You better cheer …. or you might be next.

The same inspectors that were told where they could look and when they could look?

Yeah, ok.

Stephanie wrote:Sam is still saying it was the right decision.

It's a fair question why. We were told Hussein had WMD. We were told he was hiding things from weapons inspectors and not being cooperative. That was believable to me, and to a majority of Americans because in the past he had used WMD on his own people.

We were deceived.

Steph, ....... so what?

Just how many times did you "deceive" your children when they were growing up? .... HUH, ..... HUH, .....HUH?

And your "reasons" for deceiving your children ..... were what?

Stephanie wrote:Sam,

Without terrorists, WMD's, an airforce or a Navy, just what was Iraq about to do to us we prevented?

Stephanie, chew on this for a couple minutes.

Report: Iran to Hit Israel if Attacked, Control Oil Passageway
Sunday, June 29, 2008

TEHRAN, Iran — The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards warned that Tehran would respond to an attack against it by barraging Israel with missiles and controlling a key oil passageway in the Persian Gulf, said a newspaper report published Saturday.

But Jafari warned that if attacked, Iran would strike back, including choking off the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a narrow outlet for oil tankers leaving the Persian Gulf.

"Naturally, any country coming under attack will use all of its capacity and opportunities to confront the enemy. Given the main route for energy to exit the region, one of Iran's steps will definitely be to exercise control on the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz," Jafari told Jam-e-Jam, which is affiliated with Iran's state-run radio and television network.

In 2006, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also threatened to disrupt the world's oil supply if the United States attacked Iran. Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer. About 60 percent of the world's oil passes through the strait.

"Should a confrontation erupt between us and the enemy, the scope will definitely reach the oil issue. ... Oil prices will dramatically increase. This is one of the factors deterring the enemy from taking military action," Jafari was quoted as saying.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,373422,00.html

Stephanie, do you really believe Iran just figured out in the past couple weeks what they would do?

Stephanie, do you really believe that our Intelligence Agencies, Military Leaders, etc. ...... DIDN'T HAVE A CLUE .... back in 2000 ...... as to what Iran, Iraq or any of those Muslim Terrorist Groups might be thinking about doing ..... or what would happen to not only the US economy, but the WORLD'S economy, if 60 percent of the world's oil supply was abruptly halted?

Stephanie, do you really believe that the US and the entire World ...... would be far better off ........ if there was no US Military presence in the Middle East to disuade and/or prevent Muslim extremists from taking control and blocking the Strait of Hormuz and thus not allowing any oil shipments through said?

Stephanie, do you really believe that all the fanatical Muslim extremists will "play nice" ...... if only the US Military stays home and minds our internal business?

Steph, I already know what will be in your left hand ........ but you can go ahead and tell me what "wishes" you have in your right hand.



.

The same inspectors that were told where they could look and when they could look?

Yeah, ok.

Even if this was the situation- and we have not seen the evidence (only speculation) that it was- the fact remains that the UN inspectors got it right. And a bunch of other people, including those whose agenda was the invasion of Iraq in any event, got it wrong.

ziggy wrote:

The same inspectors that were told where they could look and when they could look?

Yeah, ok.

Even if this was the situation- and we have not seen the evidence (only speculation) that it was- the fact remains that the UN inspectors got it right. And a bunch of other people, including those whose agenda was the invasion of Iraq in any event, got it wrong.

Is this the same weapons insectors that were either ordered to leave Iraq by Sadaam Hussein or withdrew by the UN or the because Sadaam Hussein refused to cooperate at least 21 times over 4 years.

Yeah, you by that Frank. I'm not that naive.

Why would Hussein object to weapons inspectors? Would the USA allow the UN, or any other international or foreign agency to come here and inspect all of our military installations and weapons sites? Would we just open our arms and welcome them, or would we put up a fight?

We're the nation who has been in the business of building nations and installing regimes. So Iraq delayed and stalled and balked. So what? Our government would fight such action yet we use initial refusals and delays as an excuse to attack another nation after weapons inspectors were finally being allowed to do what we wanted them to do.

Sadaam Hussein AGREED to allow weapons inspectors into his country.

And Sadaam Hussein AGREED to pay MILLION$ in bribe money to UN Officials via that "oil for food" program, ...... and they greedily accepted the ca$h.

.

Is this the same weapons insectors that were either ordered to leave Iraq by Sadaam Hussein or withdrew by the UN or the because Sadaam Hussein refused to cooperate at least 21 times over 4 years.

It was GW Bush who effectively "ordered" weapons inspectors out of Iraq by informing the U.N. that U.S. bombing and other military activities were imminent in Iraq.

What was Bush afraid those U.N. weapons inspectors would not find? He was afraid that they would find that all those much over-hyped WMDs used as an excuse to bomb and invade Iraq didn't really exist, of course- Rumsfeld "We know where they are" boast notwithstanding.

Aaron wrote:Sadaam Hussein AGREED to allow weapons inspectors into his country.

Is this the same weapons insectors that were either ordered to leave Iraq by Sadaam Hussein or withdrew by the UN or the because Sadaam Hussein refused to cooperate at least 21 times over 4 years.

So he was damned when he did, just as he was damned when he didn't.

Make up your mind.

Sadaam Hussein AGREED to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq and then did nothing but lie and hinder those very inspectors he said he would grant full access. He would then accuse them of spying (which they were at times) and then kick them out. When he let them back in, he would restrict or delay access to the point that inspectors knew he was playing games and moving stuff around so they would leave. More then one inspector, including those who opposed the invasion of Iraq, resigned in protest over the garbage Sadaam was putting them through.

You can think poor, innocent Sadaam was the victim of this mess if you want to. I'm that that naive.

So Bush believed all that he was saying in the months before the March '03 invasion. And including that the U.N. weapons inspectors didn't have a clue.

Sure he did. Sure he did.

202-456-1111

I'm not a mind reader and he hasn't personally confided in me so if you really want to know what he was thinking, you'll have to call him and ask him yourself.

I'm not a mind reader and he hasn't personally confided in me .............

Well I'll be damned. Then you don't know any more about it than the rest of us do.

Bush lied about Iraq.

It's put up or shut up time Frank.

Prove he lied.

Aaron wrote:It's put up or shut up time Frank.

You are not my big brother. And like I said last week- it is never "shut up time" here unless Stephanie says it is. So tell it to someone else.

Prove he lied.

Bush made the charges about WMDs and Iraq. And he rationalized the invasion and occupation a sovereign nation on those charges.

So it is up to Bush to prove that he didn't lie. So far he hasn't.

I don't feel sorry for Saddam Hussein, Aaron.

I don't believe in hell, but if I'm wrong and it exists I'm sure that scum is burning there.

I feel sorry for all those poor innocent Iraqi civilians........those who were Saddam's victims, those who are victims of US aggression, those who are victims of the terrorists we are manufacturing over there, and those who have been any combination of the three. I also feel terribly sorry for all those US service men & women who have lost lives, limbs, and sanity in this bullshit.

GWB made his case and almost 80% of Americans agreed with him.

You and others are the one making accusations that he lied so now the onus is on his accusers to prove he lied. That's how we roll in Americ Frank.

It's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

Just keep flapping your gums with the same old tripe. That's about all you can do.

You somehow think that because you've seen the so called Stephanie that we as a nation can just suddenly abandon the middle east becasue it's what you want.

You're dead wrong and us leaving would be mistake that would likely destroy our country.

Aaron wrote:GWB made his case and almost 80% of Americans agreed with him.

And so if what Americans think is important- and I agree that it is- then what percentage now, 5 years later, think that GWB lied to them back then?

The only poll I can find is 2 years old. 51% of those polled believe Bush lied. 45% believe he had faulty intelligence. Funny though, I couldn't find a poll that ask is Congress, who had the EXACT same intelligence GWB had, responsible for lying or faulty intelligence.

I wonder why that is? What do you think Frank.

It doesn't matter though. The onus is still on the accusers to prove he lied.

So prove it Frank!!!!!

ziggy wrote:You are not my big brother.

I'm 42. I'm certainly not old enough to be your big brother.

You're in your late 60's/early 70's, I'm guessing. Is there anyone here old enough to be your big brother Frank?

My age is 62 years. SamCogar is about 5, maybe 6, years more than that, I think.

Aaron wrote:The only poll I can find is 2 years old. 51% of those polled believe Bush lied. 45% believe he had faulty intelligence. Funny though, I couldn't find a poll that ask is Congress, who had the EXACT same intelligence GWB had, responsible for lying or faulty intelligence.

Did Congress have access to all the doubts the intelligence agencies expressed about the credibility of their own reports and sources re: Iraq?

I wonder why that is? What do you think Frank.

I think it's because, at that point, Congress cared no more about the truth than GWB did. The 2003 rush to war was a madness- and Congress was not immune from piling on to that madness for some misguided attempt at being politically correct.

It doesn't matter though. The onus is still on the accusers to prove he lied.

The "accuser" re: Iraq in 2002-03 was GWB. I think that the onus is on him to prove that he did not lie.

Then you would be wrong. Innocent until proven guility. That's how we roll Frank.