Brent Scowcroft - NSA

[Turok]

>Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with traditional
>goals for his aggression. There is little evidence to indicate
>that the United States itself is an object of his aggression.
>Rather, Saddam's problem with the U.S. appears to be that
>we stand in the way of his ambitions. He seeks weapons of
>mass destruction not to arm terrorists, but to deter us from
>intervening to block his aggressive designs.

I agree with his conclusion regarding Saddam's designs. I disagree with his conclusion that NOW was a bad time to remove him. Like pulling a nasty splinter, there is no *painless* time to pull it, but if you don't it just keeps festering.

>No-Notice Inspections

>In any event, we should be pressing the United Nations
>Security Council to insist on an effective no-notice inspection
>regime for Iraq -- any time, anywhere, no permission required.
>On this point, senior administration officials have opined that
>Saddam Hussein would never agree to such an inspection
>regime. But if he did, inspections would serve to keep him off
>balance and under close observation, even if all his weapons
>of mass destruction capabilities were not uncovered. And if
>he refused, his rejection could provide the persuasive casus
>belli which many claim we do not now have.

ROLFAO!!!!!!!!! No offense intended to the writer who has much more experience in this arena than I do, but the inspection process was a laughing stock and after a decade there was no...NO reason to think that it would change.

The guy makes many good points, but I'm not with him at all on some of them.

JB

 

[waggie945]

Mav, then I guess in your book you would view Tom Clancy as a "visionary" . . .

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from waggie945:

Mav, then I guess in your book you would view Tom Clancy as a "visionary" . . .

Waggie, waggie, waggie. Does it really hurt that much when I prove you wrong?

 

[waggie945]

What I have noticed is that you have not "disagreed" with any of what I have been saying regarding how the CIA has been "prostituted" by the Bush Administration.

Interesting.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from waggie945:

What I have noticed is that you have not "disagreed" with any of what I have been saying regarding how the CIA has been "prostituted" by the Bush Administration.

Interesting.

Waggie, you know what. I don't give a shit. Can I say that? OK, well I just did. Unlike you, I don't have a 24/7 operation going to convince people either way if Bush did or did not prostitute the CIA. The fact of the matter is, government is corrupt. I have said this over and over again. Both the right and the left. Is it a stretch for me to believe that what you said is true? No, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. This is why I seek to continue to vote for republicans with the goal of government getting smaller and smaller. That's all I can do.

I don't sit in on Pentagon hearings. I don't receive classified information. I don't pretend to understand a situation so complicated, so political, so ambiguous. I just don't. I know you thinking you are doing a good thing buy screaming for Bush's head every day or Carl Rove or George Tenet or whoever is next on Waggie's bash list. In fact, I think you might be better off just marching into the voter's registration office tomorrow and change your ticket to democrat. There is nothing wrong with that. I just thing you might more heroes over there on the left then on the right.

I live in the real world. When I see the market rally, I don't create conspiracy theories, I buy it. And I make money. I don't try to figure everything out, I don't try to pretend to have all the answers. Your incessant screaming and shouting is really falling on deaf ears. What is your goal here? You think you are going to make a difference? Why don't you volunteer for your local campaigns? I do. Why don't you help people around you less fortunate? I do. Why don't you spend your time being more productive and concentrate on things that directly affect your life? I do. Why don't you go out and get people to register to vote? I do.

See you are a talker. And thats fine. That's what the first amendment does for you. But I rather take action. Talk is weak and cheap. I'll start to respect you more when you come on here and tell us about some of things you are doing to make this country better and safer. You are no different in this regard then James Stock. Both of you continue to post without any real value. And I'm referring to your posts in chit chat only. It's ironic that you attack him for the very things you do on a different thread. So, just read this post and think it over. Don't get upset or angry.

Good trading.

 

[waggie945]

You talk about how Bush stands for everything that is RIGHT and yet you seem to be perfectly fine with the fact that our DEMOCRACY has taken a blood-bath lately. If you think that it is "a-ok" to prostitute the CIA, Hermann Geobbles style, than you are certainly beyond anyone's comprehension. I'm sorry that you cannot see this. But that is your choice.

Moreover, to me Bush is simply a Head of State.
He leaves all of his policy-making up to Cheney and Rove. If I wanted to have voted for Cheney as President I would have, but I didn't, nor did I see his name running for the Presidency in my ballot. Duh.

As for me being a "talker" I'm afraid that my postings on this website pale compared to your "ranting and raving" about this, that, and anything that has to do with George Bush. You talk about volunteering and getting people to vote, and volunteering for your local campaigns . . . Gee Mav, I'm real proud of you. Thank you so much for sharing so much of what a "great" person you are on ET. Are you running some sort of a personality contest on ET?

If so, please let me know what you won.

:eek:

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from waggie945:

You talk about how Bush stands for everything that is RIGHT and yet you seem to be perfectly fine with the fact that our DEMOCRACY has taken a blood-bath lately. If you think that it is "a-ok" to prostitute the CIA, Hermann Geobbles style, than you are certainly beyond anyone's comprehension. I'm sorry that you cannot see this. But that is your choice.

Moreover, to me Bush is simply a Head of State.
He leaves all of his policy-making up to Cheney and Rove. If I wanted to have voted for Cheney as President I would have, but I didn't, nor did I see his name running for the Presidency in my ballot. Duh.

As for me being a "talker" I'm afraid that my postings on this website pale compared to your "ranting and raving" about this, that, and anything that has to do with George Bush. You talk about volunteering and getting people to vote, and volunteering for your local campaigns . . . Gee Mav, I'm real proud of you. Thank you so much for sharing so much of what a "great" person you are on ET. Are you running some sort of a personality contest on ET?

If so, please let me know what you won.

:eek:

Waggie if you think that Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, you name the President, didn't prostitute the CIA, you are very naive. Every agency in this country has been manipulated by the government one way or the other. Even Billy boy. I know you don't want to hear this and I know you want to make Bush and company the bad guy, but it's true. When are you going to accept reality?

 

[fxtrading]

Quote from waggie945:



Moreover, to me Bush is simply a Head of State.
He leaves all of his policy-making up to Cheney and Rove. If I wanted to have voted for Cheney as President I would have, but I didn't, nor did I see his name running for the Presidency in my ballot. Duh.

ive never understood this - why do we vote for someone who then appoints people to the highest governement positions and your not allowed to know who, before you vote for the president.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from fxtrading:

ive never understood this - why do we vote for someone who then appoints people to the highest governement positions and your not allowed to know who, before you vote for the president.

We've been doing it for 228 years. It's worked out alright so far.