Who's voting for Osama?
Really Old "Member"
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 1,362
Likes: 0
From: Kennesaw, Ga. USA
S-76:
1441 as a document is one thing.
The use/misuse/implementation of that Resolution is a whole 'nother story.
I am pasting one link, and there are dozens if not more similar links, that outline how the US and Britain, primarily, used the Resolution in a way that was not intended by the UN, to more or less unilaterally start the war.
As long as I am here, I am troubled by the postings, not just yours, that continue to insist that Iraq was a "haven" or pick your own word, for Bin Laden or any other Islamic Terrorist Organization.
It has been documented for years by what I would consider un-impeachable sources that the last thing Saddam wanted in his country was any kind of association with Islamic Terrorist Organizations.
While he was a dictator in an Islamic country, he himself and his immediate staff were not religious zealots. Quite the contrary, they were typical thugs who ran the country by fear and intimidation for their own benefit.
Further, while Saddam was of the Sunni sect of Islam, I think that had little to do with his attacks against Shia's and Kurds. Everything I have read, and that is a lot, indicates that it was to maintain control of the country for he and his cronies benefit and specifically to maintain control over the oil resources of the country which were concentrated in Shia and Kurdish areas.
As to the concept that we were bringing democracy and hope to that country as an excuse or reason for invading it, I find that line of reasoning completely lacking.
As a country, we do not seem to have the same passion to alleviate similar, not identical, problems in places like Darfur, Somalia in general, Ethopia etc. etc. No political or financial advantage to us, no action. Harsh, but that is the way I see it.
As a throw away thought, I have felt from the get go that our invasion of Iraq was nothing more than GW Bush trying to finish what Daddy Bush did not finish, supported by a cadre of people in his Administration who felt the same way, many of whom served in his Father's Administration.
I missed some stuff in this thread but those are some thoughts for this time.
Sorry, forgot the link.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secu...esolution_1441
Bill
1441 as a document is one thing.
The use/misuse/implementation of that Resolution is a whole 'nother story.
I am pasting one link, and there are dozens if not more similar links, that outline how the US and Britain, primarily, used the Resolution in a way that was not intended by the UN, to more or less unilaterally start the war.
As long as I am here, I am troubled by the postings, not just yours, that continue to insist that Iraq was a "haven" or pick your own word, for Bin Laden or any other Islamic Terrorist Organization.
It has been documented for years by what I would consider un-impeachable sources that the last thing Saddam wanted in his country was any kind of association with Islamic Terrorist Organizations.
While he was a dictator in an Islamic country, he himself and his immediate staff were not religious zealots. Quite the contrary, they were typical thugs who ran the country by fear and intimidation for their own benefit.
Further, while Saddam was of the Sunni sect of Islam, I think that had little to do with his attacks against Shia's and Kurds. Everything I have read, and that is a lot, indicates that it was to maintain control of the country for he and his cronies benefit and specifically to maintain control over the oil resources of the country which were concentrated in Shia and Kurdish areas.
As to the concept that we were bringing democracy and hope to that country as an excuse or reason for invading it, I find that line of reasoning completely lacking.
As a country, we do not seem to have the same passion to alleviate similar, not identical, problems in places like Darfur, Somalia in general, Ethopia etc. etc. No political or financial advantage to us, no action. Harsh, but that is the way I see it.
As a throw away thought, I have felt from the get go that our invasion of Iraq was nothing more than GW Bush trying to finish what Daddy Bush did not finish, supported by a cadre of people in his Administration who felt the same way, many of whom served in his Father's Administration.
I missed some stuff in this thread but those are some thoughts for this time.
Sorry, forgot the link.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secu...esolution_1441
Bill
Last edited by Bill Murray; Oct 13, 2008 at 04:57 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
Say it ain’t so, Raoul, there you go again pointing backward
Why, is Obama a KFC fan? I like the original recipe myself and the biscuits.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
From: NY
S-76:
1441 as a document is one thing.
The use/misuse/implementation of that Resolution is a whole 'nother story.
I am pasting one link, and there are dozens if not more similar links, that outline how the US and Britain, primarily, used the Resolution in a way that was not intended by the UN, to more or less unilaterally start the war.
As long as I am here, I am troubled by the postings, not just yours, that continue to insist that Iraq was a "haven" or pick your own word, for Bin Laden or any other Islamic Terrorist Organization.
It has been documented for years by what I would consider un-impeachable sources that the last thing Saddam wanted in his country was any kind of association with Islamic Terrorist Organizations.
While he was a dictator in an Islamic country, he himself and his immediate staff were not religious zealots. Quite the contrary, they were typical thugs who ran the country by fear and intimidation for their own benefit.
Further, while Saddam was of the Sunni sect of Islam, I think that had little to do with his attacks against Shia's and Kurds. Everything I have read, and that is a lot, indicates that it was to maintain control of the country for he and his cronies benefit and specifically to maintain control over the oil resources of the country which were concentrated in Shia and Kurdish areas.
As to the concept that we were bringing democracy and hope to that country as an excuse or reason for invading it, I find that line of reasoning completely lacking.
As a country, we do not seem to have the same passion to alleviate similar, not identical, problems in places like Darfur, Somalia in general, Ethopia etc. etc. No political or financial advantage to us, no action. Harsh, but that is the way I see it.
As a throw away thought, I have felt from the get go that our invasion of Iraq was nothing more than GW Bush trying to finish what Daddy Bush did not finish, supported by a cadre of people in his Administration who felt the same way, many of whom served in his Father's Administration.
I missed some stuff in this thread but those are some thoughts for this time.
Sorry, forgot the link.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secu...esolution_1441
Bill
1441 as a document is one thing.
The use/misuse/implementation of that Resolution is a whole 'nother story.
I am pasting one link, and there are dozens if not more similar links, that outline how the US and Britain, primarily, used the Resolution in a way that was not intended by the UN, to more or less unilaterally start the war.
As long as I am here, I am troubled by the postings, not just yours, that continue to insist that Iraq was a "haven" or pick your own word, for Bin Laden or any other Islamic Terrorist Organization.
It has been documented for years by what I would consider un-impeachable sources that the last thing Saddam wanted in his country was any kind of association with Islamic Terrorist Organizations.
While he was a dictator in an Islamic country, he himself and his immediate staff were not religious zealots. Quite the contrary, they were typical thugs who ran the country by fear and intimidation for their own benefit.
Further, while Saddam was of the Sunni sect of Islam, I think that had little to do with his attacks against Shia's and Kurds. Everything I have read, and that is a lot, indicates that it was to maintain control of the country for he and his cronies benefit and specifically to maintain control over the oil resources of the country which were concentrated in Shia and Kurdish areas.
As to the concept that we were bringing democracy and hope to that country as an excuse or reason for invading it, I find that line of reasoning completely lacking.
As a country, we do not seem to have the same passion to alleviate similar, not identical, problems in places like Darfur, Somalia in general, Ethopia etc. etc. No political or financial advantage to us, no action. Harsh, but that is the way I see it.
As a throw away thought, I have felt from the get go that our invasion of Iraq was nothing more than GW Bush trying to finish what Daddy Bush did not finish, supported by a cadre of people in his Administration who felt the same way, many of whom served in his Father's Administration.
I missed some stuff in this thread but those are some thoughts for this time.
Sorry, forgot the link.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secu...esolution_1441
Bill
As a throw away thought, I have felt from the get go that our invasion of Iraq was nothing more than GW Bush trying to finish what Daddy Bush did not finish, supported by a cadre of people in his Administration who felt the same way, many of whom served in his Father's Administration.
Damn it! I had such high hopes.
You should have thrown it away...
Really Old "Member"
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 1,362
Likes: 0
From: Kennesaw, Ga. USA
S-76:
I do that from time to time to throw everyone a curve, just to make sure you are paying attention.
No, my friend, it is not that simple even if there is a small possible element of that sort of thinking being a part of the decision process. Even that group probably ain't that good to pull it off for those reasons.
It does concern me greatly, though, and more so in the last 20-25 years, that we seem to be seeing what I will call idealogues who occupy the top positions in our government who are fixated on promoting ideas and concepts that we are very familiar with and comfortable with here in our country on other lands, and, yes, even faiths, where the concept does not seem to work. At least not as we thought it would work.
My wife is calling me to dinner so I will have to stop this one here with just a few more words. Regarding your comment, "It is all Bush's fault etc." No, please. My mind doesn't work quite that way. Bush and McCain are probably as much a product of the Republican Machine as any Democratic President or wannabe President are a product of the Democratic Machine.
I will try to return later.
Bill
I do that from time to time to throw everyone a curve, just to make sure you are paying attention.
No, my friend, it is not that simple even if there is a small possible element of that sort of thinking being a part of the decision process. Even that group probably ain't that good to pull it off for those reasons.
It does concern me greatly, though, and more so in the last 20-25 years, that we seem to be seeing what I will call idealogues who occupy the top positions in our government who are fixated on promoting ideas and concepts that we are very familiar with and comfortable with here in our country on other lands, and, yes, even faiths, where the concept does not seem to work. At least not as we thought it would work.
My wife is calling me to dinner so I will have to stop this one here with just a few more words. Regarding your comment, "It is all Bush's fault etc." No, please. My mind doesn't work quite that way. Bush and McCain are probably as much a product of the Republican Machine as any Democratic President or wannabe President are a product of the Democratic Machine.
I will try to return later.
Bill
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
From: NY
S-76:
I do that from time to time to throw everyone a curve, just to make sure you are paying attention.
No, my friend, it is not that simple even if there is a small possible element of that sort of thinking being a part of the decision process. Even that group probably ain't that good to pull it off for those reasons.
It does concern me greatly, though, and more so in the last 20-25 years, that we seem to be seeing what I will call idealogues who occupy the top positions in our government who are fixated on promoting ideas and concepts that we are very familiar with and comfortable with here in our country on other lands, and, yes, even faiths, where the concept does not seem to work. At least not as we thought it would work.
My wife is calling me to dinner so I will have to stop this one here with just a few more words. Regarding your comment, "It is all Bush's fault etc." No, please. My mind doesn't work quite that way. Bush and McCain are probably as much a product of the Republican Machine as any Democratic President or wannabe President are a product of the Democratic Machine.
I will try to return later.
Bill
I do that from time to time to throw everyone a curve, just to make sure you are paying attention.
No, my friend, it is not that simple even if there is a small possible element of that sort of thinking being a part of the decision process. Even that group probably ain't that good to pull it off for those reasons.
It does concern me greatly, though, and more so in the last 20-25 years, that we seem to be seeing what I will call idealogues who occupy the top positions in our government who are fixated on promoting ideas and concepts that we are very familiar with and comfortable with here in our country on other lands, and, yes, even faiths, where the concept does not seem to work. At least not as we thought it would work.
My wife is calling me to dinner so I will have to stop this one here with just a few more words. Regarding your comment, "It is all Bush's fault etc." No, please. My mind doesn't work quite that way. Bush and McCain are probably as much a product of the Republican Machine as any Democratic President or wannabe President are a product of the Democratic Machine.
I will try to return later.
Bill
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 774
Likes: 1
From: western washington
S-76:
1441 as a document is one thing.
The use/misuse/implementation of that Resolution is a whole 'nother story.
I am pasting one link, and there are dozens if not more similar links, that outline how the US and Britain, primarily, used the Resolution in a way that was not intended by the UN, to more or less unilaterally start the war.
As long as I am here, I am troubled by the postings, not just yours, that continue to insist that Iraq was a "haven" or pick your own word, for Bin Laden or any other Islamic Terrorist Organization.
It has been documented for years by what I would consider un-impeachable sources that the last thing Saddam wanted in his country was any kind of association with Islamic Terrorist Organizations.
While he was a dictator in an Islamic country, he himself and his immediate staff were not religious zealots. Quite the contrary, they were typical thugs who ran the country by fear and intimidation for their own benefit.
Further, while Saddam was of the Sunni sect of Islam, I think that had little to do with his attacks against Shia's and Kurds. Everything I have read, and that is a lot, indicates that it was to maintain control of the country for he and his cronies benefit and specifically to maintain control over the oil resources of the country which were concentrated in Shia and Kurdish areas.
As to the concept that we were bringing democracy and hope to that country as an excuse or reason for invading it, I find that line of reasoning completely lacking.
As a country, we do not seem to have the same passion to alleviate similar, not identical, problems in places like Darfur, Somalia in general, Ethopia etc. etc. No political or financial advantage to us, no action. Harsh, but that is the way I see it.
As a throw away thought, I have felt from the get go that our invasion of Iraq was nothing more than GW Bush trying to finish what Daddy Bush did not finish, supported by a cadre of people in his Administration who felt the same way, many of whom served in his Father's Administration.
I missed some stuff in this thread but those are some thoughts for this time.
Sorry, forgot the link.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secu...esolution_1441
Bill
1441 as a document is one thing.
The use/misuse/implementation of that Resolution is a whole 'nother story.
I am pasting one link, and there are dozens if not more similar links, that outline how the US and Britain, primarily, used the Resolution in a way that was not intended by the UN, to more or less unilaterally start the war.
As long as I am here, I am troubled by the postings, not just yours, that continue to insist that Iraq was a "haven" or pick your own word, for Bin Laden or any other Islamic Terrorist Organization.
It has been documented for years by what I would consider un-impeachable sources that the last thing Saddam wanted in his country was any kind of association with Islamic Terrorist Organizations.
While he was a dictator in an Islamic country, he himself and his immediate staff were not religious zealots. Quite the contrary, they were typical thugs who ran the country by fear and intimidation for their own benefit.
Further, while Saddam was of the Sunni sect of Islam, I think that had little to do with his attacks against Shia's and Kurds. Everything I have read, and that is a lot, indicates that it was to maintain control of the country for he and his cronies benefit and specifically to maintain control over the oil resources of the country which were concentrated in Shia and Kurdish areas.
As to the concept that we were bringing democracy and hope to that country as an excuse or reason for invading it, I find that line of reasoning completely lacking.
As a country, we do not seem to have the same passion to alleviate similar, not identical, problems in places like Darfur, Somalia in general, Ethopia etc. etc. No political or financial advantage to us, no action. Harsh, but that is the way I see it.
As a throw away thought, I have felt from the get go that our invasion of Iraq was nothing more than GW Bush trying to finish what Daddy Bush did not finish, supported by a cadre of people in his Administration who felt the same way, many of whom served in his Father's Administration.
I missed some stuff in this thread but those are some thoughts for this time.
Sorry, forgot the link.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secu...esolution_1441
Bill
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
Today he's picking out **** carpet the Oval Office.
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
That's what 'measuring the drapes' means.
I think once he laid out his six point ecomomic rescue plan yesterday, you could pretty much stick a fork in McCain, he's done.
He caught McCain flatfooted on the issue.
After I heard it, I figured McCain would have to suspend his campaign again.
But no, while Obama was laying out his economic policy, McCain was discussing Bill Ayers.
I think once he laid out his six point ecomomic rescue plan yesterday, you could pretty much stick a fork in McCain, he's done.
He caught McCain flatfooted on the issue.
After I heard it, I figured McCain would have to suspend his campaign again.
But no, while Obama was laying out his economic policy, McCain was discussing Bill Ayers.
S-76:
1441 as a document is one thing.
The use/misuse/implementation of that Resolution is a whole 'nother story.
I am pasting one link, and there are dozens if not more similar links, that outline how the US and Britain, primarily, used the Resolution in a way that was not intended by the UN, to more or less unilaterally start the war.
As long as I am here, I am troubled by the postings, not just yours, that continue to insist that Iraq was a "haven" or pick your own word, for Bin Laden or any other Islamic Terrorist Organization.
It has been documented for years by what I would consider un-impeachable sources that the last thing Saddam wanted in his country was any kind of association with Islamic Terrorist Organizations.
While he was a dictator in an Islamic country, he himself and his immediate staff were not religious zealots. Quite the contrary, they were typical thugs who ran the country by fear and intimidation for their own benefit.
Further, while Saddam was of the Sunni sect of Islam, I think that had little to do with his attacks against Shia's and Kurds. Everything I have read, and that is a lot, indicates that it was to maintain control of the country for he and his cronies benefit and specifically to maintain control over the oil resources of the country which were concentrated in Shia and Kurdish areas.
As to the concept that we were bringing democracy and hope to that country as an excuse or reason for invading it, I find that line of reasoning completely lacking.
As a country, we do not seem to have the same passion to alleviate similar, not identical, problems in places like Darfur, Somalia in general, Ethopia etc. etc. No political or financial advantage to us, no action. Harsh, but that is the way I see it.
1441 as a document is one thing.
The use/misuse/implementation of that Resolution is a whole 'nother story.
I am pasting one link, and there are dozens if not more similar links, that outline how the US and Britain, primarily, used the Resolution in a way that was not intended by the UN, to more or less unilaterally start the war.
As long as I am here, I am troubled by the postings, not just yours, that continue to insist that Iraq was a "haven" or pick your own word, for Bin Laden or any other Islamic Terrorist Organization.
It has been documented for years by what I would consider un-impeachable sources that the last thing Saddam wanted in his country was any kind of association with Islamic Terrorist Organizations.
While he was a dictator in an Islamic country, he himself and his immediate staff were not religious zealots. Quite the contrary, they were typical thugs who ran the country by fear and intimidation for their own benefit.
Further, while Saddam was of the Sunni sect of Islam, I think that had little to do with his attacks against Shia's and Kurds. Everything I have read, and that is a lot, indicates that it was to maintain control of the country for he and his cronies benefit and specifically to maintain control over the oil resources of the country which were concentrated in Shia and Kurdish areas.
As to the concept that we were bringing democracy and hope to that country as an excuse or reason for invading it, I find that line of reasoning completely lacking.
As a country, we do not seem to have the same passion to alleviate similar, not identical, problems in places like Darfur, Somalia in general, Ethopia etc. etc. No political or financial advantage to us, no action. Harsh, but that is the way I see it.
As a throw away thought, I have felt from the get go that our invasion of Iraq was nothing more than GW Bush trying to finish what Daddy Bush did not finish, supported by a cadre of people in his Administration who felt the same way, many of whom served in his Father's Administration.
I missed some stuff in this thread but those are some thoughts for this time.
Sorry, forgot the link.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secu...esolution_1441
Bill
I missed some stuff in this thread but those are some thoughts for this time.
Sorry, forgot the link.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secu...esolution_1441
Bill