OT: Should We Impeach Bush Or Just Jail Him?

[SFOracle]

The US was "in bed" with Iraq all the way through the '80s. Bush Sr. opposed Congressional efforts to restrict arms sales to Iraq right up until the day before they invaded Kuwait. We created Sadaam during the Regan Administration to counter what we percieved to be the greater threat - Iran. Remember the Iran hostages thing? No - the US didn't invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons, and it wasn't about WMD (although that was the case made to the American people and to the UN). It was about oil partially, but mostly we just wanted to kick some Arab ass over 9/11 and Iraq was just the "usual suspect".

[Hendmik]

From my knowledge (admittedly limited), Iran and Iraq may share a common enemy (us), they have historically not been the best of friends. I haven't seen any evidence that Iran would be willing to hide Iraq's pot when the cops knocked on the door and then let the UN inspectors stumble on it. The news reports I've seen (straight from rueters) seems to imply that the stockpile is Iran's with the statement that they had an active nuclear program. One, that would seem to say that it isn't Saddam's stuff, and two, I would encourage everyone here (conservative and liberal alike) not to rush to judgement as to where it came from and who is next going to bomb the east coast. Hate, anger and fear are poor ways to respond and don't progress the debate.

[Wow]

2 issues: 1. A signal out of Cuba jammed the signal to Iran yesterday. I am refering to the Blair/Bush meeting. Why in the hell would someone in Cuba jam a satellite feed to Iran? 2. MsNBC has NOT reported the uranium claims again. I have looked everywhere on the TV and the net and I cant find anything. Has MSNBC lost their minds? This is the second time they have done this in the last 4 months. Is the government calling MSNBC and telling them to shut the fuck up? Msnbc also reported months back that WMD had been found in the Tigrus(sp) river.

[alcohol]

WOW, You skirted the reason I gave for why it would have been better to back the US if France was primarily interested in oil. Skirting issues and facts is your established modus operandi in argument. Do you still believe in Santa Claus? What about the Tooth Fairy?

[Wow]

[quote]You skirted the reason I gave for why it would have been better to back the US if France was primarily interested in oil. [/quote]Why share the cake , when its all on your plate? France has delusions of running the world again. Aint gonna happen. France was cutting deals, through the U.N. ,with saddam. It was called the "oil for food" program and it was nothing more than high level corruption. France was very successful during the 90's at getting sanctions lifted a little at a time. Less sanctions, more cheap oil for France. So, if france backed us, they lose everything and get a very small % of the oil in the end. They wanted ALL of the oil for good old france.

[Wow]

[quote] Do you still believe in Santa Claus? What about the Tooth Fairy? [/quote]I do believe in aliens. If this makes me a crack pot, then so be it. I just find it hard to believe that space goes on forever and WE are the only ones out here. The tooth fairy ripped me off and I'm gonna beat his ass when I find him. :)

[Saint Johnny B]

Nice speech by Blair. He reads and delivers one well. I like the part where he apologized for the Brit's burning Washington DC to the ground and trying to retake America in the War of 1812. Good thing America had the French to help us. And that great democrat and populist, Andrew Jackson, was quite a guy. A *real* tough guy who helped push back the invading British tyrants. I suppose the Brits invaded the US to "free" the Americans and give them "liberty." It was not about America's vast resources. It was all about "liberation." Believe it or not, Wow may be getting closer to the truth than even *he* realizes. Here's how, when Wow attacks France, he asserts that their primary motive was the oil. He claims France wanted to rebuild the old empire, so they wanted *all* the oil. But when good citizens of the US say that Bush and Cheney wanted *all* the oil, Wow says it was about everything else but the oil! BTW, anyone find any nukes or missles today? Didn't think so. Just those "forged documents" and all those "No-Bid" contracts given out to Bush and Cheney's "close personal friends." Hmmmm. Impeachment and jail loom larger every day for Bush and Cheney.

[Wow]

johnny bralalala , good to see ya, ya crack head. :wave:

[Salyphus]

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by alcohol: [b]WOW wrote: "The french want oil from Iraq so the were against the US. " This is stupid babble. Try to understand. You want oil from Iraq. The United States is going to attack Iraq and control the oil. The US is led by a President who shows little compunction to follow UN procedures and appears to be a bull headed incoherent, bubmling idiot with a propensity for uttering stupid malapropisms. What should be your decision? if having access to the oil is your primary concern? You got two choices: 1. support the US so that you will have access to the oil knowing that they will overcome the Iraqis by their vastly superior military power. 2. Support Iraq, believeing that after the Gulf War in 1991 the Iraqis now have the strength to successfully repel the United States. (an absolutely stupid belief) "The french want oil from Iraq so the were against the US. " WOW, explain how your assertion about the French wanting oil makes sense for them to oppose the US. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]The French position took several points into consideration. Granted, the French had economic ties with Baghdad, but so did the Germans, Turks, Russians, and several other countries. The French were hardly unique in this respect. The French perceived that an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation was a bad thing. The French, having been invaded a couple of times in the last century, know how unpleasant the experience can be. Further, there was concern that other countries would follow suit and launch other unprovoked invasions (Russia and Chechnya, for example). The United States has paved the way for political anarchy with the unsanctioned invasion of Iraq. Finally, the French were - and are - concerned about terrorism. France narrowly foiled an al qaeda plot to blow up the Eiffel Tower, and al qaeda operatives attempted to blow up the TGV (high speed train). Luckily, the bomb did not detinate properly, and police were able to lift fingerprints from the device leading to the arrest of some of the operatives - others were killed in police shootouts. The French are in the crosshairs of jihad, and they don't want more trouble than they already have. Those are the primary motivations behind the French position on the Iraq war.

[alcohol]

Dan, Your description of the French stance is exactly right. French experience in dealing with terrorists determined a measured response. Not a gamble on whether they were going to maintain oil contracts.

[Saint Johnny B]

Well, accrording to those links (see above post) compiled by a former LAPD Investigator, who apparently spares neither democrats nor republicans in his exposes, it looks to me like the oil and natural gas profiteers like Enron's Ken Lay, are behind the whole thing. All of it! The pipeline in Afghanistan for Ken Lay, the backroom deals with the Taliban and Bin Laden, all those meetings and backroom deals. The whole mess seems to be laid out in the timeline and it's all about the resources and the money. Graft, corruption, kickbacks, murder, from the White House Gang? I'm shocked. Anyone find any nukes or missles yet? Hmmm, did't think so. It's still just those fake, forged documents and all those "no-bid" contracts.

[pantonality]

Well I can't find anything on the web about Uranium in Iran or Iraq, but apparently a Rome newspaper published the supposed documents detailing the sale of Uranium by Niger. ABCnews.com has an article on it and the documents are obviously fake, due to a multitude of errors, including; * In one document that supposedly formalizes the sale of uranium to Iraq, dated October 2000, bears the signature of a man who has not been Niger's foreign minister since 1989. * Another letter is both addressed to the president of Niger and signed by the president of Niger — although it uses the wrong symbol for the president's office. * The forger also had a difficult time keeping his dates straight. A third document, dated July 1999, refers in the past tense to a supposed agreement in June 2000. I certainly wouldn't want to try to justify going to war on such flimsy evidence. No wonder they want to keep this secret. [edit] opps forgot the link; http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/uranium030716flaweddocs.html Steve Chandler http://www.mp3.com/stevechandler

[Griffinator]

So WTF is the deal with MSNBC, for the second time, reporting that materials have been found? Are they getting faulty information and then quietly retracting it? Or are they being muscled by the White House to keep it quiet? I almost have to believe that it's the former, not the latter - Bill Gates has never been afraid of the US Government. Too much money flowing into too many pockets to be concerned. Even the anti-trust suit ended up a debacle. I'm leaning more towards the idea that they're getting anonymous tipoffs that turn out baseless, so they just stop talking about it and pretend they never reported it.

[Saint Johnny B]

God, those forged documents look really bad. But the whole deal now looks like a "set-up scam," complete with pre-planned cover stories, sophisticated propaganda, PR, and spin. It really smells of a criminal conspiracy at the highest levels of government. Both Bush and Cheney will go to prison for sure. They can share a cell next to Enron's Ken Lay.

[Franknputer]

[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Wow: [b] [quote] I know it's good for a laugh in Redneck County to make jokes about Californians, but that doesn't make it fact. [/quote]Is calling someone from the south a "Redneck" a generalization? Practice what ya preach.[/b][/quote]I didn't say anything about being from the South. But true enough, there's nothing wrong with being a Redneck. It doesn't make you a narrow-minded bigot. So I apologize to the Rednecks for lumping them in with you. :wave:

[AlanThomas]

Well, I don't know much about the issues at hand, but I think we've got one helluva good reality TV series brewing here if we can get a few of you to move in together! :idea:

[Wow]

[quote] French experience in dealing with terrorists determined a measured response. Not a gamble on whether they were going to maintain oil contracts. [/quote]LOL LOL dont be a fool. There will be alot of stuff that will come out in the future. I hope I am wrong but I have a feelin' that the 7000 pages of documents the US troops found will lead straight to france. I really hope I am off base here. [quote] there's nothing wrong with being a Redneck. It doesn't make you a narrow-minded bigot. So I apologize to the Rednecks for lumping them in with you. [/quote]LOL pretty funny . dont generalize, its not PC. The only people you are allowd to make fun of are white dudes.

[Saint Johnny B]

Mr Wow, Are you saying that France's primary motive for acting the way they did was the oil, but that Bush and Cheney's primary motive was not the oil? ----------- Save the World Save America Jail Bush Now! You'll be glad you did

[Wow]

GWB finished a job that his daddy should have done 10 years prior. The U.N. credibility was shot because they could not enforce shit, somebody had to take saddam out. Next on the list is N.K.. Is that for oil? Oh thats right, what about a pipeline from China to South Korea. There is a good argument for ya johnny bralalala. :freak:

[Saint Johnny B]

Mr Wow. You did not answer the question with a simple and direct "Yes" or "No." Instead, you danced around it, and tried to deflect. So how about a straight answer to the above question? "Mr. Wow, are you saying that the primary motive that the French acted the way they did was for the oil, but that Bush and Cheney's primary motive was not the oil?" BTW, Anyone find any Nukes or missles today? Hmmm, didn't think so. Just those "forged documents" and all those zillion dollar "No-Bid" contracts. --------------- Save the World Save America Jail Bush Now! You'll be glad you did

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Wow: [b]GWB finished a job that his daddy should have done 10 years prior. The U.N. credibility was shot because they could not enforce shit, somebody had to take saddam out. Next on the list is N.K.. Is that for oil? Oh thats right, what about a pipeline from China to South Korea. There is a good argument for ya johnny bralalala. :freak: [/b][/quote]Actually, if you'd like to point to a financial reason for invading NK, I can give you a big one... [b]Samsung[/b]. BIG PAC contributor - has a vested interest in having a serious threat from the north removed, and having access to even more ultra-cheap labor.

[Saint Johnny B]

Grif, You may be right on the money motive re: NK, but I seriously doubt if you'll see anything more from the US than a bunch of jawboning and perhaps some kind of aid package to buy them off. I read in the newspaper today that there is a reputable group of current and/or ex-intelligence agents that are out there slamming Bush and Cheney. I think these intel guys may even have a wesite! They esp. laid blame at Dick Cheney's feet. Impeachment and Jail for Bush and Cheney look more certain every day.

[Saint Johnny B]

Calling Mr Wow. You still have not answered the question posted above about the oil.

[Wow]

Prime example of johnny bralalala : "hey, I read an (unnamed newspaper) and it said that an (unnamed source) said that Bush lied. AND, I have no link, so take my word. " How about that for an argument. :freak:

[Franknputer]

Yeah, right up there with "We'll find the WMD - just wait, you'll see.." :)

[Wow]

[quote]Yeah, right up there with "We'll find the WMD - just wait, you'll see.. [/quote]Well , we know who said that. Did anyone see "Meet the Press" this mourning? Dennis Haster let a little slip and said we have the WMD surrounded in Iraq already. Did anyone else catch this? :)

[Saint Johnny B]

Mr Wow, You still did not answer the question about France and Bush and Cheney all being primiarly motivated by getting *all* the oil? That's OK. I understand if you are having difficulty giving a straight answer. I think you have more fun trying to misdirect the topic and calling me names. BTW calling me "idiot, liberal, commie, Bagdad johnny" or whatever are gaining you tons of brownie points. For the rest of you reading this, I saw US Senator Joe Biden, a democrat, on the tube this morning, and he related that a US Marine General's postion was that Bush and Cheney distorted and misreprestented any threat from IRAQ. Sen Biden talked about issuing subpoenas. IMHO, all the crap on Bush and Cheney and Ken Lay is gonna hit the fan, and when it does, a bunch of the Bush Crime Family are going to jail. It'll be cool to watch the American Justice System weed out the corruption in the White House.

[Super 8]

Oh, is this thread still here? I thought they settled this whole issue over a round of Rock, Paper, Scissors -best 2 out of 3. [quote]Originally posted by Mr. Wow: [b]Prime example of johnny bralalala : "hey, I read an (unnamed newspaper) and it said that an (unnamed source) said that Bush lied. AND, I have no link, so take my word. " [/b][/quote]Yeah, well ya know... I don't think he's out for credibility as much as just getting a reaction. But let me ask you a question, Wow: Do you trust Bush? Do you believe Bush? See, I don't really [i]trust[/i] Bush. But for the most part, I believe him. The fact that this whole thing hasn't really gone quite the way he expected tells me Bush was probably sincere in his original intentions. The fact that he hasn't found any WMD is a bit embarresing. Who knows? He may yet find them. But if this whole thing was a conspiracy from the beginning, I think he would have covered his ass a little better.

[Dan South]

WMD's, trust, and distortions aside, let's not lose sight of the fact that American soldiers are getting killed over there at a rate of about five per week (one per week for the British). I just read the most recent copies of Time and Newsweek cover to cover. The military is coming to the realization that Saddam is very much alive and very much in control of a guerilla force that he put in place months before the invasion. One night, recently, guerillas destroyed 62 power line towers. That's not random violence; it's a planned military strike. Rumsfeld and Bush have gotten us into a quadmire, and our soldiers are paying the ultimate price. It's time for the hawks to stuff the rhetoric where the sun doesn't shine and come up with a workable plan to rebuild Iraq. The Iraqi people were very grateful when the Americans invaded, but after months of no power, no water, no servcies, and no law and order, they now despise Americans. Plus, they fear that America will lose interest and that Saddam will return and kill anyone who collaborated with the Americans, so no one wants to help us. Iraq is a huge mess right now, and Bush needs to step up to the plate and get it under control. He pulled every string to get us into this, he owes our soldiers a plan to stabilize the country and stop the violence. Oh, and did I mention that the occupation, which isn't going very well, is costing the American taxpayers one billion dollars EVERY DAY? Iraqi oil revenues were supposed to pay for the war, but production is far lower than predicted (about one percent of the forecasted amount). These days it seems that everyone is asking, "Do you support our troops?" Perhaps the question should be directed to the Bush administration.