NationStates Jolt Archive

My opinion - based on things I cannot link to. If I looked into it, perhaps I could find a link but it is just my opinion anyway. Yours is as good as mine.
That's true it is opinion. Educated guesses, as well.

Actually, I believe there is a satellite phote of alot of trucks heading for the Syrian border. Also, there is an Iraqi Air General who stated that they were also airlifted out of Iraq. Just some of the things I heard about.

That satellite evidence doesn't prove anything other than people were travelling to the Syrian border. And in case you didn't realize, we bombed the hell out of that country! Iraq's entire pre-war infrastructure was nearly totally destroyed by Coalition bombing. If the military had even a suspicion that the trucks heading to the Syrian carried WMD, they would have been blown to bits. So, whether or not the non-existent WMD were sent to the Syrian border or not is irrelevant. The story doesn't hold up to logic, especially when you realize that Saddam Hussein is neither stupid nor crazy... he is just a power hungry dictator.

That satellite evidence doesn't prove anything other than people were travelling to the Syrian border. And in case you didn't realize, we bombed the hell out of that country!

Yes we did but this was before the Iraq War started. And these were not pickups but your normal truck you see on the interstate. You are right that it does not prove anything but there sure were a heck of a lot of them.

Iraq's entire pre-war infrastructure was nearly totally destroyed by Coalition bombing. If the military had even a suspicion that the trucks heading to the Syrian carried WMD, they would have been blown to bits.

Not without permisison from Command and Control. These trucks left before the war and therefor would fall outside normal war time ROEs.

So, whether or not the non-existent WMD were sent to the Syrian border or not is irrelevant. The story doesn't hold up to logic, especially when you realize that Saddam Hussein is neither stupid nor crazy... he is just a power hungry dictator.

You are right that he was not stupid. Care to imagine if he did have WMDs and left them in his country for us to find? You may say it is illogical but it does make perfect sense when you actually think about it.

The word "official" is relevent to the statement especially since he said there was sufficiently credible evidence that they were moved.

That is in conjunction with multiple witnesses and especially the 2nd in command of the Iraqi Air Force's statements that he did indeed supervise the movement of WMD's to Syria - and this was AFTER the Duelfer report came out.

There was no credible evidence. Otherwise both Bush and in particular Blair would have pounced on it. Nada, zero, sfa.


Every one of the sections I listed from Blix's report to the UN was a violation.
.

Yet Israel has violated more, for longer.


Saddam was engaged in a deception of historical proportions.
.

Nuclear program was closed in the mid 90's - from Duefler and co. Chemical production and facilities closed late 90's. How does this amount to deception of historical proportions?

Yet Israel has violated more, for longer.

That is strange, I don't recall Israel signing a cease-fire agreement.

Nuclear program was closed in the mid 90's - from Duefler and co. Chemical production and facilities closed late 90's. How does this amount to deception of historical proportions?


Read the damn report.

That is strange, I don't recall Israel signing a cease-fire agreement.
I do recall the US and the UK who co-sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 1441 to give Iraq a "final opportunity" to disarm. Yet it was these two same parties who reneged on their committment to the Resolution and invaded Iraq without UN Security Council approving the action.

The illegal and immoral action has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. The country is still in chaos and the infastructure is destroyed. Tens of thousands of others have been injured and displaced.

All of this just to get one man? It wasn't for WMD, it was for regime change. Saddam had become a "political problem" for the US and ironically, even though he is in captivity, he remains a "political problem" for the spinmeisters, and Bush apologists.

Saddam had become a "political problem" for the US and ironically, even though he is in captivity, he remains a "political problem" for the spinmeisters, and Bush apologists.
And long may that particular rotten bastard live to be a problematic thorn in the side of the rotten bastards who continue their squatting in the American Oval Office.

Actually it will not be problematic as it would prove his point.
You mean he was trying to prove to the world that he could spout bullshit better than any other kid on the block?

UN Resolutions are clear that they were to be destroyed and that their destruction be documented.
It is up to the UN to enforce its own resolutions, and if they choose not to, it is not the US's business to do it for them.

And I love the way some pro-war Americans latch onto those UN resolutions as justification for attacking Iraq, while the same people usually denigrate the UN as useless, dangerous, corrupt, and something that should be done away with. But they're good enough for an excuse, I suppose.

Actually, I believe there is a satellite phote of alot of trucks heading for the Syrian border. Also, there is an Iraqi Air General who stated that they were also airlifted out of Iraq. Just some of the things I heard about.
Rumors. Nothing but rumors. Let's say your house got burgled and your television stolen, and you know that there is a market for stolen televisions in New Jersey. And let's say, you saw a picture of a car that had once been parked in my driveway, heading towards New Jersey. On the basis of that, would you claim that I had broken into your house and stolen your television, and would that accusation be enough to justify your shooting me? That is basically the essence of what you just said. Such a justification is bullshit, it is weak, and it serves as no justification for a first-shot attack.

You mean he was trying to prove to the world that he could spout bullshit better than any other kid on the block?

If the weapons where moved to Syria, it would prove that he did not destroy them as directed by UN Resolutions.

It is up to the UN to enforce its own resolutions, and if they choose not to, it is not the US's business to do it for them.

I tend to agree with you on this but I will ask you this. What if the UN is incapable of acting? What should nations do then?

And I love the way some pro-war Americans latch onto those UN resolutions as justification for attacking Iraq, while the same people usually denigrate the UN as useless, dangerous, corrupt, and something that should be done away with. But they're good enough for an excuse, I suppose.

Then there are those who want all resolutions enforced. I agree that the UN is used as an excuse more times than not. The UN is pretty much (pardon my harsh language that is coming) damned if it does anything and damned if it does not do anything.

Rumors. Nothing but rumors.

Should not these rumors be tracked down just in case they are not rumors?

Let's say your house got burgled and your television stolen, and you know that there is a market for stolen televisions in New Jersey. And let's say, you saw a picture of a car that had once been parked in my driveway, heading towards New Jersey. On the basis of that, would you claim that I had broken into your house and stolen your television, and would that accusation be enough to justify your shooting me? That is basically the essence of what you just said. Such a justification is bullshit, it is weak, and it serves as no justification for a first-shot attack.

Who is advocating an attack? :confused:

If the weapons where moved to Syria, it would prove that he did not destroy them as directed by UN Resolutions.
IF they were moved. It is only speculation. All the more reason to have allowed the UN inspectors to finish their job?

Also, it should be pointed out that during the inspection process, there were several layers of aerial surveillance in place. One would think that if there were convoys of WMD leaving Iraq, then they would have been spotted and intercepted?

Just a thought....IF you were Saddam and you had a very strong suspicion that the US was going to invade your country looking to take you out, would you send away the weapons that could help you defend your country and yourself?

IF they were moved. It is only speculation. All the more reason to have allowed the UN inspectors to finish their job?

And what if they were moved while inspectors where in one place and the weapons from another place where moved?

Also, it should be pointed out that during the inspection process, there were several layers of aerial surveillance in place. One would think that if there were convoys of WMD leaving Iraq, then they would have been spotted and intercepted?

You would think that but have to ask yourself, just how are they going to intercept them and how do you know if they were actually carrying weapons?

Just a thought....IF you were Saddam and you had a very strong suspicion that the US was going to invade your country looking to take you out, would you send away the weapons that could help you defend your country and yourself?

I would for the very reason to make the US look bad if they do not find any.

Read the damn report.

I've read large tracts of it, and even more of the British inquiry. Not good for the WMD hunters. Thats why I'm asking. Why can't you explain the lack of factories vs your statement re the "deception of historical proportions"?

I've read large tracts of it, and even more of the British inquiry. Not good for the WMD hunters. Thats why I'm asking. Why can't you explain the lack of factories vs your statement re the "deception of historical proportions"?


Do you know the meaning of the word "deception"? They were scrubbed. We found the trace chemicals in those facilities. If you read the reports you would know that.

Do you know the meaning of the word "deception"? They were scrubbed. We found the trace chemicals in those facilities. If you read the reports you would know that.
The only real deception going on right now, is your continued claim that WMD was found in Iraq. No matter how many times it is pointed out, you hold on to your hollow rhetoric and false evidence.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11515003&postcount=249

Every road that you have gone down has led to a dead end.

The only real deception going on right now, is your continued claim that WMD was found in Iraq. No matter how many times it is pointed out, you hold on to your hollow rhetoric and false evidence.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11515003&postcount=249

Every road that you have gone down has led to a dead end.


Right!:rolleyes:


You can go on with your Neville Chamberlain act. I'll take Churchill's side. You will thank me later.

Right!:rolleyes:

You can go on with your Neville Chamberlain act. I'll take Churchill's side. You will thank me later.
It isn't a matter of appeasement. It is a matter of common sense.

Planes flew into the WTC. Where did the majority of those terrorists come from? Saudi Arabia.....15 out of 19. How many came from Iraq? Zero, as in none.

Where is Bin Laden? You know, the mastermind behind the WTC collapse. He is in Pakistan? Bush was going to hunt him down as I recall?

What happens next? Forget Bin Laden and blow the hell out of Iraq. Novel idea but looking for the wrong people in the wrong place makes zero sense.

Now what have you got? You've got Iran scared and they are ramping up for nuclear weapons. They don't want to be the next victim on Bush's hit list.

What else do you have? Tens of thousand of dead Iraqis, none of which were an "imminent threat" to the US. You also have a destroyed Iraq and have the makings of a civil war. Good job!!

You also have increased terrorism and more people hating the US then ever before.

This isn't the stuff of Winston Churchill. Bush wouldn't be able to hold Winnie's jock strap with any kind of distinction.

The Middle East was somewhat stable before the invasion of Iraq, and it is degenerating day by day.

I don't see me thanking you at all for making the world less safe then it was before.

It isn't a matter of appeasement. It is a matter of common sense.




Yep.

That is what Chamberlain said. "Peace in our time". Hilter laughed his ass off. Just like the terrorists are now.

Yep.

That is what Chamberlain said. "Peace in out time". Hilter laughed his ass off. Just like the terrorists are now.
I wonder what your definition of a terrorist is. It's too bad I can't go back in time and ask you the same question on Sept. 10, 2001. Not that this comment really has any point. I was thinking about it this morning while I was drinking Dunkin' Donuts coffee that the person behind the counter forgot to put sugar in and I was already miles away before I took my first sip. Naturally, my thoughts turned to terrorism.

I wonder what your definition of a terrorist is. It's too bad I can't go back in time and ask you the same question on Sept. 10, 2001. Not that this comment really has any point. I was thinking about it this morning while I was drinking Dunkin' Donuts coffee that the person behind the counter forgot to put sugar in and I was already miles away before I took my first sip. Naturally, my thoughts turned to terrorism.


For this discussion it could be defined as radical islamists.

The Middle East was somewhat stable before the invasion of Iraq, and it is degenerating day by day.


Some people realize that a lack of overt violence is not necessarily peace or stability.

When one side (the radical islamists) use such periods to undermine their enemies and to reload for the next conflict, it is a false peace. That is what we have had in the middle east. The ONLY way to end it for real is to get rid of those who have no desire for peace - and contrary to the opinions of some here, those are the Hezbollahs, the PLO's, the Hamas's, the Iranian leadership, and the Iraqi opposition terrorists.

Placating them ONLY allows them to gain the strength needed to exterminate us - as is their openly stated desire.

Some people realize that a lack of overt violence is not necessarily peace or stability.

When one side (the radical islamists) use such periods to undermine their enemies and to reload for the next conflict, it is a false peace. That is what we have had in the middle east. The ONLY way to end it for real is to get rid of those who have no desire for peace - and contrary to the opinions of some here, those are the Hezbollahs, the PLO's, the Hamas's, the Iranian leadership, and the Iraqi opposition terrorists.

Placating them ONLY allows them to gain the strength needed to exterminate us - as is their openly stated desire.
What about Iran gaining strength in Iraq due to our war and Hezbollah rising in popularity partly due to our intervention?

How many times do you need someone to kill you berfore you wake THE FUCK UP ?

How many times do you need someone to kill you berfore you wake THE FUCK UP ?
One tends not to see corpses 'waking up'. Not unless you're a character in a film directed by George A. Romero.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/NSG/dawn.jpg

Dobby baby ....you do hvave to kick and punch back......common guy it human nature .

Dobby baby ....you do hvave to kick and punch back......common guy it human nature .
The fuck are you talking about?
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/NSG/what.jpg
You posting drunk?

What about Iran gaining strength in Iraq due to our war and Hezbollah rising in popularity partly due to our intervention?


We have only exposed what has been growing for decades.

If the weapons where moved to Syria, it would prove that he did not destroy them as directed by UN Resolutions.
Irrelevant, if the UN doesn't feel like enforcing its own resolution.

I tend to agree with you on this but I will ask you this. What if the UN is incapable of acting? What should nations do then?
Well, what they should NOT do is gin up bogus excuses to attack a country that was NOT a threat to them.

Then there are those who want all resolutions enforced. I agree that the UN is used as an excuse more times than not. The UN is pretty much (pardon my harsh language that is coming) damned if it does anything and damned if it does not do anything.
Again, it is not the business of one UN member to unilaterally choose to do what the UN as a whole chooses not to do. That makes the US nearly as much a renegade as Saddam himself.

Should not these rumors be tracked down just in case they are not rumors?
The "tracking" has been going on continuously since the rumors were first promulgated, with no factual back-up found yet. And in the mean time, not waiting for proof, the US attacked. I refer you back to my rhetorical example about how you don't get to punish me for a crime I haven't committed yet. You don't get to punish me for a rumor someone else spreads about me, either, unless you prove it to be true first. Emphasis on "first," meaning before you take action.

Who is advocating an attack? :confused:
Bush and his supporters don't have to advocate an attack they have already carried out. They have to justify it. Only they can't, for the same reason they couldn't justify it before they launched it. Their allegations against Iraq were and continue to be false.

And what if they were moved while inspectors where in one place and the weapons from another place where moved?
<snip>
What if I thought you looked as if you could hurt me? Would I be justified in shooting you pre-emptively?

For this discussion it could be defined as radical islamists.
Then I would say that you are deliberately being misleading as to your true goals. Terrorism is not restricted solely to radical islamists, nor are ALL terrorists radical islamists. So by defining "terrorist" as "radical islamists," you are choosing to ignore the non-islamic terrorists in the world, who have been around a long time and will continue to be around a long time. So rather than a "war on terror," what your attitude would produce is simply another war of nations divided by ideology, just like WW2. When you talk about going after "terrorism," what you are in fact talking about is just going after a select group of people, while letting all the other terrorists off the hook. In other words, you want to attack Muslims, not terrorists. So, in keeping with your definition of "terrorist," the "war on terror" is just a new shovel for the same old warmongering shit.

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW08-08-06.jpg

Some people realize that a lack of overt violence is not necessarily peace or stability.

When one side (the radical islamists) use such periods to undermine their enemies and to reload for the next conflict, it is a false peace. That is what we have had in the middle east. The ONLY way to end it for real is to get rid of those who have no desire for peace - and contrary to the opinions of some here, those are the Hezbollahs, the PLO's, the Hamas's, the Iranian leadership, and the Iraqi opposition terrorists.
While you desire to eliminate the opposition, you probably do not realize what was the root cause of the emergence of those in opposition?

In your zealous efforts to eliminate the opposition,many innocent men, women, and children have been killed, and this feeds an ever growing opposition. Let's call it counter productive.

Placating them ONLY allows them to gain the strength needed to exterminate us - as is their openly stated desire.
So you plan to exterminate a billion Muslims? One poster wants to sterilize them. Other posters want to turn the Middle East into a vast parking lot. Just what are your plans?

You do know that the US is losing this mindless war on terror?

"The destruction of your enemy is the destruction of yourself."

~~Dali Lama~~

Irrelevant, if the UN doesn't feel like enforcing its own resolution.

That was not the point I was making.

Well, what they should NOT do is gin up bogus excuses to attack a country that was NOT a threat to them.

Care to answer my question please?

Again, it is not the business of one UN member to unilaterally choose to do what the UN as a whole chooses not to do. That makes the US nearly as much a renegade as Saddam himself.

Seems to me we did not go in unilaterally so that does render this point moot.

The "tracking" has been going on continuously since the rumors were first promulgated, with no factual back-up found yet. And in the mean time, not waiting for proof, the US attacked. I refer you back to my rhetorical example about how you don't get to punish me for a crime I haven't committed yet. You don't get to punish me for a rumor someone else spreads about me, either, unless you prove it to be true first. Emphasis on "first," meaning before you take action.

Should the rumors that the weapons being moved to Syria be tracked down?

Bush and his supporters don't have to advocate an attack they have already carried out. They have to justify it. Only they can't, for the same reason they couldn't justify it before they launched it. Their allegations against Iraq were and continue to be false.

I thought you were saying they were advocating an attack on Iran. My apologies.

What if I thought you looked as if you could hurt me? Would I be justified in shooting you pre-emptively?

Depends if you can prove that I have something against you.

While you desire to eliminate the opposition, you probably do not realize what was the root cause of the emergence of those in opposition?

In your zealous efforts to eliminate the opposition,many innocent men, women, and children have been killed, and this feeds an ever growing opposition. Let's call it counter productive.

Here I will agree with you.

So you plan to exterminate a billion Muslims? One poster wants to sterilize them. Other posters want to turn the Middle East into a vast parking lot. Just what are your plans?

My guess is a glass blowers dream come true :D

You do know that the US is losing this mindless war on terror?

We are?

"The destruction of your enemy is the destruction of yourself."

~~Dali Lama~~

Pretty much.

Depends if you can prove that I have something against you.
No, it doesn't.

The fuck are you talking about?
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/NSG/what.jpg
You posting drunk?


Ummmm so ?

That was not the point I was making.
It's the point I was making.

Care to answer my question please?
OK. For starters, they could do what we did -- declare war on Afghanistan because by harboring al qaeda after the 9/11 attacks and claiming them as allies, they made it a nation vs. nation war. Then they should do what we did NOT do, which is keep our forces focused on Afghanistan, not dilute them with some side adventure against a non-threatening country; keep the heat up on terrorist organizations worldwide; politically exploit the immediate, post 9/11 outpouring of support for the US action against Afghanistan that came from other Arab and Muslim nations. Yes, true, most of it was entirely self-serving, because the Saudis hated bin Laden and nobody liked the Taliban, but so what? It's politics. We could easily have come out as the good guys in that, taking the wind out of bin Laden's sails and possibly even preventing Amadinejad from consolidating power in Iran. I seem to be the only person other than actual journalists who remembers the footage of 1000s of Iranians in public demonstrations SUPPORTING the US the week after 9/11, several years before anyone heard of this Amadinejad asshat.

By focusing all our efforts on one, smaller, less populated country, we might have had a chance of actually building a nation successfully. Plus, we would have had the full support of the UN members. By playing our poltical cards right, we could have taken all the people bin Laden wanted to have be our enemies and made allies of them instead.

But no, we had to do just what bin Laden wanted us to do.

EDIT: Oh, and while we're at it, we could put real, practical efforts into securing our borders, including ports and airports, and in reforming our VISA system so as not to lose track of foreigners. We could put more offices on the borders, close them up a bit, put dogs and other security services in the airports, sky marshalls on the planes themselves. Inspect almost all baggage in passenger planes, as they do in the UK and the Netherlands, instead of barely 20% as we do in the US, and so forth. We could do all that instead of exploiting terrorism to implement extra legal domestic surveillance programs while laying our southern border wide open and unsupervised.

Seems to me we did not go in unilaterally so that does render this point moot.
Yeah, right, those three trucks from Costa Rica and Togo's laundry services have really moved the nation building forward. By the way, at least half the members of the Coalition of the Piddling have already withdrawn from it.

Should the rumors that the weapons being moved to Syria be tracked down?
Reading comprehension problems? Didn't I just say they should?

I thought you were saying they were advocating an attack on Iran. My apologies.
Pay attention. :p

Iraq War? Biggest joke ever.

Iraq War? Biggest joke ever.
Howdy stranger. Where have you been hiding?

Depends if you can prove that I have something against you.
You not liking me is not enough. For instance, I don't like you, but that does not mean that I pose any threat to you.

The US did not wait for proof against Iraq that they would or could to anything to us. So since you see the need for proof, you agree with me, then, that the war was unjustified.

"The destruction of your enemy is the destruction of yourself."

~~Dali Lama~~
Pretty much.
So you intend to have the US destroy itself?

So you intend to have the US destroy itself?

Where did you get that from? I was thinking on more of a national scale than an individual scale. You never want to totally destroy your enemy because you never know when they could become an ally.

On to an organization such as Hezbollah, The only thing that needs to be destroyed with them, is their ability to make war on Israel outside the normal channels for a war to be declared. One should not destroy an entire political party.

OK. For starters, they could do what we did -- declare war on Afghanistan because by harboring al qaeda after the 9/11 attacks and claiming them as allies, they made it a nation vs. nation war. Then they should do what we did NOT do, which is keep our forces focused on Afghanistan, not dilute them with some side adventure against a non-threatening country;

Iraq was a non-threatening country? Not a day went by when he was not threatening the United States with some sort of an attack after another. As to shifting focus, we are also still focused on Afghanistan as well. Not a day goes by anymore in regards to the fighting in Afghanistan.

Yes, true, most of it was entirely self-serving, because the Saudis hated bin Laden and nobody liked the Taliban, but so what? It's politics. We could easily have come out as the good guys in that, taking the wind out of bin Laden's sails and possibly even preventing Amadinejad from consolidating power in Iran. I seem to be the only person other than actual journalists who remembers the footage of 1000s of Iranians in public demonstrations SUPPORTING the US the week after 9/11, several years before anyone heard of this Amadinejad asshat.

I remember that to.

By focusing all our efforts on one, smaller, less populated country, we might have had a chance of actually building a nation successfully. Plus, we would have had the full support of the UN members. By playing our poltical cards right, we could have taken all the people bin Laden wanted to have be our enemies and made allies of them instead.

It is a good possibility but then again, it could have turned out just like we have now. Politics is a dangerous game.

But no, we had to do just what bin Laden wanted us to do.

And that was?

EDIT: Oh, and while we're at it, we could put real, practical efforts into securing our borders, including ports and airports, and in reforming our VISA system so as not to lose track of foreigners.

I agree 100%

We could put more offices on the borders, close them up a bit, put dogs and other security services in the airports, sky marshalls on the planes themselves.

Sky marshalls are currently being trained as are more border control officers. As to security services at the airport, what do you suggest?

Inspect almost all baggage in passenger planes, as they do in the UK and the Netherlands, instead of barely 20% as we do in the US, and so forth.

Something I think was debated in Congress.

We could do all that instead of exploiting terrorism to implement extra legal domestic surveillance programs while laying our southern border wide open and unsupervised.

We still need surveillance unfortunately for the simple reason that there are more targets than just air we have to look at.

Yeah, right, those three trucks from Costa Rica and Togo's laundry services have really moved the nation building forward. By the way, at least half the members of the Coalition of the Piddling have already withdrawn from it.

The point is we did not go in unilaterally.

Reading comprehension problems? Didn't I just say they should?

I did not believe so but if you did, my apologies.

Pay attention. :p

Yes professor :p

Where did you get that from? I was thinking on more of a national scale than an individual scale. You never want to totally destroy your enemy because you never know when they could become an ally.

On to an organization such as Hezbollah, The only thing that needs to be destroyed with them, is their ability to make war on Israel outside the normal channels for a war to be declared. One should not destroy an entire political party.
Let me see if I can walk you through it slowly.

1) The person you were responding to was saying that the US's confrontational and militaristic policies and rhetoric about destroying our enemies are counter-productive and lead only to more conflict and more terrorism.

2) You defended those policies as both necessary and the right thing to do. You have been supporting a policy of destroying our enemies.

3) The person you were responding to then quoted the Dalai Lama as saying that a when we seek to destroy our enemies, we end up destroying ourselves.

4) You agreed with that principle. You agreed that if we seek to destroy our enemies, we will end up destroying ourselves.

5) Now put the two parts together. You advocate destroying our enemies AND you agree that if we do so, we will destroy ourselves. ERGO, you want to see us destroy ourselves.

Go back and read the thread. You will see this is how the conversation went, and this is the corner you painted yourself into. Apparently, this is not what you meant to say, but that doesn't change the fact that you said it.

What do we learn from this? We learn that you need to think before you run your mouth. Like many other apologists for Bush's failed policies, you are eager to defend your leader, but you fail to take the time to really formulate your thoughts (much like Bush himself, I think). Therefore, you end up saying patently ridiculous things that others can use to discredit you. For instance, I can use this conversation to show that you are a careless thinker and speaker who can't keep track of his own arguments and can be manipulated into saying anything.

Let me see if I can walk you through it slowly.

I stopped reading past this point for it was a totally useless statement and a very childish one to make. If you want me to actually read what you want me to read, leave such comments out of your posts.

Iraq was a non-threatening country? Not a day went by when he was not threatening the United States with some sort of an attack after another. As to shifting focus, we are also still focused on Afghanistan as well. Not a day goes by anymore in regards to the fighting in Afghanistan.
I refer you back to my question about what constitutes a threat -- the one about, if I think you look scary, am I justified in shooting you. Let's flip it to you feeling threatened by me. I am a 5 foot tall, not very athletic woman who does not know how to use weapons and has no connections with violent people, but I have a big mouth and a hot temper. Now how about if I go about saying, "That bastard, Alleghany County, I'll kick his ass if I ever get my hands on him! Damn his miserable eyes, he'd better watch himself because I'm out here and I've got his number. Yessiree-bob. I'll show him. I'll get my Uncle Nunzio to set him straight."

Are you scared yet? Yes? Then you're a fool and possibly also paranoid. What proof have you that I actually intend to harm you or that I have any real ability to harm you? What proof have you that I have an Uncle Nunzio, or if I do, that he is not a 98-year-old, 95 lb, retired tailor?

Me running my angry mouth is not a threat to you. I can say that I would like to kick your ass, but unless I'm right there in front of you and coming at you, you are under no threat from me. And since you are under no threat, you have no justification for coming to my house and shooting me. End of discussion.

Just so with Iraq. Saddam talked a big game, but it was all bullshit. Nobody who is in touch with reality believed for a minute that Iraq was a threat to the US. Bush's claims about WMDs, mushroom clouds, yellow cake, and al qaeda connections have ALL been debunked. "Debunked" means that they have been proven to be UNTRUE. And everybody knows it, and everybody knew it then, too. And frankly, those who are in positions to be informed and claim that they did think there was a direct threat to the US from Iraq are liars.

I remember that to.
Then, like me, you must feel frustrated at the way the US bungled a chance to turn that enemy into an ally, since you've already acknowledged, in another post, that it is possible to do that.

It is a good possibility but then again, it could have turned out just like we have now. Politics is a dangerous game.
Really? Did you read that on a t-shirt? :rolleyes:

At least my scenario shows that there is an alternative other than either war-war-war or appeasement.

And that was?
Give him the endless war that he has always wanted. Way back, as early as 2000, maybe earlier, letters of bin Laden's were published in which he specifically stated his extremist belief that Muslims could only "define themselves through endless conflict with the West." That was a phrase from a translation of one of his letters that was broadcast on US television.

Thanks to Bush, bin Laden not only gets his endless conflict, but he also gets to dictate the terms by which it will be fought. He gets to dictate what we will do and how we will do it. How is this possible? Very simply, he exploits the fact that our current leaders are so lacking in vision and guts that all they can do is react to what bin Laden does. He hits, we hit back. He blows up a bomb, we fire off a missile. He can rest absolutely assured what our reaction will be to anything that he chooses to do, and he can make his plans at his leisure. At this point, the terrorists are jerking the US government around like a big puppet, and their leaders are using us to cement their own positions of authority in their own societies.

I don't know about you, but I don't really like doing what bin Laden tells me to do.

I agree 100%

Sky marshalls are currently being trained as are more border control officers. As to security services at the airport, what do you suggest?
Sky marshalls have already been trained. Sky marshalls have existed since the advent of the age of hijacking in the 1970s. If you recall, it was shortly AFTER 9/11 that the federal government decided it would be too expensive to expand the sky marshall program. Then, beyond not expanding it, the TSA actually scaled it back.

As for border guards, how many years is it now since 9/11? How many years have we known about the holes in US immigration enforcement? How many millions of illegal aliens have crossed our border (this year, that is)? And they're only now getting around to planning to train new officers? And that seems like a reassuring level of competence to you?

As for airport security measures: PAY ATTENTION!!! I listed some in that very paragraph. You are trying my patience very seriously.

Something I think was debated in Congress.
And that signifies ... what ... to you?

We still need surveillance unfortunately for the simple reason that there are more targets than just air we have to look at.
You clearly know nothing about the actual programs that have been instituted. I really don't have a problem with the kind of public surveillance that is used in the UK and some other European nations. I DO have a problem with fishing-expedition programs that randomly collect high volumes of untargeted, unfiltered information at extremely high cost, without any system in place to actually do anything with that information. And I also have a problem with being told that such multi-million dollar pork-barrel boondoggles (including no-bid sweetheart deals for Halliburton subsidiaries) are somehow improving my safety.

The point is we did not go in unilaterally.
This is the funniest and saddest thing you've said so far. You're like a sad little clown.

I did not believe so but if you did, my apologies.
Try reading the posts next time.

Yes professor :p
I am grading you on this.

I stopped reading past this point for it was a totally useless statement and a very childish one to make. If you want me to actually read what you want me to read, leave such comments out of your posts.
That's no excuse not to read. If you'd taken the time to do so, rather than let your ego get in the way, you'd see precisely what Muravyets took the time to clearly and concisely lay out for you to consume.

Having chosen to blithely ignore Muravyets on the basis of an initial minor perceived slight, you have done little to waylay the less-than-sterling impression you've made upon your fellow posters.

I stopped reading past this point for it was a totally useless statement and a very childish one to make. If you want me to actually read what you want me to read, leave such comments out of your posts.
I decline to edit myself to suit your feelings.

Your weak arguments coupled with your blatant disregard for established facts do not generate a feeling of respect towards you. Add to this your habit of failing to see, or deliberately ignoring, segments of your opponents' arguments that you then try to challenge us about, which forces us to repeat ourselves over and over -- this is a very inconsiderate habit of yours, by the way -- and you will see that, frankly, I've been inordinately polite to you.

I decline to edit myself to suit your feelings.

Your weak arguments coupled with your blatant disregard for established facts do not generate a feeling of respect towards you. Add to this your habit of failing to see, or deliberately ignoring, segments of your opponents' arguments that you then try to challenge us about, which forces us to repeat ourselves over and over -- this is a very inconsiderate habit of yours, by the way -- and you will see that, frankly, I've been inordinately polite to you.

You have been polite to me. I did not imply that you have not been. I just take offense to being talked down to. As to what you are saying about me failing to see what my opponets are arguing, there have been times throughout this thread that I have agreed with what my opponets have been saying and offered up another way of looking at things. I can see where everyone is coming at.

You have been polite to me. I did not imply that you have not been. I just take offense to being talked down to.
You're not alone in that.

As to what you are saying about me failing to see what my opponets are arguing, there have been times throughout this thread that I have agreed with what my opponets have been saying and offered up another way of looking at things. I can see where everyone is coming at.
Then why do you do things like ask me for suggestions about airport security in direct response to a paragraph in which I had already actually listed suggestions about airport security?

Then I would say that you are deliberately being misleading as to your true goals. Terrorism is not restricted solely to radical islamists, nor are ALL terrorists radical islamists. So by defining "terrorist" as "radical islamists," you are choosing to ignore the non-islamic terrorists in the world, who have been around a long time and will continue to be around a long time. So rather than a "war on terror," what your attitude would produce is simply another war of nations divided by ideology, just like WW2. When you talk about going after "terrorism," what you are in fact talking about is just going after a select group of people, while letting all the other terrorists off the hook. In other words, you want to attack Muslims, not terrorists. So, in keeping with your definition of "terrorist," the "war on terror" is just a new shovel for the same old warmongering shit.

Of course not ALL terrorists are, but the VAST majority of the ones that threaten us are - I would dare say it approaches 99%.

I do not want to attack muslims - they do not deserve to be smeared with the radical label, I only want to get rid of the islamist terrorists who think it is a good thing to kill infidels.

You're not alone in that.

I know.

Then why do you do things like ask me for suggestions about airport security in direct response to a paragraph in which I had already actually listed suggestions about airport security?

Because I have an air mall that I cannot roam because of security. I wish they could fix that so I can roam around that air mall. Businesses in that mall are closing because of these so called security measures.

FOX News quoted the government Defense Dept. and I have posted that several times and you refuse to accept that verdict. Your government via FOX News states that your claim of WMD is in fact false.


Fox news quoted a person who gave his own opinion. Show me the official determination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by USalpenstock
Saddam absolutely did NOT have nukes and no one claimed otherwise.
From your own President's lips:

Bush: Don't wait for mushroom cloud


Only reading headlines again???? He did not say they had nukes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by USalpenstock
He was maintaining his capabilities so that he could reconstitute the program after he got the sanctions lifted.
Also not true.

Didn't read the Duelfer report yet, I see.

I decline to edit myself to suit your feelings.

Your weak arguments coupled with your blatant disregard for established facts do not generate a feeling of respect towards you. Add to this your habit of failing to see, or deliberately ignoring, segments of your opponents' arguments that you then try to challenge us about, which forces us to repeat ourselves over and over -- this is a very inconsiderate habit of yours, by the way -- and you will see that, frankly, I've been inordinately polite to you.
Muravyets, I like your posts and you have done a great job on this thread ....thanks!! :)

In regards to Alleghany County, although he may lean to the right, and I may have had some differences with him, I do believe him to be a reasonable person, and I have seen some agreement with him.

Couple of examples:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11528118&postcount=285

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11531380&postcount=80

Finding the middle ground is the most important part of any difference of opinion. It can be tough sledding but it is worth the effort?

That said, we know that there are certain individuals that will never be swayed no matter how much truth you bring to the table.

Only reading headlines again???? He did not say they had nukes.
I read his entire speech and I posted an excerpt from it. I invite you to go back in the thread and read it. :p

I read his entire speech and I posted an excerpt from it. I invite you to go back in the thread and read it. :p

Then you will have no problem pointing out the part where Bush said Iraq had Nuclear weapons. I looked and could not find it.

Fox news quoted a person who gave his own opinion. Show me the official determination.
So you will no longer except ANY news sources? Everything has to be an "official" declaration or document? You really do want to stifle debate, especially when you are wrong, and your government says you are wrong and even David Kay says you are wrong.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11515003&postcount=249

And the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, and President Bush‘s former Iraq Survey Group chief, Dr. David Kay, telling COUNTDOWN that Senator Santorum‘s comments are, quote, “wrong to the facts and exaggerated beyond all reason as to the interpretation of the facts.”
What part of "exaggerated beyond all reason" don't you understand?

I would say that I admire your persistence but I don't in light of the facts presented. If you choose to live in denial, so be it.

The war in iraq has nothign to do with oil!
It has more to do with funding and corruption that we american tend to see.

Vietnam was fough for the same reason as the iraq qwar is. If the war in iraq didn't happen then the economy wouldn't haved boomed like it did, or whould the real estate market sent the prices of houses to all time levels never seen before in the history of this country. If you do your research then you will notice just how tied in this war is to corporations, and washington. Corruption reign free in a free market where the military MUST hire out contracts for companies to product to goods of war. and the companies will then skim a proffit on top of what they charge already. thus corruption is everywhere.

We could also let the generrals play genrals anf keep the Politicans OUT! its politicans that f up wars and get people killed. If we let the generals fight wars to win then we could have fixed iraq already. but we don't because we are afrade what thwe world will say if one civilian is killed by a us soldier. its redicioulous these days. we are the only country that abides by these stupid laws of war that virturally not other country follows. and if we expect to win the iraq war then lets do it right.

pulling out early will be nothing but bad. If we pull out of iraq we will have another country in the middle east screaming death to america because we can't follow up on our promases. and most of all we creat our enemies because of the way we do things politically. if we didn't backstabb and do a half ass job everywhere then we might have better support in the international community. but fact is the system is broken and doesn't want to be fixed.

So you will no longer except ANY news sources? Everything has to be an "official" declaration or document? You really do want to stifle debate, especially when you are wrong, and your government says you are wrong and even David Kay says you are wrong.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11515003&postcount=249


What part of "exaggerated beyond all reason" don't you understand?

I would say that I admire your persistence but I don't in light of the facts presented. If you choose to live in denial, so be it.


I am not commenting on Santorums comments. The fact of the matter is that the WMD's were found. What Santorum said about them is irrelevent.

You seem to excel at taking a quote of someone critisizing specific thing and applying it to unrelated items.

So you will no longer except ANY news sources? Everything has to be an "official" declaration or document? You really do want to stifle debate, especially when you are wrong, and your government says you are wrong and even David Kay says you are wrong.


Not at all, but you need to read carefully what they are saying - and then make sure they are reporting things accurately.

In this case, Jim Angle simply asked someone who worked at the pentagon. There are multiple opinions within the Pentagon, just like there are multiple opinions on this board. That is why I asked for the official position.

Do you know the meaning of the word "deception"? They were scrubbed. We found the trace chemicals in those facilities. If you read the reports you would know that.

I have. Why would you not find such traces in former factories? They were defunct, deserted and closed down. Which is what the report concludes. All they said that existed was "intention", which, when it comes down to it, isn't worth a wank. No factories, no stockpiles, no nukes, no nada. Nothing to move to another country. Time to fact the facts. Try the "world a better place without saddam" crap. It hasnt a hope, but at least it allows you more room for waffle.

I am not commenting on Santorums comments. The fact of the matter is that the WMD's were found. What Santorum said about them is irrelevent.

You seem to excel at taking a quote of someone critisizing specific thing and applying it to unrelated items.

I found Jesus too. He's in my drawer. There are NO WMD. For you to say that they have been found cannot be considered a matter of opinion, because its just provably untrue.

Tony Blair, to the party conference in 2004.
"The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that and accept it."

I am not commenting on Santorums comments. The fact of the matter is that the WMD's were found. What Santorum said about them is irrelevent.

You seem to excel at taking a quote of someone critisizing specific thing and applying it to unrelated items.
The fact is that THE WMD that America went to war for, were NOT found. Try again. No please don't try again....you keep coming up with the same unsubstantiated BS, even after your point has been thoroughly debunked.

Only reading headlines again???? He did not say they had nukes.
Obviously, you are the one with a reading disorder?

If you are going to quote a post, try reading the attachments/link?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11511742&postcount=231

Out of courtesy of course.

I got this e-mail and i though it might serve as good reading material.


JOHN GLENN SAID


Things that make you think a little:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the
month of January. That's just one American city,
about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq .

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the following:

a. FDR led us into World War II.

b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 112,500 per year.

c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea
North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 18,334 per year.

d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.

f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
multiple occasions.

g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush
has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran , and, North
Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining
about how long the war is taking.
But
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno
to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation.

We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the
Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his
Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida !!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
The Military morale is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant
to realize the facts

But Wait .

There's more!

JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR)
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13

Some people still don't understand why military personnel
do what they do for a living. This exchange between
Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum
is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive
impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one
man's explanation of why men and women in the armed
services do what they do for a living.

This IS a typical, though sad, example of what
some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
"How can you run for Senate
when you've never held a real job?"

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
"I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps.
I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions.
My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different
occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my
checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was
not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the
daily cash receipts to the bank."

"I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day...
to a veteran's hospital and look those men ...
with their mangled bodies . in the eye, and tell THEM
they didn't hold a job!

You go with me to the Space Program at NASA
and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans
of Ed White! , Gus Gr issom and Roger Chaffee...
and you look those kids in the eye and tell them
that their DADS didn't hold a job.

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in
Arlington National Cemetery , where I have more friends
buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch
those waving flags.

You stand there, and you think about this nation,
and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

What about you?"

For those who don't remember ..
During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney
representing the Communist Party in the USA

Now he's a Senator!

I know.



Because I have an air mall that I cannot roam because of security. I wish they could fix that so I can roam around that air mall. Businesses in that mall are closing because of these so called security measures.
How terribly sad. Doesn't answer my question, though.

Muravyets, I like your posts and you have done a great job on this thread ....thanks!! :)

In regards to Alleghany County, although he may lean to the right, and I may have had some differences with him, I do believe him to be a reasonable person, and I have seen some agreement with him.

Couple of examples:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11528118&postcount=285

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11531380&postcount=80

Finding the middle ground is the most important part of any difference of opinion. It can be tough sledding but it is worth the effort?

That said, we know that there are certain individuals that will never be swayed no matter how much truth you bring to the table.
I actually don't hate Alleghany County, but it's my opinion that he has performed poorly in this thread. Maybe he's under the weather or pining for his favorite air mall, but he has repeatedly missed whole paragraphs -- even in short posts -- and asked the same question that the other poster had just answered. That really gets on my nerves. I could understand it if we were talking and it was hard to keep track by memory, but for crying out loud, he can take a minute to read our posts, can't he?

I find this especially irritating since I know that he is not an extremist rightwinger. I feel like we're just being fobbed off with lazy arguments here.

Actually, I guess he's reminding me of my brother -- as if he's just committed himself to a line of argument that he doesn't really believe enough to be conscientious about, and all he's really doing is making us jump through hoops by making us repeat ourselves. Usually, I would have cursed my brother out and hung up on him by now.

Of course not ALL terrorists are, but the VAST majority of the ones that threaten us are - I would dare say it approaches 99%.
This decade. What about the next? Will our intense focus on arguing over whether Islam is a religion of peace or not be a suitable answer to a terrorist threat from extremists of some other religion, or racial supremacists, or some lunatic cult, or any of the players we had to deal with in decades past and who are not now extinct? Do you really think the "war on terror" will be won once we make all the radical Muslims shut up? And how, precisely, do you think Bush's policies of international war and domestic spying are going to accomplish that?

I do not want to attack muslims - they do not deserve to be smeared with the radical label, I only want to get rid of the islamist terrorists who think it is a good thing to kill infidels.
How? By killing them all? Haven't you guessed yet that they make new ones every day? In fact, they're setting up new ones way faster than we can knock them down with our little tanks and stuff. And they are setting them up in so many places that it's getting harder and harder to "fight them over there" -- where is "there" these days? Iraq? Or the UK?

My criticism of Bush' policies has always been that they're the wrong policies for the job.

I got this e-mail and i though it might serve as good reading material.

JOHN GLENN SAID

Things that make you think a little:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the
month of January. That's just one American city,
about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq .

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the following:
As much as I respect John Glenn for his service and dedication to the US, does not mean that I automatically respect his reasoning behind the US invasion of Iraq.

What is interesting to note, is that he is thinking only in terms of combat deaths in the above analogy. Unfortunately, the most relevant fact is that the US invasion of Iraq has been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands, some would say a 100,000 Iraqis. Are they not significant to John Glenn, or is he only concerned with the 39 combat deaths in January?

BTW, that is 39 US troop deaths that were not necessary. To date, over 2,500 US soldiers have died in a war that didn't need to be fought. Tack on the almost 20,000 US troops that have been wounded and that is a significant number.

I actually don't hate Alleghany County, but it's my opinion that he has performed poorly in this thread. Maybe he's under the weather or pining for his favorite air mall, but he has repeatedly missed whole paragraphs -- even in short posts -- and asked the same question that the other poster had just answered. That really gets on my nerves. I could understand it if we were talking and it was hard to keep track by memory, but for crying out loud, he can take a minute to read our posts, can't he?

I find this especially irritating since I know that he is not an extremist rightwinger. I feel like we're just being fobbed off with lazy arguments here.

Actually, I guess he's reminding me of my brother -- as if he's just committed himself to a line of argument that he doesn't really believe enough to be conscientious about, and all he's really doing is making us jump through hoops by making us repeat ourselves. Usually, I would have cursed my brother out and hung up on him by now.
Fair enough!! :)

I was just chipping in my 2 cents worth.

At any rate, I have enjoyed reading your thoughtful posts!! ;)

Fair enough!! :)

I was just chipping in my 2 cents worth.

At any rate, I have enjoyed reading your thoughtful posts!! ;)
Thanks, but you make me blush. :cool: (That's a blushing face, right? ;))

I found Jesus too. He's in my drawer. There are NO WMD. For you to say that they have been found cannot be considered a matter of opinion, because its just provably untrue.

Tony Blair, to the party conference in 2004.
"The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that and accept it."


We found them you simply refuse to admit it. I have pointed to them in the very same documents that you point to to deny their existance. I have personal friends who have found them, and those show up NOWHERE in any public document. We did not find massive quantities and not all of them were in great shape, but they indeed did exist.

This decade. What about the next? Will our intense focus on arguing over whether Islam is a religion of peace or not be a suitable answer to a terrorist threat from extremists of some other religion, or racial supremacists, or some lunatic cult, or any of the players we had to deal with in decades past and who are not now extinct? Do you really think the "war on terror" will be won once we make all the radical Muslims shut up? And how, precisely, do you think Bush's policies of international war and domestic spying are going to accomplish that?


How? By killing them all? Haven't you guessed yet that they make new ones every day? In fact, they're setting up new ones way faster than we can knock them down with our little tanks and stuff. And they are setting them up in so many places that it's getting harder and harder to "fight them over there" -- where is "there" these days? Iraq? Or the UK?

My criticism of Bush' policies has always been that they're the wrong policies for the job.



OK, I give up. I now think it best that we offer up our bare necks en masse! You first.

We found them you simply refuse to admit it. I have pointed to them in the very same documents that you point to to deny their existance. I have personal friends who have found them, and those show up NOWHERE in any public document. We did not find massive quantities and not all of them were in great shape, but they indeed did exist.

I'm sorry for posting this again, but you seem to have missed it, - I'm using bold this time.

Tony Blair (thats the Tony Blair of Britain, chief ally of the US in the whole Iraq debacle), to the (British Labour party) conference in 2004.
"The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that and accept it."

I'm sorry for posting this again, but you seem to have missed it, - I'm using bold this time.

Tony Blair (thats the Tony Blair of Britain, chief ally of the US in the whole Iraq debacle), to the (British Labour party) conference in 2004.
"The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that and accept it."

I saw it the first time. He was talking in terms of stockpiles and if you read the reports you know that. It doesn't even matter in terms of whether or not we were justified in going in - it was one of many reasons. It is simply the only one that got the press's attention.

I saw it the first time. He was talking in terms of stockpiles and if you read the reports you know that. It doesn't even matter in terms of whether or not we were justified in going in - it was one of many reasons. It is simply the only one that got the press's attention.

emmmm....he says weapons.....that usually means weapons. Why is the chief ally saying such a thing if its not true? Surely hed be pointing at the weapons and saying "I was right".....please explain....

We found them you simply refuse to admit it. I have pointed to them in the very same documents that you point to to deny their existance. I have personal friends who have found them, and those show up NOWHERE in any public document. We did not find massive quantities and not all of them were in great shape, but they indeed did exist.
And on and on you go, and yet your government does not agree with you. We have flogged this to death, and the result has always been the same. Your government has not found the WMD that they went to war over, nor do they make any claims in that regard.

Here are selected links that discuss the issue at hand:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11515003&postcount=249

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11511617&postcount=222

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11509743&postcount=192

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11486818&postcount=141

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11480190&postcount=136

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11474668&postcount=126

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11462560&postcount=29

Now, to simplify this process, I am going to attach a link in my siggy to this post, and it will make it much easier to respond to your incessant, incorrect claims in regards to WMD. :D

And on and on you go, and yet your government does not agree with you. We have flogged this to death, and the result has always been the same. Your government has not found the WMD that they went to war over, nor do they make any claims in that regard.


I'm sorry I must have missed the part in my civics class where the joint intelligence committees are not part of the government.:rolleyes:

I must have missed the part where the CIA is not part of the government.

Pardon me. :rolleyes:

.


I'm sorry I must have missed the part in my civics class where the joint intelligence committees are not part of the government.:rolleyes:

I must have missed the part where the CIA is not part of the government.

Pardon me. :rolleyes:
Well, you've definitely missed the class on "getting totally pwned by CH" for the last few weeks.

Well, you've definitely missed the class on "getting totally pwned by CH" for the last few weeks.


Sure I did! :p


I use the official reports, and she used filtered news reports. When CH quoted the experts, he quoted them making comments on current finds - after they no longer have access to the facts! His David Kay quote regarding the intelligence committee report comes to mind. Kay is no longer involved and hasn't been for years. Contrast that to the members of the committee who ARE currently involved and HAVE access to current information.

Why did Sadam lie about the VX production and what happened to the 6,500 warheads filled with it that are unaccounted for???

Is mustard gas a prohibited Weapon???


Is CycloSarin a prohibited weapon???


How about Sarin???

We have found ALL of those. If Canuck Heaven is correct, we should have found NONE of those. Saddam was required to destroy them ALL - every last drop. He did not and there is absolutely ZERO question about that fact. You may argue that they are old weapons - but what is the point? They were supposed to be destroyed. I defy you to find any credible expert that says the 500 weapons mentioned in the intelligence committee report were destroyed by Saddam. I defy you to find any credible expert that says the 53 instances mentioned in the Duelfer report were destroyed by Saddam. They were old, I do not deny that and never have. The fact of the matter is that he was not supposed to have them at ALL - yet he did.

Three words:
New World Order
:rolleyes:

snip

This is basically my bottom line on the subject..My thoughts have come to one, perhaps two conclusions...and it's about the way the American government deals with things... This is but one example...


Staying the course.

Now there is an expression we have heard so often these past couple of years. Staying the course. It has become a critical part of the notion of "strong leadership" that is the new ideal of present day politics.

But what does 'staying the course' mean? Really, it means one thing only: a refusal to revisit a decision once made no matter the mountains of evidence that might subsequently demonstrate that the decision had been a poor one. No, today pigheadedness is virtue instead of re-evaluation, correction, and accountability.

What a far cry this is from that sign that sat upon Truman's desk. "The buck stops here." This sign was to be taken in two very distinct ways. First, the acknowledgement that in times of crisis the final decision always rested with the President. There was no-one else that he could hand a difficult decision off to. This is the supreme responsibility that rests with that office. In that respect, Truman himself mirrored the opinion that it made the president "the decider" as George Bush labeled himself.

But the second implication of this sign included the notion that the President was responsible for those decisions. That passing off blame for incomplete information or for unforeseen consequences was a recourse unavailable to the President. With the responsibility comes the accountability. And this is no longer a part of today's equation.

In what other profession is such pigheadedness rewarded with praise? If the CEO of a major corporation refuses to re-evaluate the corporate direction in the face of changing markets, are they rewarded for their stubbornness? Do you reward the captain of a ship who refuses to change course to avoid a hurricane because the course has been set? Of course not!

But woe betide the thinking leader in these days of partisan politics. A playbook exists, positions are entrenched, and changes to the world around us force people to build their defenses high around those positions until the walls can no longer support their weight and finally crumble to dust. To do otherwise is to be labeled a flip-flopper. To be deemed unreliable and weak rather than credited with having situational awareness and a humble understanding of one's human fallibility. To make an admission of error is akin to political suicide, as it opens the door to the question: "yeah, well what ELSE will you wind up wrong about?" Lots, of course. Politicians are human after all, despite the unreasonable expectation of perfection foisted upon them by the voters and the press. In this, we the people are complicit in the escalation of this new mindset around the meaning of strong leadership. We have rewarded dishonest entrenchment over reasoned discourse time and time again.

There is a difference though, between firm decisiveness in a leader and blind adherence to past decisions. Life is fluid, and we must expect our leaders to base decisions upon the current state of affairs rather than simple adherence to dated parameters.

Truman had another statement he was fond of using: "Starting a war is no way to make peace". Perhaps his service in WWI and his experiences with directing the final battles of WWII gave him a more personal understanding of this idea, but this philosphy also seemed to have been lost in the last half century. This leaves us now with the continued use of the concept of pre-emptive action as the primary battle-plan of the so-called War on Terror. And if people can excuse the defensive certainty with which Bush feels forced to stay the path in Iraq, one would at least hope that they would have learned SOMETHING from that fiasco.

Did Shock and Awe, an occupation, and elevated rhetoric really make Iraq safer place? Few would suggest that. But yet this is exactly the same strategy adopted by Israel, and this administration continues to cheer it on. Clearly this determination to learn nothing from the past is now so deeply entrenched as to defy any attempts to change it.

And so another country suffers. Another civilian population finds themselves at the receiving end of a battle they had no means to avoid, and with no chance to influence the outcome. And the rest of the world watched and waited while "The Decider" ensured that his doctrine lives another day by repeatedly blocking attempts to bring fresh thinking to the table until worldwide public opinion forced him to push for a cease-fire.

Stay the course.

How many more will die before people remember what it was that strong leadership really meant not so long ago and insist upon leaders who have the integrity to do what's right at the time EACH new decision must be made rather than continue on course into the heart of the storm?

No, give me a weak leader - if that is how thinking men and women are to be labeled in today's world.

Frankly, they do less harm.

Hey CanuckHeaven ,

Great to see you're still around... could I ask a favour? I want to ask you something in private... would you consider emailing me? Please & Thank You!

Take your pick...

stephanies_world@hotmail.com


politicallysound@hotmail.com


Peace - Stephanie.

Sure I did! :p


I use the official reports, and she used filtered news reports. When CH quoted the experts, he quoted them making comments on current finds - after they no longer have access to the facts! His David Kay quote regarding the intelligence committee report comes to mind. Kay is no longer involved and hasn't been for years. Contrast that to the members of the committee who ARE currently involved and HAVE access to current information.

Why did Sadam lie about the VX production and what happened to the 6,500 warheads filled with it that are unaccounted for???

Is mustard gas a prohibited Weapon???

Is CycloSarin a prohibited weapon???

How about Sarin???

We have found ALL of those. If Canuck Heaven is correct, we should have found NONE of those. Saddam was required to destroy them ALL - every last drop. He did not and there is absolutely ZERO question about that fact. You may argue that they are old weapons - but what is the point? They were supposed to be destroyed. I defy you to find any credible expert that says the 500 weapons mentioned in the intelligence committee report were destroyed by Saddam. I defy you to find any credible expert that says the 53 instances mentioned in the Duelfer report were destroyed by Saddam. They were old, I do not deny that and never have. The fact of the matter is that he was not supposed to have them at ALL - yet he did.
The only thing that you are defying is logic. David Kay is a weapons expert and I will defer to his intelligence over some over zealous Bush enthusiast/apologist.

Hey CanuckHeaven ,

Great to see you're still around... could I ask a favour? I want to ask you something in private... would you consider emailing me? Please & Thank You!

Take your pick...

stephanies_world@hotmail.com

politicallysound@hotmail.com
Peace - Stephanie.
I sure do miss posts from Zep and yourself, as well as a few others.

Anyhoo, email sent. :)

Sure I did! :p


I use the official reports, and she used filtered news reports. When CH quoted the experts, he quoted them making comments on current finds - after they no longer have access to the facts! His David Kay quote regarding the intelligence committee report comes to mind. Kay is no longer involved and hasn't been for years. Contrast that to the members of the committee who ARE currently involved and HAVE access to current information.

Why did Sadam lie about the VX production and what happened to the 6,500 warheads filled with it that are unaccounted for???

Is mustard gas a prohibited Weapon???


Is CycloSarin a prohibited weapon???


How about Sarin???

We have found ALL of those. If Canuck Heaven is correct, we should have found NONE of those. Saddam was required to destroy them ALL - every last drop. He did not and there is absolutely ZERO question about that fact. You may argue that they are old weapons - but what is the point? They were supposed to be destroyed. I defy you to find any credible expert that says the 500 weapons mentioned in the intelligence committee report were destroyed by Saddam. I defy you to find any credible expert that says the 53 instances mentioned in the Duelfer report were destroyed by Saddam. They were old, I do not deny that and never have. The fact of the matter is that he was not supposed to have them at ALL - yet he did.

Why did Tony Blair say that they had found none in 2004?

Goddamn. Steph - good to see you again.

OK, I give up. I now think it best that we offer up our bare necks en masse! You first.
Typical rightwing defeatism: If your way isn't the right way, then the only other option is for everyone to die. You know what that is? That's lack of vision, friend. It's also lack of observation of reality and lack of knowledge of history. It's also a conceited refusal to even consider the possibility that you have been wrong. I assure you, however, that of all the universe's possibilities, you being wrong is the most probable thing that can happen.

If you would rather die than admit you're wrong, go right ahead, but if you're going to wait for me to go first, you'd better set up that retirement account, because I am not the defeatist that you are.

I was always a little concerned about 'staying the course'.

I just keep thinking back to what would have happened if JFK had 'stayed the course' during the Cuban Crisis...'appeaser' that he was...

Typical rightwing defeatism: If your way isn't the right way, then the only other option is for everyone to die. You know what that is? That's lack of vision, friend. It's also lack of observation of reality and lack of knowledge of history. It's also a conceited refusal to even consider the possibility that you have been wrong. I assure you, however, that of all the universe's possibilities, you being wrong is the most probable thing that can happen.

If you would rather die than admit you're wrong, go right ahead, but if you're going to wait for me to go first, you'd better set up that retirement account, because I am not the defeatist that you are.

Well, the way you described the right wing there is the exact description of those whom we are helping Iraq fight. If you think that you can reason with terrorists, negotiate, or pull out and have them suddenly become peaceful, you are living in the land of OZ. The only way to stop terrorism is to kill them. A good example is that since the "ceasefire" with Hezbollah last night, Hezbollah has captured 2 American Journalists and taken them Hostage. Shows how far ceasefires go with these bloodthirsty madmen.

Well, the way you described the right wing there is the exact description of those whom we are helping Iraq fight. If you think that you can reason with terrorists, negotiate, or pull out and have them suddenly become peaceful, you are living in the land of OZ. The only way to stop terrorism is to kill them. A good example is that since the "ceasefire" with Hezbollah last night, Hezbollah has captured 2 American Journalists and taken them Hostage. Shows how far ceasefires go with these bloodthirsty madmen.

Really? That doesn't seemed to have worked terribly well historically. Hamas, Hizbollah, the Tamil Tigers, the Viet Cong, the Maquis...

Yet it would appear that being mature about the situation has worked historically. e.g. the IRA and ETA.

Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Tigers must all be destroyed evenutally. I wonder why you do not wish for them to be.....And the vietcong survived because the liberals in the USA made it impossible to win and created a political claimate that was hostile to victory. We never lost a battle in Vietnam. And yeah......about the IRA and ETA.....the Spanish and British governments did not retreat from their own countries. Nor was the same level of violance involved. Check your facts. Pissing our pants and running home from a fight does not make us winners. It emboldens the enemy.

Well, the way you described the right wing there is the exact description of those whom we are helping Iraq fight. If you think that you can reason with terrorists, negotiate, or pull out and have them suddenly become peaceful, you are living in the land of OZ. The only way to stop terrorism is to kill them. A good example is that since the "ceasefire" with Hezbollah last night, Hezbollah has captured 2 American Journalists and taken them Hostage. Shows how far ceasefires go with these bloodthirsty madmen.
I am on record as saying, frequently, that I see no difference between the extreme rightwingers/neocons in the US and terorrists like bin Laden. They are two peas in a pod as far as I'm concerned. Both extremes promote international war, both promote extremist and opressive ideologies, both hate the kind of tolerant and egalitarian society that I consider to be truly civilized. Both seek to take away my personal liberty, freedom of speech, association, travel, and religion. Both engage in violence, torture and other criminal acts to accomplish their aims, which all boil down to never-ending warfare, by the way. I consider both to be my enemies.

Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Tigers must all be destroyed evenutally.
Really? I would challenge that.
I am fairly certain that several political Terrorist organisations have turned into states. Men such as Menachem Begin spring to mind, as do Ho Chi Minh and any number of leaders who have reached their position through uprisisings and coups.


I wonder why you do not wish for them to be

1) Stop being an idiot. It makes people ignore whatever you are saying.
2) If you actually read what I said you might discover that actually I am quite keen on eradicating terrorism. The only difference is that I think we should use methods that work where as you think that methods that make terrorists stronger and more robust whilst killing hundreds of thousands of innocents are the way forward.
Forgive me if I fight your philosophy, which has no basis in fact or evidence and will lead to stronger and more robust terrorist organisations.

And the vietcong survived because the liberals in the USA made it impossible to win and created a political claimate that was hostile to victory. We never lost a battle in Vietnam.
Never lost a battle but lost the war. Not sure how that proves that your position is one we should be adopting on the war on terrorism.
Vietnam is quite interesting actually. Any serious study highlights the fact that America simply could never have won and, in fact, never needed to have gone to war. The result would have been the same and millions of lives would have been saved.

And yeah......about the IRA and ETA.....the Spanish and British governments did not retreat from their own countries. Nor was the same level of violance involved.
No, despite that very act being a central tennant of both organisations' demands. How did Spain and the UK manage that?
Same level of violence as what? As carried out by the terrorists or as carried out by the nations targeted?

Check your facts.
Comedy Gold :D

Pissing our pants and running home from a fight does not make us winners. It emboldens the enemy.
I'm sure that's exactly what Kennedy said during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Thank God he pressed the button and didn't back down.

The many reasons why we're in Iraq is never narrowed down.

1 WMD's = Found
2 Al-Qaeda = Found
3 And the genociding of kurds.

First i'd like to say, I don't care who we invade, we can invade Mexico for all I care. If people want to join the military to fight in wars, I'm not gonna be mr. douche bag with a pair of bongos and smoking alot of pot and telling them that they can't. I'm not in the Iraq war, it's not hurting me financially, nor emotionally, since I have relatives who are serving. If one dies, he was willing to give his life for everyone in the U.S. whether or not you believe his cause was unjust, but heres the thing, he didn't, so therefor it is just. As far as im concerned, I think Bush is going on about it the right way despite all the crazy psychos. We've got em too in the U.S. they're called syndicalists. But they talk about how they're gonna go up and arms and destroy the government when all they do is protest. Anyways they're only college students who are bound to fail at life and become homeless. It's an awesome country I live in. To see those poor who really deserve it. :)

Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Tigers must all be destroyed evenutally. I wonder why you do not wish for them to be.....And the vietcong survived because the liberals in the USA made it impossible to win and created a political claimate that was hostile to victory. We never lost a battle in Vietnam. And yeah......about the IRA and ETA.....the Spanish and British governments did not retreat from their own countries. Nor was the same level of violance involved. Check your facts. Pissing our pants and running home from a fight does not make us winners. It emboldens the enemy.
And this is typical of the kind of extremist, hatemongering crap that my enemies promote:

Anyone who thinks you are fighting terrorism in the wrong way, you accuse of supporting terrorism, of not wanting to see it stopped. You cavalierly throw around ungrounded accusations against some vague scapegoated group -- "liberals." That word is nonsense when used by you. Your blatant misuse of it has stripped it of all meaning except "anyone who disagrees with you for any reason." Your supposedly historical remarks are also total nonsense. The Spanish and British governments didn't retreat from their own countries? No shit. How could they have, physically? Such a remark is downright stupid. I'll counter it for you, shall I? The Spanish and British governments didn't bomb their own countries either, did they? And finally, you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a coward and helping the enemy. Such histrionics are just as meaningless as everything else you say. Your speeches don't amount to much more, content-wise, than the barking of a dog. There is about as much thought in them.

Never lost a battle but lost the war. Not sure how that proves that your position is one we should be adopting on the war on terrorism.
Vietnam is quite interesting actually. Any serious study highlights the fact that America simply could never have won and, in fact, never needed to have gone to war. The result would have been the same and millions of lives would have been saved.

I'm sorry mr Inconvientient truths, but millions of lives? Don't you think you're exaggerating? And yes we could have won Vietnam with ease, we just didn't want to use the A-bomb anymore. We need another Truman!

The many reasons why we're in Iraq is never narrowed down.

1 WMD's = Found
2 Al-Qaeda = Found
3 And the genociding of kurds.

First i'd like to say, I don't care who we invade, we can invade Mexico for all I care. If people want to join the military to fight in wars, I'm not gonna be mr. douche bag with a pair of bongos and smoking alot of pot and telling them that they can't. I'm not in the Iraq war, it's not hurting me financially, nor emotionally, since I have relatives who are serving. If one dies, he was willing to give his life for everyone in the U.S. whether or not you believe his cause was unjust, but heres the thing, he didn't, so therefor it is just. As far as im concerned, I think Bush is going on about it the right way despite all the crazy psychos. We've got em too in the U.S. they're called syndicalists. But they talk about how they're gonna go up and arms and destroy the government when all they do is protest. Anyways they're only college students who are bound to fail at life and become homeless. It's an awesome country I live in. To see those poor who really deserve it. :)
I am completely amazed by you as a person.

I am completely amazed by you as a person.

Yes I know, I am more godlike than David Blaine. Booooww, twah.

Yes I know, I am more godlike than David Blaine. Booooww, twah.
However you want to describe it, sweet cheeks.

The many reasons why we're in Iraq is never narrowed down.

1 WMD's = Found
Show them to me. And I don't mean those depleted smears that got Santorum's juices all juicy. I'm not impressed by residues. Show me the weapons. Show them to me now.

2 Al-Qaeda = Found
Yeah, last week in the UK. I wonder where they'll pop up next?

3 And the genociding of kurds.
That's the saddest part of the bullshit. The Kurds were murdered by Saddam YEARS before anyone thought to do anything about him. Nobody, especially nobody in the US government, gave a fiddler's fuck about the Kurds at the time they were being gassed, and they still don't care about them. Of all the lies cited by Bush apologists, I find this the most offensive.

I'm sorry mr Inconvientient truths, but millions of lives? Don't you think you're exaggerating?
No. I don't.

"The lowest casualty estimates, based on North Vietnamese statements (now discounted by Vietnam), are around 1.5 million Vietnamese killed. Vietnam's Ministry of Labor, War Invalids and Social Affairs released figures on April 3, 1995, reporting that 1.1 million fighters—Viet Cong guerrillas and North Vietnamese soldiers—and nearly 2 million civilians in the north and 2 million in the south were killed between 1954 and 1975. Robert McNamara, in his regretful memoir of the war, references a figure of 3.2 million. The number of wounded fighters was put at 600,000. It remains even more unclear how many Vietnamese civilians were wounded."

And yes we could have won Vietnam with ease, we just didn't want to use the A-bomb anymore. We need another Truman!
I am assuming you are being sarcastic. But just in case.
Once the US had deployed enough nuclear weapons to kill or cow the popular support for Communism and, most importantly, for the idea of fighting for freedom, I imagine that the US might have had one or two nuclear capable nations dropping bombs on their 'proxies'...or perhaps just hitting the US mainland.

And this is typical of the kind of extremist, hatemongering crap that my enemies promote:

Anyone who thinks you are fighting terrorism in the wrong way, you accuse of supporting terrorism, of not wanting to see it stopped. You cavalierly throw around ungrounded accusations against some vague scapegoated group -- "liberals." That word is nonsense when used by you. Your blatant misuse of it has stripped it of all meaning except "anyone who disagrees with you for any reason." Your supposedly historical remarks are also total nonsense. The Spanish and British governments didn't retreat from their own countries? No shit. How could they have, physically? Such a remark is downright stupid. I'll counter it for you, shall I? The Spanish and British governments didn't bomb their own countries either, did they? And finally, you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a coward and helping the enemy. Such histrionics are just as meaningless as everything else you say. Your speeches don't amount to much more, content-wise, than the barking of a dog. There is about as much thought in them.

You have to understand something here, the liberals in this country are more different than the liberals of europe, you see the liberals of europe are fine where they are. The liberals here are nothing but wannabe liberal europeans. Liberals here in San Francisco, believe we should have our police force fight our wars instead of a military. That's how stupid we are here for electing someone who believes that.

You have to understand something here, the liberals in this country are more different than the liberals of europe, you see the liberals of europe are fine where they are. The liberals here are nothing but wannabe liberal europeans. Liberals here in San Francisco, believe we should have our police force fight our wars instead of a military. That's how stupid we are here for electing someone who believes that.
Huh? Are you suggesting that European liberals agree with your warmongering bigotry and self-centered, self-serving attitudes, or with the neocon policies of continually fucking up and wasting money until the terrorists get scared of how stupid and incompetent we are and go home (which is what the neocons seem to be trying to do)?

Please, as of this post, even you don't know what you're talking about, obviously.

Huh? Are you suggesting that European liberals agree with your warmongering bigotry and self-centered, self-serving attitudes, or with the neocon policies of continually fucking up and wasting money until the terrorists get scared of how stupid and incompetent we are and go home (which is what the neocons seem to be trying to do)?

Please, as of this post, even you don't know what you're talking about, obviously.


I want to make out with your brain.

I want to make out with your brain.
Thanks, I'll give it your number. :D

Show them to me. And I don't mean those depleted smears that got Santorum's juices all juicy. I'm not impressed by residues. Show me the weapons. Show them to me now.


Yeah, last week in the UK. I wonder where they'll pop up next?


That's the saddest part of the bullshit. The Kurds were murdered by Saddam YEARS before anyone thought to do anything about him. Nobody, especially nobody in the US government, gave a fiddler's fuck about the Kurds at the time they were being gassed, and they still don't care about them. Of all the lies cited by Bush apologists, I find this the most offensive.


Duelfer said his inspection team has uncovered bombs filled with blistering mustard gas or the nerve agent sarin.

"We're not sure how many more are out there that haven't been found, but we've found 10 or 12 sarin and mustard rounds," he said. "I'm reluctant to judge what that means at this point, but there's other aspects of the program which we still have to flush out."

In May, U.S. military officials found a bomb containing chemicals to form sarin gas and another with a mustard agent – weapons Saddam was required to destroy under U.S. sanctions and terms of the cease-fire from the 1990-91 Gulf war.

The Washington Times reports military officials have uncovered about 8,700 weapons depots and continue to find new ones. They estimate the weapons depots in Iraq contain between 650,000 and 1 million tons of arms, which are believed to be a source for anti-coalition forces.

Ah, yes.

14 small tactical munitions are alledged to have been found.

Thank God we moved when we did. Who knows what deadly plots these would have fuelled...

Not that we know that they were even capable of being fired or dropped, or in fact whether they contained anything other than trace amounts.

Have you any idea of the sort of death and destruction that the Coalition has inflicted upon the population of Iraq?

On the other hand, my government has come out and said that there are no WMDs. There haven't been for years and we will never find any.
Admittedly, you could fit the number of people who still believe the British Government into a phone booth but I am still willing to take their word over a US government report.

Thanks, I'll give it your number. :D


*butterflies*

Huh? Are you suggesting that European liberals agree with your warmongering bigotry and self-centered, self-serving attitudes, or with the neocon policies of continually fucking up and wasting money until the terrorists get scared of how stupid and incompetent we are and go home (which is what the neocons seem to be trying to do)?

Please, as of this post, even you don't know what you're talking about, obviously.

Some do, but if we were war mongers we'd be going after mexico and everyone else. However if I were in office i'd consider myself a war monger, but Bush? Not even close. Nothing wrong with self-serving, and we're not wasting money. We're doing quite fine as a nation. But heres where liberals are different, the liberals here are seperatists, theres flyers all around my neighborhood " JOIN THE FIGHT AND STOP CONSERVATIVE FASCISM" even if it were true, why would I trade one fascist government for another. The point is, liberals are no longer tolerating, believe in equality. They want their own fucking ideals they say fuck you to any ideal that counters theirs. I have friends who are liberals though but they're not as radical as them. I'm not a conservative though. I just don't really give a flying fuck, but the more we get attacked under liberal rule, then I will be voting like a fucking radical conservative.

Ah, yes.

14 small tactical munitions are alledged to have been found.

Thank God we moved when we did. Who knows what deadly plots these would have fuelled...

Not that we know that they were even capable of being fired or dropped, or in fact whether they contained anything other than trace amounts.

Have you any idea of the sort of death and destruction that the Coalition has inflicted upon the population of Iraq?

On the other hand, my government has come out and said that there are no WMDs. There haven't been for years and we will never find any.
Admittedly, you could fit the number of people who still believe the British Government into a phone booth but I am still willing to take their word over a US government report.

Yes I do know the death it has inflicted. And if people wanna die for their ideals, I LET THEM. I say go for it, that's why im pro-suicide, see I am not a conservative after all. Your government hasn't found any WMD's cause they DIDN'T FIND ANY, the U.S. did silly. The mustard gas is of course expired, but they did test the sarin and they are all still capable of being called a WMD. So just cause it's not a fucking H-bomb doesn't mean it's not a worthy cause. I don't think it's much either, but they said they might be able to find more and I say you fucking go for it. My life is very good, and I don't give a flying fuck who we invade. Sure theres death but those who die in wars give there deaths willingly.

The many reasons why we're in Iraq is never narrowed down.

1 WMD's = Found
2 Al-Qaeda = Found
3 And the genociding of kurds.


1 WMD's = Found

"The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that and accept it. " Tony Blair, 28th September 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3054991.stm

2 Al-Qaeda = Found

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," (referring to Iraq & Al Qaeda)

Donald Rumsfeld, October 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3715396.stm

"I have not seen one.... I have never seen any evidence to suggest there was one." Colin Powell on the allegation of Iraq/Al Qaeda link - interview, Sept 9th 2005 to "20/20"

3 And the genociding of kurds.

Happened during the 80s. When Saddam was not Persona non grata. And they knew about it and did nothing. Additionally, by way of a deal with Saddam, Kissinger stopped funding the Kurds in the mid-70's and had the Turks close the border to them, allowing Saddam to kill thousands in an offensive.

Anything else?

Duelfer said his inspection team has uncovered bombs filled with blistering mustard gas or the nerve agent sarin.

"We're not sure how many more are out there that haven't been found, but we've found 10 or 12 sarin and mustard rounds," he said. "I'm reluctant to judge what that means at this point, but there's other aspects of the program which we still have to flush out."

In May, U.S. military officials found a bomb containing chemicals to form sarin gas and another with a mustard agent – weapons Saddam was required to destroy under U.S. sanctions and terms of the cease-fire from the 1990-91 Gulf war.

The Washington Times reports military officials have uncovered about 8,700 weapons depots and continue to find new ones. They estimate the weapons depots in Iraq contain between 650,000 and 1 million tons of arms, which are believed to be a source for anti-coalition forces.
I realize it may be difficult, but you really do need to actually read the threads you join late. This usage of the Duelfer report has already been debunked several times over.

Also, what did I just finish saying about not wasting my time with smears and residues? I do not consider 12 rounds and a "Nobody knows" to be a legitimate excuse for launching a war of agression. Are these little piffles and spits all you can come up with? I swear, it's almost Freudian in its inadequacy.

Some do, but if we were war mongers we'd be going after mexico and everyone else. However if I were in office i'd consider myself a war monger, but Bush? Not even close. Nothing wrong with self-serving, and we're not wasting money. We're doing quite fine as a nation. But heres where liberals are different, the liberals here are seperatists, theres flyers all around my neighborhood " JOIN THE FIGHT AND STOP CONSERVATIVE FASCISM" even if it were true, why would I trade one fascist government for another. The point is, liberals are no longer tolerating, believe in equality. They want their own fucking ideals they say fuck you to any ideal that counters theirs. I have friends who are liberals though but they're not as radical as them. I'm not a conservative though. I just don't really give a flying fuck, but the more we get attacked under liberal rule, then I will be voting like a fucking radical conservative.
Did you always want to grow up to be an idiot? I invite you to drop this line of the argument because it is clearly impossible for you to say anything intelligent, and it has apparently become impossible for me to say anything polite to you about it.

Well, the way you described the right wing there is the exact description of those whom we are helping Iraq fight. If you think that you can reason with terrorists, negotiate, or pull out and have them suddenly become peaceful, you are living in the land of OZ. The only way to stop terrorism is to kill them. A good example is that since the "ceasefire" with Hezbollah last night, Hezbollah has captured 2 American Journalists and taken them Hostage. Shows how far ceasefires go with these bloodthirsty madmen.
Tired of USalpenstock taking it on the chin, so you thought you would dust off Barrygoldwater and bring him back into the fray? :p

Tired of USalpenstock taking it on the chin, so you thought you would dust off Barrygoldwater and bring him back into the fray? :p

I thought one of them was a sock puppet! :p

dust off Barrygoldwater
Someone oughtta dust him to see whose fingers have been inside.

I am on record as saying, frequently, that I see no difference between the extreme rightwingers/neocons in the US and terorrists like bin Laden. They are two peas in a pod as far as I'm concerned. Both extremes promote international war, both promote extremist and opressive ideologies, both hate the kind of tolerant and egalitarian society that I consider to be truly civilized. Both seek to take away my personal liberty, freedom of speech, association, travel, and religion. Both engage in violence, torture and other criminal acts to accomplish their aims, which all boil down to never-ending warfare, by the way. I consider both to be my enemies.
Wow, I go away for a few hours and a war breaks out. I couldn't have said it better myself. :)

They should take all of the extremists on both sides and throw them into an arena naked and unarmed and let them go at each other. It certainly would be interesting to see who would win. On one hand, you have the terrorists who are willing to die for their cause and on the other hand you have the chicken hawks who are willing to have others die for their cause. Interesting indeed!!

Well, the way you described the right wing there is the exact description of those whom we are helping Iraq fight. If you think that you can reason with terrorists, negotiate, or pull out and have them suddenly become peaceful, you are living in the land of OZ. The only way to stop terrorism is to kill them. A good example is that since the "ceasefire" with Hezbollah last night, Hezbollah has captured 2 American Journalists and taken them Hostage. Shows how far ceasefires go with these bloodthirsty madmen.
I would suggest that "bloodthirsty madmen" are on both sides of the equation.

Speaking of the "land of OZ", why did the US invade Iraq when 15 of the 19 terrorists that crashed airplanes into the WTC were from Saudi Arabia. Where did the vast majority of their funding come from?

SCHUMER: US MUST SHOW 9/11 FAMILIES THE BLUEPRINTS OF SAUDI SUPPORT FOR AL QAEDA (http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01566.html)

With hundreds of pages of new documents linking some of Saudi Arabia's most influential families to Osama bin-Laden in the possession of the Justice Department, US Senator Charles E. Schumer today urged the federal government to release all of the information it has on Saudi financiers and charities who have been tied to Al Qaeda.

"In America, we honor our country's founding fathers. But in Saudi Arabia, they honor Al Qaeda's 'funding' fathers," Schumer said.
Your war on Iraq is nothing more than a war of convenience that blew up in your face. Unfortunately 2,600 US troops and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have had to pay the ultimate price for your folly. The ironic part is that Iraq is now wide open and crawling with terrorists and insurgents, and the more you kill, the more terrorists you create.

Someone oughtta dust him to see whose fingers have been inside.
Well, at least he hasn't quoted himself in this debate, yet. :D

Liberals here in San Francisco, believe we should have our police force fight our wars instead of a military. That's how stupid we are here for electing someone who believes that.
It is interesting that you raise this point. I offer the following, that I came about as I browsed news sources and thought it was an amusing counterpoint (http://www.counterpunch.org/ridgeway01032006.html) to your claim:

Donald Rumsfeld told the 9/11 Commission that defense against attacks on American soil was not the responsibility of the Defense Department, but a "law enforcement issue".

1 WMD's = Found

"The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that and accept it. " Tony Blair, 28th September 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3054991.stm

2 Al-Qaeda = Found

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," (referring to Iraq & Al Qaeda)

Donald Rumsfeld, October 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3715396.stm

"I have not seen one.... I have never seen any evidence to suggest there was one." Colin Powell on the allegation of Iraq/Al Qaeda link - interview, Sept 9th 2005 to "20/20"

3 And the genociding of kurds.

Happened during the 80s. When Saddam was not Persona non grata. And they knew about it and did nothing. Additionally, by way of a deal with Saddam, Kissinger stopped funding the Kurds in the mid-70's and had the Turks close the border to them, allowing Saddam to kill thousands in an offensive.

Anything else?


Yes, your mistakes, Tony Blair said that in 2004, this was June 21rst 2006, and the sarin was still considered a WMD, therefor WMD's have been found.

I NEVER said there were any links with Al-Qaeda and Saddam, I only said there was an Al-Qaeda influence in Iraq.

And during Saddam's many people were testifying against Saddam was still was killing kurds through the 90's.

In your fucking face, i'm not an idiot, I skipped 2 grades, and still am getting all A's through highschool and im graduating this coming spring on my junior and have already been accepted to USC mother FUCKER.

Yes, your mistakes, Tony Blair said that in 2004, this was June 21rst 2006, and the sarin was still considered a WMD, therefor WMD's have been found.

I NEVER said there were any links with Al-Qaeda and Saddam, I only said there was an Al-Qaeda influence in Iraq.

And during Saddam's many people were testifying against Saddam was still was killing kurds through the 90's.

In your fucking face, i'm not an idiot, I skipped 2 grades, and still am getting all A's through highschool and im graduating this coming spring on my junior and have already been accepted to USC mother FUCKER.

I weep for your country.

It is interesting that you raise this point. I offer the following, that I came about as I browsed news sources and thought it was an amusing counterpoint (http://www.counterpunch.org/ridgeway01032006.html) to your claim:

Haha wow, interesting quote by Donald Rumsfeld, but I think he was referring to the homeland war against terrorism, meaning he wanted the law enforcement to take care of this instead of the FBI or the military. But it's different of what Gerardo Sandoval said, about how there should be NO military, and if we ever got INVADED it should be the police who shall fight the wars.

This was from SFgate.com

Even Hannity's liberal co-host Alan Colmes was aghast at Sandoval's bizarre proclamation and made sure to distance himself and (in his words) the Democratic Party from such fringe politics. Indeed, if there was anything Sandoval succeeded in doing with his appearance on Fox News, it was in exposing further how utterly out of touch San Francisco politics are with the rest of the country.

Had the Iowa ended up in San Francisco, officials would have turned it into a floating tribute to their favorite pet projects. Both a "peace display" and a tribute to "gay service members" were to be part of the Iowa experience in San Francisco. In any case, it's unlikely that the Board of Supervisors will change their minds, and the Iowa would be better off in a city that honors its military, rather than condemning it. Stockton officials have expressed their desire to see the Iowa docked in their city's port, and for this alone they deserve it.

I weep for your country.

Thank you for your malicious grief.

Thank you for your malicious grief.

Knock it off. Also, please stop cussing. It does nothing for your point and in fact, you lose the debate automatically when you curse.

Yes, your mistakes, Tony Blair said that in 2004, this was June 21rst 2006, and the sarin was still considered a WMD, therefor WMD's have been found.
Oh, that's rich.
I NEVER said there were any links with Al-Qaeda and Saddam, I only said there was an Al-Qaeda influence in Iraq.
Kinda like only saying there's an Aryan Nation influence in America. It is to laugh.
And during Saddam's many people were testifying against Saddam was still was killing kurds through the 90's.
This oddity calls the next bit into question, IMO:
In your fucking face, i'm not an idiot, I skipped 2 grades, and still am getting all A's through highschool and im graduating this coming spring on my junior and have already been accepted to USC mother FUCKER.
It must be tough being a big fish in a little pond.

Yes, your mistakes, Tony Blair said that in 2004, this was June 21rst 2006, and the sarin was still considered a WMD, therefor WMD's have been found.

I NEVER said there were any links with Al-Qaeda and Saddam, I only said there was an Al-Qaeda influence in Iraq.

And during Saddam's many people were testifying against Saddam was still was killing kurds through the 90's.

In your fucking face, i'm not an idiot, I skipped 2 grades, and still am getting all A's through highschool and im graduating this coming spring on my junior and have already been accepted to USC mother FUCKER.
After reading the above, I found another comment that you made in another thread. Perhaps you should heed your own words?

Part of being civilized is being respectful, tolerant, and above all us being considerate.
Indeed.

Wow, I go away for a few hours and a war breaks out. I couldn't have said it better myself. :)

They should take all of the extremists on both sides and throw them into an arena naked and unarmed and let them go at each other. It certainly would be interesting to see who would win. On one hand, you have the terrorists who are willing to die for their cause and on the other hand you have the chicken hawks who are willing to have others die for their cause. Interesting indeed!!
I'd buy that ticket, but not the first row. ;)

Saddam Hussein had trained 8,000 terrorists within the confines of Iraq, funded terrorism, denied the UN inspectors full ability to inspect, broken UN resolutions, created illegal WMD's and illegal armaments, broken the 1991 ceasefire agreement, and committed multiple human rights atrocities. Amazing how many people would have rather seen George W. Bush removed from power than SADDAM F*ING HUSSEIN.

Saddam Hussein had trained 8,000 terrorists within the confines of Iraq, funded terrorism, denied the UN inspectors full ability to inspect, broken UN resolutions, created illegal WMD's and illegal armaments, broken the 1991 ceasefire agreement, and committed multiple human rights atrocities. Amazing how many people would have rather seen George W. Bush removed from power than SADDAM F*ING HUSSEIN.
That's because George W. Bush poses a direct threat to the US, whereas Saddam Hussein did not.

That's because George W. Bush poses a direct threat to the US, whereas Saddam Hussein did not.

George W. Bush is the commander in chief of the most powerful force for good in the World...the American military.

Saddam Hussein brutalized his people, threatened our allies Kuwait and Israel, attacked American soldiers in violation of ceasefire, broke numerous UN resolutions, and built WMD's and long range missiles in breach of treaties. Never mind the fact that he trained 8,000 terrorists and offered other terror groups money to attack us and our friends. Hussein also cheered on 911.

Hussein also cheered on 911.

That sells the whole argument pretty neatly and succinctly.

What other nation officially cheered on 911?

What other nation officially cheered on 911?

Just nearly every Muslim nation on this planet is all. Didn't you watch the news?

Saddam Hussein had trained 8,000 terrorists within the confines of Iraq, funded terrorism, denied the UN inspectors full ability to inspect, broken UN resolutions, created illegal WMD's and illegal armaments, broken the 1991 ceasefire agreement, and committed multiple human rights atrocities. Amazing how many people would have rather seen George W. Bush removed from power than SADDAM F*ING HUSSEIN.
And your government loved him!! They gave him WMD, they helped him against the Iranians, and supplied intelligence. When he was killing Iranians, he was your hero. You need to brush up on the UN inspections story though.....they didn't find those WMD that Bush said he had, and when they weren't finding any, the US decided to invade before it lost the window of opportunity.

Iraq had no air force, their army was decimated, no WMD.....the perfect prey for the US to invade. You can use all the sound bytes ya like, the facts and the deck are stacked against you.

Just nearly every Muslim nation on this planet is all. Didn't you watch the news?

Nope, the Kuwaites, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Saudis, hell even the Iranians, did not officially celebrate.....Iraq did.

And your government loved him!! They gave him WMD, they helped him against the Iranians, and supplied intelligence. When he was killing Iranians, he was your hero. You need to brush up on the UN inspections story though.....they didn't find those WMD that Bush said he had, and when they weren't finding any, the US decided to invade before it lost the window of opportunity.

Iraq had no air force, their army was decimated, no WMD.....the perfect prey for the US to invade. You can use all the sound bytes ya like, the facts and the deck are stacked against you.

I agree with everything you wrote and the invasion was still more than justified under the evidence that my government provided that was proven accurate. He had illegal weapons. He mislead the inspectors. He broke UN resolutions. He broke the gulf war I ceasefire. He trained terrorists. He threatened Israel. Now we have a new democracy with high participation and a people who want peace. Their entire success is being harmed by Islamic fascist terrorists. And I guess you want us to piss ourselves and run home from the fight? You can bet they will follow us.

What other nation officially cheered on 911?
Supply some proof for that the nation "officially cheered". You are grasping at straws.

I agree with everything you wrote and the invasion was still more than justified under the evidence that my government provided that was proven accurate. He had illegal weapons. He mislead the inspectors. He broke UN resolutions. He broke the gulf war I ceasefire. He trained terrorists. He threatened Israel. Now we have a new democracy with high participation and a people who want peace. Their entire success is being harmed by Islamic fascist terrorists. And I guess you want us to piss ourselves and run home from the fight? You can bet they will follow us.
You don't get it do you? The Iraqis hate you now, more than ever. The war on terrorism is being lost, especially in Iraq. US policies have screwed Iraq for the past 20 odd years, and you expect them to love you?

The longer you stay in Iraq, the worse it will get. The anger and hatred will build.

From one of your soldiers (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/statement/2005/0808iraqvet.htm):

In closing, I ask that we never forget why this war started. The Bush administration cried weapons of mass destruction and a link to al-Qaeda We know that this was false, and the Bush administration concedes it as well. As a soldier who fought in that war, I feel misled. I feel that I was sent off to fight for a cause that never existed. When I joined the military, I did so to defend the United States of America, not to be sent off to a part of the world to fight people who never attacked me or my country. Many have died as a result of this. The people who started this war need to start being honest with the American people and take responsibility for their actions. More than anything, they need to stop saying everything is rosy and create a solution to this problem they created.

Thank you for hearing me out. God bless our great nation, the United States of America.

Supply some proof for that the nation "officially cheered". You are grasping at straws.
http://husseinandterror.com/

hope it is enlightening.

You don't get it do you? The Iraqis hate you now, more than ever. The war on terrorism is being lost, especially in Iraq. US policies have screwed Iraq for the past 20 odd years, and you expect them to love you?

The longer you stay in Iraq, the worse it will get. The anger and hatred will build.

hmmm, they have a funny way of showing it...being that we are offical allies of Iraq, 70% of them voted and elected a moderate government, no attack on America has happened since 911, in only 3 years we have done in Iraq would it took us 14 years to do for ourselves with the lowest casualties per day of any American war in more than 150 years, and Iraq has screwed itself for years. Now we have changed their regime and they are allies that we must defend from Islamic Fascists....this is not very complicated..

I must leave. May God bless America.

You don't get it do you? The Iraqis hate you now, more than ever.

Now THAT quote from one of our "soldiers" was pointless. I could post a hundred just like it saying the exact opposite of that statement. At least.

Admit it. You hate America more than the Iraqis ever will. Your posts prove it.

Gaaagh.

http://husseinandterror.com/

hope it is enlightening.
Just some more right wing hackery. :p

Suspicion and conjecture do not equal fact. The article is loaded with it, and proves nothing, especially the part about Salman Pak, which was debunked by the 9/11 Commission.

You die hards will go to any length to prove that white is black. However, I do realize that desperate people will do desperate things to conceal the truth.

Lies and deception......keep them coming.

Now THAT quote from one of our "soldiers" was pointless. I could post a hundred just like it saying the exact opposite of that statement. At least.

Admit it. You hate America more than the Iraqis ever will. Your posts prove it.

Gaaagh.
I don't hate America. You do.

You cannot or refuse to see the harm that is being done to America by the current administration? Iraq was a pretense. Iran is next on the list. Americans are dying in Iraq, and they will probably die in Iran. The war on terror is lost. Terrorism has increased not decreased. Iraq a threat to the US? You must be joking.

Did you bother to listen to the speech by Ritter, or read the transcript at the beginning of this thread? If you love your country as much as you say you do, then do something to help her.

Yes, your mistakes, Tony Blair said that in 2004, this was June 21rst 2006, and the sarin was still considered a WMD, therefor WMD's have been found.

I NEVER said there were any links with Al-Qaeda and Saddam, I only said there was an Al-Qaeda influence in Iraq.

And during Saddam's many people were testifying against Saddam was still was killing kurds through the 90's.

In your fucking face, i'm not an idiot, I skipped 2 grades, and still am getting all A's through highschool and im graduating this coming spring on my junior and have already been accepted to USC mother FUCKER.

Temper temper, my acne clad compadre.

The fact is that whatever WMD exist in your imagination don't exist in the real world, and thats where it matters. Blairs leadership has been badly winged by that fact. Secondly there was no Al Qaeda "influence" on Saddams regime - anyone professing such allegiance outside it would have found themselves taking a one way trip to the desert. Thirdly, yes he did still occassionally bash the Kurds, but as its a practice that previously was deemed not sufficient for an invasion, let alone a protest, and was reduced to a scale similar to that of Turkeys Kurd bashing, its still not grounds for an invasion.

hmmm, they have a funny way of showing it...being that we are offical allies of Iraq, 70% of them voted and elected a moderate government, no attack on America has happened since 911, in only 3 years we have done in Iraq would it took us 14 years to do for ourselves with the lowest casualties per day of any American war in more than 150 years, and Iraq has screwed itself for years. Now we have changed their regime and they are allies that we must defend from Islamic Fascists....this is not very complicated..

No attacks on American soil since 911! Wow, that must be a huge victory, considering the daily attacks before 911...:rolleyes:

The Iraqi Shi'ites had it bad under Saddam, it was a great achievement to worsen the living conditions even further...

Before the war the risks for civil war were there. Now that sectarian violence is upon us, there is nothing that can be done, the Iraqi people are screwed indeed... :(

Before the war the risks for civil war were there. Now that sectarian violence is upon us, there is nothing that can be done, the Iraqi people are screwed indeed... :(

And yet, the Sunnis are in agreement with the Shi'ites and Kurds on replacing the parlimentary speaker who is a sunni. Odd news is, we had nothing to do with it. They are doing this all on their own. A big step in Democracy.

And yet, the Sunnis are in agreement with the Shi'ites and Kurds on replacing the parlimentary speaker who is a sunni. Odd news is, we had nothing to do with it. They are doing this all on their own. A big step in Democracy.

It is indeed a small group of Iraqi's that is plunging the country into civil war; the problem is that this was one of the main risks of removing Saddam...

US troops have failed in containing these small groups of "insurgents"

I must leave. May God bless America.
Almost.

"America must leave. May God bless us all - even Barry Goldwater."

There you go. Better.

It is indeed a small group of Iraqi's that is plunging the country into civil war; the problem is that this was one of the main risks of removing Saddam...

US troops have failed in containing these small groups of "insurgents"

There are still a small number of insurgents but those are not the ones risking Civil War. It is the terrorists that want a civil war.

There are still a small number of insurgents but those are not the ones risking Civil War. It is the terrorists that want a civil war.

Whoever they are the sad point is that they have been quite successful....

It are no longer the terrorists that do the killing; it is likely that militia's have become involved...

Whoever they are the sad point is that they have been quite successful....

It are no longer the terrorists that do the killing; it is likely that militia's have become involved...

Muqtata al Sadr should have been taken care of when all of this started.

Muqtata al Sadr should have been taken care of when all of this started.

That would probably have backfired. For, he is merely a figurehead of a group that is part of the Iraqi political landscape. He has become the figurehead of young Shi'i males, willing to defend thier group against harm by violent means.

The only thing that could have been done is to reduce attacks on Shi'i and Sunni populations by those willing to destabilise the country. Which in turn are probably Sunni's that have lost their powerbase and jobs...

It was a big mistake to send all Iraqi soldiers home in a militarized economy. Or to put all bath members out of a job. Faluja did not help either.

Now it is probably beyond the means of the US army to stop this civil war

The press only had about a 5 minute dedication about the findings of the sarin and mustard gas warheads was fox news and CNN, but on the O'Reilly factor dedicated a 20 minute segment to the findings of the WMD's. The mustard gas had expired though but they tested the sarin two weeks later and it was still in tact and considered a WMD. But still they don't want to consider it a big find of WMD's. While they showed that Iraq's pre-war declarations to the United Nations were wrong, Duelfer said he could not say Iraq had hidden a "militarily significant" stockpile of chemical weapons.Nevertheless, he expressed concern that anti-coalition insurgents such as Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, were trying to tap into the expertise of former Iraqi weapons scientists.

I think we should get Harry Potter help us fight the terrorists.

That would probably have backfired. For, he is merely a figurehead of a group that is part of the Iraqi political landscape. He has become the figurehead of young Shi'i males, willing to defend thier group against harm by violent means.

The only thing that could have been done is to reduce attacks on Shi'i and Sunni populations by those willing to destabilise the country. Which in turn are probably Sunni's that have lost their powerbase and jobs...

It was a big mistake to send all Iraqi soldiers home in a militarized economy. Or to put all bath members out of a job. Faluja did not help either.

Now it is probably beyond the means of the US army to stop this civil war

First of all it's Shiite, and the U.S. isn't alone in Iraq. It has the U.K., Australia, Poland, South Korea, Romania,Georgia, Fiji, Denmark, El Salvador, Azerbaijan, Albania, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, and Italy by it's side. And the minor involvement of countries with fewer than 100 soldiers is Czech Republic, Slovakia, Armenia, Bosnia, Estonia, Macedonia, and Kazakhstan. Not only that but theres the new iraqi army and the kurdish forces.

I think we should get Harry Potter help us fight the terrorists.
He's too busy fucking hermione, how bout frodo?

He's too busy fucking hermione, how bout frodo?

That's so stupid. Everyone knows Ron likes Hermione! Duh!

Really? That doesn't seemed to have worked terribly well historically. Hamas, Hizbollah, the Tamil Tigers, the Viet Cong, the Maquis...

Yet it would appear that being mature about the situation has worked historically. e.g. the IRA and ETA.


In EVERY example you give (with the exception of the Maquis), pacifists did not allow a victory. They insisted on "negotiations". Those negotiations allowed those entitities you list to survive to kill more innocents and soldiers alike. The Maquis is a different situation as they were not the aggressors and/or did not want the war to begin with.

In the case of ETA - I hardly think a couple of months of cease-fire constitutes a permanent success - how many short term cease fires have we had in the middle-east????

If you think the IRA capitualated solely because of negotiations, you are sadly mistaken. They were DEFEATED with military and police actions and the negotiations were just about the only way they could remain viable. Northern Ireland is still not the best place to be a loyalist.



Also in the current situation you have a foe who believes it is their holy obligation to kill ALL who do not believe as they do, and it is a guaranteed path to heaven if they die in that pursuit.

That would probably have backfired. For, he is merely a figurehead of a group that is part of the Iraqi political landscape. He has become the figurehead of young Shi'i males, willing to defend thier group against harm by violent means.
Muqtada al Sadr is arguably the 2nd most favourite after Sistani.

The only thing that could have been done is to reduce attacks on Shi'i and Sunni populations by those willing to destabilise the country. Which in turn are probably Sunni's that have lost their powerbase and jobs...

It was a big mistake to send all Iraqi soldiers home in a militarized economy. Or to put all bath members out of a job. Faluja did not help either.
The US has made a number of mistakes in Iraq and this appears to be a biggie.

Now it is probably beyond the means of the US army to stop this civil war
I tend to agree with you.

1 WMD's = Found

"The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that and accept it. " Tony Blair, 28th September 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3054991.stm

2 Al-Qaeda = Found

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," (referring to Iraq & Al Qaeda)

Donald Rumsfeld, October 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3715396.stm

"I have not seen one.... I have never seen any evidence to suggest there was one." Colin Powell on the allegation of Iraq/Al Qaeda link - interview, Sept 9th 2005 to "20/20"

3 And the genociding of kurds.

Happened during the 80s. When Saddam was not Persona non grata. And they knew about it and did nothing. Additionally, by way of a deal with Saddam, Kissinger stopped funding the Kurds in the mid-70's and had the Turks close the border to them, allowing Saddam to kill thousands in an offensive.

Anything else?



Yeah, how about taking your quotes IN CONTEXT?!!!

First of all it's Shiite.

Apparantly your arab is better than mine; I have studied it for three years now and yes I am still a novice, how about you?

See, this is why I don't post on NS very often anymore, the delusions of others! Haha.

How can one expect to have a reasonable debate about Iraq when they are STILL under some type of delusion that Saddam and or Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11?

Oh sure Saddam may have been a bastard, no argument. But what he didn't have was WMD, nor was he much of a threat to anyone anymore.

No, the ball was dropped. "The War on Terror", or at least the people who attacked America on 9/11 were in Afghanistan and to a large degree Pakistan. But what does the American government do? All but leaves Afghanistan to NATO to fight, largely the British & Canadians fighting a war that was not theirs for the Americans.. (Well at least not Canada's) so they can play "Lets turn the Middle East into a democracy by force" Nice idea, bad foreign policy. And also delusional.

Saddam was not Bin Laden... and the sooner people come to accept that, then and only then can the level of the discussion about the Iraq war be brought up to an intelligent level.

In the meantime, so many living on talking points. It's sad really. Ah well!

See, this is why I don't post on NS very often anymore, the delusions of others! Haha.

How can one expect to have a reasonable debate about Iraq when they are STILL under some type of delusion that Saddam and or Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11?

Oh sure Saddam may have been a bastard, no argument. But what he didn't have was WMD, nor was he much of a threat to anyone anymore.

No, the ball was dropped. "The War on Terror", or at least the people who attacked America on 9/11 were in Afghanistan and to a large degree Pakistan. But what does the American government do? All but leaves Afghanistan to NATO to fight, largely the British & Canadians fighting a war that was not theirs for the Americans.. (Well at least not Canada's) so they can play "Lets turn the Middle East into a democracy by force" Nice idea, bad foreign policy. And also delusional.

Saddam was not Bin Laden... and the sooner people come to accept that, then and only then can the level of the discussion about the Iraq war be brought up to an intelligent level.

In the meantime, so many living on talking points. It's sad really. Ah well!

Right, ;)

Let us accept that many bad things have happened... (Forgive me for the understatement) What can be done to from the point of damage control...

How to stop a budding civil war...

Please people, do not say an attack of Iran because that will make things that much worse, and those arguing this are not to be taken seriously..

This is all really boring...its like watching the clothes in a dryer going ..around ..and ..around ...and around ...and around ..:p

This is all really boring...its like watching the clothes in a dryer going ..around ..and ..around ...and around ...and around ..:p

That was kind of the point I too was trying to make.

How to stop a budding civil war...

I believe at this point that there is probably not much that can be done to stop what is basically already happening. Such is the problem when you invade a country with no plan for the day after the heavy bombing stops. As was the case with Iraq.

The whole bullshit that was coming out of Cheney's mouth that America would be greeted as liberators not only shows how little Cheney knew about Iraq, but also how naive and incompetent he really was (Bush and co. included) about the culture of the middle east.

Of course there is always another explanation.. they knew damn well how it would turn out and that is what they wanted, but of course would of never been able to sell that to the American people.

It has to be one or the other.

I believe at this point that there is probably not much that can be done to stop what is basically already happening. Such is the problem when you invade a country with no plan for the day after the heavy bombing stops. As was the case with Iraq.

The whole bullshit that was coming out of Cheney's mouth that America would be greeted as liberators not only shows how little Cheney knew about Iraq, but also how naive and incompetent he really was (Bush and co. included) about the culture of the middle east.

Of course there is always another explanation.. they knew damn well how it would turn out and that is what they wanted, but of course would of never been able to sell that to the American people.

It has to be one or the other.

*sigh*

I hope to find some sanity...

For the last 50 years, so many interventions in the Middle East have hit the US in the face a few decades later...

When will this hit the US in the face I wonder...

This is all really boring...its like watching the clothes in a dryer going ..around ..and ..around ...and around ...and around ..:p
I thought you were more partial to the spin cycle? :p

Also in the current situation you have a foe who believes it is their holy obligation to kill ALL who do not believe as they do,
Now, if you remove the word "you" from your statement above, and add the word "Muslims", then essentially the two statements are equivalent?

George W. Bush is the commander in chief of the most powerful force for good in the World...the American military.
"The most powerful force for good in the World"? The US did not invent pudding, you know. Please don't waste our time; the adults are trying to have a discussion here.

Saddam Hussein brutalized his people, threatened our allies Kuwait and Israel, attacked American soldiers in violation of ceasefire, broke numerous UN resolutions, and built WMD's and long range missiles in breach of treaties. Never mind the fact that he trained 8,000 terrorists and offered other terror groups money to attack us and our friends.
All -- or at least most; which 8000 are you talking about? -- was true but none of which seemed to matter when he was on the CIA's payroll.

Hussein also cheered on 911.
And that justifies the killing of thousands of US soldiers and 10s of thousands of Iraqi citizens how?

"The most powerful force for good in the World"? The US did not invent pudding, you know. Please don't waste our time; the adults are trying to have a discussion here.


All -- or at least most; which 8000 are you talking about? -- was true but none of which seemed to matter when he was on the CIA's payroll.


And that justifies the killing of thousands of US soldiers and 10s of thousands of Iraqi citizens how?

What other nation has liberated 40 million people in the past 5 years? Your insults make you look foolish.

http://husseinandterror.com/

read it.
Iraq has been a low casualty war. Compare it to some others.

Muqtata al Sadr should have been taken care of when all of this started.
This comment encapsulates the whole problem with this "get the bad guys" attitude that the American rightwingers love so much.

Terrorism is a tactic backed up by a nihilistic attitude. You can't kill either a tactic or an attitude by killing this or that person. I would be just as happy if every one of the current terrorist leaders and extremist demogogues turned up dead tomorrow, but if you think that killing them is going to stem the tide of terrorism, then you are a fool. And a dangerous one, at that.

If you are so sure that killing the "leaders" will solve the problem of terrorism, then name the leaders. How many are there? Who do we have to kill to end this violence, eh? There is no answer to that because this "get 'em" attitude is not connected to reality. It is a childish fairy tale.

This comment encapsulates the whole problem with this "get the bad guys" attitude that the American rightwingers love so much.

Terrorism is a tactic backed up by a nihilistic attitude. You can't kill either a tactic or an attitude by killing this or that person. I would be just as happy if every one of the current terrorist leaders and extremist demogogues turned up dead tomorrow, but if you think that killing them is going to stem the tide of terrorism, then you are a fool. And a dangerous one, at that.

If you are so sure that killing the "leaders" will solve the problem of terrorism, then name the leaders. How many are there? Who do we have to kill to end this violence, eh? There is no answer to that because this "get 'em" attitude is not connected to reality. It is a childish fairy tale.

We are not fighting terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic. To say that we are fighting terrorism is to say that is WWII we fought the blitz, or in WWI we fought trenches. Today, we are in a war to help Iraq defend itself from Islamic fascist extremists.

This comment encapsulates the whole problem with this "get the bad guys" attitude that the American rightwingers love so much.

Are you calling me an American Rightwinger when you know nothing about me?

Terrorism is a tactic backed up by a nihilistic attitude. You can't kill either a tactic or an attitude by killing this or that person.

You are indeed correct.

I would be just as happy if every one of the current terrorist leaders and extremist demogogues turned up dead tomorrow, but if you think that killing them is going to stem the tide of terrorism, then you are a fool. And a dangerous one, at that.

I do not feel that way at all. I know it won't end terrorism at all.

If you are so sure that killing the "leaders" will solve the problem of terrorism, then name the leaders. How many are there? Who do we have to kill to end this violence, eh? There is no answer to that because this "get 'em" attitude is not connected to reality. It is a childish fairy tale.

Agreed.

www.husseinandterror.com

What other nation has liberated 40 million people in the past 5 years? Your insults make you look foolish.
Which 40 million are you talking about? The Iraqis? You'd better be ready to adjust that number, since our "liberation" is allowing about 100 of them to be killed each day. As for the general nature of our nation, I'm sure the Native Americans feel their lives have been immensely improved by American goodness. And don't forget such cozy episodes as slavery, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, the Red Scare and its blacklist, the bombing of Cambodia, United Fruit, the KKK, segregation, etc, etc, etc. Remarks like "the greatest force for good in the world" are so nonsensical, it is insulting of you to bring them into discussions of real events.

http://husseinandterror.com/

read it.
I already looked at it and considered it not worth remarking on. It is no more meaningful or informative than the President of Iran's blog.

Iraq has been a low casualty war. Compare it to some others.
Point?

We are not fighting terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic. To say that we are fighting terrorism is to say that is WWII we fought the blitz, or in WWI we fought trenches. Today, we are in a war to help Iraq defend itself from Islamic fascist extremists.
B.u.l.l.s.h.i.t.

That spells bullshit.

Which 40 million are you talking about? The Iraqis? You'd better be ready to adjust that number, since our "liberation" is allowing about 100 of them to be killed each day. As for the general nature of our nation, I'm sure the Native Americans feel their lives have been immensely improved by American goodness. And don't forget such cozy episodes as slavery, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, the Red Scare and its blacklist, the bombing of Cambodia, United Fruit, the KKK, segregation, etc, etc, etc. Remarks like "the greatest force for good in the world" are so nonsensical, it is insulting of you to bring them into discussions of real events.


I already looked at it and considered it not worth remarking on. It is no more meaningful or informative than the President of Iran's blog.


Point?

Iraq and Afganistan. Your anti-american psuedo history rant is not relavent. You ignored our record of liberating others and never taking land for ourselves that was not inhabited by another nation. Really, no comments on the fact that a Clinton appointed federal judge ruled in court that Hussein was a major player in 911? Didnt think you had anything to say.

B.u.l.l.s.h.i.t.

That spells bullshit.

You have no argument so you use a curseword. How lame.

Are you calling me an American Rightwinger when you know nothing about me?
I was attacking an attitude that informs the policies and statements of American rightwingers. If you are not one, then you were using their rhetoric. Sorry to be the one to tell you that.

You are indeed correct.
Yes, I know. ;)

I do not feel that way at all. I know it won't end terrorism at all.
Then there is no point to "taking care" of al Sadr, either by killing him or imprisoning him or otherwise focusing on him personally. It will not make any difference to the problem. Indeed, it might make the problem worse. Therefore, to say he should have been "taken care of" from the start is pointless. al Sadr, as an individual mouthpiece, is not important. What is important is to avoid giving him legitimate targets for his venom. That means we have to be more concerned with what we do than with what he does.

Agreed.
I'm glad.

Maybe if we leave Iraq now the terrorists will go lead peaceful lives and stop trying to influence Iraq. Also, Iran will not be emboldened. Good grief, the cut and run crowd thinks in a crazy way.

Iraq and Afganistan. Your anti-american psuedo history rant is not relavent. You ignored our record of liberating others and never taking land for ourselves that was not inhabited by another nation. Really, no comments on the fact that a Clinton appointed federal judge ruled in court that Hussein was a major player in 911? Didnt think you had anything to say.
What the hell are you talking about? No, don't answer, because it won't mean any more than anything else you say. I suppose some people might worry that you are delusional, but I don't think so. I think you're just a liar. You know perfectly well that Iraq and Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. You know perfectly well that there were no WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq did not pose a threat to the US. And you know perfectly well that all the excuses for starting this war that you've posted in this thread are false. The ones floated by Bush, Cheney, et all are false, and the ones you made up by yourself are false too -- like that "liberating" BS. I think that you know you are saying lies, and you are doing it deliberately because that's the kind of extremist true believer you are -- happy to lie for your cause. And when you are called on your lies, you squirm and throw out barrages of more lies, and claims that other people have also said these lies as if that means anything. But they are still lies, and you are still a liar.

And, to be entirely frank, a slightly silly one at that.

Sorry, but.

Maybe if we leave Iraq now the terrorists will go lead peaceful lives and stop trying to influence Iraq. Also, Iran will not be emboldened. Good grief, the cut and run crowd thinks in a crazy way.
Kindly quote any post in this thread that says the US should leave Iraq now.

You have no argument so you use a curseword. How lame.
Oh, I'm sorry, I should have realized that, since you can't speak the plain truth, then plain speech might upset you.

That's all the answer your bullshit deserved, BG, but if you want more, see my other post.

I think you're just a liar. You know perfectly well that Iraq and Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. You know perfectly well that there were no WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq did not pose a threat to the US. And you know perfectly well that all the excuses for starting this war that you've posted in this thread are false. The ones floated by Bush, Cheney, et all are false, and the ones you made up by yourself are false too -- like that "liberating" BS. I think that you know you are saying lies, and you are doing it deliberately because that's the kind of extremist true believer you are -- happy to lie for your cause. And when you are called on your lies, you squirm and throw out barrages of more lies, and claims that other people have also said these lies as if that means anything. But they are still lies, and you are still a liar.

And, to be entirely frank, a slightly silly one at that.

Sorry, but.

Now you accuse me of lying. To lie you must believe one thing and say another. I agree with the Clinton appointed federal judge....
husseinandterror.com
and it is proven fact that Saddam had illegal weapons
he had broken the ceasefire
he had broken UN resolutions
he had financed terror
and now we have put a government in place in Iraq that is an allie of the US
the Iraqi people get to vote
we have suffered low casualties
we are fighting the same people that attacked us on 911.
and all you can do is shout LIAR! LIAR! like the rest of the loony left. This has somthing to do with why the last Democrat to crack 50% of the national vote was 30 years ago. :)

Kindly quote any post in this thread that says the US should leave Iraq now.

I never said anybody on this forum said that.

Oh, I'm sorry, I should have realized that, since you can't speak the plain truth, then plain speech might upset you.

That's all the answer your bullshit deserved, BG, but if you want more, see my other post.

More petty insults from the lefty. Typical.

What other nation has liberated 40 million people in the past 5 years? Your insults make you look foolish.

http://husseinandterror.com/

read it.
Iraq has been a low casualty war. Compare it to some others.
You or your puppet alpen dragged that web site out earlier and it is to laugh.

I will try to find my reply to the last time you used it.

You or your puppet alpen dragged that web site out earlier and it is to laugh.

I will try to find my reply to the last time you used it.

Probably a petty insult and no response to the actual information contained on the site. I can't wait.

Iraq and Afganistan. Your anti-american psuedo history rant is not relavent. You ignored our record of liberating others and never taking land for ourselves that was not inhabited by another nation. Really, no comments on the fact that a Clinton appointed federal judge ruled in court that Hussein was a major player in 911? Didnt think you had anything to say.
All you have given Iraq is about 100,000 dead people and a civil war, and a government based on Islamic laws. Well done!!

Really, no comments on the fact that a Clinton appointed federal judge ruled in court that Hussein was a major player in 911? Didnt think you had anything to say.
Read it and read it again. Read it as many times as you like and you will miss the reason that the judge found Saddam guilty. Your spin tactics are atrocious.

All you have given Iraq is about 100,000 dead people and a civil war, and a government based on Islamic laws. Well done!!

Guess you can't find that response you were looking for.

10 Million voted. 100,000 are dead. Would you die to give 100 people liberty and break their bonds of oppression?

There is no civil war.
You were expecting a government based on Judiasm?

Read it and read it again. Read it as many times as you like and you will miss the reason that the judge found Saddam guilty. Your spin tactics are atrocious.

I live in a no spin zone.

Probably a petty insult and no response to the actual information contained on the site. I can't wait.
I did reply to the disinformation on the site....."it is to laugh". Read not credible.

I did reply to the disinformation on the site....."it is to laugh". Read not credible.

So you did a petty insult and did not respond to anything within in in any way. Just as I said. I am shocked.

I live in a no spin zone.
And the verdict is.....

In his ruling, Baer concluded that lawyers for the two victims "have shown, albeit barely ... that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida" and collaborated in or supported al-Qaida's Sept. 11 attacks.

Baer said lawyers relied heavily on "classically hearsay" evidence, including reports that a Sept. 11 hijacker met an Iraqi consul to Prague, Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks to the United Nations about connections between Iraq and terrorism, and defectors' descriptions of the use of an Iraq camp to train terrorists.
Also this:

To be fair, Baer did not hear Hussein’s side, as the Iraqi dictator did not respond to the suit. Nevertheless, Baer issued his decision.

And the verdict is.....


Also this:

Now we ask Hussein to tell his side. Then we hang him. Amazing how some were more interested in getting Bush out of power than Hussein. I was not one of them. This allows me to sleep at night.

This comment encapsulates the whole problem with this "get the bad guys" attitude that the American rightwingers love so much.

Terrorism is a tactic backed up by a nihilistic attitude. You can't kill either a tactic or an attitude by killing this or that person. I would be just as happy if every one of the current terrorist leaders and extremist demogogues turned up dead tomorrow, but if you think that killing them is going to stem the tide of terrorism, then you are a fool. And a dangerous one, at that.

If you are so sure that killing the "leaders" will solve the problem of terrorism, then name the leaders. How many are there? Who do we have to kill to end this violence, eh? There is no answer to that because this "get 'em" attitude is not connected to reality. It is a childish fairy tale.

Right,

al-Qaida is an idea, rather than a organisation.

suppose the organisation has been rooted out already...

Governments will still act as thought there is an al-Qaida, with all the consequences.

Moreover suppose we believe in the idea al-Qaida represents and start planning an attack tomorrow, and name ourselves al-Qaida...
then we have become al-Qaida, without any contact with the organisation whatsoever... Without the destruction of the idea, al-Qaida cannot be defeated

(Social construct comes to mind but no need for a Fad :D)

So you did a petty insult and did not respond to anything within in in any way. Just as I said. I am shocked.
How is it a petty insult? If you are going to continue to post right wing propaganda opinion articles as fact, then you should be prepared for the expected fallout?

Your so called proof is laughable, just as your use of puppets is laughable. It all fits well within the title of this thread.

Yeah, how about taking your quotes IN CONTEXT?!!!


Then please provide the context and show me up.

First of all it's Shiite, and the U.S. isn't alone in Iraq. It has the U.K., Australia, Poland, South Korea, Romania,Georgia, Fiji, Denmark, El Salvador, Azerbaijan, Albania, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, and Italy by it's side. And the minor involvement of countries with fewer than 100 soldiers is Czech Republic, Slovakia, Armenia, Bosnia, Estonia, Macedonia, and Kazakhstan. Not only that but theres the new iraqi army and the kurdish forces.

Well fuck me...if Azerbaijan is on side then it must be legit. Unless thats Azerbaijan the pro-western dictatorship of course. Most of the rest were bought. And that still doesn't address the fact of no weapons or Al Qaeda links.

Well fuck me...if Azerbaijan is on side then it must be legit. Unless thats Azerbaijan the pro-western dictatorship of course. Most of the rest were bought. And that still doesn't address the fact of no weapons or Al Qaeda links.

Now prove that they were bought..

it is a well known fact that Hussein had(keyword, past tense) WMDs because we sold him some during the 80s to aid his war effort against Iran w also know that he gassed the Kurds in '88, the "bringing democracy" excuse is moot we are allied with dictators we have put dictators in power, the qaeda links are shaky the terrorists were trained in afghanistan, funded out of Bin Laden's pocket and learned to fly in the U.S. Iraq and Hussein ever show up in this picture

it is a well known fact that Hussein had(keyword, past tense) WMDs because we sold him some during the 80s to aid his war effort against Iran w also know that he gassed the Kurds in '88, the "bringing democracy" excuse is moot we are allied with dictators we have put dictators in power, the qaeda links are shaky the terrorists were trained in afghanistan, funded out of Bin Laden's pocket and learned to fly in the U.S. Iraq and Hussein ever show up in this picture

You're absolutely right on, but take a breath next time.

You're absolutely right on, but take a breath next time.

Puncuation is for sissies. ;)

Now prove that they were bought..

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030317/hartung

Bulgaria- looking for NATO membership. Poland - Billions promised in investment and a deal over the purchase of F-16's. And how many Billion were they throwing at Turkey - 4?

"Albania, which sent 70 peacekeepers to Mosul, expects U.S. support for military reforms aimed at qualifying for NATO membership. The country landed $3 million in U.S. military aid in exchange for sending its troops.

Czech Prime Minister Vladimir Spidla discussed reconstruction contracts with Bush in Washington in July, after the Czech Republic sent 312 personnel to a field hospital in Basra. As many as 40 Czech firms are close to signing contracts in Iraq, said Frantisek Malota, a senior trade official. "
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030926-iraq2.htm

Now you accuse me of lying. To lie you must believe one thing and say another.
True. Should we assume that a simple failure to understand the issues and evidence at hand is responsible for your pedalling of fabrications and inaccuracies?

I agree with the Clinton appointed federal judge....
husseinandterror.com
If I have the time I will dissect Murdock's piece in another thread. It is fairly simple as it is ill-constructed and uses a narrow base of resources from easily identifiable backgrounds.
On the other hand, this bit made me laugh out loud.
He is talking about an Iraqi Defector (proven source of reliable information about the regime). The defector describes a camp a mere 15 miles from Baghdad as being a terrorist camp. There is no co-oberation, other than his word and the immediate acceptance of the Conservative writer to support him...except for...
"A map of the camp that Khodada drew from memory for “Frontline” closely matches satellite photos of Salman Pak, further bolstering his credibility."
Now, even ignoring the fact that drawing a map from memory doesn't make the subject of the map a terrorist training camp (I can draw a map of the white house to the same detail level) the fact that several large, key landmarks are missing or in a very different location casts some doubt on the witnesses credibility.

One of Murdock's main sources uses this as a defining statement
"If we are to be meaningfully protected, once enough evidence has emerged to give ground for rational concern, we need to assume guilt until we are satisfied otherwise."
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406010821.asp
Which sets the whole tone for the reliability of the piece frankly.
Anyway, that's for another time.

and it is proven fact that Saddam had illegal weapons
Where? When? If you aer refering to the recent claim to finding 12 munitions that had traces of chemical weapons then the US government is the only government in the world that believes that. Its closest political allies suffered humiliating political defeats admitting that the intelligence about WMDs was wrong and that WMDs would never be found.


he had broken the ceasefire
As had the UK and I am fairly certain the US had as well (although not as sure).

he had broken UN resolutions
Israel. The US.

he had financed terror
As had the US in Afghanistan.
The evidence you posted showed him supporting networks such as Hamas and the PLF. One man's terrorist, another's freedom fighter. There was no evidence linking him to Al-Aqaeda in any meaningful way. Certainly not to the same extent as there is evidence that link the US to Al-Qaeda through Afghanistan.

and now we have put a government in place in Iraq that is an allie of the US
Define 'ally'. Utterly dependent upon the US for power? Able to publicly criticise the US and tacitly support terrorist organisations (such as Hezbollah)?

the Iraqi people get to vote
...according to the dictats of their religious leaders, if they can get to the polling stations at all or don't boycott the elections as only US approved candidates are allowed any chance of winning and all policy has to be approved by the US. Not that country hasn't been split into three by the constitution, which varies depending on which language you read it in.

we have suffered low casualties
Um, casualties for co-alition forces is:
For the US forces is 21,927
But let's not forget the Allies involved as well: 210,931 (absolute lowest estimate)
http://icasualties.org/oif/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
I don't think a quarter of a million is low casualties.

we are fighting the same people that attacked us on 911.
I don't see any definitive evidence to the contrary. And nonne outside of the US (and Israel) claimed that Saddam Hussein was behind (or involved in 9/11) for many years. Our government was almost paralysed by the scandal regarding the 'intelligence' the US so generously shared.

Actually, I can't let this sort of rubbish lie. A very cursory examination...
Key information came from:-
"General Vincent Brooks, who briefed reporters throughout the initial phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom,"
The official army spokesman. A proven heavy bias according to various journalistic biographies and accounts who state (and film) the heavily pre-manged, staged and edited media strategy events that the US used during the 2nd Guld war. I do not believe I have come across any news organisation that treated what the armies invovled said as factual for anything other than confirmed friendly casualties.

"Some evidence is interesting but far from solid, such as this image that appeared on the front page of the March 27, 2003 New York Post showing U.S. troops at an Iraqi military base in Nasariyah. They encountered a mural that seems to celebrate the destruction of the Twin Towers."
Pictures of 9/11. Clearly that indicates a link to terror...

"Recall that Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the al-Qaeda bombers who hit the World Trade Center in 1993, fled to Iraq after that attack and lived there freely, reportedly with a government salary. That’s one clear link to al-Qaeda."
He also states that Yasin 'enjoyed housing'. Although the evidence quoted only places Yasin in Baghdad and not under arrest Murdock uses it to imlpy far more. You will see his use of the word 'reportedly'. He also does not provide proof that the Irawi government was aware of Yasin's background. The government is the biggest employer in almost any nation. It would be atypical if Yasin was working and not drawing a government wage.

"Below is a rare photograph of Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. He was Consul and Second Secretary at Iraq's Czech embassy between March 1999 and April 22, 2001. He long has been suspected of meeting with September 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta, most likely on April 8, 2001. Perhaps at other times, too."
"Long been suspected", "Perhaps at other times too." Damning phrases.

“In this moment we can confirm, that during the next stay of Mr. Muhammad Atta in the Czech Republic, there was the contact with the official of the Iraqi intelligence, Mr. Al Ani, Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir, who was on 22nd April 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities which were not compatible with the diplomatic status.”
This is interesting and the first piece of any real evidencial weight regarding this argument to appear in the entire piece.
However, there is no definition of the contact or any detail, at all.
The translation is also quite ropey and the letter goes on to state that "will not give you any more detailed information about this contact and his stay and travelling in the Czech Republic until further investigation of all facts, which we need to investigate."
As there is no further source linked to this I can only assume that the Czech government found nothing of any substance in the meeting.

"Al-Ani was kicked out of Prague for casing the headquarters of Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Iraq, presumably because he wanted to blow them up."
In depth psycholanalysis? Or comedy gold? :D

Now. The only truly interesting bit.
The judge in the case against Baathist Iraq and the Taliban stated:
“I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, ‘by evidence satisfactory to the court’ that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda.”
Closer reading of the parent article exposes this however-

"Baer said lawyers relied heavily on "classically hearsay" evidence, including reports that a Sept. 11 hijacker met an Iraqi consul to Prague, Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks to the United Nations about connections between Iraq and terrorism, and defectors' descriptions of the use of an Iraq camp to train terrorists. "
and
"The judge ruled against them by default in January after they failed to respond to the lawsuits brought on behalf of two of the trade center dead."
This hardly sounds like hard evidence to me. Nor, apparently, to my government.

and all you can do is shout LIAR! LIAR! like the rest of the loony left.
Ah yes, the old fall back of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of bring a) a liar b) part of a conspiracy and c)...well, to be fair you haven't mentioned c) yet.

This has somthing to do with why the last Democrat to crack 50% of the national vote was 30 years ago. :)
No.
It doesn't.
The entire world does not revolve around American political turnout.
It has to do with 'truth and responsibilty' and 'lies and self-aggrandisment'.

Now you accuse me of lying. To lie you must believe one thing and say another. I agree with the Clinton appointed federal judge....
husseinandterror.com
and it is proven fact that Saddam had illegal weapons
he had broken the ceasefire
he had broken UN resolutions
he had financed terror
and now we have put a government in place in Iraq that is an allie of the US
the Iraqi people get to vote
we have suffered low casualties
we are fighting the same people that attacked us on 911.
and all you can do is shout LIAR! LIAR! like the rest of the loony left. This has somthing to do with why the last Democrat to crack 50% of the national vote was 30 years ago. :)
And I put it to you that:

(A) Not one of the above listed procedural infractions is a justifiction for launching a war of aggression by a country that was not under direct threat and was not authorized by the UN to take action to enforce the UN's resolutions for it.

(B) This so-called allied government we created barely exists; what does exist is as riven by sectarian prejudice as the militias and death squads in the streets; and is desperately trying to distance itself from us to the extent of speaking in support of Hezbollah and against Israel.

(C) And you are lying again right here, right now, because you know perfectly well, just like we all do, that none of these infractions was listed as a justification for the war. Why? Because they are not enough to justify a war, that's why. These were nothing but noise -- "and-in-addition" type examples of what a heinous character Hussein was -- to back up the false claims of yellow cake and aluminum tubes and WMDs and mushroom clouds.

EDIT: Oh, and in addition, that bit about the "same people who attacked us on 9/11" is a flat-out LIE.

I never said anybody on this forum said that.
Well then, what "cut and run" people are you complaining about then, since no one here has advocated cutting and running from anything?

More petty insults from the lefty. Typical.
That's not an insult from the left. It is an insult from ME. I wrote it because I have no respect for you.

So you did a petty insult and did not respond to anything within in in any way. Just as I said. I am shocked.
There is nothing on that site to respond to. It is nothing but a list of quotes and the author's opinion about them. So what? We can all do that. It adds nothing to the debate. It certainly does not make your arguments any more persuasive.

Now we ask Hussein to tell his side. Then we hang him. Amazing how some were more interested in getting Bush out of power than Hussein. I was not one of them. This allows me to sleep at night.
And this is typical of you: (A) Advocating kangaroo courts that will condemn without paying attention to evidence. (B) Repeating yourself. (C) Making stuff up about un-named other people.

Right,

al-Qaida is an idea, rather than a organisation.

suppose the organisation has been rooted out already...

Governments will still act as thought there is an al-Qaida, with all the consequences.

Moreover suppose we believe in the idea al-Qaida represents and start planning an attack tomorrow, and name ourselves al-Qaida...
then we have become al-Qaida, without any contact with the organisation whatsoever... Without the destruction of the idea, al-Qaida cannot be defeated

(Social construct comes to mind but no need for a Fad :D)
And suppose we believe in al-Qaida's violent methods and adopt them but DON'T call ourselves al-Qaida? My point is that al-Qaida -- whether an actual group or just a name on a website -- is beside the point. Getting rid of that group or that name will not get rid of terrorism. If we just pick a group and set them up to represent terrorism and go out and kill them, as if they were some kind of voodoo doll or something, that will not magically remove terrorism from the world. It is one thing to go after specific terrorists when we know who and where they are. It is quite a different thing to figure out how to protect ourselves against terrorism as a tactic.

That's not an insult from the left. It is an insult from ME. I wrote it because I have no respect for you.
Awesome. :)
*bows*

*snip

Now look up the word diplomacy.

Now look up the word diplomacy.
Go look up the phrase, 'irritating as sand-paper toilet rolls'.

Seriously, I really wish you wouldn't snip the entirety of the posts you're responding to. It's not like I'm gonna go chase down Nodinia's last comments - so you're rather defeating the intent of even having a quotation function on NS.

Go look up the phrase, 'irritating as sand-paper toilet rolls'.

Seriously, I really wish you wouldn't snip the entirety of the posts you're responding to. It's not like I'm gonna go chase down Nodinia's last comments - so you're rather defeating the intent of even having a quotation function on NS.

Not that it was his intention to ditch a post with a few IRL examples with a basis in fact so he could throw in his half arsed attempt at a smart comment, fuck no....

Go look up the phrase, 'irritating as sand-paper toilet rolls'.

Seriously, I really wish you wouldn't snip the entirety of the posts you're responding to. It's not like I'm gonna go chase down Nodinia's last comments - so you're rather defeating the intent of even having a quotation function on NS.
Shot in the dark?

Alleghany County = Corneliu?

Shot in the dark?

Alleghany County = Corneliu?
Could be. Another one to watch for is 'Eraclea'. Of course, it's hard to tell where Eutrusca stops and Corneliu starts, but I think we're narrowing the field of puppetmasters somewhat...

Shot in the dark?

Alleghany County = Corneliu?
I thought Barrygoldwater was corneliu. They certainly act the same.

I thought Barrygoldwater was corneliu. They certainly act the same.
What I find intriguing about the Barry Goldwater puppet is he's just as thoroughly repugnant as his namesake - so much so that I can only assume his exposure to the man is via the third-party reminiscinces of closeted Nazi hacks.

I thought Barrygoldwater was corneliu. They certainly act the same.

by that reasoning, we could say that you, Nodinia,Murayvets, Dobbsworld and all the others that are agreeing here are one in the same and attempt to use that to undermine your opinions.

I thought Barrygoldwater was corneliu. They certainly act the same.
Try Barrygoldwater = USalpenstock for similarity of post.

I don't think they are Corny. Barry and Alpen use quite a few links, which you know is not the Corny style.

by that reasoning, we could say that you, Nodinia,Murayvets, Dobbsworld and all the others that are agreeing here are one in the same and attempt to use that to undermine your opinions.
I've butted head with Barrygoldwater in many threads just like I butted heads with Corneliu in the past. I can tell you their posting style, logic, way to twists facts, etc. is very similar.

Now it could be a coincidence (probably is) but I think it's worth looking into since we are speculating on puppets.

And I'd be honored if someone think I'm a puppet of Nodinia,Murayvets or Dobbsworld. I like their post and have a very high regard of them. So they can fling this insinuation all they want.

Try Barrygoldwater = USalpenstock for similarity of post.

I don't think they are Corny. Barry and Alpen use quite a few links, which you know is not the Corny style.
Could be. could be.

I've butted head with Barrygoldwater in many threads just like I butted heads with Corneliu in the past. I can tell you their posting style, logic, way to twists facts, etc. is very similar.

Now it could be a coincidence (probably is) but I think it's worth looking into since we are speculating on puppets.

And I'd be honored if someone think I'm a puppet of Nodinia,Murayvets or Dobbsworld. I like their post and have a very high regard of them. So they can fling this insinuation all they want.

Why thank you, kind sir. Know too that I would also be happy to have somebody think that your hand was up my behind.

See, this is why I don't post on NS very often anymore, the delusions of others! Haha.

How can one expect to have a reasonable debate about Iraq when they are STILL under some type of delusion that Saddam and or Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11?

Oh sure Saddam may have been a bastard, no argument. But what he didn't have was WMD, nor was he much of a threat to anyone anymore.

No, the ball was dropped. "The War on Terror", or at least the people who attacked America on 9/11 were in Afghanistan and to a large degree Pakistan. But what does the American government do? All but leaves Afghanistan to NATO to fight, largely the British & Canadians fighting a war that was not theirs for the Americans.. (Well at least not Canada's) so they can play "Lets turn the Middle East into a democracy by force" Nice idea, bad foreign policy. And also delusional.

Saddam was not Bin Laden... and the sooner people come to accept that, then and only then can the level of the discussion about the Iraq war be brought up to an intelligent level.

In the meantime, so many living on talking points. It's sad really. Ah well!



No one here has claimed that Saddam helped on 9-11 - that is a lie the left tries to spread. There were ties between terrorists and Saddam - including Al-Qaeda. It is not I that lives on the talking points, it seems the anti-americans have theirs down pat.

Here is a bit for those who claim that the WMD's found that pre-dated 1991 was not what we were looking for.



One of three important questions before us today is how much might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991; and, possibly, thereafter; the second question is what, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998, when the inspectors left; and the third question is how it can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be produced or procured in the future.


http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

This was BLIX himself - WHEN IT MATTERED - just before we went in. His whining that he did not get his way since is irrelevent. If you want to blame someone for us going in - blame Hans Blix.

Why thank you, kind sir. Know too that I would also be happy to have somebody think that your hand was up my behind.

Yay, sock puppets are soo M4l) 1337!

Oh, sorry, USalpenstock, i didn't know you were here. *cough*

Yay, sock puppets are soo M4l) 1337!


:confused:

:confused:

It's leet-speak. It means Mad-elite.

It's leet-speak. It means Mad-elite.

And what is leet-speak? To me, it just makes you look unintelligent.

No one here has claimed that Saddam helped on 9-11 - that is a lie the left tries to spread. There were ties between terrorists and Saddam - including Al-Qaeda. It is not I that lives on the talking points, it seems the anti-americans have theirs down pat.
.

There was no substantive ties, links, or exchanges of greeting cards.


This was BLIX himself - WHEN IT MATTERED - just before we went in. His whining that he did not get his way since is irrelevent. If you want to blame someone for us going in - blame Hans Blix.

Bush said to Blair prior to the war that they were going in regardless of what the inspectors concluded, if you recall.


It's leet-speak. It means Mad-elite..

Uber!

And what is leet-speak? To me, it just makes you look unintelligent.

OMG, a luddite! You've never heard of 1337 speak?

OMG, a luddite! You've never heard of 1337 speak?

Nope.

No one here has claimed that Saddam helped on 9-11 - that is a lie the left tries to spread. There were ties between terrorists and Saddam - including Al-Qaeda. It is not I that lives on the talking points, it seems the anti-americans have theirs down pat.

Here is a bit for those who claim that the WMD's found that pre-dated 1991 was not what we were looking for.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

This was BLIX himself - WHEN IT MATTERED - just before we went in. His whining that he did not get his way since is irrelevent. If you want to blame someone for us going in - blame Hans Blix.
Nice try with taking words out of context. Also the word you should look up the word "might" in the dictionary?

Okay, let's try again. From the same report:

The implementation of resolution 687 (1991) nevertheless brought about considerable disarmament results. It has been recognized that more weapons of mass destruction were destroyed under this resolution than were destroyed during the Gulf War: large quantities of chemical weapons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision before 1994. While Iraq claims – with little evidence – that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA.

One of three important questions before us today is how much might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991; and, possibly, thereafter; the second question is what, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998, when the inspectors left; and the third question is how it can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be produced or procured in the future.

In December 1999 – after one year without inspections in Iraq – resolution 1284 (1999) was adopted by the Council with 4 abstentions. Supplementing the basic resolutions of 1991 and following years, it provided Iraq with a somewhat less ambitious approach: in return for “cooperation in all respects” for a specified period of time, including progress in the resolution of “key remaining disarmament tasks”, it opened the possibility, not for the lifting, but the suspension of sanctions.

For nearly three years, Iraq refused to accept any inspections by UNMOVIC. It was only after appeals by the Secretary-General and Arab States and pressure by the United States and other Member States, that Iraq declared on 16 September last year that it would again accept inspections without conditions.

Resolution 1441 (2002) was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active. The resolution contained many provisions, which we welcome as enhancing and strengthening the inspection regime. The unanimity by which it was adopted sent a powerful signal that the Council was of one mind in creating a last opportunity for peaceful disarmament in Iraq through inspection.

UNMOVIC shares the sense of urgency felt by the Council to use inspection as a path to attain, within a reasonable time, verifiable disarmament of Iraq. Under the resolutions I have cited, it would be followed by monitoring for such time as the Council feels would be required. The resolutions also point to a zone free of weapons of mass destruction as the ultimate goal.

Sorry Charlie, but you can't blame Blix for George's errors. Blix was not finding any WMD. Bush invaded, and it has been all downhill since.

Sometimes I think engaging an argument with US Alpenstock is much like the US engaging Iraq in war. We find ourselves in a quagmire. We need an exit strategy that will show that our goals have been accomplished and that we remain strong. Any suggestions?

Sometimes I think engaging an argument with US Alpenstock is much like the US engaging Iraq in war. We find ourselves in a quagmire. We need an exit strategy that will show that our goals have been accomplished and that we remain strong. Any suggestions?

Could declare him Communal Property like Corny and move on. :D

Sometimes I think engaging an argument with US Alpenstock is much like the US engaging Iraq in war. We find ourselves in a quagmire. We need an exit strategy that will show that our goals have been accomplished and that we remain strong. Any suggestions?

Open your eyes and your brain.

UNMOVIC shares the sense of urgency felt by the Council to use inspection as a path to attain, within a reasonable time, verifiable disarmament of Iraq. Under the resolutions I have cited, it would be followed by monitoring for such time as the Council feels would be required. The resolutions also point to a zone free of weapons of mass destruction as the ultimate goal.

You missed the "goal" part didn't you?? That means it has not yet been reached.

Open your eyes and your brain.
That might be your problem. I keep my brain contained. Are you posting while in the midst of some sort of surgery?

You missed the "goal" part didn't you?? That means it has not yet been reached.

Or had not been known to have already been reached the date the resolution was passed.

That might be your problem. I keep my brain contained. Are you posting while in the midst of some sort of surgery?

I let my mind wander once. It didn't come back, so I set a trap with brain food in it. Unfortunately, the next day I came to look and found that it was swarming with brains. So I just simply put all the brains in my head and now I'm quite back to normal, except I have split personality disorder and a very sore neck from the extra weight.

I let my mind wander once. It didn't come back, so I set a trap with brain food in it. Unfortunately, the next day I came to look and found that it was swarming with brains. So I just simply put all the brains in my head and now I'm quite back to normal, except I have split personality disorder and a very sore neck from the extra weight.
Meh. I showed my mind the door oh- ages ago. I had a coffee-maker installed in its' place, and it was the best decision of my life. Now I can brew an espresso instead of always worrying about being figuratively stampeded off a cliff along with everybody else on the planet.

Meh. I showed my mind the door oh- ages ago. I had a coffee-maker installed in its' place, and it was the best decision of my life. Now I can brew an espresso instead of always worrying about being figuratively stampeded off a cliff along with everybody else on the planet.
You will notice that there has been no refutation of puppet status?