I sincerely doubt it. I think just about any politician would have went to war. In congress, most people who didn't vote for the war justified it by saying that they wanted only to wait a few more months or didn't like the way the law was written (it didn't DECLARE war, it gave the president AUTHORIZATION TO DELCARE war as he felt for a number of months following).
fix america
- Thread starter Thorn Bird
- Start date
I sincerely doubt it. I think just about any politician would have went to war. In congress, most people who didn't vote for the war justified it by saying that they wanted only to wait a few more months or didn't like the way the law was written (it didn't DECLARE war, it gave the president AUTHORIZATION TO DELCARE war as he felt for a number of months following).
the decision was based off bogus info that bush and/or cheney had a hand in either creating or knowledgeably perpetuating
bogus info? you treading close to conspiracy theory land, my friend
The decision was based off misrepresented information that every member of Congress had access to and could have easily determined was going against the CIA's own recommendations. Congress knew what they had, they knew every iota of information available to the administration.
They weren't duped, they just didn't care that Saddam wasn't a threat. They wanted a war, too.
bogus info? you treading close to conspiracy theory land, my friend
The decision was based off misrepresented information that every member of Congress had access to and could have easily determined was going against the CIA's own recommendations. Congress knew what they had, they knew every iota of information available to the administration.
They weren't duped, they just didn't care that Saddam wasn't a threat. They wanted a war, too.
it was bogus info...that's no conspiracy...there were people presented with all the facts who simply ignored the truth
yeah, bunch of bible thumpers. they care about freedom for christians, the rest can fend for themselves
can't recall the particular item be it nuke or chem warfare components, but there was misleading info produced that he(saddam) was in the midst of acquiring said things from africa which all lead to the valerie plame flap
Last edited:
I think you have your conspiracies mixed up.Misrepresenting the information that was readily available to all members of Congress - and they could have read it themselves, the intelligence community provides all of that to various Congressional intelligence oversight committees and subcommittees - is different than saying the cooked up bogus information. It was misleading, no doubt, but every member of Congress that voted for the war could have read the actual intelligence reports.
Many of them - including Democrats - did just that and voted for authorization anyways.
Last edited:
nope, I'm dead on it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
See but IMO that is part of the problem...
Why shouldnt these companies have to start cleaning up the mess they made/are making? It is our fault for not attacking this earlier when we knew there was a problem. Much of the problem is greed and lack of future sight. We are greedy for wanting cheaper they are greedy for making cheaper.
Oh and let's not forget that Iraq Liberation Act that Clinton signed in 1998. This government has been vying to go into Iraq for nearly two decades so it wasn't just Dubya trying to get the guy that threatened his daddy.
This government has been vying to go into Iraq for nearly two decades so it wasn't just Dubya trying to get the guy that threatened his daddy.Oh and let's not forget that Iraq Liberation Act that Clinton signed in 1998.
I love how people say "History will prove this the best plan of action and Bush to be a great president". The only thing it is going to show is what it has shown, exactly what you just said. You would think some people would have seen through his bullshit and put a stop to this before it started. Its one of those "fuck, we shoulda seen that coming"
Of course they should but placing restrictions on them that put them out of business would absolutely destroy our economy. Yes, responsibility to the environment is important but it means jack shit if it leads to another depression.
Global warming isn't much of an issue when you're burning stacks of benjamins to stay warm and wondering if your dog has enough meat to feed your family for the week.
The key it to have reasonable moves toward cleaner technology. Technological innovations come from industry, not government. We didn't get to the moon by giving NASA billions of dollars and having them build everything in-house. They relied on the private sector to develop, engineer and build just about every aspect of the program.
Allow capitalism to take its course with reasonable direction by the people and we'll enjoy cleaner technologies a hell of a lot sooner than we will by tightening the noose on oil companies and forcing third world nations to adopt overly expensive technologies.
I agree. However part of that lack of future sight includes ignoring the economic effects of placing a stranglehold on the very companies that are most likely and most capable of creating these new, cleaner technologies. Shell, BP and all the others are quite literally the best hope for alleviating both our reliance on foreign oil and our polluting ways.
Oh, let's not forget that the biggest polluter in the world is the US federal government itself.
If they don't have to follow their own rules, what's the fucking point?
Of course they should but placing restrictions on them that put them out of business would absolutely destroy our economy. Yes, responsibility to the environment is important but it means jack shit if it leads to another depression.
Global warming isn't much of an issue when you're burning stacks of benjamins to stay warm and wondering if your dog has enough meat to feed your family for the week.
The key it to have reasonable moves toward cleaner technology. Technological innovations come from industry, not government. We didn't get to the moon by giving NASA billions of dollars and having them build everything in-house. They relied on the private sector to develop, engineer and build just about every aspect of the program.
Allow capitalism to take its course with reasonable direction by the people and we'll enjoy cleaner technologies a hell of a lot sooner than we will by tightening the noose on oil companies and forcing third world nations to adopt overly expensive technologies.
I agree. However part of that lack of future sight includes ignoring the economic effects of placing a stranglehold on the very companies that are most likely and most capable of creating these new, cleaner technologies. Shell, BP and all the others are quite literally the best hope for alleviating both our reliance on foreign oil and our polluting ways.
Oh, let's not forget that the biggest polluter in the world is the US federal government itself.
"that's the 3rd blasted uranium rod this stupid sub has gone through this week!!"
*surfaces and wings rod into the bay*
The information came from several different countries. If MI6 or Russian intel disagreed with us, I might believe the same thing. But we were all on the same page. I don't buy it.
I still think that Gore would have gone to war.
/edit: And WMDs were certainly not the only justification for the war given by the president, just the one the news liked to play the most
Did Fly just get pwnt or what? No reply to this?
Dharma1521
Soooo do I look as young as I look?
Well, sorta. The US Navy is probably the best example of safe, reliable and responsible use of nuclear power.
But in many other areas the federal government pollutes like crazy and allows its contractors to subvert EPA regulations to get the job done. :o