Osama

ChiOCat · Post by **ChiOCat** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:04 pm

I guess it just depends on what side of the media slant you listen too. I'll agree to disagree on that.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:28 pm

ChiOCat wrote:I guess it just depends on what side of the media slant you listen too. I'll agree to disagree on that.

Actually, I don't really listen to any media slant. My primary source of news is the Wall Street Journal, but unlike most people in this country, I actually think for myself.

Since you're agreeing to disagree with my statement, though, please tell me which of the following you disagree with:

1. Al Qaeda does not function primarily in Iraq.

2. We are currently devoting a substantial portion of our military resources to fighting in Iraq.

3. If we were not currently devoting those resources to Iraq, we would be able to use them elsewhere.

4. Ergo, if we were not fighting in Iraq, we would have greater military resources available to pursue al Qaeda (which was the point you were agreeing to disagree with).

Thanks,

--GL

ChiOCat · Post by **ChiOCat** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:01 pm

Actually GL, it was not your comment I was reffering too. Guess I need to use the quote more.

I was referring to BAC and I using the same argument about the UN investigators from different sides of the fence.

I agree that a substantial portion of our resources are tied up in Iraq, but I going into the this war it was not clear if Al Qaeda operated out of Iraq on a limited basis, or if they Sadam was trying to hide WPD. Both now appear to have been false leads. But at this point, it would do no one any good for us to say "oh, so sorry, we'll just leave now." We have to finish what we started.

But thanks so much for implying I don't think for myself.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:10 pm

ChiOCat wrote:But thanks so much for implying I don't think for myself.

Easy there; I didn't actually mean to imply anything about you (I haven't read enough of your posts to really know whether you think for yourself, but as always, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt).

What I said was that most of this country doesn't think for itself, instead just believing whatever the media tells them (whether it's Fox News, or whatever liberal news outlet people are picking on this week). The only reason I even went in that direction was because I thought you were replying to me, and thus mistakenly read your post as implying that I just listen to the media instead of thinking for myself.

No hard feelings?

--GL

ChiOCat · Post by **ChiOCat** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:15 pm

[quote="Grizlaw]

No hard feelings?

--GL[/quote]

Except for the fact your still a Griz? Of course not (and I even went back and used the quote!)

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:33 pm

Back the weapons inspectors (which were in Iraq leading up to the most recent war, Hell's), the attached is the kind of documentation I relied upon to come to the conclusion that we should have listened to them in the first place (hindsight being 20/20):

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

And early evidence that our intel was bogus ... not that anybody really cared:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/ ... 7096.shtml

Had we not been in a hurry to go to war, and had let diplomacy play out with the cooperation of our allies, things may have turned out much better, and we'd still be focused on OBL and company.

But, that's not our reality, so at the present time, the only concern we should have is the question of what is best to do right now for the sake of the future.

But when people speak of Bush's decision-making leading up to this war in glowing terms, these facts must be trotted out again to remind us that mistakes were definitely made. I have no desire to dwell on them (because it is depressing), but we certainly should never forget them and start revising history.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:46 pm

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline1.html

actually........
in 1998

Iraq suspends all cooperation with the UN inspectors (Jan. 13).
UN secretary-general Kofi Annan brokers a peaceful solution to the standoff. Over the next months Baghdad continued to impede the UN inspection team, demanding that sanctions be lifted (Feb. 23).

Saddam Hussein puts a complete halt to the inspections (Oct. 31).

Iraq agrees to unconditional cooperation with the UN inspectors (Nov. 14), but by a month later, chief UN weapons inspector Richard Butler reports that Iraq has not lived up to its promise (Dec. 15).

The United States and Britain began four days of intensive air strikes, dubbed Operation Desert Fox. The attacks focused on command centers, missile factories, and airfields—targets that the Pentagon believed would damage Iraq's weapons stores (Dec. 16–19).

moore goodies saying that I,HB is correct and BAC isnt on this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disar ... _2001-2003

*snip*
Weapons inspectors arrive in Baghdad again after a four-year absence

btw i did a very simple cafeen fueled google search Iraq war + timeline

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:51 pm

We had inspectors in Iraq prior to the war, Hell's. My link discusses it. We used diplomacy (threats, essentially) to get them in there, and they found nothing. Then we invaded ... to discover nothing.

Read the articles I posted.

You even say that they were there (after a four year absence), which explicitly means that they WERE there. So you post information that agrees with me, and then you say that I am wrong. Please advise.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:58 pm

good grief Charlie Brown look at the can of worms I opened up with my little fluff post

actually, i agree with GL, we are so stretched military wise we can't take a piss anymore - sorry for being crude. our guys are in and out of rotation after rotation. brian and I have been married since 97 - he has been deployed overseas somewhere (minimum of 6 month stints) 5 of the 8 years of marriage. Year 9 he's gone another 9-12 months. The US is very stretched with it's resources. They keep going like this I'll have to move to Utah, so i can get myself a second hubby to help out here at home

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:04 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:We had inspectors in Iraq prior to the war, Hell's. My link discusses it. We used diplomacy (threats, essentially) to get them in there, and they found nothing. Then we invaded ... to discover nothing.

Read the articles I posted.

You even say that they were there (after a four year absence), which explicitly means that they WERE there. So you post information that agrees with me, and then you say that I am wrong. Please advise.

well yes but there was a little 4 year gap between when they were in there before and the period of time before the war

**edit** i think my post actually stated that...

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:10 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:We had inspectors in Iraq prior to the war, Hell's. My link discusses it. We used diplomacy (threats, essentially) to get them in there, and they found nothing. Then we invaded ... to discover nothing.

Read the articles I posted.

You even say that they were there (after a four year absence), which explicitly means that they WERE there. So you post information that agrees with me, and then you say that I am wrong. Please advise.
well yes but there was a little 4 year gap between when they were in there before and the period of time before the war

**edit** i think my post actually stated that...

Yes, I think we have mentioned the four year gap several times between us, but with no suggestion as to its relevance or how in contradicts anything that anyone has said.

So there were inspectors in Iraq prior to the invasion, and they were discovering that there was nothing to discover. That was the entire point, wasn't it? Was there some other point that I was missing? If you were trying to point out that Saddam had been a problem child, nobody is going to argue. We all know that and agree with that. I thought the discussion started with a "what if" relating to other options we could have taken, such as cooperating more with the UN and France and the weapons inspectors as opposed to rushing to war with the lack of solid intel we relied upon.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:33 pm

I think HB has Brad's dander up

easy big boy you may blow a blood vessel

Brad - you are intelligent, and passionate about your views, stop beating HB's dead horse - withdrawal early and agree to disagree. i worry only about your blood pressure

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:45 pm

briannell wrote:I think HB has Brad's dander up

easy big boy you may blow a blood vessel

Brad - you are intelligent, and passionate about your views, stop beating HB's dead horse - withdrawal early and agree to disagree. i worry only about your blood pressure

If I could figure out what he is disagreeing with me about, that would be a lot easier to do. I like to work through these discussions until we at least get to the point where we are no longer sorting through facts, but actually agreed upon the facts and at a point where there are only opinions. At that point, the horse is dead, and the "agree to disagree" rule comes into play.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:51 pm

dude, I'm so sorry i can't believe I of all people would ever suggest early withdrawal!!!!

Please forgive me

I guess that will just mean no more nice dinners out when i go home to CA if you don't.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 5:09 pm

There are no penalties for your suggestion of early withdrawl.

ChiOCat · Post by **ChiOCat** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 5:10 pm

My memory says that the UN inspectors were there right up till the attacks, and found nothing. But they were also being barred from enering certain locations. Sadam was given a date that they should be allowed entrance, and that did not happen.

Perhaps my memory fails me. I don't have time to search now, must go deliver cupcakes.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 5:15 pm

Brad - oh good. I can't believe that came from sweet little me

now I don't have to worry about D whooping my butt - had you actually taken MY suggestion

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:52 pm

ChiOCat wrote:My memory says that the UN inspectors were there right up till the attacks, and found nothing. But they were also being barred from enering certain locations. Sadam was given a date that they should be allowed entrance, and that did not happen.

Perhaps my memory fails me. I don't have time to search now, must go deliver cupcakes.

they were withdrawled in early '99 and admitted right before the attacks when sadam knew that he was in deep dodo
the 4 year gap is important because it allowed him to start up the program again, and hide the cash possibly in a different nation to hide it from wepons inspectors.

but i subscribe to the notion that he was faking the wmd's to scare off iran

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:54 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
briannell wrote:I think HB has Brad's dander up

easy big boy you may blow a blood vessel

Brad - you are intelligent, and passionate about your views, stop beating HB's dead horse - withdrawal early and agree to disagree. i worry only about your blood pressure
If I could figure out what he is disagreeing with me about, that would be a lot easier to do. I like to work through these discussions until we at least get to the point where we are no longer sorting through facts, but actually agreed upon the facts and at a point where there are only opinions. At that point, the horse is dead, and the "agree to disagree" rule comes into play.

you didnt mention the four year gap...if my memory is correct you basically said that they were there the entire time

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:58 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:Back the weapons inspectors (which were in Iraq leading up to the most recent war, Hell's),

no mention of a four year gap.....

1) this gives even a little probible cause that there was monkey buisness occuring within iraq between the years 1998 and 2002

2) even when they were readmitted in 1998, there was complaints that sadam did not allow unfettered access

given these facts, *look at my earlier post about the timeline..* what does that lead you to think about what is going on in iraq? although i do belive that 4 years is two short to start up a wmd program with any results....