NationStates Jolt Archive

LITITZ, Pa. - President Bush returned Democrat John Kerry's fire on a missing Iraqi weapons cache Wednesday, accusing his rival of rushing to judgment before all the facts were known and "denigrating" U.S. forces and their commanders.

"A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief," Bush told supporters at an airport rally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well! I guess that means you'll be resigning, eh George?

Exhibit: Iraq War.

Kerry has also said repeatedly that it is planning, or lack of planning rather, like this that puts our troops in greater danger, and yet Bush wants us to believe that Kerry is denigrating the troops. :rolleyes:

Wow, Iraq wasnt a rush to judgement. Their IS AND WAS evidence linking saddam and WMD's, There were documented cases showing saddams brutatlity and the threat he possed to America and her allies IE isreal. It was and is clear that we should have gone to war and that the war was just and, the fact of the matter is, the wmd's that we never found, its not because they werent there becuase WE NO THEY WERE, its a matter of were they are now, most likely they were shipped off to syria days before or during the war or their burried somewhere in one of the many deserts that is iraq...why don't a think a little before you call bush a flip floper!

Wow, Iraq wasnt a rush to judgement. Their IS AND WAS evidence linking saddam and WMD's, There were documented cases showing saddams brutatlity and the threat he possed to America and her allies IE isreal. It was and is clear that we should have gone to war and that the war was just and, the fact of the matter is, the wmd's that we never found, its not because they werent there becuase WE NO THEY WERE, its a matter of were they are now, most likely they were shipped off to syria days before or during the war or their burried somewhere in one of the many deserts that is iraq...why don't a think a little before you call bush a flip floper!

Perhaps you should read the Dulfur report. Ignorance is a painful thing to watch.

IS AND WAS
There is and was evidence? What sort of evidence? Bombs? Wait, they actually found really bad bombs? When? Why wasn't I notified?

IS AND WAS
There is and was evidence? What sort of evidence? Bombs? Wait, they actually found really bad bombs? When? Why wasn't I notified?
You didn't sign the loyalty oath. Geeze.

Wow, Iraq wasnt a rush to judgement. Their IS AND WAS evidence linking saddam and WMD's, There were documented cases showing saddams brutatlity and the threat he possed to America and her allies IE isreal. It was and is clear that we should have gone to war and that the war was just and, the fact of the matter is, the wmd's that we never found, its not because they werent there becuase WE NO THEY WERE, its a matter of were they are now, most likely they were shipped off to syria days before or during the war or their burried somewhere in one of the many deserts that is iraq...why don't a think a little before you call bush a flip floper!


lol you know something the rest of the world doesn't? FOX news viewer are ya?

Wow, Iraq wasnt a rush to judgement. Their IS AND WAS evidence linking saddam and WMD's, There were documented cases showing saddams brutatlity and the threat he possed to America and her allies IE isreal. It was and is clear that we should have gone to war and that the war was just and, the fact of the matter is, the wmd's that we never found, its not because they werent there becuase WE NO THEY WERE, its a matter of were they are now, most likely they were shipped off to syria days before or during the war or their burried somewhere in one of the many deserts that is iraq...why don't a think a little before you call bush a flip floper!




1. Spell check
2. Use proper grammar (or grammer, however you want to spell that one)

These simple rules will allow your argument to sound intelligent, rather than assbackwards.

As well, Bush claimed they were going for WMD's and they found none. This makes the war, factually speaking, a false cause. He lied about the reason they were going.

It's grammar, and questioning your own spelling undermines your point.

Um... loyalty oath to whom?

For those who are really slow, let me repeat this again:

A whole lot of high powered explosives, though capable of causing a lot of destruction, are NOT considered WMD and were not the (ever changing,) rationale for going to war with Iraq.

WMD are ONLY nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is brainwashed. Get it yet?

It's grammar, and questioning your own spelling undermines your point.

Um... loyalty oath to whom?
Bush. Sheesh. That's the only way you get anything out of them.

It's grammar, and questioning your own spelling undermines your point.

Um... loyalty oath to whom?



Reason why I questioned it is because there is more than one spelling.

Examples: Color - Colour, Neighbor - Neighbour, Grammar - Grammer


It's that weird cultural difference thing kicking in there ...

Yep. Every study since the war says Saddam not only didn't have weapons, but stopped even trying to create them since at least 98'.

And yet Bush supporters still think they exist. Puzzling? Yes. Troubling? More so.

Did he harbor terrorists? Yes. Was he a brutal Dictator? Yes. Was he an immediate threat to the US? One that warranted a rushed war? Debatable at best.

But the Administration mislead us when they cited their reasons for the war. For this they must be held accountable. That's why we have elections.

...right, depending on your country and form.

If we had a president that flip floped alot i think that would be a good thing... not because he would be indesisive but because if he is flip floping this means that he has looked into an issue more and has seen the other sides point of view and went with that. this means he is not blind in sticking with one point but changes his ideas when he gets more information on them... If Bush thinks this floping is a bad thing it just goes to show that he dosent look at all the detales... or always instintivly picks the right side, which we all know he dosent.

For those who are really slow, let me repeat this again:

A whole lot of high powered explosives, though capable of causing a lot of destruction, are NOT considered WMD and were not the (ever changing,) rationale for going to war with Iraq.

WMD are ONLY nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is brainwashed. Get it yet?

Well part of the problem with the whole situation is that the Reagan administration gave Hussein chemical and biological weapons (as well as weapon material) so he could fight Iran with them. So in theory, at least, we should have found the stuff that we gave him twenty years ago.

We invaded a country with no WMD's, no ability to create WMD's in the next twenty years at least, led by a government which hated and sought to kill fundamental Islamic terrorists. But hey, it doesn't matter, Bush's third reason -- Saddam is evil -- still works just fine.

Reason why I questioned it is because there is more than one spelling.

Examples: Color - Colour, Neighbor - Neighbour, Grammar - Grammer


It's that weird cultural difference thing kicking in there ...

The only "cultural difference" between "grammar" and "grammer" is that the "culture" that uses the first one is comprised of people who can spell correctly and the "culture" that uses the latter is comprised of people who can't.

The only "cultural difference" between "grammar" and "grammer" is that the "culture" that uses the first one is comprised of people who can spell correctly and the "culture" that uses the latter is comprised of people who can't.

So what you're saying is: "Color" is the original word and "Colour" is written by people who can't spell.

Dead wrong.
Color, neighbor, grammer, ... use American spelling.
Whilst colour, neighbour, grammar, ... use British spelling.
Now you're not gonna tell me American spelling came before British spelling, are you?

[EDIT]

As I read your reply again I noticed you only used the grammar-grammer one and that it was correct. Sorry. :)

It is troubling to know that our President sent hundreds of Americans to die for a false cause.

Perhaps you should read the Dulfur report. Ignorance is a painful thing to watch.
I believe it's Duelfur, but yeah, people really need to stop ignoring its existence.

Geez, I guess the Democrats are doing a good job at making stuff up and communicating it to you all. You just can't stop eating it up. Simply amazing.

Geez, I guess the Democrats are doing a good job at making stuff up and communicating it to you all. You just can't stop eating it up. Simply amazing.

Yes. Last week they sent me a sandwich. It was delicious.

And that House Party cake was wonderful.

WMD are ONLY nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is brainwashed. Get it yet?

Theres people who think otherwise? The mind boggles.

I liked General Wesley Clark's response:
President Bush couldn’t be more right. He jumped to conclusions about any connection between Saddam Hussein and 911. He jumped to conclusions about weapons of mass destruction. He jumped to conclusions about the mission being accomplished. He jumped to conclusions about how we had enough troops on the ground to win the peace. And because he jumped to conclusions, terrorists and insurgents in Iraq may very well have their hands on powerful explosives to attack our troops, we are stuck in Iraq without a plan to win the peace, and Americans are less safe both at home and abroad.Like I said in my own thread on the subject--credit where credit is due. Bush is right on this one. Too bad for him he doesn't fit his own description.

And that House Party cake was wonderful.

You got cake too?! Ah, man. It must be because of the colour of my skin. Damn those fascist non-cake-sharing Democrats. :mad:

And Bush shoots himself in the leg again and again. He's such a collossal blunder for a president, it's a joke. How can someone as obviously braindead as George Walker Bush become president of the United States of America? It's a travesty...

And Bush shoots himself in the leg again and again. He's such a collossal blunder for a president, it's a joke. How can someone as obviously braindead as George Walker Bush become president of the United States of America? It's a travesty...I've got five people you can ask--Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and O'Connor. Rehnquist might take a while to answer since he's in the hospital with throat cancer right now.

Well part of the problem with the whole situation is that the Reagan administration gave Hussein chemical and biological weapons (as well as weapon material) so he could fight Iran with them. So in theory, at least, we should have found the stuff that we gave him twenty years ago.

We did find what we gave them twenty years ago, vaccines.

So what you're saying is: "Color" is the original word and "Colour" is written by people who can't spell.

Dead wrong.
Color, neighbor, grammer, ... use American spelling.
Whilst colour, neighbour, grammar, ... use British spelling.
Now you're not gonna tell me American spelling came before British spelling, are you?


"grammer" is not an "American spelling" of grammar. "Grammar" is spelled "grammar", "grammer" is a misspelling. Check your favourite American dictionary.

If we had a president that flip floped alot i think that would be a good thing... not because he would be indesisive but because if he is flip floping this means that he has looked into an issue more and has seen the other sides point of view and went with that. this means he is not blind in sticking with one point but changes his ideas when he gets more information on them... If Bush thinks this floping is a bad thing it just goes to show that he dosent look at all the detales... or always instintivly picks the right side, which we all know he dosent.

while this sounds like a naive response, i somewhat agree with it...

"grammer" is not an "American spelling" of grammar. "Grammar" is spelled "grammar", "grammer" is a misspelling. Check your favourite American dictionary.
Unless you're talking about Kelsey Grammer, star of the hit tv series "Frasier."

I'll go now. :D

Now the entire Democrat party has flip-flopped and decided that flip-flopping is bad. :rolleyes:

Well! I guess that means you'll be resigning, eh George?

Exhibit: Iraq War.
Wow, 12 years of resoultions, an inept UN, months of oppurtunties for Iraq to comply, WHat a rush to judgement. :rolleyes:

Now the entire Democrat party has flip-flopped and decided that flip-flopping is bad. :rolleyes:


oh? Is this from a new campaign commercial?

Seems like the entire Republican party is generalizing to me.

Wow, Iraq wasnt a rush to judgement. Their IS AND WAS evidence linking saddam and WMD's, There were documented cases showing saddams brutatlity and the threat he possed to America and her allies IE isreal. It was and is clear that we should have gone to war and that the war was just and, the fact of the matter is, the wmd's that we never found, its not because they werent there becuase WE NO THEY WERE, its a matter of were they are now, most likely they were shipped off to syria days before or during the war or their burried somewhere in one of the many deserts that is iraq...why don't a think a little before you call bush a flip floper!

The war was not a rush to judgement, but not because of the reasons you gave, these are fallicious and no longer disputable, except for the notes regarding buried WMD and the ones on torture, which I will explain below.

Iraq had no access to WMD nor the ability to make any. It did not want the world to know this, so it intentionally pretended it did, in part to scare off Iran, and also to prevent the US from attacking Iraq. Obviously, Saddam miscalculated and far overestimated the nonexistant deterrent effect, as, quite to the contrary of his expectations, an Iraq occupation was in US planning for almost a decade (Kerry and Clinton were two people who helped plan this entire thing out, in fact, almost everybody in the US government was riling for war against Iraq, the entire situation now is really just a blame game.)

Due to Saddam's deception, knowledge of UN corruption (which is now being further exposed,) and paranoid Isreali intelligence, the entire world soon thought Saddam had WMD. In fact, theres a good chance there are still underground bunkers with some chemical weapon stores which not even Saddam knew about. The point remains though that Iraq could not produce or use chemical or biological weapons at the time we attacked them in 2001.

Weapons sales likely did happen at some point but Iraq was for the most part on the buying side of things, mostly russian armnaments, to a lesser extent, french aircraft and munitions, and to an even lesser extent, secret shipments of north korean missles. The US contributed about 1% of Iraq's weapon stocks. By comparision, the Soviet Union/Russia and France combined supplied over 90% (the french taking about 24% of that figure.) If Iraq ever did sell it would have been chemical or biological agents, since they are not overly good at mass producing quality arms (their "superweapon" projects were significantly more impressive though, including a gun that could fire shells in trajectories which would be comparable to orbital insertions, however, US intervention meant this weapon was never built.)

As for torture, this is really not an issue with most governments, but most of the west would agree with you on this. Saddam and his sons would personally oversee tortures and interrogations, and had a liking of amputations. They also used chemical weapons to conduct genocidal campaigns on their own citizens. This brutality, although appaling, is not all that unusual in other parts of the world, and is thus not a good reason to go to war, but it was there.

As for the reason we did go to war... it amounts to faulty intelligence. But at the very least we can say it wasnt our fault. Nobody knew Saddam didnt really have WMD. He had us fooled, but he totally misunderestimated US resolve and didnt count on us risking an attack when we thought they could choke our soldiers. They were apparently very, very wrong, and Saddams troops were heavily demoralized when they found out they didnt have chemical weapons.

For those who are really slow, let me repeat this again:

A whole lot of high powered explosives, though capable of causing a lot of destruction, are NOT considered WMD and were not the (ever changing,) rationale for going to war with Iraq.

WMD are ONLY nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is brainwashed. Get it yet?
Why is everybody's perception of the term WMD that differs from yours wrong? It's not Weapons of Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical Destruction. Maybe some of us think that a pound of explosives that can bring down an ariliner is considered a Weapon of MASS Descturction.
n 1. any weapon which could potentially inflict fatalities and physical damage on a massive scale. 2. polit. the nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) arsenals of states identified as belonging to the axis of evil. also abbrv. as WMD.

Wow, 12 years of resoultions, an inept UN, months of oppurtunties for Iraq to comply, WHat a rush to judgement. :rolleyes:

Iraq DID comply. They got rid of their WMDs, and they allowed UN inspectors in to see for themselves. The US kicked them out because "the time for diplomacy [was] over".
War isn't something you should choose or have the option to do. You should be forced to go to war. America wasn't forced to do anything. What we SHOULD have been doing was invading North Korea, a rogue nation that actually HAS WMD, and would be willing not only to use them, but to sell them also.
Bush is such an idiot.

WMD is generally a massively destructive "special weapon." Despite what Gymoor said, this can in certain cases include conventional explosives, but conventional WMD are no longer in much use, although they did see use in WWII. The bombs involved were often the size of small cars and much heavier. The statement Gymoor made that WMD have to be NBC is not only fallicious, but also ridiculous and a tad humorous. Many things can be WMD, from anti-personell lasers, incendiary bombs, sonic weapons, flame weapons, feul-air bombs, and cluster bombs (which leave minefield-like remains.) This is why we generally would not speak of WMD, rather of "special weapons." Even then, some things like Napalm will still fall under "special weapons," but this is closer to what Gymoor had in mind.

However, generally, when we talk of Iraqi WMD we do in fact mean NBC, so whoever triggered Gymoor into making that humorous statement is equally ill informed.

Kudos to A lost pencil for grunting

This thread is quickly becoming very amusing.

Iraq DID comply. They got rid of their WMDs, and they allowed UN inspectors in to see for themselves. The US kicked them out because "the time for diplomacy [was] over".
War isn't something you should choose or have the option to do. You should be forced to go to war. America wasn't forced to do anything. What we SHOULD have been doing was invading North Korea, a rogue nation that actually HAS WMD, and would be willing not only to use them, but to sell them also.
Bush is such an idiot.

Actually, they did not comply with the UN resolutions, even though they did get rid of their WMD capabilities. They were actively bribing and impeding the UN, and Hans Blix was aware of this. Nobody thought Iraq was complying, not even the UN, in truth they werent.

As for North Korea, we wouldnt want to piss off our Chinese buddies now would we? We cannot deal with North Korea militarily because China is too important to us as an ally. They will become upset with us if we touch North Korea. Unlike Iraq, we need to stick to diplomatic means. For similar reasons we cant really invade Iran, as some European and Middle Eastern nations will object, and, altough still far from a democracy, they have a far more legitimate government than either North Korea or Iraq (although the Iranian population seems to adore the US culture their government abhors, go figure. Why cant Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, who actually have nice governments, be that way?)

Why is everybody's perception of the term WMD that differs from yours wrong? It's not Weapons of Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical Destruction. Maybe some of us think that a pound of explosives that can bring down an ariliner is considered a Weapon of MASS Descturction.
n 1. any weapon which could potentially inflict fatalities and physical damage on a massive scale. 2. polit. the nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) arsenals of states identified as belonging to the axis of evil. also abbrv. as WMD.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggghhhhh!

No one agrees with you, not the President, not the UN, Not the governments of the world, not the Generals, not the Colonels, not the media, and not anyone with anything more than a handful of half-dead neurons connected by a similar number of completely apathetic synapses.

It's like saying a cold is a deadly disease because someone conceivably could die of a cold, or saying matches are weapons of mass distruction because if you gathered together 380 tons of matches, it would make one hell of a lot of destruction.

WMD are specifically weapons of biological, nuclear, or chemical nature. Stop it, just stop it. Do you want to argue that the world is flat too? Do you perhaps still believe in the tooth fairy? What? What the hell do you need, and affadavit signed in blood by George W Bush, witnessed by Dick Cheney and the Prince of Darkness himself (though, come to think of it, I've never seen Cheney and the Devil in the same room at the same time before...ah well, I digress.) Would that be enough for you?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggghhhhh!

No one agrees with you, not the President, not the UN, Not the governments of the world, not the Generals, not the Colonels, not the media, and not anyone with anything more than a handful of half-dead neurons connected by a similar number of completely apathetic synapses.

Did you even read my post? WMD in the context of OIF might be implied to mean NBC but thats not what it means.

Actually, they did not comply with the UN resolutions, even though they did get rid of their WMD capabilities. They were actively bribing and impeding the UN, and Hans Blix was aware of this. Nobody thought Iraq was complying, not even the UN, in truth they werent.

As for North Korea, we wouldnt want to piss off our Chinese buddies now would we? We cannot deal with North Korea militarily because China is too important to us as an ally. They will become upset with us if we touch North Korea. Unlike Iraq, we need to stick to diplomatic means. For similar reasons we cant really invade Iran, as some European and Middle Eastern nations will object, and, altough still far from a democracy, they have a far more legitimate government than either North Korea or Iraq (although the Iranian population seems to adore the US culture their government abhors, go figure. Why cant Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, who actually have nice governments, be that way?)

Fine. Show me an article from the Pentagon or the Bush administration that says they lost track of 380 tons of WMD. That'll really convince people that Bush and his gang are competent.

Also, if these were WMD, and the UN knew about them, and the US knew about them (since they admitted they had the site under satellite surveilance even before the war started,) why weren't they included in Colin Powell's case for war in front of the UN?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggghhhhh!

No one agrees with you, not the President, not the UN, Not the governments of the world, not the Generals, not the Colonels, not the media, and not anyone with anything more than a handful of half-dead neurons connected by a similar number of completely apathetic synapses.

It's like saying a cold is a deadly disease because someone conceivably could die of a cold, or saying matches are weapons of mass distruction because if you gathered together 380 tons of matches, it would make one hell of a lot of destruction.

WMD are specifically weapons of biological, nuclear, or chemical nature. Stop it, just stop it. Do you want to argue that the world is flat too? Do you perhaps still believe in the tooth fairy? What? What the hell do you need, and affadavit signed in blood by George W Bush, witnessed by Dick Cheney and the Prince of Darkness himself (though, come to think of it, I've never seen Cheney and the Devil in the same room at the same time before...ah well, I digress.) Would that be enough for you?

No, it will not be enough for me. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean nobody does. And thank you Class Cow for pointing out that Gymoor's notion that a WMD can only be a NBC. Gaymoor, please stop demanding people who don't agree with you to stop posting on here.

Did you even read my post? WMD in the context of OIF might be implied to mean NBC but thats not what it means.

Specifically in the context of this war and the UN sanctions that preceeded it, these items were not WMD. Not by any practical definition, though of course we can argue semantics all day. The important fact is, whether they are a shitload of conventional explosives or WMD, they are gone. They disappeared either while the US was supposedly keeping surveilance on sites like that by technological means, or after the war started when Bush did not send enough troops or get enough cooperation in order to guard site such as Al Qaqaa.

No, it will not be enough for me. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean nobody does. And thank you Class Cow for pointing out that Gymoor's notion that a WMD can only be a NBC. Gaymoor, please stop demanding people who don't agree with you to stop posting on here.

Post here all you want. I didn't say at any time you shouldn't. Your militant ignorance just saddens me.

Nice pun on my name, did you think it up while picking your schoolground bully's chewing gum out of your hair while crying in the back of the bus on the long drive home from junior high? Did you have another "accident" at school? Was that why the other boys and girls were being mean to you?

Fine. Show me an article from the Pentagon or the Bush administration that says they lost track of 380 tons of WMD. That'll really convince people that Bush and his gang are competent.

Also, if these were WMD, and the UN knew about them, and the US knew about them (since they admitted they had the site under satellite surveilance even before the war started,) why weren't they included in Colin Powell's case for war in front of the UN?

I think you misunderstand. Iraq intentionally wanted to create the belief it had WMD, even though it didnt. Remember, to the Iraq government, this was considered a deterrent to US attack, not a reason for it to occur. They thought we were bluffing until the very last moments. They fooled the entire world into thinking they had WMD, and miscalculated the effect this would have on US movements.

Also, regarding the site where the high explosives were found missing, as was already pointed out earlier today in the news, theres a chance the stockpile was empty long before the US even set foot in Iraq. They havent finished the investigation yet, Kerry just pounced on the useful political ammunition because by the time they do find out whether or not it dissapeared while under US survelliance, the elections will already be over. This is a common tactic, and it works very well, but it is little more than onanistic retromingent bloviation on the part of the democratic campaign, at least until they can get some proof to back them up.

Post here all you want. I didn't say at any time you shouldn't. Your militant ignorance just saddens me.

Nice pun on my name, did you think it up while picking your schoolground bully's chewing gum out of your hair while crying in the back of the bus on the long drive home from junior high? Did you have another "accident" at school? Was that why the other boys and girls were being mean to you?
I had gum put in my hair once.
I was bullied up until the 10th grade, then I got to hang with the cool kids.
I did have an accident once, I shit my pants in 1st grade because I was too afraid to ask the teacher if I could go to the bathroom.

I had gum put in my hair once.
I was bullied up until the 10th grade, then I got to hang with the cool kids.
I did have an accident once, I shit my pants in 1st grade because I was too afraid to ask the teacher if I could go to the bathroom.

Too much information perhaps. Shall we continue with a truce on name-calling now?