President Obama's RED LINE in SYRIA has been crossed...

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

...and nothing will be done about it.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

...and nothing will be done about it.

Oh now you want to invade Syria? Are you that much of a war monger? When will neocons stop pushing for war everywhere?

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

...and nothing will be done about it.

Oh now you want to invade Syria? Are you that much of a war monger? When will neocons stop pushing for war everywhere?

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

...and nothing will be done about it.

Oh now you want to invade Syria? Are you that much of a war monger? When will neocons stop pushing for war everywhere?

Raylan Givins wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

...and nothing will be done about it.

Oh now you want to invade Syria? Are you that much of a war monger? When will neocons stop pushing for war everywhere?

....................................

Yes he is.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

...and nothing will be done about it.

Oh now you want to invade Syria? Are you that much of a war monger? When will neocons stop pushing for war everywhere?

I'm not the one drawing lines in the sand and daring Assad to cross them. When Bush drew a line in the sand, it got backed up. You've said it here yourself that you believe American should do something about the WMDs that Syria has stockpiled.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:If and when Israel gets hit with a chem weapon, we won't be able to dissuade them from appropriate reactions.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

...and nothing will be done about it.

Oh now you want to invade Syria? Are you that much of a war monger? When will neocons stop pushing for war everywhere?

I'm not the one drawing lines in the sand and daring Assad to cross them. When Bush drew a line in the sand, it got backed up. You've said it here yourself that you believe American should do something about the WMDs that Syria has stockpiled.

othershoe1030 wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

...and nothing will be done about it.

Oh now you want to invade Syria? Are you that much of a war monger? When will neocons stop pushing for war everywhere?

I'm not the one drawing lines in the sand and daring Assad to cross them. When Bush drew a line in the sand, it got backed up. You've said it here yourself that you believe American should do something about the WMDs that Syria has stockpiled.

Exactly what or which line in the sand did Bush draw? I forget. Please refresh my memory.

PkrBum wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Exactly what or which line in the sand did Bush draw? I forget. Please refresh my memory.

That Saddam comply with the UN inspections to which he had agreed... weren't you alive then?

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

...and nothing will be done about it.

Oh now you want to invade Syria? Are you that much of a war monger? When will neocons stop pushing for war everywhere?

I'm not the one drawing lines in the sand and daring Assad to cross them. When Bush drew a line in the sand, it got backed up. You've said it here yourself that you believe American should do something about the WMDs that Syria has stockpiled.

Floridatexan wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

...and nothing will be done about it.

Oh now you want to invade Syria? Are you that much of a war monger? When will neocons stop pushing for war everywhere?

I'm not the one drawing lines in the sand and daring Assad to cross them. When Bush drew a line in the sand, it got backed up. You've said it here yourself that you believe American should do something about the WMDs that Syria has stockpiled.

Bush "drew a line in the sand"? Put down the crack pipe. Bush invaded a country without provocation and planned it well in advance of the event that supposedly triggered it.

newswatcher wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

...and nothing will be done about it.

Oh now you want to invade Syria? Are you that much of a war monger? When will neocons stop pushing for war everywhere?

I'm not the one drawing lines in the sand and daring Assad to cross them. When Bush drew a line in the sand, it got backed up. You've said it here yourself that you believe American should do something about the WMDs that Syria has stockpiled.

Bush "drew a line in the sand"? Put down the crack pipe. Bush invaded a country without provocation and planned it well in advance of the event that supposedly triggered it.

Part of the reason Iraq was invaded was that Sadaam (may he continue to rot) used chemical weapons on his own people...That was an unacceptable reason by some then against the Bush Admin and now.....If it was warmongering then isn't it now too?....Conspiracy nuts called the Bush administration for using false information are they now worried that history may be repeating itself?...Where's the UN (that we freakin pay so much for) on this situation?...Let them put on their little blue helmets and solve this mess...

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

...and nothing will be done about it.

Oh now you want to invade Syria? Are you that much of a war monger? When will neocons stop pushing for war everywhere?

I'm not the one drawing lines in the sand and daring Assad to cross them. When Bush drew a line in the sand, it got backed up. You've said it here yourself that you believe American should do something about the WMDs that Syria has stockpiled.

Bush "drew a line in the sand"? Put down the crack pipe. Bush invaded a country without provocation and planned it well in advance of the event that supposedly triggered it.

Part of the reason Iraq was invaded was that Sadaam (may he continue to rot) used chemical weapons on his own people...That was an unacceptable reason by some then against the Bush Admin and now.....If it was warmongering then isn't it now too?....Conspiracy nuts called the Bush administration for using false information are they now worried that history may be repeating itself?...Where's the UN (that we freakin pay so much for) on this situation?...Let them put on their little blue helmets and solve this mess...

Hardly a good enough reason to sacrifice 5K U.S. soldiers and $1 trillion of the taxpayers' money (every penny of it borrowed) to invade that country.....

Damaged Eagle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

newswatcher wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

...and nothing will be done about it.

Oh now you want to invade Syria? Are you that much of a war monger? When will neocons stop pushing for war everywhere?

I'm not the one drawing lines in the sand and daring Assad to cross them. When Bush drew a line in the sand, it got backed up. You've said it here yourself that you believe American should do something about the WMDs that Syria has stockpiled.

Bush "drew a line in the sand"? Put down the crack pipe. Bush invaded a country without provocation and planned it well in advance of the event that supposedly triggered it.

Part of the reason Iraq was invaded was that Sadaam (may he continue to rot) used chemical weapons on his own people...That was an unacceptable reason by some then against the Bush Admin and now.....If it was warmongering then isn't it now too?....Conspiracy nuts called the Bush administration for using false information are they now worried that history may be repeating itself?...Where's the UN (that we freakin pay so much for) on this situation?...Let them put on their little blue helmets and solve this mess...

Hardly a good enough reason to sacrifice 5K U.S. soldiers and $1 trillion of the taxpayers' money (every penny of it borrowed) to invade that country.....

I see... So now you're saying the United States should have stayed out of Germany in WWII where we wasted millions (billions?) of dollars (hate to think of what that would be in today's money) and sacrificed 416K US soldiers.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw

Your analogy is flawed. In the 1940s, Germany was a militant, technically advanced industrial power, which had invaded most of Europe, parts of Africa, and which had declared war against the U.S. Placing Iraq in the same threat category as Nazi Germany is laughable, if not just plain idiotic.

PkrBum wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/25/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

...and nothing will be done about it.

Oh now you want to invade Syria? Are you that much of a war monger? When will neocons stop pushing for war everywhere?

I'm not the one drawing lines in the sand and daring Assad to cross them. When Bush drew a line in the sand, it got backed up. You've said it here yourself that you believe American should do something about the WMDs that Syria has stockpiled.

Exactly what or which line in the sand did Bush draw? I forget. Please refresh my memory.

That Saddam comply with the UN inspections to which he had agreed... weren't you alive then?

NaNook wrote:Bill and Hillary Clinton and most Democrats said they had WMDs. What's the problem? Read the history.......and votes in Congress.

PkrBum wrote:http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02

An ACA Special Report

In April 1991, as part of the permanent cease-fire agreement ending the Persian Gulf War, the UN Security Council ordered Iraq to eliminate under international supervision its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs, as well as its ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150 kilometers. The Security Council declared that the comprehensive economic sanctions imposed in 1990 on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait would remain in place until Baghdad had fully complied with its weapons requirements.

Baghdad agreed to these conditions but for eight years deceived, obstructed, and threatened international inspectors sent to dismantle and verify the destruction of its banned programs. This systematic Iraqi effort to conceal and obscure the true extent of its weapons of mass destruction programs began almost immediately, when Baghdad lied about the status of its programs in its initial declarations and obstructed an inspection team. Iraq continued to harass, hinder, and frustrate inspectors until late 1998, when the inspectors withdrew from Iraq just hours before the United States and the United Kingdom launched three days of military strikes against Iraq for its noncooperation. Since that time, Iraq has permitted only limited inspections of declared nuclear sites but has not yet allowed the return of intrusive inspections to verify that it has lived up to its commitment to get rid of its prohibited weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs.

The inspectors’ job was hampered not only by Iraq but also by key countries on the Security Council whose support for the inspections waned. As time passed, the combination of unending confrontations between weapons inspectors and Iraqi officials; the reported growing humanitarian toll of sanctions on Iraqi civilians; and the economic costs of forgoing exports, imports, and energy deals with a former trading partner, undermined the willingness of China, France, Russia, and others from enforcing the inspections and sanctions regimes against Iraq. Quarrels erupted between these countries, which were sympathetic to Iraq and claimed that it had sufficiently disarmed, and the United States and the United Kingdom, both of which repeatedly contended Baghdad had not fulfilled the obligations laid out in the cease-fire agreement.

Shortly after leaving Iraq in 1998, weapons inspectors of the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM), which was tasked with overseeing the destruction of Iraq’s chemical, biological, and missile programs, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), responsible for uncovering and dismantling the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, described their work as unfinished. The IAEA made much more progress than UNSCOM, but both sets of inspectors left Iraq with unanswered questions about Baghdad’s proscribed weapons.

UNSCOM reported numerous discrepancies, particularly with regard to biological weapons, between what Iraq claimed it had and evidence discovered by weapons inspectors. For four years, Baghdad denied the very existence of its biological weapons program. When Iraq finally did acknowledge having such a program, UNSCOM officials judged its declarations so insufficient—an assessment shared by independent experts—that the UN team claimed it could not even form a baseline by which to measure its progress in revealing and abolishing Iraq’s germ warfare program. More headway was made in the chemical weapons and missile areas, but by 1998 UNSCOM contended that key issues remained unresolved. For example, Iraq had failed to account for thousands of chemical warheads that it claimed, without any proof, to have used, lost, or unilaterally destroyed.

Iraq also sought to mislead the IAEA, but IAEA inspectors were largely successful in obtaining a relatively complete picture of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program and dismantling it. The IAEA, which removed from Iraq all known fissile material that could be used to make weapons, reported in February 1999 that there were no indications that meaningful amounts of weapon-usable material remained in the country or that it possessed the physical capability to produce significant amounts of such material indigenously. But the IAEA cautioned that because nuclear weapons material or infrastructure could be hidden, it could not verify with absolute certainty that Iraq had no prohibited materials.

A UN panel of experts tasked in 1999 with reporting on the results of the UNSCOM and IAEA efforts concluded that “the bulk of Iraq’s proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated,” but the experts emphasized that important issues remained unresolved. They further warned that, if weapons inspectors were kept outside Iraq, the risk that Iraq might reconstitute its programs would grow, and the initial assessments from which inspectors had been working would be jeopardized. The experts said the status quo was unacceptable, and they called for re-establishing an inspection regime in Iraq that was “effective, rigorous and credible.”

othershoe1030 wrote:

PkrBum wrote:http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02

An ACA Special Report

In April 1991, as part of the permanent cease-fire agreement ending the Persian Gulf War, the UN Security Council ordered Iraq to eliminate under international supervision its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs, as well as its ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150 kilometers. The Security Council declared that the comprehensive economic sanctions imposed in 1990 on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait would remain in place until Baghdad had fully complied with its weapons requirements.

Baghdad agreed to these conditions but for eight years deceived, obstructed, and threatened international inspectors sent to dismantle and verify the destruction of its banned programs. This systematic Iraqi effort to conceal and obscure the true extent of its weapons of mass destruction programs began almost immediately, when Baghdad lied about the status of its programs in its initial declarations and obstructed an inspection team. Iraq continued to harass, hinder, and frustrate inspectors until late 1998, when the inspectors withdrew from Iraq just hours before the United States and the United Kingdom launched three days of military strikes against Iraq for its noncooperation. Since that time, Iraq has permitted only limited inspections of declared nuclear sites but has not yet allowed the return of intrusive inspections to verify that it has lived up to its commitment to get rid of its prohibited weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs.

The inspectors’ job was hampered not only by Iraq but also by key countries on the Security Council whose support for the inspections waned. As time passed, the combination of unending confrontations between weapons inspectors and Iraqi officials; the reported growing humanitarian toll of sanctions on Iraqi civilians; and the economic costs of forgoing exports, imports, and energy deals with a former trading partner, undermined the willingness of China, France, Russia, and others from enforcing the inspections and sanctions regimes against Iraq. Quarrels erupted between these countries, which were sympathetic to Iraq and claimed that it had sufficiently disarmed, and the United States and the United Kingdom, both of which repeatedly contended Baghdad had not fulfilled the obligations laid out in the cease-fire agreement.

Shortly after leaving Iraq in 1998, weapons inspectors of the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM), which was tasked with overseeing the destruction of Iraq’s chemical, biological, and missile programs, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), responsible for uncovering and dismantling the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, described their work as unfinished. The IAEA made much more progress than UNSCOM, but both sets of inspectors left Iraq with unanswered questions about Baghdad’s proscribed weapons.

UNSCOM reported numerous discrepancies, particularly with regard to biological weapons, between what Iraq claimed it had and evidence discovered by weapons inspectors. For four years, Baghdad denied the very existence of its biological weapons program. When Iraq finally did acknowledge having such a program, UNSCOM officials judged its declarations so insufficient—an assessment shared by independent experts—that the UN team claimed it could not even form a baseline by which to measure its progress in revealing and abolishing Iraq’s germ warfare program. More headway was made in the chemical weapons and missile areas, but by 1998 UNSCOM contended that key issues remained unresolved. For example, Iraq had failed to account for thousands of chemical warheads that it claimed, without any proof, to have used, lost, or unilaterally destroyed.

Iraq also sought to mislead the IAEA, but IAEA inspectors were largely successful in obtaining a relatively complete picture of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program and dismantling it. The IAEA, which removed from Iraq all known fissile material that could be used to make weapons, reported in February 1999 that there were no indications that meaningful amounts of weapon-usable material remained in the country or that it possessed the physical capability to produce significant amounts of such material indigenously. But the IAEA cautioned that because nuclear weapons material or infrastructure could be hidden, it could not verify with absolute certainty that Iraq had no prohibited materials.

A UN panel of experts tasked in 1999 with reporting on the results of the UNSCOM and IAEA efforts concluded that “the bulk of Iraq’s proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated,” but the experts emphasized that important issues remained unresolved. They further warned that, if weapons inspectors were kept outside Iraq, the risk that Iraq might reconstitute its programs would grow, and the initial assessments from which inspectors had been working would be jeopardized. The experts said the status quo was unacceptable, and they called for re-establishing an inspection regime in Iraq that was “effective, rigorous and credible.”

Perhaps our respective points of view are due solely to our current positions/opinions as to the merits of invading Iraq in the first place?
Bush's line in the sand was Eleven days later, the United States delivered an ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to surrender power. On March 19, 2003, U.S. and U.K. military forces invaded Iraq. The “shock and awe” military campaign that followed was short, but the subsequent occupation was long and bloody. That is from the 2013 article that I posted. It is my opinion that Bush was determined to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam and requested our intelligence services to by-god get him the intel he needed to justify it. That only worked to a certain extent so when the reports were weak he drew a line no sane person would expect the head of a sovereign state to comply with, namely to resign from power, Bush declared his "reason" for the invasion and the rest is history.

Let's not forget that no stockpiles of WMD were ever found. The fact that Bill and Hillary thought there were some there is all the more worrying as it shows how much influence the powers that be have on both parties.

The whole war on terrorism, all the surveillance we are now under, military spending on weapons systems, cyber-war and manipulation is all enough to keep a normal person awake at night. It is a creepy world on several levels.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:
The whole war on terrorism, all the surveillance we are now under, military spending on weapons systems, cyber-war and manipulation is all enough to keep a normal person awake at night. It is a creepy world on several levels.

Neocons like PaceDog live it; love it....

Who would be their boogeyman were it not for Al Qaida?