PDA

View Full Version : ****n Powell in 2001: "Iraq has no WMD's"



Smokinghawk
09-25-2003, 06:09 PM
His actual quote in Cairo, February of 2001:

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place." (note that last sentence)

When asked to explain his change, he said today, "I didn't change my assessment... I did not say he (Iraqi President Saddam Hussein) didn't have weapons of mass destruction."


Um, yeah. Right.

He continued;

"The extent of his holdings were yet to be determined."

...And they have been now??


"It was early in the administration and the fact of the matter is it was long before 9/11 (the date of the 2001 attacks on the United States)," he added.


Since Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11, Powell is either being misleading here, or he's just not paying attention to his own world. 9/11 offered us NO additional data on Saddam, nor on his weapons, so Powell's phony explanation is a bust.

Kinda like these famous flubs: "We know where they are," declared Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld on March 30.

Or how Rumsfeld said nobody had ever asserted that Saddam had any nuclear weapons program, just after Cheney had appeared at a conference to assert, "we believe Saddam has a nuclear weapons program."


Look, I know the WMD thing is getting old, but this is going BEYOND just the usual "they haven't found them/they might still find them" bickering. This is a pattern of actual statements that demonstrate complete reversals-of-position when support for war had to be contrived. It's their own words.

Kinda like how Bush was caught by TIME magazine reporters, sticking his head into Rice's office to say "**** Saddam; we're taking him out!" more than a year (March 2002) before he even began talking about "saddam has forced us into this war," etc. etc.

thickjerk
09-25-2003, 06:52 PM
who cares? kill them all...

The Conqueror
09-25-2003, 07:14 PM
I said a lot of sh*t in '01 that I wouldn't stand behind now....Smoke, I bet you did too! ;)

xx0725
09-25-2003, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
I said a lot of sh*t in '01 that I wouldn't stand behind now....Smoke, I bet you did too! ;)

Yeh, but we don't control the State Dept.

The Conqueror
09-25-2003, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by xx0725
Yeh, but we don't control the State Dept.

That doesn't mean that an opinion can't change based on new info.

Carcharodon
09-25-2003, 08:11 PM
You're spin doctoring and quoting out of context. You've learned well from your pals in the news media. If one reads the entire text, one will see that Powell is being misrepresented in an effort to prove the administration lied outright about WMD.

What is more accurate and what he was saying is that it was always unclear what Hussein had from an intel pov. After 9/11, it became imperative to find out. Hussein's continued stonewalling and deception worsened the matter to such a point that there was no other option but to go in and to find out, among other reasons, like terrorizing the neighborhood and patronizing global terrorism.

I have no doubt the above doesn't sit well with current left-wing ideologue self-serving conspiracy theories about the evil neocons.

Powell is not a neocon and now the far left is grasping at straws and painting everyone with that brush in a pathetic orgy of partisan politics.

Deadgame
09-25-2003, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by Carcharodon
You're spin doctoring and quoting out of context. You've learned well from your pals in the news media. If one reads the entire text, one will see that Powell is being misrepresented in an effort to prove the administration lied outright about WMD.

What is more accurate and what he was saying is that it was always unclear what Hussein had from an intel pov. After 9/11, it became imperative to find out. Hussein's continued stonewalling and deception worsened the matter to such a point that there was no other option but to go in and to find out, among other reasons, like terrorizing the neighborhood and patronizing global terrorism.

I have no doubt the above doesn't sit well with current left-wing ideologue self-serving conspiracy theories about the evil neocons.

Powell is not a neocon and now the far left is grasping at straws and painting everyone with that brush in a pathetic orgy of partisan politics.

Well done!You beat me too it.

O'REILLY: But are we going to find out what happened to the weapons of mass destruction?

RICE: Well, David Kay is a well respected former weapons inspector. The president told David Kay, he said, "David, I want you to go out and I want you to put together the coherent picture. I'm not going to pressure you for when it gets finished."

David Kay has miles of documents to go through. He has hundreds of people to interview. We're getting more and more tips by the way from Iraqis about this program, about what happened here. He's getting physical evidence.

He's going to put together the picture, and we will know precisely what became of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. But I can tell you that going into this war, the president knew that this man was a threat. He knew that his weapons of mass destruction and the programs were a threat. And, yes, we did the right thing.

belfast-biker
09-26-2003, 04:39 AM
Originally posted by Carcharodon
You're spin doctoring and quoting out of context.


How?

I'll repeat:

His actual quote in Cairo, February of 2001:

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place." (note that last sentence)

When asked to explain his change, he said today, "I didn't change my assessment... I did not say he (Iraqi President Saddam Hussein) didn't have weapons of mass destruction."




He just contradicted himself, surely? His words in 2001 kinda relfect what Rice was saying around the same time as well.

The Conqueror
09-26-2003, 05:19 AM
It is POLITICS guys. :rolleyes: C'mon, you all know that!

Now let's compare: Who lies more, Clinton era Admin or the Bush crew.

My point is it could have been Al Gore then we would all be f*cked because you would never know what was true!

rottie
09-26-2003, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
It is POLITICS guys. :rolleyes: C'mon, you all know that!

Now let's compare: Who lies more, Clinton era Admin or the Bush crew.

My point is it could have been Al Gore then we would all be f*cked because you would never know what was true!

Now cmon Conqueror, ya know they both lied, are lying, did lie, and will continue to lie. They are politicians for christ sakes. Comparing which lies more is like comparing two apples to see which one tastes more like an apple.

:D

The Conqueror
09-26-2003, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by rottie
Now cmon Conqueror, ya know they both lied, are lying, did lie, and will continue to lie. They are politicians for christ sakes. Comparing which lies more is like comparing two apples to see which one tastes more like an apple.

:D

That's exactly what I mean...NO POLITICIAN will give the full truth...but we elect them to lead and look out for our best interest in issues in which we are not privy to. Does that mean they won't say or do wrong? No.

belfast-biker
09-26-2003, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
It is POLITICS guys. :rolleyes: C'mon, you all know that!

Now let's compare: Who lies more, Clinton era Admin or the Bush crew.



Ahhhh. Avoidance of the question by blaming the other side.

Carcharodon
09-26-2003, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by belfast-biker
How?

I'll repeat:

His actual quote in Cairo, February of 2001:

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place." (note that last sentence)

When asked to explain his change, he said today, "I didn't change my assessment... I did not say he (Iraqi President Saddam Hussein) didn't have weapons of mass destruction."




He just contradicted himself, surely? His words in 2001 kinda relfect what Rice was saying around the same time as well.

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."

"I did not say he (Iraqi President Saddam Hussein) didn't have weapons of mass destruction."

Powell is correct. He said "significant". He didn't say "does not have at all".

Again, this was before Bush even took office and had access to the intel, however murky it may have ended up being. These statements, which have been around all along, are being used in a base partisan manner and it is unadulterated demagoguery for election year consumption.

Has anybody here ever heard of The Bay of Pigs when the CIA fed Kennedy crap intel and the thing turned out to be a fiasco?

The fact remains Hussein did what he did. He engaged in an elaborate scheme of deception, exported terror, tossed out weapons inspectors, refused weapons inspections, intimidated weapons inspectors, gave outdated weapons documentation and all the rest of his malevolent shenanigans.

And the far-left would give the "benefit of the doubt" to Baathists/terrorists/Al-Qaeda/Hamas/Taliban et al. Well, look at the bloody murder that benefit of the doubt has wrought unto the special UN envoy, the moderate cleric al-Hakim, blown to smithereens, Iraqi Council Member al-Hashimi and all the rest.

The left-wind ideologue rhetoric has reached such an extreme of painting this monolithic right-wing Imperialist conspiracy that it is bending over so far as to kiss the terror propaganda machine's backside.

I hope you are happy because you are doing precisely what they want you to do.

The Iron Lord
09-26-2003, 08:10 AM
This is a real shame. Powell is a decent guy. He's like the good kid that starts running with a bad crowd (Bush and his cronies). Now, he's going to be the scapegoat for Bush's unjustified war.

The positive side to all of this is how the whole plan backfired on Bush. It's clearly obvious why Bush was so insistant on going to war.....for his own personal agenda, in particular a second term. What's better for a president than riding a wave of patriotism into an election? But, he made the SAME mistake his senile daddy did....underestimating how short the attention span is of the average "led around like sheep" American. His approval rating is already down 20 percent from when he declared an end to hostilities in Iraq. This is very similar to how his father's approval rating plummeted after the first Gulf War. As quickly as people jump on the patriotic bandwagon, they jump off of it when staring the rotting economy and job market in the face. Not to mention the soldiers that continue to die every day in Iraq. Compound all of this with daily reports of deception and mistruths by the Bush administration, and we have a real election on our hands.

belfast-biker
09-26-2003, 09:09 AM
Carchadon, whatever way you paint it, he contradicted himself.

rottie
09-26-2003, 09:14 AM
Wow. Saddam exported terror? You have proof of this? Post up some links. post em up.

rottie
09-26-2003, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by rottie
Wow. Saddam exported terror? You have proof of this? Post up some links. post em up.

bumping for the links.

rottie
09-26-2003, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by rottie
Wow. Saddam exported terror? You have proof of this? Post up some links. post em up.

cmon now... links.. post up something supporting this claim.

goblin6
09-26-2003, 10:19 AM
How about Terrorist trainng camps found in Iraq, meetings with hig ranking Al Queda members and support of suicide bombers? Any one is a violatin of the terms of the cease fire.

bgzee
09-26-2003, 10:22 AM
Clinton lied about getting head in the white house. Bush lied about iraq purchasing uranium from africa, an excuse used for gaining support to start a war. Yet, so many people think clinton is such a terrible person for saying "he did not have sex with that woman," which depending on how you look at it may not even be a lie. No one even cares about bush's lie, yet bush's lie is in part responsible for thousands of deaths. So many americans are so ignorant to whats really going on and it really pisses me off. Bush should be impeached if you ask me. There was no "good" reason to go into iraq... we knew they didnt have wmd. Now even bush's hidden agenda plan is backfiring. Sure, going into iraq, winning the war, and securing oil would surely boost the economy, but now the war is just dragging on, taking the economy with it. Our soldiers are dying, our credibility among other countries is going down the ****ter. Bush has created one hell of a mess and no one really seems to realize how bad it is.

rottie
09-26-2003, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by goblin6
How about Terrorist trainng camps found in Iraq, meetings with hig ranking Al Queda members and support of suicide bombers? Any one is a violatin of the terms of the cease fire.

exporting terrorism Goblin.. proof. All i asked for was proof, or links so i can make my own mind up. not the same old **** thats been recycled here 1000 times without any proof.

I am talking about the exporting terrorism, not violating weapons terms, or anything else. so stop trying to side track it.

BTW Goblin there are terrorists cells in Canada and the U.S. as well, that mean we are "exporting" it?

goblin6
09-26-2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by rottie
exporting terrorism Goblin.. proof. All i asked for was proof, or links so i can make my own mind up. not the same old **** thats been recycled here 1000 times without any proof.

I am talking about the exporting terrorism, not violating weapons terms, or anything else. so stop trying to side track it.

BTW Goblin there are terrorists cells in Canada and the U.S. as well, that mean we are "exporting" it?
No, because we are trying to eliminate them, not turning a blind eye and funding them.

rottie
09-26-2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by goblin6
No, because we are trying to eliminate them, not turning a blind eye and funding them.


Kinda like our allies... the Saudis... oops wait they are funding them and turning a blind eye as well...

Well as i said, i may agree, but i like looking at the proof myself. I've never seen any, but I would like to.

I like keeping informed ya know.

goblin6
09-26-2003, 10:49 AM
Here is one, the other one I found I can't link, have to figure that one out.
www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_ties.php


talks about which group Saddam supported and is a basic Q&A

belfast-biker
09-26-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
Clinton lied about getting head in the white house. Bush lied about iraq purchasing uranium from africa, an excuse used for gaining support to start a war.


I'd rather my leader fcuked an intern than fcuk the whole country.

rottie
09-26-2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by goblin6
Here is one, the other one I found I can't link, have to figure that one out.
www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_ties.php


talks about which group Saddam supported and is a basic Q&A

See now was that so hard? :D

bgzee
09-26-2003, 10:56 AM
"Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein provided bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to Palestinian terror groups. The Bush administration said it believed Saddam could pass weapons of mass destruction to Osama bin Laden?s al-Qaeda network or other terrorists. In the first few weeks after Saddam?s fall from power, though, convincing proof of an Iraq-al-Qaeda link remained lacking."

Your proof doesnt really prove much of anything. He supported terrorists who helped him off his religious enemies, which would not be us. Of course the bush administration said its possible that iraq could have helped al-queada, but the bush administration said a LOT of things, most of them being lies. And most importantly, "In the first few weeks after Saddam?s fall from power, though, convincing proof of an Iraq-al-Qaeda link remained lacking."

rottie
09-26-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
"Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein provided bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to Palestinian terror groups. The Bush administration said it believed Saddam could pass weapons of mass destruction to Osama bin Laden?s al-Qaeda network or other terrorists. In the first few weeks after Saddam?s fall from power, though, convincing proof of an Iraq-al-Qaeda link remained lacking."

Your proof doesnt really prove much of anything. He supported terrorists who helped him off his religious enemies, which would not be us. Of course the bush administration said its possible that iraq could have helped al-queada, but the bush administration said a LOT of things, most of them being lies. And most importantly, "In the first few weeks after Saddam?s fall from power, though, convincing proof of an Iraq-al-Qaeda link remained lacking."

It also goes on to say

"What types of terrorist groups did Iraq support?

Primarily groups that could hurt Saddam’s regional foes. Iraq has helped the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a separatist organization fighting the Turkish government, and several far-left Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel."

Now we all know Saddam had no love for Iran. so Sponsering anyone that attacks Iran is a no brainer for Saddam, Just like it was for America when they were sponsering Saddam when he was attacking Iran. A no brainer.
I dunno much about the Kurdish fight with Turkey, so I wont comment on that.
Sponsering Palistinian splinter groups against Israel.. that isn't any big thing, I would say the VAST majority of muslim countries over there support these groups including our ally Saudi Arabia.

goblin6
09-26-2003, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
"Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein provided bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to Palestinian terror groups. The Bush administration said it believed Saddam could pass weapons of mass destruction to Osama bin Laden?s al-Qaeda network or other terrorists. In the first few weeks after Saddam?s fall from power, though, convincing proof of an Iraq-al-Qaeda link remained lacking."

Your proof doesnt really prove much of anything. He supported terrorists who helped him off his religious enemies, which would not be us. Of course the bush administration said its possible that iraq could have helped al-queada, but the bush administration said a LOT of things, most of them being lies. And most importantly, "In the first few weeks after Saddam?s fall from power, though, convincing proof of an Iraq-al-Qaeda link remained lacking."
Any support of ANY terrorist group is a violation of the cease fire agreement ending Gulf War one. There was no provision saying "no support for terorsit groups who will attack the US or its allies" terrorist groups.

rottie
09-26-2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by goblin6
Any support of ANY terrorist group is a violation of the cease fire agreement ending Gulf War one. There was no provision saying "no support for terorsit groups who will attack the US or its allies" terrorist groups.

shouldnt be just for Iraq. I know what your saying and your right, but they certainly arent the only ones doing it over there.

ComfortEagle
09-26-2003, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by rottie
cmon now... links.. post up something supporting this claim.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

goblin6
09-26-2003, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by rottie
shouldnt be just for Iraq. I know what your saying and your right, but they certainly arent the only ones doing it over there.
Of course they were not. However you have to approach each on a case by case basis. You handle Iran and Syria different for Iraq, who had a cease fire agreemetn that they were violating, and Saudi Arabia which has World economy issues as well.

bgzee
09-26-2003, 11:14 AM
I didn't say it wasnt a violation of the ceasefire, but it is one of the many tactics bush used to try and gain support for the war, and he did a good job at it. I'm surprised at how many people Ive talked to that don't know the distinction between 9-11 and the war with iraq. So many people think they are in direct correlation with each other when really they have absolutely nothing to do with eachother. If you ask me it is racial profiling on its biggest level. Americans are beginning to to relate the middle east with terrorism. This is something bush has started. I feel very sorry for any middle easteners who have to live in the US right now.

The Iron Lord
09-26-2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
I'm surprised at how many people Ive talked to that don't know the distinction between 9-11 and the war with iraq. So many people think they are in direct correlation with each other when really they have absolutely nothing to do with eachother. If you ask me it is racial profiling on its biggest level.

It's sad, isn't it? Sad that our citizens are so easily pursuaded, and sad that we have leaders to exploit them.

rottie
09-26-2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
I didn't say it wasnt a violation of the ceasefire, but it is one of the many tactics bush used to try and gain support for the war, and he did a good job at it. I'm surprised at how many people Ive talked to that don't know the distinction between 9-11 and the war with iraq. So many people think they are in direct correlation with each other when really they have absolutely nothing to do with eachother. If you ask me it is racial profiling on its biggest level. Americans are beginning to to relate the middle east with terrorism. This is something bush has started. I feel very sorry for any middle easteners who have to live in the US right now.

that poll i heard about a little while ago that said 70% of Americans thought Saddam was involved in 9/11....
That was pretty ****ing scary. Even the conservatives would have to admit that.

The Iron Lord
09-26-2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by rottie
that poll i heard about a little while ago that said 70% of Americans thought Saddam was involved in 9/11....
That was pretty ****ing scary. Even the conservatives would have to admit that.

Most conservatives wouldn't admit that water is wet. They'd claim it was the liberal media trying to convince us of such.

rottie
09-26-2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by The Iron Lord
Most conservatives wouldn't admit that water is wet. They'd claim it was the liberal media trying to convince us of such.

haha. True dat. :D

belfast-biker
09-26-2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by The Iron Lord
Most conservatives wouldn't admit that water is wet. They'd claim it was the liberal media trying to convince us of such.



Well it contains just two gasses so it simply cannot be wet, surely?

What more proof do you need? Traitor! :)

The Iron Lord
09-26-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by belfast-biker
Well it contains just two gasses so it simply cannot be wet, surely?

What more proof do you need? Traitor! :)

Damn my unpatriotic / questioning ways!!

antcraw
09-26-2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by The Iron Lord
Most conservatives wouldn't admit that water is wet. They'd claim it was the liberal media trying to convince us of such.

I'm sure they could find a link say says it (water) isn't (wet).

belfast-biker
09-26-2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by antcraw
I'm sure they could find a link say says it (water) isn't (wet).


I suppose it depends if its the pre- or post-9/11 definition of "wet".

Carcharodon
09-26-2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
I didn't say it wasnt a violation of the ceasefire, but it is one of the many tactics bush used to try and gain support for the war, and he did a good job at it. I'm surprised at how many people Ive talked to that don't know the distinction between 9-11 and the war with iraq. So many people think they are in direct correlation with each other when really they have absolutely nothing to do with eachother. If you ask me it is racial profiling on its biggest level. Americans are beginning to to relate the middle east with terrorism. This is something bush has started. I feel very sorry for any middle easteners who have to live in the US right now.

I suppose that the fact that the vast majority of the perpetrators of terror ARE from the Middle East has nothing whatsoever to do with that perception, huh? The majority of the 9-11 perpetrators were Saudis after all. Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad are all...from the Middle East.

That's Bush's fault? Somehow I don't see that. If say Asians or Africans were mostly perpetrating these actions, wouldn't people arrive at the same perceptions? I think they just might. Obviously, "collective responsibility" is wrong and to hold an entire group of people resposible is just prejudice and stereotyping. Stereotypes come from a "perceived" reality, so it is really no surprise that this is occurring, however unfair it is.

I agree that it is unfortunate that Arab-Americans are suffering the consequences. As in previous hostilities, Japanese-Americans, Italian-Americans, German-Americans also suffered consequences.

I don't know why Americans think 9-11 was perpetrated by Hussein, according to one single poll. Frankly, I doubt its accuracy because I don't know anybody who believes that. This was never something the Bush Administration ever said. I think there is a connection between 9-11 and the Iraq war in the sense of the threat of international terror and his connections to, and patronage of terrorism, but only in that sense. In other words, it is an indirect connection, but not as an actual perpetrator of the 9-11 attack. I think only a small number people actually knew about it and they were all Al-Qaeda. It might have gotten out otherwise and it was a very secret operation.

Perhaps many Americans just see them all as one big giant threat. Because there is so much interconnection with Iran supporting Hizbollah, Syria supporting terror, Hussein offering rewards to suicide bombers, some Saudis supporting Al-Qaeda that people arrive at the conclusions they do. They don't make distinctions between innocent non-participants and the actual perpetrators and their supporters within those populations..

Smokinghawk
09-26-2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
I said a lot of sh*t in '01 that I wouldn't stand behind now....Smoke, I bet you did too! ;)


My point is that he's changing his mind COMPLETELY, and try as people might to defend it, it's NOT because "new evidence" has emerged. To the contrary, the evidence shows that Powell was "more right" in his first version, and when he changed his tune he became "more wrong than right" to justify a war.

So here's a question: Are you SURE this war was right, if people had to lie to you to get you to agree to it? Every reason you were sold crumbles one-by-one, and that's really sad.

Or stated another way, If something is right, why would someone need to make up facts to prove it?

For all the bellicose accusations that I'm just being "spun by the media," the rather dull fact about this is that my statements are correct, and Powell's are incorrect. Label it anything you want; it doesn't detract that stories have had to be changed, or invented, by "their" side to make their points seem right. I haven't had to do that to make my case.

It's even WEIRDER when people try to seriously make the case that I'm a media pawn because I have the audacity to defer to facts, rather than to rally behind guys who have to make it up as they go. How DARE I pit honesty against a scam?

Some other differences are these:

When I say stuff that's wrong, thousands of people don't die.
It doesn't cost us almost $200 billion in half a year, while 3,000,000 Americans have lost their jobs in 2 years.
It doesn't result in 700,000 more children in poverty today than there were a year ago.
It doesn't turn allies into enemies.
It doesn't result in programs for health, child education, and American cultural heritage to be nixed so we can shoot more rockets.
It doesn't result in me proclaiming "I'm proud to help uncover the truth" while refusing to disclose investigatory documents on the very issue.
It doesn't result in 5 billion people scrutiniznig *me* to discern the honor of my entire nation.

Smokinghawk
09-26-2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Carcharodon
"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."

"I did not say he (Iraqi President Saddam Hussein) didn't have weapons of mass destruction."

Powell is correct. He said "significant". He didn't say "does not have at all".




Yes, and you'd have made your case if Powell's quote had stopped there. You'd be right-on.

But powell DIDN'T stop there. No, he CLARIFIED his comments so that your defense would never work, almost to make sure he was hamstrung later.

Because next, he explicitly stated that Saddam is not a threat, that the policies in place were obviously working, and that those policies would be continued because they were working.

End result: Powell committed a verbal "pre-emptive strike" against Bush's rhetoric for war.

Smokinghawk
09-26-2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by goblin6
How about Terrorist trainng camps found in Iraq, meetings with hig ranking Al Queda members and support of suicide bombers? Any one is a violatin of the terms of the cease fire.


Man, you NEED to get info somewhere other than Fox News.

For example:

Last week Rumsfeld himself acknowledge there were, and are, NO links between Saddam and al-Quada after all. The next day, Bush himself said the same thing in a press conference. Got that? Bush and Rummy themselves are saying publicly: THERE WERE NO CONNECTIONS BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL-QUADA. If you missed it, it made front page of USA Today (and most other papers. It was hard to miss.)

Next: you need to keep in mind that Bin Ladin and Saddam have been hostile adversaries since about 1990. Remember how Bin Ladin pleaded with Saudi Arabia to be allowed to attack Saddam himself, rather than allow Americans to station in Saudi? Man, they are NOT friends who work together.

Next: you need to remember that both the CIA and FBI have stated, on the record, that allegations of "secret meetings" between Iraq and Al-Quada operatives never happened. Those stories didn't bear out. Oh, and that's not even recent news, friend! They disclosed that in public before the war even began!

Next: remember that Bush's own security advisors (and Dept. of Energy) cautioned *before* the SOU Address that those "aluminum tubes" not only hadn't been used in a nuclear program, but simply could not have been...

Next: remember that Bush's statement was that "British intelligences suggests..." this and that. But British intelligence warned Bush and Blair both--before the war--that they had never said such a thing, and would not endorse such statements.

Smokinghawk
09-26-2003, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by goblin6
Here is one, the other one I found I can't link, have to figure that one out.
www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_ties.php


talks about which group Saddam supported and is a basic Q&A ]


Gee, it's a shame that our own President has undercut such arguments by finally stating on the record that there is "no evidence" (his words!) of ties between Saddam and Al Quada.

Smokinghawk
09-26-2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by The Iron Lord
Most conservatives wouldn't admit that water is wet. They'd claim it was the liberal media trying to convince us of such.


Yeah, and the evidence would be that their windhield wipers move to the left.

Then O'Reilley would start yelling "shut up!" to anyone claiming that's a poor argument, and congratulate hismelf on standing for "no spin."

Starsky
09-26-2003, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by rottie
that poll i heard about a little while ago that said 70% of Americans thought Saddam was involved in 9/11....
That was pretty ****ing scary. Even the conservatives would have to admit that.

Rottie, George W. and Donald Rumsfeld have directly said Saddam Hussein was not involved in 9/11...I'm a conservative and there are far to many people who have stupid reasons for supporting and opposing the war...such as freeing Iraqi's on the right, or Haliburton Zionism conspiracy theories on the left.

There are altogether different reasons for supporting Gulf War II, and they are perfectly thought-out and legitimate, moral reasons to do so.

Furthermore, lets assume for a second that Saddam Hussein destroyed all the WMD before the war...without moving or hiding them...Ok...we are on the same page with this assumption??

Now, you will take this as an interpretation that there was no justification for the war, right? Because after all...if there are no WMD, than there is no strategic reason to take out Saddam Hussein.

Well then prove to me this Rottie, prove to me that Saddam Hussein didn't have the capability to suspend, restart, or reconstitute his WMD program. Prove it to me that when he kicks out the inspectors, and when the 150,000 U.S. troops aren't on his border...that he could not restart his program at the time of his choosing. Prove to me that he *couldn't* simply destroy his weapons again, kick out the inspectors and then subsequently restart his program.

The fact is nearly all the intelligence analysts from multiple countries have admitted that he had the ability to do these things, if he had destroyed the WMD or if he had kept them. It seems there is an utter failure on the left to recognize this as a *real* threat, imminent or not. Tommy Franks said it best: the point is to stop him from becoming an imminent threat in the first place.

dave22
09-26-2003, 08:02 PM
I really don't get this whole Bin Laden and Saddam connection, I've never heard the Bush admin. say that they were ever connected.

Also, Bin Laden taking out Saddam for SA? LMAO!!!! Like that would be able to happen.

belfast-biker
09-27-2003, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by dave22
I really don't get this whole Bin Laden and Saddam connection, I've never heard the Bush admin. say that they were ever connected.




You are joking?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=20&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=bush+link+saddam+9%2F11+insinuated&meta=




"The administration] encouraged this misconception by linking al Qaeda to Hussein in almost every speech on Iraq. Indeed, administration officials began to hint about a Sept. 11-Hussein link soon after the attacks. In late 2001, Vice President Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official."



"Bush, in his speeches, did not say directly that Hussein was culpable in the Sept. 11 attacks. But he frequently juxtaposed Iraq and al Qaeda in ways that hinted at a link. In a March speech about Iraq's "weapons of terror," Bush said: "If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."



"Then, in declaring the end of major combat in Iraq on May 1, Bush linked Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions."



"Some Democrats said that although Bush did not make the direct link to the 2001 attacks, his implications helped to turn the public fury over Sept. 11 into support for war against Iraq. "You couldn't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein," said Democratic tactician Donna Brazile. "Every member of the administration did the drumbeat. My mother said if you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes a gospel truth. This one became a gospel hit."

ComfortEagle
09-27-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by belfast-biker
You are joking?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=20&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=bush+link+saddam+9%2F11+insinuated&meta=




"The administration] encouraged this misconception by linking al Qaeda to Hussein in almost every speech on Iraq. Indeed, administration officials began to hint about a Sept. 11-Hussein link soon after the attacks. In late 2001, Vice President Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official."



"Bush, in his speeches, did not say directly that Hussein was culpable in the Sept. 11 attacks. But he frequently juxtaposed Iraq and al Qaeda in ways that hinted at a link. In a March speech about Iraq's "weapons of terror," Bush said: "If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."



"Then, in declaring the end of major combat in Iraq on May 1, Bush linked Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions."



"Some Democrats said that although Bush did not make the direct link to the 2001 attacks, his implications helped to turn the public fury over Sept. 11 into support for war against Iraq. "You couldn't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein," said Democratic tactician Donna Brazile. "Every member of the administration did the drumbeat. My mother said if you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes a gospel truth. This one became a gospel hit."

So, now Bush gets blamed for things that he didn't even say? Geez...

He "frequently juxtaposed Iraq and al Qaeda"... :rolleyes: The Iraqi regime was supporting terrorists. Period. And al qaeda are terrorists. Period. Of course they are going to be mentioned together.

ComfortEagle
09-27-2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

No one wants to touch this?

Starsky
09-27-2003, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Smokinghawk
Man, you NEED to get info somewhere other than Fox News.

For example:

Last week Rumsfeld himself acknowledge there were, and are, NO links between Saddam and al-Quada after all. The next day, Bush himself said the same thing in a press conference. Got that? Bush and Rummy themselves are saying publicly: THERE WERE NO CONNECTIONS BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL-QUADA. If you missed it, it made front page of USA Today (and most other papers. It was hard to miss.)

Next: you need to keep in mind that Bin Ladin and Saddam have been hostile adversaries since about 1990. Remember how Bin Ladin pleaded with Saudi Arabia to be allowed to attack Saddam himself, rather than allow Americans to station in Saudi? Man, they are NOT friends who work together.

1Next: you need to remember that both the CIA and FBI have stated, on the record, that allegations of "secret meetings" between Iraq and Al-Quada operatives never happened. Those stories didn't bear out. Oh, and that's not even recent news, friend! They disclosed that in public before the war even began!

Next: remember that Bush's own security advisors (and Dept. of Energy) cautioned *before* the SOU Address that those "aluminum tubes" not only hadn't been used in a nuclear program, but simply could not have been...

Next: remember that Bush's statement was that "British intelligences suggests..." this and that. But British intelligence warned Bush and Blair both--before the war--that they had never said such a thing, and would not endorse such statements.

100% wrong on both counts Smokinghawk.. Go back and then tell what they really said. What they said is that Saddam and 9/11 were not connected.

Typical liberal trash argument by telling anyone who disagrees that they must always watch Fox news. Get something new out of the playbook.

ComfortEagle
09-28-2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

belfast, rottie, Iron Lord, other liberals, any thoughts?

From the interview with Sabah Kodada, a former Captain in the Iraqi army (at link above):
Q:
And they trained people to hijack airplanes?

A:
Yes.

Q:
For what purpose?

A:
... It has been said openly in the media and even to us, from the highest command, that the purpose of establishing Saddam's fighters is to attack American targets and American interests. This is known. There's no doubt about it.

All this training is directed towards attacking American targets, and American interests. The training does not only include hijacking of planes and sabotage. ... Some other people were trained to do parachuting. Some other areas were training on how to penetrate enemy lines and get information from behind enemy lines. But it's all for the general concept of hitting and attacking American targets and American interests.


From the interview with Khidhir Hamza, who headed Iraq's nuclear program before defection in 1994 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/hamza.html:
Q:
What is the nuclear capability, at this point, of Iraq?

A:
I believe Iraq now has fully functional design, and complete manufacturing capability for the parts, or parts of the nuclear equipment. The only thing in Iraq remains [to acquire] is the nuclear core. ... German intelligence, which I believe made a very good assessment ... is [that] Iraq should be able to acquire complete this part by 2005, and have three nuclear weapons. It might not be three, though; it might be one or two.

[When] I left Iraq, Iraq had the design for a [nuclear] device, not a weapon. They had not hardened the design, and miniaturized it enough to make it a weapon -- a hardy enough weapon for transport, say, a missile. But there was a lot of work going into hardening this design.

antcraw
09-28-2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
belfast, rottie, Iron Lord, other liberals, any thoughts?

From the interview with Sabah Kodada, a former Captain in the Iraqi army (at link above):
Q:
And they trained people to hijack airplanes?

A:
Yes.

Q:
For what purpose?

A:
... It has been said openly in the media and even to us, from the highest command, that the purpose of establishing Saddam's fighters is to attack American targets and American interests. This is known. There's no doubt about it.

All this training is directed towards attacking American targets, and American interests. The training does not only include hijacking of planes and sabotage. ... Some other people were trained to do parachuting. Some other areas were training on how to penetrate enemy lines and get information from behind enemy lines. But it's all for the general concept of hitting and attacking American targets and American interests.


From the interview with Khidhir Hamza, who headed Iraq's nuclear program before defection in 1994 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/hamza.html:
Q:
What is the nuclear capability, at this point, of Iraq?

A:
I believe Iraq now has fully functional design, and complete manufacturing capability for the parts, or parts of the nuclear equipment. The only thing in Iraq remains [to acquire] is the nuclear core. ... German intelligence, which I believe made a very good assessment ... is [that] Iraq should be able to acquire complete this part by 2005, and have three nuclear weapons. It might not be three, though; it might be one or two.

[When] I left Iraq, Iraq had the design for a [nuclear] device, not a weapon. They had not hardened the design, and miniaturized it enough to make it a weapon -- a hardy enough weapon for transport, say, a missile. But there was a lot of work going into hardening this design.


This is BS those ex-pats and former Iraqi soldiers say anything they think will get them in with the US. They have been proven wrong time and time again. It was these guys that gave all of the inital info that has since turned out to be bogus.

belfast-biker
09-28-2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
belfast, rottie, Iron Lord, other liberals, any thoughts?



If the guilford four can admit guilt under coercion, if british people in saudi arabia can have guilt beaten into them, then anybody can be made to say anything.

THAT's my thoughts.

ComfortEagle
09-28-2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by belfast-biker
If the guilford four can admit guilt under coercion, if british people in saudi arabia can have guilt beaten into them, then anybody can be made to say anything.

THAT's my thoughts.


Originally posted by antcraw
This is BS those ex-pats and former Iraqi soldiers say anything they think will get them in with the US. They have been proven wrong time and time again. It was these guys that gave all of the inital info that has since turned out to be bogus.

Salman Pak exists, thats a non-issue. American soldiers found it. Don't tell me you guys didn't hear about this? Where's your unbiased news sources now?

Confirming that Operation Iraqi Freedom is an integral part of the war on terror, soldiers of the 7th Marine Regiment destroyed a suspected terrorist camp early Sunday en route to Baghdad. Located a mile east of the Tigris River, the Salman Pak base was exactly where U.S. terrorism experts and Iraqi defectors said it would be. http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock040703.asp

belfast-biker
09-29-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
Salman Pak exists, thats a non-issue. American soldiers found it. Don't tell me you guys didn't hear about this?



Bush is being fairly quiet on it for a good reason.

It's a terrorist training camp. So what? No-one doubted they existed.

Here's a question.

If you find out they exist in Iran too, you gonna invade there? What about if you find similar in NK? SA? Pakistan? Ireland? Israel? America? (oops, School of the Americas, forgot!)


Can't go stomping all around the world now, can you?

For every base you destroy, another will pop up in another symapthetic country.

Find a better way to deal with the terrorist problem. Find out why terrorists exist, and remove the reason for their being.

Sorry to be sensible about this. My next post will be more gung-ho, I promise.

ComfortEagle
09-29-2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by belfast-biker
Bush is being fairly quiet on it for a good reason.

It's a terrorist training camp. So what? No-one doubted they existed.

Here's a question.

If you find out they exist in Iran too, you gonna invade there? What about if you find similar in NK? SA? Pakistan? Ireland? Israel? America? (oops, School of the Americas, forgot!)


Can't go stomping all around the world now, can you?

For every base you destroy, another will pop up in another symapthetic country.

Find a better way to deal with the terrorist problem. Find out why terrorists exist, and remove the reason for their being.

Sorry to be sensible about this. My next post will be more gung-ho, I promise.

You have to distinguish between state sponsored terrorism and "regular" terrorism. If a state or govornment is sponsoring terrorism, then yes we should take military action after all other avenues have been exhausted. Iraq had years to comply with UN directives and mandates and whatnot, and they failed. The reason the Salman Pak site existed was because of the Iraqi govornment, so we "removed the reason" for its being.

Find out why terrorists exist? Maybe to bring down the West, because of some percieved threat to their existance and/or way of life, because western culture is spreading into the middle east and muslim countries (witness the Algerian girl wearing tight jeans and a t-shirt and not covering her head). I believe there are those that feel threatened by this change (because it corrupts, or something of the like), and blame America, the "enemy of Islam," for it. But that's just one person's opinion.

Oh, and BTW, if you can cut the sarcastic bull**** out of your responses and lower yourself to my level, that would be great.

belfast-biker
09-29-2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
Oh, and BTW, if you can cut the sarcastic bull**** out of your responses and lower yourself to my level, that would be great.


No.






EDIT: Lighten up.

'tis a discussion forum after all....

ComfortEagle
09-29-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
...
Find out why terrorists exist?
...

...And then there's the belief that America is politically manupiating the middle east to their own gain, of course. I'm not going to argue that our policy has been flawless, but it is far from warranting terrorism. And if they think that Americans are going to respond positively to terrorism, they need to do some more thinking.

antcraw
09-29-2003, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
...And then there's the belief that America is politically manupiating the middle east to their own gain, of course. I'm not going to argue that our policy has been flawless, but it is far from warranting terrorism. And if they think that Americans are going to respond positively to terrorism, they need to do some more thinking.

I think he means by helping to pull these countries out of povertyand giving the young people some hope for a better life will help reduce terrorism since it won't seem so attractive.

Starsky
09-29-2003, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by antcraw
I think he means by helping to pull these countries out of povertyand giving the young people some hope for a better life will help reduce terrorism since it won't seem so attractive.

Which is exactly what the U.S. has been doing....

belfast-biker
09-29-2003, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
Which is exactly what the U.S. has been doing....


I think things like debt relief could go a *lot* faster and further.

I think that shafting poor countries at world trade talks is nothing short of sinful.

Making poor countries pay full whack for aids drugs etc is a shame.

We (EU, US etc) take with one hand, and give very little with the other.

And we're all a part of it.

belfast-biker
09-29-2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
...And then there's the belief that America is politically manupiating the middle east to their own gain, of course. I'm not going to argue that our policy has been flawless, but it is far from warranting terrorism. And if they think that Americans are going to respond positively to terrorism, they need to do some more thinking.


Not asking them to ignore terrorism, just deal with it in a way that doesn't multiply the number of terrorists.

Israel is the perfect example. Yes, it has some monstrous atrocities comitted against its civilians, but they way it responds is completely predictable, and plain wrong.

I don't envy Israel, it's unfortunately in a precarious position.

rottie
09-29-2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
Which is exactly what the U.S. has been doing....

Yes, and a lot of them are pissed that the U.S. supports Israel which they see as holding them down. Therefore making the U.S. the enemy.

Smokinghawk
09-29-2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
So, now Bush gets blamed for things that he didn't even say? Geez...

He "frequently juxtaposed Iraq and al Qaeda"... :rolleyes: The Iraqi regime was supporting terrorists. Period. And al qaeda are terrorists. Period. Of course they are going to be mentioned together.


Well, what about him trumpeting his war on Iraq by claiming that he was continuing "a battle that began on 9-11"?

Just for starters?

(P.S. Bush, the man, is also represented by a broad administration. It is possible to report that Bush made key suggestions when those suggestions arise from his administration in general.)

Smokinghawk
09-29-2003, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
100% wrong on both counts Smokinghawk.. Go back and then tell what they really said. What they said is that Saddam and 9/11 were not connected.

Typical liberal trash argument by telling anyone who disagrees that they must always watch Fox news. Get something new out of the playbook.


You are so bewilderingly bizarre, I don't even know how to respond.

For example, that's WHAT I *SAID* THEY SAID.

My ENTIRE POINT was that the administration has admitted there is no connection.

So how in the WORLD are you setting me straight by telling me I got it wrong, because "What they said is that Saddam and 9/11 were not connected."

Sheesh, your post is one big adventure in missing the point.

I must admit, though, at least you got something new out of the playbook: accusing me of having it wrong by pointing out that what I said was 100% right. I would be embarrassed to submit the kind of post you wrote.

ComfortEagle
09-29-2003, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by Smokinghawk
Well, what about him trumpeting his war on Iraq by claiming that he was continuing "a battle that began on 9-11"?


This is how I took it: The war on terrorism (not solely al qaeda but all terrorism) began "officially" on 9/11. Since the former Iraqi govornment sponsored terrorism, that war included them.

Starsky
09-30-2003, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by Smokinghawk
You are so bewilderingly bizarre, I don't even know how to respond.

For example, that's WHAT I *SAID* THEY SAID.

My ENTIRE POINT was that the administration has admitted there is no connection.

So how in the WORLD are you setting me straight by telling me I got it wrong, because "What they said is that Saddam and 9/11 were not connected."

Sheesh, your post is one big adventure in missing the point.

I must admit, though, at least you got something new out of the playbook: accusing me of having it wrong by pointing out that what I said was 100% right. I would be embarrassed to submit the kind of post you wrote.

Smokinghawk, go back and read your own post.

I am setting you straight because you put words in the Bush admins mouth that they never said. Bush said Saddam and September 11th were not connected. *Directly* afterwards he repeated his full confidence that Saddam and Al-Qaeda *were* connected.

The only thing you should be embarassed about is mischaracterizing what he said and then blaming me for a nonexistent error. The post still stands.

There, got it?

Smokinghawk
10-01-2003, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
Smokinghawk, go back and read your own post.

I am setting you straight because you put words in the Bush admins mouth that they never said. Bush said Saddam and September 11th were not connected. *Directly* afterwards he repeated his full confidence that Saddam and Al-Qaeda *were* connected.

The only thing you should be embarassed about is mischaracterizing what he said and then blaming me for a nonexistent error. The post still stands.

There, got it?


But they *weren't* connected (Saddam and Al-Quada). Nice of Bush to say so, AFTER the war. Find me an instance where he was that clear BEFORE it.

And since Iraq has never been connected to 9-11, nor to planned attacks against America, they should have been irrelevant to the "war on terror." They've never been our terrorists, and trying to blur them into the mix at a cost of $200 billion in six months was a waste, while Bin Ladin goes free and Afghanistan remains unrepaired.

So if your post still stands, it stands for something wrong.


(oh, and I don't have to put words in Bush's mouth. If your memory serves, or if you'll do the research, you'll find he and his administration spoke well enough on their own to make my case against them quite simple. What was the first message in this thread again...?)

bgzee
10-03-2003, 08:21 AM
"The war on terrorism" is an extremely broad term the Bush administration uses to go after just about anyone they want, in particular anyone from the middle east. This new "patriotic act" that bush is trying to pass is trying to put drug dealers in the same category as terrorists, thus allowing fbi to tap phones, search, etc without warrants. It's gonna end up in another ****in witch hunt, much like the whole communist thing. I'm ****ing appauled at whats going on with bush/cheney in office. Decisions in this country are no longer made by the people, but by the large corporations that bush/cheney are assosiated with.

AKMoose
10-03-2003, 08:43 AM
FWI, Iraq WMDs have been found.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_399454,00050004.htm

So, those of you who keep whining about "no WMDs" and lies can now move on.

HTH,

rottie
10-03-2003, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by AKMoose
FWI, Iraq WMDs have been found.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_399454,00050004.htm

So, those of you who keep whining about "no WMDs" and lies can now move on.

HTH,

WOW! Maybe you should send that link to Dubya, so he can say I told ya so to the world, instead of being under fire like he is. I'm sure he'd like to know about it. This would be all over the American news like stink on **** if it were true, or if the weapons had anything to do with the Iraqi government.

AKMoose
10-03-2003, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by rottie
WOW! Maybe you should send that link to Dubya, so he can say I told ya so to the world, instead of being under fire like he is. I'm sure he'd like to know about it. This would be all over the American news like stink on **** if it were true, or if the weapons had anything to do with the Iraqi government.

There it is in black and white rottie. Sorry to disappoint you. You can believe the facts or you can choose to ignore them if its inconvenient for your carefully chosen fantasies. As far as the president commenting on it. I can't speak for him. The man has a job to do and I wouldn't presume to know it better than he does. Would you?

The Iron Lord
10-03-2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by AKMoose
As far as the president commenting on it. I can't speak for him. The man has a job to do and I wouldn't presume to know it better than he does. Would you?


I think most laboratory mice could do Bush's job better than him.

Starsky
10-03-2003, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by Smokinghawk
But they *weren't* connected (Saddam and Al-Quada). Nice of Bush to say so, AFTER the war. Find me an instance where he was that clear BEFORE it.

And since Iraq has never been connected to 9-11, nor to planned attacks against America, they should have been irrelevant to the "war on terror." They've never been our terrorists, and trying to blur them into the mix at a cost of $200 billion in six months was a waste, while Bin Ladin goes free and Afghanistan remains unrepaired.

So if your post still stands, it stands for something wrong.


(oh, and I don't have to put words in Bush's mouth. If your memory serves, or if you'll do the research, you'll find he and his administration spoke well enough on their own to make my case against them quite simple. What was the first message in this thread again...?)

There are documented connections Smokinghawk, Saddam Hussein directly supported the Al-Qaeda connected Ansar Al-Islam with cash to help fight the Kurds in northern Iraq. The same group also maintained multiple camps in Iraq that are now destroyed. As for the Al-Qaeda envoys visiting Baghdad, I dont really have a clue whether that has been substantiated. Once again Bush only said 1 of the 2 things you said. Bush never said what you were first claiming to be true. I'm not saying you lied, but that was wrong.

North Korea has never planned feasible attacks against the U.S., so does that mean any attack on them would be unjustified?

Toppling Saddam was 100% justified, and would have eventually become inevitable. Yes, there was bad intelligence. Yes, it could have waited 5-8 years. Yes, Saddam was *not* an imminent threat. These are good points the anti-war crowd has made, but they are relevant only to the timetable of the war...not whether or not the war was *strategically* or *morally* the right thing to do. David Kay has confirmed that Saddam Hussein had the desire(thats for you rottie) and means to reconstitute his program and actively maintained that ability. Whether or not the 70 vials of botulinum toxin that have been found and substantiated convince you that he still maintained a desire for reconstitution, you can decide.

dave22
10-03-2003, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by The Iron Lord
I think most laboratory mice could do Bush's job better than him.

You never back up anything you say, "Bush is evil, he's stupid, lab rats are smarter than him, Israel shouldn't exist." Etc.

dave22
10-03-2003, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
There are documented connections Smokinghawk, Saddam Hussein directly supported the Al-Qaeda connected Ansar Al-Islam with cash to help fight the Kurds in northern Iraq. The same group also maintained multiple camps in Iraq that are now destroyed. As for the Al-Qaeda envoys visiting Baghdad, I dont really have a clue whether that has been substantiated. Once again Bush only said 1 of the 2 things you said. Bush never said what you were first claiming to be true. I'm not saying you lied, but that was wrong.

North Korea has never planned feasible attacks against the U.S., so does that mean any attack on them would be unjustified?

Toppling Saddam was 100% justified, and would have eventually become inevitable. Yes, there was bad intelligence. Yes, it could have waited 5-8 years. Yes, Saddam was *not* an imminent threat. These are good points the anti-war crowd has made, but they are relevant only to the timetable of the war...not whether or not the war was *strategically* or *morally* the right thing to do. David Kay has confirmed that Saddam Hussein had the desire(thats for you rottie) and means to reconstitute his program and actively maintained that ability. Whether or not the 70 vials of botulinum toxin that have been found and substantiated convince you that he still maintained a desire for reconstitution, you can decide.

Other lies by the left, during this war, Israel will annex the Golan Heights, and West Bank, Turkey will take over N. Iraq to suppress the Kurdish population, Iran will take over S. Iraq, we're going to set up a military quagmire, 200,000 civilians will lose their lives from the cruis missle strikes alone, chemical weapons will be used on our troops, millions of Bin Laden types will spread all over the middle east, it'll turn into a Vietnam, etc.

Then they turn it around. Since Iraq only took 4 weeks to defeat, than that just proves that they weren't a threat after all.

The Iron Lord
10-03-2003, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by dave22
You never back up anything you say, "Bush is evil, he's stupid, lab rats are smarter than him, Israel shouldn't exist." Etc.

Bush is evil: He starts wars when the entire world pleads for him not to.

Bush is stupid: His command of the English language is on par with that of a fifth grader. See "strategery." There are also the intangibles.....blank stares, slack jaw, glassy / hollow eyed look. Of course, we could attribute those to a previous crank addition. Either way....

I have no problem with Israel existing. I do however have a problem when they're always potrayed as the innocent victim. They commit acts of terrorism just as heinous as the Palestinians, and they are occupying land that does not belong to them.

You happy now?

dave22
10-03-2003, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by The Iron Lord
Bush is evil: He starts wars when the entire world pleads for him not to.

Bush is stupid: His command of the English language is on par with that of a fifth grader. See "strategery." There are also the intangibles.....blank stares, slack jaw, glassy / hollow eyed look. Of course, we could attribute those to a previous crank addition. Either way....

I have no problem with Israel existing. I do however have a problem when they're always potrayed as the innocent victim. They commit acts of terrorism just as heinous as the Palestinians, and they are occupying land that does not belong to them.

You happy now?

See there you go, just add a little explanation. BTW, he started a war, not wars, when the entire world plead for him not to. Also it wasn't the entire world. England, Australia, Poland, and Spain helped us. You never seem to say anything about them.

What would you do concerning Israel? What borders should they go back to? 1948, 1967?

Starsky
10-03-2003, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by The Iron Lord
Bush is evil: He starts wars when the entire world pleads for him not to.


Thats one twisted sense of good and evil you have Iron Lord: Stopping proliferation and liberating 50 million people in the face of constant personal attacks on your character...Im sure the 70% of Iraqi's who said *anything* was worth the war and the ones who were going to commit suicide if it didn't come, disagree.

AKMoose
10-03-2003, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
Thats one twisted sense of good and evil you have Iron Lord: Stopping proliferation and liberating 50 million people in the face of constant personal attacks on your character...Im sure the 70% of Iraqi's who said *anything* was worth the war and the ones who were going to commit suicide if it didn't come, disagree.

It is amazing. How many people will make completely emotion based assertions with no facts or reasoning behind their statements. Another reason I've lost all respect for the Democrats. If you've got a good argument you shouldn't have to resort to name calling and bull****, plain and simple.

bgzee
10-05-2003, 11:52 PM
Oh, we're doing the Iraqi people a favor? They are a lot better off now? 8000 civilian casualties later, lost jobs, homes... We did more damage and killing of Iraqi people than Saddam would have done in the rest of his lifetime. Yet somehow our president continues to convince my gullible fellow americans that we somehow are helping them. As a direct result of this glorified war, we are in significant debt, not as if we werent already, but even significantly moreso. Oh, and you can talk all the **** about democrats as you want, but its not a fluke that the 8 years clinton was in office the US prospered greatly.

VOTE HOWARD DEAN!!!!!!!!!1

ComfortEagle
10-06-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
Oh, we're doing the Iraqi people a favor? They are a lot better off now? 8000 civilian casualties later, lost jobs, homes...

You are thinking short term. There can be no doubt as to the long term effects. Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991)


Originally posted by bgzee
We did more damage and killing of Iraqi people than Saddam would have done in the rest of his lifetime.

Hey, when you talked to Saddam, did he say where he was? Because there are a lot of people that really would like to know, so next time you talk to him, ask him, ok?


Originally posted by bgzee
Yet somehow our president continues to convince my gullible fellow americans that we somehow are helping them. As a direct result of this glorified war, we are in significant debt, not as if we werent already, but even significantly moreso.

We are in more debt, yes. Far better than to have another terrorist attack on the US. We have already established he sponsored terrorists. Wait, you're shaking your head, telling me that he was never a threat... right? Well, bin laden wasn't a threat before 9/11, was he? If he was, Clinton would have taken him when Sudan offered him to us.


Originally posted by bgzee
Oh, and you can talk all the **** about democrats as you want, but its not a fluke that the 8 years clinton was in office the US prospered greatly.


Well, ok, but you can't lay it entierly on Clinton. The Republican Congress' Contract with America and the low low oil prices were big big factors. Incidently, the oil price spike at the end of Clinton's term was what caused the recession to start in 01, imo.

Smokinghawk
10-06-2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by AKMoose
FWI, Iraq WMDs have been found.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_399454,00050004.htm

So, those of you who keep whining about "no WMDs" and lies can now move on.

HTH,


There's nothing at that page now. Could you relocate the article and post the link again?

Smokinghawk
10-07-2003, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
There are documented connections Smokinghawk, Saddam Hussein directly supported the Al-Qaeda connected Ansar Al-Islam with cash to help fight the Kurds in northern Iraq. The same group also maintained multiple camps in Iraq that are now destroyed. As for the Al-Qaeda envoys visiting Baghdad, I dont really have a clue whether that has been substantiated. Once again Bush only said 1 of the 2 things you said. Bush never said what you were first claiming to be true. I'm not saying you lied, but that was wrong.



Let's review.

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And, "[Saddam Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda." (March 17, 2003) This would the part where Bush says the stuff you're telling me he never said.

The Washington Post reports that the leaders of the House intelligence committee, after reviewing the prewar intelligence on Iraq, have concluded that the intelligence community based its prewar assessments regarding Iraq's WMDs and Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorists on outdated, "circumsantial," and "fragmentary" information with "too many uncertainties." In a letter to CIA director George Tenet, Rep. Porter Goss, the Republican chairman of the committee, and Rep. Jane Harman, the senior Democrat on the committee, note their review uncovered "signficant deficiencies" in the intelligence. They maintain, "Lack of specific intelligence on regime plans and intentions, WMD, and Iraq's support to terrorist groups appears to have hampered the [intelligence community's] ability to provide a better assessment to policymakers from 1998 through 2003." The letter says the committee found "substantial gaps" in intelligence on Hussein's supposed ties to terrorists and that this intelligence was not sufficient "to give policymakers a clear understanding of the nature of the relationship." And Goss and Harman were especially critical of the intelligence used to conclude that Iraq was reviving a nuclear weapons program--which was a key claim put forward by the White House before the invasion.


Robert Boyd, the U.S. Air Force's senior intelligence analyst, has concluded that evidence uncovered in Iraq confirms the Air Force's prewar assessment that Iraq had been developing unmanned aerial vehicles (or drones) to fly reconnaissance missions, not to deliver WMDs. Before the war, Bush administration officials maintained that Hussein was manufacturing drones that might be used to strike the United States. In a speech in October 2002, Bush said, "Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."

Are you confused yet? Two weeks ago, President Bush said, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties." In September 2002, he said, "You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam." But Bush also said two weeks ago, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11."

That helpful clarification came after Vice President Dick Cheney was asked on "Meet the Press" why he thought 70 percent of Americans believe Saddam was behind Sept. 11. "It's not surprising that people make that connection," said the veep. Back in 2001, Cheney had said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Iraq and the Sept. 11 hijackers had coordinated. But most recently he said, "I don't know" if Saddam was connected to Sept. 11.

On the thoroughly discredited report that the lead hijacker Mohammad Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001, Cheney said, "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet either in terms of confirming it or denying it." In fact, the report has been disavowed by Czech intelligence, and American intelligence found that Atta was on the East Coast of the United States at the time of the alleged meeting.

Now, still trying to follow the bouncing ball on Saddam and Al Qaeda, we find the Los Angeles Times reporting in November 2002, "Allies Find No Links Between Iraq, Al Qaeda." Spain, which supported the United States in the war and has been active in prosecuting Al Qaeda, reported "no link to Al Qaeda." A high-ranking German intelligence official said talk of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection is "nonsense" and "not even the American intelligence community believes that anymore."

In August, the National Journal reported on three former Bush national security officials who had said "the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda to Iraq was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies." Greg Thielmann, formerly of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, said intelligence confirmed that Saddam and Al Qaeda were "mortal enemies." Osama bin Laden often denounced Saddam Hussein as "an infidel."

Guess someone forgot to tell the president and the vice president. The one known connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda is that for a time an Al Qaeda operative was in Baghdad, presumably up to no good, although we have no evidence. Uh, there were 18 Al Qaeda operatives lurking in this country -- does that make us guilty of harboring terrorists?

According to the Los Angeles Times, the classified section of a congressional report about 9-11 details "a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through support charities and other fronts." That was the part of the congressional report we were not allowed to read, despite the vigorous protests of members of the committee.

Now, after his statement on Sept. 19 that "we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11," Bush said on Sept. 25: "9-11 changed my calculation. It's really important for this nation to continue to chase down and deal with threats before they materialize, and we learned that on 9-11."

So, you see, we have no evidence that Saddam was involved in 9-11, but it's all about 9-11.

Moving right along to the crystal-clear matter of the weapons of mass destruction, we find ****n Powell saying of Saddam back in 2001: "I think we ought to declare our containment policy a success. We have kept him contained; kept him in his box. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. He threatens not the United States."

Veep Cheney then believed the same. Five days after 9-11, he said, "Saddam Hussein is bottled up." But the storyline changed, and by October 2002, Bush told the nation: "The threat comes from Iraq. America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a nuclear cloud."

Just before the war, Bush said, "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

We could go on and on with all the detailed information the administration gave us about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction -- over 500 tons of Sarin gas, etc. But now comes the Kay report confirming what we have been learning all along -- there ain't none. For months, whenever anyone asked, "Where are the weapons of mass destruction?" the administration and its flaks in the press corps said, "You better not raise that question because you'll sure be embarrassed when we find them." Well, we haven't. Not a trace of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. But, hey, it's only an interim report.

I have been trying to concentrate on the pragmatic lately. Even if we were wrong to go into Iraq, let's focus on what can be done now to save the situation. But sometimes -- such as when the president admits Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11 or our official WMD searchers admit they have nothing -- it seems to me useful to go back and review the bidding.

The fact that 70 percent of the American people are under the misimpression that Saddam was connected to 9-11 seems to me a shocking indictment of the news media. I think we need to go back and explain how we got where we are.


For more documentation, see http://makeashorterlink.com/?A22821126

bgzee
10-07-2003, 11:41 AM
Saddam was assosiated with terrorists... yes. but not al-quada, and not terrorists who wanted anything to do with the US. If we were gonna try and destroy every country assosiated with any terrorists, we would be on a never ending mission. You got to stop kidding yourselves by saying saddam supported al-quada cuz it is just not true. If bush was so worried about homeland security and the people we would be going after n korea right now who recently said they would be developing multiple nuclear warheads. However the big companies bush/cheney are assosiated with have no need for anything in n. korea so its not quite worth it.

This is kinda off topic, but open up your eyes and realize who really runs our country. THE BIG COMPANIES. Why the war with Iraq? BIG OIL. Why all the overdone anti-marijuana propaganda? If an un-patantable drug became legal with that many medical uses the big drug companies would lose billions. Did you know the government can legally take land away from you and pay you considerably less than what its actually worth? And why would they do such a thing? to build a new wal-mart. The average american is being raped by big companies, while the considerably wealthy just get richer. You can thank the two *******s in office for a lot of this.

goblin6
10-07-2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
Saddam was assosiated with terrorists... yes.
That is a violation of the terms of the cease fire, that and continued non coooperation with UN weapons inspectors.
Violate the cease fire and the live fire is back on is usually how that works.

Just a point

bgzee
10-07-2003, 12:14 PM
to put an end to a cease fire doesnt mean going to all out war. Oh, and saddam cooperated with the weapons inspectors. If you have proof that says otherwise, please post it.

goblin6
10-07-2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
to put an end to a cease fire doesnt mean going to all out war. Oh, and saddam cooperated with the weapons inspectors. If you have proof that says otherwise, please post it.
Yes actually it does.
How did he cooperate? When he denied them accsess to palaces and scinetists? When he hounded their every move and blocked them from doing their job? When he booted them out in 98?
when he failed to fully accont for everything and disclose what happened to certain weapon systems?

He did not cooperate at all, to say otherwise is foolish.

bgzee
10-07-2003, 02:09 PM
He cooperated fully in the weapon inspections right before the war. You cant go to war with someone for something they did 5 years ago. Since then he had cooperated. Anyone still convinced the US really went to war to find WMD is just a moron.

bgzee
10-07-2003, 02:11 PM
Oh, and 5 years ago when saddam didnt cooperate clinton was in office. He didnt go to war with them even when they werent cooperating, opting to take a more peaceful route (stricter trade sanctions i believe?) Now take a look 5 years ago and see how better off we were.

goblin6
10-07-2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
Oh, and 5 years ago when saddam didnt cooperate clinton was in office. He didnt go to war with them even when they werent cooperating, opting to take a more peaceful route (stricter trade sanctions i believe?) Now take a look 5 years ago and see how better off we were.
And we all saw how well those sanctions worked didn't we?:rolleyes: part of the reason we are in this mess now.
Clinton did not pull the trigger because people would have said he was doing it because of the scandals that were happeneing at the time. And that was the wrong decision, we should have steamrolled the goddamn place then.
We were better off becasue of the dot com boom and a strong economy, so wha tdoes that have to do with everything. The economy was in trouble long before the US invaded Iraq.

ComfortEagle
10-07-2003, 03:38 PM
And those sanctions worked wonders didn't they? :rolleyes: And to draw the parallel between the US's prosperity then and recession now to Iraq is just ludicrous. Take a look at the oil prices five years ago, man! Cheap oil=strong economy.

He was cooperating right before the war because he knew people like you, bgzee, would be harping on it saying "oh, but he is cooperating now!" Do you remember how long this had been going on? Just out of curiosity, were you against the 1st gulf war?

You acknowledge they harbored terrorists (I never anywhere claimed they were al-qaeda), but you say they had nothing to do with the US. For one thing, take a look at the interview I posted earlier with Sabah Kohdada. Here's a direct quote talking about the purpose of the Salman Pak facility: "It has been said openly in the media and even to us, from the highest command, that the purpose of establishing Saddam's fighters is to attack American targets and American interests. This is known. There's no doubt about it. All this training is directed towards attacking American targets, and American interests
" But no, he must be making it up right? Because it doesn't fit into your viewpoint.

To touch on the North Korea issue: Yes, something needs to happen, if it comes to that. The question is whether or not they have nukes and can use them. If they have them that's a pretty effective deterrant. Also, I think KJI would not dare do anything for fear of losing power, and I also think that if they did do something that China would be pissed off at them. It is time for China to step up, as without China, North Korea would wither and die. But why even bring that up because you would be against military action there too.

And the average American is getting raped by big companies, eh? Thats priceless. Who employs the majority of workers? Big companies. And Wal-Mart? They offer things cheap, so people buy there, the economy is consumer driven. No subterfuge there. Look, I don't want to get into economics with you, nor do I want to touch the "two *******s" remark, so I'll just leave it at that.

dave22
10-07-2003, 04:00 PM
Wow, comfort, I'm impressed. That was a good statement.

dave22
10-07-2003, 06:12 PM
For the democrats.

"We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, 2-17-98

"The risk Iraqi leaders may use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us, or our allies, is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, 2-18-98

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor, 2-18-98

"... take necessary steps to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton from Sens. Levin, Daschle, Kerry and others, 10-9-98

"Saddam's engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology." Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., 12-16-98

"He's reinvigorated his weapons programs ... biological, chemical and nuclear programs ... he continues to redefine delivery systems to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush from Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others, 12-5-01

"Saddam is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He's ... building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., 9-12-02

"He's stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, 9-23-02

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., 9-27-02

"Saddam retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons ... he is seeking nuclear weapons ..." Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., 10-3-02

"I'll be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force ... to disarm Saddam. ... 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 Kerry, D-Mass., 10-9-02

"Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons." Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., 10-10-02

"Hussein's worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He's given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members." Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., 10-10-02

"... a brutal, murderous dictator ... an oppressive regime ... continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... the threat of Saddam with weapons of mass destruction is real." Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., 1-23-03

ComfortEagle
10-07-2003, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Wow, comfort, I'm impressed. That was a good statement.

Thanks dave, but did you expect anything less? :confused:;)

bgzee
10-08-2003, 07:44 AM
The bottom line: No WMD found.

If there are no WMD, we have no business being there, and sure as hell didn't have the right to destroy a country over false pretense.

And yes, America is getting raped by big companies. Oh yeah, Walmart offers low prices, but also destroys any competition, mom and pop shops, it comes close to. Yes, Walmart offers lots of jobs, at the same time people lose jobs, and their businesses because no local stores can compete. The average American will stay average if he never has the chance to prosper, while the rich (owners of the big companies) continue to get filthy rich.

dave22
10-08-2003, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
The bottom line: No WMD found.

If there are no WMD, we have no business being there, and sure as hell didn't have the right to destroy a country over false pretense.

And yes, America is getting raped by big companies. Oh yeah, Walmart offers low prices, but also destroys any competition, mom and pop shops, it comes close to. Yes, Walmart offers lots of jobs, at the same time people lose jobs, and their businesses because no local stores can compete. The average American will stay average if he never has the chance to prosper, while the rich (owners of the big companies) continue to get filthy rich.

Oh man, you're one of those people. The type that would be like, "Down with Corporate America!!!!" You do realize that nobody is forcing anyone to work at Walmart right?

bgzee
10-08-2003, 10:08 AM
No one is forcing anyone to work anywhere. However, if people made that choice then they would end up homeless. JOBS are a necessity. I'm not saying that working for wal-mart is a bad thing, but some sort of regulation needs to be put in place so that there can be healthy competition. My original point was that the government can take a citizens land for a low price and then will allow a large corporation like walmart to build there. This is an absolutely terrible thing and it happens all the time. This is taking from the people, the average, and giving to the corporations, the filthy rich. I am not a "down with corporate amercia" freak. However, I think my voice, the voice of the average american should have more influence than the big retail, the big oil, the big drug companies.

rottie
10-08-2003, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by dave22
Oh man, you're one of those people. The type that would be like, "Down with Corporate America!!!!" You do realize that nobody is forcing anyone to work at Walmart right?

Well its Walmart or Welfare. Or in a conservatives mind, Walmart or starve.

I have no problem with Walmart, but it is a shame that the "mom and Pop" businesses get closed down by them. That i do agree with.

dave22
10-08-2003, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by rottie
Well its Walmart or Welfare. Or in a conservatives mind, Walmart or starve.

I have no problem with Walmart, but it is a shame that the "mom and Pop" businesses get closed down by them. That i do agree with.

Okay, corporations start off as a family business. Then they expand, and soon become a corporation. There's nothing wrong with them. BTW, Wal Mart had competition, they won. Places like Venture, and K-Mart are a part of the past.

BTW, it's not Walmart ot welfare, it's Walmart or find another job.

bgzee
10-08-2003, 09:59 PM
Just because walmart started out small doesnt mean it has the right to destroy every small retail business around.

irpker
10-08-2003, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
Just because walmart started out small doesnt mean it has the right to destroy every small retail business around.


So they should stop being competitive to be nice and not hurt anybody's feelings?

Unless they're using illegal business tactics, they are free to do what they want. This has been the philosophy of the FREE American enterprise.

dave22
10-08-2003, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by irpker
So they should stop being competitive to be nice and not hurt anybody's feelings?

Unless they're using illegal business tactics, they are free to do what they want. This has been the philosophy of the FREE American enterprise.

BIG ASS BUMP!!!! God this **** reminds me of that South Park episode.

lucubration
10-09-2003, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
Just because walmart started out small doesnt mean it has the right to destroy every small retail business around.

I used to think that Wal-Mart was evil...not that they don't have every right to be but because they do put some smaller stores out of business.

Then I began to wonder if these smaller stores actually deserved to be in business, given the level of products and inferior service that they, likewise, provide.....and I reached the conclusion that Wal-Mart it is.....

bgzee
10-09-2003, 07:19 AM
For some reason this whole walmart topic keeps changing from what I had originally said. Once again, the GOVERNMENT will take CITIZENS land and allow a place like WALMART to build there. This is UNFAIR to the citizens who owned the land and THE LOCAL SHOPS that will lose business. The government is basically helping walmart destroy these little places. Sure, if walmart finds its own land to build on that may not be in the best location and takes out some businesses, cant blame them. But when the government basically steals land that is prime location and hands it over to a big corp like that it is most definatly not fair.

ComfortEagle
10-09-2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
For some reason this whole walmart topic keeps changing from what I had originally said. Once again, the GOVERNMENT will take CITIZENS land and allow a place like WALMART to build there. This is UNFAIR to the citizens who owned the land and THE LOCAL SHOPS that will lose business. The government is basically helping walmart destroy these little places. Sure, if walmart finds its own land to build on that may not be in the best location and takes out some businesses, cant blame them. But when the government basically steals land that is prime location and hands it over to a big corp like that it is most definatly not fair.

You are talking about eminent domain, and I actually agree with you on this one. But the original context you used it in blamed "the two *******s" in office for it, which is preposterous. But bottom line, the law needs to be changed to fix the loopholes in it.

And no weapons of mass destruction (so far, at least). Still doesn't change the fact that the war was justified to go after the state sponsored terrorists. But it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

bgzee
10-09-2003, 02:52 PM
I know bush/cheney are not responsible for the eminent domain laws. However, cheney is actively being paid by big oil companies he was involved with and im sure that has had a huge influence on his support for the war. They are *******s because they listen to big companies, not the people. I think its quite obvious that the reason for the war was oil. I have a lot of family in the armed forces, my little brother just went off to boot camp. This is my family, but bush see's them and countless others in our army as pawns for use in his own personal gain. Days go by, more soldiers die, the civilian death count has reached 10,000+, still no WMD, no rebuilding process, we have appointed leaders instead of letting iraqis vote for them... everything we were promised would happen by our president is complete bull****.

dave22
10-09-2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
I know bush/cheney are not responsible for the eminent domain laws. However, cheney is actively being paid by big oil companies he was involved with and im sure that has had a huge influence on his support for the war. They are *******s because they listen to big companies, not the people. I think its quite obvious that the reason for the war was oil. I have a lot of family in the armed forces, my little brother just went off to boot camp. This is my family, but bush see's them and countless others in our army as pawns for use in his own personal gain. Days go by, more soldiers die, the civilian death count has reached 10,000+, still no WMD, no rebuilding process, we have appointed leaders instead of letting iraqis vote for them... everything we were promised would happen by our president is complete bull****.

Which politician can you name, doesn't listen to those who run business? BTW, a few US soldiers dieing a week, really isn't that bad, and Iraq is being rebuilt. Every week, life is getting better in Iraq, despite what the lefties, and ultra right say.

belfast-biker
10-09-2003, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by dave22
BTW, a few US soldiers dieing a week, really isn't that bad, and Iraq is being rebuilt.



Their families will be consoled by your words no doubt.


Lemme see....
Expenses - American lives, allies apathy, american tax dollars, certainty of creating more terrorists. Check.
Income - Foreign Moslem country built up, federal debt increased...

Anyone else see the stupidity?


Why not just put the money into something homegrown, I dunno, the state deficits - build schools, hospitals and electricity infrastructure in the US, instead of somewhere a gazillion miles away.


What would I know, its your money.

dave22
10-09-2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by belfast-biker
Their families will be consoled by your words no doubt.


Lemme see....
Expenses - American lives, allies apathy, american tax dollars, certainty of creating more terrorists. Check.
Income - Foreign Moslem country built up, federal debt increased...

Anyone else see the stupidity?


Why not just put the money into something homegrown, I dunno, the state deficits - build schools, hospitals and electricity infrastructure in the US, instead of somewhere a gazillion miles away.


What would I know, its your money.

Well let's put it this way. Since this is a bodybuilding forum as well. Because alot of Americans are so ****ing fat, US taxpayers have to pay 100 billion a year, to help them out when they end up in the hospital.

Or think about the billions of dollars we spend on the war on drugs.

Also, thousands died in WW2, but if a few hundred die in Iraq, we have to leave right?

With everyone's mentality nowadays, there would be no way that the US would have "helped" win WW2.

belfast-biker
10-09-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Because alot of Americans are so ****ing fat, US taxpayers have to pay 100 billion a year, to help them out when they end up in the hospital.

Or think about the billions of dollars we spend on the war on drugs.

Also, thousands died in WW2, but if a few hundred die in Iraq, we have to leave right?

With everyone's mentality nowadays, there would be no way that the US would have "helped" win WW2.



"Fat ppl dying" - Seperate issue entirely. Maybe you need a "Fat Tax"?

"War on Drugs" - A war that doesn't need to be fought. At all. Let the govt. undercut the black market prices. No-one will be interested in becoming dealers when the biggest dealer of all is the govt. Give narcotics out at low low prices in hospitals, clinics etc, under strict health conditions, with the usual disclaimers if ppl die.

WW2 - You were badgered into joining. But also you were protecting your loan investments.

Sorry Dave, nothing you just said refuted the commonsense position in my original post, really.

Banban
10-09-2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Every week, life is getting better in Iraq, despite what the lefties, and ultra right say.

And do you know, according to newsweek, who the irakis are grateful to??...





...France!!!

Life IS ironic

http://www.msnbc.com/news/972939.asp?cp1=1

dave22
10-09-2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by belfast-biker
"Fat ppl dying" - Seperate issue entirely. Maybe you need a "Fat Tax"?

"War on Drugs" - A war that doesn't need to be fought. At all. Let the govt. undercut the black market prices. No-one will be interested in becoming dealers when the biggest dealer of all is the govt. Give narcotics out at low low prices in hospitals, clinics etc, under strict health conditions, with the usual disclaimers if ppl die.

WW2 - You were badgered into joining. But also you were protecting your loan investments.

Sorry Dave, nothing you just said refuted the commonsense position in my original post, really.

Okay let's just say this, we spend so much money on **** you know that? Like that terrorist warning on telvision, that cost a couple of million. But we don't need it. What's wrong with spending billions, to fight terrorism?

I don't agree with the war on drugs, but you have to realize that criminal justice is big business.

belfast-biker
10-09-2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Okay let's just say this, we spend so much money on **** you know that? Like that terrorist warning on telvision, that cost a couple of million. But we don't need it.



You do. You need it to create a false heightened sense of insecurity. Its mostly all bull****. How much does the colour alerts cost the US in a number of ways? FoxNews Front Page - "War on Terror Handbook - Alert Status - Yellow/Elevated".... ooooh, scary...

dave22
10-09-2003, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by belfast-biker
Originally posted by dave22
Okay let's just say this, we spend so much money on **** you know that? Like that terrorist warning on telvision, that cost a couple of million. But we don't need it.



You do. You need it to create a false heightened sense of insecurity. Its mostly all bull****. How much does the colour alerts cost the US in a number of ways? FoxNews Front Page - "War on Terror Handbook - Alert Status - Yellow/Elevated".... ooooh, scary...

That's what I told you!!! WE don't need it.

belfast-biker
10-09-2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by dave22
That's what I told you!!! WE don't need it.



"Britsh Humour" is lost on you people, really. :)

We need to inva--- um, liberate the people of America to free them from their sarcasm-free lives...

dave22
10-09-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by belfast-biker
"Britsh Humour" is lost on you people, really. :)

We need to inva--- um, liberate the people of America to free them from their sarcasm-free lives...

Yeah you're funny you know that? Smart ass.

belfast-biker
10-09-2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Smart ass.



Yeah. I know... :)

Starsky
10-09-2003, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by belfast-biker
Their families will be consoled by your words no doubt.


Lemme see....
Expenses - American lives, allies apathy, american tax dollars, certainty of creating more terrorists. Check.
Income - Foreign Moslem country built up, federal debt increased...

Anyone else see the stupidity?


Why not just put the money into something homegrown, I dunno, the state deficits - build schools, hospitals and electricity infrastructure in the US, instead of somewhere a gazillion miles away.


What would I know, its your money.


Belfast, its easy to look at all the negatives in a war. If you spent enough time focusing on the negatives, you could convince yourself that no war in the history of mankind was ever worth it, and the troops should have just pulled out.

American lives are not being sacrificed for nothing, and the people who say they are sacrificed for nothing, for oil, for imperialism, or for stupidity..dishonor the ones who died. They are there because America saw a threat in trusting a dictator to not develop weapons of mass destruction. A trust that had already been violated.

It would be downright stupid to pull out of Iraq and spend the 87 billion at home, if you ever considered the future. An Islamic dictatorship, a lawless terrorist country, all of these things would end up costing way more than 87 billion in the end, and America would regret pulling out. George Bush doesn't govern by the poll numbers and the military will finish the mission sucessfully.

bgzee
10-09-2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
Belfast, its easy to look at all the negatives in a war. If you spent enough time focusing on the negatives, you could convince yourself that no war in the history of mankind was ever worth it, and the troops should have just pulled out.

American lives are not being sacrificed for nothing, and the people who say they are sacrificed for nothing, for oil, for imperialism, or for stupidity..dishonor the ones who died. They are there because America saw a threat in trusting a dictator to not develop weapons of mass destruction. A trust that had already been violated.

It would be downright stupid to pull out of Iraq and spend the 87 billion at home, if you ever considered the future. An Islamic dictatorship, a lawless terrorist country, all of these things would end up costing way more than 87 billion in the end, and America would regret pulling out. George Bush doesn't govern by the poll numbers and the military will finish the mission sucessfully.

If you ever considered the future, you'd spend as much money as needed to find an alternative to fossil fuels. Instead we spend money destroying a country so we can take their oil and tell them we're doing them a favor.

lucubration
10-09-2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
Belfast, its easy to look at all the negatives in a war. If you spent enough time focusing on the negatives, you could convince yourself that no war in the history of mankind was ever worth it, and the troops should have just pulled out.

American lives are not being sacrificed for nothing, and the people who say they are sacrificed for nothing, for oil, for imperialism, or for stupidity..dishonor the ones who died. They are there because America saw a threat in trusting a dictator to not develop weapons of mass destruction. A trust that had already been violated.

It would be downright stupid to pull out of Iraq and spend the 87 billion at home, if you ever considered the future. An Islamic dictatorship, a lawless terrorist country, all of these things would end up costing way more than 87 billion in the end, and America would regret pulling out. George Bush doesn't govern by the poll numbers and the military will finish the mission sucessfully.

"How good bad music and bad reasons sounds when we march against the enemy" - Nietzsche

Simply put, we supplied Iraq with weapons to fight and Kill Iranians; then when the top portion of their nation tries to defect to Iran and Iraq kills them, we don't do a goddamn thing but wait 10 or 15 years and then talk about how GODDAMNED IMMORAL THEY ARE.


They must be freed from the armored oppression.!!! Give me a ****ing break.

I'm far more concerned about these pricks who systematically dismantle the Bill of Rights, who rape the Constitution, who make a mockery of every that America stands for, all in the name of what?

Absolutely not a damn thing. And Cheney's little oil company is raking in the loot while we pay the bill in ways that go far beyond conventional economic damages.

dave22
10-09-2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by lucubration
"How good bad music and bad reasons sounds when we march against the enemy" - Nietzsche

Simply put, we supplied Iraq with weapons to fight and Kill Iranians; then when the top portion of their nation tries to defect to Iran and Iraq kills them, we don't do a goddamn thing but wait 10 or 15 years and then talk about how GODDAMNED IMMORAL THEY ARE.


They must be freed from the armored oppression.!!! Give me a ****ing break.

I'm far more concerned about these pricks who systematically dismantle the Bill of Rights, who rape the Constitution, who make a mockery of every that America stands for, all in the name of what?

Absolutely not a damn thing. And Cheney's little oil company is raking in the loot while we pay the bill in ways that go far beyond conventional economic damages.

Typical liberal bull****. The US supplied Saddam with 1% of his weapons. You want to point fingers? Point them at Russia, France, and the rest of Europe. BTW, when he gassed the kurds, would you have supported the US if they went to war with Iraq at that time? I bet not, and neither would the rest of the world.

Tony Stark
10-09-2003, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Typical liberal bull****. The US supplied Saddam with 1% of his weapons. You want to point fingers? Point them at Russia, France, and the rest of Europe. BTW, when he gassed the kurds, would you have supported the US if they went to war with Iraq at that time? I bet not, and neither would the rest of the world.

You sure about that?

http://www.rehberg.net/arming-iraq.html

Strike 1
February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries

Strike 2
December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq.


Strike 3
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.


Strike 4
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians.



December 20, 1983 Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. (1) (15)

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. (19)

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. (2)

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. (10)

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. (3)

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. (7)

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. (17)

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. (1)

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. (8)

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. (7)

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. (6) (13)

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. (8)

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. (8)

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. (7)

September 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." (15)

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. (1)

July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. (12)

August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. (8)

July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. (11)

August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. (14)

June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." (5)

July, 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. (18)

February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. (7)

August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. (4)

This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.

So what do these events have to do with the current conflict? Just this: If we do go to war with Iraq, it is important to know why. War will not really be about terrorism. Twenty years ago the United States threw its support behind Saddam Hussein in a geopolitical bid for enhanced access to oil. The trajectory given him by our support lead directly to the Gulf War and to the current crises. War, after all, will be about a history of misdeeds and miscalculations. And war will not be about morality. War will be about cynicism, deceit and a thirst for oil that knows no boundaries.

Dave22, that is fact. You act like the United States is not guilty like the rest. There it is right in your face. Read up and shut the hell up.

You never state facts with all the bull**** you speak. Just don't even talk anymore. Your arguments are weak. You should like the typical right wing jerk that spouts bull**** you hear from FOX news. :rolleyes:

dave22
10-09-2003, 08:23 PM
Listen dumbass, I hope that you can read because here's your proof. Damn leftie.

http://mattcrandall.com/blog/archives/000099.html

Have a nice night.

Tony Stark
10-09-2003, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Listen dumbass, I hope that you can read because here's your proof. Damn leftie.

http://mattcrandall.com/blog/archives/000099.html

Have a nice night.

Read my post before you comment next. :rolleyes:


This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.

So you are chart is right but you need to accept the fact that the US got there hands dirty too. Which makes us guilty just like Russia, France and Germany. I swear right-wingers spin **** like no other. You spin so the FACTS come out the way you want to see it. :rolleyes:

dave22
10-09-2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Tony Stark
Read my post before you comment next. :rolleyes:



So you are chart is right but you need to accept the fact that the US got there hands dirty too. Which makes us guilty just like Russia, France and Germany. I swear right-wingers spin **** like no other. You spin so the FACTS come out the way you want to see it. :rolleyes:

I know our hands are dirty. I never said that they weren't. But what were we supposed to do? I'm pretty sure that no one wanted the Ayatollah to win.

The US wanted neither side to win, nor lose. That's what we got.

BigKazWSM747
10-09-2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Which politician can you name, doesn't listen to those who run business? BTW, a few US soldiers dieing a week, really isn't that bad, and Iraq is being rebuilt. Every week, life is getting better in Iraq, despite what the lefties, and ultra right say.

alright i'll finally join in (despite for awhile deciding not to b/c threads like this have been a lot in the past)

american life lost is a horrible thing period. Iraq is getting better and i think we have a responsiblity to rebuild it, but Bush said Iraq was an immediate threat. It was not. The President said that he was worried about a mushroom cloud over a major city if Iraq continued with what it was doing, thats a pretty big lie. There are some benefits for the US being in Iraq but they pale to the disadvantages caused by this conflict or from the starting of the war.

-alienated Germany, France, and Russian allies. Hurting the war on terror significantly

-now being in a position to do very little to stop N. Korea (no moible troops if needed). Not to mention ignoring the more dangerous crisis there (now Iraq is dangerous b/c of all the terrorism in it, but before it was no where close).

-Having to spend over $240 billion over the next 3 years (so i've heard) and $87 bil this year while we have a major budget deficit.

-Crushing the apperance of the CIA and American Intel. b/c of not finding WMDs as promised. Bin Laden on the loose. Saddam still at large. Taliban leader Omar still at large.

-Allowing the terrorist networks to regroup while we were preparing to invade Iraq.

there are more but these are most of the major ones.

dave22
10-09-2003, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
alright i'll finally join in (despite for awhile deciding not to b/c threads like this have been a lot in the past)

american life lost is a horrible thing period. Iraq is getting better and i think we have a responsiblity to rebuild it, but Bush said Iraq was an immediate threat. It was not. The President said that he was worried about a mushroom cloud over a major city if Iraq continued with what it was doing, thats a pretty big lie. There are some benefits for the US being in Iraq but they pale to the disadvantages caused by this conflict or from the starting of the war.

-alienated Germany, France, and Russian allies. Hurting the war on terror significantly

-now being in a position to do very little to stop N. Korea (no moible troops if needed). Not to mention ignoring the more dangerous crisis there (now Iraq is dangerous b/c of all the terrorism in it, but before it was no where close).

-Having to spend over $240 billion over the next 3 years (so i've heard) and $87 bil this year while we have a major budget deficit.

-Crushing the apperance of the CIA and American Intel. b/c of not finding WMDs as promised. Bin Laden on the loose. Saddam still at large. Taliban leader Omar still at large.

-Allowing the terrorist networks to regroup while we were preparing to invade Iraq.

there are more but these are most of the major ones.

You have some good points there, but no one said it would be easy. Hell, let's just be happy with the fact that Saddam will never rule Iraq. And neither will his children.

ComfortEagle
10-09-2003, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by Tony Stark

So you are chart is right but you need to accept the fact that the US got there hands dirty too. Which makes us guilty just like Russia, France and Germany. I swear right-wingers spin **** like no other. You spin so the FACTS come out the way you want to see it. :rolleyes:

What exactly did dave spin? Nowhere did he say the US didn't sell weapons, he even stated it before you posted the first time. Your whole argument is that we shouldn't be in Iraq because we sold them weapons?? Hmm...



Everybody wants everything NOW NOW NOW! Bin Laden hasn't been captured--we've failed. Saddam is still at large--we've failed again. Iraq is now unstable (whereas there was a sort of pseudo-stability while Saddam was in power)--another. No WMDs (where are all the unaccounted for chemicals?). Things of this magnitude take time to accomplish.

bgzee
10-09-2003, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
alright i'll finally join in (despite for awhile deciding not to b/c threads like this have been a lot in the past)

american life lost is a horrible thing period. Iraq is getting better and i think we have a responsiblity to rebuild it, but Bush said Iraq was an immediate threat. It was not. The President said that he was worried about a mushroom cloud over a major city if Iraq continued with what it was doing, thats a pretty big lie. There are some benefits for the US being in Iraq but they pale to the disadvantages caused by this conflict or from the starting of the war.

-alienated Germany, France, and Russian allies. Hurting the war on terror significantly

-now being in a position to do very little to stop N. Korea (no moible troops if needed). Not to mention ignoring the more dangerous crisis there (now Iraq is dangerous b/c of all the terrorism in it, but before it was no where close).

-Having to spend over $240 billion over the next 3 years (so i've heard) and $87 bil this year while we have a major budget deficit.

-Crushing the apperance of the CIA and American Intel. b/c of not finding WMDs as promised. Bin Laden on the loose. Saddam still at large. Taliban leader Omar still at large.

-Allowing the terrorist networks to regroup while we were preparing to invade Iraq.

there are more but these are most of the major ones.

A lot of real good points.

Starsky
10-09-2003, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
alright i'll finally join in (despite for awhile deciding not to b/c threads like this have been a lot in the past)

american life lost is a horrible thing period. Iraq is getting better and i think we have a responsiblity to rebuild it, but Bush said Iraq was an immediate threat. It was not. The President said that he was worried about a mushroom cloud over a major city if Iraq continued with what it was doing, thats a pretty big lie. There are some benefits for the US being in Iraq but they pale to the disadvantages caused by this conflict or from the starting of the war.

-alienated Germany, France, and Russian allies. Hurting the war on terror significantly

-now being in a position to do very little to stop N. Korea (no moible troops if needed). Not to mention ignoring the more dangerous crisis there (now Iraq is dangerous b/c of all the terrorism in it, but before it was no where close).

-Having to spend over $240 billion over the next 3 years (so i've heard) and $87 bil this year while we have a major budget deficit.

-Crushing the apperance of the CIA and American Intel. b/c of not finding WMDs as promised. Bin Laden on the loose. Saddam still at large. Taliban leader Omar still at large.

-Allowing the terrorist networks to regroup while we were preparing to invade Iraq.

there are more but these are most of the major ones.

We'll its good to see an anti-war reponse that doesn't teeter over the ledge of Haliburton conspiracy theories. That said, I agree when you say that every time a soldier dies, it is terrible for the family and friends. But this does not do anything to diminish the resolve or justification for the war. Everyone knew there would be casualties, most people expected thousands.

However, if put in historical perspective, the conflict and post-war operations are going remarkably well. The very fact that we are talking a timetable of several years for rebuilding a country, seems almost suspiciously fast. The soldiers, generals, and senators who come back are all saying nearly the exact opposite of the media...seriously. Its actually going pretty well.

If Germany, France, Russia, Belgium and some others refuse to assist the war on terrorists based on differences at the UN, then they really aren't allies. They need to look past their oil contracts, arms deals, multi-polar world aspirations and see that the war on terror is worth fighting.

In regards to some of your points, Bush never said Iraq was an immediate threat, nor did he say it was an imminent threat. That may have been what came from Tony Blair, but not George Bush. This war could have waited 5+ years with no significant increase in the threat, however it would have just ended up costing more American lives.

I have already outlined why this war had to happen, and it had nothing to do with Saddam being evil, patriotism, freeing the Iraqi people, or killing the small number of terrorists in Iraq. It had everything to do with Saddams ambition and ability to produce and proliferate WMD...It was inevitable that he had to be taken out, and perfectly justified. The botulism reference strains they found aside, Saddam Hussein still had the desire, body of intelligence, body of works, and ability to make weapons of mass destruction. The Kay report confirms this.

Yes, there was bad intelligence. Yes, it could have waited. Yes, the post-war predictions were wrong. But in no way did Saddam give up on his WMD program.

You make some good points about North Korea, but they will be obliterated if they try to take advantage of Iraq.

Banban
10-10-2003, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
If Germany, France, Russia, Belgium and some others refuse to assist the war on terrorists based on differences at the UN, then they really aren't allies. They need to look past their oil contracts, arms deals, multi-polar world aspirations and see that the war on terror is worth fighting.

:mad:that kind of bull**** really drives me crazy

Do you really think it was beneficial for french, financially speaking (oil, arms, etc), to oppose the war?? Tell me, what would have prevented us to join the "coalition" and then claim our due if money was our only motivation sparky?

oh, and by the way, this is just an extract from dubya's speech the 01/29/03 :

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children ( Edit : and a few months later rumsfeld was shaking hands with sadam ). This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies ( Edit : yeah, GWB never implied any link between Irak and terrorists :rolleyes: ), constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. "

So before proclaiming BS like "In regards to some of your points, Bush never said Iraq was an immediate threat, nor did he say it was an imminent threat. That may have been what came from Tony Blair, but not George Bush" please check reality next time.

bgzee
10-10-2003, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
We'll its good to see an anti-war reponse that doesn't teeter over the ledge of Haliburton conspiracy theories. That said, I agree when you say that every time a soldier dies, it is terrible for the family and friends. But this does not do anything to diminish the resolve or justification for the war. Everyone knew there would be casualties, most people expected thousands.

However, if put in historical perspective, the conflict and post-war operations are going remarkably well. The very fact that we are talking a timetable of several years for rebuilding a country, seems almost suspiciously fast. The soldiers, generals, and senators who come back are all saying nearly the exact opposite of the media...seriously. Its actually going pretty well.

If Germany, France, Russia, Belgium and some others refuse to assist the war on terrorists based on differences at the UN, then they really aren't allies. They need to look past their oil contracts, arms deals, multi-polar world aspirations and see that the war on terror is worth fighting.

In regards to some of your points, Bush never said Iraq was an immediate threat, nor did he say it was an imminent threat. That may have been what came from Tony Blair, but not George Bush. This war could have waited 5+ years with no significant increase in the threat, however it would have just ended up costing more American lives.

I have already outlined why this war had to happen, and it had nothing to do with Saddam being evil, patriotism, freeing the Iraqi people, or killing the small number of terrorists in Iraq. It had everything to do with Saddams ambition and ability to produce and proliferate WMD...It was inevitable that he had to be taken out, and perfectly justified. The botulism reference strains they found aside, Saddam Hussein still had the desire, body of intelligence, body of works, and ability to make weapons of mass destruction. The Kay report confirms this.

Yes, there was bad intelligence. Yes, it could have waited. Yes, the post-war predictions were wrong. But in no way did Saddam give up on his WMD program.

You make some good points about North Korea, but they will be obliterated if they try to take advantage of Iraq.

How are you gonna say George Bush never said Iraq was an immediate threat? He said it in almost every damn speech he gave about the war. And as far as the rebuilding process... the media wouldnt "hide" the progress if there was any being made. And jesus christ stop kidding yourself by saying the war was over WMD. If WMD is what Bush REALLY were concerned about we would have went after N Korea before we went after Iraq.

dave22
10-10-2003, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
How are you gonna say George Bush never said Iraq was an immediate threat? He said it in almost every damn speech he gave about the war. And as far as the rebuilding process... the media wouldnt "hide" the progress if there was any being made. And jesus christ stop kidding yourself by saying the war was over WMD. If WMD is what Bush REALLY were concerned about we would have went after N Korea before we went after Iraq.

The public wouldn't be able to stomach a war with N. Korea, and on ally would help us, except S. Korea. Is that what you would want? BTW, if you thought that the protests against the war in Iraq were bad, imagine them if we went to war with N. Korea.

I'm tired of people mentioning N. Korea, because you damn well know that you wouldn't support a war against them either.

What if defeating N. Korea cost 5000 soldiers their lives? Would you still have war with N. Korea?

Banban
10-10-2003, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by dave22
The public wouldn't be able to stomach a war with N. Korea, and on ally would help us, except S. Korea. Is that what you would want? BTW, if you thought that the protests against the war in Iraq were bad, imagine them if we went to war with N. Korea.

I'm tired of people mentioning N. Korea, because you damn well know that you wouldn't support a war against them either.

What if defeating N. Korea cost 5000 soldiers their lives? Would you still have war with N. Korea?

I don't understand : why do you claim the public would have been less supportiv to a war against north korea than against Irak ???

dave22
10-10-2003, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by Banban
I don't understand : why do you claim the public would have been less supportiv to a war against north korea than against Irak ???

Because the thought that it would cost thosands of soldiers their lives. That's why they would be against it, why would there be more support for a war against N. Korea, than Iraq?

rottie
10-10-2003, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by dave22
Because the thought that it would cost thosands of soldiers their lives. That's why they would be against it, why would there be more support for a war against N. Korea, than Iraq?

Because North Korea is a ligetimate threat maybe??? That would be my first clue.

lucubration
10-10-2003, 08:53 AM
um no I'm not a liberal dav22. I support both less government and the Constitution. It's only because so many Republicans have gone AWOL in the brains department that people can even imply that because someone doesn't support bull**** and expensive war, that they are therefore a liberal.............

anyway here's why we really attacked Iraq................

http://www.eeew.net/dp/1-69.htm

rottie
10-10-2003, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by lucubration
um no I'm not a liberal dav22. I support both less government and the Constitution. It's only because so many Republicans have gone AWOL in the brains department that people can even imply that because someone doesn't support bull**** and expensive war, that they are therefore a liberal.............

anyway here's why we really attacked Iraq................

http://www.eeew.net/dp/1-69.htm

hahahah! Excellent find.

They must have took that word for word from an arguement here between the liberals and conservatives. :D

Banban
10-10-2003, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by dave22
Because the thought that it would cost thosands of soldiers their lives. That's why they would be against it,

ok, so basically you say it's better to fight an hypothetic threat (turning out to be ****) at a small cost (5 billions$ + 10 GI / week) than fighting a REAL threat for a bigger cost.

in fact i agree with you : it's certainly easier to handle for the public. But tell me then, do you find your gvt's choice clever, responsible, or...?

dave22
10-10-2003, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by rottie
Because North Korea is a ligetimate threat maybe??? That would be my first clue.

Really would Canada help us, if we went to war with N. Korea? Would Europe? Especially France. I doubt it. So if they're such a threat, would your country be willing to be our allies, if such a war took place?

dave22
10-10-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Banban
ok, so basically you say it's better to fight an hypothetic threat (turning out to be ****) at a small cost (5 billions$ + 10 GI / week) than fighting a REAL threat for a bigger cost.

in fact i agree with you : it's certainly easier to handle for the public. But tell me then, do you find your gvt's choice clever, responsible, or...?

Would you be able to stomach the losses of up to 5000 US soldiers minimum? Why would you support a war against N. Korea, and not Iran or Iraq?

dave22
10-10-2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by lucubration
um no I'm not a liberal dav22. I support both less government and the Constitution. It's only because so many Republicans have gone AWOL in the brains department that people can even imply that because someone doesn't support bull**** and expensive war, that they are therefore a liberal.............

anyway here's why we really attacked Iraq................

http://www.eeew.net/dp/1-69.htm

Did I call you a liberal, to tell you the truth, I can't remember if I did. Sorry.

rottie
10-10-2003, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by dave22
Really would Canada help us, if we went to war with N. Korea? Would Europe? Especially France. I doubt it. So if they're such a threat, would your country be willing to be our allies, if such a war took place?

Of course Canada would help! We fought in Korea the last damn time!

Canada and France would have helped in Iraq if they would have been as much a threat as North Korea.

North Korea is a legit threat, and I imagine military action would be unanimous among the G8 countries.

comparing North Korea to Iraq is like comparing feathers and elephants.

Banban
10-10-2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by dave22
Would you be able to stomach the losses of up to 5000 US soldiers minimum?

not being american and not having considered the N. Korea's threat issues, i can't answer.

You answer my questions by other questions and i don't clearly see your point : do you imply that it is better to attack, at low cost, a country that is a hypothetical threat than attacking, at a higher cost, a country that is a real threat?


Originally posted by dave22
Why would you support a war against N. Korea, and not Iran or Iraq?

I never said i would support a war against North Korea, but, as you point that US went on war to Irak because of the danger of them selling WMD to terrorists, i just point that it would have been more logical to go to war with North Korea, which actually have real (and not hypothetic) weapons of mass destruction, including nukes, and Kim Il Jong being at least as dangerous and as bloody a dictator as sadam was.

dave22
10-10-2003, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Banban
not being american and not having considered the N. Korea's threat issues, i can't answer.

You answer my questions by other questions and i don't clearly see your point : do you imply that it is better to attack, at low cost, a country that is a hypothetical threat than attacking, at a higher cost, a country that is a real threat?



I never said i would support a war against North Korea, but, as you point that US went on war to Irak because of the danger of them selling WMD to terrorists, i just point that it would have been more logical to go to war with North Korea, which actually have real (and not hypothetic) weapons of mass destruction, including nukes, and Kim Il Jong being at least as dangerous and as bloody a dictator as sadam was.

Okay let's say this, what if it cost France, 3000 soldiers their lives? Would you help us in N. Korea then?

See N. Korea's like a game over there, they make alot of noise, thump their chest, and we decide whether or not to give them aid.

Unlike most people, I really didn't think that Iraq was that big of a threat, and neither did my professor. Before the war even started, he knew that it would only last a couple of weeks.

So no, Iraq wasn't a "huge" threat, but it was still a threat.

goblin6
10-10-2003, 10:42 AM
this is the only part I am going to comment on, since we are all just rehashing stuff here.

now being in a position to do very little to stop N. Korea (no moible troops if needed). Not to mention ignoring the more dangerous crisis there (now Iraq is dangerous b/c of all the terrorism in it, but before it was no where close).

I beg to differ. The 2nd Infantry in South Korea are in strong defensive postioins and would be able to hold out against an all out North Korean onslaught long enough for the 3rd Armore , 1st Infantry and the 2 Armored Cav along with a Marine Expeditonary force to land equip and get to the front. South Korea and the US would also have air superiority.

Basically it works out one soldier in defensive position is worth five on the attack.

dave22
10-10-2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by rottie
Of course Canada would help! We fought in Korea the last damn time!

Canada and France would have helped in Iraq if they would have been as much a threat as North Korea.

North Korea is a legit threat, and I imagine military action would be unanimous among the G8 countries.

comparing North Korea to Iraq is like comparing feathers and elephants.

Of course Canada would help? How do you know this? Do you speak for your president of Prime minister? How many troops would you contribute? Why do you think France would have helped? I doubt it.

Also the world, and the American Public wouldn't stand for it, they would'nt have approved a war with N. Korea. Unless they did something first.

BTW, I know that N. Korea's a much bigger threat than Iraq ever was.

rottie
10-10-2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by dave22
Of course Canada would help? How do you know this? Do you speak for your president of Prime minister? How many troops would you contribute? Why do you think France would have helped? I doubt it.

Also the world, and the American Public wouldn't stand for it, they would'nt have approved a war with N. Korea. Unless they did something first.

BTW, I know that N. Korea's a much bigger threat than Iraq ever was.

Man get your head out of your ass. You think the ONLY person in the entire world that is worried about WMD and nuclear proliferation is George Dubya Bush?

:rolleyes:

Starsky
10-10-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Banban
:mad:that kind of bull**** really drives me crazy

Do you really think it was beneficial for french, financially speaking (oil, arms, etc), to oppose the war?? Tell me, what would have prevented us to join the "coalition" and then claim our due if money was our only motivation sparky?

oh, and by the way, this is just an extract from dubya's speech the 01/29/03 :

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children ( Edit : and a few months later rumsfeld was shaking hands with sadam ). This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies ( Edit : yeah, GWB never implied any link between Irak and terrorists :rolleyes: ), constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. "

So before proclaiming BS like "In regards to some of your points, Bush never said Iraq was an immediate threat, nor did he say it was an imminent threat. That may have been what came from Tony Blair, but not George Bush" please check reality next time.

In regards to your first question, yes. There were plenty of motivations for the French to be against the war, but those were part of them.

Second, you implying with rolled eyes that I believe George Bush never made a connection between Iraq and terrorism is false.

Third, you saying that the Rumsfeld handshake occured a few months after the gassing of Saddams "own citizens" which in reality occured 5 years after the 1983 handshake, is false.

Fourth, everything in that quote he made was right, and you posting it proves absolutely nothing to help your own point.

Fifth, no where did he say the threat was "imminent". Show me where he said that before you bitch and moan. General Tommy Franks said that the threat from Iraq was *not * imminent, but the point was to stop it from ever becoming imminent. This I agree with.

rottie
10-10-2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Starsky

Third, you saying that the Rumsfeld handshake occured a few months after the gassing of Saddams "own citizens" which in reality occured 5 years after the 1983 handshake, is false.



Yeah. But he was gasing Iranians... which makes it alright.

:rolleyes:

Starsky
10-10-2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by rottie
Yeah. But he was gasing Iranians... which makes it alright.

:rolleyes:

We helped allies like Stalin, and he did alot more damage than that...was it alright then?

rottie
10-10-2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
We helped allies like Stalin, and he did alot more damage than that...was it alright then?

So becasue you helped Stalin, its alright for Saddam to gas Iranians, but not alright for him to gas Kurds?

Hypocrite.

Starsky
10-10-2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by rottie
So becasue you helped Stalin, its alright for Saddam to gas Iranians, but not alright for him to gas Kurds?

Hypocrite.

Stalin was in a war, Saddam was in a war. We helped both. We had a common interest in seeing Nazism defeated and in seeing radical Islamic fascism defeated. Stalin slaughtered millions of his own citizens, Saddam did to a lesser extent. I dont think either was alright, but withdrawing support based on morality as opposed to strategy is quickest way to lose a war.

Second, I was never arguing morality..I was arguing facts.

Smokinghawk
10-10-2003, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
And those sanctions worked wonders didn't they? :rolleyes:


Well, ****n Powell said they were working just fine. This brings us back to the very post post in this thread.

goblin6
10-10-2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Smokinghawk
Well, ****n Powell said they were working just fine. This brings us back to the very post post in this thread.
He was speaking of policies toward Iraq in general he made no specific mention of sanctions.

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place." (note that last sentence)
Those policies included the no Fly zones which did more to prevent Saddam projecting conventional power than the sanctions.


The sanctions were in place so Saddam would fully comply with the terms of the cease fire and they obviously did not work at all.

BigKazWSM747
10-10-2003, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
Stalin was in a war, Saddam was in a war. We helped both. We had a common interest in seeing Nazism defeated and in seeing radical Islamic fascism defeated. Stalin slaughtered millions of his own citizens, Saddam did to a lesser extent. I dont think either was alright, but withdrawing support based on morality as opposed to strategy is quickest way to lose a war.

Second, I was never arguing morality..I was arguing facts.

Morality plays a major role in diplomatic relations and the United States is supposed to represent freedom and liberty to all. And we didn't want Saddam to win, we wanted a draw where both sides were left weakened. We wanted Stalin to win (difference in scenarios). It was really only after WWII when relations went south with the soviets (although you could say after FDR died they went down).

goblin6
10-10-2003, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
Morality plays a major role in diplomatic relations and the United States is supposed to represent freedom and liberty to all. And we didn't want Saddam to win, we wanted a draw where both sides were left weakened. We wanted Stalin to win (difference in scenarios). It was really only after WWII when relations went south with the soviets (although you could say after FDR died they went down).
Actually realtions with the Soviets went to crap over who would get to Berlin first, and then the resulting slamming down of the Iron Curtain.

dave22
10-10-2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by rottie
Yeah. But he was gasing Iranians... which makes it alright.

:rolleyes:

You know, when it comes to handshakes, there's probably more pictures of Chirac shaking hands with Saddam, then Rumsfeld.

dave22
10-10-2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by rottie
So becasue you helped Stalin, its alright for Saddam to gas Iranians, but not alright for him to gas Kurds?

Hypocrite.

How come I never hear you bashing Europe, in their MAJOR role, in helping Saddam?

Starsky
10-10-2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
Morality plays a major role in diplomatic relations and the United States is supposed to represent freedom and liberty to all. And we didn't want Saddam to win, we wanted a draw where both sides were left weakened. We wanted Stalin to win (difference in scenarios). It was really only after WWII when relations went south with the soviets (although you could say after FDR died they went down).

True, but you have to wiegh your threats. I have no problem with the strategy of using one totalitarian state to destroy or weaken another into a stalemate. Judging how the Soviet Union has collapsed, and how Saddam never took Iran or Kuwait, and many other scenarios I would say it worked.

Right now the U.S. is in talks with Communist Vietnam to help fight terrorists...should they stop? Its a perfect case for it...If there was still a huge Communist Bloc, terrorists would be the perfect force to destabilize them as well.

dave22
10-10-2003, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
True, but you have to wiegh your threats. I have no problem with the strategy of using one totalitarian state to destroy or weaken another into a stalemate. Judging how the Soviet Union has collapsed, and how Saddam never took Iran or Kuwait, and many other scenarios I would say it worked.

Right now the U.S. is in talks with Communist Vietnam to help fight terrorists...should they stop? Its a perfect case for it...If there was still a huge Communist Bloc, terrorists would be the perfect force to destabilize them as well.

True as in the case of the Iraq-Iran war. Wanted neither side to win or lose. The result, both countries were economically bankrupt, and in debt, after the war.

Hey Starsky, can you answer this for me. What's up with Russians, and so-called communists, and their love for Stalin? I know it's a little off topic, but just wanted to know, thanks.

Starsky
10-10-2003, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Hey Starsky, can you answer this for me. What's up with Russians, and so-called communists, and their love for Stalin? I know it's a little off topic, but just wanted to know, thanks.

Most Russians actually hate Stalin. Even some parts of the Communist Party admitted he went a little overboard after he died. When the USSR still believed in Communism, they considered Marx to be God, Lenin his prophet, and Stalin a heroic leader. It was an athiestic religion in which they taught Marx, Engels, Hegel and Lenin in school.

Stalin personally signed death orders for tens of thousands of people, and considered it his duty to do so. Even if the people were innocent, his subordinates had to meet the death quota or they would be signed themselves. Every once in a while, Stalin would circle a name to let the person live if he felt like it. At the time most Russians considered him a savior, kind of like Jesus. People in Siberian Camps(Hell) would send him letters to try and get rescued, even though they didn't know he sent them there. At some camps there was a 99% death rate, which wasn't really a problem, since they could send more people every year.

Then there is the myth among some leftists of the good Lenin, and the bad Stalin. In reality, Lenin was an evil man, except that compared to Stalin he looked like a choirboy. Why anyone still looks up to Stalin, I wouldn't know, but there are probably commies who do.

dave22
10-10-2003, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
Most Russians actually hate Stalin. Even some parts of the Communist Party admitted he went a little overboard after he died. When the USSR still believed in Communism, they considered Marx to be God, Lenin his prophet, and Stalin a heroic leader. It was an athiestic religion in which they taught Marx, Engels, Hegel and Lenin in school.

Stalin personally signed death orders for tens of thousands of people, and considered it his duty to do so. Even if the people were innocent, his subordinates had to meet the death quota or they would be signed themselves. Every once in a while, Stalin would circle a name to let the person live if he felt like it. At the time most Russians considered him a savior, kind of like Jesus. People in Siberian Camps(Hell) would send him letters to try and get rescued, even though they didn't know he sent them there. At some camps there was a 99% death rate, which wasn't really a problem, since they could send more people every year.

Then there is the myth among some leftists of the good Lenin, and the bad Stalin. In reality, Lenin was an evil man, except that compared to Stalin he looked like a choirboy. Why anyone still looks up to Stalin, I wouldn't know, but there are probably commies who do.

Ahhh, you saw that special on the history channel didn't you? Before his death, he was going to start a new purge, and I doubt men like Kruschev, Molotov, Beria, and the rest of the goons would have survived it. He was even denounced by Kruschev. Damn, we need a spell check, I know I'm getting the name wrong.

I also read, that many American politicians welcomed the Soviet-Nazi war, their thoughts were, "Let them wipe each other out."
As with the Iraq-Iran war, they sort of did. With a little help from the UK, and US. Oh, let's not forget the French Resistance as well.

irpker
10-10-2003, 10:44 PM
Stalin was hard to the core. You can't get more gangster then not bartering for your own captured son. The History channel was very informative. Everyone should watch it to see how great teh collectivist concept is.

BigKazWSM747
10-11-2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by irpker
Stalin was hard to the core. You can't get more gangster then not bartering for your own captured son. The History channel was very informative. Everyone should watch it to see how great teh collectivist concept is.

hmmmm do you know if they will be replaying this? I missed it and it sounds like its definately worth a look.

dave22
10-11-2003, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
hmmmm do you know if they will be replaying this? I missed it and it sounds like its definately worth a look.

Maybe, the background music was cool. It was from Bram Stoker's Dracula, the one with Gary Oldman.

Banban
10-12-2003, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
In regards to your first question, yes. There were plenty of motivations for the French to be against the war, but those were part of them.

Second, you implying with rolled eyes that I believe George Bush never made a connection between Iraq and terrorism is false.

Third, you saying that the Rumsfeld handshake occured a few months after the gassing of Saddams "own citizens" which in reality occured 5 years after the 1983 handshake, is false.

Fourth, everything in that quote he made was right, and you posting it proves absolutely nothing to help your own point.

Fifth, no where did he say the threat was "imminent". Show me where he said that before you bitch and moan. General Tommy Franks said that the threat from Iraq was *not * imminent, but the point was to stop it from ever becoming imminent. This I agree with.

1) No, no, no, no. You missed my point which was : if financial issues had play a part in France's position toward Irak's war, they would have constituted PRO war motivation. Got it?

2)Ok. Pro war people seem to be confused nowadays concerning reasons to support the war : links with terror, lots of weapons of mass destruction readied in 45 minutes,... every legit reasons are crumbling. However there is still that solid belief, as stated by dubya, that "the world is a safer place now saddam is gone". I wonder what will happen when they realise that a world where a country can bypass the UN and launch a "preemptiv war" based solely on no proof and made up intelligence is actually the opposite of a "safer" place.

3)point dug by other members

4)yeah, right

5)Well, i thought that sentences like "time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer." did somehow convey a feeling of imminent danger and of an urgent need to act... however, if your point was wether or not Bush uttered the word "imminent"...geez...you may be right :rolleyes:

bgzee
10-13-2003, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Banban
1) No, no, no, no. You missed my point which was : if financial issues had play a part in France's position toward Irak's war, they would have constituted PRO war motivation. Got it?

2)Ok. Pro war people seem to be confused nowadays concerning reasons to support the war : links with terror, lots of weapons of mass destruction readied in 45 minutes,... every legit reasons are crumbling. However there is still that solid belief, as stated by dubya, that "the world is a safer place now saddam is gone". I wonder what will happen when they realise that a world where a country can bypass the UN and launch a "preemptiv war" based solely on no proof and made up intelligence is actually the opposite of a "safer" place.

3)point dug by other members

4)yeah, right

5)Well, i thought that sentences like "time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer." did somehow convey a feeling of imminent danger and of an urgent need to act... however, if your point was wether or not Bush uttered the word "imminent"...geez...you may be right :rolleyes:

Your second point puts it all into perspective. For some reason these pro-war people think we're priveledged and we can do things like that. Thanks to bush we have more enemies than we already had.

Da Bomb
06-01-2007, 12:32 AM
bump

icey
06-01-2007, 12:41 AM
ROFL!!!!

Is this thread where the (****n) thing came from? Wow it's over 4 years old! Awesome

Negrodamus
06-01-2007, 12:52 AM
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c172/Franchise69/****n20powell20bantustan1.jpg

gr8fubar420
06-01-2007, 01:04 AM
bump

wow strong bump.

hittman
06-01-2007, 01:14 AM
bump

negged

John L
06-01-2007, 01:17 AM
wow strong bumpage of a 4 year old thread

peptobismol
07-10-2009, 11:45 PM
Oh no, did I do that?

George Carlinian
07-11-2009, 12:43 PM
I wish Americans would hold politicians accountable like they do in the rest of the world.