Forum Thread

Clear Lake Topics

(Clear Lake Specific)

3 messages

Updated 3/9/2022 4:14:40 PM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,625 messages

Updated 5/17/2024 10:13:59 AM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,193 messages

Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM

Clear Lake Fishing

(Clear Lake Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,169 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,260 messages

Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,976 messages

Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	So Now that Operation Iraqi Freedom is over
Date:	8/31/2010 10:13:35 PM

I'm wondering exactly what it is that has been accomplished that is worth the lives we lost. Does Iraq have a functioning government? NO Is there still a chance that Iraq will fall into civil war? Yes Is there still sectarian violence? yes Is Al Queda destroyed? NO, they are where they always were -- in the Afghanistan/Pakistan lawless region. Have we improved the life of Iraqis? NO, in fact, we've probably made the day to day life of Iraqis worse. Did we satisfy our intellectual curiosity of creating a democracy in the Middle East? And where are all those who convinced Bush that it was "the right thing to do"? They've all written books and are on the rubber chicken/book signing/article writing circuit again, making money. Is this a quintessentially American war? Create a problem, splash around in the pool to make it seem like we're solving it, then stop splashing, pat ourselves on the back for solving the problem (that never existed in the first place). Can someone explain this to me?

Name:	lotowner -	Reply
Subject:	So Now that Operation Iraqi Freedom is over
Date:	9/1/2010 8:32:47 AM

Nation Building was the proper thing to do after WWII. However, we did not start this non military effort until after the enemy had been totally defeated and the leaders tried by the military and found innocent, imprisoned or executed. Germany and Japan are significant nations of the world today due to these actions by the USA.

Based on current information, going into Iraq for to free Iraq from SH was the wrong position by Bush II. Intelligence was faulty and the intelligence services were not held accountable after it was determined to be faulty. Iraq should have been invaded by Bush I after the military acts against Kuwait. SH had been totally defeated. Consequently, he was able to be a problem years later. The world would have supported this.

I do agree with the military actions in Afghanistan. Rather than turning over some military actions to the Afghans, we should have totally obliterated the Taliban and Al Qaeda when we had them surrounded in the mountains. As a result of these decisions by civilians, OBL and other Taliban leaders escaped.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	So Now that Operation Iraqi Freedom is over
Date:	9/1/2010 8:39:16 AM

I thought all you libs swore there was no Al Queda in Iraqw!? ah but you tried to slip in with the Paki/Afghi line. So predictable. Are there rape rooms in Iraq for the Hussien boys? NO Is Sadam a threat to the region? NO Is the government gassing in own citixens? NO Is the Iraqi gov. builing weapons of mass detruction, or even threatening too? NO Do Iraqi citizens go to bed at night not knowing if they will be drug out of their house in the middle of the night? NO Do Iraqi's have free elections? YES Is water and electricty flowing? YES IS there water and elecricity in places that NEVER had it under Sadam? YES Yeah, Iraq is much worse off!!!!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Explanation is served up, enjoy the aftertaste
Date:	9/1/2010 9:40:49 AM

Here's your explanation Hound and these are all quotes I obtained from snopes and as they point out all are accurate but some are taken out of context and some, despite acknowledging what everyone believed, were still opposed to military action. While it is clear there were divergent opinions about what a proper response to this situation, there was apparently no divergence of opinion about whether Iraq had or was building or desired to have WMDs and based on the gassing of the Kurds had shown a willingness to use them, against their own people no less. That Bush had the gonads to do something about it and that Dems, even those that voted for the war in Iraq (based on their own evaluation of the intelligence and not some slavish devotion to Bush), saw public sentiment turn against the war and belatedly decided to criticize their own decision and lie about it and blame Bush speaks volumes to their complete lack of character and abject hypocrisy.......ask and ye shall receive......

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop
weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our
bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we
face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since
1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air
and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat
posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has
made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit
missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United
States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat
to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the
United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of
delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons
throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter
and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing
weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that
Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons,
and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and
biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking
nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use
force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a
deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave
threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to
develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next
five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the
progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused
to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given
aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear,
however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the
production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we
need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his
consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	A corrolary question for you Hound
Date:	9/1/2010 12:35:03 PM (updated 9/1/2010 12:37:07 PM)

After having spent almost $900 billion on the porkulus what do we have to show for it?

Is unemployment below 8%? NO

Has the housing market recovered despite record low interest rates? NO

Has the national debt gone down? NO

Has the stock market recovered to pre-Dem control of the House, Senate and the WH? NO

Is Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac financially solvent? NO

Do a majority of Americans think we are headed in the right direction? NO

You see Hound, most ordinary people see the cynical hypocrisy of the OCarter administration taking credit for the success of the Bush surge and recognize that the one and only accomplishment of his administration is his predecessor's gift, all this despite the fact that both OCarter and Biteme both predicted the surge would fail. However, in all fairness to OCarter we do have millions of dollars of signs all over the country announcing some porkulus project.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Where do you get your information?
Date:	9/1/2010 3:47:00 PM

It's well known that Iraqis only have intermittent water and electricity. Most of the money spent in Iraq for "nation building" is unaccounted for. Saddam was never a national security threat to us. He wasn't building nuclear weapons, either. He was a local bully. Al Queda was not in Iraq until the US was there. That is well documented. Our presence brought them to Iraq. Not sure that the current violence can be blamed on Al Queda either. Iran has a vested interest in keeping things stirred up in Iraq. Why do you always have to resort to name calling and pidgeon-holing?

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Explanation is served up, enjoy the aftertaste
Date:	9/1/2010 4:02:33 PM

If Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction, why have we never found the factories or the ingredients there? It's a long way from thinking about it and threatening to do it, to actually producing a nuclear weapon. It's not just a matter of obtaining the correct uranium. He would have had to have a willing partner to actually mentor them through the process, like Pakistan and India. One thing Saddam did quite effectively was convince people that he could. But lets for a moment pretend he was -- after the US President said that his country was part of the "Axis of Evil" , wouldn't any sane leader be thinking about protecting his country? Saddam was hardly the first and only world leader to gas and poison his own people. We have not felt compelled to remove any other leader based on what they did to their own people. Otherwise we would have removed the Chinese leadership long ago, taken over Pakistan and destroyed Turkey. You may recall the well documented fact that we did had no credible intelligence sources in Iraq at the time most of those quotes were made. They simply were operating on faulty intelligence. You may recall that Clinton dismantled the HUMIT operations by the US in much of the world. Much of the ado about Saddam was strictly political. Politicans say stuff all the time -- doesn't mean it's true. They play to the audience. And some of them had been assured by both the SecState and SecDef that the intelligence was credible. You haven't proven a thing, MM.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	That's not a Collary Question MM
Date:	9/1/2010 4:05:39 PM

I asked the question about Iraq and what it has meant and what we got out of it. You have launched into your usual rant about Obama. Obama was never an issue in this thread. Trying to hijack someone else's thread is Rude, Dude.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Hijacking a thread and rude, dude?!?!?!
Date:	9/1/2010 4:38:02 PM

Hound, what is rude is your thread where you essentially stated that the service men and women who lost their lives or were wounded in freeing Iraq from tyranny was all for naught based on your selected criteria. My first response skewered your question as to why we went in there and my second one pointed out more important issues that we face while OCarter takes credit for something he deserves no credit for. And like the small-minded man-child he is didn't even have the decency to give credit where it is due. I was just trying to give him some credit for what he has done and what he has not accomplished........

Maybe a new thread but probably not since I've made my point that no one cares about your view of the Iraq war and we are more interested in how OCarter is screwing up this great nation thanks to you and the other OCarter voters.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Its easy in hindsight, eh?
Date:	9/1/2010 4:42:23 PM

You asked why we did what we did and I answered it. You just don't like the answer because most of it came from the very same hypocrites that changed their tune after the fact. You, along with the rest of them would have been screaming bloody murder if Iraq had used WMD and would have rightly been asking why didn't we do something? Everyone knew they had WMD, right?

You are just blind because of your hatred for poor old W but that's OK. I daresay he doesn't lose any sleep over it because he knew why he decided to act and had the approval of Congress, including a great number of Dems.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Besides, who over the age of 14 says dude anymore?
Date:	9/1/2010 4:47:09 PM

I don't even let my son say dude. I tell him its rude to say dude......

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	I DON"T HATE GWB!!!!!!
Date:	9/1/2010 8:01:58 PM

There is that loud enough for you to hear. I voted for him twice. I thought he was misled on Iraq, and I know by who and why he was misled. It's not any easier in hindsight. Colin Powell, the Sec STATE knew the Intell was bull before he went and briefed the UN. I realize you have no experience in reading Intel. It's always subject to interpretation. I have always suspected that Tenet was at fault for the way the intel was interpreted. I think there was some pressure on the analysts to find something that supported what some wanted to do. But, there's no point in making excuses now for why it happened. My interest is really in the results.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	REALLY??????
Date:	9/1/2010 9:14:12 PM

Huh, now that is news considering all the nasty things you have said about him over the last couple of years. And "you know by who and why he was misled". Funny, I don't recall you testifying to Congress during the umpteen hours of scrutiny of the issue of WMDs. I am sure all those investigators will be dismayed to know that they never asked the right person in DoD so they could blow the lid off the whole thing. How did they miss you in the thousands of hours of investigating and the millions of dollars spent?!?! Just another example of your federal government incompetence. I need to write my congressman and demand they get you under oath and on the stand ASAP so we can all hear the truth!!!

Honestly Hound, do you actually believe the stuff you write or do you get upset with me and revert to your "I'm the former government employee in the know on all that happens in DC"? So now we know that Colin Powell intentionally lied to the U.N., that he knew unequivocally that it was all a lie and yet he went ahead and testified before the U.N. and the entire world with lies he knew were lies. The man has not a shred of decency to send all those soldiers to their deaths and to be maimed and he knew all along it was all made up. He was just a good soldier doing his duty and lying to the entire world because Bush and Cheney made him do it. My goodness, well that explains why he supported OCarter in the last election. What a cad!

I know you are just interested in the results and yet you totally ignore all the good that has happened in Iraq. You ignore all those people with purple ink that voted in elections despite the risk. You ignore the sacrifice and hard work of our military doing good works in Iraq that may not make things perfect in your opinion, but better in the opinion of many Iraqis. Is it perfect? Nope and will never be. But the Hussein sons are worm food so there is no rape rooms being used by them. That's a fact. Despite the insurgency and al Queda violence, the government of Iraq hasn't used toxic gas against the Kurds. That's a fact. The government of Iraq hasn't invaded any neighbors like they did in Kuwait. That's a fact! All these are facts and if you don't think they are true you have some serious issues.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	You Really need to get over yourself
Date:	9/2/2010 8:31:40 AM

If you read subsequent interviews with Colin Powell, you would know that he never felt good about the intel, and actually made them rework the briefing to tone it down because he felt the CIA analysts were reading into the intel, to support what the Administration had already decided. This is all well documented. And in fact, most of what I have said here was submitted to Congress as testimony. Doug Feith did, in fact, create a seperate Iraq intelligence cell, headed by a former colleague of mine so he could create his own intelligence reporting. I realize that you do not understand the nuance of that. You are making the mistake of assuming that what you see on the surface is what is really going on. And you miss the nuance, because you don't understand the environment. There are a lot of people in Washington behind the scenes that are not lobbyists (at least not declared lobbyists) or politicians, who move in and out of government, and have a great deal of influence in what happens. You don't know their names. They reside in think tanks, in academia, and as consultants who shape a great deal of US policy no matter who is in the WH. But really, MM, you need to get over yourself, and open your mind a bit. Just because an idea doesn't fit your perception of how things are, doesn't necessarily make it wrong. Your sources, while admirable, are not necessarily any more correct than other sources. Your ideas, are just your ideas. We all tend to seek sources that support our way of thinking, but it doesn't mean that it is the only truth.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Hound, You Really need to get over yourself
Date:	9/2/2010 10:08:07 AM

"We all tend to seek sources that support our way of thinking, but it doesn't mean that it is the only truth." Hound And that why you only watch Joe!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Ditto
Date:	9/2/2010 11:20:51 AM

Uh huh, saying Colin Powell "never felt good" about the intelligence is entirely different than what you originally posted: "the Sec STATE knew the Intell was bull before he went and briefed the UN." That is a damning indictment of his credibility that apparently in no time flat you are backtracking on. So which is it?

You are right I don't understand all the nuances in DC nor do I want to because it is the most dysfunctional city in the U.S. as evidenced by the fact that 60%+ there think the country is headed in the right direction which is the exact opposite of the rest of the country. I do understand the influence of lobbyists since I pay one $25K per month and he has worked wonders for us. It is indeed a sad indictment on our government that I had to do that but I am pragmatic and will play the game if I must as disgusting as it is.

I am open minded to learning more but what I cannot bear is being told that I have to accept what you say just because of your role in government. I know enough to understand that being a bureaucrat in one agency does not make a person the be all and know all of all things in every branch of government. I have interacted a lot with USEPA at headquarters as well as the regions as well as NOAA so I do understand some government agencies quite well. I have found many similarities and some distinct differences so I know there are nuances. If I wanted to get into DoD I would find someone that knows that agency and not use the same lobbyist that knows EPA and NOAA.

I do agree we tend to seek sources that support our preconceived notions but if you have another perspective, please be specific and provide details (i.e., facts and logic) and stop with the condescending "I am the all knowing person of all things government and you just need to accept what I am saying". Sorry, but that doesn't cut it with me. This is a recurring theme with you will get you nowhere with me.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	As for truth
Date:	9/2/2010 1:38:36 PM

I don't know about you but in reality there is only one truth. Relativism may work in some circle to justify whatever behavior they want to engage but when it comes to most things only one thing can be true. All the rest is wishful thinking.......as Reagan said so well, "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."

Quick Links
Clear Lake News
Clear Lake Photos
Clear Lake Videos