elbles, indeed, that seems to be the popular misconception. SH was completely contained, Iraq was not a hot bed of AQ and the WMD issue was a complete red herring. The invasion of Iraq was not a matter of the common defense of the West. Iraq stands alone as an unnecessary, optional war.
Any comparison by anyone of the Iraq nonsense being similar in any way to WW2 is delusionary to the extreme. In fact, it even gives the term "revisionist" a bad name.
The French are at it again
elbles wrote:JESTER: Definitely. :-)
Vimyj: Iraq might not be related to WWII, but there are similarities, at least in how America would have the world perceive things, describing Saddam as being Hitler-esque, for example . . . I personally don't think they are that alike, but it is a common perception, with quite a bit of foundation.
Saddam probably wishes he could be like Hitler. Really hes too uncharasmatic to ever become that big. His only thing was to use the power he had to do what he wanted.
-
Movingviolation240
- Posts: 1681
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 2:26 pm
- Car: '95 Nissan 240SX 400hp SR20DET -SOLD
'93 Lexus SC300 w/ SP66 turbo kit
Sadam had a history of invading countries around him. I wouldn't call that contained. Just ask anybody from Sudia Arabia.
And he practiced genocide, that's another big mark in the "like Hittler" box.
And on a different note all together. The Russians could have never invaded France, or pushed the German's much farther back than their own boarders for one simple reason. Lack of airpower. Since WWI no country that didn't control the air has won a war. The Russians had 1 decient fighter design, but even that wasn't outstanding. They had no heavy long range bombers. In the 1950's their primary long range b0mber was an exact copy of the B-29's we were flying in the mid 40's. They didn't even have anything on paper durring WWII. Without the ability to go after the german industrial machine, the oil wells, ball bearing factories, sub yards, etc they would have lost eventually to the better builders (the germans). The main reasons that Germany was having trouble on all fronts were lack of equipment and lack of fuel. That's what slowed them down. What do you think caused that lack of fuel? US Air strikes on the oil feilds, British air strikes on U shipping yards.
Airpower is what helped us win WWII, without the B-17, B-24, C-47, P-51, P-47, P-38, Spitfire, Mosquito, Lancaster, or Hurricane the german's would have kicked our butts in the air, and therefore on the ground.
PaulOrlando, FL
And he practiced genocide, that's another big mark in the "like Hittler" box.
And on a different note all together. The Russians could have never invaded France, or pushed the German's much farther back than their own boarders for one simple reason. Lack of airpower. Since WWI no country that didn't control the air has won a war. The Russians had 1 decient fighter design, but even that wasn't outstanding. They had no heavy long range bombers. In the 1950's their primary long range b0mber was an exact copy of the B-29's we were flying in the mid 40's. They didn't even have anything on paper durring WWII. Without the ability to go after the german industrial machine, the oil wells, ball bearing factories, sub yards, etc they would have lost eventually to the better builders (the germans). The main reasons that Germany was having trouble on all fronts were lack of equipment and lack of fuel. That's what slowed them down. What do you think caused that lack of fuel? US Air strikes on the oil feilds, British air strikes on U shipping yards.
Airpower is what helped us win WWII, without the B-17, B-24, C-47, P-51, P-47, P-38, Spitfire, Mosquito, Lancaster, or Hurricane the german's would have kicked our butts in the air, and therefore on the ground.
PaulOrlando, FL
-
Nismo_Freak
- Posts: 10314
- Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 10:42 pm
- Car: 89 Nissan 240SX
Elbles, without the American intervention into Africa, Salerno, and eventually the beaches of Normandy, it's hard to say that the Germans would have continued to lose the war against the Russians.
Those elite divisions of battle-hardened German armies (Afrika Corp, and the Fallschirm-Jaeger) would have been pulled out following the defeat of Monty's forces (lets face it... w/o American air and naval support Monty would have failed) and displaced possibly to the Eastern front. With a independent thinking Field Marshal like Rommel at the head of the eastern armies I think you would have seen the widespread halt of the Russian advance.
Either way you look at it Hitler was his own demise and Germany would have lost the war in the long run, but I wouldn't rule out the German army around 1943 as "defeated and on the retreat".
Those elite divisions of battle-hardened German armies (Afrika Corp, and the Fallschirm-Jaeger) would have been pulled out following the defeat of Monty's forces (lets face it... w/o American air and naval support Monty would have failed) and displaced possibly to the Eastern front. With a independent thinking Field Marshal like Rommel at the head of the eastern armies I think you would have seen the widespread halt of the Russian advance.
Either way you look at it Hitler was his own demise and Germany would have lost the war in the long run, but I wouldn't rule out the German army around 1943 as "defeated and on the retreat".
They say that in the laws of power, the man who has to remind another of what they have done for them in the past, is weak. A truly strong ally speaks of what they can do for you in the future.
To relate that to the current situation with France, or the rest of the world for that matter... what is America doing for the world? As an American citizen, I'm ashmed to say that we are doing very little, to positively impact the world.
Iraq is the biggest, cluster f***, knee jerk reaction in the world. The historical similarities between 9/11 and Iraq, and the Reichstag Fire and its aftermath which led to Hitler's assention <sp?> to power, are frighteningly similar.
It's frightening how the Bush administration was able to take a terrorlst attack like 9/11, and then direct the confusion and furor we as a nation have over being attacked, and direct it to advance policy in Iraq.
I know that there is a lot going on in the world, behind the scenes, that we don't know about. As someone pointed out, the French want to be a super power. I'm sure that they are funding and indirectly supporting all sorts of bad guys. Kind of like we support some real bastards in Central and South America.
I was watching ABC Nightly News, and they of course had coverage of a D-Day event in France. I find it a bit disheartening that the words they decided to close the segment with were something to the effect of, "A concern among many WW2 veterans here is that they wonder how long the alliances that they fought to uphold, will remain after they are gone."
To relate that to the current situation with France, or the rest of the world for that matter... what is America doing for the world? As an American citizen, I'm ashmed to say that we are doing very little, to positively impact the world.
Iraq is the biggest, cluster f***, knee jerk reaction in the world. The historical similarities between 9/11 and Iraq, and the Reichstag Fire and its aftermath which led to Hitler's assention <sp?> to power, are frighteningly similar.
It's frightening how the Bush administration was able to take a terrorlst attack like 9/11, and then direct the confusion and furor we as a nation have over being attacked, and direct it to advance policy in Iraq.
I know that there is a lot going on in the world, behind the scenes, that we don't know about. As someone pointed out, the French want to be a super power. I'm sure that they are funding and indirectly supporting all sorts of bad guys. Kind of like we support some real bastards in Central and South America.
I was watching ABC Nightly News, and they of course had coverage of a D-Day event in France. I find it a bit disheartening that the words they decided to close the segment with were something to the effect of, "A concern among many WW2 veterans here is that they wonder how long the alliances that they fought to uphold, will remain after they are gone."
-
JESTER
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2002 5:08 am
- Car: 2004 Chevy Colorado Bright a** Red 3.5 five cylinder
Lets see. Well I figure the WWII vets probally understand the over all situation between us and France, and the deallwith us being in Iraq far better than the rest of us. Long years of experience in keeping track of the world.
I am still not sure of the reason we are in Iraq. All I do know for certain, is Mr. Hussein needed very badly to be removed from power.
Alot of people compare him to Hitler because it is widley known of Saddam's admiration of Hitler. They are compared because of Saddam's desire to be like Hitler. He had the desire, but not the ability to become Hitler. He was getting there, ever so slowly. Any leader like that needs to be removed from power. I will look forward to his trial and punishment with curiosity.
I am still not sure of the reason we are in Iraq. All I do know for certain, is Mr. Hussein needed very badly to be removed from power.
Alot of people compare him to Hitler because it is widley known of Saddam's admiration of Hitler. They are compared because of Saddam's desire to be like Hitler. He had the desire, but not the ability to become Hitler. He was getting there, ever so slowly. Any leader like that needs to be removed from power. I will look forward to his trial and punishment with curiosity.
SH had been completely contained for 13 years and the "no fly zones" were a cheap way to hold a stick over his head.
The US has a history of invading its neighbors. Should it too be invaded? Bin Laden thinks so. Seems the administration's apologists and radical Islamics share the same tactical view of the world. This is one reason why wars based on moral ideology are ugly.
The US has a history of invading its neighbors. Should it too be invaded? Bin Laden thinks so. Seems the administration's apologists and radical Islamics share the same tactical view of the world. This is one reason why wars based on moral ideology are ugly.
The war in Iraq was planned long before 9/11.
It had nothing to do with moral ideology, helping anybody out, 9/11 or WMD's. These were all as methods of misdirection. There is a reason a majority of Americans think that Saddam directly caused 9/11. The war in Iraq was planned sometime in late 2000.
Search for a Washington based thinktank called Project For A New American Century.
It had nothing to do with moral ideology, helping anybody out, 9/11 or WMD's. These were all as methods of misdirection. There is a reason a majority of Americans think that Saddam directly caused 9/11. The war in Iraq was planned sometime in late 2000.
Search for a Washington based thinktank called Project For A New American Century.
-
Cold_Zero
- Posts: 6714
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 4:15 pm
- Car: 2003 Nissan Altima SE 3.5
2005 Nissan Pathfinder
yashin wrote:The war in Iraq was planned long before 9/11.
It had nothing to do with moral ideology, helping anybody out, 9/11 or WMD's. These were all as methods of misdirection. There is a reason a majority of Americans think that Saddam directly caused 9/11. The war in Iraq was planned sometime in late 2000.
Search for a Washington based thinktank called Project For A New American Century.
Not to get on a political debate. But if you are Canadian (I am making a major assumption from the location you are at) why do you care about the internal politics of the United States? And what would President Bush need to cover up using misdirection?
Thinktanks are typically politicially motivated just as PACs. You do have to take everything that thinktanks say with a grain of salt.
bud
-
psychic_mechanic
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 6:45 am
- Car: the world's ugliest civic
elbles wrote: their T34 tank, which was remarkable technology for its time.
I think Iraq was still using a couple of those in the war.
There was a lot of Eupoean machine tools at the pistol factory I visited near Baghdad. I'll have to dig out the pictures somewhere. The motivational posters hanging around were also pretty cool.
Cold_Zero wrote:Not to get on a political debate. But if you are Canadian (I am making a major assumption from the location you are at) why do you care about the internal politics of the United States? And what would President Bush need to cover up using misdirection?
Thinktanks are typically politicially motivated just as PACs. You do have to take everything that thinktanks say with a grain of salt.
bud
Because this issue effects everyone.
The report itself shows why misdirection would be necessary.
Look into who ran/were parts of those thinktanks, and look into who made the report.
-
JESTER
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2002 5:08 am
- Car: 2004 Chevy Colorado Bright a** Red 3.5 five cylinder
Well if we decided to invade our neighbor, it would be Canada. So I see why he is concerned.
Anyway, reguardless of why, it needed to be done. I aint saying it happened for the right reason. But I belive 100% it needed to happen. For the people of Iraq. They deserve the same freedom that we have.
As far as the good ole french, well I get irratated at them. But they have the right to disagree with us. And I guess we should respect them for having the nads enough to say no to us.
Anyway, reguardless of why, it needed to be done. I aint saying it happened for the right reason. But I belive 100% it needed to happen. For the people of Iraq. They deserve the same freedom that we have.
As far as the good ole french, well I get irratated at them. But they have the right to disagree with us. And I guess we should respect them for having the nads enough to say no to us.
-
mrbean
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 5:19 pm
- Car: Guitar, Music, Art, Movies, Computer & Video Games
- Contact:
Well, not to add fuel to the fire, but do you all remember the reason America joined WWII? Japan, a nation which very eagerly and aggressively attacked its neighbors, decided that our policies of containment were too much to bear, and decided to strike first. In this way, Iraq is similar. Sure we'd beaten Saddam and had him "contained," but we also gave him 10 years to rebuild his military. Do you think a man like that would be content sitting under the thumb of the US? We had all seen what he was capable of and what he aspired to. Do we have to wait until he attacks another neighbor, or the US, before we do something? What atrocities does an evil ruler have to commit to be removed from power?
-
JESTER
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2002 5:08 am
- Car: 2004 Chevy Colorado Bright a** Red 3.5 five cylinder
Just because he hadn't attacked anyone in thirteen years doesn't mean he was trying to figure out what day suited him best to do it again.
He constantly, disreguarded the UN resolutions set forth to protect his neighboring countries. He expelled the UN inspectors on numerous occasions.
I do recall the US troops finding french made missles that were banned by the UN resolutions, barried in the desert. Not to mention the warheads they found in the desert that were reported to be designed for carring chemical weapons.
"[The United Nations] has found that Iraq has failed to account for nearly 30,000 shells for chemical agents," Stanzel said. "Bringing forward four is hardly evidence of a good-faith effort, but it is further evidence that Iraq continues to have proscribed materials." CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/...wrap/
http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/008590.html
He violated the UN resolutions. They were not willing to back up their own rullings, we were. Bottom line, end of story. Saddam got what he deserved, or he will at the end of trial. I feel no pitty for him. He is the lowest form of scum on the planet. Any kind of ruler that murders entire settlments just to see if his new chemical weapon works!!!!
He constantly, disreguarded the UN resolutions set forth to protect his neighboring countries. He expelled the UN inspectors on numerous occasions.
I do recall the US troops finding french made missles that were banned by the UN resolutions, barried in the desert. Not to mention the warheads they found in the desert that were reported to be designed for carring chemical weapons.
"[The United Nations] has found that Iraq has failed to account for nearly 30,000 shells for chemical agents," Stanzel said. "Bringing forward four is hardly evidence of a good-faith effort, but it is further evidence that Iraq continues to have proscribed materials." CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/...wrap/
http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/008590.html
He violated the UN resolutions. They were not willing to back up their own rullings, we were. Bottom line, end of story. Saddam got what he deserved, or he will at the end of trial. I feel no pitty for him. He is the lowest form of scum on the planet. Any kind of ruler that murders entire settlments just to see if his new chemical weapon works!!!!
Isreal has violated UN resolutions far longer than Iraq and invaded Lebanon. UN resolutions are the perview of the UN not the US. Rusting, empty 20 year old munitions hardly represent a threat to US security. The only working missiles that had the possibilty of exceeding the UN imposed 150km range limits were destroyed by Blix who was kicked out of Iraq by the US admin not SH.
Bottom line: no threat to US security posed by Iraqi WMD and no AQ in Iraq.
Read the official notice from the president to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate launching the Iraq invasion and then describe to one and all how any aspect of the invasion conforms to the stated official and "legal" goals contained in the letter.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news....html
No threat and no AQ. I'd hate to think think that you, of all people, would accuse the administration of telling less than the truth.
Bottom line: no threat to US security posed by Iraqi WMD and no AQ in Iraq.
Read the official notice from the president to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate launching the Iraq invasion and then describe to one and all how any aspect of the invasion conforms to the stated official and "legal" goals contained in the letter.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news....html
No threat and no AQ. I'd hate to think think that you, of all people, would accuse the administration of telling less than the truth.
-
ceniack
- Posts: 1732
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 2:19 pm
- Car: 1992 240sx Coupe
1993 JDM Nissan Caravan
2011 Subaru WRX STI Hatchback
2012 Subaru Impreza Hatchback - Contact:
i still think it was the right thing to do, he had violated 19 UN resolutions, the last one saying that military force woudl be authorized if he didnt' comply, well he called the UN's bluff and didnt' comply, the UN didn't have the balls to back up their own resolutions, so we went in and are doing what needed to have been done during the first gulf war.
-
Cold_Zero
- Posts: 6714
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 4:15 pm
- Car: 2003 Nissan Altima SE 3.5
2005 Nissan Pathfinder
If we were so wrong in invading Iraq, why not put Saddam Hussein back into power and go back to the way things were? Heck, lets start an petition to get this done. Who is with me?
/end Sarcasm
Sadam Hussein was a menace to the world and needed to be taken out. Regardless of WMD in the country, GW could have given any reason and I would have been in support of the war.
/end Sarcasm
Sadam Hussein was a menace to the world and needed to be taken out. Regardless of WMD in the country, GW could have given any reason and I would have been in support of the war.
This thing is starting to get a little political, but I just want to point out a few facts that I think are relevant. For one, I don't support the Iraq war; I certainly support the troops, and I respect them as much as anyone else possibly could for all they do for the country. Sadly, we have lost quite a few Americans over there, and my heart goes out to all there families.
As to why we are there, I don't doubt that Saddam Hussein was an evil man, and that he committed atroscities against his own people. But at a time when the United States image in the eyes of foreign countries is already so poor, for us to go against the UN (an organization of which we played a large part in founding, as well as an organization that we tend to police other countries for not following the policies given) isn't the best idea. I hardly think any terrorlst has justification for attacking the US, but the way we have been known to treat people of various Arab countries, it doesn't help our case to go in to an Arabic country and attempt to "fix their problems". It offers terrorists more of a lousy excuse why the US is so bad, and can give them more followers, something we as a country don't need right now . . . just my 2 or more cents, I guess, hope it doesn't offend anybody.
As to why we are there, I don't doubt that Saddam Hussein was an evil man, and that he committed atroscities against his own people. But at a time when the United States image in the eyes of foreign countries is already so poor, for us to go against the UN (an organization of which we played a large part in founding, as well as an organization that we tend to police other countries for not following the policies given) isn't the best idea. I hardly think any terrorlst has justification for attacking the US, but the way we have been known to treat people of various Arab countries, it doesn't help our case to go in to an Arabic country and attempt to "fix their problems". It offers terrorists more of a lousy excuse why the US is so bad, and can give them more followers, something we as a country don't need right now . . . just my 2 or more cents, I guess, hope it doesn't offend anybody.
-
ilovedrifting
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 9:23 am
- Car: skateboarding and drifting
yo elbles, The russians may have killed more germans than we did, but they were fighting off the germans in their country, they weren't on the offensive at the point in time of d-day. The russians weren't even envolved in d-day, the only countries at d-day was the english who landed ant sword and gold beaches, the americans who landed at omaha and utah beach and the canadians who landed at juno beach, the russians also only killed more germans because for the most part they don't take very many prisoners they kill germans who tried to surrender. and we needed to attack saddam as he was a direct threat to the security of this country. There were 2 al qaeda training camps in northern iraq that he funded making him a terrorlst not counting the acts of terrorism that he commited agianst the kurds and he did have weapons of mass destruction, they just weren't in nuclear form. He had many of missiles carrying serin gas capable of killing 60,000 people which more than qualifies it as mass destruction. it is right to fix another countries problems when their leader is a brutal dictator who is commiting genocide. the people in iraq are happy we are there they just don't report that on cnn we have only lost about 800 or so american soldiers which is nothing compared to wars of the past, soldiers die thats what happens in war it is sad but it isn't preventable. SO GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU START TALKING POLITICS
I'd sure love for you to point out where I had any facts wrong . . . :rolleyes
First off, it doesn't matter where the Russians were killing the Germans. They killed more than we could ever dream of, plain and simple, and during the later points in the war, the Russians were getting ready to roll through Berlin. Last time I checked, Berlin was not in Russia . . . without the Russian effort in the war, it is very questionable whether the Allies would have been able to win without a significant nuclear bomb dropped on Germany, along with the cost of many more American lives lost.
And if you believe for one second that we went into Iraq because we were so concerned about the Iraqi people, or the people of surrounding countries, you are far wrong. We don't even know our motives; some believe it was truly because we wanted to remove WMDs (this is a fairly radical belief), while others believe all we wanted was cheap oil (this too, is a fairly radical belief). But it certainly wasn't for anything as noble as the Iraqi people, or the people of surrounding countries.
Saddam Hussein was an awful man, and the US should be glad to have him removed from office. However, it was hardly our business to do. Was he sponsoring Al Quida? Probably. But to go into a country and remove a leader because we don't like the fact that he may be supporting terrorism is almost self-defeating, because such an action demonstrates exactly what Al Quida is using as a recruiting tool; they want their followers to believe that America is an imperialistic nation, desiring only to take advantage of natural resources belonging to the people of the middle east. When we go in, and take charge of business that isn't ours, we demonstrate that point for them. We've yet to see any benefit from our actions in Iraq, and IMO, I doubt we ever will. If you would care to look at our foreign policy decisions in the past 40 years or so, we've really messed things up, from sponsoring Osama bin Laden himself with CIA money, because it looked good for us at the time. We fail to look at what our actions will bring in the future, and not just 2 years down the road, but 20 years down the road. By invading Iraq, again, IMO, we're only changing the problem; we're not creating a solution. A lot of Iraqis might be happy; a lot aren't, as you can see by those who kill American soldiers.
And finally, the fact that you think 800 soldiers seems to be relatively nothing sickens me. EVERY American life lost sickens me, regardless of what they are fighting for, because they have no say in what they are fighting for. They serve their country, and I can't respect anyone more than I respect our service men and women.
Next time you reply, think about whether you are questioning fact, or opinion . . . you seemed to think you were questioning fact this time around.
First off, it doesn't matter where the Russians were killing the Germans. They killed more than we could ever dream of, plain and simple, and during the later points in the war, the Russians were getting ready to roll through Berlin. Last time I checked, Berlin was not in Russia . . . without the Russian effort in the war, it is very questionable whether the Allies would have been able to win without a significant nuclear bomb dropped on Germany, along with the cost of many more American lives lost.
And if you believe for one second that we went into Iraq because we were so concerned about the Iraqi people, or the people of surrounding countries, you are far wrong. We don't even know our motives; some believe it was truly because we wanted to remove WMDs (this is a fairly radical belief), while others believe all we wanted was cheap oil (this too, is a fairly radical belief). But it certainly wasn't for anything as noble as the Iraqi people, or the people of surrounding countries.
Saddam Hussein was an awful man, and the US should be glad to have him removed from office. However, it was hardly our business to do. Was he sponsoring Al Quida? Probably. But to go into a country and remove a leader because we don't like the fact that he may be supporting terrorism is almost self-defeating, because such an action demonstrates exactly what Al Quida is using as a recruiting tool; they want their followers to believe that America is an imperialistic nation, desiring only to take advantage of natural resources belonging to the people of the middle east. When we go in, and take charge of business that isn't ours, we demonstrate that point for them. We've yet to see any benefit from our actions in Iraq, and IMO, I doubt we ever will. If you would care to look at our foreign policy decisions in the past 40 years or so, we've really messed things up, from sponsoring Osama bin Laden himself with CIA money, because it looked good for us at the time. We fail to look at what our actions will bring in the future, and not just 2 years down the road, but 20 years down the road. By invading Iraq, again, IMO, we're only changing the problem; we're not creating a solution. A lot of Iraqis might be happy; a lot aren't, as you can see by those who kill American soldiers.
And finally, the fact that you think 800 soldiers seems to be relatively nothing sickens me. EVERY American life lost sickens me, regardless of what they are fighting for, because they have no say in what they are fighting for. They serve their country, and I can't respect anyone more than I respect our service men and women.
Next time you reply, think about whether you are questioning fact, or opinion . . . you seemed to think you were questioning fact this time around.
Oh, and just to clarify one point . . . D-Day had no Russian involvement, mainly because everyday was like D-Day for the USSR. Stalin had been pressuring Roosevelt and Churchill for a second front, with Russia itself being a front in that they were fighting Germans along what became a common border with what was pretty much a dissolving of the Polish state. Russia was the front on the eastern side of Germany; D-Day helped to provide a front on the western side of Germany.
-
JESTER
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2002 5:08 am
- Car: 2004 Chevy Colorado Bright a** Red 3.5 five cylinder
elbles, I do agree on your point that it may not be the best ideal for us to go and try to fix the Arab countries problems. But we seem to have taken the stance since WWII that we are the worlds problem solvers and police.
VimyJ,You are correct about Isreal. They tend to be a pain in the butt, but we wont do anything to them any more than strong words. too big of an allie in that area.
The administration telling less than the truth. Now that is funny. They are politicians. They lies for a living. All of them are like that. Well, with the exception of maybe Jimmy Carter. He wasn't good enough at lieing to make it in the white house. Agood man thou.
Maybe they were all out lying or maybe they just had their facts wrong.
VimyJ,You are correct about Isreal. They tend to be a pain in the butt, but we wont do anything to them any more than strong words. too big of an allie in that area.
The administration telling less than the truth. Now that is funny. They are politicians. They lies for a living. All of them are like that. Well, with the exception of maybe Jimmy Carter. He wasn't good enough at lieing to make it in the white house. Agood man thou.
Maybe they were all out lying or maybe they just had their facts wrong.
Did you read the "Presidential Letter"? The administration pulled a fast one on a lot of people. Congress included. I daresay that if at least body of congress were not of the same party as that of the administration we would not be involved in this foolishness right now. The French, Canada, Germany and Russia were smart. Try not to hold it against them.