F911 Additional Features

[sjwalter]

Edit for missunderstanding of what kermi what refering too.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 18 2004, 09:25 PM
And the WMD were there, Saddam just moved them elsewhere before the war began.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...11235-4438r.htm

From your own link............

"The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition. "

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by KootenayFlamesFan+Oct 18 2004, 08:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KootenayFlamesFan @ Oct 18 2004, 08:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 18 2004, 09:25 PM
And the WMD were there, Saddam just moved them elsewhere before the war began.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...11235-4438r.htm

From your own link............

"The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition. " [/b][/quote]
So if he never had them, why didn't he let the Weapons Inspectors look and prove to the world he was clean then he could have avoided the whole War, and continued to kill his people like before?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 19 2004, 03:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 19 2004, 03:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Oct 19 2004, 03:15 AM
And at the time, Republicans were frowning on Clinton for attacking at all.

Funny how these things work.

Let's see some proof of that...because I don't remember it that way AT ALL....and I was here. [/b][/quote]
You must have a terrible memory then, because it was impossible to turn on the news back then and not hear Clinton's Republican adversaries chastise Clinton for the missile attacks by saying he was doing it to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Since that era pre-dates most websites, it's hard to find a web link. I honestly can't believe you don't recall it. The best I can do is this Snopes article that briefly mentions it:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally posted by sjwalter+Oct 18 2004, 09:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sjwalter @ Oct 18 2004, 09:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

From your own link............

"The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition. "

So if he never had them, why didn't he let the Weapons Inspectors look and prove to the world he was clean then he could have avoided the whole War, and continued to kill his people like before? [/b][/quote]
Listen........I'm not sticking up for Saddam. Of course he did some terrible things.

And there was a chance he did have WMDs.

But you said ....... "And the WMD were there".........when the link you provided yourself even states there was no proof.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 19 2004, 03:23 AM
Cut the crap FlamesAddiction.

I wasn't being offensive in any way, shape or form.

You're little personal vendetta with me is getting old.

The stretching I was referring to was equating a single statement by a diplomat to 'the green light'.

Hey, I have no vendetta with you. I actually like you most of the time. But honestly, what is this if not trying to be offensive:

"Jesus.

And you are stretching the events and you know damn well you are.

Hilarious."

Am I misunderstanding something with that syle/tone of writing?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 19 2004, 03:32 AM

You must have a terrible memory then, because it was impossible to turn on the news back then and not hear Clinton's Republican adversaries chastise Clinton for the missile attacks by saying he was doing it to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Since that era pre-dates most websites, it's hard to find a web link. I honestly can't believe you don't recall it. The best I can do is this Snopes article that briefly mentions it:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Yeah, I must have a terrible memory.

I specifically remember Bob Dole (Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole....who had lost an election to Clinton 2 years earlier...you know, that Bob Dole)....commending Clinton for doing something.

I don't doubt there were other members of the Republican party playing stupid political games though.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 19 2004, 03:12 AM
Why does Clinton need a coalition. US is a world power, they don't need help from other countries.

Clinton avoided the issue IMO by shooting the missiles, just to divert the people's attention from, we were attacked, to, we fought back, even if it was a week strike against the terrorists.

He hit how many camps? I'm sure there were hundreds more then the ones he hit, so in retrospect he did nothing to cut short the terrorism.

And i guess they do cancel each other out, although i'll stand by mine.

My friend, you need to get educated on the situation and why things are done the way they are. You are aware that Afghanistan is a land locked country? You are aware that to fire a missle at the country in question requires you to cross the airspace of another sovereign nation, and to do so requires permission to access this airspace? You can not unilaterally decide to fire a missle at anbother country, even if you are the United States. You have to have permission to fly that missle through the airspace of the other country.

As well you have to recognize that al Qeada was not considered the major threat it was prior to the attacks on the African embassies and the USS Cole. After this the intelligence community really stepped up their efforts to pull together their information on this organization. Prior to this the intelligence community was still developing much of their intel. bin Laden had been pin pointed but much of the senior al Qeada officiers had not been fully documented. Also it was not a given where bin Laden was at this time. This is why Clinton authorized the bombing of targets within both Sudan AND Afghanistan. bin Laden was actually in transition after the Cole attack, moving from Sudan to Afghanistan.

You also have to understand that there were not "hundreds" of camps. That would have been fiscally impossible for bin Laden and al Qeada to support. It also would have been extremely difficult to maintain. There were three or four (I've seen references to both) camps in Afghanistan and they weren't exactly what we would see as great targets anyways. The facilities really were nothing more than rock buildings and some rudimentary training tools. The attacks were more of a message than an attempt to put anything out of business.

Frankly it doesn't make much sense to think that al Qeada was a target for extermination. For one thing, it was illegal under US law at the time. This changed, but it was not possible for the President to authorize an assassination until long after the Cole attack. So to try and blame Clinton is kind of lame. He developed the intelligence bodies that were non-existent under Reagan and Bush41. He worked within the framework that the laws of the time allowed for. He did what he could and what was acceptable at that point.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 19 2004, 03:37 AM

Hey, I have no vendetta with you. I actually like you most of the time. But honestly, what is this if not trying to be offensive:

"Jesus.

And you are stretching the events and you know damn well you are.

Hilarious."

Am I misunderstanding something with that syle/tone of writing?

If you are offended by what I wrote, then you have to be missing something.

Jesus...is just a release of exasperation....nothing more.

The stretching the events part was aimed at your equating the words of a single diplomat to giving Saddam the green light. That's a huge stretch and I believe deep down you know it is.

Hilarious....well, I find it funny that you would even make the suggestion that it was a green light.

None of it was meant to be offensive....if you took offense, I apologize. It wasn't the intent.

I have to tell you, though, it sure seems awfully personal when you start responding to me in this forum. Maybe I'm taking things in ways they are not intended as well?

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Oct 18 2004, 08:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Oct 18 2004, 08:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Let's see some proof of that...because I don't remember it that way AT ALL....and I was here.

You must have a terrible memory then, because it was impossible to turn on the news back then and not hear Clinton's Republican adversaries chastise Clinton for the missile attacks by saying he was doing it to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Since that era pre-dates most websites, it's hard to find a web link. I honestly can't believe you don't recall it. The best I can do is this Snopes article that briefly mentions it:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm [/b][/quote]
Chastise him for diverting attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandel? Is that opposing the strikes on the camps?

IMO i remember the scandel and i remember the attacks, and he did do it to divert attention away.

Clinton had five previous attacks on America before he decided to strike back, why not strike back after the first one?

As the article says, if he would have kept his promises, 7,000 people would be alive today.

[dangler22]

But that link to Snopes says in bold red letters that the rumor is FALSE

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by dangler22@Oct 19 2004, 03:54 AM
But that link to Snopes says in bold red letters that the rumor is FALSE

The rumor that Clinton failed to bring the perpetrators of the listed attacks to justice?

I'm not sure how they can claim that is false.

Many of the people deemed responsible are STILL at large.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 18 2004, 09:47 PM

As the article says, if he would have kept his promises, 7,000 people would be alive today.

Didn't Bush also promise to hunt down and punish those responsible?

Where's Bin Laden?

I guess he's too busy invading a country that didn't attack the U.S to worry about him anymore.........

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by KootenayFlamesFan+Oct 19 2004, 03:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KootenayFlamesFan @ Oct 19 2004, 03:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 18 2004, 09:47 PM

As the article says, if he would have kept his promises, 7,000 people would be alive today.

Didn't Bush also promise to hunt down and punish those responsible?

Where's Bin Laden?

I guess he's too busy invading a country that didn't attack the U.S to worry about him anymore......... [/b][/quote]
Still hunting though....that's something that Clinton didn't do. He chose to handle it as a law enforcement issue.

You can disagree with the war in Iraq all you want, that doesn't mean that the Bush administration isn't still looking for Bin Laden.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

My teacher is right IMO, because there is no two sides to the issue and in a largely conservative area that is probably what would be needed.

WTF are you talking about? What largely conservative area? What are you talking about? You are making no sense what so ever.

You're talking from a democrat point of view, so obviously the Republicans have done everything wrong, but i don't believe that 9/11 and fear is the sole heart of their campaign.

Okay, but you're talking from no point of view. You haven't quoted a point of view and haven't said anything at all to support yourself or your views. If you're going to wade into the fray come with an argument that is YOURS and come with some backup.

Kerry's record and flip flops have helped them a lot, as well as many other things Kerry's wife as well as Edwards wife have said.

Nice talking points. There is no truth to them, but nice talking points all the same. Where's Tranny when you need him? This is exactly what David Brock is talking about when he talks about innuendo becoming accepted fact. Kerry is a flip flopper (which he is not) and Bush is a great leader with a steely focus (which he is not). Bush has just as questionable a record when it comes to changing his mind, but that is not something that is talked about when it comes to the Republicans. Its well documented that Bush has had as many flip flops in the last four years as any politician. Unfortunately the talking points do not make it so to the general public.

And what do the wives of Kerry or Edwards have to do with anything? Nothing. Or does Laura Bush's vehicular manslaughter and drug sales as a younger woman come into play? They should not. Its irrellivant to the debate. Leave them out of it.

And Bush did nothing thats why Moore's all over him, i thought Bush invaded two countries one where there was good evidence that Bin Laden was located at. How did he then do nothing?

Okay, now you're just being annoying. How many people have to explain to you that Bush did nothing to prevent the 911 attacks. He had multiple briefings, including one on Aug 6, 2001, that explicitly stated an attack was coming from bin Laden, and yet he did nothing. This is why Moore and others are all over the President.

Iraq hasn't been a complete failure yet, Saddam is out of power, which was the intent of the attack.

Sorry, this was never the intent of the attack. This is part of excuse number four, which doesn't sell. So far Iraq has been a disaster and is deteriorating. The highly protected "green zone" is now subject to almost daily attacks. This is not a good sign and does not give anyone the confidence that things are going well or improving.

[dangler22]

Iraq is a great place to be looking for him.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 18 2004, 09:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 18 2004, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Didn't Bush also promise to hunt down and punish those responsible?

Where's Bin Laden?

I guess he's too busy invading a country that didn't attack the U.S to worry about him anymore.........

Still hunting though....that's something that Clinton didn't do. He chose to handle it as a law enforcement issue.

You can disagree with the war in Iraq all you want, that doesn't mean that the Bush administration isn't still looking for Bin Laden. [/b][/quote]
True enough Dis......

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by KootenayFlamesFan+Oct 18 2004, 08:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KootenayFlamesFan @ Oct 18 2004, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 18 2004, 09:47 PM

As the article says, if he would have kept his promises, 7,000 people would be alive today.

Didn't Bush also promise to hunt down and punish those responsible?

Where's Bin Laden?

I guess he's too busy invading a country that didn't attack the U.S to worry about him anymore......... [/b][/quote]
Poor arguement, as Dis said they are still hunting.

Clinton gave up even after the World Trade Center bombings were connected to Bin Laden as well as many of the other bombings carried out against the States during Clinton's era.

I guess if Clinton didn't want Bin Laden to be a hero, like he would have if the US wouldn't have caught him then you give up the attack. One mans stature in the Middle East is more important then the safety of 250 million people. Is that how all democracts think?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by dangler22@Oct 19 2004, 04:02 AM
Iraq is a great place to be looking for him.

They're not looking for him in Iraq as far as I know.

Pakistan and Afghanistan are where they are focussed on the search for him. Surprised you didn't know that actually.

[dangler22]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 19 2004, 04:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 19 2004, 04:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-dangler22@Oct 19 2004, 04:02 AM
Iraq is a great place to be looking for him.

They're not looking for him in Iraq as far as I know.

Pakistan and Afghanistan are where they are focussed on the search for him. Surprised you didn't know that actually. [/b][/quote]
surprised you didn't know I was being sarcastic.