Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: joesbucks
Were we always honest with our proclamations during the variouis SALT treaties?

Yes.

I'm not letting him off the the hook for his machismo.

But you are willing to let every anti-American entity off the hook, whether it be through machismo or just plain evil intent?

We were attacked in 2001 and have aggressively countered the attack and have taken "strategic defensive measures" to prevent it from happening again under the watch of Dubya.

Interesting that YOU are focused on Dubya hooking when we as a nation in 2001 weren't hungry but got hooked anyway, to the demise of over 2000 lives.

31 posted on 01/24/2004 3:57:52 PM PST by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: EGPWS
I believe it has been proven that we were not entirely honest during the SALT treaties. I can't point to reference at this time, but I do believe we were in violation, but blew it off as necessary in the cold war. So even in our own treaties, if my memory is correct we were in violation.

I'm not willing to let every anti_american state off the hook. I believe we had enough reason go into Iraq based on the UN resolutions alone and Saddam's noncompliance with that. Factually that was accurate.

My complaint is we as Americans and the world were told that the WMDs were current, real and active programs were underway as we invaded. It was a sales job based on faulty information at best and deception at it's worst. For some reason, the administration felt we needed more reasons than the perfectly justifiable reason that was at our fingertips and legitimate.

I've seen on this and every other Iraq thread comments from Democrats and the previous administration about the realness of the WMD's. Boy, that's something to hitch your wagons to. Yes, there appears to be a ton of hyprocracy. But do we want to link ourselves to the previous administration? Doesn't that imply that old nemisis of "everyone does it"?

What was happening in Iraq is without a doubt horrible. But from a war on terror prospective, especially our interests, Iraq should have been far down on the list. The 9/11 terrorists were funded by the Saudi's and others. The terrorists themselves were primarily Saudi's. Much of the other money in the networks came from many European countries. Saddam's tiess to 9/11 are sketchy at best. Instead of going after the true instigators of 9/11, we go after a periphiral one.

Had all this been at the hands of the Clinton administration with the same actions as the Bush administration, this forum would have been abuzz about all the issues that so many have openned up and uncovered. Yet now we are for the most part strangely quiet.

37 posted on 01/24/2004 7:53:28 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson