Comments on: Back in the Saddle http://technosailor.com/2005/10/03/back-in-the-saddle/ Web Technology and Real Life Merge Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:16:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0-alpha By: Mike http://technosailor.com/2005/10/03/back-in-the-saddle/comment-page-1/#comment-244120 Mike Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:44:20 +0000 http://www.technosailor.com/?p=700#comment-244120 How and by who were we duped and who duped the UN? It would seem that every major intelligence agency worldwide was duped then. If we were duped it was due to the lack of accuracy of the intelligence coming out of Iraq. Saddam himself believed he had WMD, which he did by the way. It was his own scientist and military who were afraid for their lives that duped him. Based on information that was available and the UN resolutions against Iraq the invasion was justified.<br /><br><br /><br>By the way did you really mean to say the UN got smart? Haven’t you been keeping up with the real reason they didn’t support us? Why didn’t Germany, France and Russia support the invasion? Was it because they just thought it wasn’t a nice thing to do, or did they get caught with their hands in the till? When doesn’t the UN get duped? The UN Secretary General is a crook and should be shot or at the least locked up for his scandalous lack of leadership. It is a great thing that we have someone like Bolton at the UN now. Maybe this league of depots, thugs and terrorist can be straightened out.<br /><br><br /><br>The first President Bush was pre 9/11, a whole decade passed before we invaded Iraq the second time and a whole lot has changed... The weapons inspectors were kicked out of the country and he continued to attack our forces as they patrolled the “no fly’ zones. We were attacked by terrorists and the knowledge (belief) that Saddam had WMD and a known relationship with terrorist was even greater justification.<br /><br><br /><br>Sorry, you’re wrong when it comes to W listening to pappy. I’m sure pappy was in full support of us invading Iraq. Bush 41 and 43 were entirely different times and thank God we have a President who will continue to fight the war on terrorism.<br /><br><br /><br>Does this make me a Neocon? How and by who were we duped and who duped the UN? It would seem that every major intelligence agency worldwide was duped then. If we were duped it was due to the lack of accuracy of the intelligence coming out of Iraq. Saddam himself believed he had WMD, which he did by the way. It was his own scientist and military who were afraid for their lives that duped him. Based on information that was available and the UN resolutions against Iraq the invasion was justified.

By the way did you really mean to say the UN got smart? Haven’t you been keeping up with the real reason they didn’t support us? Why didn’t Germany, France and Russia support the invasion? Was it because they just thought it wasn’t a nice thing to do, or did they get caught with their hands in the till? When doesn’t the UN get duped? The UN Secretary General is a crook and should be shot or at the least locked up for his scandalous lack of leadership. It is a great thing that we have someone like Bolton at the UN now. Maybe this league of depots, thugs and terrorist can be straightened out.

The first President Bush was pre 9/11, a whole decade passed before we invaded Iraq the second time and a whole lot has changed… The weapons inspectors were kicked out of the country and he continued to attack our forces as they patrolled the “no fly’ zones. We were attacked by terrorists and the knowledge (belief) that Saddam had WMD and a known relationship with terrorist was even greater justification.

Sorry, you’re wrong when it comes to W listening to pappy. I’m sure pappy was in full support of us invading Iraq. Bush 41 and 43 were entirely different times and thank God we have a President who will continue to fight the war on terrorism.

Does this make me a Neocon?

]]> By: Mike http://technosailor.com/2005/10/03/back-in-the-saddle/comment-page-1/#comment-2599 Mike Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:44:20 +0000 http://www.technosailor.com/?p=700#comment-2599 How and by who were we duped and who duped the UN? It would seem that every major intelligence agency worldwide was duped then. If we were duped it was due to the lack of accuracy of the intelligence coming out of Iraq. Saddam himself believed he had WMD, which he did by the way. It was his own scientist and military who were afraid for their lives that duped him. Based on information that was available and the UN resolutions against Iraq the invasion was justified.<br /> <br /> By the way did you really mean to say the UN got smart? Haven’t you been keeping up with the real reason they didn’t support us? Why didn’t Germany, France and Russia support the invasion? Was it because they just thought it wasn’t a nice thing to do, or did they get caught with their hands in the till? When doesn’t the UN get duped? The UN Secretary General is a crook and should be shot or at the least locked up for his scandalous lack of leadership. It is a great thing that we have someone like Bolton at the UN now. Maybe this league of depots, thugs and terrorist can be straightened out.<br /> <br /> The first President Bush was pre 9/11, a whole decade passed before we invaded Iraq the second time and a whole lot has changed... The weapons inspectors were kicked out of the country and he continued to attack our forces as they patrolled the “no fly’ zones. We were attacked by terrorists and the knowledge (belief) that Saddam had WMD and a known relationship with terrorist was even greater justification.<br /> <br /> Sorry, you’re wrong when it comes to W listening to pappy. I’m sure pappy was in full support of us invading Iraq. Bush 41 and 43 were entirely different times and thank God we have a President who will continue to fight the war on terrorism.<br /> <br /> Does this make me a Neocon? How and by who were we duped and who duped the UN? It would seem that every major intelligence agency worldwide was duped then. If we were duped it was due to the lack of accuracy of the intelligence coming out of Iraq. Saddam himself believed he had WMD, which he did by the way. It was his own scientist and military who were afraid for their lives that duped him. Based on information that was available and the UN resolutions against Iraq the invasion was justified.

By the way did you really mean to say the UN got smart? Haven’t you been keeping up with the real reason they didn’t support us? Why didn’t Germany, France and Russia support the invasion? Was it because they just thought it wasn’t a nice thing to do, or did they get caught with their hands in the till? When doesn’t the UN get duped? The UN Secretary General is a crook and should be shot or at the least locked up for his scandalous lack of leadership. It is a great thing that we have someone like Bolton at the UN now. Maybe this league of depots, thugs and terrorist can be straightened out.

The first President Bush was pre 9/11, a whole decade passed before we invaded Iraq the second time and a whole lot has changed… The weapons inspectors were kicked out of the country and he continued to attack our forces as they patrolled the “no fly’ zones. We were attacked by terrorists and the knowledge (belief) that Saddam had WMD and a known relationship with terrorist was even greater justification.

Sorry, you’re wrong when it comes to W listening to pappy. I’m sure pappy was in full support of us invading Iraq. Bush 41 and 43 were entirely different times and thank God we have a President who will continue to fight the war on terrorism.

Does this make me a Neocon?

]]> By: Aaron Brazell http://technosailor.com/2005/10/03/back-in-the-saddle/comment-page-1/#comment-244119 Aaron Brazell Fri, 14 Oct 2005 01:52:25 +0000 http://www.technosailor.com/?p=700#comment-244119 I have thought that the war was wrong and we were duped. I believe the UN was intentionally misled and so, yeah, they bought into the war... then got smart and realized they had been duped.<br /><br><br /><br>The first President Bush explains why he chose <em>not</em> to go Baghdad in the first war. Yes we could have stormed up the Euphrates with little or no resistance, as we did in 2003. However, taking Baghdad and <em>holding</em> Baghdad... and by proxy, the entire nation of Iraq would be a costly notion... in terms of money, continuing allied support and blood.<br /><br><br /><br>Very wise, W. Shoulda listened to pappy. I have thought that the war was wrong and we were duped. I believe the UN was intentionally misled and so, yeah, they bought into the war… then got smart and realized they had been duped.

The first President Bush explains why he chose not to go Baghdad in the first war. Yes we could have stormed up the Euphrates with little or no resistance, as we did in 2003. However, taking Baghdad and holding Baghdad… and by proxy, the entire nation of Iraq would be a costly notion… in terms of money, continuing allied support and blood.

Very wise, W. Shoulda listened to pappy.

]]> By: Aaron Brazell http://technosailor.com/2005/10/03/back-in-the-saddle/comment-page-1/#comment-2598 Aaron Brazell Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:52:25 +0000 http://www.technosailor.com/?p=700#comment-2598 I have thought that the war was wrong and we were duped. I believe the UN was intentionally misled and so, yeah, they bought into the war... then got smart and realized they had been duped.<br /> <br /> The first President Bush explains why he chose <em>not</em> to go Baghdad in the first war. Yes we could have stormed up the Euphrates with little or no resistance, as we did in 2003. However, taking Baghdad and <em>holding</em> Baghdad... and by proxy, the entire nation of Iraq would be a costly notion... in terms of money, continuing allied support and blood.<br /> <br /> Very wise, W. Shoulda listened to pappy. I have thought that the war was wrong and we were duped. I believe the UN was intentionally misled and so, yeah, they bought into the war… then got smart and realized they had been duped.

The first President Bush explains why he chose not to go Baghdad in the first war. Yes we could have stormed up the Euphrates with little or no resistance, as we did in 2003. However, taking Baghdad and holding Baghdad… and by proxy, the entire nation of Iraq would be a costly notion… in terms of money, continuing allied support and blood.

Very wise, W. Shoulda listened to pappy.

]]> By: Mike http://technosailor.com/2005/10/03/back-in-the-saddle/comment-page-1/#comment-244118 Mike Thu, 13 Oct 2005 23:03:36 +0000 http://www.technosailor.com/?p=700#comment-244118 No, but based on the intelligence at the time we had to act. Also, I do believe we need to stay until the job is done... We cannot give a date and time for our pullout and to arbitrarily pull out before the Iraqi government and their military can defend themselves would again embolden the terrorist. Have you read the Zawahiri letter? This is a war against terrorism that will not go away. It has to be won… If we don’t finish the job in Iraq we will end up fighting somewhere else, maybe in our own streets.<br /><br><br /><br>Now I've given my answer now what are your feelings? No, but based on the intelligence at the time we had to act. Also, I do believe we need to stay until the job is done… We cannot give a date and time for our pullout and to arbitrarily pull out before the Iraqi government and their military can defend themselves would again embolden the terrorist. Have you read the Zawahiri letter? This is a war against terrorism that will not go away. It has to be won… If we don’t finish the job in Iraq we will end up fighting somewhere else, maybe in our own streets.

Now I’ve given my answer now what are your feelings?

]]> By: Aaron Brazell http://technosailor.com/2005/10/03/back-in-the-saddle/comment-page-1/#comment-244117 Aaron Brazell Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:31:03 +0000 http://www.technosailor.com/?p=700#comment-244117 You'r evading the point and pointing at everyone else when I asked <b>you</b> a question.<br /><br><br /><br>Let me rephrase it. Do you agree with the war <em>today</em>? You’r evading the point and pointing at everyone else when I asked you a question.

Let me rephrase it. Do you agree with the war today?

]]> By: Mike http://technosailor.com/2005/10/03/back-in-the-saddle/comment-page-1/#comment-244116 Mike Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:20:51 +0000 http://www.technosailor.com/?p=700#comment-244116 I do believe something had to be done to stop Saddam from using WMD, as did most of the world, even the Democrats. With the evidence available at the time, which was believed to be very credible, yes I did support the war. Saddam had WMD's and had used them against Iran and his own people. WMD's were found in Iraq, but the MSM never comments about them. A vile filled with saran is a WMD, correct? How many were found? What would have been a reason for invading Iraq in your mind? Should he have been left to continue in his pursuit to obtain and use these weapons? Now we have another threat on the horizon, Iran and Korea. Korea seems to be working itself out, but Iran is another story. "Setting Iran up for a preemptive strike, possibly with nukes" is the mantra now. Should we standby and allow Iran to obtain and "use" nuclear weapons? Do you believe their nuclear program is innocent as they claim? Do you believe Iran would use a nuclear weapon against the US and Israel if they obtained them? Is this thinking Neocon?<br /><br><br /><br>"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." <br /><br><br /><br>The above statement taken from the letter says it all... If Clinton had acted there might not have been a 9/11. Clinton spent eight years appeasing our enemies and allowing the UN to control American policy. The reasons for going to war were very clear, as I have stated in earlier comments. Clinton failed as a president to do what he swore to do to defend America and the American people. Clinton had the same intelligence pertaining to WMD in Iraq that was believed to be accurate by every intelligence agency in the world, including the UN. What should a president do when they are confronted with overwhelming evidence that a rogue state has WMD and has ties with terrorists? Should he sit and wait and see if we will be attacked, as Clinton did? Eight years of the Clinton administration only emboldened Bin Laden. How many times were we attacked in the 90's without anything retaliation? It's no wonder we were attacked on 9/11. I suppose you don’t believe there were ties between Iraq and al Qaeda?<br /><br><br /><br>There are comments all over the Internet in regards to Neo-conservatism, or Hitlerism, whatever the radicals want to call it. Of course they talk about colonialism, empires and a Bizzaro World as stated in the wonderful, intelligent article:<br /><br><br /><br><a href="http://www.etherzone.com/2005/raim091605.shtml">http://www.etherzone.com/2005/raim091605.shtml</a> I do believe something had to be done to stop Saddam from using WMD, as did most of the world, even the Democrats. With the evidence available at the time, which was believed to be very credible, yes I did support the war. Saddam had WMD’s and had used them against Iran and his own people. WMD’s were found in Iraq, but the MSM never comments about them. A vile filled with saran is a WMD, correct? How many were found? What would have been a reason for invading Iraq in your mind? Should he have been left to continue in his pursuit to obtain and use these weapons? Now we have another threat on the horizon, Iran and Korea. Korea seems to be working itself out, but Iran is another story. “Setting Iran up for a preemptive strike, possibly with nukes” is the mantra now. Should we standby and allow Iran to obtain and “use” nuclear weapons? Do you believe their nuclear program is innocent as they claim? Do you believe Iran would use a nuclear weapon against the US and Israel if they obtained them? Is this thinking Neocon?

“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.”

The above statement taken from the letter says it all… If Clinton had acted there might not have been a 9/11. Clinton spent eight years appeasing our enemies and allowing the UN to control American policy. The reasons for going to war were very clear, as I have stated in earlier comments. Clinton failed as a president to do what he swore to do to defend America and the American people. Clinton had the same intelligence pertaining to WMD in Iraq that was believed to be accurate by every intelligence agency in the world, including the UN. What should a president do when they are confronted with overwhelming evidence that a rogue state has WMD and has ties with terrorists? Should he sit and wait and see if we will be attacked, as Clinton did? Eight years of the Clinton administration only emboldened Bin Laden. How many times were we attacked in the 90’s without anything retaliation? It’s no wonder we were attacked on 9/11. I suppose you don’t believe there were ties between Iraq and al Qaeda?

There are comments all over the Internet in regards to Neo-conservatism, or Hitlerism, whatever the radicals want to call it. Of course they talk about colonialism, empires and a Bizzaro World as stated in the wonderful, intelligent article:

http://www.etherzone.com/2005/raim091605.shtml

]]> By: Mike http://technosailor.com/2005/10/03/back-in-the-saddle/comment-page-1/#comment-2597 Mike Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:03:36 +0000 http://www.technosailor.com/?p=700#comment-2597 No, but based on the intelligence at the time we had to act. Also, I do believe we need to stay until the job is done... We cannot give a date and time for our pullout and to arbitrarily pull out before the Iraqi government and their military can defend themselves would again embolden the terrorist. Have you read the Zawahiri letter? This is a war against terrorism that will not go away. It has to be won… If we don’t finish the job in Iraq we will end up fighting somewhere else, maybe in our own streets.<br /> <br /> Now I've given my answer now what are your feelings? No, but based on the intelligence at the time we had to act. Also, I do believe we need to stay until the job is done… We cannot give a date and time for our pullout and to arbitrarily pull out before the Iraqi government and their military can defend themselves would again embolden the terrorist. Have you read the Zawahiri letter? This is a war against terrorism that will not go away. It has to be won… If we don’t finish the job in Iraq we will end up fighting somewhere else, maybe in our own streets.

Now I’ve given my answer now what are your feelings?

]]> By: Aaron Brazell http://technosailor.com/2005/10/03/back-in-the-saddle/comment-page-1/#comment-2596 Aaron Brazell Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:31:03 +0000 http://www.technosailor.com/?p=700#comment-2596 You'r evading the point and pointing at everyone else when I asked <b>you</b> a question.<br /> <br /> Let me rephrase it. Do you agree with the war <em>today</em>? You’r evading the point and pointing at everyone else when I asked you a question.

Let me rephrase it. Do you agree with the war today?

]]> By: Mike http://technosailor.com/2005/10/03/back-in-the-saddle/comment-page-1/#comment-2595 Mike Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:20:51 +0000 http://www.technosailor.com/?p=700#comment-2595 I do believe something had to be done to stop Saddam from using WMD, as did most of the world, even the Democrats. With the evidence available at the time, which was believed to be very credible, yes I did support the war. Saddam had WMD's and had used them against Iran and his own people. WMD's were found in Iraq, but the MSM never comments about them. A vile filled with saran is a WMD, correct? How many were found? What would have been a reason for invading Iraq in your mind? Should he have been left to continue in his pursuit to obtain and use these weapons? Now we have another threat on the horizon, Iran and Korea. Korea seems to be working itself out, but Iran is another story. "Setting Iran up for a preemptive strike, possibly with nukes" is the mantra now. Should we standby and allow Iran to obtain and "use" nuclear weapons? Do you believe their nuclear program is innocent as they claim? Do you believe Iran would use a nuclear weapon against the US and Israel if they obtained them? Is this thinking Neocon?<br /> <br /> "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." <br /> <br /> The above statement taken from the letter says it all... If Clinton had acted there might not have been a 9/11. Clinton spent eight years appeasing our enemies and allowing the UN to control American policy. The reasons for going to war were very clear, as I have stated in earlier comments. Clinton failed as a president to do what he swore to do to defend America and the American people. Clinton had the same intelligence pertaining to WMD in Iraq that was believed to be accurate by every intelligence agency in the world, including the UN. What should a president do when they are confronted with overwhelming evidence that a rogue state has WMD and has ties with terrorists? Should he sit and wait and see if we will be attacked, as Clinton did? Eight years of the Clinton administration only emboldened Bin Laden. How many times were we attacked in the 90's without anything retaliation? It's no wonder we were attacked on 9/11. I suppose you don’t believe there were ties between Iraq and al Qaeda?<br /> <br /> There are comments all over the Internet in regards to Neo-conservatism, or Hitlerism, whatever the radicals want to call it. Of course they talk about colonialism, empires and a Bizzaro World as stated in the wonderful, intelligent article:<br /> <br /> http://www.etherzone.com/2005/raim091605.shtml I do believe something had to be done to stop Saddam from using WMD, as did most of the world, even the Democrats. With the evidence available at the time, which was believed to be very credible, yes I did support the war. Saddam had WMD’s and had used them against Iran and his own people. WMD’s were found in Iraq, but the MSM never comments about them. A vile filled with saran is a WMD, correct? How many were found? What would have been a reason for invading Iraq in your mind? Should he have been left to continue in his pursuit to obtain and use these weapons? Now we have another threat on the horizon, Iran and Korea. Korea seems to be working itself out, but Iran is another story. “Setting Iran up for a preemptive strike, possibly with nukes” is the mantra now. Should we standby and allow Iran to obtain and “use” nuclear weapons? Do you believe their nuclear program is innocent as they claim? Do you believe Iran would use a nuclear weapon against the US and Israel if they obtained them? Is this thinking Neocon?

“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.”

The above statement taken from the letter says it all… If Clinton had acted there might not have been a 9/11. Clinton spent eight years appeasing our enemies and allowing the UN to control American policy. The reasons for going to war were very clear, as I have stated in earlier comments. Clinton failed as a president to do what he swore to do to defend America and the American people. Clinton had the same intelligence pertaining to WMD in Iraq that was believed to be accurate by every intelligence agency in the world, including the UN. What should a president do when they are confronted with overwhelming evidence that a rogue state has WMD and has ties with terrorists? Should he sit and wait and see if we will be attacked, as Clinton did? Eight years of the Clinton administration only emboldened Bin Laden. How many times were we attacked in the 90’s without anything retaliation? It’s no wonder we were attacked on 9/11. I suppose you don’t believe there were ties between Iraq and al Qaeda?

There are comments all over the Internet in regards to Neo-conservatism, or Hitlerism, whatever the radicals want to call it. Of course they talk about colonialism, empires and a Bizzaro World as stated in the wonderful, intelligent article:

http://www.etherzone.com/2005/raim091605.shtml

]]>