war strategy (which is carefully, but ambiguously, described as maintaining the ability to fight two "nearly simultaneous" wars, whatever that means).

There also are far too many shortages of spare parts--horrendous shortages, in some cases. Which means increased maintenance, a higher personnel tempo, reduced combat readiness, lower morale, and the cannibalization of CONUS-based aircraft to keep forward-deployed aircraft combat-ready. In many if not most cases such shortages can be predicted well in advance--simply by reviewing historical usage rates, for example--and should not happen.

The same is true, at the other end of the size scale, of the largest "item" in the Navy's inventory--aircraft carriers. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have told Congress that the Navy has a demonstrable, validated, need for 15 aircraft carriers. The Joint Chiefs are wrong. The United States has a demonstrable, validated, need for 15 aircraft carriers. There are now only 12 in the Navy's inventory. The lack of a spare part could mean a weapons system down, a sortie aborted, or a mission scrubbed. The lack of an aircraft carrier, though--more precisely, the lack of three aircraft carriers--could mean the loss of a war. Loosely translated, that also could mean the loss of South Korea, perhaps. Or Taiwan. Or Kuwait again--and Saudi Arabia as well.

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Are you going to give Clinton credit for the armored thrust that overthrew Saddam? You talk out of two sides of your mouth Lucky.

what the hell are you talking about? there weren't any new tanks under clinton. everything that was used in the gulf war 2 was used in gulf war one the only thing that clinton did was cut back on the tanks and their spare parts see the earlier point on this

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
if your going to bring in the pnac bullshit go talk to ford

I don't always agree with Ford's conspiracies. But there is something to it. And coming from a guy that believes in the WMD fallicy, I don't think you should be so quick to judge Ford:


PNAC logo.
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an influential neoconservative think tank, publishes a letter to President Clinton, urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a “hazard” to “a significant portion of the world's supply of oil.” In a foretaste of what eventually actually happens, the letter calls for the US to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations, and says the US should not be “crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.” The letter is signed by many who will later lead the 2003 Iraq war. 10 of the 18 signatories later join the Bush Administration, including (future) Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Undersecretaries of State John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, presidential adviser for the Middle East Elliott Abrams, and Bush's special Iraq envoy Zalmay Khalilzad (see also June 3, 1997, and September 2000). [Sunday Herald, 3/16/03, PNAC Letter, 1/26/98] Clinton does heavily bomb Iraq in late 1998, but the bombing doesn't last long and its long-term effect is the break off of United Nations weapons inspections. [New York Times 3/22/03]






you fight with what you have which would be more if it wasen't for kosovo. the money that was too be used to mordernize and equip us forces was diverted because of kosovo:

http://www.house.gov/hunter/stm-kosovo2.htm

Now let us review the facts:

Another Orwellian blame-shifter statement! What about the money pouring into Iraq that's not going into Homeland Security?

Today, we have short-changed our military $13 billion worth of ammunition. That is all the way from cruise missiles to M-16 bullets. That means, if we have to go to war tomorrow, because this administration has pulled money out of the cash register that was meant for bullets and used it for peacekeeping operations, we are going to have people die because they will run out of bullets...blah, blah..Blame CLINTON....

How about Bush has been in office? Four-years now. We need to debate from the present and let Clinton go.


Which brings one back to the previously mentioned "shortage of certain smart munitions"--an understatement of colossal dimensions. Almost all of the nation's armed services also are suffering from shortages of pilots, of technicians, and of maintenance personnel. There are not enough airlift aircraft. There may, possibly, be enough front-line combat aircraft for the Kosovo campaign, but there certainly are not enough of them to carry out the administration's own two-war strategy (which is carefully, but ambiguously, described as maintaining the ability to fight two "nearly simultaneous" wars, whatever that means).

See statemant above


I have an Idea! Tell 'em "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you would want to have! By the way, did I mention it's 2004 again yet? Hasn't Rummy been transforming the military for four years now? Has Clinton been sneaking into the Penatgon and been burning his memos again? Or is your only defense for Rummy "Clinton sucks?"

By the way Lucky, What do you think of Rumsfeld, quick, without posting more dated articles? In your own words! Is he doing a good job?

[TEUFEL HUNDEN]

Since im a Marine in The Reserves & i've been activated once already. I think I should add something to this thread. I signed up right after Sept 11th at the age of 31 to defend my country. I never thought in my wildest dreams I would be activated, afterall Osama started it...right?!? My unit also hadn't been activated since the Korean War!!!!! What Im trying to get across here to all of you is that #1, Congress Never Declared War. End of story. The War Powers Resolution that Congress cited is also a usurpation of trying to transfer power from Congress to the President. In giving President Bush the authority to carry out aggression against Iraq this Resolution hasnt been followed either. The President has 60 days after troops have been put into combat, a formal request to Congress to declare war otherwise he must bring the troops home. The President has obviously not done this either. For those of you against this "war". I suggest you use this as your argument from now on and not the for oil or to spread demoracy B.S. Also if you are unhappy about what is going on instead of bitchin and moaning about it, you should call or write to your Congressman or Congresswomen. They hold the "purse strings" and could send the President another Act that he must cease operations. If the President doesnt sign it then Congress could overide the veto. We live in a a Republic people not a democracy. Start taking more charge of those who represent you. And no, Im not sorry for this lecture.

[BITEYOASS]

Originally posted by TEUFEL HUNDEN
Since im a Marine in The Reserves & i've been activated once already. I think I should add something to this thread. I signed up right after Sept 11th at the age of 31 to defend my country. I never thought in my wildest dreams I would be activated, afterall Osama started it...right?!? My unit also hadn't been activated since the Korean War!!!!! What Im trying to get across here to all of you is that #1, Congress Never Declared War. End of story. The War Powers Resolution that Congress cited is also a usurpation of trying to transfer power from Congress to the President. In giving President Bush the authority to carry out aggression against Iraq this Resolution hasnt been followed either. The President has 60 days after troops have been put into combat, a formal request to Congress to declare war otherwise he must bring the troops home. The President has obviously not done this either. For those of you against this "war". I suggest you use this as your argument from now on and not the for oil or to spread demoracy B.S. Also if you are unhappy about what is going on instead of bitchin and moaning about it, you should call or write to your Congressman or Congresswomen. They hold the "purse strings" and could send the President another Act that he must cease operations. If the President doesnt sign it then Congress could overide the veto. We live in a a Republic people not a democracy. Start taking more charge of those who represent you. And no, Im not sorry for this lecture.

I'm in the same situation myself. But I'm tired of listening to both sides and would rather go into the shit to find out what all the bitchin is about. Fuck, I've been in for six years and this is my first overseas deployment; and my first 4 was active duty in Yuma. But the most truthful opposition I've heard about this war was from meeting a couple of former Marines who were snipers in the last years of Nam, while waiting at Hickam. Telling me that the rich don't lift a finger when it comes to war and they got a point there.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I don't always agree with Ford's conspiracies. But there is something to it. And coming from a guy that believes in the WMD fallicy, I don't think you should be so quick to judge Ford:

quick to judge ford! ah thats funny. i've been dealing with his pnac bullshit for about 3 1/2 years. why don't you ask ford about pnac and he'll tell you how osama doesn't exsist, they planed out 9-11, those were military planes on 9-11 flown by remote control that fired missles yes missles into the wtc before the hit the buildings, the buildings were then brought down by a controlled demolition, flt 93 was shot down, all the passangers "dissappeared" and all of this was done over a imaginary pipeline that has yet to be built in afghanistan. now that was the FIRST rants about pnac. now its all of the above minus the pipeline and 9-11 happend so they could invade the middle east and control all the oil there. now those are just a summary of the "pnac" theories that have been posted on not only the net but this board as well. a few honarable pnac theories include wolfowitz is an israel agent, the planes on 9-11 never exsited, they flew obl out of tora bora and they killed off people who got in their way. you've seemed to get into the pnac theory when it evolved to be about iraq but that bullshit has taken on many forms and is used as an excuse for everything. oh yes there were no wmd and never were yet all the democrats said there. from earlier in the year:

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=505&highlight=portugal

Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.

"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.

--------

now is clinton lying or is he part of pnac? its one or the other

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

Another Orwellian blame-shifter statement! What about the money pouring into Iraq that's not going into Homeland Security?

that post was from 99 to point out the lack of money for the military and how clinton was running it inot the ground

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
How about Bush has been in office? Four-years now. We need to debate from the present and let Clinton go

those articles we're to back up what i said about the military being behind in its armorments because of kosovo. again the money that was to replace those funds didn't come till bush is first defense budget in 01. everything is two years behind where it should be

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
See statemant above


I have an Idea! Tell 'em "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you would want to have! By the way, did I mention it's 2004 again yet? Hasn't Rummy been transforming the military for four years now?Has Clinton been sneaking into the Penatgon and been burning his memos again? Or is your only defense for Rummy "Clinton sucks?"

i'm convinvced that you either don't read other peoples posts or you don't understand them. again why was clinton brouht up? to point out how the military is behind it what it wants to do because of lack of money in the late 90's because of clinton. is that hard to understand?

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
By the way Lucky, What do you think of Rumsfeld, quick, without posting more dated articles? In your own words! Is he doing a good job?

better then cohen considering he's had to clean up the mess clinton left and he's had bullshiting democrats bitching about no bid contracts then making them take bids for things then bitching again when things are moving to slow. thats what you get when there is bidding involved its not like they can call someone up an say we need x amount of this or that. no no can't do that you got to have bids and studies that can take 18 months to get done. he's also had to deal with bullshitters complaining about the lack of money yet those same bullshitters voted againest the 87 billion. has to deal with arm chair generals saying we need this or that yet the REAL generals don't asked for it. all this with the brac studies and the ideas of taking troops out of germany and moving them east to places like romania. so in closing pretty damn well considering all the naysayers that are like children in the back seat saying are we there yet?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by McCarrens
You can't be that stupid. Do have such a short memory you forgot what got Dan Rather fired?

Dan Rather wasn't fired, you dummy. You just don't get anything right, do you? Poor Republican retard!

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Dan Rather wasn't fired, you dummy. You just don't get anything right, do you? Poor Republican retard!

Uh...actually, most insiders know Dan Rather retired BEFORE his ass was fired. That is a damn fact. Dan saw the writing on the wall and saw a graceful way out. He did not plan on stepping down quite so soon.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
quick to judge ford! ah thats funny. i've been dealing with his pnac bullshit for about 3 1/2 years. why don't you ask ford about pnac and he'll tell you how osama doesn't exsist, they planed out 9-11, those were military planes on 9-11 flown by remote control that fired missles yes missles into the wtc before the hit the buildings, the buildings were then brought down by a controlled demolition,...

Okay stop right there, if you read my posts in the "$100,000 Reward...9/11" thread, you'd know where I stand on this. I disagree strongley and believe that the events on 9/11 happened as reported but...

PNAC logo.
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an influential neoconservative think tank, publishes a letter to President Clinton, urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a “hazard” to “a significant portion of the world's supply of oil.” In a foretaste of what eventually actually happens, the letter calls for the US to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations, and says the US should not be “crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.” The letter is signed by many who will later lead the 2003 Iraq war. 10 of the 18 signatories later join the Bush Administration, including (future) Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Undersecretaries of State John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, presidential adviser for the Middle East Elliott Abrams, and Bush's special Iraq envoy Zalmay Khalilzad (see also June 3, 1997, and September 2000). [Sunday Herald, 3/16/03, PNAC Letter, 1/26/98] Clinton does heavily bomb Iraq in late 1998, but the bombing doesn't last long and its long-term effect is the break off of United Nations weapons inspections. [New York Times 3/22/03]


PNAC is very real, and Ford is often on to something, even though he goes overboard.



Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.

"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.

Because while Saddam was telling the U.S. and the West that he had gotten rid of WMD's (basically the truth), he was telling the Iranians that he had large stockpiles of WMD's to deter an Iranian invasion since his army was greatly weakend.

The larger issue is that iraq allowed for UN inspections, and they found nothing. But we, mistrusting the UN, decised to go ahead with the attack.

now is clinton lying or is he part of pnac? its one or the other

No, he's the victim of "Slam Dunk Tenet" as well as bad intelligence. But his Administration did not include the neocon hawks who would ultimately hijack policy to invade Iraq!

that post was from 99 to point out the lack of money for the military and how clinton was running it inot the ground


those articles we're to back up what i said about the military being behind in its armorments because of kosovo. again the money that was to replace those funds didn't come till bush is first defense budget in 01. everything is two years behind where it should be

That's bullshit. Clinton's defense spending was still more than the total, culmative defense budgets of our five most potential advesaries. The Cold War ended and there was immense political pressure to reduce budgets. And as I've said before, what was the Republican majority in congress doing about Clinton's "cuts" other than approving them?


i'm convinvced that you either don't read other peoples posts or you don't understand them. again why was clinton brouht up? to point out how the military is behind it what it wants to do because of lack of money in the late 90's because of clinton. is that hard to understand?

Maybe you don't understand. How much does an armored Humvee cost? Not very much! It had to do more with competence that with money. The fact is that if you read what Rummy was saying, he's a fucking lyer! The contractors could produce nearly 100 more armored Humvees a month than they were and repeatedly told this to the Pentagon. But Rummy didn't give a shit.



better then cohen considering he's had to clean up the mess clinton left and he's had bullshiting democrats bitching about no bid contracts then making them take bids for things then bitching again when things are moving to slow. thats what you get when there is bidding involved its not like they can call someone up an say we need x amount of this or that. no no can't do that you got to have bids and studies that can take 18 months to get done. he's also had to deal with bullshitters complaining about the lack of money yet those same bullshitters voted againest the 87 billion. has to deal with arm chair generals saying we need this or that yet the REAL generals don't asked for it. all this with the brac studies and the ideas of taking troops out of germany and moving them east to places like romania. so in closing pretty damn well considering all the naysayers that are like children in the back seat saying are we there yet?

Rumsfeld has repeatedly acted in the most atrociously arrogant manner. He has been dismissive of his Generals and of anyone in a uniform. He has strove to place his cronies and yes-men into positions while destroying the careers of those that have opposed him. He's been "TRANSFORMING" the military for four years now and has had at best mixed success.

His war plan for Iraq was horrid and he overruled Generals that told him he needed far more troops to secure Iraq, not just run over the feeble Iraqi Army! He deserves much of the blame for the failings in Iraq. Was Gen. Shinseki an "arm chair" general? I think not, in fact it is Rummy and his "civilian" cronies that are the armchair generals. But don't take my word on it. You can even watch the Fronline program online about "Rumsfeld's War" here .

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by TEUFEL HUNDEN
I signed up right after Sept 11th at the age of 31 to defend my country. I never thought in my wildest dreams I would be activated, afterall Osama started it...right?!?

Huh? I'm not following you. 9/11 happens and you go out and enlist so that you can defend the country against terrorism, but you did so thinking you would never see action because Bin Ladin started it?

Why would you enlist to defend your country and then get upset when you are activated? And what is the connection with Bin Ladin and you thinking you would never get activated? I would pretty much guess that him "starting it" would up the chances of you getting activated.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Okay stop right there, if you read my posts in the "$100,000 Reward...9/11" thread, you'd know where I stand on this. I disagree strongley and believe that the events on 9/11 happened as reported but...

PNAC logo.
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an influential neoconservative think tank, publishes a letter to President Clinton, urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a “hazard” to “a significant portion of the world's supply of oil.” In a foretaste of what eventually actually happens, the letter calls for the US to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations, and says the US should not be “crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.” The letter is signed by many who will later lead the 2003 Iraq war. 10 of the 18 signatories later join the Bush Administration, including (future) Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Undersecretaries of State John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, presidential adviser for the Middle East Elliott Abrams, and Bush's special Iraq envoy Zalmay Khalilzad (see also June 3, 1997, and September 2000). [Sunday Herald, 3/16/03, PNAC Letter, 1/26/98] Clinton does heavily bomb Iraq in late 1998, but the bombing doesn't last long and its long-term effect is the break off of United Nations weapons inspections. [New York Times 3/22/03]


PNAC is very real, and Ford is often on to something, even though he goes overboard.

again read what i said. the "pnac" thing has changed over time. first it was about 9-11 and afghanistan then it miraculously changed into all about iraq. you'll notice all your stuff points to it all being about iraq why don't you do this since you probably won't listen to me google: pnac afghanistan pipeline 9-11. and you'll get the first incarnation of pnacs plans. then when iraq came into the spotlight afghanistan and pipeline were change to iraq and oil. go ahead look it up. all off those pnac storys predate iraq. pnac is just internet bullshit that is the be all end all blame it on something. pnac does stand for something: people needing a conspriacy

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Because while Saddam was telling the U.S. and the West that he had gotten rid of WMD's (basically the truth), he was telling the Iranians that he had large stockpiles of WMD's to deter an Iranian invasion since his army was greatly weakend.

The larger issue is that iraq allowed for UN inspections, and they found nothing. But we, mistrusting the UN, decised to go ahead with the attack.

right the entire world said saddam had wmd.

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No, he's the victim of "Slam Dunk Tenet" as well as bad intelligence. But his Administration did not include the neocon hawks who would ultimately hijack policy to invade Iraq!

i guess all those times in the 90's clinton deciede to bomb iraq for fun. were the germans french and russians also worng about wmd as well?

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
That's bullshit. Clinton's defense spending was still more than the total, culmative defense budgets of our five most potential advesaries. The Cold War ended and there was immense political pressure to reduce budgets. And as I've said before, what was the Republican majority in congress doing about Clinton's "cuts" other than approving them?

clinton used the line item veto on the defense budget many times and if the defense budget was so high why were we scrapping planes just o keep others in the air? oh i know why there wasen't enough money because clinton kept using it for peacekeepers etc etc again:

http://www.navyleague.org/seapower/pres_msg_june_sp.htm

There also are far too many shortages of spare parts--horrendous shortages, in some cases. Which means increased maintenance, a higher personnel tempo, reduced combat readiness, lower morale, and the cannibalization of CONUS-based aircraft to keep forward-deployed aircraft combat-ready. In many if not most cases such shortages can be predicted well in advance--simply by reviewing historical usage rates, for example--and should not happen.

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Maybe you don't understand. How much does an armored Humvee cost? Not very much! It had to do more with competence that with money. The fact is that if you read what Rummy was saying, he's a fucking lyer! The contractors could produce nearly 100 more armored Humvees a month than they were and repeatedly told this to the Pentagon. But Rummy didn't give a shit.

it doesn't matter if they could produce them. they could make a thousand an hour but because you dems bitched about no bid contracts they now have to take bids from all companies then deciede what to do. a process that can take 18 months. again they just can't order things now

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Rumsfeld has repeatedly acted in the most atrociously arrogant manner. He has been dismissive of his Generals and of anyone in a uniform. He has strove to place his cronies and yes-men into positions while destroying the careers of those that have opposed him. He's been "TRANSFORMING" the military for four years now and has had at best mixed success.

His war plan for Iraq was horrid and he overruled Generals that told him he needed far more troops to secure Iraq, not just run over the feeble Iraqi Army! He deserves much of the blame for the failings in Iraq. Was Gen. Shinseki an "arm chair" general? I think not, in fact it is Rummy and his "civilian" cronies that are the armchair generals. But don't take my word on it. You can even watch the Fronline program online about "Rumsfeld's War" here

why don't you look up about the planing. the first reports said it would take 50,000 troops tops. rumsfeld said no to that. so another plan was drawn up and tommy franks approved it so did rumsfeld. the person that decides what is needed in theather isn't rumsfeld its abazaid he deciedes what is needed and tommy franks before him and they'll both tell you their getting everything they've been asking for.

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
What will the polls say after the Draft Board starts sending out the draft notices?

God help you if you ever studied Arabic!

LOL

They'll end up in the desert like Lawrence...Lawrence!<marquee direction=left>TRANSLATION
"What am I doing here?"

[lucky wilbury]

here you go nick this the first incarnation of pnacs plans that have since moagically morphed into being all about iraq:

Project for the New American Century

- In 1997 a group of neo-conservatives founded the 'Project for the New American Century' (PNAC) - A year later PNAC called for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq - In 2000 they predicted that the shift in US foreign policy towards that aim would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor". That event happened on September 11th 2001 - Ten people in the Bush administration are currently members of PNAC. They include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad and member of the advisory Defense Science Board, Richard Perle -


Oil
- Global oil production is on the brink of terminal decline - The rate of oil discovery has been falling since the 1960's - The vast majority of the world's remaining reserves are located in the Middle East and Central Asia - Over 60% of oil consumed by the US is imported - By 2015 the UK too, will be importing over 50% of its oil requirements - According to independant Geologist Dr Colin Campbell, the global decline will start by 2010 "It starts with a price shock due to control of the market by a few countries, and it is followed by the onset of physical shortage, which just gets worse and worse and worse" -



Afghan Pipelines

- Afghanistan is located in a prime position for the transportation of the vast amounts of oil & gas from the Caspian Basin – A UNOCAL-led consortium competing with Argentinian firm Bridas, proposed to build pipelines through Afghanistan years ago - In 1997 Taliban officials visited UNOCAL HQ’s in Texas to discuss the agreement – Negotiations between UNOCAL and the Taliban were conducted by Enron through Saudi intelligence - FBI Counter-Terrorism Chief John O’Neill resigned from the FBI in disgust, stating that he was ordered not to investigate Saudi-al-Qaeda connections because of the Enron pipeline deal (O’Neill was amongst the 3000 people that died at the World Trade Centre) - The US installed Afghan leader Sir Hamid Karzai, a former UNOCAL consultant – A pipeline agreement has now been signed - This pipeline may have saved Enron from collapse by providing cheap gas to one of its 'loss making' power stations in India - The invasion of Afghanistan was planned before Sept 11 – Taliban leaders & al-Qaeda fighters were flown to safety with secret US approval during the war - Opium production has increased by 1400% -



Terror Hijackings

- On the morning of Sept 11 2001, CIA official John Fulton and his team at the National Reconnaissance Office were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building - When it was known that four airliners had been simultaneously hijacked, the US National Command Authority waited 75 minutes before scrambling aircraft to intercept - Osama bin Laden has connections to the CIA, Le Figaro claim that whilst in hospital for kidney treatment in July 2001 he was met by the local CIA officer in Dubai. CBS News claim that he also underwent secret kidney dialysis at a military hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on the day before Sept 11 - During the months before the attack, Pakistani ISI Chief Gen. Ahmad (intelligence service) orders an aide to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohammed Atta. On the morning of Sept 11, Ahmad was at a meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees - At least 6 of the supposed hijackers have been found alive - It has been claimed that some of the hijackers were trained at secure US military bases - The CIA have overturned refusal of visa applications in Saudi Arabia, to people with terrorist connections - FBI agents were forced to close down investigations into the bin Ladens and terror networks by the US government -



Foreknowledge?

- Straight after the attacks, United Airlines’ stock prices plummeted. At the time it was reported that suspicious 'put options' had been purchased. Basically, if you buy put option shares you are taking a gamble that those shares are going to drop in price, because you can then sell them at the original high price but purchase them at the new low price. The amount of these put options bought was way above the norm. Investigations into who was responsible for these deals lead to Deutsche Bank/Alex Brown Inc. The bank’s chairman up until a few years ago was current CIA executive director, Buzzy Krongard - An Israeli shipping company with offices based at the World Trade Centre, broke its lease two weeks before the attacks -



Operation Northwoods Document - click here to view - adobe reader required:

- In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in US cities to create public support for a war against Cuba -

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Uh...actually, most insiders know Dan Rather retired BEFORE his ass was fired. That is a damn fact. Dan saw the writing on the wall and saw a graceful way out. He did not plan on stepping down quite so soon.

Wow, BigBland! Are you an insider?!? Are you like, a secret agent or something? Codename: Douchebag.



Shut yer damn LIE HOLE!