NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514?page_no=1

I'll sit impartial on this one. Everyone knows me as a firm Bush supporter, but that was before I had this to make it easy. Anyone know a good reason to knock Bush assuming validity of this article?

First of all, WMD is already plural. The "W" stands for "weapons."

Second, they have not found WMD at all. They've found someone with a book deal.

"Short of discovering the weapons in Syria, those seeking to validate Mr. Sada's claim independently will face difficulty."

Im pretty sure there already was a thread about this, I think the consensus was that since that general apparently hasn't been Saadam's top general for 15 years, his information is suspect and probably wrong, but I don't think I ever got into the debate.

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514?page_no=1

I'll sit impartial on this one. Everyone knows me as a firm Bush supporter, but that was before I had this to make it easy. Anyone know a good reason to knock Bush assuming validity of this article?
Assuming it's true, then you could criticise him for being right at first, then saying he was wrong when we has right.

First of all, WMD is already plural. The "W" stands for "weapons."

Second, they have not found WMD at all. They've found someone with a book deal.

yeah so fllbblbbbbb (sticks tongues out and blows)

Im pretty sure there already was a thread about this, I think the consensus was that since that general apparently hasn't been Saadam's top general for 15 years, his information is suspect and probably wrong, but I don't think I ever got into the debate.

This is thread number three that I've seen.

Anyone know a good reason to knock Bush assuming validity of this article?

No Child Left Behind:D

Or all around stupidity and sliminess, take your pick.

Anyone know a good reason to knock Bush assuming validity of this article?

Human rights violations. Guantanamo Bay. Illegal surveillance. Just three off the top of my head.

McDonalds currently holds the Weapons of WMD.

McDonalds currently holds the Weapons of WMD.

Nice play of redundancy play. And I thought it was BK.

McDonalds currently holds the Weapons of WMD.
pff shows what you know. It's the Mexican's, damn them and their Taco Bell.

pff shows what you know. It's the Mexican's, damn them and their Taco Bell.

No! Not Taco Bell! Nyaaaaaaaaah!

If the WMD are in Syria, wouldn't that make them Syria's?

Second, they have not found WMD at all. They've found someone with a book deal.

Okay, apparently you misunderstood me. I meant, assuming the WMDs thing is true, I know you aren't going to change your opinion just like that (the human race is too proud to change so quickly). But let's assume they do find the WMDs in Syria. How would you knock Bush then?

If the WMD are in Syria, wouldn't that make them Syria's?

And we have to attack Syria because they can send them at us with 15 minutes notice, just like Iraq could, thanks to that African plutonium.

Okay, apparently you misunderstood me. I meant, assuming the WMDs thing is true, I know you aren't going to change your opinion just like that (the human race is too proud to change so quickly). But let's assume they do find the WMDs in Syria. How would you knock Bush then?

Camp X-ray, NSA's illegal gymnastics, fiscal stupidity.

EDIT: And Abu Graib, 30,000+ dead Iraqi civilians, 3,500+ dead Afghani civilians, 2,000+ dead American servicemen....

Okay, apparently you misunderstood me. I meant, assuming the WMDs thing is true, I know you aren't going to change your opinion just like that (the human race is too proud to change so quickly). But let's assume they do find the WMDs in Syria. How would you knock Bush then?

Hello! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10317281&postcount=8)

McDonalds currently holds the Weapons of WMD.
So does google. But they're the good guys.

FEAR GOOGLE

How would you knock Bush then?
knowing some people here... with a sledgehammer...



and the head of the sledgehammer will be phallis shaped...



and made out of hard pretzels...




but that's some people here... not me. :D

aH! big letters! scary! but....google is my lover.

knowing some people here... with a sledgehammer...



and the head of the sledgehammer will be phallis shaped...



and made out of hard pretzels...




but that's some people here... not me. :D

and likely weilded by Chuck Norris

aH! big letters! scary! but....google is my lover.
I love google. They are just taking over the world.

Bush is a great guy, America is a great country, Iraq did have wmd's, see its simple.

I love google. They are just taking over the world.
Branin you have a TG.

i heard something similar to this a few months ago, heard it on the news that there was intelligence that there were SCUD launchers in syria that beard Iraq markings on them.

Bush is a great guy, America is a great country, Iraq did have wmd's, see its simple.
And there is no controversy over gay rights.

Branin you have a TG.
Okay. I've signed up, I just need accepted...

Bush is a great guy, America is a great country, Iraq did have wmd's, see its simple.

Yes. Our proof for all of these things?

Lone, uncorraborated witnesses.

Bush is a great guy, America is a great country, Iraq did have wmd's, see its simple.

yeah according to people that have already been proven liars.

McDonalds currently holds the Weapons of WMD.
McDonalds "food" may just qualify as chemical weapons.

Hello! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10317281&postcount=8)
I wasn't ignoring you. I was explaining it to other people who obviously didn't understand. I thank you for understanding, but please try to be a little more broad minded, ok?

I wasn't ignoring you. I was explaining it to other people who obviously didn't understand. I thank you for understanding, but please try to be a little more broad minded, ok?

You replied to my post. That means you direct your reply at me. If you do not wish to do so, do not quote me in your post.

Okay. I've signed up, I just need accepted...
Really cool.:fluffle:
I thought Moleland had quit with the confirmations.
I would but i can't.:(

This is indeed the third thread in this topic, and I think we can lay all this crap about brown-skinned A-rab conspiracies to rest if we just recall that:

- Saddam was under sanctions and could not even afford to keep his planes in the air. He most likely just quit the WMD program to save money and resources.

- The Iraqi and Syrian Ba'ath parties had a split a while back, they don't like each other quite as much anymore.

- Syria actually invaded Iraq as part of Operation Desert Storm. Obviously they didn't want a super-powerful Saddamite Iraq ruling the Middle East either.

Bush is a great guy, America is a great country, Iraq did have wmd's, see its simple.

Can I have some of what you are smoking?

Can I have some of what you are smoking?

No, you can't. If you did, your brain would explode. The only reason why they're letting him smoke it, is because it keeps his ears from smacking together behind his eyes....

Looks like bunch of bush bashers to me. GOD bless George W. Bush. MY president and yours (like it or not) if you're a citizen of the GREAT OLD USA. Could be worse, we coulda had Gore.

Looks like bunch of bush bashers to me. GOD bless George W. Bush. MY president and yours (like it or not). Could be worse, we coulda had Buchannan.

I corrected it for you.

I corrected it for you.
Buchannan would be better than Gore or even Kerry.

Buchannan would be better than Gore or even Kerry.

If you're a facist, yes.

You over-estimate Bush's uniqueness.

As for republicans in general, if it hadn' been for a GREAT republican named Ronald Reagan there would still be an Iron Curtain, the cold war would still be raging, and there would still be the threat of global domination by the communists!!!

Looks like bunch of bush bashers to me. GOD bless George W. Bush. MY president and yours (like it or not) if you're a citizen of the GREAT OLD USA.

Someone's over-compensating an insecurity with the aid of the caps lock key, it seems...

Someone's over-compensating an insecurity with the aid of the caps lock key, it seems...


sure

As for republicans in general, if it hadn' been for a GREAT republican named Ronald Reagan there would still be an Iron Curtain, the cold war would still be raging, and there would still be the threat of global domination by the communists!!!

No, the Cold War ended because of a Russian named Gorbechev. Reagan was an idiot: we're still cleaning up his mistakes.

sure

Why else the pathetic need to "shout out" how great your country is on, of all places, an Internet forum? Next time, I suggest less desperation for self-aggrandisement, thus making it more subtle.

No, the Cold War ended because of a Russian named Gorbechev. Reagan was an idiot: we're still cleaning up his mistakes.

Reagan was a solid president; not the best, but far better than any since JFK and definitely better than his successors.

Jesh... and you say the LEFT is out of touch with reality. If there was any truth to this, any at all, do you REALLY think the Bush administration wouldn't be crowing about this from all the high points in the country from Alaska down to the Florida Keys? Think about it. This is the chance to wipe all the egg off of President Bush's face about this and earn back some of America's reputation abroad.

But no, we're supposed to believe that this man, who had kept his silence until now, just HAPPENS to know what happened to the supposed WMD, and just HAPPENS to get a book out about this that would totally leave the anti-war crowd without a leg to stand on, but it just HAPPENS that the White House hasn't gotten a hold of this guy first or vetted the information.

Right... and if you believe all that, I have a nice bridge to sell you. Great view of Brooklyn.

Looks like bunch of bush bashers to me. GOD bless George W. Bush. MY president and yours (like it or not) if you're a citizen of the GREAT OLD USA. Could be worse, we coulda had Gore.
:rolleyes:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/6338392_f5e8b9a016.jpg

Reagan was a solid president; not the best, but far better than any since JFK and definitely better than his successors.

The only two men who could possibly make me vote for Clinton: W Bush and Reagan.

No, the Cold War ended because of a Russian named Gorbechev. Reagan was an idiot: we're still cleaning up his mistakes.

Actually if Reagan hadn't covered Europe with our nuclear weapons and walked away from the tables at the arms talks, Gorbechev wouldn't have budged. Maybe you would have preferred Carter? He could have built them some houses maybe.

Actually if Reagan hadn't covered Europe with our nuclear weapons and walked away from the tables at the arms talks, Gorbechev wouldn't have budged. Maybe you would have preferred Carter? He could have built them some houses maybe.

At least Carter wouldn't have sold weapons to terrorists to pay for other terrorists and then crush a democratically run country.

And Gorbechev's policies of glosnost and perestroika were put in place before Reagan became president. The end was in sight by then.

Maybe you would have preferred Carter? He could have built them some houses maybe.

Yes, giving shelter to the homeless. Such a risible thing to do. :rolleyes:

At least Carter wouldn't have sold weapons to terrorists to pay for other terrorists and then crush a democratically run country.

And Gorbechev's policies of glosnost and perestroika were put in place before Reagan became president. The end was in sight by then.

Remeber, todays ally could be tomorrows enemy. Carter was a failure as a president and didn't he support the over throw of the Shaw in Iran? I could be wrong. And wasn't Kruschev in power when Reagan was elected?

Yes, giving shelter to the homeless. Such a risible thing to do. :rolleyes:

Didn't mean I had a problem with Habitat for Humanity. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I have a problem with Jimmy Carter.

Remeber, todays ally could be tomorrows enemy. Carter was a failure as a president and didn't he support the over throw of the Shaw in Iran? I could be wrong. And wasn't Kruschev in power when Reagan was elected?

The United States supported the overthrow of Iran's democratic government that led to the instatement of the Shah, under Eisenhower. No president turned against him, but Carter pretty much ignored him getting overthrown. Which is just as well, considering how fresh the memories of Vietnam were.

Carter was a failure as a president and didn't he support the over throw of the Shaw in Iran? I could be wrong.
You are. On a surprising amount of counts actually.

With this:
First of all, WMD is already plural. The "W" stands for "weapons."

Second, they have not found WMD at all. They've found someone with a book deal.

"Short of discovering the weapons in Syria, those seeking to validate Mr. Sada's claim independently will face difficulty."

and this:
This is indeed the third thread in this topic, and I think we can lay all this crap about brown-skinned A-rab conspiracies to rest if we just recall that:

- Saddam was under sanctions and could not even afford to keep his planes in the air. He most likely just quit the WMD program to save money and resources.

- The Iraqi and Syrian Ba'ath parties had a split a while back, they don't like each other quite as much anymore.

- Syria actually invaded Iraq as part of Operation Desert Storm. Obviously they didn't want a super-powerful Saddamite Iraq ruling the Middle East either.
most of what's worth saying in this thread is done. Thank you both.

And for those who can't get enough, here are the two other (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=465618) threads (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=465542) on the subject. Can we move on to more important things now? Like any thread about how tasty cherries are?

Mmmm... Cherries... :fluffle:

Can we move on to more important things now? Like any thread about how tasty cherries are?

Mmmm... Cherries... :fluffle:Cherries... Yuck... putting them in medicine really ruined Cherries for me..


that is if you're talking about the Fruit. :D

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514?page_no=1

I'll sit impartial on this one. Everyone knows me as a firm Bush supporter, but that was before I had this to make it easy. Anyone know a good reason to knock Bush assuming validity of this article?

Very interesting. Very interesting indeed.

Cherries... Yuck... putting them in medicine really ruined Cherries for me..

that is if you're talking about the Fruit. :D

You know what? I'll let your imagination run wild on this one ;) Cherry cherry cherry!

And there is no controversy over gay rights.

Correct. They are citizens of the country and have the same rights under the Constitution as any other citizen.

- Saddam was under sanctions and could not even afford to keep his planes in the air. He most likely just quit the WMD program to save money and resources.

So where did he get all that money to pay for the "oil for food" bribes and build all those palaces?

What i'm wondering is why would Syria let that happen?

It wouldn't matter if you found anthrax, smallpox, and nukes on top of missiles in Syria now.

It wouldn't matter if the President of Syria came out, showed them on international television, and said that he got them from Saddam.

It wouldn't matter at all.

Those who oppose the invasion of Iraq would say it was faked, all lies, and irrelevant.

So where did he get all that money to pay for the "oil for food" bribes and build all those palaces?
Well, compared to the money it would take to build WMD, that was probably a small amount. And AFAIK, many of the palaces had been around for a long time, and weren't in that great a condition anymore.

But the point is that for a working production of WMD, you need a lot of money, and a lot of material: machine parts, production complexes, storage facilities and so on and so forth.
Given that he only had so much stuff to import, and that it doesn't look like any of the claims made initially could actually be verified, I think he tried to get the program back up shortly after Desert Storm, but gave up because of shortages in parts and money.
He just believed that people would be more scared of him if he had WMD, so he pretended he had. Another theory was that his scientists actually told him he had them, when they couldn't make it happen.

At any rate, it seems like nothing was found, the scientists who would've been responsible have been released without charges and apparently without giving any meaningful information, and Syria and Iraq were not great friends.

People will probably hold on to straws for decades about this, but fact is that there was no threat and that therefore this particular reason given to us was bullshit.

Your right Deep Kimchi, i support the war in Iraq.. if the leader of Syria did do that, and those people did say that, i would still believe alot more people would say ok i was wrong and support the war, and the people who said it was faked would only be in denial and would be just looking for an excuse because their to chicken to say "I was wrong."

I wouldn't be suprised if the guys just making it up to make money. They havn't found the alledged WMD yet, and untill they do I'll maintain my dogmatic assertaition that
1) Iraq was an oil war and the US gov only went there for oil
2) The US is an evil empire

It wouldn't matter if you found anthrax, smallpox, and nukes on top of missiles in Syria now.
It wouldn't matter if the President of Syria came out, showed them on international television, and said that he got them from Saddam.
It wouldn't matter at all.
Those who oppose the invasion of Iraq would say it was faked, all lies, and irrelevant.

I'm sorry but thats just not true. But i see that we're being grouchy anti-healthy-skeptics today so...

It wouldn't matter if you found anthrax, smallpox, and nukes on top of missiles in Syria now.

It wouldn't matter if the President of Syria came out, showed them on international television, and said that he got them from Saddam.

It wouldn't matter at all.

Those who oppose the invasion of Iraq would say it was faked, all lies, and irrelevant.

Yes, and all supporters of the invasion want a genocide against all arabs, all muslims, and want to conquer every country with oil.

Punditry doesn't work for you. Not that it works for anyone.

I'm sorry but thats just not true. But i see that we're being grouchy anti-healthy-skeptics today so...
It's quite true.

OceanDrive, who posts quite often here, would probably say that we bought off the President of Syria and made him our puppet, and that it was all lies and bother.

Yes, and all supporters of the invasion want a genocide against all arabs, all muslims, and want to conquer every country with oil.

Punditry doesn't work for you. Not that it works for anyone.

You're only a pundit if you're on TV and get paid for it.;)

Yes, and all supporters of the invasion want a genocide against all arabs, all muslims, and want to conquer every country with oil.

Wow, to paint all supporters of the invasion with such a broad brush. You are not a bigot are you. :(

Wow, to paint all supporters of the invasion with such a broad brush. You are not a bigot are you. :(
He's illustrating punditry - the only problem is that he's not paid for it.

If the WMD are in Syria, wouldn't that make them Syria's?


umm, no. saddam could be paying them to store them. like he propably is now.

It wouldn't matter if you found anthrax, smallpox, and nukes on top of missiles in Syria now.

It wouldn't matter if the President of Syria came out, showed them on international television, and said that he got them from Saddam.

It wouldn't matter at all.

Those who oppose the invasion of Iraq would say it was faked, all lies, and irrelevant.

*sigh* Of course it would matter. The thing is, some people care about such things as evidence. As I've said in another thread, the claim presented in the article is uncorroborated and the scenario is implausible.

umm, no. saddam could be paying them to store them. like he propably is now.

With what money?

This is indeed the third thread in this topic, and I think we can lay all this crap about brown-skinned A-rab conspiracies to rest if we just recall that:

- Saddam was under sanctions and could not even afford to keep his planes in the air. He most likely just quit the WMD program to save money and resources.

- The Iraqi and Syrian Ba'ath parties had a split a while back, they don't like each other quite as much anymore.

- Syria actually invaded Iraq as part of Operation Desert Storm. Obviously they didn't want a super-powerful Saddamite Iraq ruling the Middle East either.



one word: COVER.


the people have brains that function more than some of us. you have to think about that.

*sigh* Of course it would matter. The thing is, some people care about such things as evidence. As I've said in another thread, the claim presented in the article is uncorroborated and the scenario is implausible.

The problem with "evidence" is that the bar is currently set so high by most opponents of the war that it would take far, far more than an admission by the President of Syria.

The scenario is not implausible, but the story is uncorroborated.

Well, compared to the money it would take to build WMD, that was probably a small amount. And AFAIK, many of the palaces had been around for a long time, and weren't in that great a condition anymore.

But the point is that for a working production of WMD, you need a lot of money, and a lot of material: machine parts, production complexes, storage facilities and so on and so forth.
Given that he only had so much stuff to import, and that it doesn't look like any of the claims made initially could actually be verified, I think he tried to get the program back up shortly after Desert Storm, but gave up because of shortages in parts and money.
He just believed that people would be more scared of him if he had WMD, so he pretended he had. Another theory was that his scientists actually told him he had them, when they couldn't make it happen.

At any rate, it seems like nothing was found, the scientists who would've been responsible have been released without charges and apparently without giving any meaningful information, and Syria and Iraq were not great friends.

People will probably hold on to straws for decades about this, but fact is that there was no threat and that therefore this particular reason given to us was bullshit.


ahem, WMDs dont cost that much. i mean, all you need is a rocket, and some weapons grade plutonium(which is frequently stolen from south africa), and you can launch the bomb off a catapult. and nuclear artillery shells(which exist) count as WMDs.

All you really need is a test tube with some smallpox in it, and a few volunteers.

That guy Sada is another source of disinformation. He was in no position to know for sure, he probably said all this stuff to get 1. a book deal, it's very hard to get a book deal these days. 2. To get them to stop applying electrical shocks to his feet. 3. to get a visa to some country other than Iraq.
If Iraq had WMD, it was our own damn fault for giving him them to use on the Iranians, and then he used them btw on the Marsh Arabs, I think he had them and used them all up and just didn't make more for the earlier mentioned reasons of not haveing enough money to do it.
Iran mainly has nuclear capacity thanks to the fact that thousands of Iranians were in the U.S. studying nuclear physics. In other words the U.S. has only itself to blame on this one.

As far as knocking Bush goes, how about the travesty of the Medicare Prescription Drug plan? That's right set up a confuseing program to enrich the insurance industry and meanwhile lots of old people will get sicker or die without their meds. The ones who die might save the government money but the costs will still be worse because of the ones that got sicker.
The whole 'conservative' obsession with 'Free Enterprise' leads to the governement being ripped off, and by extension the taxpayers are ripped off.
Oh my theory on the WMDs? Not Taco Bell, not McDonalds, Walmart has them! That's why every governement entity other than Germany has let them get away with the shitty way they treat their workers.

The problem with "evidence" is that the bar is currently set so high by most opponents of the war that it would take far, far more than an admission by the President of Syria.

The scenario is not implausible, but the story is uncorroborated.

Well, I find the scenario implausible. The most basic reason for this is the question: Why would Saddam send his weapons to Syria if he knew an invasion was comming?

Well, I find the scenario implausible. The most basic reason for this is the question: Why would Saddam send his weapons to Syria if he knew an invasion was comming?

Excellent point, in his place I would have kept them and USED them on the invaders. Sadam is nutty not stupid.

Well, I find the scenario implausible. The most basic reason for this is the question: Why would Saddam send his weapons to Syria if he knew an invasion was comming?
Soooo the Americans don't find WMD and then tell the UN and get every other country pissed off at them thus getting their asses handed to them? Quite simple really.

ahem, WMDs dont cost that much. i mean, all you need is a rocket, and some weapons grade plutonium(which is frequently stolen from south africa), and you can launch the bomb off a catapult. and nuclear artillery shells(which exist) count as WMDs.

Actually, nuclear weapons are a dicotomy of the easy and the difficult. They are, in theory, extremely simple weapons, but very difficult to build correctly. The materials needed to build these weapons are few, but difficult to obtain.

I'd love to know where he would have gotten the plutonium for his bombs....

Excellent point, in his place I would have kept them and USED them on the invaders. Sadam is nutty not stupid.

Anyone would have used them, in Saddam's position.

:rolleyes:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/6338392_f5e8b9a016.jpg
Yes, we all know that anyone who doesn't agree with you and your ilk are trolls. It's a well-established fact that anyone on NS General who has the incredible audacity to defend the US, the US military, or ( God forbid! ) the President will be ganged up on and beaten to bloody verbal mush by the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. :rolleyes:

Yes, we all know that anyone who doesn't agree with you and your ilk are trolls. It's a well-established fact that anyone on NS General who has the incredible audacity to defend the US, the US military, or ( God forbid! ) the President will be ganged up on and beaten to bloody verbal mush by the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. :rolleyes:

Join the Conspiracy! C'mon... you know you want to. ;)

At least Carter wouldn't have sold weapons to terrorists to pay for other terrorists and then crush a democratically run country.
Huh? Explain thyself, young phoole. :p

Huh? Explain thyself, young phoole. :p

Reagan sold guns to the Iranians to give money to the Contras to overthrow the democratically elected regime of Nicaragua.

It wouldn't matter if you found anthrax, smallpox, and nukes on top of missiles in Syria now.

It wouldn't matter if the President of Syria came out, showed them on international television, and said that he got them from Saddam.

It wouldn't matter at all.

Those who oppose the invasion of Iraq would say it was faked, all lies, and irrelevant.
As they invariably do with anything which doesn't match their preconcieved, ideologically motivated, knee-jerk responses.

I wouldn't be suprised if the guys just making it up to make money. They havn't found the alledged WMD yet, and untill they do I'll maintain my dogmatic assertaition that
1) Iraq was an oil war and the US gov only went there for oil
2) The US is an evil empire
Operant word: "dogmatic."

As they invariably do with anything which doesn't match their preconcieved, ideologically motivated, knee-jerk responses.

Not too dissimilar to what Bush's and the war's supporters do, eh?

Wow, to paint all supporters of the invasion with such a broad brush. You are not a bigot are you. :(
He's being hyperbolic. :)

The problem with "evidence" is that the bar is currently set so high by most opponents of the war that it would take far, far more than an admission by the President of Syria.
The last I heard, it was on the Pluto mission. The bar, that is. :D

That guy Sada is another source of disinformation. He was in no position to know for sure, he probably said all this stuff to get 1. a book deal, it's very hard to get a book deal these days. 2. To get them to stop applying electrical shocks to his feet. 3. to get a visa to some country other than Iraq.
If Iraq had WMD, it was our own damn fault for giving him them to use on the Iranians, and then he used them btw on the Marsh Arabs, I think he had them and used them all up and just didn't make more for the earlier mentioned reasons of not haveing enough money to do it.
Iran mainly has nuclear capacity thanks to the fact that thousands of Iranians were in the U.S. studying nuclear physics. In other words the U.S. has only itself to blame on this one.

As far as knocking Bush goes, how about the travesty of the Medicare Prescription Drug plan? That's right set up a confuseing program to enrich the insurance industry and meanwhile lots of old people will get sicker or die without their meds. The ones who die might save the government money but the costs will still be worse because of the ones that got sicker.
The whole 'conservative' obsession with 'Free Enterprise' leads to the governement being ripped off, and by extension the taxpayers are ripped off.
Oh my theory on the WMDs? Not Taco Bell, not McDonalds, Walmart has them! That's why every governement entity other than Germany has let them get away with the shitty way they treat their workers.
Yayyy! And there you have it folks ... the great American Leftist Explanation For Everything!

* Copy of Aesop's Fables: about $19.95

* Copy of Das Kapital: about $29.95

* Ability to merge them into a seamless whole: brilliant! :D

Reagan sold guns to the Iranians to give money to the Contras to overthrow the democratically elected regime of Nicaragua.
Really? Way kewl! :D

Not too dissimilar to what Bush's and the war's supporters do, eh?
Not being one, I wouldn't know. :p

Really? Way kewl! :D

I thought you knew that.... o0;

Not being one, I wouldn't know. :p

Never said you were. :p

WMD---with W MEN DIE

DK, you're mostly right. I wouldn't outright accept it if the leader of Syria were to produce WMDs and say they were from Saddam, I'd want a little more proof than that (Trusting the word of any political or diplomatic figure without proof that what they're saying is true is generally bad form, in my experience).

On the other hand, if real proof were to be shown I'd certainly concede that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It would certainly make me withdraw my statement that Bush lied to get the Senate's support. It would not, however, make me withdraw the statement that the war has been run poorly and needs to be finished quickly and effectively in a way not at all similar to the way it is currently being run.

Of course, you'll equate that to: "See, those silly anti-war types don't care about facts at all." :rolleyes:

Yes, we all know that anyone who doesn't agree with you and your ilk are trolls. It's a well-established fact that anyone on NS General who has the incredible audacity to defend the US, the US military, or ( God forbid! ) the President will be ganged up on and beaten to bloody verbal mush by the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. :rolleyes:

Yes, and everyone on the left hates the US military, the government, and especially you, Eut.

One minute insightful or humorous posts in one thread, another minute, another thread....

Okay, I've read nearly every post here, and so far it's looked like this:
<insert pointless dribble here>
And I'm not just refferring to the leftists; even Bush supporters don't sound like they know what they're talking about. However, the leftists are definately the biggest offenders.
There are some premonisions many of you are making that are just untrue about the situation with the WMDs.
1. You assume that Saddam worked some huge effort with the Syrian government to store the weapons. Granted I haven't read his book, but the article never said anything about giving them to Syria. It simply said they were being stored there, because it would look like aid from Iraq to Syria, which was in need of help in 2002 when the weapons trasfer supposedly took place. It is possible the group on the recieving end were Saddamist spies/soldiers/politicians/whatever. Although Syria might have agreed to weapons storage in exchange/to delay confrontation for aid themselves. In other words, that does not dismiss the possibility.
2. It has been repeatedly claimed that Sada was in no position to know of such a dispatch. However, the New York Sun did state that he was able to hold a US soldier captive, and quoted to soldier to give credit to Sada's claims. Sada was a general, and generals are kept very well informed on their country's dealings, whether physically there at the time of each event or not.
3. Iraq's has WMDs simply because the United States gave them to him. You are excluding the clause in the Gulf War's treaty requiring Saddam to disarm, and submit to weapons inspections. Saddam's having WMDs would be a result of a broken treaty, not the United States being flimsy.

And that's all I feel like covering right now. I like the book deal argument, though. Very convincing, Zahumlje.

Hasn't anyone ever heard of the idea that the simplest explanation is usually the right one?

Why do we have to go into enormously complex ideas, which require about a million coincidences to happen properly, just in order to explain that the great PotUS wasn't f*cked by a bunch of warhawks and ideologically motivated intel-chiefs?

Iraq was broke. Saddam's military was falling apart. Saddam's palaces were falling apart. Saddam's bloody statues were falling apart.

And you think he was building stockpiles of missiles with various ABC-warheads and then shipping them to Syria, without us noticing?

Don't you think Mrs. Anthrax and the other one would've said something while they were in custody to save their arses? And don't you think the US would've made sure we all knew?

Yes, we all know that anyone who doesn't agree with you and your ilk are trolls. It's a well-established fact that anyone on NS General who has the incredible audacity to defend the US, the US military, or ( God forbid! ) the President will be ganged up on and beaten to bloody verbal mush by the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. :rolleyes:
I don't mind people not agreeing with me, however if someone came into a thread talking about army tactics and started saying "OMG! BUSH SUCKS! THE USA SUCKS!" you'd be running to Moderation screaming about trolls.

This wasn't a thread for that type of post and was just to rile up those taking apart this (YET another) WMD thread.

I wouldn't be suprised if the guys just making it up to make money. They havn't found the alledged WMD yet, and untill they do I'll maintain my dogmatic assertaition that
1) Iraq was an oil war and the US gov only went there for oil
2) The US is an evil empire

Wow the U.S. is an Evil empire, thats the biggest crock of shit i've ever heard, sounds like someone is jelous to me, #1, we are not an empre, #2 you cant deny everything America has done for the world, like the light bulb, assembly line, airplanes, helicopters, Ford Motors, cars, engine... holy shit, Unogal get off it. i'm done with this forum and all of this bullshit, people keep saying......

i'm done with this forum and all of this bullshit, people keep saying......
Welcome to the world, my friend.
You really think people lie when they talk about Bush ruining US standing in the world?

You need to grow a thicker skin and just defeat simplistic comments like his with reason and evidence. Running away doesn't help either of you.

In other words: Don't go! :)

Wow the U.S. is an Evil empire, thats the biggest crock of shit i've ever heard, sounds like someone is jelous to me, #1, we are not an empre, #2 you cant deny everything America has done for the world, like the light bulb, assembly line, airplanes, helicopters, Ford Motors, cars, engine... holy shit, Unogal get off it. i'm done with this forum and all of this bullshit, people keep saying......

You mean what Edison, that one guy who also made the cotton gin, the wright brothers, various scientists in america and europe simulatenously, ford, ford, and many people did for the world?

I wasn't aware the light bulb, airplanes, or cars were invented by federally funded projects and federal scientists.

Relative to other nations in the world, the US, as well as Russia and china, are probably the three nations closest to empires... The US and China on an economic scale, as well as all three politically.

As for evil, thats a subjective perspective desicion.

Soooo the Americans don't find WMD and then tell the UN and get every other country pissed off at them thus getting their asses handed to them? Quite simple really.

Well, if you really believe that Saddam would let himself be toppled (and possibly being killed in the process) just for the possibility of making the US look bad after the invasion... I simply do not believe that he would do that. (If that had been an option, he would probably have gone into exile when Bush gave his ultimatum.)

Anyone know a good reason to knock Bush assuming validity of this article?

Sure - Bush supports the teaching of ID in science classes in schools; thereby ruining the minds of a future generation.

Remeber, todays ally could be tomorrows enemy. Carter was a failure as a president and didn't he support the over throw of the Shaw in Iran? I could be wrong. And wasn't Kruschev in power when Reagan was elected?

In answer to your two questions
(1) No and
(2) No. Guy called Breznhev. Kruschev hadn't been in power since the mid 60s.

Unless you think Reagan was president from 64 onwards...

Wow the U.S. is an Evil empire, thats the biggest crock of shit i've ever heard, sounds like someone is jelous to me, #1, we are not an empre, #2 you cant deny everything America has done for the world, like the light bulb, assembly line, airplanes, helicopters, Ford Motors, cars, engine... holy shit, Unogal get off it. i'm done with this forum and all of this bullshit, people keep saying......

In which case, I propose the following. Electricity, Constitutional democracy, football, rugby, cricket, computing, industrialisation and true empire. Oh, and not6 to be pedantic but both engines and the original automobiles were indeed, British inventions.

Incidentally, one could entirely feasibly contend that the USA is every inch an empire, mrerly in the guise of commercial hegemony, if not direct miltary hegemony.

Would wave goodbye, but frankly I happen to be busy laughing.

Actually if Reagan hadn't covered Europe with our nuclear weapons and walked away from the tables at the arms talks, Gorbechev wouldn't have budged. Maybe you would have preferred Carter? He could have built them some houses maybe.
Of course. Cos Gorbachev didn't offer to decommission every nuclear weapon if America would do the same... Glasnost and Perestroika only came about when Gorbachev got into power, though.
Khrushchev lost power in the 60's. He was dead by the time Reagan came around.

If the WMD are in Syria, wouldn't that make them Syria's?
I'd have thought so: also, Hussein selling his stash to Syria would presumably prove that he didn't have any WMDs and the invasion of Iraq was undertaken on false evidence, arther than exonerating Bush.

So where did he get all that money to pay for the "oil for food" bribes and build all those palaces?

Umm.....I believe the "oil for food" didn't cost him anything - wasn't he trading Iraq's oil for money? He had the oil, traded it to France and Russia (and whoever else, those are just the two I remember right now), and then got scads of money to spend on those palaces and 9 bazillion portraits of his looney self painted all over.

No tears over Saddam coming from me - and I do think he needed to be removed. BUT, I do believe this whole thing has been ill-run from the start. I do remember Cheney replying that he thought we'd be in there at the most for "around 6 months" and I do also remember the idea being promoted that the Iraqi oil would pay for most of the cost of the war within just a few months, maybe a year, as soon as they got up and running, provided Saddam didn't burn off all the oil wells. Well, he didn't burn the wells, yet we're still running up how many billions of dollars on this mess?

As they invariably do with anything which doesn't match their preconcieved, ideologically motivated, knee-jerk responses.
Right: none of the right leaning elements of the board ever do anything of the sort do they?

Both of the reasons for going to Iraq were extremely faulty. If we were so concerned about weapons, why did we attack North Korea? Are we the only people allowed to have weapons? We're not exactly showing our military responsibility by marching arbitrarily into small countries.
The other obvious reason for invading was that Saddam was a complete dick-tator. There's no question in my mind that he needed to be gone, but we had no business doing it ourselves without the support of the UN. Taking a genocidal maniac from power should be their job--the United States is not the world's mommy.
So whether they find WMD or not, we shouldn't be invading. The United Nations, being composed of several objective countries, had a better chance of making the right call on this one, and I believe that they did. If we had their support, I would support going into Iraq. As it is, we raped the country and are now preparing to leave it lying in the gutter.

I'd have thought so: also, Hussein selling his stash to Syria would presumably prove that he didn't have any WMDs and the invasion of Iraq was undertaken on false evidence, arther than exonerating Bush.

Funnily enough I posted that exact idea on one of the other threads on this topic and not one right-winger answered me. I wish you more luck.

If Iraq had WMD, it was our own damn fault for giving him them to use on the Iranians, and then he used them btw on the Marsh Arabs

I agree with this point.

To quote Bill Hicks...

The US is turning into Jack Pallance from the movie Shane, throwing the gun at the sheep herder's feet.

"Pick it up."

"I don't wanna pick it up, mister, yer gonna shoot me."

"Pick up the gun."

"look, mister, I don't want no trouble. I just came to town to get some rock candy for my kids, and some gingham for my wife."

"Pick up the gun."

*Sheep herder bends down*

BANG, BANG, BANG

"You saw him, he had a gun..."

I agree with this point.

To quote Bill Hicks...

The US is turning into Jack Pallance from the movie Shane, throwing the gun at the sheep herder's feet.

"Pick it up."

"I don't wanna pick it up, mister, yer gonna shoot me."

"Pick up the gun."

"look, mister, I don't want no trouble. I just came to town to get some rock candy for my kids, and some gingham for my wife."

"Pick up the gun."

*Sheep herder bends down*

BANG, BANG, BANG

"You saw him, he had a gun..."

Wasn't that a Monty Python sketch? I think fruit was involved.

Wasn't that a Monty Python sketch? I think fruit was involved.
No, the Monty Python sketch was a self defense class and involved no political metaphor.

No, the Monty Python sketch was a self defense class and involved no political metaphor.

It did have a tiger though, that's just as good.:)

It did have a tiger though, that's just as good.:)
True, but I still don't think it was somebody having a go at the Chimp's father.

Funnily enough I posted that exact idea on one of the other threads on this topic and not one right-winger answered me. I wish you more luck.
Funny the way that happens, isn't it?

Wow the U.S. is an Evil empire, thats the biggest crock of shit i've ever heard, sounds like someone is jelous to me, #1, we are not an empre, #2 you cant deny everything America has done for the world, like the light bulb, assembly line, airplanes, helicopters, Ford Motors, cars, engine... holy shit, Unogal get off it. i'm done with this forum and all of this bullshit, people keep saying......
I am in no way, shape or form jelous of the US. My perception of its state of affairs makes my soul weep. The US undeniably displays imperialistic tendancies in economic shaz, politics and espionage. Furthermore, one cannot deny that said imperialism realy screws over the whole world, including a great deal of the US citizenry, for the benefit of the US corporate elite.

Ford Motors is a terrible company that is leaving the US in favor of Mexico (Im not trying to deny the revolutinary stuff they did in developing the automobile)... I think helicpoters was russia... So yes, innovative people have lived and worked (and do live and work) in the US, as well as virtually every other country in the world

I'm especially not jelous of the way that some americans get angry and swear whenever anyone disagrees with them...

Operant word: "dogmatic."
Well, yes, for the simple reason that the only arguments I hear otherwise are just arrogant, chest-pumping, music-blarring... lets just say that I am now righteously and vigourosly opposed to the United States because I havn't heard any sanity in defense of what they do.

I'm especially not jelous of the way that some americans get angry and swear whenever anyone disagrees with them...

Once agian in an earlier thread i stated, "just because i'm american doesnt mean i'm exactly like my government." and it's not just American's who get mad and swear, it's millions of people from every country. You just seem to think Americans are everything, we do everything, we hate everybody, and we are only out there for ourselves. sheez, thinking this you'd think we are an evil empire... hmmm but false. very false, So there are a few things America is doing that isnt good, big friggin woop, why dont people notice what all the other countries are doing that isnt good... why? because the world only cares what the h*ll is america doing wrong today? lets take a look at the media, see what they say about America... let me tell you, the Media is f*cked. they pry on anything going wrong. look at the news, how often do you see something good... hardly, it's 90% bad things 5% things that dont matter and 5% things that are good... and 60% of the things they say about the U.S. is bull, completely propaganda, or twisted into making the story better.. here's an example.. a yr ago the media claimed that we dropped a bomb and killed 2 children and 3 adults... guess what? we dropped it square on a bunker full of soldiers.. how the f*ck were we suppose to know their were 2 innocent children and 3 innocent adults in that bunker packed with enemy soldiers? yes we did drop some dumb bombs, and i mean dropped them in stupid places, but seriusly, look at the civillian casualties of WW2, more civillians died than soldiers in every country, but England and U.S. think about that for a second.. then weigh the 2 children and 3 adults.. and how often that happens....

Ok not every country during WW2 had more civilians lost than soldiers but most of them did here are the statistics to back up what i said earlier

Country Military Civilian Total
USSR 12 million 17 million 29 million
Poland 597,000 5.86 million 6.27 million
Germany 3.25 million 2.44 million 5.69 million
Yugoslavia 305,000 1.35 million 1.66 million
Romania 450,000 465,000 915,000
Hungary 200,000 600,000 800,000
France 245,000 350,000 595,000
Italy 380,000 153,000 533,000
Great Britain 403,000 92,700 495,000
United States 407,000 6,000 413,000
Czechoslovakia 7,000 315,000 322,000
Holland 13,700 236,000 249,000
Greece 19,000 140,000 159,000
Belgium 76,000 23,000 99,000

sorry the list is bad, i couldnt get it to do what i wanted...