Does the US ever wanted allies? (1 Viewer)

[Francaisforever]

just that tells you that the US neocons administration doesn't give a crap about its allies. No wonder no one wants to be a partner of the US in its reckless "war en terror" enterprise in Iraq. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15166761/
The fact of the matter is that the Iraq invasion was planned long ago before 9/11 as early as 1996. The war mongers of the WB administration had already zero in on Iraq and would have gone to war without any Allie, as Rumsfeld indicated when Britain wasn't on board yet. The coalition is just there to give a moral endorsement to the invasion and that's it! Talk about hypocrisy! The Iraq war is all about securing the second oil proved reserve in the world. Do what we say but not what we do is the motto.

 

[ProudAmerican]

well at least someone admits the war was planned initially by Democrats and not Republicans.

however, Im not sure why anyone would think a war would be planned over night. The military has plans in place for many different things. There have probably been plans in place for years with regards to NK, Iran, Syria, etc.

It would be foolish to think the military plans a war in a matter of weeks.

As far as the war being for oil.....I think its just liberal talking point B.S.....however, if that is the case.......the only people that have a right to bitch about it are those that ride bikes everywhere they go.

If you drive a car.....you SUPPORT THE WAR FOR OIL scenario you are complaining about.

 

[Francaisforever]

......."It would be foolish to think the military plans a war in a matter of weeks.".........

Except that it was plan by politicians not in power at the time. You should know that the military doesn't have the power to go to war. Isn't the president chief of the armed forces in the US? No they weren't democrats, they were the ones that are in power right now. You need to pay attention as to whom says what to understand what's going on. Nice try though.

...."As far as the war being for oil.....I think its just liberal talking point B.S.....however, if that is the case.......the only people that have a right to bitch about it are those that ride bikes everywhere they go.

If you drive a car.....you SUPPORT THE WAR FOR OIL scenario you are complaining about.".......

It has nothing to do with driving a car, but controlling 112 B barrels of proved reserves and probably as much as 400 B barrels with a cost of production as low as $1.00 per barrel. You are talking about Trillions of $ in revenues for the oil companies who will have the contracts to extract it. Also the trading of Iraq oil is back trading in US $ instead of Euro. The US government just warn others that it will not allow other countries to do the same. Iran is the one that is also contemplating trading its oil in Euro and guess what?! If you believe for one second that this war was about democracy you are in the land of OZ. No war has been about democracy, it is always about money. Just tell us why the US says it is not an occupation when in the meantime the military is building permanent bases in Iraq?

 

[ProudAmerican]

Except that it was plan by politicians not in power at the time. You should know that the military doesn't have the power to go to war. Isn't the president chief of the armed forces in the US? No they weren't democrats, they were the ones that are in power right now. You need to pay attention as to whom says what to understand what's going on. Nice try though.

ummm, your words follow, not mine.

The fact of the matter is that the Iraq invasion was planned long ago before 9/11 as early as 1996.

maybe its you that needs to pay closer attention. you think republicans were in charge in 1996?

It has nothing to do with driving a car

of course it does. its pure hypocrisy to blame any government for fighting a war for oil, and then buying that oil yourself. but I can certainly see how you wouldnt want to admit such a thing.

 

[Francaisforever]

......."maybe its you that needs to pay closer attention. you think republicans were in charge in 1996?".............



In 1997, during the Clinton administration, a number of refugees from the administration of President George Bush Sr., including Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, got together to lobby then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to invade Iraq. This group was still smarting from the "unfinished" first Gulf conflict. Calling themselves the "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC), the group drew up the plans for a second Iraq war.

In a letter to President Clinton dated Jan. 26, 1998, the PNAC called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." In a letter dated May 29, 1998, to Gingrich and Sen. Trent Lott, they stated that Clinton had not listened to them and asserted: "We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf -- and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power." Chair of the PNAC was William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine.

Signatories to the plan constitute a neoconservative Who's Who. Aside from Kristol, they include Elliott Abrams, the convicted Iran-Contra conspirator whom Bush recently appointed director of Middle Eastern policy on the National Security Council; Paul Wolfowitz, deputy to Secretary Rumsfeld at the Pentagon; John Bolton, now undersecretary of state for arms control and international security; Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Science Board; William J. Bennett, secretary of education under President Reagan; Richard Armitage, deputy to Colin Powell at the State Department; Zalmay Khalilzad, President Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan; and other members of the current administration.

Their ideas are no secret. They were printed in a September 2000 PNAC report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century," and in the book "Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy," edited by Robert Kagan and William Kristol.

These publications make it clear that the ultimate aim of the PNAC is permanent colonial occupation of Iraq and American domination of the region and its oil from that base of power.

Now all of these men are at the center of power in Washington. With so many chiefs beating the drums of war, it is not surprising that the White House slaps aside virtually every element that would modify or curtail the conflict --even facts. The lack of any proof of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the absence of any connection between Iraq and the al Qaeda militants, the opposition of virtually every other nation on Earth to a war in Iraq, the reluctance of the United Nations to support U.S. militancy, the astonishing decline in favorable world public opinion toward the United States and the poorly reported successful boycott of American goods by the 1 billion consumers in the Islamic world all seem to make no difference.

American public opinion seems to be the only force strong enough to stop the war machine, and the only person listening in the Bush administration appears to be White House political strategist Karl Rove. In engineering the political moves of this administration, Rove has been right most of the time, so the president pays attention to him. Rove's strategy of advocating the war to American voters won the mid-term congressional elections for the president. Now the winds have changed and Americans are no longer sure that invading Iraq with scant international support is a good idea. Given this lack of a public mandate for a unilateral war, Rove reportedly convinced the president to seek the approval of the United Nations and other Arab states in the region. However, it was clear that the war strategists went along expecting to garner quick nominal approval and then to proceed with the original invasion plan.

Below some exciting things to read
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

........"of course it does. its pure hypocrisy to blame any government for fighting a war for oil".......

You do not understand what is at stake now. There is a much bigger problem for the US than trying to have car drivers paying below $3/gallon. the trade of oil in Euro instead of US $ will push countries to shift some of their currency reserves from Dollar to Euro. Now with the $8 trillions debt what do you think will happen to the value of the Dollar if countries start to dump their US currency? What do you think will happen to the US economy? Iraq in 2002 switched its oil trading from US Dollar to Euro and what has happen since then? Why do you think the US military is building permanent bases in Iraq?

 

[ProudAmerican]

so when the Iraq war is planned during a democratic administrations term, its the republicans fault,

and when the Iraq war is planned during a republican administrations term, its the republicans fault.....

LMAO....

its all so much more clear now.

In a letter to President Clinton dated Jan. 26, 1998, the PNAC called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." In a letter dated May 29, 1998, to Gingrich and Sen. Trent Lott, they stated that Clinton had not listened to them and asserted: "We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf -- and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power." Chair of the PNAC was William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine.

heres a few quotes for you to think about.......

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

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

your assertion that it was "all the republicans" back during the Clinton administration is complete and utter nonsense.

 

[Francaisforever]

Can you remind us under which administration Iraq has been invaded?
Can you give us facts regarding WMD found in Iraq after the invasion?
Why does the US military is building permanent bases in Iraq?



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis ***uyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

 

[ProudAmerican]

Can you remind us under which administration Iraq has been invaded?

Gladly. Bush. It was past time something was done. You are the one that claimed the Dems were cooking it up in 1996. not me.

Can you give us facts regarding WMD found in Iraq after the invasion?

Gladly. WMDs have been found.

Why does the US military is building permanent bases in Iraq?

the same reason we did in Japan, among other countries. Iraq is a front in the war on terror. IMO, Iraq had more to do with Iran than it had to do with Iraq.

no comment on the quotes I posted? good idea. they really speak volumes dont they?

 

[Francaisforever]

......"You are the one that claimed the Dems were cooking it up in 1996. not me.".......

You do not understand what you read. Can you please point where in any of my posts I claimed the Dems were cooking it up in 1996?

......"WMDs have been found.".......

So did the Holy Grail! Please can you provide facts regarding your assumption of WMDs found?

......"IMO, Iraq had more to do with Iran than it had to do with Iraq."......

If the Iraq invasion has more to do with Iran than Iraq, then why not invading Iran instead of Iraq? Your thinking doesn't make sens. Iraq was under sanctions for 10 years, well contain and was not a threat to anyone. It seems also that many neocons have been calling for a "strike" on Iran for a while now and what has happened? Because of Iraq, the US can't do much regarding Iran now.

......"no comment on the quotes I posted? good idea. they really speak volumes dont they?".......

What do you want me to tell you? There is a big difference between barking and bitting. The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration pulled the trigger and is fully responsible for the situation in the Middle Est. Not the Dem's. The US is alone in Iraq except for 7K of British troops. The Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, Egyptians etc are there to stay, it is their continent and countries. They can keep on fighting for a long while.

 

[bismitch]

First of all, the military is always planning an invasion, or defense of a region. It is a way to keep the military prepared for any surprises. Planning an invasion has nothing to do with democrats or republicans, it is a routine like a fire drill to keep the generals prepared for a conflict in any area of the world.
.....You guys obviously dont understand how the military works

Second, WMD's were found. They were common knowledge to everyone since the end of the Gulf War. They were just old stockpiles from the Iran-Iraq war. There were no nukes, no manufacturing of anything WMD at the time. The reason why we went into Iraq "politically" is because we thought that Saddam had a lot more WMD's than we thought and that he was making more.

I hope I cleared some things up.

 

[Francaisforever]

I was just talking about the political decision to go to war. That the military had plans or not wasn't the issue, since in the US the military doesn't have the power to start a war, at least for now. Also who cares about "old stock piles", Santorum made a fool out of himself few months ago trying to use the pre 1991 shells to save his booty in Nov and everyone laughed at him, even the White House didn't try to back him up on that one. The Duelfer's report long ago told us that Iraq didn't have WMDs in working condition.

 

[bismitch]

The army has much more influence on politics than you think. Think of all the money that goes into the army and the justicfication for that money. The army has to find targets every couple of years to prove it worth to America's politicians and people. If we weren't in a war for 20 years, the American public and politicians would lose interest in military funding and their goes tons of money that would normaly go to defense contractors and generals.

 

[Unfit4Command]

You missed a few quotes ProudAmerican:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

The problem with using quotes such as these for arguing about Iraq is that quotes can work both ways.
You can find quotes from Condi. Rice, and Colin Powell saying Saddam isn't a threat, and has no WMD's. This was pre-9/11 however.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU
______________

About the WMD's in Iraq:

Some have been found, most of them are pre-gulf war era though.
But that's not really the point, Saddam said he destroyed all of his weapons and he clearly lied considering the fact we have found over 500 weapons loaded with Sarin and mustard gas.
But since this was reported by FoxNews first, it must just be right wing propaganda, right? Or just because it's a story that somewhat supports the original reason for the invasion, it must be fake or a complete lie? Or at least that's what I've been hearing from everyone who constantly attacks the the war.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

How hard do you think it would be for a terrorist organization to get their hands on a few of these shells loaded with chemicals? Especially when Saddam was training, and arming terrorists in Iraq in the years leading up to the invasion:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

One of these weapons actually did fall into the hands of a terrorist, and an IED exploded in Baghdad releasing some of the chemicals in 2004, luckily the chemicals weren't mixed properly so no one was killed, a few soldiers were treated for exposure to the chemicals:
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2004/mariani052804.htm

Also, one of Saddams former Airforce generals is saying that Saddam shipped tons of WMD's and WMD making components to Syria in commercial airliners which had their seats removed.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200602\SPE20060202a.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

There is also a book called "Disinformation" that gives some details about some other WMD's found in Iraq, I haven't read it yet, and I'm not sure how credible the book is but it seems interesting:
http://www.humanevents.com/sarticle.php?id=10101&
_________________________________

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

......."It would be foolish to think the military plans a war in a matter of weeks.".........

Except that it was plan by politicians not in power at the time.

And let me guess you base this assertion on the notorious Downing Street Memo right? Well guess what, the DSM is complete BFS BullFuc/kingShit.

Hay as long as we're talking about fake memos I've got a memo here that proves that Jaq Chirac didn't want to back the U.S.'s move on Saddam because he is in fact Saddam's gay lover, the only trouble is I got the memo from a source who I can not divulge, I made copies of the original and then returned the original, I retyped the copies of the memo on my personal computer, and then burned the copies thus making any authentication of the memo impossible. Now if this story doesn't sound plausible to you then have some Idea of how I feel about you DSM folks.

Oh, and BTW of course your country didn't want to go to war with the genocidal tyrant Saddam, that would have fuc/ked up the lucrative back alley oil contracts that you had with him.

 

[Francaisforever]

......"And let me guess you base this assertion on the notorious Downing Street Memo right? Well guess what, the DSM is complete BFS BullFuc/kingShit.".......

No, I base my assertion straight from your buddies at the PNAC. Your arguments are so meaningless and childish that it is comical. Trajan Octavian Titus?! Try Bozzo, it will fit much better the level of your BS.

 

[Francaisforever]

......."The army has much more influence on politics than you think"......

Who is the commander in chief of the armed forces in the US?

 

[ProudAmerican]

......"And let me guess you base this assertion on the notorious Downing Street Memo right? Well guess what, the DSM is complete BFS BullFuc/kingShit.".......

No, I base my assertion straight from your buddies at the PNAC. Your arguments are so meaningless and childish that it is comical. Trajan Octavian Titus?! Try Bozzo, it will fit much better the level of your BS.

if you cant debate without calling names, maybe you want to try another forum?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

......"And let me guess you base this assertion on the notorious Downing Street Memo right? Well guess what, the DSM is complete BFS BullFuc/kingShit.".......

No, I base my assertion straight from your buddies at the PNAC. Your arguments are so meaningless and childish that it is comical. Trajan Octavian Titus?! Try Bozzo, it will fit much better the level of your BS.

Well regime change was official U.S. policy since 1998 Clinton signed that policy into law so is he a buddy of PNAC too? Regardless calling for the removal of Saddam is not the same thing as planning a full scale war.

 

[Francaisforever]

......"Regardless calling for the removal of Saddam is not the same thing as planning a full scale war."......

Yep exactly my point, you start to catch on. It is not under the Clinton administration that Iraq was invaded. This is why your PNAC buddies waited to take control when WB took power to execute their plan and invade Iraq. The circle is closed now, the US owne Iraq. Bravo!

 

[Francaisforever]

......"if you cant debate without calling names, maybe you want to try another forum?"........

That's funny!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

......"Regardless calling for the removal of Saddam is not the same thing as planning a full scale war."......

Yep exactly my point, you start to catch on. It is not under the Clinton administration that Iraq was invaded. This is why your PNAC buddies waited to take control when WB took power to execute their plan and invade Iraq.

A) Bush is not a member of PNAC.

B) PNAC nor the President determine who we go to war with that is left to the Congress and the Congress voted overwhelmingly for the AUMF against Iraq.

C) Prove that PNAC planned a war against Iraq in the first place.

 

[Francaisforever]

......"A) Bush is not a member of PNAC.".....

His brother Jeb , D Rumsfeld, P Wolfowist, D Cheney, J Bolton, Lewis Libby, R Perle all have endorsed the platform.

......" B) PNAC nor the President determine who we go to war with that is left to the Congress and the Congress voted overwhelmingly for the AUMF against Iraq.".....


Who controled the congress at the time? Also there was a huge pressure to vote for the war. You were labelled anti American if you didn't.

......."C) Prove that PNAC planned a war against Iraq in the first place.".....

That's easy. Also this is not a secret for anyone. Those guys don't hide what their intentions are.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

 

[ProudAmerican]

......"if you cant debate without calling names, maybe you want to try another forum?"........

That's funny!

not really. we have the "basement" forum for that type of thing. many of us on this site do our best to stay above the childish name calling game.

we all make mistakes and im sure you didnt really intend to do it.

Ive done it in the past myself......its just not good to make it a habbit.

just a friendly reminder.

 

[bismitch]

What I was trying to say, that the military has influence on politics because a third of our budget goes out to the military which seeps down to contractors and enlisted men. Defense contractors will lobby in Congress to keep their business running. The military also gives many Americans jobs and benefits.

 

[Francaisforever]

Yep, this is how Hitler put the Germans to work 70 years ago, building armement. Also more than defense contractors, bankers who finance the wars are making it big time.