NationStates Jolt Archive

According to the 2nd in command of what was Saddam's airforce, he says in his book "Saddam's secrets" that Saddam sent his WMDs to Syria just before the war. This means the intel and my man W got it right the whole time. This is what I have been saying forever and someone is backing me up. Do you liberals admit you got this one wrong or what?

Please tell me there's not a book entitled "Saddam's Secrets"

Show me a WMD with "Property of Saddam" written on it and I may consider the slight-but-probably-nil-chance it was his.

According to the 2nd in command of what was Saddam's airforce, he says in his book "Saddam's secrets" that Saddam sent his WMDs to Syria just before the war. This means the intel and my man W got it right the whole time. This is what I have been saying forever and someone is backing me up. Do you liberals admit you got this one wrong or what?

Post a link to an article about the book or to a site showing the book itself. People here don't usually say they're wrong without some kind of proof other than hearsay.

According to the 2nd in command of what was Saddam's airforce, he says in his book "Saddam's secrets" that Saddam sent his WMDs to Syria just before the war. This means the intel and my man W got it right the whole time. This is what I have been saying forever and someone is backing me up. Do you liberals admit you got this one wrong or what?
no. When there is conclusive proof there were weapons, I will concede. Just because it is in a book =/= true. And yes, I will need more than "but this guy worked for Saddam and he said it's true"

Please tell me there's not a book entitled "Saddam's Secrets"

Actually it's a catalogue. VERY risque.

no. When there is conclusive proof there were weapons, I will concede. Just because it is in a book =/= true. And yes, I will need more than "but this guy worked for Saddam and he said it's true"

But if the book said that Bush was wrong I have a strange feeling that you would accept it.

Actually it's a catalogue. VERY risque.
Finally! some secrets for him!

But if the book said that Bush was wrong I have a strange feeling that you would accept it.
I have the strange feeling that you know nothing about me, and that you would be categorically wrong.

edit: I also take the bush admins announcement that there are no WMDs in Iraq as enough proof that they themselves admit they were wrong. Well, except bush.

Actually it's a catalogue. VERY risque.

bwahaha! I'll have to order some of his lingerie. *purr*

Please tell me there's not a book entitled "Saddam's Secrets"

Oooh, it's hardcover (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591454042/104-8779567-2680727?v=glance&n=283155) too!

Oooh, it's hardcover (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591454042/104-8779567-2680727?v=glance&n=283155) too!
thank you for posting the book. I think this proves Im not a troll, I am just trying to show people the truth

Oooh, it's hardcover (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591454042/104-8779567-2680727?v=glance&n=283155) too!

Ugh. The title just sounds so hokey. Like its a cookbook or home improvement tips guide.

This Iraqi Air Force General was just a guest on the Daily Show that was on about a half hour ago. The book is real.
It makes no difference to me weather Saddam Hussein had WMD’s. It wouldn’t affect me.

thank you for posting the book. I think this proves Im not a troll, I am just trying to show people the truth
again, just because it is published =/= truth. Welcome to higher reading and reading with a critical approach.

This Iraqi Air Force General was just a guest on the Daily Show that was on about a half hour ago. The book is real.
It makes no difference to me weather Saddam Hussein had WMD’s. It wouldn’t affect me.
wait, so if there were WMD you would still say it wasnt the right thing to do?

thank you for posting the book. I think this proves Im not a troll, I am just trying to show people the truth

You still owe me a one of Saddam's WMDs in order for the "truth" to be considered true.

wait, so if there were WMD you would still say it wasnt the right thing to do?
have we invaded a single other country with WMD's? Be they allies, enemies, or even *gasp* us?!

wait, so if there were WMD you would still say it wasnt the right thing to do?

I support the war, but if I had been President we would be in North Korea plus some African nations right now instead of Iraq.

wait, so if there were WMD you would still say it wasnt the right thing to do?
Yes. You’ll have to try harder than that, neo-con.
The only way I could ever be convinced that it was the right move was if it was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proven that Saddam and those under his command could have caused me significant harm in some way.
A few WMDs half way around the world with no delivery system really isn’t my problem.

You still owe me a one of Saddam's WMDs in order for the "truth" to be considered true.
You just have to give it time. The truth will prevail

You just have to give it time. The truth will prevail
stellar argument:rolleyes:
edit: judging by your next post, the truth was revealed. Just not the truth you intended.
Africa, what the hell would we get out of going into Africa?

I support the war, but if I had been President we would be in North Korea plus some African nations right now instead of Iraq.
Africa, what the hell would we get out of going into Africa?

Yes. You’ll have to try harder than that, neo-con.
The only way I could ever be convinced that it was the right move was if it was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proven that Saddam and those under his command could have caused me significant harm in some way.
A few WMDs half way around the world with no delivery system really isn’t my problem.

It is a very small world, you never know what could happen. Besides, it is the goal of many to have the World dictator free by the end of this century so removing was just one of the first steps.

Well seeing as good Ol' George said they'd be found in no time I'm sure you're right....oh wait, that was three years ago.

Africa, what the hell would we get out of going into Africa?

Removing dictators, stopping genocide, no bullshit about WMD. You know, working to make the 21st Century the Century of Humanity.

Considering it's you I'll tell you, I've ALWAYS been sure there were some sort of WMDs in Iraq.

But nothing worth going to war over, none like the ones Bush kept claiming about, Saddam didn't have "The Bomb" he might have had at best a handful of Chemical weapons. Iraq's Smoking Gun being an Atom Bomb? Surrre... :rolleyes:

Yes. You’ll have to try harder than that, neo-con.
The only way I could ever be convinced that it was the right move was if it was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proven that Saddam and those under his command could have caused me significant harm in some way.
A few WMDs half way around the world with no delivery system really isn’t my problem.
Wanna know how it was going to affect you? he was going to give those weapons to terrorists who will in turn sneak them into this country and use them. Not exactly half way around the world is it?

Removing dictators, stopping genocide, no bullshit about WMD. You know, working to make the 21st Century the Century of Humanity.
Yeah, but I dont see how those things effect me.

According to the 2nd in command of what was Saddam's airforce, he says in his book "Saddam's secrets" that Saddam sent his WMDs to Syria just before the war.

Meh ... I have a book that says a man born of virgin birth lived the first 29 years of his life in absolute obscurity then spent a few years becoming God until some Romans got mad and hung him up on a tree and, thus, he saved the world.

I don't believe it either.

What makes your book so special?

Yeah, but I dont see how those things effect me.

You are part of humanity.

Wanna know how it was going to affect you? he was going to give those weapons to terrorists who will in turn sneak them into this country and use them. Not exactly half way around the world is it?
Saddam could care less about the wet dreams of a bunch of religious fanatics.

He was a relatively secular ruler.

What makes your book so special?

Well Peechland seems to think she can get some home improvement tips out of it plus buy some lingerie out of the back...that's pretty special.

Wanna know how it was going to affect you? he was going to give those weapons to terrorists who will in turn sneak them into this country and use them. Not exactly half way around the world is it?
as opposed to the North Koreans who have them, Pakistan, India, China (none of the above are exactly "friendly" with us), Russia (still has them aimed at us), France, the UK, Israel, not to mention those who could have them within a few years like Saudi Arabia, Germany, Italy, Canada, South Africa, Iran, Brazil, Argentina, Egypt, Lybia...


or the fact that I can get radioactive materials out of a smoke detector? Or on the black market? Or from medical facilities?

Saddam's (not Victoria's) Secrets:

http://www.robrogers.com/cartoons/2005/images/052405%20Saddam's%20Briefs.gif

Well Peechland seems to think she can get some home improvement tips out of it plus buy some lingerie out of the back...that's pretty special.

Home improvement and lingerie are very special. Will Peechland be doing the home improvement in her new lingerie? That would be *very* special. :D

Saddam's (not Victoria's) Secrets:

http://www.robrogers.com/cartoons/2005/images/052405%20Saddam's%20Briefs.gif


LOL.....

You are part of humanity.
and your point is...

Here (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/037550351X/104-8779567-2680727?v=glance&n=283155) ya go UN. This (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/037550351X/104-8779567-2680727?v=glance&n=283155) should keep ya goin for hours. So what if Saddam "had" WMDs, the Boy Scouts make their own.

and your point is...

Just read "Shake Hands with the Devil".

Yeah, but I dont see how those things effect me.
And I don't see how Chemical Weapons sitting and collecting dust could effect me.

George Bush knows the truth:

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/BushWMD.jpg

It is a very small world, you never know what could happen. Besides, it is the goal of many to have the World dictator free by the end of this century so removing was just one of the first steps.
If the goal of the 1st world nations is to rid the world of dictators, they need to stop instating them there in the first place.

If the goal of the 1st world nations is to rid the world of dictators, they need to stop instating them there in the first place.

And if the Anti-War movement wants peace they should support the removal of dictators.

thank you for posting the book. I think this proves Im not a troll, I am just trying to show people the truth
While doing a piss poor job at it

This is the best one I could find....totally hilarious:

Wait for the animation, there are several pics!!

http://www.pentoon.com/images-01/subjects/saddam/wmd-anim.gif

While doing a piss poor job at it
or maybe its because you dont want to hear what I have to say...

This is the best one I could find....totally hilarious:

Wait for the animation, there are several pics!!

http://www.pentoon.com/images-01/subjects/saddam/wmd-anim.gif


LMAO...

And if the Anti-War movement wants peace they should support the removal of dictators.
What an ironic comment. :p

or maybe its because you dont want to hear what I have to say...
I'd say its 99.9% the former.

Wanna know how it was going to affect you? he was going to give those weapons to terrorists who will in turn sneak them into this country and use them. Not exactly half way around the world is it?
Sure he was going to give them away, why not? Everyone knows that if someone has WMD and is prepared to use them, the first thing they'll do when about to be invaded is get rid of them so they cant use them. Failing that they'll give 'em away to the first terrorists who come asking. It just so happens that no one had gotten around to asking....


Evidently I admire the good sense of invading a country to prevent them giving away weapons that could be snuck into the US and used there, it sure makes more sense than having robust border control - clearly it's more efficient to attack every nation that has WMD than it is to secure the US borders against say radioactive packages being sent from suspect destinations....

At this rate the US should be safe around about the same time all human life has been wiped off the face of the planet...

or maybe its because you dont want to hear what I have to say...
Lol no it is because you have yet to say anything with anything backing behind it

You make some claim to something a book (who's content you have yet to post from what I see) and propose that it suports your position

Well tell you what I guess two can make basless claims

I think the book says santa clause is real and HE is hiding in syria.

Okay people, as if one locked thread wasn't enough, why bother replying to UA?

He styles himself a "performance artists" in the vein of Andy Kauffman (who was only funny on Taxi by the way) trying to get a reaction out of the audience by provoking them.

So far he's not lacking a crowd willing to give him the attention he craves.

According to Amazon, here's what else people who bought that book also bought:
* The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades) by Robert Spencer
* Do As I Say (Not As I Do) : Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer
* Disinformation : 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror by Richard Miniter
* Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media by Bill Sammon
* The Truth About Hillary : What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President by Edward Klein

Notice a trend appearing there?
And yet we put with ppl saying only Liberals listen to what they want to hear.

According to Amazon, here's what else people who bought that book also bought:
* The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades) by Robert Spencer
* Do As I Say (Not As I Do) : Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer
* Disinformation : 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror by Richard Miniter
* Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media by Bill Sammon
* The Truth About Hillary : What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President by Edward Klein

Notice a trend appearing there?
And yet we put with ppl saying only Liberals listen to what they want to hear.
Good work there DH!! The propaganda machine produceth, the neo cons buyeth!! Too funny!! :)

Okay people, as if one locked thread wasn't enough, why bother replying to UA?

He styles himself a "performance artists" in the vein of Andy Kauffman (who was only funny on Taxi by the way) trying to get a reaction out of the audience by provoking them.

So far he's not lacking a crowd willing to give him the attention he craves.
For someone who seems to hate me and my posts, it is somewhat humourous and ironic that you would come into my thread(most likely not even reading what I wrote) and discredit me. I am starting to get tried of people claiming am a "troll" simple because they have I different opinion than them.

According to the 2nd in command of what was Saddam's airforce, he says in his book "Saddam's secrets" that Saddam sent his WMDs to Syria just before the war. This means the intel and my man W got it right the whole time. This is what I have been saying forever and someone is backing me up. Do you liberals admit you got this one wrong or what?

I wouldn't go by just what a book said. But I do not have any doubts that these WMDs were relocated prior to the US invasion of Iraq. Perhaps oneday it will come out to the whole world that there were indeed WMDs in Iraq ...

According to Amazon, here's what else people who bought that book also bought:
* The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades) by Robert Spencer
* Do As I Say (Not As I Do) : Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer
* Disinformation : 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror by Richard Miniter
* Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media by Bill Sammon
* The Truth About Hillary : What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President by Edward Klein

Notice a trend appearing there?
And yet we put with ppl saying only Liberals listen to what they want to hear.
I dont get what your getting at

I wouldn't go by just what a book said. But I do not have any doubts that these WMDs were relocated prior to the US invasion of Iraq. Perhaps oneday it will come out to the whole world that there were indeed WMDs in Iraq ...
thats gonna be great day, and I bet it comes sooner rather than later

Someone wrote a book, giving a shocking detail about the most controversial part of one of the most controversial things in the world right now... Obviously they did it to put the truth out there, not to make money off something that can never be proven false.

According to Amazon, here's what else people who bought that book also bought:
* The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades) by Robert Spencer
* Do As I Say (Not As I Do) : Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer
* Disinformation : 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror by Richard Miniter
* Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media by Bill Sammon
* The Truth About Hillary : What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President by Edward Klein

Notice a trend appearing there?
And yet we put with ppl saying only Liberals listen to what they want to hear.

I dont get what your getting at

There's a shocker. :rolleyes:

Please tell me there's not a book entitled "Saddam's Secrets"

yes there is,and it is written by his 2nd in command of the airforce who transported it to syria..allegedly...his name is general sados:confused:

You know, I know I hate humanity, and I also know I say things like this all the time...but UN, I wish to express my deep gratitude for the amusement you provide me with. I tell you, it really keeps me going.

Thank you, once again.

Please tell me there's not a book entitled "Saddam's Secrets"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591454042/102-5761880-9776949

wait, so if there were WMD you would still say it wasnt the right thing to do?

Israel, China and North Korea have them too, and I don't see any invasion happening... and the guy that runs North Korea is clearly in need of a poisoned jar of kim chee.

(And here's what a few North Koreans think of the USA (get your flag out):
http://www.vunet.org/article/viihde/story108.html)

Removing dictators, stopping genocide, no bullshit about WMD. You know, working to make the 21st Century the Century of Humanity.

Thank you!

Thank you!

Now go out and start a "Novoga For World Leader" movement. You will not be rewarded for your efforts.

Wanna know how it was going to affect you? he was going to give those weapons to terrorists who will in turn sneak them into this country and use them. Not exactly half way around the world is it?

And you know this becauuuuuuuse... you're in his head? Don't forgot that Saddam and Osama weren't exactly on speaking terms.

I'm looking for evidence of original thought and not rehashing of the propaganda.

I don't usually quote from the Bible, but:

13 And it fell on a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house,

14 that there came a messenger unto Job, and said: 'The oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them;

15 and the Sabeans made a raid, and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.'

16 While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said: 'A fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.'

17 While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said: 'The Chaldeans set themselves in three bands, and fell upon the camels, and have taken them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.'

18 While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said: 'Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house;

19 And, behold, there came a great wind from across the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young people, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.'

20 Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped;

21 And he said; naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither; the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

22 For all this Job sinned not, nor ascribed aught unseemly to God.

For the full context, see here (http://mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et2701.htm).

Take it as you will.

"Originally Posted by Demented Hamsters
According to Amazon, here's what else people who bought that book also bought:
* The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades) by Robert Spencer
* Do As I Say (Not As I Do) : Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer
* Disinformation : 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror by Richard Miniter
* Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media by Bill Sammon
* The Truth About Hillary : What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President by Edward Klein

Notice a trend appearing there?
And yet we put with ppl saying only Liberals listen to what they want to hear."

I dont get what your getting at

CHRIST JESUS MAN! HE'S SAYING YOU PEOPLE ARE BUYING UP THE PROPAGANDA THAT BUSH MAKES! For God's sakes!

have we invaded a single other country with WMD's? Be they allies, enemies, or even *gasp* us?!

Hypothetically, if we invaded Iraq and found ICBMs aimed at the US and Europe, would you still think it was a bad idea to invade?

Hypothetically, if we invaded Iraq and found ICBMs aimed at the US and Europe, would you still think it was a bad idea to invade?

By that logic we must invade China and Russia. We should invade China but it would be crazy.

Hypothetically, if we invaded Iraq and found ICBMs aimed at the US and Europe, would you still think it was a bad idea to invade?

I would, because Saddam would have launched said ICBMs during the war, and we would have been in trouble.

I would, because Saddam would have launched said ICBMs during the war, and we would have been in trouble.

The sheer level of incompetence and/or willful neglect it would take to reach the point where Hussein could have had actual ICBMs is mind-numbing.

By that logic we must invade China and Russia. We should invade China but it would be crazy.

We can trust China and Russia though. They've got too much at stake to use their weapons. Besides, I think I read that China doesn't even have a delivery system for their nukes. I'm probably wrong though.

We can trust China and Russia though. They've got too much at stake to use their weapons. Besides, I think I read that China doesn't even have a delivery system for their nukes. I'm probably wrong though.

I don't want to invade China because of WMD.

Hypothetically, if we invaded Iraq and found ICBMs aimed at the US and Europe, would you still think it was a bad idea to invade?

Russia (the USSR) DID, North Korea and China probably do. Where's the invasion?

Invading Iraq was a bad idea. It was done on faulty "I think the weapons are here" "intelligence". A nuclear weapon can be detected with certainity. There AREN'T any, and now, as I preached 3 years ago, Iraq is headed for civil war.

Another country that will be pissed with America; fantastic. Add that country to the list...

Cambodia (how did Pol Pot get into power),
Korea (who divided it -- and they really detest Americans there),
Iran (no comment needed),
Palestine (see also Iran),
Iraq

We can trust China and Russia though. They've got too much at stake to use their weapons.

And Iraq didn't? Why in the world would Saddam Hussein have used weapons of mass destruction when the most powerful state in the history of human existence, capable of projecting far more force than he could possibly harness, would have immediately seized upon it as a pretext to destroy him and his regime?

He would only have done so as a last resort to defend his regime - say, after we invaded. The fact that he did not is indicative of the falsity of the opening post.

Hypothetically, if we invaded Iraq and found ICBMs aimed at the US and Europe, would you still think it was a bad idea to invade?

I would. Those would have been lucky finds. We went into the war with bad intelligence, hence why nothing was found. If we found those ICBM's, I might have disliked the war less, particularly because the thing about bad intelligence wouldn't be nearly as prevalent.

We can trust China and Russia though. They've got too much at stake to use their weapons. Besides, I think I read that China doesn't even have a delivery system for their nukes. I'm probably wrong though.

:rolleyes:

Russia defends Iran because Iran supplies Russia much needed energy products. Now why would Russia jeopardize that to be an "ally" to the United States. The US OBVIOUSLY cannot give Russia energy products because there's hardly any enough here, and that's why gas is a fucking outrageous $2.45 per gallon now.

Chinese nuclear missile delivery systems:

http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/default.asp
http://www.nti.org/db/china/wdsmdat.htm

Oh what the hell, I'm not a teacher. Do a google search already and come out the vacuum -- "we can TRUST China and Russia"... hahahaha... when you're the top dog, you can't trust anyone.

And Iraq didn't? Why in the world would Saddam Hussein have used weapons of mass destruction when the most powerful state in the history of human existence, capable of projecting far more force than he could possibly harness, would have immediately seized upon it as a pretext to destroy him and his regime?

Fair enough. We probably could have trusted Saddam. Not iran, though. They're zealous enough to use them, I think.

Russia (the USSR) DID, North Korea and China probably do. Where's the invasion?

Invading Iraq was a bad idea. It was done on faulty "I think the weapons are here" "intelligence". A nuclear weapon can be detected with certainity. There AREN'T any, and now, as I preached 3 years ago, Iraq is headed for civil war.

Another country that will be pissed with America; fantastic. Add that country to the list...

Cambodia (how did Pol Pot get into power),
Korea (who divided it -- and they really detest Americans there),
Iran (no comment needed),
Palestine (see also Iran),
Iraq

Even better: The US has nuclear weapons pointed at a bunch of nations. I guess we should destroy ourselves.

Russia (the USSR) DID, North Korea and China probably do. Where's the invasion?

Russia still does. And we can trust all of them.

Fair enough. We probably could have trusted Saddam. Not iran, though. They're zealous enough to use them, I think.

Doubt it. Iran wouldn't kill off its entire country just to kill 14 million jews(I actually forget the pop of israel, but I believe thats close). The slow process of creating nukes would make any leader who attempted to procure them and their delivery systems get voted out by the ordinary iranian citizen, who has no wish to be involved in nuclear war.

Fair enough. We probably could have trusted Saddam. Not iran, though. They're zealous enough to use them, I think.

I don't think so. Their leadership is pretty pragmatic, rhetoric aside. Their foreign policy has been skillfully played, using ties with Russia, China, and the EU to offset the belligerent US stance towards them, and they have plenty of reason to seek nuclear weaponry for deterrence purposes.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be annihilated politically if he ever decided to act on his rhetoric. The only thing the conservative religious establishment seems willing to accept is a less compromising stance on nuclear energy/weaponry, and that only barely.

Doubt it. Iran wouldn't kill off its entire country just to kill 14 million jews(I actually forget the pop of israel, but I believe thats close).

Six million or so, including around one million non-Jewish Arabs.

Russia still does. And we can trust all of them.

If you think the United States can trust Russia, China or North Korea -- any of the three -- then I've "misunderestimated" your lack of intelligence.

Vladimir Putin of Russia is the former KGB and FSB top spy. He's SO trustworthy. He rolls back "democracy" like Wal-Mart rolls back prices.

Hu Jintao of China circumvents any possible discussion of human rights and buys up all the resources he needs from Africa while totally ignoring any abuses that may be going on there.

Kim Jong-il is repressive in a Stalinistic sense of the word, and his dead father, Kim Il-Sung is the "President for Life". He spends all his nation's GDP on weapons. Gee, we can trust someone who only buys weapons. Who is he going to use them against, do you reckon?

And these are people that the United States can trust? Are you sure you aren't George Bush posting?

*yawn*

UN Ambassadorship is a troll because he will never, ever, admit he's ever wrong about any single goddam thing. Ever. It is perfectly useless to argue with him, you might as well argue with a giant slab of roast beef. He will never, ever, comprehend your reason, your rationality, your logic or your arguments. He will ignore you, deny, lie, slanderize, generalize and basically squirm like a chipmunk getting an anal probe until you get bored and go home.

That, and he creates puppet accounts to make it seem like he has support.

Anyone who doesn't believe that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD's prior to the invasion is either delusional or in a complete denial of history. You should ask the Kurds whether or not they believe Saddam had WMD's. They could answer that question first hand, and definitively. The only question in my mind is what did he do with them prior to the U.S. invasion, and that is not really even much of one since we have satellite reconnaissance photgraphs of convoys of trucks leaving Iraq for Syria just before we invaded.

I can't believe this is even a topic for debate. It should be a foregone conclusion.

it is true that Saddam had WMD at one time. He also used them on the kurds in the north of Iraq before. HOWEVER, there is little evidence that there were any there at the second invasion of Iraq.

As for Iran the real power is in the ayatolah's hands. you know the extremist islamic leader whos athourity supercedes that of the president (or Iran). Also keep in mind that the EU and China have both been threatening iran and Russia is sort of saying calm down.

Also keep in mind that sattelites can't see into vehicles so anything could have been in those trucks

If you think the United States can trust Russia, China or North Korea -- any of the three -- then I've "misunderestimated" your lack of intelligence.

Vladimir Putin of Russia is the former KGB and FSB top spy. He's SO trustworthy. He rolls back "democracy" like Wal-Mart rolls back prices.

Hu Jintao of China circumvents any possible discussion of human rights and buys up all the resources he needs from Africa while totally ignoring any abuses that may be going on there.

Kim Jong-il is repressive in a Stalinistic sense of the word, and his dead father, Kim Il-Sung is the "President for Life". He spends all his nation's GDP on weapons. Gee, we can trust someone who only buys weapons. Who is he going to use them against, do you reckon?

And these are people that the United States can trust? Are you sure you aren't George Bush posting?

Yes. They can be trusted. Because they like their power too much to do anything to the United States. Do you really think trustworthiness is based on how leaders treat their people?

first it was yellowcake....
then when that didn't hold water it was changed to WMDs (bio/chemical)....
then WMD related activities.....
then regime change.....
next they will be liberating Eurasia

its a sad state when the term "orwellian" is considered cliche

Anyone who doesn't believe that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD's prior to the invasion is either delusional or in a complete denial of history. You should ask the Kurds whether or not they believe Saddam had WMD's. They could answer that question first hand, and definitively. The only question in my mind is what did he do with them prior to the U.S. invasion, and that is not really even much of one since we have satellite reconnaissance photgraphs of convoys of trucks leaving Iraq for Syria just before we invaded.

I can't believe this is even a topic for debate. It should be a foregone conclusion.
I'm not aware of a single person who believes that Iraq never had WMD. That Iraq once had WMD is not the point. The Bush admin did not justify the war on the basis that 'once apon a time, in a land far far away'. The war was justified by reference to a current threat, as in current directly prior to the invasion.
It is utterly non-sequitor to believe that because someone had something at point A (in time) that they therefore also have that thing at point B. Further the mere existence of WMD would still not make the pre-war claims true. The claims were of an active and current WMD programe.
I cant figure out if you are being dishonest or if you really were not aware that Saddam admitted to having WMD and got rid of a heap of them as part of his obligations (vis-a-vis the UN security council). If you were aware of such events and are not being dishonest your ability to use logic is questionable at best.
In summary, so far as I know, the fact that Saddam had WMD prior to his disarming (or allegded disarming if you prefer) if not a matter of controversy. I am frankly surprised and somewhat incredulous that someone would not realise this and would actually think that people believed Saddam never had WMD even prior to the disarmanent process that occured post-Gulf war and well before the US invasion.

I'm not aware of a single person who believes that Iraq never had WMD. That Iraq once had WMD is not the point. The Bush admin did not justify the war on the basis that 'once apon a time, in a land far far away'. The war was justified by reference to a current threat, as in current directly prior to the invasion.
It is utterly non-sequitor to believe that because someone had something at point A (in time) that they therefore also have that thing at point B. Further the mere existence of WMD would still not make the pre-war claims true. The claims were of an active and current WMD programe.
I cant figure out if you are being dishonest or if you really were not aware that Saddam admitted to having WMD and got rid of a heap of them as part of his obligations (vis-a-vis the UN security council). If you were aware of such events and are not being dishonest your ability to use logic is questionable at best.
In summary, so far as I know, the fact that Saddam had WMD prior to his disarming (or allegded disarming if you prefer) if not a matter of controversy. I am frankly surprised and somewhat incredulous that someone would not realise this and would actually think that people believed Saddam never had WMD even prior to the disarmanent process that occured post-Gulf war and well before the US invasion.

Try asking Gauthier, or Straughn, or Canuck Heaven or AllCoolNamesAreTaken that question. Please. I'll wait. :D

For the record, I'm all for Saddam being gone but they didn't have the numbers to hold civil order (they didn't really try) and secure weapons. The Iraqi army should never have been decomissioned. There is no way they should have let the looting happen like they did. If they had gone slower or had a larger force with the intent on keeping order and fixing much of the damage done in the more than a decade of bombing the hearts and minds might have been a tad easier to win over.

I am more upset on how it was handled rather than the mere fact that it happened upon false pretenses (sketchy intel at best).

Oh, and I think someone, atleast Rumsfeld or someone, should have been held accountable for what has happened. This denial of ever making a single mis-step is the height or arrogance. Yet on it goes.

Try asking Gauthier, or Straughn, or Canuck Heaven or AllCoolNamesAreTaken that question. Please. I'll wait. :D
Asking me what? This part ...?:
I cant figure out if you are being dishonest or if you really were not aware that Saddam admitted to having WMD and got rid of a heap of them as part of his obligations (vis-a-vis the UN security council). If you were aware of such events and are not being dishonest your ability to use logic is questionable at best.

Do you really want to invoke me? Or even better, Gauthier AND myself?
Or even better than that, Gauthier, CanuckHeaven, and me? Or without me?
Really?

Yours .... ;)

Asking me what? This part ...?:

Do you really want to invoke me? Or even better, Gauthier AND myself?
Or even better than that, Gauthier, CanuckHeaven, and me? Or without me?
Really?

Yours .... ;)

Any time. Dear friend.

Yes Saddam did have WMD's

Doug Hagin
April 27, 2004


For months now America has listened to every Liberal politician and activist blast President George W. Bush for the lack of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. We have listened as many of those same presidential critics have claimed that President Bush misled the nation about Iraq even having weapons of mass destruction.

Now the entire world knows Iraq did have them at one point because they had used them against Iran and the Kurds. The mass graves unearthed in Iraq certainly are testaments to Iraq's possession of these weapons.

Yet the lack of such weapons found by our military forces have become a sore point for the Bush administration. Serious questions have been raised as to whether or not Saddam Hussein had destroyed his stockpile of weapons or whether he had shipped them away right before we went into Iraq to remove him and the threat President Bush told us he presented.

So where are those famed weapons of mass destruction? Where are the biological and chemical agents which so concerned our intelligence agencies? Did President Bush lie? Was he the victim of faulty intelligence? Could his Liberal critics actually have it right when they accuse him of misleading us?

The facts thus presented by the media do not paint a rosy picture for the president, but are those facts wrong? What if the intelligence describing Saddam's weapons was correct after all?

According to new information coming out of Iraq our military is indeed finding weapons and evidence of weapons programs.

The Iraq Survey Group, or ISG, has found hundreds of activities which were prohibited under United Nations Security Council resolutions. Evidence of chemical, biological and ballistic weapons have indeed all been found yet the mention of these finds seems to fly far under the media's radar. Why?

According to Charles Duefler, a former State Department official as well as deputy chief of the United Nations-led arms inspection teams the types of weapons found are not the specific weapons mentioned by President Bush. " There is a long list of charges made by the U.S. that have been confirmed, but none of this seems to mean anything because the weapons that were unaccounted for by the United Nations remain unaccounted for."

Both Duefler and David Kay, found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing it's chemical-and biological-weapons programs" a senior administration official told Insight Magazine. According to this official inspectors have also found a prison laboratory where intelligence officials suspect biological weapons were tested on human subjects.

There is more that has been found though. Among these were uranium-enrichment centrifuges which have one plausible use to build nuclear weapons. Remember that President Bush was convinced Saddam was pursuing nuclear capabilities. Apparently he was right.

In addition Iraqi scientists have consistently told our inspectors they were under orders from Saddam Hussein to hide their activities from U.N. inspectors. Further, the missiles listed as threats to America have indeed been found yet the media has remained silent.

Not to say the media has an agenda but the evidence of WMD's has indeed been largely ignored by the mainstream press. Everyone heard about it when David Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found no stockpiles of prohibited weapons. That was front-page news. Yet, when Kay testified about the discoveries of the ISG the silence fro the media was deafening.

In his testimony Kay also laid bare some other nasty secrets Saddam had been hiding from U.N. inspectors.

So-called reference stains from a wide variety of biological weapons were found in the home of a prominent Iraqi scientist. This was written off by the press as a sort of starter kit and deemed unimportant.

New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.

A line of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or drones, not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit.

Further, evidence from testimony of Iraqi scientists and documents show that between 1999 and 2002 Iraq was negotiating with North Korea for technology for various missiles. These missiles, of course, could have been armed with chemical or biological agents.

There is much more evidence laid out by Insight Magazine that our press seems not to deem worthy. This information is also available on World Net Daily. Every American should check out this evidence and re-think the criticisms of our decision to eliminate Saddam and the very real threat he posed to our nation.

Here are few quotes that show the abject hypocracy of the left/democrats/enemy abettors on the issue of WMD's in Iraq:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps woill be emboldened tommorrow." - President Bill Clinton 1998

"Saddam's goal...is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." - Secretary of State Madeline Albright, 1998
,br> "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." - Senator Tom Dashle, 1998

"There is no doubt that...Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of allicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Senator Bob Graham, December 2001

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Former Vice President Al Gore, 2002

"I share this administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." - Richard Gephardt, September 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." - Senator Edward Kennedy, September 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Fomrer Vice President Al Gore, September 2002 br> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Queda members, though there is apparently no evidence in his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." Senator Hillary Clinton, October 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadlt arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Senator John Kerry, October 2003

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build his chemical and biological warfare capability. intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." Senator Robert Byrd, October, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He already used them against his neighbors and his own people and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." Senator John Edwards, October 2002

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." - Barbara Boxer, November 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Bob Graham, December 2002

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppresive regime...He presents a particularly grievious threat because he is so consistantly prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Senator John Kerry, January, 2003

"I am absolutely confident that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we could see the inspectors being barred gaining entry into a warehouse for hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, April 2003

No WMD's In Iraq?
By Douglas Hanson
AmericanThinker.com | April 7, 2004

It has become established conventional wisdom that “no stockpiles of WMD have been discovered in Iraq.” But this reading of the evidence uncovered to date is premature at best, and highly questionable. A closer look at the data, and at the uses made of it, is essential for those who wish to understand the genuine state of Iraq’s WMD threat at the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Another Congressional committee hearing has come and gone for the head of the hapless Iraqi Survey Group (ISG). Charles Duelfer has testified that he did not know how much longer the weapons hunt might take, but that the "picture is much more complicated than I anticipated going in." In addition, he also figured out that pinning hopes on getting information from frightened Iraqi scientists was probably not the best way to find the locations of all those WMD stockpiles. (see my previous article Cased Not Closed: Iraq’s WMDs).

Despite contracting out for assistance in document exploitation last October, only a small fraction of the seized documents have been analyzed. Keep in mind that the ISG is largely composed of personnel from the CIA, State Department, such as Duelfer, and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), such as the deputy, Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton. These are the same organizations that are currently getting raked over the coals for bureaucratic bungling of intelligence prior to 9-11.

In turn, the beleaguered agencies are deflecting this criticism to the President and his national security advisors, by essentially complaining the “devil made me do it.” In other words, their technical and tactical incompetence and/or their motivation to embarrass the administration has allowed the ISG to make proclamations about WMD stockpiles that minimize the significance of their findings, or deliberately downplay and contradict the findings of Coalition forces in the field. Such is the case with chemical weapons (CW) precursors.

The anti-war left and the media continuously shift the goal posts about WMD stockpiles. But what does the term “stockpile” mean for WMDs? One nuclear bomb is not really a “stockpile,” but it would only take one, set off in an American city or dropped on US forces in the field, to make everybody wake up and smell the coffee.

What did we expect to find in Iraq, the equivalent of the Pantex Plant? In fact, we did find hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake and low-enriched uranium. But I digress.

“Stockpiles” of biological weapons? A stockpile of bio-weapons can be kept in a fridge in a scientist’s house. Ricin and botulinum toxin have already been found in sufficient quantities to regenerate a biological weapon (BW) capability in short order. No, the standard established by the left and their allies in the media is that we must find chemical weapons (CW). That is, if the US has not found pallets of CW projectiles in ammo dumps or munitions factories or at Iraqi Army unit areas, well then that George Bush flat-out lied to us. In a fashion, the critics are correct concerning CW stockpiles. Here’s why.

Chemical weapons are very potent in small amounts in a sterile setting. Hence, the bit in movies where the leading man dips a pen into a glass of water and says something to the effect that “these few drops of nerve agent are enough to wipe out hundreds of thousands of people” is correct, but only if those people are crammed into the Silverdome. Chemical weapons have very important weaknesses: They can be destroyed by light, heat, water, and wind -- that is, the weather -- not to mention the heat from the explosive charge designed to disperse the agent. It is for this reason that CWs are employed en masse with strict targeting protocols, when attacking an army in the field.

Even if done properly, depending upon the equipment and training of your adversary, the killing and incapacitating effects may not be tactically significant. For these reasons, Saddam initially “tested” his CW on unsuspecting Kurd civilians to gain an accurate medical picture of chemical agent effects. Simply put, anyone contemplating use of CW needs a lot of it, and it must be delivered at the right time and place.

UNSCOM inspectors understood these factors when they concluded in 1995 that, at the time of Operation Desert Storm in January of 1991, Iraq had largely solved key technical issues. The problem of precursor storage and stabilization for VX, a powerful and persistent nerve agent was solved by Saddam’s scientists. In addition, UNSCOM noted the development of prototypes for binary sarin (non-persistent nerve agent) artillery shells and 122mm rockets. Binary rounds consist of two non-lethal substances that combine upon detonation to form a lethal agent.

The technically advanced binary nature of these projectiles was amazing enough, but they also had developed “quantities well beyond the prototype levels.” The DIA concurred with UNSCOM that Iraq had retained production equipment and chemical precursors to reconstitute a CW program absent an inspection regime.

Specifically, the DIA noted that Baghdad had rebuilt segments of its industrial chemical infrastructure under the “guise of a civilian need for pesticides, chlorine, and other legitimate chemical products.” Pesticides are the key elements in the chemical agent arena. In fact, the general pesticide chemical formula (organophosphate) is the “grandfather” of modern day nerve agents. Pesticides are also precursors of many other chemical weapons including Mustard-Lewisite (HL), Phosgene (CG) a choking agent, and Hydrogen Cyanide (AC) a blood agent.

It was not surprising then, as Coalition forces attacked into Iraq, that huge warehouses and caches of “commercial and agricultural” chemicals were seized and painstakingly tested by Army and Marine chemical specialists. What was surprising was how quickly the ISG refuted the findings of our ground forces, and how silent they have been on the significance of these caches.

US forces participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom had the latest chemical detection gear, including chemical detection paper, chemical agent detector kits, improved chemical agent monitors, and sophisticated Fox Chemical Recon Vehicles. Some American GIs remembered well the shortfalls of this equipment in Gulf War I. Now all of these older devices had been improved, and new and more accurate devices had been issued. In fact, some mobile Army labs had highly sensitive mass spectrometers to test for suspicious substances. Who could argue the results of repeated tests using these devices without explaining how DoD had apparently been ripped off by contractors for faulty products? Apparently, the ISG could and did.

One of the reported incidents occurred near Karbala where there appeared to be a very large “agricultural supply” area of 55-gallon drums of pesticide. In addition, there was also a camouflaged bunker complex full of these drums that some people entered with unpleasant results. More than a dozen soldiers, a Knight-Ridder reporter, a CNN cameraman, and two Iraqi POWs came down with symptoms consistent with exposure to nerve agent. A full day of tests on the drums resulted in one positive for nerve agent, and then one resulted in a negative. Later, an Army Fox NBC [nuclear, biological, chemical] Recon Vehicle confirmed the existence of Sarin. An officer from the 63d Chemical Company thought there might well be chemical weapons at the site.

But later ISG tests resulted in a proclamation of negative, end of story, nothing to see here, etc., and the earlier findings and injuries dissolved into non-existence. Left unexplained is the small matter of the obvious pains taken to disguise the cache of ostensibly legitimate pesticides. One wonders about the advantage an agricultural commodities business gains by securing drums of pesticide in camouflaged bunkers six feet underground. The “agricultural site” was also co-located with a military ammunition dump, evidently nothing more than a coincidence in the eyes of the ISG.

Another find occurred around the northern Iraqi town of Bai’ji, where elements of the 4th Infantry Division (Mech) discovered 55-gallon drums of a substance that mass spectrometer testing confirmed was cyclosarin and an unspecified blister agent. A mobile laboratory was also found nearby that could have been used to mix chemicals at the site. And only yards away, surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, as well as gas masks were found. Of course, later tests by the experts revealed that these were only the ubiquitous pesticides that everybody was turning up. It seems that Iraqi soldiers were obsessed with keeping their ammo dumps insect-free, according to the reading of the evidence now enshrined by the conventional wisdom that “no WMD stockpiles have been discovered.”

Coalition forces continued to find evidence of CW after major combat operations had concluded. The US unit around Taji, just north of Baghdad discovered pesticides in one of the largest ammo dumps in Iraq. The unit wanted to use the ammo dump for their own operations, when they discovered the pesticides in “non-standard” drums that were smaller in diameter but much longer than the standard 55-gallon drums.

Then in January of this year, Danish forces discovered 120mm mortar shells with a mysterious liquid inside that initially tested positive for blister agents. Further tests in Southern Iraq and in the US were, of course, negative. The Danish Army said, “It is unclear why the initial field tests were wrong.” This is the understatement of the year, and also points to a most basic question: If it wasn’t a chemical agent, what was it? More pesticides? Dishwashing detergent? From this old soldier’s perspective, I gain nothing from putting a liquid in my mortar rounds unless that stuff will do bad things to the enemy.

Virtually all agencies concerned with Iraq’s WMD programs have reached the conclusion that Saddam was an expert at delay, dispersion, and deception. His nuclear program had restarted as reported earlier this year by Dr. Kay, the previous head of the ISG. Also, “seed agents” and other bio-toxins had been dispersed throughout Baghdad and Iraq to form the basis for the regeneration of a full-fledged BW program. This modus operandi was no different for the regeneration of Saddam’s chemical weapons program. Operating under the guise of legitimate industrial and agricultural chemical production and storage, Iraq would have gone into full-scale conversion of its stockpile of chemical precursors into weaponized agents, had the Coalition not attacked and seized Iraq.

What is stunning is that the ISG seems incapable of connecting the dots to present to the American people the clear evidence of Saddam’s flouting of 12 years of UN resolutions, and the grave consequences if we had failed to act. The ISG also owes a detailed explanation to DoD as to how 12 years of research, development, and money has apparently gone down the drain in the effort to upgrade the military’s chemical detection capability and NBC training regimen. That the ISG can consistently contradict other technical specialists, while ignoring years of UNSCOM and US intelligence assessments, without accountability is unconscionable, and must be rectified as soon as possible

This should answer your question of whether or not I am afraid of "invocation" of any one, or indeed, all of you......

Try asking Gauthier, or Straughn, or Canuck Heaven or AllCoolNamesAreTaken that question. Please. I'll wait. :D
I can only gather the 'question' you mean is 'did Iraq at any point in it's history have WMD?'
Very well.
Gauthier, Straughn, or Canuck Heaven, did Iraq at any point ever possess WMD?

Hey, wow, someone discovered pro-Bush pundits, learned how to copy and paste! Well done!

Now learn to LINK to an article instead of copying the whole fucking thing in each honking post! Then you'll get a cookie!

PS The correct answer to this post doesn't involve flaming me for being a communist pinko terrorist apologist.

I don't know if anyone has brought it up in the first six and a half pages of posts on this thread, but what did Saddam gain by sending WMD's (if any) to Syria? I don't think anyone honestly believed he wasn't going to be removed from power and put on trial for his actions so its not like he was going to get them back (kinda like his planes that went to Iran in the first Gulf War). I don't know, maybe he never intended to get them back and just wants them to have the chance to be used against the west, maybe Syria has some plans for them (if they are actually there and existed to begin with).
Personaly, if it was the choice between giving them up and never seeing them again and employing them to defend my nation I know which one I would have picked.

And we can trust Russia, China, North Korea and Iran completely, we can trust them to do what they think is going to be in their best interest regardless of what the UNited States and the UN tells them.

Hey, wow, someone discovered pro-Bush pundits, learned how to copy and paste! Well done!

Now learn to LINK to an article instead of copying the whole fucking thing in each honking post! Then you'll get a cookie!

PS The correct answer to this post doesn't involve flaming me for being a communist pinko terrorist apologist.

I know how to do that. It just doesn't work as a means of getting your point across if they refuse to click on those links. It also means that hopefully they will read those links. I am merely following the Great Straughn's usual means of burying the argument under piles and piles of commentary.

Besides, you don't have to read them, do you?

And we can trust Russia, China, North Korea and Iran completely, we can trust them to do what they think is going to be in their best interest regardless of what the UNited States and the UN tells them.

And what's in their best interest is to play along. Although iran is iffy. That's what you get when your country is ruled by an ayatollah.

I know how to do that. It just doesn't work as a means of getting your point across if they refuse to click on those links. It also means that hopefully they will read those links. I am merely following the Great Straughn's usual means of burying the argument under piles and piles of commentary.

No, copy and paste whole articles for three posts in a row doesn't incourage me to do much but stand back and mock. Maybe others are more convinced. A link is much more polite, and succinct since then it makes your five-word commentary look more substantial in comparison.

Besides, you don't have to read them, do you?

You don't have to post them either, do you?

And what's in their best interest is to play along. Although iran is iffy. That's what you get when your country is ruled by an ayatollah.


I would say yes, it is whats in their best interest. But not what they think is in their best interest.

They haven't found WMD in Iraq after the war that would justify the invasion - if you believe otherwise, please link to the report.

wait, so if there were WMD you would still say it wasnt the right thing to do?
Even if there were WMD in Iraq, I wouldn't claim that an illegal invasion (without the support of the UN) to remove an extremly hypothetical possibility was the right thing to do, no. The US government has gone about this all wrong, in a frightened panic after september 11th.

Anyone who doesn't believe that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD's prior to the invasion is either delusional or in a complete denial of history. Thinking about Iraq just prior to the invasion, I agree with what you have written here. :p


They could answer that question first hand, and definitively. The only question in my mind is what did he do with them prior to the U.S. invasion, and that is not really even much of one since we have satellite reconnaissance photgraphs of convoys of trucks leaving Iraq for Syria just before we invaded.
Um... Sure. I guess somebody better wake the president, 'cause I don't think he's bothered to read the memo. And strange that this would contradict all of the reports presented by the inspectors, and also, it just wouldn't make sense for Saddam to send any weapons to Syria.


I can't believe this is even a topic for debate. It should be a foregone conclusion.
Again I agree, but for a different reason ;)

According to the 2nd in command of what was Saddam's airforce, he says in his book "Saddam's secrets" that Saddam sent his WMDs to Syria just before the war. This means the intel and my man W got it right the whole time. This is what I have been saying forever and someone is backing me up. Do you liberals admit you got this one wrong or what?

Well lets see....

Since "Just before the war" Iraq had UN weapons inspectors, lead by Hans Blix searching the place, I highly doubt Iraq could be so clever, while being watched like a hawk.

I call bullshit.

This should answer your question of whether or not I am afraid of "invocation" of any one, or indeed, all of you......
Wow, someone seems pretty proud of themselves! :D
Perhaps this here is a keeper, kind of like these:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10593753&postcount=76
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10593781&postcount=79
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10593790&postcount=80
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10593623&postcount=69

"Claim vs. Evidence, evidence wins. Lots of evidence against
unsupported claim, K.O. You don't have to acknowledge it. I'm sure a lot of
boxers get up after being knocked the hell out and still think the fights
on..." That of course is a sig. What was your exit from that again?

This one was a keeper too, i think you'll agree:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10605761&postcount=96

Well, it's good you keep me close. I'll grow on you, like i apparently already have! ;P

Any time. Dear friend.
How 'bout French toast during the Renaissance?

If the goal of the 1st world nations is to rid the world of dictators, they need to stop instating them there in the first place.
Morons make statements like this. Do you think that people who want dictators removed want to see more put into power?

-snip-

Notice a trend appearing there?
And yet we put with ppl saying only Liberals listen to what they want to hear.
I also noticed in the blurb which emphasised what a Christian in a sea of dirty Muslims this guy was, and I thought "this is really marketed to the US Republican demographic."

I know how to do that. It just doesn't work as a means of getting your point across if they refuse to click on those links. It also means that hopefully they will read those links. I am merely following the Great* Straughn's usual means** of burying the argument under piles and piles of commentary***.


A few things, mon cher amis, as evidenced by the *'s:

*: Great? This relationship is really working out for me! WooT!
Ah, btw, it's Straughn John Silver, or SJS fer short.

**: My "usual means" almost *NEVER* includes OP-EDs. You should be just a smidge more discriminating about your source material. Someone might mock you or something about it. Mind you, i'm not talking about your second post, that was just fine. You know i have a quote or two i could post about that, but time is preciously short, and Airplane II: The Sequel is on.

***: Commentary? The argument, first and foremost, has it's anchor in the source material and its understanding. With you, at least, i don't really approach things in the manner you state here. And you're being a bit unfair, it's usually nauseously circular and self-supporting.

The bonus *:
I would've bothered earlier but i was helping people move. And playing with my mustela furota. I'll be sporadic.

The extra-cred *:
Good of you to finally post some source material, as obviously flawed as it was. *bows*

Oh, the double-or-nothing *:
I meant to imply something else from my first response to you ....
I would like you to post exactly why it was about *ME* arguing about *EVER* having "WMD"'s there. I have a long, LONG posting history, and since you made that call, if that's what you mean, i expect you to back it up.

<snip>
You know i have a quote or two i could post about that, but time is preciously short, and Airplane II: The Sequel is on.

Oh, that's a fun movie, almost as good as the first one!

- Would you describe, in your own words, what happened that night?
- Check it, bleed. Bro was ON! Didn't trip. But the folks was freakin', Man. Hey, and the pilots were laid to the bone, Homes. So Blood hammered out and jammed jet ship. Tightened that bad sucker inside the runway like a mother. Shit.

According to the 2nd in command of what was Saddam's airforce, he says in his book "Saddam's secrets" that Saddam sent his WMDs to Syria just before the war. This means the intel and my man W got it right the whole time. This is what I have been saying forever and someone is backing me up. Do you liberals admit you got this one wrong or what?

And I read in "The UN abassadorship's Mom's Secrets" that Hussein actually got her to stuff the WMD in certain... ahem... undisclosed locations... when we had that massive orgy a couple years before the war.

If he had WMDs wouldn't it make sense he would use it in the defense of his country.

If he had WMDs wouldn't it make sense he would use it in the defense of his country.
Nah, wouldn't it be more logical to move them out of the country and hand them over to a régime who happened to be a part of the coalition that invaded him a few years before, during Gulf War I? After all, WMD aren't very useful in a war, are they now... :rolleyes:

CHRIST JESUS MAN! HE'S SAYING YOU PEOPLE ARE BUYING UP THE PROPAGANDA THAT BUSH MAKES! For God's sakes!
Um, Bush didnt the book, just so you know

And Iraq didn't? Why in the world would Saddam Hussein have used weapons of mass destruction when the most powerful state in the history of human existence, capable of projecting far more force than he could possibly harness, would have immediately seized upon it as a pretext to destroy him and his regime?

He would only have done so as a last resort to defend his regime - say, after we invaded. The fact that he did not is indicative of the falsity of the opening post.
no, because I said he got rid of them

The very notion that Syria and Saddam would've done something together goes against common sense. "They's all Arabians", right?

The very notion that Syria and Saddam would've done something together goes against common sense. "They's all Arabians", right?
I've got Saddam's WMD. I'm holding on to them for hunting and home defense. I can't wait to see what a VX shell does to a herd of deer next hunting season!

I've got Saddam's WMD. I'm holding on to them for hunting and home defense. I can't wait to see what a VX shell does to a herd of deer next hunting season!
how they hell did you get WMDs in this country, unless of course you aint American

how they hell did you get WMDs in this country, unless of course you aint American
We all have some. There was a big going-away party in 2003. Weren't you invited?

You should see what the pope got!

how they hell did you get WMDs in this country, unless of course you aint American
I dectected some sarcasm int he post you're reffering to

We all have some. There was a big going-away party in 2003. Weren't you invited?

You should see what the pope got!

Yeah, the Vatican has the world's largest stockpile of hydrogen bombs

EDIT: Post number 666 (ooooooooh freaky)

We all have some. There was a big going-away party in 2003. Weren't you invited?

You should see what the pope got!
I came early and got the first pick though—ever wonder what happened to all the fission bombs and Sarin? :p

Yeah, the Vatican has the world's largest stockpile of hydrogen bombs

EDIT: Post number 666 (ooooooooh freaky)
I see it all now... the Vatican... hydrogen bombs... 666...

I see it all now... the Vatican... hydrogen bombs... 666...

Oh god, I did not make that connection

how they hell did you get WMDs in this country, unless of course you aint American
I've got a special FFL.

Wanna know how it was going to affect you? he was going to give those weapons to terrorists who will in turn sneak them into this country and use them. Not exactly half way around the world is it?

Right.

So what you are saying is:

"This proves beyond doubt that he had WMD, and there is no doubt that he would have given them to terrorists to use against the US of A"

Which is a really interesting conclusion to make from your underlying contention which is:

"He had WMD all along, and gave them to Syria."

Which, of course, puts you in the very interesting situation of explaining why, if his goal was to give them to terrorists, that he a) kept them, and then b) supposedly gave them to someone OTHER than terrorists.


Now then, this general contends that these mythical WMD were flown to syria. He claims to have heard the accounts from the pilots. Pilots keep log books. The US kept every damn flight in and out of Iraq on their radar for the past 15 years. So, if this were the truth, the pilots would simply make their log books available and the pentagon would match them up and be screaming at Syria right now.


Except that, well, they aren't now are they?

Nope.



But hey, I hope this guy makes a mint off of his book. It will be the first POSITIVE example of spreading the American dream in Iraq so far.....

Right.

So what you are saying is:

"This proves beyond doubt that he had WMD, and there is no doubt that he would have given them to terrorists to use against the US of A"

Which is a really interesting conclusion to make from your underlying contention which is:

"He had WMD all along, and gave them to Syria."

Which, of course, puts you in the very interesting situation of explaining why, if his goal was to give them to terrorists, that he a) kept them, and then b) supposedly gave them to someone OTHER than terrorists.


Now then, this general contends that these mythical WMD were flown to syria. He claims to have heard the accounts from the pilots. Pilots keep log books. The US kept every damn flight in and out of Iraq on their radar for the past 15 years. So, if this were the truth, the pilots would simply make their log books available and the pentagon would match them up and be screaming at Syria right now.


Except that, well, they aren't now are they?

Nope.



But hey, I hope this guy makes a mint off of his book. It will be the first POSITIVE example of spreading the American dream in Iraq so far.....

Stop making sense

Right.

So what you are saying is:

"This proves beyond doubt that he had WMD, and there is no doubt that he would have given them to terrorists to use against the US of A"

Which is a really interesting conclusion to make from your underlying contention which is:

"He had WMD all along, and gave them to Syria."

Which, of course, puts you in the very interesting situation of explaining why, if his goal was to give them to terrorists, that he a) kept them, and then b) supposedly gave them to someone OTHER than terrorists.


Now then, this general contends that these mythical WMD were flown to syria. He claims to have heard the accounts from the pilots. Pilots keep log books. The US kept every damn flight in and out of Iraq on their radar for the past 15 years. So, if this were the truth, the pilots would simply make their log books available and the pentagon would match them up and be screaming at Syria right now.


Except that, well, they aren't now are they?

Nope.



But hey, I hope this guy makes a mint off of his book. It will be the first POSITIVE example of spreading the American dream in Iraq so far.....
yeah, except a lot of the flights were off the books. And plus, why would he lie?

yeah, except a lot of the flights were off the books. And plus, why would he lie?
To sell the book (specialy to all the rabbit right wingers that like to have amunition to justifiy their war) ?

as opposed to the North Koreans who have them, Pakistan, India, China (none of the above are exactly "friendly" with us), Russia (still has them aimed at us), France, the UK, Israel, not to mention those who could have them within a few years like Saudi Arabia, Germany, Italy, Canada, South Africa, Iran, Brazil, Argentina, Egypt, Lybia...


or the fact that I can get radioactive materials out of a smoke detector? Or on the black market? Or from medical facilities?

unfortunately you have to work very hard to get a critical mass out of all the stuff you are talking about. The material in smoke detectors is Americium-241 which requires 60-100 kilogrammes of the pure stuff. Smoke detectors don't have pure Americium samples, so you would have to process a lot (excess of 1,000) of smoke detectors. It is much the same with hospital materials. I have no knowledge of black market materials, but even then you still have to bring together a critical mass in order to have the requsite reaction. And that has to consider decay and a whole host of other issues. Possible, but very, very hard to do.

no, because I said he got rid of them

Right, because sending them to Syria accomplished what, exactly?

Doubt it. Iran wouldn't kill off its entire country just to kill 14 million jews(I actually forget the pop of israel, but I believe thats close). The slow process of creating nukes would make any leader who attempted to procure them and their delivery systems get voted out by the ordinary iranian citizen, who has no wish to be involved in nuclear war.

Eeehm.. you are aware that Iran already has missiles capable of easily reaching Israel ? That it already has the facilities needed to create weapons grade uranium, and will soon have access to a plutonium source when the Bushehr reactor is finished ?

Of course, they will have to enrich uranium in secret, or build an extra installation to actually extract the plutonium from the nuclear fuel before they can actually use this capacity - but the capacity is there nonetheless. The Iranian public *wants* nuclear power - so they will not get rid of a government that promises to give it to them.
So it indeed all boils down to: do we trust that government to not use the technology for military means ?

yeah, except a lot of the flights were off the books. And plus, why would he lie?
Interesting stories sell books

Doubt it. Iran wouldn't kill off its entire country just to kill 14 million jews(I actually forget the pop of israel, but I believe thats close). (snip)
the pop of Isreal is 7 million

According to the 2nd in command of what was Saddam's airforce, he says in his book "Saddam's secrets" that Saddam sent his WMDs to Syria just before the war. This means the intel and my man W got it right the whole time. This is what I have been saying forever and someone is backing me up. Do you liberals admit you got this one wrong or what?

Freedom is Slavery!
War is Peace!
Ignorance is Strength!

Here are few quotes that show the abject hypocracy of the left/democrats/enemy abettors on the issue of WMD's in Iraq:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps woill be emboldened tommorrow." - President Bill Clinton 1998

"Saddam's goal...is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." - Secretary of State Madeline Albright, 1998
,br> "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." - Senator Tom Dashle, 1998

"There is no doubt that...Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of allicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Senator Bob Graham, December 2001

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Former Vice President Al Gore, 2002

"I share this administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." - Richard Gephardt, September 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." - Senator Edward Kennedy, September 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Fomrer Vice President Al Gore, September 2002 br> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Queda members, though there is apparently no evidence in his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." Senator Hillary Clinton, October 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadlt arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Senator John Kerry, October 2003

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build his chemical and biological warfare capability. intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." Senator Robert Byrd, October, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He already used them against his neighbors and his own people and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." Senator John Edwards, October 2002

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." - Barbara Boxer, November 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Bob Graham, December 2002

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppresive regime...He presents a particularly grievious threat because he is so consistantly prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Senator John Kerry, January, 2003

"I am absolutely confident that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we could see the inspectors being barred gaining entry into a warehouse for hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, April 2003
Why Myotisinia, are you being dishonest by posting the above? It really doesn't help your argument one iota. The above has been debunked many times over, and I am surprised that you used it.

From Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp):

Origins: All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

You can do better than this Myotisinia?

Yes Saddam did have WMD's

Doug Hagin
April 27, 2004
Not according to Ritter, Kay, Blix and Duelfer!!

Lets look at a couple other quotes/articles by Mr. Doug Hagin:

This is the home of Doug Hagin (http://doughagin.tripod.com/). It exists to promote the Conservative/Libertarian values which made, and can continue to make America the greatest nation on earth!

This is a site for those who are tired of political correctness, Liberalism, and fed up those who wish to turn America into a big-government nanny state!
Here you can read news, my op-ed columns, as well as selected other op-eds.
So welcome, come in, enjoy and please offer your feedback!
Doug Hagin

Communism is still alive and evil (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hagin/060127)

The World Can't Wait-Drive out the Bush Regime is an entertaining little group of Leftist fanatics and Communists. Now you may not have heard of this new group of anti-American zealots yet. To be sure, they are a fringe group that is not exactly at the forefront of the news.

To be brutally honest I had never heard of them until one of their leaders Sunsara Taylor, yes that IS her real name, was interviewed on the Michael Medved Show. Sunsara is an avowed Communist and frankly not all that sharp or well educated. Of course being a Communist in 2006 pretty much eliminates any chance of that person being considered intellectually gifted I suppose, but back to Sunsara's message.

I went to the website for The World Can't Wait, which you too can visit at http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1 but be warned this site is a cesspool of Marxist revisionism and hatred for America. It is filled with the usual Leftist garbage about how America is a terrorist state and how WE, the evil Americans are the problem with the world. That should surprise no one though should it? After all, it is America, which won the cold war, defeating the evil and intellectually bankrupt ideology of Marxism.

Mr. Hagin is not biased in his articles at all, right? :rolleyes:

And of course he presents facts in a clear and precise manner, and would never resort to name calling and mudslinging? :rolleyes:

Lots of words but zero credibility! :eek:

You aren't seriously asking anyone to buy nonsense by this guy are you Myotisinia?

Busah overthrew Saddam for al queda

Besides, it is the goal of many to have the World dictator free by the end of this century ....

But wait....GWB is free and at large! Oh, NO! THEY'VE WON!!! [/silly]

the Head of Israels shin bet said the day may come soon when we will all MISS Saddam being power since he kept a lid on things--Bushs oil terrorism destablizes the entire world

the Head of Israels shin bet said the day may come soon when we will all MISS Saddam being power since he kept a lid on things--Bushs oil terrorism destablizes the entire world

You are abassadorship's puppet, aren't you? Bush may be a little dumb, but he's no terrorist.

You are abassadorship's puppet, aren't you? Bush may be a little dumb, but he's no terrorist.
abassadorship is for Bush, unless he was feeeling like switching sides, its most likely not him

abassadorship is for Bush, unless he was feeeling like switching sides, its most likely not him

Well, he could just be using a different face. He could be an Impostor:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/impostor.htm

interestin theory--but I would never be evil enough to defend the terrorist in the white house--not even just to flame

kk this is almost certainly not real. here are some possible reasons for such a book which is almost certainly lies

1. bush funded
2. the guy wanted money as he had nothing left after all his possesions were taken after the war
3. he was somehow being forced to write it by a western government agency
4. he is bush in disguise


now to be honest other than number 4 the most likely reasons are 2 and 3

kk this is almost certainly not real. here are some possible reasons for such a book which is almost certainly lies

1. bush funded
2. the guy wanted money as he had nothing left after all his possesions were taken after the war
3. he was somehow being forced to write it by a western government agency
4. he is bush in disguise











now to be honest other than number 4 the most likely reasons are 2 and 3

you forgot Torture

According to the 2nd in command of what was Saddam's airforce, he says in his book "Saddam's secrets" that Saddam sent his WMDs to Syria just before the war. This means the intel and my man W got it right the whole time. This is what I have been saying forever and someone is backing me up. Do you liberals admit you got this one wrong or what?

based on some of the things i've seen you say in my own threads (that don't really relate to politics) you seem a lot smarter and rational than in the threads you start yourself (such as this one, and the infamous "I love America!" thread). so here's my question: are you some 13 year old seeking attention, or is there another user who has the same id as you due to a system glitch?

interestin theory--but I would never be evil enough to defend the terrorist in the white house--not even just to flame

YOu seem suspicious. Anyway, prove your claims. I love debates!

the Head of Israels shin bet said the day may come soon when we will all MISS Saddam being power since he kept a lid on things--Bushs oil terrorism destablizes the entire world

Bush=Terrorist? Nope. He's a damned fool and a puppet, but a terrorist? Not really.

YOu seem suspicious. Anyway, prove your claims. I love debates!
Bush need a 911 to enact his pro-terrorist for profit PNAC agenda of Corporate One World CEO-Ruler Enslavement of All the Worlds People

Bush=Terrorist? Nope. He's a damned fool and a puppet, but a terrorist? Not really.
911 was ALLOWED--even if Bush didnt take an active role that still makes him a passive terrorist (also lets not forget his oil terrorism in the helpless unarmed Iraq) and even if hes a total puppet that still makes him a puppet to terrorists

Bush need a 911 to enact his pro-terrorist for profit PNAC agenda of Corporate One World CEO-Ruler Enslavement of All the Worlds People

And you can prove that how?

And you can prove that how?
well I just use commonsense and logic--but if thats not enough for some theres always links

well I just use commonsense and logic--but if thats not enough for some theres always links

How is an unproved theory logical? And I'd like to see any links on this subject.

well I just use commonsense and logic--but if thats not enough for some theres always links

Romulus Os?

911 was ALLOWED--even if Bush didnt take an active role that still makes him a passive terrorist (also lets not forget his oil terrorism in the helpless unarmed Iraq) and even if hes a total puppet that still makes him a puppet to terrorists

Pffffffffft.


Go on then, how was it allowed?

There were WMDs, they just flew south for a couple of winters.

Romulus Os?
I dont understand the Q

How is an unproved theory logical? And I'd like to see any links on this subject.
ok ill get them... Brb

ok ill get them... Brb

Yep.

Pffffffffft.


Go on then, how was it allowed?
cause Bush needed an excuse to attack Iraq which is what he was planning to do since 1998

cause Bush needed an excuse to attack Iraq which is what he was planning to do since 1998

You have to prove that too...

You have to prove that too...
your trying to get me killed now

Even if that book is true and Saddam did have WMD's, it also states that they're in Syria now. Meaning they're just as harmful to us as before if not moreso with the War in Iraq making America out to be conquerers. The weapons would still exist, the war did nothing then.

your trying to get me killed now

... What? I have no clue what that meant. Nobody can kill you through their computer, a server, another server, yet another server, and your computer.

cause Bush needed an excuse to attack Iraq which is what he was planning to do since 1998

A) This is not evidence/explanation. It's rhetoric

B) He's been planning this since before he came to power? Right...

Even if that book is true and Saddam did have WMD's, it also states that they're in Syria now. Meaning they're just as harmful to us as before if not moreso with the War in Iraq making America out to be conquerers. The weapons would still exist, the war did nothing then.
that book is a Lie cause theres NO WAY those weapons that Bushs father gave to Saddam coulda made it to Syria without it being picked up by satellite--plus Iraq has been under extreme scrutiny ever since the first gulf war for oil and Clinton totally disarmed Saddam over time in the 90s

your trying to get me killed now

Okay...you just topped my list of 'Most Paranoid Conspiracy Posters Ever'

Even if that book is true and Saddam did have WMD's, it also states that they're in Syria now. Meaning they're just as harmful to us as before if not moreso with the War in Iraq making America out to be conquerers. The weapons would still exist, the war did nothing then.
That's why Bush was monkeying around almost asking the citizens of America to help him in avenging the death of Rafiq al-Hariri - a politician no American had ever heard about.

No WMD's In Iraq?
By Douglas Hanson
AmericanThinker.com | April 7, 2004

It has become established conventional wisdom that “no stockpiles of WMD have been discovered in Iraq.” But this reading of the evidence uncovered to date is premature at best, and highly questionable. A closer look at the data, and at the uses made of it, is essential for those who wish to understand the genuine state of Iraq’s WMD threat at the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom.


This should answer your question of whether or not I am afraid of "invocation" of any one, or indeed, all of you......
Back in the world of reality, this 22nd day of March of 2006, I offer the following:

Date of above Op-ed: April 7, 2004 (also Op-ed on FrontPage Magazine (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12861))

Date of article below: September 18, 2004

Iraq had no WMD: the final verdict (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1307448,00.html)

The comprehensive 15-month search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has concluded that the only chemical or biological agents that Saddam Hussein's regime was working on before last year's invasion were small quantities of poisons, most likely for use in assassinations.

A draft of the Iraq Survey Group's final report circulating in Washington found no sign of the alleged illegal stockpiles that the US and Britain presented as the justification for going to war, nor did it find any evidence of efforts to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear weapons programme.

Duelfer report released: October 6, 2004

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html

Myotisinia, you clearly have not supported your arguments with any credibile information, and it certainly is not timely information. Half truths, misquotes, quotes out of context, and overtly biased opinions do not equal "facts".

... What? I have no clue what that meant. Nobody can kill you through their computer, a server, another server, yet another server, and your computer.
yet if I provided proof that the President was a terrorist how long do you think Ill live? Bush killed Marge Schoedinger for far far less

According to the 2nd in command of what was Saddam's airforce, he says in his book "Saddam's secrets" that Saddam sent his WMDs to Syria just before the war. This means the intel and my man W got it right the whole time. This is what I have been saying forever and someone is backing me up. Do you liberals admit you got this one wrong or what?
No, I don't, as you are the same person who advicated torture of children to fight terrorism. Give me some evidence, besides some bribed or forced to talk member of Saddam's military.

A) This is not evidence/explanation. It's rhetoric

B) He's been planning this since before he came to power? Right...
its only common knowledge--you must not live in America

yet if I provided proof that the President was a terrorist how long do you think Ill live? Bush killed Marge Schoedinger for far far less

You'll live for 80 years, the average American life expectancy. Also, unless you provide proof about this, your argument is completely false.

Not to mention I'm in no danger, seeing as I live in Canada.

yet if I provided proof that the President was a terrorist how long do you think Ill live? Bush killed Marge Schoedinger for far far less

Are you actually certifiable? Does Bush give a damn about a random anonymous poster on an internet forum? Of course not. Stop being so damned paranoid.

Okay...you just topped my list of 'Most Paranoid Conspiracy Posters Ever'
what other response is there to Pure Evil?

its only common knowledge--you must not live in America

Correct. However if it is 'Common Knowledge' - Knowledge that only Conspiracy Theorists seem to have - Then you'll be happy to give me a brief synopsis and evidence, n'est ces pas?

what other response is there to Pure Evil?

OK, you've topped my list of "Most Paranoid Netizens Ever".

You'll live for 80 years, the average American life expectancy. Also, unless you provide proof about this, your argument is completely false.

Not to mention I'm in no danger, seeing as I live in Canada.
its not false until its disproven and Bush pwns Blairs soul and Blair pwns Canada so by extension they can get you too --itll just take a day longer

its not false until its disproven and Bush pwns Blairs soul and Blair pwns Canada so by extension they can get you too --itll just take a day longer

Your argument is disproven because you have no proof. There.

But I accept the risk.

its not false until its disproven and Bush pwns Blairs soul and Blair pwns Canada so by extension they can get you too --itll just take a day longer

Actually, it's false until it is proven - the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence, not for us to refute it.

And how the hell does Blair 'Pwn' Canada? They barely like us as it is...

Are you actually certifiable? Does Bush give a damn about a random anonymous poster on an internet forum? Of course not. Stop being so damned paranoid.
your jealous that my Presidents a Terrorist and yours is some boring guy in a grey suit

your jealous that my Presidents a Terrorist and yours is some boring guy in a grey suit

Yes, you are a Romulous Os or UN abassadorship puppet.

Do you really want to invoke me? Or even better, Gauthier AND myself?
Or even better than that, Gauthier, CanuckHeaven, and me? Or without me?
Really?

Yours .... ;)
I hope these may be of service:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10621177&postcount=140

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10621279&postcount=141

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10621766&postcount=174

I do believe the info supplied by Myotisinia is outdated, extremely biased, and in the case of the out of context quotes by Democrats, posted by Myotisinia has been debunked by Snopes and on these boards many times over.

Yes, you are a Romulous Os or UN abassadorship puppet.

I actually think all three are the same person. Pro-Liberal, Pro-Conservative, Conspiracy Nut - A nice balance.

I actually think all three are the same person. Pro-Liberal, Pro-Conservative, Conspiracy Nut - A nice balance.

Yeah, nice theory there.

your jealous that my Presidents a Terrorist and yours is some boring guy in a grey suit

I'm also fully aware that mine isn't going to try and kill me, something that you seem to think will happen to you via Bush.

Perhaps via secret death rays from a NASA satellite, perchance?

I'm also fully aware that mine isn't going to try and kill me, something that you seem to think will happen to you via Bush.

Perhaps via secret death rays from a NASA satellite, perchance?

LOL!

LOL!

Hmmm...he's gone. 2:1 we see Abassadorship show up...

I'm also fully aware that mine isn't going to try and kill me, something that you seem to think will happen to you via Bush.

Perhaps via secret death rays from a NASA satellite, perchance?
Marge Schoedinger was stabbed 42 times in the back and the autopy called it the worst case of suicide they ever came across to date

Marge Schoedinger was stabbed 42 times in the back and the autopy called it the worst case of suicide they ever came across to date

Proof?

Proof?
a very reliable source whom I trust with my life in an AOL chatroom

a very reliable source whom I trust with my life in an AOL chatroom

Post it.

I can transport an AOL chatroom here? Im not sure the censors who regulate this place would allow such rowdiness

No, i mean you need proof. Badly. Links, pics... ANYTHING.

I must admit that I have not read many of the posts before this, so I do not know what has come up before, but the oringinal post, however messed up in presentation, has some base in fact. I realize I cannot back this up, but on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, he interviewed General Georges Sada, author of the book Saddam's Secrets, and one of Saddam's top advisors. He said that he saw the WMDs, and he heard from pilots who transported them to Syria.

Not saying this is true, just what I saw. Comedy Central may have somehting on their site.

No, i mean you need proof. Badly. Links, pics... ANYTHING.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...id=970599119419

I must admit that I have not read many of the posts before this, so I do not know what has come up before, but the oringinal post, however messed up in presentation, has some base in fact. I realize I cannot back this up, but on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, he interviewed General Georges Sada, author of the book Saddam's Secrets, and one of Saddam's top advisors. He said that he saw the WMDs, and he heard from pilots who transported them to Syria.

Not saying this is true, just what I saw. Comedy Central may have somehting on their site.
yeah that claim belongs on Comedy Central

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...id=970599119419

Link doesn't work.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...id=970599119419
I really enjoy how well that link worked. Fun stuff. [/irony] Now cough up something that isn't a dead end.

brb

CHRIST JESUS MAN! HE'S SAYING YOU PEOPLE ARE BUYING UP THE PROPAGANDA THAT BUSH MAKES! For God's sakes!

Um, Bush didnt the book, just so you know

What the fuck does that mean? :upyours: and the rest of the sheep that are sending this country straight to hell.

What the fuck does that mean? :upyours: and the rest of the sheep that are sending this country straight to hell.
I think what hes trying to say is that Bush cant read

Bump for Straughn:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10621851&postcount=188

Link doesn't work.
Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...id=970599119419

Now I’m certain that this would have nothing to do with any half-baked idea coming out of the CIA to support the policies of their political masters. They’ve been doing this ever since this Presidential regime targeted Iraq. I’m surprised they didn’t mention Iran instead of Syria, but I’m certain they want to crush Syria as a warm up anyways. The CIA were famous for putting stuffed shirts, claiming to be sources from Saddam’s government in front of the camera to try to build their case for invasion. They even manufactured and funded a government in exile to make people think that there was an official opposition group. I think that we’ve seen this little song and dance a bit too often to be fooled.

They’ve been pulling stunts like this for years with Black Fact Propaganda. I remember during the Cold War these were the same people bringing us facts like Peace Groups have direct links and funding from the Soviet Union. It got so bad that people from the agency started believing their own propaganda.

The Bruce

Oh, that's a fun movie, almost as good as the first one!
:fluffle:

:D

abassadorship is for Bush, unless he was feeeling like switching sides, its most likely not him
See, it's places like that, where it'd be the LAST place you'd expect!

Okay...you just topped my list of 'Most Paranoid Conspiracy Posters Ever'
Ever? Do you frequent any other forums?
Also, are you aware of how funny this is (not a slant at you, BTW)?

I hope these may be of service:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10621177&postcount=140

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10621279&postcount=141

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10621766&postcount=174

I do believe the info supplied by Myotisinia is outdated, extremely biased, and in the case of the out of context quotes by Democrats, posted by Myotisinia has been debunked by Snopes and on these boards many times over.
Thanks! *bows*
I knew someone would refute him, but i daresay you adjusted him. You always pleasantly surprise me! I didn't jump his quotes thing because, as you pointed out, it wasn't even remotely important to me. I noticed the quotation marks, and right from then i skimmed along. As i'd said, i was busy. And, it'll be another night like that.
I hope you don't mind me keeping your posts too - i promise not to use them out of context :D


EDIT:
Thank you, again. *bows*
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10623395&postcount=209

I actually think all three are the same person. Pro-Liberal, Pro-Conservative, Conspiracy Nut - A nice balance.
What is it with people and trinities? How do you know s/he isn't Agent Smith?

What is it with people and trinities? How do you know s/he isn't Agent Smith?
Probably because all the best things comes in threes.

You know, like Kinder surprise (It's three things at once! Unbelivable!)
http://www.duke.edu/~ktc2/kinder.jpg

Three million dollars...

Half a sixpack of beer...

Threesomes... :eek: I've said to much!

Probably because all the best things comes in threes.Except for four. And five is right out.

You know, like Kinder surprise (It's three things at once! Unbelivable!
http://www.duke.edu/~ktc2/kinder.jpg

Three million dollars...

Half a sixpack of beer...

Threesomes... :eek: I've said to much!
SOOOOOOO close to a lock ... ;)

SOOOOOOO close to a lock ... ;)
Oh, I've never gotten a thread locked before! Hmmm...
*starts plotting and thinking Evil® thoughts*
:cool:

Oh, I've never gotten a thread locked before! Hmmm...
*starts plotting and thinking Evil® thoughts*
:cool:
It's good to be inspired. Or, evil. *shrugs*

They’ve been pulling stunts like this for years with Black Fact Propaganda. I remember during the Cold War these were the same people bringing us facts like Peace Groups have direct links and funding from the Soviet Union. It got so bad that people from the agency started believing their own propaganda.

The Bruce[/QUOTE]


Greetings

They actually had direct links and they did fund several "peace groups" here in Europe. They even supported political parties here in Denmark, both economical and with logistics (peacetravels etc.).

That became very clear after Germany opened the archives from the late East
Germany, espiescially the Stasi archives.

Be aware that propaganda works both ways, and for both sides, not just the direction that suits ones opinion.

Thinking else seems a little naive!:)


Greetings

Well of course there were wmds in IraQ! we gave it to them in the 80s(chem weapons) to fight against Iran...thats the intel we have saying that the have them..but umm yeah...i don't think they were going to use it against us anytime soon. they no have ICBMs or anything... ahhh its 3 am!

Ever? Do you frequent any other forums?
Also, are you aware of how funny this is (not a slant at you, BTW)?

My apologies. I should have added 'In Nationstates'

They’ve been pulling stunts like this for years with Black Fact Propaganda. I remember during the Cold War these were the same people bringing us facts like Peace Groups have direct links and funding from the Soviet Union. It got so bad that people from the agency started believing their own propaganda.

The Bruce


[QUOTE=Greetings

They actually had direct links and they did fund several "peace groups" here in Europe. They even supported political parties here in Denmark, both economical and with logistics (peacetravels etc.).

That became very clear after Germany opened the archives from the late East
Germany, espiescially the Stasi archives.

Be aware that propaganda works both ways, and for both sides, not just the direction that suits ones opinion.

Thinking else seems a little naive!:)

Greetings[/QUOTE]

George Bush Senior (then head of CIA) hired Wolfowitz to work on “Team B”, while Wolfowitz was already working for the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA). Team B’s job was to exaggerate the Soviet threat in order to undermine Kissinger’s détente policy and stop SALT talks. What they did was to take professional analysis and dismiss it or reshape it in favour of the picture they wanted the White House to have of the Soviet menace. More objective military experts (such as Dr. Anne Cahn of the ACDA, where Wolfowitz was working at the time) have gone over Team B’s reports and found that everything they claimed were little more than propaganda meant to offset any impact by factual reports. The CIA even accused Team B of “moving into a fantasy world.”

Legally the Pentagon isn’t able to directly leak Black Propaganda into the US media. What they can do is dump false stories into allied media sources, usually Europe, where they can then be picked up by US media and distributed in the domestic market.

The problem with Black Propaganda, intentional lies packaged up for domestic public consumption, is that they then get used to manipulate public opinion in the electorate and dictate policy. In the case of Bill Casey (when he became the Head of the CIA), he honestly believed Black Propaganda about Soviet backing terrorism and everything else under the Sun to be the truth, even when told by the CIA to his face that it was Black Propaganda planted in the European media. They even had the people involved in the Black Propaganda operations tell him, but no one could undo the brainwashing done by the false propaganda of the organization he worked for.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm
The Power of Nightmares: the Rise of the Politics of Fear. Part I.

http://silt3.com/index.php?id=572
http://silt3.com/index.php?id=574
Transcript of Part I

Rumsfeld states consideration of using Black Propaganda to support his agenda
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1830500.stm

Reports of Black Propaganda group being organized by US Gov
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1832200.stm

http://progressive.org/media_1137

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=nd03husain

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=140711

You'll live for 80 years, the average American life expectancy. Also, unless you provide proof about this, your argument is completely false.

Not to mention I'm in no danger, seeing as I live in Canada.


The average life expectancy in the US is just above 75 years, combining male and female (the latter live longer), the lowest in all developped countries.

The average life expectancy in the US is just above 75 years, combining male and female (the latter live longer), the lowest in all developped countries.

Ah. Thanks for the correction.

And I think all that fast food has something to do with that.

Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...id=970599119419

Link doesn't work....

First of all, Bush said, "We're going to find the weapons of mass destruction".

He didn't. The war is already a failure. Liberating the Iraqi people and setting up a democracy only became a focus after he couldn't find the weapons of mass destruction. It was a massive switching of the publicized reason for going to war. I don't approve of telling me you're going to war for one reason and then when that one doesn't turn out, telling me you went to war for an entirely different reason.

Secondly, there are lots of dangerous countries in the world perfectly capable of having and making weapons of mass destruction. A lot of them way more dangerous and capable threats than Iraq.

Thirdly, Iraq has no link to Al Qaeda, and it's a poor target if one wants to fight terrorism.

Lastly, you can't fight terrorism with soldiers anyway. The only way to get rid of terrorism is to get rid of the poverty and the lack of education that fuels it. You can do that perfectly well without invasion forces.

i'm a military journalist and i know the actual chain of events that led to the war...

1. we told President Saddam Hussein to remove any weapons of mass destruction (which he had not imployed in 10 years, while most claims will try to say he continued using nerve agents against his people up unitl the end)

2. he COMPLIED by sending the WMD's to Syria and neighboring nations (we gave no guidelines to what he had to do to get rid of them, so its our fault they were moved out of the country)

3. Hussein said that they had been removed (as we demanded)

4. the current Executive Branch chose to ignore this because they had NO PROOF that the weapons had been removed (because they refused to send UN inspectors to check)

5. we unjustifiably went to war with Iraq

George Bush Senior (then head of CIA) hired Wolfowitz to work on “Team B”, while Wolfowitz was already working for the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA). Team B’s job was to exaggerate the Soviet threat in order to undermine Kissinger’s détente policy and stop SALT talks. What they did was to take professional analysis and dismiss it or reshape it in favour of the picture they wanted the White House to have of the Soviet menace. More objective military experts (such as Dr. Anne Cahn of the ACDA, where Wolfowitz was working at the time) have gone over Team B’s reports and found that everything they claimed were little more than propaganda meant to offset any impact by factual reports. The CIA even accused Team B of “moving into a fantasy world.”

Legally the Pentagon isn’t able to directly leak Black Propaganda into the US media. What they can do is dump false stories into allied media sources, usually Europe, where they can then be picked up by US media and distributed in the domestic market.

The problem with Black Propaganda, intentional lies packaged up for domestic public consumption, is that they then get used to manipulate public opinion in the electorate and dictate policy. In the case of Bill Casey (when he became the Head of the CIA), he honestly believed Black Propaganda about Soviet backing terrorism and everything else under the Sun to be the truth, even when told by the CIA to his face that it was Black Propaganda planted in the European media. They even had the people involved in the Black Propaganda operations tell him, but no one could undo the brainwashing done by the false propaganda of the organization he worked for.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm
The Power of Nightmares: the Rise of the Politics of Fear. Part I.

http://silt3.com/index.php?id=572
http://silt3.com/index.php?id=574
Transcript of Part I

Rumsfeld states consideration of using Black Propaganda to support his agenda
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1830500.stm

Reports of Black Propaganda group being organized by US Gov
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1832200.stm

http://progressive.org/media_1137

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=nd03husain

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=140711
Ahhhh yes, the Power of Nightmares....the Politics of Fear, and Black Propaganda. We see them, and their proponents right here on these boards. War mongering, and disinformation, spreading the hate and lies to cause the people to rise up and call for the downfall of the alledged purveyors of "evil".

Great post The Bruce. :)

there was no WMDS that was properganda by the U.S scam they just bribe the guy to write the book to get off war charges

George Bush Senior (then head of CIA) hired Wolfowitz to work on “Team B”, while Wolfowitz was already working for the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA). Team B’s job was to exaggerate the Soviet threat in order to undermine Kissinger’s détente policy and stop SALT talks. What they did was to take professional analysis and dismiss it or reshape it in favour of the picture they wanted the White House to have of the Soviet menace. More objective military experts (such as Dr. Anne Cahn of the ACDA, where Wolfowitz was working at the time) have gone over Team B’s reports and found that everything they claimed were little more than propaganda meant to offset any impact by factual reports. The CIA even accused Team B of “moving into a fantasy world.”

Legally the Pentagon isn’t able to directly leak Black Propaganda into the US media. What they can do is dump false stories into allied media sources, usually Europe, where they can then be picked up by US media and distributed in the domestic market.

The problem with Black Propaganda, intentional lies packaged up for domestic public consumption, is that they then get used to manipulate public opinion in the electorate and dictate policy. In the case of Bill Casey (when he became the Head of the CIA), he honestly believed Black Propaganda about Soviet backing terrorism and everything else under the Sun to be the truth, even when told by the CIA to his face that it was Black Propaganda planted in the European media. They even had the people involved in the Black Propaganda operations tell him, but no one could undo the brainwashing done by the false propaganda of the organization he worked for.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm
The Power of Nightmares: the Rise of the Politics of Fear. Part I.

http://silt3.com/index.php?id=572
http://silt3.com/index.php?id=574
Transcript of Part I

Rumsfeld states consideration of using Black Propaganda to support his agenda
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1830500.stm

Reports of Black Propaganda group being organized by US Gov
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1832200.stm

http://progressive.org/media_1137

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=nd03husain

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=140711



Thanks for the info, might take some time to look over/read.

I just wanted to point out that the soviet funding / supporting part were absolutely true.


Greetings

Greetings


http://progressive.org/media_1137


Well, the pope part suddently was right

i'm a military journalist and i know the actual chain of events that led to the war...

1. we told President Saddam Hussein to remove any weapons of mass destruction (which he had not imployed in 10 years, while most claims will try to say he continued using nerve agents against his people up unitl the end)

2. he COMPLIED by sending the WMD's to Syria and neighboring nations (we gave no guidelines to what he had to do to get rid of them, so its our fault they were moved out of the country)

3. Hussein said that they had been removed (as we demanded)

4. the current Executive Branch chose to ignore this because they had NO PROOF that the weapons had been removed (because they refused to send UN inspectors to check)

5. we unjustifiably went to war with Iraq
yes thats exactly what happened--Bush is a LIAH

Link doesn't work....
it works everywhere but on NS--hmmm

i'm a military journalist and i know the actual chain of events that led to the war...

1. we told President Saddam Hussein to remove any weapons of mass destruction (which he had not imployed in 10 years, while most claims will try to say he continued using nerve agents against his people up unitl the end)

2. he COMPLIED by sending the WMD's to Syria and neighboring nations (we gave no guidelines to what he had to do to get rid of them, so its our fault they were moved out of the country)

3. Hussein said that they had been removed (as we demanded)

4. the current Executive Branch chose to ignore this because they had NO PROOF that the weapons had been removed (because they refused to send UN inspectors to check)

5. we unjustifiably went to war with Iraq
well, Once we got off his back he would have those weapons brought back into the country, so it was totally justified.

there was no WMDS that was properganda by the U.S scam they just bribe the guy to write the book to get off war charges
got proof?

got proof?

Thought you were leaving us?

Thought you were leaving us?
Yeah I was, but then I thought I shouldnt let people get me down. Plus I still want to share the conservative viewpoint on here.

Yeah I was, but then I thought I shouldnt let people get me down. Plus I still want to share the conservative viewpoint on here.
I'm a conservative too, but you are really extreme, man.

Yeah I was, but then I thought I shouldnt let people get me down. Plus I still want to share the conservative viewpoint on here.

You don't represent the conservative point of view. You represent an extreme. That is why so many people have been putting you down. Like I said in another thread, listen to reasoned argument and be big enough to admit when you are wrong.

it works everywhere but on NS--hmmm

Looking at the page's source, there is nothing that prevents us from looking at any links.

You have failed, no offense intended.

Ugh. The title just sounds so hokey. Like its a cookbook or home improvement tips guide.

Or something out of Reader's Digest.

I doubt he has WMDs, but he had biochem weapons.

I'm a conservative too, but you are really extreme, man.
I dont see how

I doubt he has WMDs, but he had biochem weapons.
the difference is...

the difference is...

Biochem is a type. WMD is MASS DESTRUCTION. One missile or many to equal same damage, you decide.

I doubt he has WMDs, but he had biochem weapons.
Biochem weapons could be worse because if used, less of a response would be in order.

Biochem weapons could be worse because if used, less of a response would be in order.
He had biochem weapons from the Americans, back in the 80s. The major problem with biochem is that it has a short lifespan!

He had biochem weapons from the Americans, back in the 80s. The major problem with biochem is that it has a short lifespan!

True...evidence is in the russian missiles which are gel now.

So, what else does Georges Sada believe?

Amongst other things, (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/CWN/042905IraqFuture.asp) that Iraq is a historically Christian nation that the Muslims stole and that will eventually be reverted to the true faith...


GEORGE THOMAS: As you’ve seen, since the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, there have been a number of attacks against Christian people, whether it’s the bombing of their houses of worship, their establishments, their businesses. Are Christians today fearful about their stature in the Iraqi society?

General Sada: No. The Christians are there since the first century, and Iraq belongs to them. In 634 A.D., when it was opened by Islam, we are still there. But you see at times the condition of the Christians is different. But we will stay there, we will maintain there, and we will not be relenting.



But hey, if you say that the Air force general who retired in '86 (plu s a short recall during the gulf war) was still up to date on Saddam's innermost secrets 15 years later - well then Saddam had the most open dictatorship on the planet. Amazingly odd how he manage to hide ANYTHING

Oh yes, and how do you reconcile this with the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, Mr. John Shaw who instead seems to believe that the Russians sent in Speznaz teams and moved the materials for Saddam? (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm)

Should we believe him too and assume that the same material was moved twice by two different people?


Because THAT would be a really neat trick!


Oh yes, and while you are busy deciding which of these bullshit stories is correct, try reading the transcripts of the tapes of Saddam's meetings as early as 1996 where he was bitching to his staff that he HAD destroyed everything, but that no matter how hard he tried he couldn't convince the west because they refused to listen. (http://www.ksat.com/news/8172255/detail.html?rss=ant&psp=news)


Transcripts from the 1990s show Saddam Hussein was frustrated that no one believed Iraq had given up banned weapons.

At one meeting with top aides in 1996, Saddam wondered if U.N. inspectors would "roam Iraq for 50 years."

The transcripts are translations recently released by the U.S., and are from audio and videotapes of top-level Iraqi meetings held from 1991 to 1997.

Repeatedly, Saddam and his lieutenants reminded each other that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s, and shut down the nuclear-bomb program. At one point, a frustrated Saddam exclaimed, "We don't have anything hidden!"


But nahh... I'm sure that Sada knew better than Saddam what Saddam was doing. You know, flying the WMD that he knew he didn't have to Syria by Iraqi planes, and then sending the very same weapons again by Air Speznaz. Because if you are going to do nothing, you might as well do nothing twice!



And people say that it's the left that is enamoured of unsupported conspiracy theories.................. :rolleyes: