It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

People say Bush should not apologize

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Don't we have satellites that can easily see any suspicious activity, such as missiles being moved around in Iraq? To assume that he could have just moved them around for 12 years is nothing short of naive. I can see it now.

Saddam says, "Hey! What was that?"
The inspectors look, while they move huge IC missiles to another location.
Saddam says, "Oh...it was nothing. Ok, you can go in now."

Yeah, right! Come on!




posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
Don't we have satellites that can easily see any suspicious activity, such as missiles being moved around in Iraq? To assume that he could have just moved them around for 12 years is nothing short of naive. I can see it now.

Saddam says, "Hey! What was that?"
The inspectors look, while they move huge IC missiles to another location.
Saddam says, "Oh...it was nothing. Ok, you can go in now."

Yeah, right! Come on!


No #! He didn't have them. We were lied to. Dubya is a jackass and a liar, not to mention all the other things he is.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
Satyr- The only references I see to oil being "spoils of war" are from that are nearly a year old themselves. No word has surfaced after this (unless I couldn't find it, in which case offer a link) that this is still the plan.

They're not saying alot about it, of course, but it's underway. I imagine it's a sensitive subject. It's probably best to keep their mouths shut, as they pump as much oil as they can out of Iraq.

seattletimes.nwsource.com...

They're still trying to get the pipelines back up and working again, right now. Contracts are being handed out, etc. I have a really tough time believing we're not going to end up taking some oil. After all, that was the plan in the first place.

www.reuters.com...

This was planned long before 9/11.


NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill charges in a new book that President Bush entered office in January 2001 intent on invading Iraq and was in search of a way to go about it.
O'Neill, who was fired in December 2002 as part of a shake-up of Bush's economic team, has become the first major Bush administration insider to launch an attack on the president.

The former treasury secretary and other White House insiders gave Suskind documents that in the first three months of 2001 revealed the Bush administration was examining military options for removing Saddam Hussein, CBS said.

"There are memos," Suskind told CBS. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq."'

Another Pentagon document entitled "Foreign suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts" talks about contractors from 40 countries and which ones have interest in Iraq, Suskind said.

www.reuters.com...

[Edited on 1-29-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Someone... Anyone... PROVE Saddam was a threat to the United States of America.

He might have been a threat to Israel.

"He was a monster"

Boy, let's count the monsters that lead countries in the world today.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:27 PM
link   
KJ?
You work for the Government?
Do you have any idea how US Foreign Policy is developed?
Does "threat" being defined by you equate to a national security or foreign policy definition?

In such, the US, as well as many other nations, including the UN Security Council, up till the US determined that force was to be used NOW, believed, decreed, and documented that Saddam/Iraq was a threat.


regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Why should a president appoligize that does what is best to ensure the survival of his country and the style of living that his citizens have? That is his job, if you want ethics go to church and confess your sins.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   
In such, Mr Kay had this to say today:
"Iraq May Have Been 'Far More Dangerous' Than Believed, Kay Tells"
Link:
www.dod.mil...



BTW, it is known that Intelligence services and agency evaluate by: Intentions and Capabilities. In the applied case of Saddam/Iraq, it was believed and documented that they had Both.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 29-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Are we gonna get into a debate in regards to "Bushes truth".

I would also want to incurr into these "foreign agencies" who provided intel to back Bush claim that Saddam had "Wmd's".

Deep



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   


Someone... Anyone... PROVE Saddam was a threat to the United States of America.


How was he a ligit threat to the United states, the only threat he could possiby pose was with these "WMD'S", of which are simple figments in the Bush administrations imagination.

Deep



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
Don't we have satellites that can easily see any suspicious activity, such as missiles being moved around in Iraq? To assume that he could have just moved them around for 12 years is nothing short of naive. I can see it now.

Saddam says, "Hey! What was that?"
The inspectors look, while they move huge IC missiles to another location.
Saddam says, "Oh...it was nothing. Ok, you can go in now."

Yeah, right! Come on!


Satellites aren't magic, you know. You have to tell them where to look. They can't see a country the size of California all at once.



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 03:25 AM
link   
"I think he should personaly go an appoligize to all those families in Iraq whose children died.

Deep"

and if we hadnt toppled saddam, i think we should be apologising to the people of iraq.



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Yes, we all hated him.

The UN, Clinton, The Bush Team, etc

I just find it pretty nice that it happens now after over 10 years of his crap. And that's after the Gulf War.

I find it bad that Bush used intel that Clinton used.

That it was planned 2 days after September 11th.

Yes, and I do understand that foreign policy is thick and complicated with a multitude of results to any one action.

But did we have to go and do it like we did? No.

Did we have to further the terrorists justification on our intrusion into world politics? Not really.

Should we be alienating all our friends on the playground? Nope.

I just think that there was a better more internationally pleasing method to fix this situation.

Solid Gold promise. The more intrusion into the middle east by our force and violence, the further our terrorist attacks will increase.

Look at Israel if you don't believe me. They are bombarded with terrorism, and they have the best intel on the planet, or so everyone says.

I am not into gung ho war, and the same can be said for international politics.

I disagreed with Clintons handling of Yugoslovia, and that way when I was in the Marine Corps Infantry. So I understand how it works.

I am just tired of seeing how he was a monster and should be taken out, while these ignorant fools neglect to mention the other nasty countries in the world.

Also, by this rational, we should invade every tenth nation.

It just makes no sense.



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Bush's resignation and disappearance to oblivion along with his criminal neo-con cronies would suit the civilized world better than any apology he could fumble his way through.



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Oops. I forgot to mention, not before the repatriation of illegal war profits to the rightful owners of the resources that create them in the more legitimate sense.

A process Colonel has referred to as "disgorging".


[Edited on 30-1-2004 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 07:07 AM
link   
In the 10 year span between the two Gulf Wars, if Hussein wanted revenge on the U.S., he would have taken it. There is still no evidence he had anything to do with 9/11. Just speculation.

By the way, what happened to good 'ol Saddam? He's not even covered by the media anymore. I would think he would still be 'top' news, with all the information about WMD's they are squeezing out of him.

Or maybe not.....



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 07:57 AM
link   
"By the way, what happened to good 'ol Saddam?"

yeah, i wonder what happened to good 'ol hitler aswell.



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I've never trusted my government in what they say. Have you?

Regardless, I've heard that when the press asks the President about the lag of intelligence about the WMD's, he dodges the question and sometimes doesn't even answer. Has anyone else heard about this?

[Edited on 30-1-2004 by mrmulder]



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   
i trust tony blair. he never lied.



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I think if Bush had any honor at all he would take his own life, sepukko style, publicly on television. Then the rest of his cabinet and the CIA "info" people should join him in ritual suicide.
I believe that this, and only this, would allow them to retain their "honor".
Sitting Bull once said that, "the problem with the leaders of the white man is that they have to much power and to little honor...It is bad for a leader to be obeyed to often."
In traditional Japanese culture, pre 1940, not only would this example of honor be expected, but the Generals as was well would be expected to follow the path of the leader in ritualized suicide.
It seems that only here, in America, can such a catastophic event as pre-emptive war, that has caused SO much division amongst its people, with the horros that war inflicts, with the apparent cronyism that has taken place, by an immenent threat that may not have existed, be treated so callously by the people who started it.
Whatever happened to, "the buck stops here"!

Whatever happened to honor?


Authority is an illusion in the mind of govenors - Lao Tse



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   
As I've always said. There are three things that make men untrustworthy and unhonorable.

1. Greed
2. Money
3. Power

[Edited on 30-1-2004 by mrmulder]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join