NationStates Jolt Archive

So now it appears that Saddam had dormant programs that he was just waiting to revive. he was violating many UN agreements by maintaining several duel use industries.

Is it really a surprise?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6023159/

Actually, Saddam did have some pretty bad-ass WMDs. Back in the eighties, that is. They were given to him by his good pal Ronnie Reagan.

So now "desire to acquire" = "imminent threat"? What bizarre alternate universe do you come from?

If I had an intense "desire to aquire" a nuclear warhead and I could not be monitored or stopped easily, wouldn't that make me a threat?

Actually, Saddam did have some pretty bad-ass WMDs. Back in the eighties, that is. They were given to him by his good pal Ronnie Reagan.


Reagan gave Saddam WMD's? What kind?

So now it appears that Saddam had dormant programs that he was just waiting to revive. he was violating many UN agreements by maintaining several duel use industries.

Is it really a surprise?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6023159/

So it's alright for the only country to have ever used them to have them, but not a little one that would never have the guts to use them due to knowing that it would mean instant mass barbeque on their own soil?

I think not.
Noone should have them.

So now "desire to acquire" = "imminent threat"? What bizarre alternate universe do you come from?

I have threatened to attack you but I do not have any weapons to do so yet. I have the desire to get those weapons and carry out my threat. Do you just sit there and watch me as I go about getting the weapon to attack you with?

What kind of bizarre world are you living in?

I have threatened to attack you but I do not have any weapons to do so yet. I have the desire to get those weapons and carry out my threat. Do you just sit there and watch me as I go about getting the weapon to attack you with?

What kind of bizarre world are you living in?
By what definition was the US just sitting there and watching Hussein prior to the war? Was containing Hussein with sanctions and enforcing the no-fly zones just sitting there? Give me the biggest break.

So it's alright for the only country to have ever used them to have them, but not a little one that would never have the guts to use them due to knowing that it would mean instant mass barbeque on their own soil?

I think not.
Noone should have them.

Wow.....the Soviet Union created recombinent DNA weapons to single out people with distinct genetic traits thus being harmless to their own troops and people worry about the US having weapons to defend itself with. Wait and see what comes out of Russia in the next few years and makes its way into the hands of certain people.

http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/15-5biowar.html

By what definition was the US just sitting there and watching Hussein prior to the war? Was containing Hussein with sanctions and enforcing the no-fly zones just sitting there? Give me the biggest break.

Sure...and France and Germany were going around the UN sanctions helping Saddam. Why do you think they fought tooth and nail against us going in there. We found a lot of weapons that were made in France and germany on the battlefield.

Wake up to who our real allies are and how useless the UN really is.

So it's alright for the only country to have ever used them to have them, but not a little one that would never have the guts to use them due to knowing that it would mean instant mass barbeque on their own soil?

I think not.
Noone should have them.

Man, you need to take a history class.

Britain, France, and Germany ALL used chemical weapons in WWI. Chemical weapons are considered WMD. Therefore, the U.S. is NOT the "only country to have ever used them."

So that means the US will be going after Iran, Libya, Syria, and Eygpt too for starters?

The fact that the war was started on a false premise remains unchanged.

lol Bill you are starting to sound like MKULTRA. :p

I have threatened to attack you but I do not have any weapons to do so yet.
When did Saddam threaten to attack America?

Oh and France and Germany are your real allies. When America is attacked, they will stand by you. They will not stand by you when your gov't launches unnecessary invasions based on flimsy, dodgy intelligence.

Iran was (still is) closer to getting WMD. North Korea already has them. We went after Saddam. If this doesn't prove Bush is a pussy I don't know what does. Now for a list of some real men.
maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=real_men

The media sez Israel has WMDs lets go & invade them

The media sez Israel has WMDs lets go & invade them
Israel is surrounded by nothing but enemies who have stated their goal of destroying the nation of Israel. Israel is also a democracy. I would support Israel's possesion of those weapons way before Iran or North Korea.

Iran was (still is) closer to getting WMD. North Korea already has them. We went after Saddam. If this doesn't prove Bush is a pussy I don't know what does. Now for a list of some real men.
maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=real_men

It doesn't mean Bush is a pussy at all. It is good strategy to attack your enemy at his weakest points. This is advocated by Sun Tzu and other classical strategic theorists. Iran is stronger than Iraq, North Korea's strength relative to Iraq is debatable. So, Bush was going for the enemy's "soft underbelly," the way the Allies attacked Italy first in WWII.

Also, your post seems to suggest the "one-size-fits-all" strategy the left loves so much, insisting that if one enemy is attacked for a certain reason, then all enemies fitting that classification must be attacked militarily. This is just plain stupid and pig-headed. Different enemies and different situations call for different strategies. (How many times do I have to post this before people get it?)

When did Saddam threaten to attack America?

Oh and France and Germany are your real allies. When America is attacked, they will stand by you. They will not stand by you when your gov't launches unnecessary invasions based on flimsy, dodgy intelligence.

Are you politically brain-dead. Saddam was getting weapons. ANd had weapons. THe U.N. didn't sit aropund and do nothing, they stood around and di nothing. THey checked one house then asked to check another. Saddam let them in after he moved the wepons. When U.S. forces came he shot missiles at us that the U.N. and he said he didn't have.

France, Russia, and Germany didn't want us in there. WHY? Simple. THey were breaking U.N. embargos. No one was to trade with Saddam. They gave him found and weapons and money and he gave oil and money. They were breaking U.N. sanctions. Saddam's men used Russian, German, and French weaponry along with the SCUD missiles they claimed they didn't have to repell us.

Get your facts straight before you go blabbering around like your liberal self.

When did Saddam threaten to attack America?

Oh and France and Germany are your real allies. When America is attacked, they will stand by you. They will not stand by you when your gov't launches unnecessary invasions based on flimsy, dodgy intelligence.

Please....Saddam wanted to attack the US very badly. He placed a bounty on every pilot that overflew Iraq in support of the no-fly zones. He attempted to assasinate G.H.W. Bush as well.

As for France and Germany, I will withhold judgement on them for now. France actively went against the US in the UN. If you don't agree, fine, you abstain, but to actively work AGAINST an "ally" is quite telling. But what can you expect from the French anyway?

Iraq had no WMD's but had intentions of getting them...So what? The US also have WMD (in large amounts) and have been using them.

It doesn't mean Bush is a pussy at all. It is good strategy to attack your enemy at his weakest points. This is advocated by Sun Tzu and other classical strategic theorists. Iran is stronger than Iraq, North Korea's strength relative to Iraq is debatable. So, Bush was going for the enemy's "soft underbelly," the way the Allies attacked Italy first in WWII.

Also, your post seems to suggest the "one-size-fits-all" strategy the left loves so much, insisting that if one enemy is attacked for a certain reason, then all enemies fitting that classification must be attacked militarily. This is just plain stupid and pig-headed. Different enemies and different situations call for different strategies. (How many times do I have to post this before people get it?)
North Korea is stronger than Iraq ever was. Also, I don't advocate invading either Iraq or north Korea. That would be too expensive in terms of lives lost and money spent. We should fund the liberal elements in those countries, encourage them to revolt and support them with American weapons and airpower. The enemie's weak spot is the oppresion of liberal elements in the population. If we can help them overthrow their leaders the new government would have legitimacy among the masses and we wouldn't be faced with an occupation like Iraq.

Please....Saddam wanted to attack the US very badly. He placed a bounty on every pilot that overflew Iraq in support of the no-fly zones. He attempted to assasinate G.H.W. Bush as well.

As for France and Germany, I will withhold judgement on them for now. France actively went against the US in the UN. If you don't agree, fine, you abstain, but to actively work AGAINST an "ally" is quite telling. But what can you expect from the French anyway?
Pease yourself, Saddam attacked those that flew in his terrority. Its called Sovernty.
Te no fly zones were not made by the UN. France may have ulterior motives for working against us, but we shouldn't have attacked Sasddam with Flimsy intelligence. At the very least we should have apologized for misleading people when we found out it was wrong!
Tell me why we have yet to do so?

So what? The US also have WMD (in large amounts) and have been using them.
Used them once in WW2. Also the US isn't likely to give weapons to terrorist groups. If Iran gives Hizbolla (I don't know how to spell it exactly) a nuke and they decide to nuke Israel it would provoke a region wide nuclear conflict. If they hit the US it would be even worse because we have more nukes, and we might decide to retaliate much more harshly.

Israel is surrounded by nothing but enemies who have stated their goal of destroying the nation of Israel. Israel is also a democracy. I would support Israel's possesion of those weapons way before Iran or North Korea.And? Israel made those enemies. And BTW Israel is only a democracy for a part of the people living there and it is no free society under the rule of law.

[QUOTE=Biff Pileon]So now it appears that Saddam had dormant programs that he was just waiting to revive. he was violating many UN agreements by maintaining several duel use industries.

Is it really a surprise?

The real surprise is that it took the American public to come to the realisation that Saddam was NEVER a threat to the United States. This is why several countries such as Canada and France, traditional allies of the USA, were so reluctant to enter into the Iraq war (Canada still has not).

The fact that all the UN personnel in Iraq prior to the commencement of the war went around saying this same thing has now been forgotten.

Remember Hans BLIX?

The US will always seek to justify its actions, no matter how illegal they are. While most Canadians agreed that Saddam was a criminal, liar and all-round bad guy, that alone did not justify an otherwise illegal invasion not sanctionwed by the UN. Only American arrogance does!

Ideologystan rules!

It doesn't mean Bush is a pussy at all. It is good strategy to attack your enemy at his weakest points. This is advocated by Sun Tzu and other classical strategic theorists. Iran is stronger than Iraq, North Korea's strength relative to Iraq is debatable. So, Bush was going for the enemy's "soft underbelly," the way the Allies attacked Italy first in WWII.

Yeah, and the assault on Italy was a great idea, wasn't it? You seem to be assuming here that Iraq, Iran and North Korea are all one enemy, rather than three entirely separate nations, coldly friendly to each other at best, mutually hostile at worst.

I agree, though, that from a certain point of view a military attack on Iraq could make strategic sense for the USA: it helps in the encirclement of China, it promises USA access to that sweet, sweet oil, and the country was so poorly defended that the war could probably be won with a small-scale US deployment, minimal US casualties, and the Americans would be received by the grateful Iraqi people as liberators. Sadly, although the encirclement of China thing is coming on OK (although huge numbers of US troops are now bogged down in one locale), the price of oil has rocketed and the Iraqi people haven't yet forgotten who put Saddam in charge, who kept him there throughout the 1980s, who smiled on his worst excesses, and who failed to support them in 1991 after encouraging them to rebel against him. Some strategies, like the Allied invasion of Italy in WWII, just look so much better on paper than they do in real life.

So what? The US also have WMD (in large amounts) and have been using them.

Really? We have been using them? I would like to know where and when we have been using them. Can you provide some details please? Broad statements such as this just call out for proof. They are also a cry for help, but thats another matter altogether.

Pease yourself, Saddam attacked those that flew in his terrority. Its called Sovernty.
Te no fly zones were not made by the UN. France may have ulterior motives for working against us, but we shouldn't have attacked Sasddam with Flimsy intelligence. At the very least we should have apologized for misleading people when we found out it was wrong!
Tell me why we have yet to do so?

Hmm. Lets think what the ulterior motives are. They are breaking sanctions and worl laws. Supporting terrorists and oppresive regimes. What happens if they are found out? Exactly. So they are going to do everything they can to stop the U.S. from invading. Becuase if they do they will find out.

And maybe we should have apologized. Or should we. Have you been watching the news? It turned out that that was true. He was trying to but the element from africa.

Get your facts straight

Are you politically brain-dead. Saddam was getting weapons. ANd had weapons. THe U.N. didn't sit aropund and do nothing, they stood around and di nothing. THey checked one house then asked to check another. Saddam let them in after he moved the wepons. When U.S. forces came he shot missiles at us that the U.N. and he said he didn't have.

France, Russia, and Germany didn't want us in there. WHY? Simple. THey were breaking U.N. embargos. No one was to trade with Saddam. They gave him found and weapons and money and he gave oil and money. They were breaking U.N. sanctions. Saddam's men used Russian, German, and French weaponry along with the SCUD missiles they claimed they didn't have to repell us.

Get your facts straight before you go blabbering around like your liberal self.
Saddam didn't have WMDs, as the thread starter says, so how could he have used them on US troops?

I won't deny that France, Russia, and Germany had their own grubby agendas when it came to Iraq. I was just pointing out Biff's ridiculous exaggeration in claiming that they weren't America's "real allies".

Quick, call me a liberal again, it will invalidate everything I say. :rolleyes:

that alone did not justify an otherwise illegal invasion not sanctionwed by the UN. Only American arrogance does!

Ideologystan rules!

Why the hell would we need UN sanction? They don't own us. (And, no, I'm not defending the war or the Bush Administration)

The Fact of the matter is this. We have known for many years the possibility of Saddam's hatred of America to spill out into violence. And it did. There was a connection with him and 9/11 and if you don't want to admit that think about this. He was a violent dictator that killed and assasinated thousands. He spoke and taught about "Evil America" His persuasion of speech have pushed many to hate America and kill Americans. And for Weapons of Mass destruction. Why was it that we found a carrier made for carrying biological weapons. There was a direct threat from Saddam...Why do you think he was hiding in a hole when he was found?

[QUOTE=Biff Pileon]So now it appears that Saddam had dormant programs that he was just waiting to revive. he was violating many UN agreements by maintaining several duel use industries.

Is it really a surprise?

The real surprise is that it took the American public to come to the realisation that Saddam was NEVER a threat to the United States. This is why several countries such as Canada and France, traditional allies of the USA, were so reluctant to enter into the Iraq war (Canada still has not).

The fact that all the UN personnel in Iraq prior to the commencement of the war went around saying this same thing has now been forgotten.

Remember Hans BLIX?

The US will always seek to justify its actions, no matter how illegal they are. While most Canadians agreed that Saddam was a criminal, liar and all-round bad guy, that alone did not justify an otherwise illegal invasion not sanctionwed by the UN. Only American arrogance does!

Ideologystan rules!

Sanctioned by the UN. Here we go again...as if the UN can stop ANYTHING that happens in the world today if ever.

Did the UN sanction the killing of the men of Sebinica (sp) in 1995? It was Dutch UN peacekeepers that helped the Serbs load the men on trucks to be executed.

Does the UN sanction the killing in Sudan today? 10,000 a day are being killed there. Sudan is on the human rights commission so I guess it must be ok. :rolleyes:

The UN is a joke...it is useless. If ANY country allows the UN to make decisions for it, it will cease to exist in short order.

Yeah, and the assault on Italy was a great idea, wasn't it? You seem to be assuming here that Iraq, Iran and North Korea are all one enemy, rather than three entirely separate nations, coldly friendly to each other at best, mutually hostile at worst.

I agree, though, that from a certain point of view a military attack on Iraq could make strategic sense for the USA: it helps in the encirclement of China, it promises USA access to that sweet, sweet oil, and the country was so poorly defended that the war could probably be won with a small-scale US deployment, minimal US casualties, and the Americans would be received by the grateful Iraqi people as liberators. Sadly, although the encirclement of China thing is coming on OK (although huge numbers of US troops are now bogged down in one locale), the price of oil has rocketed and the Iraqi people haven't yet forgotten who put Saddam in charge, who kept him there throughout the 1980s, who smiled on his worst excesses, and who failed to support them in 1991 after encouraging them to rebel against him. Some strategies, like the Allied invasion of Italy in WWII, just look so much better on paper than they do in real life.

I have only met one liberal who said we went for oil. And if we did, shouldn't the prices have gone down??? No, they went up becuase we're coming more dependant on it becuase liberals won't let us drill for it in Alaska so we have to but from the middle east. The oil was the worst false liberal statement for going to war practically ever.

The UN is a joke...

Agreed. It's not a very funny one, though.

Ever hear of Katanga?

Agreed. It's not a very funny one, though.

Ever hear of Katanga?

I am familiar with that shining example of UN incompetence.

When will people wake up and see the UN for what it is? It is a freaking tea party, nothing less and nothing more.

Saddam didn't have WMDs, as the thread starter says, so how could he have used them on US troops?

I won't deny that France, Russia, and Germany had their own grubby agendas when it came to Iraq. I was just pointing out Biff's ridiculous exaggeration in claiming that they weren't America's "real allies".

Quick, call me a liberal again, it will invalidate everything I say. :rolleyes:

That fact of the matter is he did. We found vehicles and plants to manufacture and store WMD. He didn;t use those, he got those out. He used SCUD missiles that he said he didn't have and the U.N. agreed he didn't.

They aren't america's real allies. They saw profit and turned their backs on what was right.

How are peope so unaware of the facts. You just don't let something like sense stand in the way of your argument.

I am familiar with that shining example of UN incompetence.

When will people wake up and see the UN for what it is? It is a freaking tea party, nothing less and nothing more.

I second that

I am familiar with that shining example of UN incompetence.

When will people wake up and see the UN for what it is? It is a freaking tea party, nothing less and nothing more.It maybe would not be if all members were paying their debts.

I hope you all realize that the United States is one of the largest proponents of terrorism in the world today.
First off, the media has the definition wrong, look it up. Terrorism is not a weapon for the weak, but a blatant attack to change political or economical conditions of a country.
The US has committed more violent acts of "Terrorism" than most nations on the globe, including Iraq. The brutal abuse in Nicaragua in the 80's. Supplying the Turks with the weapons to kill the Kurds (knowingly) in the mid-90's. Destroying a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant in 1998, which caused more than a hundred thousand deaths. The list continues, but let me illustrate.
The UN declared the United States had committed vicious act of terror in the 80's. A proposal was brought forth for the international court to have the ability to try nations and people for acts of terrorism. The world agreed nearly unanimously. The two countries to vote against it? The United States and Israel. Are you kidding me? The hypocrisy is floating in the bullsh**.
Bush is the only president to remove another president's signature from a ratified UN treaty. He's done it 3 times now. Guess which one is in there? The one that gives the UN power to try war criminals. Know why? Because Bush and his cronies don't want to be help responsible.
Bush is evil. Turn off the T.V., pick up a book, and read the truth that is going on in this administration, and previous ones.
Let me leave you with a parting thought....
Name me one person since Nixon and prior to Bush that has come out to speak out against the administration that they worked for. Can't? Now how about some Bush administration people.....
I could probably name 6 straight off the top of my head. However, you can go to any bookstore and find a table, A FREAKING TABLE, of books written by different individuals who all were high ranking officials in this administration who condemn Bush and his actions.
Please people, use a brain. Your media is slanted and watching Fox News, CNN, or even reading Newsweek won't answer your questions. These are corporate run media sources who care about one thing...the mighty dollar. They contort your media to serve their purpose.
This nation was founded on outstanding principles by our fore-fathers. However, 230 years ago there was no such thing as corporations, monopolies, or even stock markets. Therefore, our Constitution excludes them. Now, giant corporations are able to maneuver around policies that were put into place to minimize corruption, and with great ease. And you're sitting there not saying, doing, or thinking anything about it.

Please....Saddam wanted to attack the US very badly. He placed a bounty on every pilot that overflew Iraq in support of the no-fly zones. He attempted to assasinate G.H.W. Bush as well.

As for France and Germany, I will withhold judgement on them for now. France actively went against the US in the UN. If you don't agree, fine, you abstain, but to actively work AGAINST an "ally" is quite telling. But what can you expect from the French anyway?
It's not surprising that a maniac like Hussein would attack US planes that flew over his country, or the president who launched the 1991 attack on his country. It's not good, but it's entirely different from trying to bomb American cities.

France has every right to veto. America has used its veto more than anyone else. It seems that Americans have a problem with the UN when it does anything other than Washington's bidding. The UN should not be a slave to the USA.

As for what I expect from the French, it's the same as I expect from any such power. I expect them to act unscrupulously in their own self-interest. I expect them to be arrogant and self-righteous. This goes for France, Britain, America and other such countries. History proves this.

It maybe would not be if all members were paying their debts.

Please....throwing money at an organization that REFUSES to allow an audit to show where the money is going is a waste of time....and money.

I am familiar with that shining example of UN incompetence.

It was not incompetence. It was slaughter. The UN went on a killing spree against the innocent, peace-loving people of Katanga. Hospitals and ambulances were bombed. Women were raped. Children were bayoneted. Etc. The one unforgivable crime of Katanga was that its President, a pro-US Christian named Moise Tshombe (who the US completely undermined and failed to support) was a staunch anticommunist. This widespread slaughterfest was ignored and loudly denied by the Kennedy Administration.

Read, for example:

Rebels, Mercenaries, and Dividends: The Katanga Story
46 Angry Men (article)
Who Killed the Congo?

I have threatened to attack you but I do not have any weapons to do so yet. I have the desire to get those weapons and carry out my threat. Do you just sit there and watch me as I go about getting the weapon to attack you with?

What kind of bizarre world are you living in?


Let us rephrase that to something closer to reality shall we?

I have vociferously proclaimed my hatred of you. I used to have weapons that would have allowed me to attack you, but I have rid myself of them. I am no threat to you at all right now. You may choose to go on the beliefs that some of my underlings have that I might once again try to rebuild what I have destroyed, however I have never been much of one for telling people my plans so take it with as large a grain of salt as you care to. Also bear in mind that initially you claimed that I did in fact have these weapons and was threatening you immediately.

So - do you sit there and watch me as I go about my life after having disarmed myself? OR do you punish my people because of your fears of what I might do by blowing them up by the tens of thousands?


That seems to be the bizarre world that GW wants us to believe that we live in...

Used them once in WW2. Also the US isn't likely to give weapons to terrorist groups.
Wrong. Does the destruction of Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s not count?

Ever heard of the Contras?

The UN should not be a slave to the USA.

Nope, and neither should the US be a slave to the UN. The US should not even be IN the UN. We get nothing from it, it costs us more to be a member than any other country. It is full of spies that we catch and send home from time to time. It is beyond useless....

The US has committed more violent acts of "Terrorism" than most nations on the globe, including Iraq. The brutal abuse in Nicaragua in the 80's. Supplying the Turks with the weapons to kill the Kurds (knowingly) in the mid-90's. Destroying a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant in 1998, which caused more than a hundred thousand deaths. The list continues, but let me illustrate.

Oh, you HAVE to show me proof of this gem!! I have GOT to see where this comes from...please? Pretty please?

We all die in the end - Tupac Amera Shakur

North Korea is stronger than Iraq ever was. Also, I don't advocate invading either Iraq or north Korea. That would be too expensive in terms of lives lost and money spent. We should fund the liberal elements in those countries, encourage them to revolt and support them with American weapons and airpower. The enemie's weak spot is the oppresion of liberal elements in the population. If we can help them overthrow their leaders the new government would have legitimacy among the masses and we wouldn't be faced with an occupation like Iraq.

I agree totally with everything but your North Korea statement. Certainly they used to be stronger than Iraq, but I'm not sure that's the case anymore. Their population is starving. All money goes to the military, but it's still equipped with obsolescent weapons, for the most part. But, like I said, it's debatable.

Wrong. Does the destruction of Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s not count?

Both sides used such weapons during that war.

I have only met one liberal who said we went for oil. And if we did, shouldn't the prices have gone down??? No, they went up becuase we're coming more dependant on it becuase liberals won't let us drill for it in Alaska so we have to but from the middle east. The oil was the worst false liberal statement for going to war practically ever.
Operation Iraqi Liberation

Let us rephrase that to something closer to reality shall we?

I have vociferously proclaimed my hatred of you. I used to have weapons that would have allowed me to attack you, but I have rid myself of them. I am no threat to you at all right now. You may choose to go on the beliefs that some of my underlings have that I might once again try to rebuild what I have destroyed, however I have never been much of one for telling people my plans so take it with as large a grain of salt as you care to. Also bear in mind that initially you claimed that I did in fact have these weapons and was threatening you immediately.

So - do you sit there and watch me as I go about my life after having disarmed myself? OR do you punish my people because of your fears of what I might do by blowing them up by the tens of thousands?


That seems to be the bizarre world that GW wants us to believe that we live in...

Just one line. He had them and was building them when we went in.

It is beyond useless....

(Applause)

I have only met one liberal who said we went for oil.

Well, now -- if you wish to pigeonhole me on practically no evidence at all as a "liberal", whateverthehell you mean by that -- you've met two. What a red-letter day this is turning out to be for you.

And if we did, shouldn't the prices have gone down???

Such was the idea, no doubt. But the best laid plans, as they say, gang aft agley. Of mice and men. And mice-men, like GWB and co., as well.

No, they went up becuase we're coming more dependant on it becuase liberals won't let us drill for it in Alaska so we have to but from the middle east. The oil was the worst false liberal statement for going to war practically ever.

That's right, I'm sure. It's those darned liberals who, in order to protect some Alaskan wildlife preserve or something, have been forcing all us good, honest folks to drive around in pocket tanks getting 5mpg on a good day. They are the ones who, according to the CIA, have made the world a more dangerous place and encouraged terrorism by invading Iraq on false information about imaginary WMDs which were suddenly so freaking dangerous we couldn't wait a few more weeks to let the weapons inspectors on the ground check them out -- not that we were prepared to tell the inspectors where to look, even though we were forever gesturing at maps and saying "we know what he's got and we know where they are!" It's the liberals who, having provided Islamic terror organisations with this heaven-sent shot in the arm for recruitment and fundraising, have made the oil-producing Middle East so dangerous that the nervous markets have shot oil prices to record highs.

I'm sure that the Iraqi oil wells, which US troops rushed to seize as soon as they crossed the Iraqi border, and whose administration they secured while the rest of Baghdad was plunged into an orgy of looting, never even began to entertain the notion of entering the desert zone between George Dubya's ears.

Operation Iraqi Liberation

Um...you do realize we are still looking for Osama Bin Ladin.

Just one line. He had them and was building them when we went in.

Really? Gee, the report that started this thread pretty clearly states that no, he didn't.


But it's not like that's the official finding on WMD in Iraq is it?



Oh wait.... yes it is.

I hope you all realize that the United States is one of the largest proponents of terrorism in the world today.
First off, the media has the definition wrong, look it up. Terrorism is not a weapon for the weak, but a blatant attack to change political or economical conditions of a country.
The US has committed more violent acts of "Terrorism" than most nations on the globe, including Iraq. The brutal abuse in Nicaragua in the 80's. Supplying the Turks with the weapons to kill the Kurds (knowingly) in the mid-90's. Destroying a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant in 1998, which caused more than a hundred thousand deaths. The list continues, but let me illustrate.
The UN declared the United States had committed vicious act of terror in the 80's. A proposal was brought forth for the international court to have the ability to try nations and people for acts of terrorism. The world agreed nearly unanimously. The two countries to vote against it? The United States and Israel. Are you kidding me? The hypocrisy is floating in the bullsh**.
Bush is the only president to remove another president's signature from a ratified UN treaty. He's done it 3 times now. Guess which one is in there? The one that gives the UN power to try war criminals. Know why? Because Bush and his cronies don't want to be help responsible.
Bush is evil. Turn off the T.V., pick up a book, and read the truth that is going on in this administration, and previous ones.
Let me leave you with a parting thought....
Name me one person since Nixon and prior to Bush that has come out to speak out against the administration that they worked for. Can't? Now how about some Bush administration people.....
I could probably name 6 straight off the top of my head. However, you can go to any bookstore and find a table, A FREAKING TABLE, of books written by different individuals who all were high ranking officials in this administration who condemn Bush and his actions.
Please people, use a brain. Your media is slanted and watching Fox News, CNN, or even reading Newsweek won't answer your questions. These are corporate run media sources who care about one thing...the mighty dollar. They contort your media to serve their purpose.
This nation was founded on outstanding principles by our fore-fathers. However, 230 years ago there was no such thing as corporations, monopolies, or even stock markets. Therefore, our Constitution excludes them. Now, giant corporations are able to maneuver around policies that were put into place to minimize corruption, and with great ease. And you're sitting there not saying, doing, or thinking anything about it.

From the bottom of my heart, I would like to thank you for shepherding me into the light of reason, o' great messiah. All this time, I was never thinking for myself, but blindly following the words of others!!! How could I have been so foolish??

I AM a weak minded fool! Damn ME!!!



I would now like to pray to John Kerry for forgiveness. Which way is east?

Israel is surrounded by nothing but enemies who have stated their goal of destroying the nation of Israel. Israel is also a democracy. I would support Israel's possesion of those weapons way before Iran or North Korea.

No, Israel is not a democracy in practice. It denies the rights of non-Jewish citizens who strike back using terrorist tactics because they cannot form armies. Israel is NOT an innocent country, nor are the Arab countries hostile to Israel. When one owns nuclear WMD, they are no longer underdogs. I say let them go at each other and let them clean up the mess.

And maybe we should have apologized. Or should we. Have you been watching the news? It turned out that that was true. He was trying to but the element from africa.

Get your facts straight

I think you need to get your facts straight, idiot. Joseph Wilson's Book, "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir" details how he headed up that investigation in Iraq attempting buying enriched uranium from Africa. He was sitting there, watching Bush give a speach saying this and thought to himself, "What the hell! That was my report, and I concluded just the opposite, that it was completely unfounded! Yet here Bush is, prior to the invasion, standing there saying just the opposite of what my report concluded!"
He came out to speak against this in the media, that it was a false accusation and he was the one who detailed this information and proved it wrong. You know what the Bush administration did? They released the name of his wife as an ACTIVE CIA AGENT! Read the book moron.
How many active CIA agents get their names released? None that I have ever known. You think this 1, that just so happens to be the wife of a whistle blower, is an accident? Yah right. Talk about a disgusting, dirty administration.
You need to check your facts moron, and stop supporting an oppressive administration that keeps you people dumb.

Um...you do realize we are still looking for Osama Bin Ladin.

Just not terribly hard, that's all. After all, there's precious little oil in Osama.

Well, now -- if you wish to pigeonhole me on practically no evidence at all as a "liberal", whateverthehell you mean by that -- you've met two. What a red-letter day this is turning out to be for you.



Such was the idea, no doubt. But the best laid plans, as they say, gang aft agley. Of mice and men. And mice-men, like GWB and co., as well.



That's right, I'm sure. It's those darned liberals who, in order to protect some Alaskan wildlife preserve or something, have been forcing all us good, honest folks to drive around in pocket tanks getting 5mpg on a good day. They are the ones who, according to the CIA, have made the world a more dangerous place and encouraged terrorism by invading Iraq on false information about imaginary WMDs which were suddenly so freaking dangerous we couldn't wait a few more weeks to let the weapons inspectors on the ground check them out -- not that we were prepared to tell the inspectors where to look, even though we were forever gesturing at maps and saying "we know what he's got and we know where they are!" It's the liberals who, having provided Islamic terror organisations with this heaven-sent shot in the arm for recruitment and fundraising, have made the oil-producing Middle East so dangerous that the nervous markets have shot oil prices to record highs.

I'm sure that the Iraqi oil wells, which US troops rushed to seize as soon as they crossed the Iraqi border, and whose administration they secured while the rest of Baghdad was plunged into an orgy of looting, never even began to entertain the notion of entering the desert zone between George Dubya's ears.

I didn't say you were a liberal, but ill change it. I've only met one person who said we went to war for oil. Everyone else, republican, democrat, liberal, conservative, they all think it's stupid. People say different things like for his father or for land but i've only met one person who said it was for oil.

You do realize the only pictures and investigations of areas that showed happy animals weren't actually the places intended for drilling. It was mis-leading in pretty much every aspect.

What false information. We've found out over a month ago he was buying componets for WMD, he had plants, vehicles and factories to produce and store WMD.

U.N. Inspectors were inspecting. But when you tell someone where your going to look at what time it's not to hard to move what your hiding.
No liberals or republicans that i know of have made the middle-east dangerous. It's the tyranical governments that bombard their own Family with biological weapons to make sure they work.

U.S. troops secured them becuase they were a valuable Iragi asset. And Saddam's men were ordered to light them on fire and spread the fire as much as possible to kill as many as possible.

The looting was going on before soldiers could arrive. ONce they did it stopped. Now men are working to collect all lotted materials.

Used them once in WW2. Also the US isn't likely to give weapons to terrorist groups. If Iran gives Hizbolla (I don't know how to spell it exactly) a nuke and they decide to nuke Israel it would provoke a region wide nuclear conflict. If they hit the US it would be even worse because we have more nukes, and we might decide to retaliate much more harshly.


nah, the isrealies would retaliate harder then americans would. they are a power house and are by far the number 1 military power in that area as far as training and equipment goes. they just cant hold long wars because they dont have the population to keep those sorts of wars going.

Oh, you HAVE to show me proof of this gem!! I have GOT to see where this comes from...please? Pretty please?

I stand by everything I say.
Check out Noam Cholmsky's book, "9/11". It details this in it, as well as references where it comes from. But of course, if you were smart enough, you could just type it into a search engine. If you were smart enough, you'd already know about it, it's not exactly a secret.
The BBC was the original estimater of "one hundred thousand deaths" caused by the Clinton administration's bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant, I'm sure you can check their site for that report. They were the most non-biased source with the lowest death count. The UN predicted millions were killed due to the lack of drugs for malaria, AIDS, and many more drugs (The pharmaceutical plant produced 70% of the Sudan's medical supplies.)

So there you go....

I think you need to get your facts straight, idiot. Joseph Wilson's Book, "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir" details how he headed up that investigation in Iraq attempting buying enriched uranium from Africa. He was sitting there, watching Bush give a speach saying this and thought to himself, "What the hell! That was my report, and I concluded just the opposite, that it was completely unfounded! Yet here Bush is, prior to the invasion, standing there saying just the opposite of what my report concluded!"
He came out to speak against this in the media, that it was a false accusation and he was the one who detailed this information and proved it wrong. You know what the Bush administration did? They released the name of his wife as an ACTIVE CIA AGENT! Read the book moron.
How many active CIA agents get their names released? None that I have ever known. You think this 1, that just so happens to be the wife of a whistle blower, is an accident? Yah right. Talk about a disgusting, dirty administration.
You need to check your facts moron, and stop supporting an oppressive administration that keeps you people dumb.

Your complete bombardment of falseified facts in hilarious. As i recall it wasn;t the government who released her name, ill check on that.

And in the news, even liberal news, it has been stated that they recently found out it was true that he was trying to buy it. THe bush administration thought they were wrong, but they were actually right.

Really? We have been using them? I would like to know where and when we have been using them. Can you provide some details please? Broad statements such as this just call out for proof. They are also a cry for help, but thats another matter altogether.

Id like to consider us giving out our anthrax and other WMD techonology (besides nuclear) to other countries to use on people using them. its called an assist in basket ball. or accomplice to murder in real life.

Really? Gee, the report that started this thread pretty clearly states that no, he didn't.


But it's not like that's the official finding on WMD in Iraq is it?



Oh wait.... yes it is.

The official findings state that there was evdinence he was going to and was creating WMD. Including but not limited too:
Facilities to create the WMD
Facilities to store the WMD
Facilites to transport the WMD
Paper evidence on when and where construction was going on
Documents found all over the country

Your complete bombardment of falseified facts in hilarious. As i recall it wasn;t the government who released her name, ill check on that.

And in the news, even liberal news, it has been stated that they recently found out it was true that he was trying to buy it. THe bush administration thought they were wrong, but they were actually right.

You could read the book, it was a columnist from the New York newspaper who released it....but who do you think provided it?
Are you really that ignorant? Who else is going to release her name! Who else knows she's in the CIA but the CIA!! Look all you want, but you're still a moron.

I'm sorry, Iraq was never buying enriched Uranium. Show me the source genius, because it's completely false. I already provided you the book that detailed that report. Due I need to show you a mirror so you can look at an idiot?

Most of you did not attend a University in the 1970s. I did do that. Universities all over the U.S. were full of students from unstable places like Iran, (then an ally) Iraq(then not an ally but not exactly an enemy), India, Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and various North African countries.
Guess what a LOT of them were studying?

Subjects related to NUCLEAR PHYSICS!

If anyone in that part of the world knows about nuclear weapons and chemical weapons it was damn stupid letting people from foreign countries into to learn such things in the first place!

I hope you all realize that the United States is one of the largest proponents of terrorism in the world today.
First off, the media has the definition wrong, look it up. Terrorism is not a weapon for the weak, but a blatant attack to change political or economical conditions of a country.
The US has committed more violent acts of "Terrorism" than most nations on the globe, including Iraq. The brutal abuse in Nicaragua in the 80's. Supplying the Turks with the weapons to kill the Kurds (knowingly) in the mid-90's. Destroying a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant in 1998, which caused more than a hundred thousand deaths. The list continues, but let me illustrate
Funny how that sudanese pharmaceutical plant had precursors for VX nerve gas in it's emissions. BTW the precursors found had no other use but nerve gas production. Also Sudan was nice and friendly with Bin Laden at that time.

Just not terribly hard, that's all. After all, there's precious little oil in Osama.

That wouldn't affect it at all. We arn;t looking as hard as in the beginning becuase we have already combed the area seeral times. Researching secluded areas does need as much manpower so its not as hard. There-fore we arn't trying as hard. Plus we just have to find and and all facilities capable of sustaining him and his disease, kidney i think. ANd then monitor them.

the SCUD missiles they claimed they didn't have to repell us.
All 8 of them?

I stand by everything I say.
Check out Noam Cholmsky's book, "9/11". It details this in it, as well as references where it comes from. But of course, if you were smart enough, you could just type it into a search engine. If you were smart enough, you'd already know about it, it's not exactly a secret.
The BBC was the original estimater of "one hundred thousand deaths" caused by the Clinton administration's bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant, I'm sure you can check their site for that report. They were the most non-biased source with the lowest death count. The UN predicted millions were killed due to the lack of drugs for malaria, AIDS, and many more drugs (The pharmaceutical plant produced 70% of the Sudan's medical supplies.)

So there you go....

Oh thats a good one! It was in a book? It was an ASPIRIN factory that was destroyed. 100,000 deaths with no proof....wow, that really is a stretch isn't it?

I have only met one liberal who said we went for oil. And if we did, shouldn't the prices have gone down??? No, they went up becuase we're coming more dependant on it becuase liberals won't let us drill for it in Alaska so we have to but from the middle east. The oil was the worst false liberal statement for going to war practically ever.


oil exports from iraq have actually gone up. and drilling in alaska wild life refuges is a bad idea. whats next? yellow stone national park? and now peopel are trying to figure out where millions of dollars in the oil to rebuild iraq has went. then halliburton and thier no bid contracts are making millions. oil has reached the peak production and production will only go down from now on (oil bell curve proves this). oil is secondary, the real money is in construction.

I agree totally with everything but your North Korea statement. Certainly they used to be stronger than Iraq, but I'm not sure that's the case anymore. Their population is starving. All money goes to the military, but it's still equipped with obsolescent weapons, for the most part. But, like I said, it's debatable.
Most of their artillery is self propelled, not towed and they have enough to level Seoul in a matter of hours. They have a huge army that gets the lion's share of the nation's food. They don't even buy Russian weapons anymore considering them to be obsolete. They also have a modern and effective air defense system. All that I have read points to them being pretty tough.

You could read the book, it was a columnist from the New York newspaper who released it....but who do you think provided it?
Are you really that ignorant? Who else is going to release her name! Who else knows she's in the CIA but the CIA!! Look all you want, but you're still a moron.

I'm sorry, Iraq was never buying enriched Uranium. Show me the source genius, because it's completely false. I already provided you the book that detailed that report. Due I need to show you a mirror so you can look at an idiot?
Im sorry, that wouldn't work. A mirror would only show me myself, not you.

Yes Irag was buing enriched uranium. Give me some time and i can come up with sites and books and more.

No im not ignorant, but you clearly are.

If your talking about the book you gave to the other guy then ill take a look at it.

Id like to consider us giving out our anthrax and other WMD techonology (besides nuclear) to other countries to use on people using them. its called an assist in basket ball. or accomplice to murder in real life.

Do you have any proof that we did this or are you basing it on a "gut" feeling?

No, Israel is not a democracy in practice. It denies the rights of non-Jewish citizens who strike back using terrorist tactics because they cannot form armies. Israel is NOT an innocent country, nor are the Arab countries hostile to Israel. When one owns nuclear WMD, they are no longer underdogs. I say let them go at each other and let them clean up the mess.
And that's why you don't have a say in the issues.

Im sorry, that wouldn't work. A mirror would only show me myself, not you.

Lol, good one, BE :D

I didn't say you were a liberal, but ill change it. I've only met one person who said we went to war for oil. Everyone else, republican, democrat, liberal, conservative, they all think it's stupid. People say different things like for his father or for land but i've only met one person who said it was for oil.

Really? You should get out more. It is, after all, the overriding reason this oil-based President and his oil-powered administration invaded an oil-rich country.

You do realize the only pictures and investigations of areas that showed happy animals weren't actually the places intended for drilling. It was mis-leading in pretty much every aspect.

Frankly, the increasingly frantic American attempts to suck up the last little bits of useable oil on the planet no longer amuse me or even move me to pity. It's way too late for that. I honestly couldn't care less about the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve or how big the inevitable environmentla damage will be.

What false information. We've found out over a month ago he was buying componets for WMD, he had plants, vehicles and factories to produce and store WMD.

The false information that said "We know he's got them and we know where they are." The false information that said "Saddam Hussein can launch WMDs in 45 minutes." The false information that said Saddam's imaginary WMDs were an imminent threat that justified immediate invasion. THAT false information. Remember?

U.N. Inspectors were inspecting. But when you tell someone where your going to look at what time it's not to hard to move what your hiding.

It's pretty tricky when the country is under observation. In any case, since -- according to Donald Rumsfeld -- "We know what he's got and we know where they are", Rummy could have slipped the info to Hans Blix, who could have had inspectors at umpteen sites before the Iraqis knew where they were going. But since the WMDs didn't exist, this is all kind of academic -- unless the Iraqis are still moving them around. Because the USA has had unrestricted access to Iraq for a year and a half, and have found zilch.

No liberals or republicans that i know of have made the middle-east dangerous. It's the tyranical governments that bombard their own Family with biological weapons to make sure they work.

According to both the CIA and MI5, the invasion of Iraq has made the international terrorist situation worse. More dangerous. It has increased the flow of funds and recruits to numerous fundamentalist Islamic terror networks. They said it probably would before the war, and their findings have confirmed their expectations after the war. I'm delighted that Saddam is gone, since I've been campaigning for his removal since 1988 -- back when he was Our Pal and Reagan was threatening to veto any attempts to block exports of weapons to him, because what were a few thousand Kurds between friends? So please don't lecture me on the shortcomings of tin-pot tyrants. If we invaded Iraq because Saddam was a Bad Man and he had WMDs, why did it take us so bloody long? If he was such an imminent threat, how come nothing had been done for the past 20+ years? Give me a break.

U.S. troops secured them becuase they were a valuable Iragi asset. And Saddam's men were ordered to light them on fire and spread the fire as much as possible to kill as many as possible.

Of course they were. They were a valuable Iraqi asset that the USA just couldn't wait to get its hands on. So keen were they to access this asset that they invaded the country and grabbed them as soon as humanly possible. I fail to see why you have a problem grasping this.

The looting was going on before soldiers could arrive. ONce they did it stopped. Now men are working to collect all lotted materials.

Yes, the looting was going on. The question is, why did the US army only guard the Iraqi oil ministry from the looters? Why not the hospitals? Could it maybe just possibly be because they didn't give a shit about the Iraqi hospitals, but were feverishly interested in Iraqi oil?

Um...you do realize we are still looking for Osama Bin Ladin.

please the most men we ever had in afghanistan was 10,000 soldiers. most men we ever had in iraq. 250,000. whats wrong there? go after the head of terrorism as we know it? or go after a guy that is VERY debatable?! I believe we have Osama, you cant miss a 6 foot 6 inch arab with a dialasis machine. theres only so many hospitals in the area that offer the medication that he needs. but when he is presented to the american public 1 month before elections hes going to have freezer burns because hes been in "hiding" in that freezer that says US Government Property.

oil exports from iraq have actually gone up. and drilling in alaska wild life refuges is a bad idea. whats next? yellow stone national park? and now peopel are trying to figure out where millions of dollars in the oil to rebuild iraq has went. then halliburton and thier no bid contracts are making millions. oil has reached the peak production and production will only go down from now on (oil bell curve proves this). oil is secondary, the real money is in construction.

You do realize we wern't trying to drill in wildlife refuges. We were trying to drill in a bug-infested swamp with no value except for th oil underneath. People form alska hav been trying to drill from it forever becuase it had no real value. Democratic senators moved to have the ACTUAL footage of the place we intended to drill for taken away.

Haliburton is getting millions of dollars on no-bid contracts. WHY? Becuaqse tehy are the only ones who do what they do. No one else is in the buisness to comete with them.

Of course oil exports have gone up. How else are they going to get money to re-build there country???

Are you tring to say BUSH went to war for construction contracts? I've never ever EVER EVER met anyone who said that. It sheer stupidity in its greatest.

Are you tring to say BUSH went to war for construction contracts? I've never ever EVER EVER met anyone who said that. It sheer stupidity in its greatest.

no, he's not. cheney (the one who's really calling all the shots and former halliburton exec) did.

You could read the book, it was a columnist from the New York newspaper who released it....but who do you think provided it?
Are you really that ignorant? Who else is going to release her name! Who else knows she's in the CIA but the CIA!! Look all you want, but you're still a moron.

I'm sorry, Iraq was never buying enriched Uranium. Show me the source genius, because it's completely false. I already provided you the book that detailed that report. Due I need to show you a mirror so you can look at an idiot?


everything i have read was he was trying to buy un-enriched uranium. with not much sucess. but unenriched uranium is the easy stuff to get, its also called cake mix because its as deadly as cake mix. in order to enrich it you must invest millions and lots of time and big plants. then you need rocket technology which iraq did not have to launch missles to america. well the iraqis longest ranged missle was only 150 miles if i remeber correctly. to top that off you need to get gyroscopes. those things are not cheap and are very delicate and are VERY classified. he couldnt get these things before the embargo was placed on saddam, and he sure as hell couldnt do it after the embargo was in place and cruise missles were being launched at any sort of military build up that sadaam tried.

Do you have any proof that we did this or are you basing it on a "gut" feeling?

sure do. lemme find a few links.

Really? You should get out more. It is, after all, the overriding reason this oil-based President and his oil-powered administration invaded an oil-rich country.



Frankly, the increasingly frantic American attempts to suck up the last little bits of useable oil on the planet no longer amuse me or even move me to pity. It's way too late for that. I honestly couldn't care less about the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve or how big the inevitable environmentla damage will be.



The false information that said "We know he's got them and we know where they are." The false information that said "Saddam Hussein can launch WMDs in 45 minutes." The false information that said Saddam's imaginary WMDs were an imminent threat that justified immediate invasion. THAT false information. Remember?



It's pretty tricky when the country is under observation. In any case, since -- according to Donald Rumsfeld -- "We know what he's got and we know where they are", Rummy could have slipped the info to Hans Blix, who could have had inspectors at umpteen sites before the Iraqis knew where they were going. But since the WMDs didn't exist, this is all kind of academic -- unless the Iraqis are still moving them around. Because the USA has had unrestricted access to Iraq for a year and a half, and have found zilch.



According to both the CIA and MI5, the invasion of Iraq has made the international terrorist situation worse. More dangerous. It has increased the flow of funds and recruits to numerous fundamentalist Islamic terror networks. They said it probably would before the war, and their findings have confirmed their expectations after the war. I'm delighted that Saddam is gone, since I've been campaigning for his removal since 1988 -- back when he was Our Pal and Reagan was threatening to veto any attempts to block exports of weapons to him, because what were a few thousand Kurds between friends? So please don't lecture me on the shortcomings of tin-pot tyrants. If we invaded Iraq because Saddam was a Bad Man and he had WMDs, why did it take us so bloody long? If he was such an imminent threat, how come nothing had been done for the past 20+ years? Give me a break.



Of course they were. They were a valuable Iraqi asset that the USA just couldn't wait to get its hands on. So keen were they to access this asset that they invaded the country and grabbed them as soon as humanly possible. I fail to see why you have a problem grasping this.



Yes, the looting was going on. The question is, why did the US army only guard the Iraqi oil ministry from the looters? Why not the hospitals? Could it maybe just possibly be because they didn't give a shit about the Iraqi hospitals, but were feverishly interested in Iraqi oil?

That's not the over-riding reason or even a reson he went to war.

As stated, we were to drill in Anware. A bug-infested swamp. No one wants it. THe wildlife preserve pictures weren't even in the same area. It was no wildlife preserve.

It wasn't false. How many times do i have to say. We've found evidence of him makind and storing WMD. I dont know if he had an ICBM, but evidecne showed he had places and was planning to construct him. A man who wants to and has the weapons to nuke america, thats not a safe thought to me.

Iraq didn't obey the unrestrited acces. AND i highly doubt they are still in the country. It;s my and many others opinion that when France, Russia, And Germany were trying to keep us out in the U.N. Saddam was moving his weapons out to god-knows where.

I'll tell you why. Becuase we've never had a smart and agressive president like GWB. He took the bull by the horns.

They couldv'e brought about the deaths of hundreds of innocents and soldiers. If we wanted oil wouldn't we have drilled the areas we captured? But we didn't.

No, it couldn't have been. I wouldn't guard hospitals. But when american troops did reach the hospitals and towns they stopped looting and began to recover things from looted sites.

everything i have read was he was trying to buy un-enriched uranium. with not much sucess. but unenriched uranium is the easy stuff to get, its also called cake mix because its as deadly as cake mix. in order to enrich it you must invest millions and lots of time and big plants. then you need rocket technology which iraq did not have to launch missles to america. well the iraqis longest ranged missle was only 150 miles if i remeber correctly. to top that off you need to get gyroscopes. those things are not cheap and are very delicate and are VERY classified. he couldnt get these things before the embargo was placed on saddam, and he sure as hell couldnt do it after the embargo was in place and cruise missles were being launched at any sort of military build up that sadaam tried.
Are you talking about the African "yellow cake" thing? I was under the impression that that evidence was thoroughly discredited.

no, he's not. cheney (the one who's really calling all the shots and former halliburton exec) did.

\That's the most ridiculos thing i've ever heard in my life. Any and all remarks you make will be ignored. You official no longer exist. As for the one who said this first. He didn't confirm it so i will still debate with him.

sure do. lemme find a few links.

Ok, I want to see where we exported Anthrax processing equipment and expertise. having gotten the Anthrax shots (6 over 18 months, each more painful than the last) I cannot imagine us exporting that kind of technology to weaponize Antrax spores.

Funny how that sudanese pharmaceutical plant had precursors for VX nerve gas in it's emissions. BTW the precursors found had no other use but nerve gas production. Also Sudan was nice and friendly with Bin Laden at that time.

Actually not true. Investigation into the plant by the UN and independent sources concluded the plant was not in possession of VX nerve gas, nor any other chemical weapons or chemical weapon making material. The US bombed an innocent pharmaceutical plant. In addition, it was hardly an aspirin plant that some moron had proposed. Aspirin doesn't cure malaria genius!

And also, Sudan was not friendly with Bin Laden....also a lie. Sudan had captured 2 Al Queda operatives and offered to hand them over to the US prior to the bombing. They also offered to provide "mountains" of information on Al Queda, which was also verified through independent sources. The US refused, then bombed the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant. Sudan then released the operatives and who knows what came of the Al Queda information. They might be sleeping in Bin Laden's bed now...but they weren't at the time buddy!

Are you tring to say BUSH went to war for construction contracts? I've never ever EVER EVER met anyone who said that. It sheer stupidity in its greatest.

sheer stupidity? theres more proof in people making money in this war then there is WMDs in iraq? how is that stupid not to think its not a war for money?

and yes halliburton does have competition, they just are never given the opritunity to bid.

Actually not true. Investigation into the plant by the UN and independent sources concluded the plant was not in possession of VX nerve gas, nor any other chemical weapons or chemical weapon making material. The US bombed an innocent pharmaceutical plant. In addition, it was hardly an aspirin plant that some moron had proposed. Aspirin doesn't cure malaria genius!

And also, Sudan was not friendly with Bin Laden....also a lie. Sudan had captured 2 Al Queda operatives and offered to hand them over to the US prior to the bombing. They also offered to provide "mountains" of information on Al Queda, which was also verified through independent sources. The US refused, then bombed the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant. Sudan then released the operatives and who knows what came of the Al Queda information. They might be sleeping in Bin Laden's bed now...but they weren't at the time buddy!
Just prior to the bombing Osama was living in sudan as a guest of the regime. That's a fact. CIA sources found evidence of VX production, that's what precipitated the bombing. It was part of Clintons attack on Al Quaeda that was cut short because of the Republican party's argument that he was "wagging the dog" in an effort to distract the public from the Monica Lewinsky matter, and the press' cooperation in the Republican effort.

Actually not true. Investigation into the plant by the UN and independent sources concluded the plant was not in possession of VX nerve gas, nor any other chemical weapons or chemical weapon making material. The US bombed an innocent pharmaceutical plant. In addition, it was hardly an aspirin plant that some moron had proposed. Aspirin doesn't cure malaria genius!

And also, Sudan was not friendly with Bin Laden....also a lie. Sudan had captured 2 Al Queda operatives and offered to hand them over to the US prior to the bombing. They also offered to provide "mountains" of information on Al Queda, which was also verified through independent sources. The US refused, then bombed the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant. Sudan then released the operatives and who knows what came of the Al Queda information. They might be sleeping in Bin Laden's bed now...but they weren't at the time buddy!

Hmmmm....this is interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9809/01/sudan.plant/

The U.S. also believes Iraq has been a "foreign benefactor" of Sudan's chemical weapons efforts.

"Iraq admitted to UNSCOM that it planned to produce VX for its CW program using the EMPTA process," the official said. "And prior to the Sudanese soil sample, Iraq was the only country we knew of to have pursued this production process."

Additionally, Shifa officials were in contact with Iraq about its VX program, the official said. Shifa had signed an agreement to provide veterinary drugs to Iraq as part of the oil-for-food program, but according to the United Nations, the contracted material was never delivered.

Ok, I want to see where we exported Anthrax processing equipment and expertise. having gotten the Anthrax shots (6 over 18 months, each more painful than the last) I cannot imagine us exporting that kind of technology to weaponize Antrax spores.

those shots arent that bad. they suck but youll live. I took those shots and a few others because im getting shipped over with the 6th marine division.

I have threatened to attack you but I do not have any weapons to do so yet. I have the desire to get those weapons and carry out my threat. Do you just sit there and watch me as I go about getting the weapon to attack you with?

What kind of bizarre world are you living in?


When ever did Saddam say he would attack the US? When, please tell me.

everything i have read was he was trying to buy un-enriched uranium. with not much sucess.

Kevopia, I believe we're on the same side here. However, he wasn't trying to uranium at all; see Exaction's post above. He quotes the book from the man who detailed the falseness of this claim, even prior to the Iraq war. The result of which was to have his wife's name released to the public, even though she was an active CIA agent.
The claim was false, and Bush knew it prior to giving his speech.

Man, you need to take a history class.

Britain, France, and Germany ALL used chemical weapons in WWI. Chemical weapons are considered WMD. Therefore, the U.S. is NOT the "only country to have ever used them."

It was after WWI they made the international law not to ever use Chemical weapons again... So the US is the "only country who has used it after it was banned?" :p Does this satisfy you?

But since the WMDs didn't exist, this is all kind of academic --
Have to comment... Im not saying they existed or not, or they ever existed or not.
What Im saying is you can not prove a negative. We can't prove they didnt exist, all we can prove is we can't find them (if they ever existed).

Iran was (still is) closer to getting WMD. North Korea already has them. We went after Saddam. If this doesn't prove Bush is a pussy I don't know what does. Now for a list of some real men.
maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=real_men and India has 60 nuclear bombs... Israel has about 200 or more. I think you have to be a "friend" of the US in order not to be invaded. Sort of double standard thingy.

It was after WWI they made the international law not to ever use Chemical weapons again... So the US is the "only country who has used it after it was banned?" :p Does this satisfy you?
Saddam has used them after they were banned. And when did we use chemical weapons after WWI?

and India has 60 nuclear bombs... Israel has about 200 or more. I think you have to be a "friend" of the US in order not to be invaded. Sort of double standard thingy.
Neither India or Israel is likely to give a nuke to a terrorist organization. Iran might. North Korea will sell them to the highest bidder.

Neither India or Israel is likely to give a nuke to a terrorist organization. Iran might. North Korea will sell them to the highest bidder.
And Pakistan? Probably sell a few to their old partner Saudi-Arabia?

Just prior to the bombing Osama was living in sudan as a guest of the regime. That's a fact. CIA sources found evidence of VX production, that's what precipitated the bombing.

Just prior to the bombing? HA HA HA!!
The bombing was in 1998! Bin Laden was EXPELLED from the Sudan in 1996 (http://www.thewednesdayreport.com/twr/bin_laden.htm)
Just prior to? Hardly buddy, he was long gone!

And just to silence all the supporters of the Al Shifa pharmaceutical bombing:

US senior administrative officials admit that they had no evidence that directly linked bin Laden to the Al Shifa factory at the time of retaliatory strikes on Aug 20. (Source: New York Times 9/23/98)

There you go folks. US made a mistake, it was an innocent pharmaceutical factory, THAT'S A FACT!

Oh...and there's more:
from:http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=692
What transpired in the weeks following the attack on the al-Shifa factory was a despicable public relations campaign and a digressive situation that could've turned scandalous if the story had been more significant to a broader section of the U.S. population. The Clinton administration, without substantial or adequate evidence, offhandedly destroyed a pharmaceutical factory that supplied more than 50 percent of the drugs to the Sudanese people.

Following the attack, the U.S. then played an immature and inexcusable game of musical evidence; stories were changed or discarded on several occasions, including exactly what the original evidence was justifying the attack, which shifted from one thing to another as soon as someone asked for proof. After this debacle ended, every 'irrefutable' claim made by the government turned out to be untrue.

Then, as if to emphasize their appalling statesmanship and disregard for others, the U.S. blocked a Sudanese and Kuwaiti requested U.N. investigation into the bombing and its effects. Of course, such a request would have been reasonable even if the evidence was legitimate, solely to identify and address any humanitarian issues and concerns. But in light of the incomplete evidence riddled with apparent fabrications, such an investigation becomes morally obligatory for all responsible parties. All the while, this was accompanied by casual indifference to international protocol and law, if not outright contempt.

Such an incident sets a dangerous precedent for U.S. aggression, unilateralism and accountability. It demonstrates that the U.S. can do whatever it pleases, whenever it pleases, for whatever reasons and that no one will question them or call their bluff, most importantly when it comes to "sensitive" information which is actually never revealed.


HA HA HA HA...THERE'S YOU FACT BUDDY. NICE TRY THOUGH!

And Pakistan? Probably sell a few to their old partner Saudi-Arabia?
Yeah, that's possible. I don't like the situation there. At least Musharraf is keeping the fundies in line somewhat in that country.

That's not the over-riding reason or even a reson he went to war.

Yes, it is. It's patently obvious to all but the most blinkered. What is so surprising about a heavily oil-dependent country (e.g. the USA), in a time of rapidly diminishing world oil stocks, going to war to gain access to large oil reserves which they didn't have access to before (e.g. Iraq's)?

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but I've just noticed it in your earlier post:

I didn't say you were a liberal, but ill change it. I've only met one person who said we went to war for oil. Everyone else, republican, democrat, liberal, conservative, they all think it's stupid. People say different things like for his father or for land but i've only met one person who said it was for oil.

LAND? You know some people who say that the USA invaded Iraq for LAND? Is America so short of arid scrub, dusted with depleted uranium? You think oil is an unlikely reason for the war, but you didn't fall over in incredulous amusement when somebody suggested LAND?

As stated, we were to drill in Anware. A bug-infested swamp. No one wants it. THe wildlife preserve pictures weren't even in the same area. It was no wildlife preserve.

Don't care, sorry. Nothing to do with the Iraq war -- except tangentially, as another example of the West's increasing desperation to keep the oil flowing. Hence the invasion of the oil-rich Iraq.

It wasn't false. How many times do i have to say. We've found evidence of him makind and storing WMD. I dont know if he had an ICBM, but evidecne showed he had places and was planning to construct him. A man who wants to and has the weapons to nuke america, thats not a safe thought to me.

Yes, it was false. "We know what he's got and where they are". Oh, no we don't, and again, oh, no we don't. What we thought he had just isn't there. He had nothing that could be fired in 45 minutes. That was false too. He had nothing which made him an imminent threat to anyone except his own people, and he'd been that for 20+ years. The WMDs didn't exist.

As for the "nuking America", please. Let's ignore the rather glaring hole in this scheme, i.e. Saddam's lack of an ICBM or anything like an ICBM, and his lack of a nuclear warhead or the capacity to make one. Why on earth would he "nuke America"? What possible reason could he have for such a suicidal course of action? Even if, just for the sake of argument, we believe that he'd gone stark batshit howl-at-the-moon crazy and ordered such a strike (and, of course, was capable of doing so); what makes you think his loyal commanders wouldn't just have said "Riiiight," shot him, and come to an agreement on a less immediately suicidal course of action?

Iraq didn't obey the unrestrited acces. AND i highly doubt they are still in the country. It;s my and many others opinion that when France, Russia, And Germany were trying to keep us out in the U.N. Saddam was moving his weapons out to god-knows where.

Yes, that's it. The WMDs were real. I do believe in WMDs, I do! Clap your hands, everyone, and say "I do believe in WMDs!" Every time a child says they don't believe Iraq has WMDs, Halliburton stock slips a point!

I'll tell you why. Becuase we've never had a smart and agressive president like GWB. He took the bull by the horns.

Ho, ho. :) Good one.

They couldv'e brought about the deaths of hundreds of innocents and soldiers. If we wanted oil wouldn't we have drilled the areas we captured? But we didn't.

Why drill in the areas you captured, when the areas you captured were covered in pre-existing derricks and pipelines? Because -- pure coincidence, I'm sure -- the invasion routes did seem to encircle a whole bunch of oilfields.

No, it couldn't have been. I wouldn't guard hospitals. But when american troops did reach the hospitals and towns they stopped looting and began to recover things from looted sites.

No, the looting continued after US troops entered Baghdad, for several days. The US troops continued to efficiently and effectively gurad the Iraqi Oil Ministry, and the Oil Ministry alone. Why could that be, do you think?

Hmmmm....this is interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9809/01/sudan.plant/

The U.S. also believes Iraq has been a "foreign benefactor" of Sudan's chemical weapons efforts.

"Iraq admitted to UNSCOM that it planned to produce VX for its CW program using the EMPTA process," the official said. "And prior to the Sudanese soil sample, Iraq was the only country we knew of to have pursued this production process."

Additionally, Shifa officials were in contact with Iraq about its VX program, the official said. Shifa had signed an agreement to provide veterinary drugs to Iraq as part of the oil-for-food program, but according to the United Nations, the contracted material was never delivered.

SORRY BIFF...LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO DROWN.

THAT REFERENCE WAS FROM 1998....JUST AFTER THE BOMBING. IT'S BEEN QUITE CLEAR SINCE THEN THAT THIS WAS JUST US BULLSH** THAT NEVER PANNED OUT (SEE MY ABOVE LINKS).

NICE TRY THOUGH!! HA HA HA

haha.. pWned.. :)

When ever did Saddam say he would attack the US? When, please tell me.


No.. but if he was aggravated enough, he wouls most certainly attempt to wipe Israel off the map...

shhh.. don't tell anyone.. but that's the reason Iraq was invaded.. oops.. "liberated" ;)

Just prior to the bombing? HA HA HA!!
The bombing was in 1998! Bin Laden was EXPELLED from the Sudan in 1996 (http://www.thewednesdayreport.com/twr/bin_laden.htm)
Just prior to? Hardly buddy, he was long gone!

And just to silence all the supporters of the Al Shifa pharmaceutical bombing:

US senior administrative officials admit that they had no evidence that directly linked bin Laden to the Al Shifa factory at the time of retaliatory strikes on Aug 20. (Source: New York Times 9/23/98)

There you go folks. US made a mistake, it was an innocent pharmaceutical factory, THAT'S A FACT!

Oh...and there's more:
from:http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=692
What transpired in the weeks following the attack on the al-Shifa factory was a despicable public relations campaign and a digressive situation that could've turned scandalous if the story had been more significant to a broader section of the U.S. population. The Clinton administration, without substantial or adequate evidence, offhandedly destroyed a pharmaceutical factory that supplied more than 50 percent of the drugs to the Sudanese people.

Following the attack, the U.S. then played an immature and inexcusable game of musical evidence; stories were changed or discarded on several occasions, including exactly what the original evidence was justifying the attack, which shifted from one thing to another as soon as someone asked for proof. After this debacle ended, every 'irrefutable' claim made by the government turned out to be untrue.

Then, as if to emphasize their appalling statesmanship and disregard for others, the U.S. blocked a Sudanese and Kuwaiti requested U.N. investigation into the bombing and its effects. Of course, such a request would have been reasonable even if the evidence was legitimate, solely to identify and address any humanitarian issues and concerns. But in light of the incomplete evidence riddled with apparent fabrications, such an investigation becomes morally obligatory for all responsible parties. All the while, this was accompanied by casual indifference to international protocol and law, if not outright contempt.

Such an incident sets a dangerous precedent for U.S. aggression, unilateralism and accountability. It demonstrates that the U.S. can do whatever it pleases, whenever it pleases, for whatever reasons and that no one will question them or call their bluff, most importantly when it comes to "sensitive" information which is actually never revealed.


HA HA HA HA...THERE'S YOU FACT BUDDY. NICE TRY THOUGH!
I've got the books at home to back me up. Since I'm at work I'll post quotes and sources tomorrow. be patient.

American WMD exports...
Iraq Got Germs for Weapons Program from U.S. in ’80s - Matt Kelly AP
The CDC and a biological-sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin, and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including West Nile virus.

How Iraq Built Its Weapons Program - Tom Durry
covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program.

Following Iraq's Bioweapons Trail - Robert Novak
An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War

thats just for Iraq. Ill find other countries that we gave WMD tech to.

Operation Iraqi Liberation

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

Not Operation Iraqi Liberation! That is the wrong designation CH!

Yeah, that's possible. I don't like the situation there. At least Musharraf is keeping the fundies in line somewhat in that country.
That is the question whether pre-emption keeps all players in line. There are - in my view - just to many. And the new national security doctrine of the US has warned them so they may even speed up their already existing programs.
I therefore think that the US is leading a wever risky strategy. Time is running out for it - or lets say the time for it is limitted. Iran is not an unskilled country. It has educated scientists. When Pakistan can produce a nuclear bomb Iran can produce one for shure. Though no one of us knows how far they have gotten already.
I would actually support a "Pax Americana" but I doubt it to be realistic, since there are too many players and I doubt that it is possible to keep all of them down.

I've got the books at home to back me up. Since I'm at work I'll post quotes and sources tomorrow. be patient.

THAT'S NICE, UNFORTUNATELY I JUST POSTED MY PROOF....SO YOU SHOULD RE-READ YOUR BOOKS

American WMD exports...
Iraq Got Germs for Weapons Program from U.S. in ’80s - Matt Kelly AP
The CDC and a biological-sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin, and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including West Nile virus.

How Iraq Built Its Weapons Program - Tom Durry
covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program.

Following Iraq's Bioweapons Trail - Robert Novak
An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War

thats just for Iraq. Ill find other countries that we gave WMD tech to.

Antrax spores are one thing....they can be found in nature. But "weaponizing" them takes specialized technology that I doubt we would have exported.

Have to comment... Im not saying they existed or not, or they ever existed or not.
What Im saying is you can not prove a negative. We can't prove they didnt exist, all we can prove is we can't find them (if they ever existed).
Hey can you prove that Bush has never taken cocaine? Can you prove he never molested a child? Maybe you could place him under arrest or nuke him, just in case he has.

The UN inspectors never found anything, the US inspectors never found anything and still the US invaded Iraq. And now the US is trying to save their faces and you're all buying it. Face it, you were wrong and it was all to do because of the oil. Fucking bloody oil. You can call me paranoid fuck that believes in conspiracies (like people in the US tend to do when someone critisizes the government), but Bush once literally spoke of America's oil interests to be considered, when he talked about the Iraqian invasion.

Anyhow stop fucking around with those theoritical things about "if they had WMD they would have nuked our country, whine whine whine", Iraq hadn't and hadn't got the time too the country was still recovering from daddy bush's attack. It AGAIN was a mistake, just like Vietnam. And the US is AGAIN losing lots of lives for nothing. "We are going to establish a democracy, the first one ever in the Middle East!" said a soldier heroic minutes before he got blown away by a suicidal rebel. You go there thinking every citizen thinks like an american and every citizen wants a democracy. Hell, what do they know about democracy? The only thing they know is that americans are a decadent people who show nudity on TV, and that's as much democracy they know. They also remember the last time the US visited them. People being bombed don't often forget their enemies. "establish a democracy..." what a joke. Thats as idealistic as a sjijite rebel blowing himself and his fellow Iraqians to pieces in order to get rid of US troops. Ideals don't work, the US used this statement enough to bash on Communism. They're a different culture and they have different manners of looking at problems.

THAT'S NICE, UNFORTUNATELY I JUST POSTED MY PROOF....SO YOU SHOULD RE-READ YOUR BOOKS
I said I'd answer you tomorrow. Since I don't have my proof handy right now I'm going to drop this discussion. Relax for today. We can take it up in a separate thread tomorrow.

Have to comment... Im not saying they existed or not, or they ever existed or not.
What Im saying is you can not prove a negative. We can't prove they didnt exist, all we can prove is we can't find them (if they ever existed).

Fair enough. But I think we can say with a high degree of certainty that "we know what he's got and where they are" was false, and the claim that Saddam had WMDs ready to deploy in 45 minutes was false. We also can't rampage around the globe invading people because they might have WMDs, and can't ever prove conclusively that they don't... ;)

haha.. pWned.. :)




No.. but if he was aggravated enough, he wouls most certainly attempt to wipe Israel off the map...

shhh.. don't tell anyone.. but that's the reason Iraq was invaded.. oops.. "liberated" ;)

He would never have attacked Israel. They've got lots of nukes and no one with a bit of sense (an Saddam was a smart guy, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to establish a dictatorship) would attack Israel. Every muslim state wants to get rid of Israel, but no one will ever attack it. Hell if that were the reason to invade Iraq, the americans will pay a lot more taxes for all those wars. If they only used it to establish a real democracy in their own land :p

Antrax spores are one thing....they can be found in nature. But "weaponizing" them takes specialized technology that I doubt we would have exported.

I'm sorry, maybe I missed something....Biff....are you saying the US never supported terror? Are you defending the US in the fact that they never committed acts of terror or sold WMD to other countries?

Where do you think Iraq got their's, when they had them? How did we know they had WMD? Well.....we looked at the receipt. We sold them so they could fight Iran.

We then supplied the Turks with weapons to kill Kurds.

Hell, terrorism? How bout when the US CIA set off a car-bomb in Lebanon to kill a muslim cleric? They missed, but they managed to kill 45 people, mostly women and children
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/8/newsid_2516000/2516407.stm

People...read the right sources. It's quite plain to see. We're not innocent in this matter. Admitting the mistake and making changes so it doesn't happen again makes more sense than denying it and starting wars that don't need to be fought.

Antrax spores are one thing....they can be found in nature. But "weaponizing" them takes specialized technology that I doubt we would have exported.

how can you argue that giving them the essential begginings to thier program isnt deadly? what would you expect them to do with that technology? make a willi wonka candy factory that produces nothing but the finest candies in teh world?

I'm sorry, maybe I missed something....Biff....are you saying the US never supported terror? Are you defending the US in the fact that they never committed acts of terror or sold WMD to other countries?

Where do you think Iraq got their's, when they had them? How did we know they had WMD? Well.....we looked at the receipt. We sold them so they could fight Iran.

We then supplied the Turks with weapons to kill Kurds.

Hell, terrorism? How bout when the US CIA set off a car-bomb in Lebanon to kill a muslim cleric? They missed, but they managed to kill 45 people, mostly women and children
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/8/newsid_2516000/2516407.stm

People...read the right sources. It's quite plain to see. We're not innocent in this matter. Admitting the mistake and making changes so it doesn't happen again makes more sense than denying it and starting wars that don't need to be fought.
Nobody is innocent, but it's our responsibility to protect ourselves, our allies, and our common interests. Saddam wasn't a major threat to us. North Korea and Iran are.

I'm sorry...I really have to know this:

Are there really people that exist that refuse to believe that they were lied to? Do you not even comprehend that you can be mislead? Do you think it's just not possible, or that it hasn't happened? Because if you honestly believe every news source that exists....you are sadly mistaken. The US has warped media sources just like every other nation in the world. It's best to get your news from sources who are independent of the situation, and who are unaffected by the news reported. Which, sad to say, is not Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek, Time, or any other major US network.

If you refuse to believe that an administration can lead a deceptive campaign.....when will you ever realize the truth? The Nazis deceptively mislead Germany, to which the Germans followed because of the inability to reason and the inability to spot deception. A mistake that they don't wish to repeat; hence, they are staying out of the Iraqi war.

I'm sorry, maybe I missed something....Biff....are you saying the US never supported terror? Are you defending the US in the fact that they never committed acts of terror or sold WMD to other countries?

Where do you think Iraq got their's, when they had them? How did we know they had WMD? Well.....we looked at the receipt. We sold them so they could fight Iran.

We then supplied the Turks with weapons to kill Kurds.

Hell, terrorism? How bout when the US CIA set off a car-bomb in Lebanon to kill a muslim cleric? They missed, but they managed to kill 45 people, mostly women and children
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/8/newsid_2516000/2516407.stm

People...read the right sources. It's quite plain to see. We're not innocent in this matter. Admitting the mistake and making changes so it doesn't happen again makes more sense than denying it and starting wars that don't need to be fought.


Thats a stretch. Yes, we have sold weapons to many different countries. However, the story you linked does not say a thing about the CIA or the US. You might want to check that again.

Turkey is a member of NATO and we naturally sold them weapons. What they do with them inside their own country is their business. Same with Saddam. Had he stayed within his own borders killing his own people, noone would have cared.

I'm sorry...I really have to know this:

Are there really people that exist that refuse to believe that they were lied to? Do you not even comprehend that you can be mislead? Do you think it's just not possible, or that it hasn't happened? Because if you honestly believe every news source that exists....you are sadly mistaken. The US has warped media sources just like every other nation in the world. It's best to get your news from sources who are independent of the situation, and who are unaffected by the news reported. Which, sad to say, is not Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek, Time, or any other major US network.

If you refuse to believe that an administration can lead a deceptive campaign.....when will you ever realize the truth? The Nazis deceptively mislead Germany, to which the Germans followed because of the inability to reason and the inability to spot deception. A mistake that they don't wish to repeat; hence, they are staying out of the Iraqi war.
I don't remember anyone here claiming that they couldn't be misled, or that they could place all their faith in the press. You seem to be assuming that everyone else is in the dark and it's your mission to enlighten them. We can all be misled, you too. Most of us get info from multiple sources.

Wow.....the Soviet Union created recombinent DNA weapons to single out people with distinct genetic traits thus being harmless to their own troops and people worry about the US having weapons to defend itself with. Wait and see what comes out of Russia in the next few years and makes its way into the hands of certain people.

http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/15-5biowar.html

Please read your own linked article; it says nothing of the type, mostly because such a virus would be impossible to create. At least research what you try to fear-monger with.

It doesn't mean Bush is a pussy at all. It is good strategy to attack your enemy at his weakest points. This is advocated by Sun Tzu and other classical strategic theorists. Iran is stronger than Iraq, North Korea's strength relative to Iraq is debatable. So, Bush was going for the enemy's "soft underbelly," the way the Allies attacked Italy first in WWII.

Also, your post seems to suggest the "one-size-fits-all" strategy the left loves so much, insisting that if one enemy is attacked for a certain reason, then all enemies fitting that classification must be attacked militarily. This is just plain stupid and pig-headed. Different enemies and different situations call for different strategies. (How many times do I have to post this before people get it?)

Dear God this is terrifying. First, your history is wrong; the invasion of Italy was really just a distraction, and in fact the Allied armies had just broken through the last defensive lines when Germany surrendered, because Allied forces landing in France had destroyed everything else. So your analogy makes no sense.

Second, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Iraq was the "soft underbelly" of what? First of all, given that troops and innocents are being killed there every day, it doesn't seem quite so "soft" as you imply. Second, what does invading Iraq get us vis-a-vis Iran and North Korea (those being your other examples)? I can think of nothing except to inspire them to even higher acts of resistance.

On the other hand, millions of Arabs now believe that we invaded Iraq as the "soft underbelly" of the entire Middle East, which we will eventually colonize with Israel, and then take all the oil for ourselves. So maybe you've got something there.

Are you politically brain-dead. Saddam was getting weapons. ANd had weapons. THe U.N. didn't sit aropund and do nothing, they stood around and di nothing. THey checked one house then asked to check another. Saddam let them in after he moved the wepons. When U.S. forces came he shot missiles at us that the U.N. and he said he didn't have.

France, Russia, and Germany didn't want us in there. WHY? Simple. THey were breaking U.N. embargos. No one was to trade with Saddam. They gave him found and weapons and money and he gave oil and money. They were breaking U.N. sanctions. Saddam's men used Russian, German, and French weaponry along with the SCUD missiles they claimed they didn't have to repell us.

Get your facts straight before you go blabbering around like your liberal self.

And the US has broken UN sanctions whenever it damn well feels like, so you can drop the holier-than-thou attitude, you conservative self. Saddam had weapons, most of which were crappy, old, Soviet, and not maintained well. He also had some newer, nicer weapons which were given to him by the US under Ronald Reagan, including poison gas, to fight Iran with. SO FREAKING WHAT?! Iraq's violation of the UN resolution, which was by the way killing hundreds of thousands of people, does not and did not warrent an invasion and occupation by a hostile nation. We have no right to invade countries because we don't like them and they may be a threat later, especially when just twenty years ago we were handing that country arms like candy.

Please....Saddam wanted to attack the US very badly. He placed a bounty on every pilot that overflew Iraq in support of the no-fly zones. He attempted to assasinate G.H.W. Bush as well.

As for France and Germany, I will withhold judgement on them for now. France actively went against the US in the UN. If you don't agree, fine, you abstain, but to actively work AGAINST an "ally" is quite telling. But what can you expect from the French anyway?

Is it agreeable that if one country vetoed a UN resolution which all other security members agreed upon, it would be "actively [going].... AGAINST an 'ally'"? Assuming it is, let's see how the US treats its "allies"...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

3/7/1997: Middle East: Calls upon Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities. Vetoed 14-1 (US)
5/31/1990: Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. Vetoed 14-1 (US)
12/14/1988: Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored the recent Israeli attack against Lebanese territory on 9 December 1988; (S/20322) Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Just as a random sampling.

As for the first part, North Korea wants to conquer the world. Should we start bombing them? Honestly it would benefit the US to invade Iran. Should Germany and Britain invade us first to make sure it doesn't happen? Didn't think so.

If we can help them overthrow their leaders the new government would have legitimacy among the masses and we wouldn't be faced with an occupation like Iraq.

HAHAHAHAHA!

Read some Cold War history, PLEASE. This tacic was advocated and even used multiple times, but never seemed to work. For example, look at the Contras in Nicaragua. Ironically, however, both China and Vietnam had their legitimate governments overthrow and replaced with communism in popular revolutions.

I have only met one liberal who said we went for oil. And if we did, shouldn't the prices have gone down??? No, they went up becuase we're coming more dependant on it becuase liberals won't let us drill for it in Alaska so we have to but from the middle east. The oil was the worst false liberal statement for going to war practically ever.

Did the US invade Iraq solely for oil? Of course not; otherwise we would've gone after Saudi Arabia first. However, the fact that Iraq has huge oil deposits made it, I would say, thousands of times more likely that we would screw around in their country in any way, including invasion. Do we intervene to remove African dictators who abuse their people? Or in the Balkans (took how many years to go after Milosovik?)? No, because there is nothing there to interest us. But oil always interests the US.

Prices aren't going down because 1) OPEC is working the markets again 2) Iraqi oil isn't reaching the market because of infastructure damage and sabotage on a massive scale 3) INELASTIC DEMAND.

Off topic, but prices are going to go up from now on. Get used to it. Also accept that US production has been declining since the 1970's and will continue, even if we drilled every potential field starting tomorrow. We just do not have enough of the worldwide oil reserve to compete with OPEC.

That fact of the matter is he did. We found vehicles and plants to manufacture and store WMD. He didn;t use those, he got those out.

How are peope so unaware of the facts. You just don't let something like sense stand in the way of your argument.

Since you are the only person on Earth voicing this opinion, please demonstrate some evidence that it is correct. We have yet to find jack shit about any sort of WMD, which is distrubing partially because we should at least find some stamped "MADE IN USA" unless he used them all.

If you refuse to believe that an administration can lead a deceptive campaign.....when will you ever realize the truth? The Nazis deceptively mislead Germany, to which the Germans followed because of the inability to reason and the inability to spot deception. A mistake that they don't wish to repeat; hence, they are staying out of the Iraqi war.

anyone remember in 2000 when the republican canidate was still up in the air, suddenly there was a rumor about Senator John McCains black baby. that went over real well in teh south. McCain lost points in many southern states over that little rumor, the benafactor was bush. but nah, deception doesnt happen its all in our "liberal" heads, just like that leprochaun over in the corner

how can you argue that giving them the essential begginings to thier program isnt deadly? what would you expect them to do with that technology? make a willi wonka candy factory that produces nothing but the finest candies in teh world?

Anthrax, unless weaponized is hard to contract. Unless you can show that we sold anyone weaponized antrax or the means to make their own, then this is a non-story really.

How common is anthrax and who can get it?

Anthrax is most common in agricultural regions where it occurs in animals. These include South and Central America, Southern and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, and the Middle East. When anthrax affects humans, it is usually due to an occupational exposure to infected animals or their products. Workers who are exposed to dead animals and animal products from other countries where anthrax is more common may become infected with B. anthracis (industrial anthrax). Anthrax in wild livestock has occurred in the United States.

What are the symptoms of anthrax?

Symptoms of disease vary depending on how the disease was contracted, but symptoms usually occur within 7 days.

Cutaneous: Most (about 95%) anthrax infections occur when the bacterium enters a cut or abrasion on the skin, such as when handling contaminated wool, hides, leather or hair products (especially goat hair) of infected animals. Skin infection begins as a raised itchy bump that resembles an insect bite but within 1-2 days develops into a vesicle and then a painless ulcer, usually 1-3 cm in diameter, with a characteristic black necrotic (dying) area in the center. Lymph glands in the adjacent area may swell. About 20% of untreated cases of cutaneous anthrax will result in death. Deaths are rare with appropriate antimicrobial therapy.

Inhalation: Initial symptoms may resemble a common cold. After several days, the symptoms may progress to severe breathing problems and shock. Inhalation anthrax is usually fatal. (A large number of spores need to be inhaled in order to contract Anthrax this way. Weaponizing antrax makes the spores smaller, thus allowing for more spores to be inhaled.)

Intestinal: The intestinal disease form of anthrax may follow the consumption of contaminated meat and is characterized by an acute inflammation of the intestinal tract. Initial signs of nausea, loss of appetite, vomiting, fever are followed by abdominal pain, vomiting of blood, and severe diarrhea. Intestinal anthrax results in death in 25% to 60% of cases.

So as you can see....antrax is found in many parts of the world already and is not as fatal as some would have us believe.

Turkey is a member of NATO and we naturally sold them weapons. What they do with them inside their own country is their business. Same with Saddam. Had he stayed within his own borders killing his own people, noone would have cared.

he was doing a good job staying in his country after we beat his ass in the first gulf war.

Sure...and France and Germany were going around the UN sanctions helping Saddam. Why do you think they fought tooth and nail against us going in there. We found a lot of weapons that were made in France and germany on the battlefield.

Wake up to who our real allies are and how useless the UN really is.Shit--Halliburton was going around the UN sanctions. You still haven't told me how intent = imminent threat.

Here's the thing you're so conveniently overlooking. We went to war when we did and in the fashion we did because Bush and his administration said over and over again that Iraq was a threat that had to be dealt with now, damnit and we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud and all that shit. Looking at the situation now, it's very obvious that no matter how much intent Hussein had to make and deliver, he was--at the time of the start of the war--no threat to the US or any of our allies. Full stop. End of story.

Why? Because the sanctions and the no-fly zones worked--no matter how much companies and other countries sought to circumvent those protections, the sanctions worked. How do we know they worked? Because Hussein didn't have any WMD!

Sorry if anyone else on the thread has already covered this--I just got back and opened the thread at this point.

Turkey is a member of NATO and we naturally sold them weapons. What they do with them inside their own country is their business. Same with Saddam. Had he stayed within his own borders killing his own people, noone would have cared.

1. You have just contradicted the very president you worship so much.
2. This statement is inherently evil.
3. This statement still makes no sense in context to all of your other arguments. Did Saddam invade someone one day before we attacked? What did Iraq do outside Iraqi borders which compelled us to take said country over?

So you have just massively contradicted yourself. Kindly explain the subtleties to this silly liberal who doesn't understand why we now invaded someone over something that isn't our business, about which we don't care.

Please read your own linked article; it says nothing of the type, mostly because such a virus would be impossible to create. At least research what you try to fear-monger with.



Dear God this is terrifying. First, your history is wrong; the invasion of Italy was really just a distraction, and in fact the Allied armies had just broken through the last defensive lines when Germany surrendered, because Allied forces landing in France had destroyed everything else. So your analogy makes no sense.

Second, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Iraq was the "soft underbelly" of what? First of all, given that troops and innocents are being killed there every day, it doesn't seem quite so "soft" as you imply. Second, what does invading Iraq get us vis-a-vis Iran and North Korea (those being your other examples)? I can think of nothing except to inspire them to even higher acts of resistance.

On the other hand, millions of Arabs now believe that we invaded Iraq as the "soft underbelly" of the entire Middle East, which we will eventually colonize with Israel, and then take all the oil for ourselves. So maybe you've got something there.



And the US has broken UN sanctions whenever it damn well feels like, so you can drop the holier-than-thou attitude, you conservative self. Saddam had weapons, most of which were crappy, old, Soviet, and not maintained well. He also had some newer, nicer weapons which were given to him by the US under Ronald Reagan, including poison gas, to fight Iran with. SO FREAKING WHAT?! Iraq's violation of the UN resolution, which was by the way killing hundreds of thousands of people, does not and did not warrent an invasion and occupation by a hostile nation. We have no right to invade countries because we don't like them and they may be a threat later, especially when just twenty years ago we were handing that country arms like candy.



Is it agreeable that if one country vetoed a UN resolution which all other security members agreed upon, it would be "actively [going].... AGAINST an 'ally'"? Assuming it is, let's see how the US treats its "allies"...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

3/7/1997: Middle East: Calls upon Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities. Vetoed 14-1 (US)
5/31/1990: Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. Vetoed 14-1 (US)
12/14/1988: Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored the recent Israeli attack against Lebanese territory on 9 December 1988; (S/20322) Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Just as a random sampling.

As for the first part, North Korea wants to conquer the world. Should we start bombing them? Honestly it would benefit the US to invade Iran. Should Germany and Britain invade us first to make sure it doesn't happen? Didn't think so.



HAHAHAHAHA!

Read some Cold War history, PLEASE. This tacic was advocated and even used multiple times, but never seemed to work. For example, look at the Contras in Nicaragua. Ironically, however, both China and Vietnam had their legitimate governments overthrow and replaced with communism in popular revolutions.



Did the US invade Iraq solely for oil? Of course not; otherwise we would've gone after Saudi Arabia first. However, the fact that Iraq has huge oil deposits made it, I would say, thousands of times more likely that we would screw around in their country in any way, including invasion. Do we intervene to remove African dictators who abuse their people? Or in the Balkans (took how many years to go after Milosovik?)? No, because there is nothing there to interest us. But oil always interests the US.

Prices aren't going down because 1) OPEC is working the markets again 2) Iraqi oil isn't reaching the market because of infastructure damage and sabotage on a massive scale 3) INELASTIC DEMAND.

Off topic, but prices are going to go up from now on. Get used to it. Also accept that US production has been declining since the 1970's and will continue, even if we drilled every potential field starting tomorrow. We just do not have enough of the worldwide oil reserve to compete with OPEC.



Since you are the only person on Earth voicing this opinion, please demonstrate some evidence that it is correct. We have yet to find jack shit about any sort of WMD, which is distrubing partially because we should at least find some stamped "MADE IN USA" unless he used them all.
Communism was an unworkable idea that is rapidly dying off. That's a bit of post cold war history. Democracy is holding steady or expanding. Encouraging the democratic elements in N. Korea and Iran would grant them a government with true legitimacy among the people.

Communism was an unworkable idea that is rapidly dying off. That's a bit of post cold war history. Democracy is holding steady or expanding. Encouraging the democratic elements in N. Korea and Iran would grant them a government with true legitimacy among the people.

Thank you for so eloquently refuting each and every single one of my points. Now I see my error, and will skulk away into the shadows, like Gollum.

1. You have just contradicted the very president you worship so much.
2. This statement is inherently evil.
3. This statement still makes no sense in context to all of your other arguments. Did Saddam invade someone one day before we attacked? What did Iraq do outside Iraqi borders which compelled us to take said country over?

So you have just massively contradicted yourself. Kindly explain the subtleties to this silly liberal who doesn't understand why we now invaded someone over something that isn't our business, about which we don't care.

1. I do not worship anyone or anything.

2. It also happens to be factual.

3. Saddam had a history of going outside of his own borders and causing mischief. 12 years of keeping him contained was enough. Now we don't have to worry about him anymore and the "terrorists" can now fight the US military in Iraq instead of attacking civilians here. Better to have them try to kill Americans who can and will fight back than those who cannot.

Thank you for so eloquently refuting each and every single one of my points. Now I see my error, and will skulk away into the shadows, like Gollum.
What point? That people in Vietnam and China love communism? Remember Teinanmin square? How about the dissatisfaction that people of Hong Kong feel with their brand new communist rule? How about the fact that after Vietnam went communist the standard of living has stagnated and they are barely participating in the world economy? Nicaragua was not an attempt to help out indigenous democracy it was an attempt to replace one hated dictator with another who would be friendlier to the US. Face it pal, communism's days are numbered.

Shit--Halliburton was going around the UN sanctions. You still haven't told me how intent = imminent threat.

Here's the thing you're so conveniently overlooking. We went to war when we did and in the fashion we did because Bush and his administration said over and over again that Iraq was a threat that had to be dealt with now, damnit and we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud and all that shit. Looking at the situation now, it's very obvious that no matter how much intent Hussein had to make and deliver, he was--at the time of the start of the war--no threat to the US or any of our allies. Full stop. End of story.

Why? Because the sanctions and the no-fly zones worked--no matter how much companies and other countries sought to circumvent those protections, the sanctions worked. How do we know they worked? Because Hussein didn't have any WMD!

Sorry if anyone else on the thread has already covered this--I just got back and opened the thread at this point.


I don't agree with Bush that we had to go NOW. But Saddam needed to be deposed and the only way to do that was to go in and take him out of power. Now that is done and those who want to kill Americans can go to iraq and fight some who will fight back. Better they fight there than here.

3. Saddam had a history of going outside of his own borders and causing mischief. 12 years of keeping him contained was enough. Now we don't have to worry about him anymore and the "terrorists" can now fight the US military in Iraq instead of attacking civilians here. Better to have them try to kill Americans who can and will fight back than those who cannot.
Tell me again when Iraqi terrorists attacked US citizens in the US?

1. I do not worship anyone or anything.

2. It also happens to be factual.

3. Saddam had a history of going outside of his own borders and causing mischief. 12 years of keeping him contained was enough. Now we don't have to worry about him anymore and the "terrorists" can now fight the US military in Iraq instead of attacking civilians here. Better to have them try to kill Americans who can and will fight back than those who cannot.
Yeah, there are islamofascist terrorists in Iraq, and they are fighting US troops. It doesn't logically follow that they can't also have cells here in the US who want to hit us on our home soil. The Iraq war hasn't made us safer. It has, however, radicalized many young muslim men. Some of those will join Al Quaeda.

I don't agree with Bush that we had to go NOW. But Saddam needed to be deposed and the only way to do that was to go in and take him out of power. Now that is done and those who want to kill Americans can go to iraq and fight some who will fight back. Better they fight there than here.
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here Biff.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here Biff.

I don't think so....then again, I have been to the Middle East and spent 2 1/2 years there in total. So my knowledge of and experience in the area may cause me to look at things there in a different light than others might.

Tell me again when Iraqi terrorists attacked US citizens in the US?

They had not....but that does not mean they would not. i think in time they would have. Saddam had sent assassins into Kuwait at least once and there were border skirmishes with Kuwait after 1991 as well.

The Fact of the matter is this. We have known for many years the possibility of Saddam's hatred of America to spill out into violence. And it did. There was a connection with him and 9/11 and if you don't want to admit that think about this. He was a violent dictator that killed and assasinated thousands. He spoke and taught about "Evil America" His persuasion of speech have pushed many to hate America and kill Americans. And for Weapons of Mass destruction. Why was it that we found a carrier made for carrying biological weapons. There was a direct threat from Saddam...Why do you think he was hiding in a hole when he was found?

That is in no way tying him to the attacks on this country. Why does everyone ignore the fact that Bin Laden hated Saddam as much as we do? His country was not a fundamentalism...that is why Bin Laden hated him. There is no connection between Hussein and 9/11...although I'm sure he loved it when it happened. And him hiding in a hole has nothing to do with anything...he was in a camo bunker...no shit. He didn't want to sit in prison.

Oh, and he killed thousands with American chemical weapons by the way. We gave them to him to fight the Iranians...because the Iranians used to be the country we hated most over there due to the hostage thing in the 70's.

Yeah, there are islamofascist terrorists in Iraq, and they are fighting US troops. It doesn't logically follow that they can't also have cells here in the US who want to hit us on our home soil. The Iraq war hasn't made us safer. It has, however, radicalized many young muslim men. Some of those will join Al Quaeda.

Probably so...but hopefully the increased security here will prevent that from happening and by being in Iraq and Afganistan (two countries they can easily enter) they are more likely to want to fight us there.

3. Saddam had a history of going outside of his own borders and causing mischief. 12 years of keeping him contained was enough. Now we don't have to worry about him anymore and the "terrorists" can now fight the US military in Iraq instead of attacking civilians here. Better to have them try to kill Americans who can and will fight back than those who cannot.

The ratio of arab deaths and american deaths in times of combat is 30:1. because of this they have stopped launching conventional attacks and even in some cases stopped ambushes and quick attacks where they drive and shoot. they are starting to rely more heavily on booby traps and the sort. you also forgot about the new recruiting videos that the terrorists have because were over there. I still havnt seen any smoking gun, all I have seen is the reservists getting screwed, billions of dollars go down the drain, and a terror figure head captured that had nothing to do with terrorism.

They had not....but that does not mean they would not. i think in time they would have. Saddam had sent assassins into Kuwait at least once and there were border skirmishes with Kuwait after 1991 as well.
And little green monkeys might fly out of my ass and spread a wave of terror across the land of Nod. Just there's a possibility of something happening doesn't mean 1) it's likely or 2) that there aren't more important things to worry about.

Iraq was contained. I knew that, and I was just a grad student in Arkansas at the time. We had bigger issues to deal with than a tinpot dictator in a contained environment, and if the UN had wanted to lift the sanctions, all we had to do was say "No." That veto power comes in handy sometimes.

But because we "dealt with" this ephemeral threat--dealt with meaning set ourselves up as targets in a war we can't hope to win now--we now have not only a more unstable Iraq, we still have a major threat from al Qaeda, we have North Korea playing more games with nukes, we have Iran talking shit to the IAEA because they know we can't do anything about it, and our allies have their hands full with their own problems. It wasn't worth it, not in any way you look at it.

Please read your own linked article; it says nothing of the type, mostly because such a virus would be impossible to create. At least research what you try to fear-monger with.



Dear God this is terrifying. First, your history is wrong; the invasion of Italy was really just a distraction, and in fact the Allied armies had just broken through the last defensive lines when Germany surrendered, because Allied forces landing in France had destroyed everything else. So your analogy makes no sense.

Second, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Iraq was the "soft underbelly" of what? First of all, given that troops and innocents are being killed there every day, it doesn't seem quite so "soft" as you imply. Second, what does invading Iraq get us vis-a-vis Iran and North Korea (those being your other examples)? I can think of nothing except to inspire them to even higher acts of resistance.

On the other hand, millions of Arabs now believe that we invaded Iraq as the "soft underbelly" of the entire Middle East, which we will eventually colonize with Israel, and then take all the oil for ourselves. So maybe you've got something there.



And the US has broken UN sanctions whenever it damn well feels like, so you can drop the holier-than-thou attitude, you conservative self. Saddam had weapons, most of which were crappy, old, Soviet, and not maintained well. He also had some newer, nicer weapons which were given to him by the US under Ronald Reagan, including poison gas, to fight Iran with. SO FREAKING WHAT?! Iraq's violation of the UN resolution, which was by the way killing hundreds of thousands of people, does not and did not warrent an invasion and occupation by a hostile nation. We have no right to invade countries because we don't like them and they may be a threat later, especially when just twenty years ago we were handing that country arms like candy.



Is it agreeable that if one country vetoed a UN resolution which all other security members agreed upon, it would be "actively [going].... AGAINST an 'ally'"? Assuming it is, let's see how the US treats its "allies"...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

3/7/1997: Middle East: Calls upon Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities. Vetoed 14-1 (US)
5/31/1990: Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. Vetoed 14-1 (US)
12/14/1988: Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored the recent Israeli attack against Lebanese territory on 9 December 1988; (S/20322) Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Just as a random sampling.

As for the first part, North Korea wants to conquer the world. Should we start bombing them? Honestly it would benefit the US to invade Iran. Should Germany and Britain invade us first to make sure it doesn't happen? Didn't think so.



HAHAHAHAHA!

Read some Cold War history, PLEASE. This tacic was advocated and even used multiple times, but never seemed to work. For example, look at the Contras in Nicaragua. Ironically, however, both China and Vietnam had their legitimate governments overthrow and replaced with communism in popular revolutions.



Did the US invade Iraq solely for oil? Of course not; otherwise we would've gone after Saudi Arabia first. However, the fact that Iraq has huge oil deposits made it, I would say, thousands of times more likely that we would screw around in their country in any way, including invasion. Do we intervene to remove African dictators who abuse their people? Or in the Balkans (took how many years to go after Milosovik?)? No, because there is nothing there to interest us. But oil always interests the US.

Prices aren't going down because 1) OPEC is working the markets again 2) Iraqi oil isn't reaching the market because of infastructure damage and sabotage on a massive scale 3) INELASTIC DEMAND.

Off topic, but prices are going to go up from now on. Get used to it. Also accept that US production has been declining since the 1970's and will continue, even if we drilled every potential field starting tomorrow. We just do not have enough of the worldwide oil reserve to compete with OPEC.



Since you are the only person on Earth voicing this opinion, please demonstrate some evidence that it is correct. We have yet to find jack shit about any sort of WMD, which is distrubing partially because we should at least find some stamped "MADE IN USA" unless he used them all.

We wouldn't go to war over oil. Saddam had and was developing WMD. He expressed his hatred towards us. And he would use them on us, so we took him out.

Of course prices are going up. We arn't getting permission to drill in Alaska so we depend on foriegn powers. These powers can charge us as much as they wanted so log as they all agreed.

Probably so...but hopefully the increased security here will prevent that from happening and by being in Iraq and Afganistan (two countries they can easily enter) they are more likely to want to fight us there.

I say it again biff, we never really entered afganistan. we have 3500 troops in there last I looked and we maxed out with 10,000 troops deployed in that country. It was a TV war, and one to show we were taking action

And little green monkeys might fly out of my ass and spread a wave of terror across the land of Nod. Just there's a possibility of something happening doesn't mean 1) it's likely or 2) that there aren't more important things to worry about.

Iraq was contained. I knew that, and I was just a grad student in Arkansas at the time. We had bigger issues to deal with than a tinpot dictator in a contained environment, and if the UN had wanted to lift the sanctions, all we had to do was say "No." That veto power comes in handy sometimes.

But because we "dealt with" this ephemeral threat--dealt with meaning set ourselves up as targets in a war we can't hope to win now--we now have not only a more unstable Iraq, we still have a major threat from al Qaeda, we have North Korea playing more games with nukes, we have Iran talking shit to the IAEA because they know we can't do anything about it, and our allies have their hands full with their own problems. It wasn't worth it, not in any way you look at it.

Well, if your ass is large enough for monkeys to come flying out of you might want to run around the block a few times. ;)

The sanctions were not working. Too many countries like France and Germany were violating them on a regular basis. North Korea has been playing games with nukes for 10 years. We don't have to fight them, they will starve to death soon. As for our "allies," they ALWAYS have too many problems of their own. We cannot rely on any of them except GB. Iran talks a great game, but they have no military to speak of and their populous is chaffing under the rule of the clerics.

I say it again biff, we never really entered afganistan. we have 3500 troops in there last I looked and we maxed out with 10,000 troops deployed in that country. It was a TV war, and one to show we were taking action

We did not need any more men than that. The Northern Alliance did the fighting, we provided support. Does it take more than 10,000 men to search for OBL? OBL is probably in iran anyway. The border between Iran and Afganistan is desert and an entire army can cross there and the Iranians would not know it for 2 days....

Of course prices are going up. We arn't getting permission to drill in Alaska so we depend on foriegn powers. These powers can charge us as much as they wanted so log as they all agreed.

weve gone to war over littler things then oil. hell we banned marijuana because it made those negros wanna rape all our innocent virgin white women. money makes the world go round, you know Granddaddy bush sold oil to the NAZIs during WW2? when you are talking about millions and even billions of dollars patriotism and morals go down the drain.

you know Granddaddy bush sold oil to the NAZIs during WW2?

Oh please post a link for this gem.

weve gone to war over littler things then oil. hell we banned marijuana because it made those negros wanna rape all our innocent virgin white women. money makes the world go round, you know Granddaddy bush sold oil to the NAZIs during WW2? when you are talking about millions and even billions of dollars patriotism and morals go down the drain.
I thought that was cocaine. Coke's the reason .38 special became the standard police round back in the day. A coked-up black rapist was assumed to be able to take multiple hits from weaker cartriges and keep fighting. History's screwed up, aint it.

Well, if your ass is large enough for monkeys to come flying out of you might want to run around the block a few times. ;)

The sanctions were not working. Too many countries like France and Germany were violating them on a regular basis. North Korea has been playing games with nukes for 10 years. We don't have to fight them, they will starve to death soon. As for our "allies," they ALWAYS have too many problems of their own. We cannot rely on any of them except GB. Iran talks a great game, but they have no military to speak of and their populous is chaffing under the rule of the clerics.
How were the sanctions not working? Did Saddam have stockpiles of WMD? No. Was he able to project power and threaten the US? No. Was he able to project power and threaten even his neighbors? Again, no.

So tell me again how the sanctions and the no-fly zones weren't working. Their purpose was to keep Saddam from 1) making or obtaining WMD and 2) threatening his neighbors. What didn't work?

We did not need any more men than that. The Northern Alliance did the fighting, we provided support. Does it take more than 10,000 men to search for OBL? OBL is probably in iran anyway. The border between Iran and Afganistan is desert and an entire army can cross there and the Iranians would not know it for 2 days....

the northern alliance were fighting the taliban. they did not care for OBL, to them he was a war hero. I saw a show the other day on the history channel that was saying how our northern alliance allies were in some cases aiding the escape of al quiada when they were supposed to protect the borders. So all those caves we were throwing napalm in were empty for a week. you dont trust someone you just met with importatnt tasks such as guarding the escape routes.

Iraq had no WMD's but had intentions of getting them...sure...just like 50 other countries.
What is your point...

Oh please post a link for this gem.
with pleasure.

How were the sanctions not working? Did Saddam have stockpiles of WMD? No. Was he able to project power and threaten the US? No. Was he able to project power and threaten even his neighbors? Again, no.

So tell me again how the sanctions and the no-fly zones weren't working. Their purpose was to keep Saddam from 1) making or obtaining WMD and 2) threatening his neighbors. What didn't work?

How were they working? Saddam was getting an ass-load of cash to continue building his palaces. He was no weaker in 2001 than he was in 1991. 10 years of sanctions did nothing. France and Germany were signing oil contracts with him. How could they do that with the sanctions in place? Could he threaten his neighbors? The no-fly zones were violated on an almost daily basis as well. Saddam was in bed with the UN with the "oil for food" program as well. How did THAT help the Iraqi people?

I thought that was cocaine. Coke's the reason .38 special became the standard police round back in the day. A coked-up black rapist was assumed to be able to take multiple hits from weaker cartriges and keep fighting. History's screwed up, aint it.

they also used that for the case against marijuana in 1700s i think it was. marijuana has a damn intresting past in the USA.

Yes, it is. It's patently obvious to all but the most blinkered. What is so surprising about a heavily oil-dependent country (e.g. the USA), in a time of rapidly diminishing world oil stocks, going to war to gain access to large oil reserves which they didn't have access to before (e.g. Iraq's)?

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but I've just noticed it in your earlier post:



LAND? You know some people who say that the USA invaded Iraq for LAND? Is America so short of arid scrub, dusted with depleted uranium? You think oil is an unlikely reason for the war, but you didn't fall over in incredulous amusement when somebody suggested LAND?



Don't care, sorry. Nothing to do with the Iraq war -- except tangentially, as another example of the West's increasing desperation to keep the oil flowing. Hence the invasion of the oil-rich Iraq.



Yes, it was false. "We know what he's got and where they are". Oh, no we don't, and again, oh, no we don't. What we thought he had just isn't there. He had nothing that could be fired in 45 minutes. That was false too. He had nothing which made him an imminent threat to anyone except his own people, and he'd been that for 20+ years. The WMDs didn't exist.

As for the "nuking America", please. Let's ignore the rather glaring hole in this scheme, i.e. Saddam's lack of an ICBM or anything like an ICBM, and his lack of a nuclear warhead or the capacity to make one. Why on earth would he "nuke America"? What possible reason could he have for such a suicidal course of action? Even if, just for the sake of argument, we believe that he'd gone stark batshit howl-at-the-moon crazy and ordered such a strike (and, of course, was capable of doing so); what makes you think his loyal commanders wouldn't just have said "Riiiight," shot him, and come to an agreement on a less immediately suicidal course of action?



Yes, that's it. The WMDs were real. I do believe in WMDs, I do! Clap your hands, everyone, and say "I do believe in WMDs!" Every time a child says they don't believe Iraq has WMDs, Halliburton stock slips a point!



Ho, ho. :) Good one.



Why drill in the areas you captured, when the areas you captured were covered in pre-existing derricks and pipelines? Because -- pure coincidence, I'm sure -- the invasion routes did seem to encircle a whole bunch of oilfields.



No, the looting continued after US troops entered Baghdad, for several days. The US troops continued to efficiently and effectively gurad the Iraqi Oil Ministry, and the Oil Ministry alone. Why could that be, do you think?

That's insane. If we did we would have claimed the oil and taken it as our own. ANd we wouldv'e been challenged.

No, i dont believe land. But ive heard it.

If i were him, and im sure he did. When enemies came i would've shipped 'em off.

I don't know if he had 'em. But he had the labs and was trying to create nukes.

*Claps hand* "I belive in WMD."

i know

becuase they could've been used to set fire to things. Saddam ordered them to be used for that purpose.

I don't know. MAybe becuase it was a Iragi source of wealth and it could've been used against us. The oil took men to guard and all those left went to stop other looting. We did the best we could.

Your attacks on Bush and the war on IRAQ are very un-patriotic. Support our troops, your just black-handing them.

the northern alliance were fighting the taliban. they did not care for OBL, to them he was a war hero. I saw a show the other day on the history channel that was saying how our northern alliance allies were in some cases aiding the escape of al quiada when they were supposed to protect the borders. So all those caves we were throwing napalm in were empty for a week. you dont trust someone you just met with importatnt tasks such as guarding the escape routes.

I agree, that was a mistake. Think we rely on them any more?

I just got Fable, so i wont be on for a while.

...Your attacks on Bush ...are very un-patriotic.
I Patriotism is defined by how hard you kiss the Chimps Ass...then Im proud to say im not a "Patriot".

alright biff here we go.

"George Bush, The Unauthorized Biography" by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin. the following is sourced from chapter 2.

George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was the Managing Director of the investment bank Brown Brothers, Harriman from the 1920s through the 1940s. It was Brown Brothers, in conjunction with Averell Harriman, the Rockefeller family, Standard Oil, the DuPonts, the Morgans and the Fords who served as the principal funding arm in helping to finance Adolph Hitler's rise to power starting in 1923. This included direct funding for the SS and SA channeled through a variety of German firms. Prescott Bush, through associations with the Hamburg-Amerika Steamship line, Nazi banker Fritz Thyssen (pronounced Tee-sen), Standard Oil of Germany, The German Steel Trust (founded by Dillon Read founder, Clarence Dillon), and I.G. Farben, used the Union Bank Corporation to funnel vast quantities of money to the Nazis and to manage their American interests. The profits from those investments came back to Bush allies on Wall Street. Thyssen is universally regarded as having been Hitler's private banker and ultimate owner of the Union Bank Corporation.

Early support for Hitler came from Prescott Bush through the Hamburg-Amerika Steamship line -- also funded by Brown Bothers -- that funneled large sums of money and weapons to Hitler's storm troopers in the 1920s.

According to Tarpley and Chaitkin, "In May 1933, just after the Hitler regime was consolidated, an agreement was reached in Berlin for the coordination of all Nazi commerce with the U.S.A. The Harriman International Company... was to head a syndicate of 150 firms and individuals, to conduct all exports from Hitler Germany to the United States."

Furthermore, a 1942 U.S. government investigative report that surfaced during 1945 Senate hearings found that the Union Bank, with Prescott Bush on the board, was an "interlocking concern" with the German Steel Trust that had produced:

- 50.8% of Nazi Germany's pig iron

- 41.4% of Nazi Germany's universal plate

- 36% of Nazi Germany's heavy plate

- 38.5% of Nazi Germany's galvanized sheet

- 45.5% of Nazi Germany's pipes and tubes

- 22.1% of Nazi Germany's wire

- 35% of Nazi Germany's explosives

The business relationships established by Bush in 1923 continued even after the war started until they became so offensive and overt as to warrant seizure by the U.S. government under the Trading with the Enemy Act in 1942.

In 1942, "Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over Union Banking Corporation, in which Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.'s stock shares...

"... all of which shares are held for the benefit of... members of the Thyssen family, [and] is property of nationals... of a designated enemy country."

"On October 28, the government issued orders seizing two Nazi front organizations run by the Bush-Harriman bank: the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation."

"Nazi interests in the Silesian-American Corporation, long managed by Prescott Bush and his father in law George Herbert Walker, were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act on Nov. 17, 1942..." These seizures of Bush businesses were reported in a number of American papers including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

my bad, i forgot it wasnt oil with this guy, it was just money.

How were they working? Saddam was getting an ass-load of cash to continue building his palaces. He was no weaker in 2001 than he was in 1991. 10 years of sanctions did nothing. France and Germany were signing oil contracts with him. How could they do that with the sanctions in place? Could he threaten his neighbors? The no-fly zones were violated on an almost daily basis as well. Saddam was in bed with the UN with the "oil for food" program as well. How did THAT help the Iraqi people?
I've already answered that. The purpose of the sanctions was not to get Saddam out of power. The purpose of the sanctions was to limit his ability to wage war on his neighbors and to thwart his ability to create or acquire WMD. They did their job perfectly.

Sure, the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam. No one questions that. But that was not the rationale used to go to war. WMD were the rationale, and they were ostensibly the reason we had to go when we did instead of waiting.

I agree, that was a mistake. Think we rely on them any more?

The vast majority, no. Afghanistan is gone. there is nothign we can do for them. It is now ruled by exclusivly by drug lords once you get outside of the military bases. The government is weak, opium production has risen 36 times. and the culture is just too different for it to become a democracy. its been in civil war for the past 20 years, and it continues to be. I hope Iraq comes out of this unified. However I question that as well because of all the different politcal parties. And as its starting to look like elections arent going to be as easily held in janurary as we once thought. But we are going to stay there for a while, you dont make the largest american embasy and 14 military bases in a country you dont want to stay in. that being said I think Iraq will might have a civil war a few months after the elections for thier president take place. Best thing we can do is disarm them the best we can, and rebuild thier infrastruture over there. We won the war, now we just have to win thier hearts, or at least break even with them.

I just got Fable, so i wont be on for a while.

i thought fable was comming out torwards xmas?

alright biff here we go.

"George Bush, The Unauthorized Biography" by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin. the following is sourced from chapter 2.

my bad, i forgot it wasnt oil with this guy, it was just money.

Thats pretty wild stuff. However....in 1923 when they backed Hitler, how could they have known what would happen 17 years later?

I've already answered that. The purpose of the sanctions was not to get Saddam out of power. The purpose of the sanctions was to limit his ability to wage war on his neighbors and to thwart his ability to create or acquire WMD. They did their job perfectly.

Sure, the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam. No one questions that. But that was not the rationale used to go to war. WMD were the rationale, and they were ostensibly the reason we had to go when we did instead of waiting.

Maybe, but he was still strong enough to invade Kuwait if he had wanted to. Kuwait has no army of it's own and contracts soldiers from Bangladesh to defend itself. They HAD Pakistani troops until the day before the Iraqi's invaded and they fled.

Sanctions do not work as long as a power can pay their military. North Korea is proof enough of that. They have self-isolated themselves and while they are starving, that is due to flooding and other natural disasters that destroy their crops, not from external influences.

WMD's were the wrong reason to go in. Unless there is some other information that we do not know, and that could very well be true, then Bush went in for the wrong reason. That we needed to take Saddam out is a given, but the reasoning used was indeed faulty.

Thank you for at least acknowledging that much. No chance I'll get you to admit that we had more pressing matters to deal with than Iraq, I suppose?

true, 1923 was just some background info. the 1942 union bank thing was the biggy. Id give some more examples of what warrented to the 1942 siezing but my internet is acting up for some reason. and I gotta go take a nap because tonights a going away party for a buddy whose getting shipped off to parris island SC to become a Marine this sunday. so its going to be a long night

Thank you for at least acknowledging that much. No chance I'll get you to admit that we had more pressing matters to deal with than Iraq, I suppose?

Well, there are other things we could deal with....but after 12 years of fooling ourselves that Saddam would come around it had to come to an end. Now we will have bases in Iraq and that will put Iran and Syria on notice.

On a personal note, I can attest that the no-fly zones were taking a huge toll on the USAF. Training and aircraft readiness were being greatly degraded. In exercises against India in 2002, US pilots came up short for the first time ever. Something HAD to be done and it finally was.

Could Bush have found a better way? Sure, but he ran with what he had at the time. In time everything will be better for it.

true, 1923 was just some background info. the 1942 union bank thing was the biggy. Id give some more examples of what warrented to the 1942 siezing but my internet is acting up for some reason. and I gotta go take a nap because tonights a going away party for a buddy whose getting shipped off to parris island SC to become a Marine this sunday. so its going to be a long night

I am going to look into those books. History is my passion. Thanks and don't drink too much.

I don't think anyone ever thought Saddam would "come around." He was a murderous bastard when we supported him 30 years ago, and he never changed--no one was ever expecting him to have a "come to Jesus" moment and suddenly remake himself. He was contained, which, for the moment, was enough.

It's your last statement that I find most telling, however. Bush could have found a better way--but he didn't. He ignored the experts and listened to the people who were telling him everything would be beautiful when there was no logical reason to believe that it would be. That--to me--is a sign of incompetence, and an unwillingness to prepare for the worst possible case instead of depending on the best possible case to happen. And when you're talking about the person who's in charge of the fearsome power that this country is capable of wielding, that sort of naivete is frightening. Call me crazy, but I want the guy who acts cautiously when there are lives at stake.

I don't think anyone ever thought Saddam would "come around." He was a murderous bastard when we supported him 30 years ago, and he never changed--no one was ever expecting him to have a "come to Jesus" moment and suddenly remake himself. He was contained, which, for the moment, was enough.

It's your last statement that I find most telling, however. Bush could have found a better way--but he didn't. He ignored the experts and listened to the people who were telling him everything would be beautiful when there was no logical reason to believe that it would be. That--to me--is a sign of incompetence, and an unwillingness to prepare for the worst possible case instead of depending on the best possible case to happen. And when you're talking about the person who's in charge of the fearsome power that this country is capable of wielding, that sort of naivete is frightening. Call me crazy, but I want the guy who acts cautiously when there are lives at stake.

Yeah, and Kerry says he would have done the same thing. So what are you going to do?

Yeah, and Kerry says he would have done the same thing. So what are you going to do?Kerry has never said that he would have gone to war. He's said that he would have given the President the same authorization, because the President needed that stick to threaten Hussein in order to get him to open up for inspections, but he has never said that he would have made the same decision as Bush did. If you can prove otherwise, please do so.

We wouldn't go to war over oil. Saddam had and was developing WMD. He expressed his hatred towards us. And he would use them on us, so we took him out.

Of course prices are going up. We arn't getting permission to drill in Alaska so we depend on foriegn powers. These powers can charge us as much as they wanted so log as they all agreed.

Saddam had WMD's? When? Can I get a source on that, because I'm pretty sure everything I've read says otherwise....hold on....let me check front page CNN.....yep....still says he didn't. Hold on, let me check Bush's latest campaign speech.....yep...I'm right....Saddam never had them. Hold on, let me check your head....yep....no brain.

It was all about war for oil. Saudi Arabia is much worse than Iraq ever was if you want a brutal dictatorship. Yet they're our buddies....why? Because they give us oil for cheap prices. Yet Amnesty International rates them as one of the worse civil rights abusers on the planet. Iran, North Korea, and many other nations rate worse on the "threat" scale than Iraq ever did. Brutal dictator regimes....there's dozens of them. Why Saddam, why Iraq? One reason....oil, it's obvious.

You're an idiot. Plain and simple, and I hope you're joking.....because you're definitely a joke.

Saddam has used them after they were banned. And when did we use chemical weapons after WWI?

Vietnam War.

Saddam had WMD's? When? Can I get a source on that, because I'm pretty sure everything I've read says otherwise....hold on....let me check front page CNN.....yep....still says he didn't. Hold on, let me check Bush's latest campaign speech.....yep...I'm right....Saddam never had them. Hold on, let me check your head....yep....no brain.

It was all about war for oil. Saudi Arabia is much worse than Iraq ever was if you want a brutal dictatorship. Yet they're our buddies....why? Because they give us oil for cheap prices. Yet Amnesty International rates them as one of the worse civil rights abusers on the planet. Iran, North Korea, and many other nations rate worse on the "threat" scale than Iraq ever did. Brutal dictator regimes....there's dozens of them. Why Saddam, why Iraq? One reason....oil, it's obvious.

You're an idiot. Plain and simple, and I hope you're joking.....because you're definitely a joke.
You forgot to mention that Iraq had no air force, that their army had been decimated, that their anti-aircraft and communications were in shambles, and that Iraq was weak economically. Why is this important? It made them the easiest country to invade and try and effect regime change.

However, it has turned out not to be the cakewalk that it was supposed to be. The Iraqi people are severely pissed that their country is occupied and they are willing to die in large numbers to take back their land.

BTW, Bush's triumphant declaration of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" in May of 2003, has proven to be a tad erroneous?

Operation Iraq Liberation has been a failed "mission".

And little green monkeys might fly out of my ass and spread a wave of terror across the land of Nod.

AHHHHHHHHH!!!!! Ass monkeys! :eek:

Saddam had WMD's? When? Can I get a source on that, because I'm pretty sure everything I've read says otherwise....hold on....let me check front page CNN.....yep....still says he didn't. Hold on, let me check Bush's latest campaign speech.....yep...I'm right....Saddam never had them. Hold on, let me check your head....yep....no brain.

It was all about war for oil. Saudi Arabia is much worse than Iraq ever was if you want a brutal dictatorship. Yet they're our buddies....why? Because they give us oil for cheap prices. Yet Amnesty International rates them as one of the worse civil rights abusers on the planet. Iran, North Korea, and many other nations rate worse on the "threat" scale than Iraq ever did. Brutal dictator regimes....there's dozens of them. Why Saddam, why Iraq? One reason....oil, it's obvious.

You're an idiot. Plain and simple, and I hope you're joking.....because you're definitely a joke.
Saddam had WMD's. We know this because he used them.

Saddam had WMD's. We know this because he used them.
However, he did not use them against the "coalition".

Saddam had WMD's. We know this because he used them.
Yes, but has he had them recently?

Wow.....the Soviet Union created recombinent DNA weapons to single out people with distinct genetic traits thus being harmless to their own troops and people worry about the US having weapons to defend itself with. Wait and see what comes out of Russia in the next few years and makes its way into the hands of certain people.

http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/15-5biowar.htmlI would just like to say that this link, although seemingly credible, mentions the Soviets all of three times, and never with any refrence to rDNA weapons that their troops were immune to.

Thats pretty wild stuff. However....in 1923 when they backed Hitler, how could they have known what would happen 17 years later?

So it is acceptable to support an evil dictator before he conquers other countries, but after that crazy ole dictator tries and fails, and then has his country suffer for 10 years, you should immediately invade because he might be dangerous. Thank you for not going into foreign policy.

That we needed to take Saddam out is a given...

Would you like me to give you a list of 10,000 people who also "must" be killed, because they are "evil"?

Operation Iraq Liberation has been a failed "mission".

IT OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM CH!!!

I wish you will get the operation right you dumbass!

I think you need to get your facts straight, idiot. Joseph Wilson's Book, "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir" details how he headed up that investigation in Iraq attempting buying enriched uranium from Africa. He was sitting there, watching Bush give a speach saying this and thought to himself, "What the hell! That was my report, and I concluded just the opposite, that it was completely unfounded! Yet here Bush is, prior to the invasion, standing there saying just the opposite of what my report concluded!"
He came out to speak against this in the media, that it was a false accusation and he was the one who detailed this information and proved it wrong. You know what the Bush administration did? They released the name of his wife as an ACTIVE CIA AGENT! Read the book moron.
How many active CIA agents get their names released? None that I have ever known. You think this 1, that just so happens to be the wife of a whistle blower, is an accident? Yah right. Talk about a disgusting, dirty administration.
You need to check your facts moron, and stop supporting an oppressive administration that keeps you people dumb.


This is excellent and correct. The head of the Iraqi Nuclear program stated that they never tried to acquire yellowcake uranium from Niger because they already had an adequate supply.

Before you anti-French and so on and so forthers continue to get all uppity again, remember, that Halliburton's Cayman Islands subsidiary is being investigated for using French surrogates to sell prohibited materials to Iraq. There are no good guys in this situation except for the poor soldiers and citizens on all sides that have been plunged into war on an ideologue's say so. Their leaders are not even worthy of mentioning their names. And if this forum is any indication, George W. Bush is going to surf into a second term on a wave of mutilation and shame. And shame on us Americans for letting it happen!

dumbass!

Knock off the flames Corneliu. Thank You!

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Saddam has used them after they were banned. And when did we use chemical weapons after WWI?

Um, hello? Vietnam? Agent Orange? What the hell are they teaching you kids in school these days? Christ, I'm starting a campaign to get the South to secede from the U.S. Y'all can emigrate there and leave the rest of us alone. Seriously, there was no reason not to let the South secede in the Civil War, and I say it's not too late to give them back. The only good things the South ever did for us were LBJ and Bill Clinton. You can have your conservative aristocracy, corporation-owned ideology driven media, and oppress all the brown people you want there. Just leave California out of it.

You forgot to mention that Iraq had no air force, that their army had been decimated, that their anti-aircraft and communications were in shambles, and that Iraq was weak economically. Why is this important? It made them the easiest country to invade and try and effect regime change.

However, it has turned out not to be the cakewalk that it was supposed to be. The Iraqi people are severely pissed that their country is occupied and they are willing to die in large numbers to take back their land.

BTW, Bush's triumphant declaration of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" in May of 2003, has proven to be a tad erroneous?

Operation Iraq Liberation has been a failed "mission".


I don't know where you get no air force, decimated army and lacking anti-aircraft capabilities from. Iraq had an air force at the time of our attack yet we hit most of it on the ground or it fled to Iran. They had been challenging the Nothern and Southern No Fly Zones for a decade with their Mirages. So they actually DID have an Air Force and we actually were anticipating a number of dogfights. We also ended up finding over 100 aircraft that were hidden, covered by protective wrappings and buried in the sand. Saddam's troops just never got to them.

As for anti-aircraft, Iraqi systems were not in shambles, they jsut weren't the same quality they had been some thirteen years earlier. Most of their stuff was optically guided and therefore inferior, but still very effective. The major problem was that we identified the biggest stuff and hit it early. That, however did not eliminate the biggest threats, SA-16s which we have had a number of confirmed firings of. If you know anything about MANPADs, you would know that the SA-16 is considered to be the bad boy on the MANPAD block.

Their army was still substantial. I know... I fought it. They actually had a number of successes early in battles but were unable to sustain their success due to inferior equipment and a lack of supply train. No fewer than two divisions were holding their own when their flanks collapsed because of no fault to them, but their accompanying forces.

Iraq was/is hardly the easiest target for regime change. The ROE ensured that. The failure to seize the initiative and HOLD it were/are the key to preventing our successful occupation of the nation. OIF isn't a failure, it is simply a process that has gone long beyond its intended lifespan, due largely in part to an administration that ties my hands so that I cannot do my job correctly. I am no warmonger, but you cannot half-ass it in war and the Bush administration half-assed this one. They had the right idea early and then got soft. They decided to negotiate with Al-Sadr and other anti-coalition forces which in turn increases their support among the populace. Politics have done us in and because of it, more of my fellow soldiers die every day.

I'm sure that you've never been to Iraq. I have. The people like us as a whole. They are more relieved than ever that Saddam is no longer in power. They do not like the fact that they are being drawn into an urban war with their own people. The sentiment isn't anti-American or anti-coalition. It's anti-war. These people are tired. They have seen their country freed from a dictator and dropped into the chaos that is typical of regime change.

Oh please post a link for this gem.

This is an article from the New Hampshire Gazette about records from the National Archives detailing a Dept. of Treasury investigation that determined the first patriarch Bush sold oil to Germany from the '20s through the '40s.

http://www.rense.com/general42/bshnazi.htm

Um, hello? Vietnam? Agent Orange? What the hell are they teaching you kids in school these days? Christ, I'm starting a campaign to get the South to secede from the U.S. Y'all can emigrate there and leave the rest of us alone. Seriously, there was no reason not to let the South secede in the Civil War, and I say it's not too late to give them back. The only good things the South ever did for us were LBJ and Bill Clinton. You can have your conservative aristocracy, corporation-owned ideology driven media, and oppress all the brown people you want there. Just leave California out of it.
After my previous post I did some digging and what I found was a case of sarin gas use in 1970 in what was called "Operation Tailwind".
Agent Orange was a defoliant, not a "chemical weapon" and certainly not a WMD.

Your attacks on Bush and the war on IRAQ are very un-patriotic. Support our troops, your just black-handing them.


This is the most unpatriotic, unAmerican thing I have ever read. Are you an effing poon? How old are you? Did you PASS your civics class? Did you TAKE your civics class? TAKE YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS. Criticizing the president when you believe he is wrong is not the same thing as criticizing soldiers and it is GODDAMN well the most American and patriotic thing one can do - exercising YOUR VERY FIRST CIVIL RIGHT.

After my previous post I did some digging and what I found was a case of sarin gas use in 1970 in what was called "Operation Tailwind".
Agent Orange was a defoliant, not a "chemical weapon" and certainly not a WMD.

Napalm is a defoliant... so is the BLU-82. While napalm is not a WMD and "technically" neither is the BLU-82, I doubt anyone is going to make that differentiation. It was still used with more than one goal in mind.

IT OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM CH!!!

I wish you will get the operation right you dumbass!

Maybe Bush just couldn't spell his acronym correctly...

Napalm is a defoliant... so is the BLU-82. While napalm is not a WMD and "technically" neither is the BLU-82, I doubt anyone is going to make that differentiation. It was still used with more than one goal in mind.
While adverse health effects of agent orange are pretty bad, it's main function was defiliation. It wasnt dropped to kill people. It doesnt kill people

After my previous post I did some digging and what I found was a case of sarin gas use in 1970 in what was called "Operation Tailwind".
Agent Orange was a defoliant, not a "chemical weapon" and certainly not a WMD.

A defoliant that is based on chemical agents and caused massive waves of mutilation and health problems for generations in Vietnam, not even considering that it's been linked to cancer and other health problems in our own soldiers. If that doesn't fit the definition of a WMD, I don't know what does. Just because it wasn't officially classified as one doesn't mean it wasn't. History bears this out.

And what about napalm? A chemical agent that causes widespread destruction? I'd say that qualifies. You're going to get all SEMANTIC on me? Please tell me your morality and defense of El Busho and his Junta relies on something more than mere semantics.

A defoliant that is based on chemical agents and caused massive waves of mutilation and health problems for generations in Vietnam, not even considering that it's been linked to cancer and other health problems in our own soldiers. If that doesn't fit the definition of a WMD, I don't know what does. Just because it wasn't officially classified as one doesn't mean it wasn't. History bears this out.

And what about napalm? A chemical agent that causes widespread destruction? I'd say that qualifies. You're going to get all SEMANTIC on me? Please tell me your morality and defense of El Busho and his Junta relies on something more than mere semantics.
Exaggerating a bit aren't we? Generations in Vietnam? WMDs are dropped with the intent of killing massive amounts of people, civilian and military. A-O did not kill massive amounts of people.

Napalm is a gelled form of gasoline. What are you defining as widespread? There isnt, or wasnt a napalm munition of the size required to qualify as WMD.

Please tell me that your attack of President Bush, and the US government relies on something more than emotional (non)reasons.

While adverse health effects of agent orange are pretty bad, it's main function was defiliation. It wasnt dropped to kill people. It doesnt kill people

Actually Agent Orange, whose main ingredient is dioxin, has been linked to spina bifida.

From the Veterans Association web-page:
Based on clinical research, the following diseases are now on VA's Agent Orange list: chloracne, Hodgkin's disease, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, porphyria cutanea tarda, respiratory cancers (lung, bronchus, larynx and trachea), soft-tissue sarcoma, acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy, prostate and adult-onset diabetes.

Sounds pretty lethal to me. Only a couple of those occur later in life on average.

Oh, the BLU-82 isn't designed to kill people. It's main purpose is to create helicopter landing zones with a "slurry" mixture with aluminim powder as the catalyst, creating a massive overblast, floowed by firestorm and then negative blast, resulting in a vaccuum. It only has a 1.5 mile blast radius. By your definition, because it is designed to create HLZs and clear trees, it's not an offensive weapon. Sure...

Actually Agent Orange, whose main ingredient is dioxin, has been linked to spina bifida.

From the Veterans Association web-page:
Based on clinical research, the following diseases are now on VA's Agent Orange list: chloracne, Hodgkin's disease, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, porphyria cutanea tarda, respiratory cancers (lung, bronchus, larynx and trachea), soft-tissue sarcoma, acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy, prostate and adult-onset diabetes.

Sounds pretty lethal to me. Only a couple of those occur later in life on average.

Oh, the BLU-82 isn't designed to kill people. It's main purpose is to create helicopter landing zones with a "slurry" mixture with aluminim powder as the catalyst, creating a massive overblast, floowed by firestorm and then negative blast, resulting in a vaccuum. It only has a 1.5 mile blast radius. By your definition, because it is designed to create HLZs and clear trees, it's not an offensive weapon. Sure...
Dioxin isnt the main ingredient, The chemical compounds considered include 2,4-D; 2,4,5-T and its contaminant TCDD (or dioxin); cacodylic acid and picloram.
And it's health effects while wide ranging and certainly very bad, are not immediately lethal, and not even 100% lethal over long term.
As for the BLU-82, while it's an extremely devastating weapon, it's not a chemical weapon. My original question was when did the US use chemical weapons after the ban in 1927.

I heard from someone, i forget who, that america found mustard gas and seryne gas in iraq. any legitamacy to this? I told him i doubt this becuase Bushes speeches would include us finding these "wmds" even though to neutralise mustard gas you just have to pee on a clothe and breathe through the clothe and the ammonia in your urine neutralises the deadly effects.

I heard from someone, i forget who, that america found mustard gas and seryne gas in iraq. any legitamacy to this? I told him i doubt this becuase Bushes speeches would include us finding these "wmds" even though to neutralise mustard gas you just have to pee on a clothe and breathe through the clothe and the ammonia in your urine neutralises the deadly effects.
The only sarin gas I've heard about was a single artillery shell. I think it was found in a failed road side bomb, but that last part is shakey memory at best.

I have threatened to attack you but I do not have any weapons to do so yet. I have the desire to get those weapons and carry out my threat. Do you just sit there and watch me as I go about getting the weapon to attack you with?

What kind of bizarre world are you living in?
Name a SPECIFIC circumstance where the United States ITSELF was threatened publicly BY SADDAM HUSSEIN of use of WMD that he possessed or had relatively easy access. One. Waiting.

Wow.....the Soviet Union created recombinent DNA weapons to single out people with distinct genetic traits thus being harmless to their own troops and people worry about the US having weapons to defend itself with. Wait and see what comes out of Russia in the next few years and makes its way into the hands of certain people.

http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/15-5biowar.html
You have apparently NO iota of a clue how the numbers stack up against this being a feasibility. I suppose you're gonna fire off a few of the worst X-Files episode plots next. You're really reaching, even for you.

When did Saddam threaten to attack America?

Oh and France and Germany are your real allies. When America is attacked, they will stand by you. They will not stand by you when your gov't launches unnecessary invasions based on flimsy, dodgy intelligence.
Annan himself stated the war was illegal, are we gonna attack him and the UN now that he's revealed himself to be a *gasp* "liberal" Hussein sympathizer? Or at least supporter of some kind of international sense?
"So i have a choice to make at this time. Diplomacy isn't working. (ed-what an arsehole on that line) Do i forget the lessons of September the 11th (ed-note no postscript) and trust a madman, or do i take action to defend this country?" - Dubya
What a prick. Official: NO WMD. NO ATTACK ON US.

Are you politically brain-dead. Saddam was getting weapons. ANd had weapons. THe U.N. didn't sit aropund and do nothing, they stood around and di nothing. THey checked one house then asked to check another. Saddam let them in after he moved the wepons. When U.S. forces came he shot missiles at us that the U.N. and he said he didn't have.

France, Russia, and Germany didn't want us in there. WHY? Simple. THey were breaking U.N. embargos. No one was to trade with Saddam. They gave him found and weapons and money and he gave oil and money. They were breaking U.N. sanctions. Saddam's men used Russian, German, and French weaponry along with the SCUD missiles they claimed they didn't have to repell us.

Get your facts straight before you go blabbering around like your liberal self.
Hike your own blabbering skirt up buddy and read a little more about what actually happened. NO WMD's! Not getting weapons, not having them. If he had been getting weapons we might have actually FOUND SOME! NONE! Not ONE thing that were the underlying pretenses for invading their country. So don't bark off at someone like you know something more when you obviously don't represent anything substantial yourself.

North Korea is stronger than Iraq ever was. Also, I don't advocate invading either Iraq or north Korea. That would be too expensive in terms of lives lost and money spent. We should fund the liberal elements in those countries, encourage them to revolt and support them with American weapons and airpower. The enemie's weak spot is the oppresion of liberal elements in the population. If we can help them overthrow their leaders the new government would have legitimacy among the masses and we wouldn't be faced with an occupation like Iraq.
Astute. Take notes Biff.

IT OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM CH!!!

I wish you will get the operation right you dumbass!
Ohhh perhaps I didn't put it the way you could clearly see my intention?


OPERATION
IRAQI
LIBERATION

BTW, I got the operation correct. You kill the patients and remove the oil.

Yeah, and the assault on Italy was a great idea, wasn't it? You seem to be assuming here that Iraq, Iran and North Korea are all one enemy, rather than three entirely separate nations, coldly friendly to each other at best, mutually hostile at worst.

I agree, though, that from a certain point of view a military attack on Iraq could make strategic sense for the USA: it helps in the encirclement of China, it promises USA access to that sweet, sweet oil, and the country was so poorly defended that the war could probably be won with a small-scale US deployment, minimal US casualties, and the Americans would be received by the grateful Iraqi people as liberators. Sadly, although the encirclement of China thing is coming on OK (although huge numbers of US troops are now bogged down in one locale), the price of oil has rocketed and the Iraqi people haven't yet forgotten who put Saddam in charge, who kept him there throughout the 1980s, who smiled on his worst excesses, and who failed to support them in 1991 after encouraging them to rebel against him. Some strategies, like the Allied invasion of Italy in WWII, just look so much better on paper than they do in real life.
You rock!

Hmm. Lets think what the ulterior motives are. They are breaking sanctions and worl laws. Supporting terrorists and oppresive regimes. What happens if they are found out? Exactly. So they are going to do everything they can to stop the U.S. from invading. Becuase if they do they will find out.

And maybe we should have apologized. Or should we. Have you been watching the news? It turned out that that was true. He was trying to but the element from africa.

Get your facts straight
but the element from africa? worl laws? Get your typing straight. And while you're at it, look a little deeper than one link for your info so you can add something useful to this conversation instead of attacking people.

The Fact of the matter is this. We have known for many years the possibility of Saddam's hatred of America to spill out into violence. And it did. There was a connection with him and 9/11 and if you don't want to admit that think about this. He was a violent dictator that killed and assasinated thousands. He spoke and taught about "Evil America" His persuasion of speech have pushed many to hate America and kill Americans. And for Weapons of Mass destruction. Why was it that we found a carrier made for carrying biological weapons. There was a direct threat from Saddam...Why do you think he was hiding in a hole when he was found?
Caps your "fact" .... okay, connection here. I publicly state that Biff Pileon has threatened to use threat of force and weapons against an individual on this thread. His inflammatory statement incites unrest among the easily persuaded and ignorant among the other posters/readers on the same thread, and being as lazy as many of the posters are here, they accept the statement alone and not substantiated by the context. One or more of the affected people tell someone else and maybe a mod gets involved. Scuttlebutt and blabber. Now, there ya go! There's the connection between such threats, quantified and unconsummated. Then some other uneducated idiot or two tells people to get their facts straight (without spellchecking or factchecking) and yet ANOTHER individual tells people that they don't want to accept it as truth. And then, pretty soon there's consensus independent of actual fact. And that's about all you've got, so maybe you should think about that.

During the Gulf War, coalition forces wore personal protective equipment, fearing chemical and biological weapons would be used against them.

Note: CBW were NOT used by the Iraqi forces.

When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, under the premise that Iraq had CBW and WMD, I found it interesting that the troops were not wearing the same personal protective equipment as was witnessed in the Gulf War.

Why did the troops not wear this equipment?

http://www.global-defence.com/2001/images/p120.jpg

I have only met one liberal who said we went for oil. And if we did, shouldn't the prices have gone down??? No, they went up becuase we're coming more dependant on it becuase liberals won't let us drill for it in Alaska so we have to but from the middle east. The oil was the worst false liberal statement for going to war practically ever.
Hey Borman, again i more than implore you to get YOUR facts straight.
Alaska's oil in ANWR will only contribute .7 to 1.3% of the entire market so just what makes you think you're educated about what difference it's gonna make, regardless of liberal or conservative incentive? Do you even know why it was turned into a reserve in the first place? Do you know that Bush himself would not relieve the price issue in the states by allowing some of the reserve to be used that we already have?

During the Gulf War, coalition forces wore personal protective equipment, fearing chemical and biological weapons would be used against them.

Note: CBW were NOT used by the Iraqi forces.

When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, under the premise that Iraq had CBW and WMD, I found it interesting that the troops were not wearing the same personal protective equipment as was witnessed in the Gulf War.

Why did the troops not wear this equipment?
Maybe, maybe not a coinkydink, but try typing up
pyridostigmine bromide
cross ref some results, if ya got the time,
then type up birth defect results, specifically cardiological ....
Some disturbing info. i'm kinda surprised MK didn't jump on this one, given the namesake and all ....

That fact of the matter is he did. We found vehicles and plants to manufacture and store WMD. He didn;t use those, he got those out. He used SCUD missiles that he said he didn't have and the U.N. agreed he didn't.

They aren't america's real allies. They saw profit and turned their backs on what was right.

How are peope so unaware of the facts. You just don't let something like sense stand in the way of your argument.
The "fact" of the matter, to which you have repeatedly made obvious you know nothing of other than rhetoric, is that there have been NO NOT ONE WMD found. Try damn near any news source today and yesterday. Maybe you should learn some kind of marketable skill and move away from this kind of media.

Um...you do realize we are still looking for Osama Bin Ladin.
Well I am sure you are but I guess Mr. Flip Flop Bush must have removed Osama Bin Laden from the Number One priority spot on the list?

There are 15,000 troops in Afghanistan, and 150,000 in Iraq!! I guess Saddam became the Number One priority?

So Bush wants to defend the US against Saddam Hussein, even though Iraq was NOT involved in the attacks on America, NOR had the capabilities to attack America, yet the mastermind who DID attack the US, is just not that important any more, even though terrorism has increased since the US invasion of Iraq?

The Fact of the matter is this. We have known for many years the possibility of Saddam's hatred of America to spill out into violence. And it did. There was a connection with him and 9/11 and if you don't want to admit that think about this. He was a violent dictator that killed and assasinated thousands. He spoke and taught about "Evil America" His persuasion of speech have pushed many to hate America and kill Americans. And for Weapons of Mass destruction. Why was it that we found a carrier made for carrying biological weapons. There was a direct threat from Saddam...Why do you think he was hiding in a hole when he was found?

Even the Bush Administration admitted (reluctantly, albeit) that there was no connection between Iraq and 9-11. At some point even you neocons will have to concede this point.

While it is true that the Hussein regime possessed chemical weapons in the 1980's, it is equally true that American companies provided him the Bell & Howell helicopters and the civilian conversion kits used to disperse the chemical weapons on the Kurds. Remember also that the US was privately supporting Iran in its crusade against Iraq at the same time we were militarily and economically supporting Hussein's government. Anyone doubting this should review the 1987 and 1993 US Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee reports on Iraq.

So..this article is saying "Saddam had no WMD's, and had no connecion to 9/11, or the individuals that did.... but he was still a threat!!

Right.

Ohhh perhaps I didn't put it the way you could clearly see my intention?


OPERATION
IRAQI
LIBERATION

BTW, I got the operation correct. You kill the patients and remove the oil.

No you didn't CH!

The operation was:

OPERATION
IRAQI
FREEDOM

That is the Proper title of the operation!

Only someone that believes liberal propaganda would believe that it was about oil since I know that is what you are implying!

Amount of time Biffy has asked people to provide evidence for "gems" in this thread: 27
Amount of times Biffy has replied when evidence was provided: 4
Amount of times Biffy has admitted error: 0

Biffy's threat to the integrity of his own thread; imminent.

:D

No you didn't CH!

The operation was:

OPERATION
IRAQI
FREEDOM

That is the Proper title of the operation!

Only someone that believes liberal propaganda would believe that it was about oil since I know that is what you are implying!

Only a fool believes this war was about "freedom" for Iraqis.
Intelligent people have figured this out.
Links to Al-Queda not true and no WMD too.

The "fact" of the matter, to which you have repeatedly made obvious you know nothing of other than rhetoric, is that there have been NO NOT ONE WMD found. Try damn near any news source today and yesterday. Maybe you should learn some kind of marketable skill and move away from this kind of media.
Not exactly true. One artillery shell filled with sarin gas was found, in an unexploded roadside bomb rigged by some terrorists.

This nation was founded on outstanding principles by our fore-fathers. However, 230 years ago there was no such thing as corporations, monopolies, or even stock markets.

So much BS that I'm not going to even try and dent it. However the last bit is laughably easy.
Corporations, stock markets, and especially monopolies all predate the US.
Monopolies are as old as government.
The first European stock exchange opened in Belgium in 1531 (and first stock market crash occured in 1720).
And the first modern corporation was formed in 1600.
1600 + 230 = 1830.
It says a lot about your arguments when you put the current date somewhere around 1830....
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/pages/dan_corp.html
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=0767909550&view=excerpt

Not exactly true. One artillery shell filled with sarin gas was found, in an unexploded roadside bomb rigged by some terrorists.

Just to add - it was rigged as an IED by people who either didn't know what it was, knew what it was but didn't know how to operate it, or knew what it was but didn't want to take advantage of it's full effect. Binary shells (the type used) need to actually be launched to mix the agent. The IED in question was simply a shell wrapped in plastic explosive and detonated. Every indication was that it was a stray dating from the 1980's. If you know anything about large organizations, you know even the worst things get misplaced.

Nope, and neither should the US be a slave to the UN. The US should not even be IN the UN. We get nothing from it, it costs us more to be a member than any other country. It is full of spies that we catch and send home from time to time. It is beyond useless....


We're like years behind in our membership payments...it doesn't cost us anything. It is useless because the largest, most powerful nation does not use it...besides for using it to get a rubber stamp sometimes. But if the UN had teeth, it might get in the way of dirty little proxy wars.

Well....thumbing through 15 pages of this, all i can really say is every time the so called "liberals" have been asked to provide proof between 1 and 4 links to various news sources have been cited. I've seen very few such responses to back up the pro bush claims, and when confronted they fall back on "he was evil and had to be removed. Its probably time to give it up as a wash for both sides because frankly its mostly just two sides doing this.

:headbang:

If I had an intense "desire to aquire" a nuclear warhead and I could not be monitored or stopped easily, wouldn't that make me a threat?
North Korea came out and told us that they had nuclear weapons, but Bush never considered that a threat, now did he? :headbang:

Both sides used such weapons during that war.
It wasn't the Vietcong who bombed American cities, nor did they destroy the American landscape.

They did, however bomb South Vietnamese cities (so did America), and they did destroy the South Vietnamese landscape. It was a civil war that America should have stayed out of, or at least not stooped to the level of the Vietcong. Let the South Vietnamese do that.

Most of you did not attend a University in the 1970s. I did do that. Universities all over the U.S. were full of students from unstable places like Iran, (then an ally) Iraq(then not an ally but not exactly an enemy), India, Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and various North African countries.
Guess what a LOT of them were studying?

Subjects related to NUCLEAR PHYSICS!
Wow, what a leap of logic to assume that Middle-Eastern students were studying Nuclear Physics in order to build nukes back home.

What point? That people in Vietnam and China love communism?
How did this become a debate about the demerits of authoritarian communism?

The border between Iran and Afganistan is desert and an entire army can cross there and the Iranians would not know it for 2 days....
Actually, it's quite heavily guarded by the Iranian army. They have been fighting a "war on drug traffickers" there for decades.

So much BS that I'm not going to even try and dent it. However the last bit is laughably easy.
Corporations, stock markets, and especially monopolies all predate the US.
Monopolies are as old as government.
The first European stock exchange opened in Belgium in 1531 (and first stock market crash occured in 1720).
And the first modern corporation was formed in 1600.
1600 + 230 = 1830.
It says a lot about your arguments when you put the current date somewhere around 1830....

Funny, which country do you live in? Because the links you provide are referenced to England....who is a lot older than the United States and whose fore-fathers still pre-dated corporations, stock markets, and monopolies.

As the the United States, when Independence was declared and a new nation formed, the majority of the country knew nothing of monopolies, stock markets, or corporations. The majority of the country were farmers or entrepreneurs. The existence of such things do not indicate their dominance; nor where they considered when drafting the constitution or the early laws of this country.

Also, your first link is completely unrelated, as it details the history of the English corporations, which is completely un-related to Exaction's post.

Your second post, while detailing the history of the markets in the Americas, continues to negate the fact that the initial drafting of the constitution could not foresee the giant corporate intervention into our government today. I think Exaction was indicating that.

And the first "modern" corporation is kind of a stretch. What exactly is a "modern" corporation? Better yet, what is an example of a "non-modern" corporation"? Og's wheel making shop?

Nice contradiction of yourself as well, not wanting to dent the bs but instead you jump right in! You seemed to have swallowed some as well, because you've become full of it.

This is the most unpatriotic, unAmerican thing I have ever read. Are you an effing poon? How old are you? Did you PASS your civics class? Did you TAKE your civics class? TAKE YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS. Criticizing the president when you believe he is wrong is not the same thing as criticizing soldiers and it is GODDAMN well the most American and patriotic thing one can do - exercising YOUR VERY FIRST CIVIL RIGHT.

Allah be praised. I agree completely. Not only that, but telling someone to shut up about their beliefs is completely un-patriotic, if you follow the constitution.

Actually, it's quite heavily guarded by the Iranian army. They have been fighting a "war on drug traffickers" there for decades.

There are thousands of square miles that are empty....anyone or anything can get through there.