| Author | Message | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2674 Registered: 6-2001 |
Jim: I just saw where this comes from. I wouldn't rely upon any in that site if I were you. It appears to be on the absolute fringe of those who aren't in rooms with the door knob on the outside, rather than the inside. Art | ||
| Jim Schad (Jim_schad)
Intermediate Member Username: Jim_schad Post Number: 1920 Registered: 7-2002 |
It is a site a coworker reads. I am sure somebody will discredit them as a rag publication. I was asking him the same questions Art. I know people accuse the media of being liberal, but how could you silence stories like these? Are they false? Are they just not picked up? Or what? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2672 Registered: 6-2001 |
This doesn't appear in any major new agency reports as of yet. Is this real, who are these people at that site? Art | ||
| Jim Schad (Jim_schad)
Intermediate Member Username: Jim_schad Post Number: 1918 Registered: 7-2002 |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/994347/posts Kuwait foils smuggling of chemicals, bio warheads from Iraq AP News ^ | Oct 2 2003 | Buckeysforbush Posted on 10/03/2003 4:37 AM PDT by BuckeyesForBush Kuwait foils smuggling of chemicals, bio warheads from Iraq Associated Press Kuwait City, October 2 Kuwaiti security authorities have foiled an attempt to smuggle $60 million worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to an unnamed European country, a Kuwaiti newspaper said on Wednesday. The pro-Government Al-Siyassah, quoting an unnamed security source, said the suspects had been watched by security since they arrived in Kuwait and were arrested "in due time." It did not say when or how the smugglers entered Kuwait or when they were arrested. The paper said the smugglers might have had accomplices inside Kuwait. It said Interior Minister Sheik Nawwaf Al Ahmed Al Sabah would hand over the smuggled weapons to an FBI agent at a news conference, but did not say when. Government officials could not be immediately reached for comment. Iraqi Interior Minister Nouri Al-Badran met on Tuesday with Sheik Nawwaf and discussed cooperation between the two countries in security matters. His visit is the first by an Iraqi interior minister to Kuwait since 1990. | ||
| Jim Schad (Jim_schad)
Intermediate Member Username: Jim_schad Post Number: 1917 Registered: 7-2002 |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/994679/posts Polish troops find new French missiles in Iraq Rueters via Yahoo! ^ | Friday October 3 | Pawel Kozlowski Posted on 10/03/2003 12:50 PM PDT by So Cal Rocket WARSAW, Oct 3 (Reuters) - Polish troops in Iraq have found four French-built advanced anti-aircraft missiles which were built this year, a Polish Defence Ministry spokesman told Reuters on Friday. France strongly denied having sold any such missiles to Iraq for nearly two decades, and said it was impossible that its newest missiles should turn up in Iraq. "Polish troops discovered an ammunition depot on September 29 near the region of Hilla and there were four French-made Roland-type missiles," Defence Ministry spokesman Eugeniusz Mleczak said. "It is not the first time Polish troops found ammunition in Iraq but to our surprise these missiles were produced in 2003." The Roland anti-aircraft system is a short-range air defence missile in service with at least 10 countries, including France and Germany. They are fired from a mobile launcher vehicle and defence experts say the missiles are highly effective against aircraft attacking at low and medium altitude. Under a strict trade embargo imposed by the United Nations, Iraq was barred from importing arms after its invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Among others, Russia, Britain and France all sold arms to Iraq in the 1970s and 1980s. In Iraq's arsenal were Soviet-built Scud missiles, British Chieftain tanks and French Mirage fighters. But Iraq managed to circumvent the arms trade ban in the 1990s through shadowy deals with various arms traders and kept its military equipment functioning. "NO MILITARY EXPORTS" "Since July 1990, France has not authorised a single shipment of military equipment to Iraq," a French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman told Reuters. Similar accusations were made in the U.S. media in April, she said. In 1980-81, 13 Roland-1 missile systems were shipped to Iraq and from 1983 to 1986, 100 Roland-2 missile systems. The Roland-3 has never been exported to Iraq, she said. "It is not credible to say that the Roland missiles found a few days ago were produced in 2003 and delivered just before the Anglo-American intervention," the spokeswoman said. "Let's be absolutely clear about this: no military exports to Iraq were licensed after July 1990." It was unlikely that the missiles could be used 17-18 years after their delivery, she added. Mleczak said Polish troops were notified about the missiles by a local Iraqi, who received a reward for the information. "The ammunition depot was neutralised," said Mleczak. Polish television pictures showed missiles placed in a shallow trench and a huge explosion when the Poles blew up munitions at the site. Since early September, Poland, a staunch supporter of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, has led a multinational force in one of four so-called stabilisation zones, in central Iraq. In the run-up to the outbreak of the 2003 Iraq war, American and British combat pilots struck Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries repeatedly as they patrolled no-fly zones in the north and south of the country. | ||
| Lawrence Coppari (Lawrence)
Member Username: Lawrence Post Number: 789 Registered: 4-2002 |
Jimmy Carter | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 880 Registered: 3-2002 |
Most everyone agrees that S. Hussein needed to go. Interesting how some people believe that it is so terrible that Bush came up with a BS excuse to get his goals accomplished. Hey did Clinton come up with any BS excuses from time to time ? Anway who cares! There job is to (protect all) American interests. I have yet to see a President that behaves like a Boy Scout. Nothing would get done; if that were the case. | ||
| rich stephens (Dino2400)
Member Username: Dino2400 Post Number: 622 Registered: 10-2001 |
I find it ridiculous that the administration now claims that they were tricked by Iraq. That Iraq was "bluffing" about the existence of WMDs. But they were not bluffing! Bluffing is when you say you have something that you really don't: Iraq always said they didn't have anything and they didn't! How can telling the truth be a bluff? (yes, we all know they used to have some chemicals and whatnot: the u.s. trained them on their use in the 80s. And yes, we all know Sadaam is a bad guy and that oil is important and a continued prescene in Iraq may be good for u.s. interests and allow the u.s. to stick it to the saudis, etc. but none of these were the justification for the war...) | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2669 Registered: 6-2001 |
We're not going to know what the cost is or isn't until this is over. If we end up with an Islamic state, I'd say this was indeed all for nothing. If we alienate the entire population of the middle east, I'd say we made a tragic mistake. Let's wait until this is over. The fat lady hasn't sung yet. Art | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 4385 Registered: 9-2001 |
no one is saying it was done to soley save thousands - we are just saying you can't say thousands have died for nothing. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2667 Registered: 6-2001 |
Bottom line: No WMDs, if you read the letter to the UN, which started the war, you'll see no mention of all this new crap. As to the savior of tens of thousands: reality check: After Gulf war one, we stirred up the kurds in the north, Saddam put down their uprising. OUr good friends the Turks have killed 80k Kurds in the last decade. That's right 80k. We've rewarded them with 5.6 billion in loan guarantees. This is pure bs, revisionist history, an attempt to make the bs into something that won't get these criminals tried for war crimes. USA today: attacks up to 17 per day against US troops. Some liberation. Art | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 601 Registered: 11-2002 |
I agree with Telson. War was not the correct move. And if it was, it shouldn't be the US which made the call. It should be a desicion made in unity, with all country's in the UN. The US can't police the world, and if they want to, as they do now, they cannot except not to get more enemy's than they already have. No one should be allowed to make that call behind the back of a united unit. I'm glad we got rid of the bastard, but I do not approve the way it was done. And I know the majority of countries around the world agree. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 66 Registered: 8-2003 |
Tom, I absolutely agree that thousands were saved from Saddam, and that Saddam and his family were as nasty a piece of scum as it gets. BUT: Saddam, for a very long time, was OUR bastard, as the saying went, and we never minded too much what went on behind his closed doors. AND, saving Iraqis from Saddam, as happy as I am for those who escaped unscathed from this war and won't have to contend with Saddam's horror regime, was NOT the reason for this war. Best, | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 4382 Registered: 9-2001 |
you got the analogy wrong - killed 5 bank guards who were looting the bank and raping/killing customers. you can't argue thousands were killed and not include the thousands saved, | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 64 Registered: 8-2003 |
Tom, lol, puleese, don't come up now with a rationale that has zero to do with Bushs reasons for war, that this war was about saving poor Iraqis from their evil dictator, I mean, really.... Trying to justify the Iraq war at this stage with Iraqi "freedom from torture" is similar to making a hero out of a bank robber who killed several security guards but made public his discovery that the vaults had been looted by the bank director. | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 4379 Registered: 9-2001 |
does the 10s of thousands include all the people saved from Saddam's touture?? I think you need to check your newspaper sources | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 60 Registered: 8-2003 |
Tom, sex monging, :-)was Clintons own business, Bush's lies and warmonging are responsible for the murder and mutilation of tens of thousands, all for a counter-productive war based on nothing but the evil lies of George Bush. | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 4376 Registered: 9-2001 |
yeah lets put a liar and sex monger back in there  | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 59 Registered: 8-2003 |
Yup, looks like America is waking up, time to throw our evil liar and warmonger out of the White House, and restore this nation to what it really deserves. "New York Times Poll Shows Drop in Confidence on Bush Skill in Handling Crises By TODD S. PURDUM and JANET ELDER Published: October 3, 2003 Thirteen months before the 2004 election, a solid majority of Americans say the country is seriously on the wrong track." cont. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/03/ national/03POLL.html?hp | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 600 Registered: 11-2002 |
Ross, that's your opinion. Who said that you shouldn't be the one to change your mind. This is a endless debate. We can go on and on and on and on... My view on this, is that the US has nothing to do over there. This whole war was a clear mistake, and it cannot be true that everyone else but the patriotic americans can see this. None the less, everyone is entitled to their opionion. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 57 Registered: 8-2003 |
 Now, we really mustn't forget the key point here: Saddam did not pose a threat to the USA. The excellent television report cited in the MIRROR article at the beginning of this thread had dug out what Colin Powell had to say about the threat emanating from Iraq on his first trip to the Middle East back in February 2001: Saddam posed NO threat to the USA. Of course, the whole world knew that. The Mirror article is corroborated by Reuters News Agency, which also has Powell on record as having said that: "Powell: He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place." Of course, this was BEFORE Bush and his neoconservative fascists decided that war would be great fun. And as there were no reasons for attacking Iraq, they just decided to make it all up, hey, who cares, they were only lying to the American people, after all. No big deal to them.  "New York Times 'Slime and Defend' By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: October 3, 2003 n July 14, Robert Novak published the now-famous column in which he identified Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, as a C.I.A. "operative on weapons of mass destruction," and said "two senior administration officials" had told him that she was responsible for her husband's mission to Niger. On that mission, Mr. Wilson concluded � correctly � that reports of Iraqi efforts to buy uranium were bogus. An outraged President Bush immediately demanded the names of those responsible for exposing Ms. Plame. He repeated his father's statement that "those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources" are "the most insidious of traitors." There are limits to politics, Mr. Bush declared; Mr. Wilson's decision to go public about his mission had embarrassed him, but that was no excuse for actions that were both felonious and unpatriotic. Everything in the previous paragraph is, of course, false. It's what should have happened, but didn't. Mr. Bush took no action after the Novak column. Before we get bogged down in the details � which is what the administration hopes will happen � let's be clear: we already know what the president knew, and when he knew it. Mr. Bush knew, 11 weeks ago, that some of his senior aides had done something utterly inexcusable. But as long as the media were willing to let the story lie � which, with a few honorable exceptions, like David Corn at The Nation and Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps at Newsday, they were � he didn't think this outrage required any action. And now that the C.I.A. has demanded a Justice Department inquiry, the White House's strategy isn't just to stonewall, Nixon-style; as one Republican Congressional aide told The New York Times, it will "slime and defend." The right-wing media slime machine, which tries to assassinate the character of anyone who opposes the right's goals � hey, I know all about it � has already swung into action. For example, The Wall Street Journal's editorial page calls Mr. Wilson an "open opponent of the U.S. war on terror." We've grown accustomed to this sort of slur � and they accuse liberals of lacking civility? � but let's take a minute to walk through it. Mr. Wilson never opposed the "war on terror" � he opposed the war in Iraq precisely because it had no obvious relevance to the campaign against terror. He feared that invading a country with no role in 9/11, and no meaningful Al Qaeda links, would divert resources from the pursuit of those who actually attacked America. Many patriots in the military and the intelligence community agreed with him then; even more agree now. Unlike the self-described patriots now running America, Mr. Wilson has taken personal risks for the sake of his country. In the months before the first gulf war, he stayed on in Baghdad, helping to rescue hundreds of Americans who might otherwise have been held as hostages. The first President Bush lauded him as a "truly inspiring diplomat" who exhibited "courageous leadership." In any case, Mr. Wilson's views and character are irrelevant. Someone high in the administration committed a felony and, in the view of the elder Mr. Bush, treason. End of story. The hypocrisy here is breathtaking. Republicans have repeatedly impugned their opponents' patriotism. Last year Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, said Democrats "don't want to protect the American people. . . . They will do anything, spend all the time and resources they can, to avoid confronting evil." But the true test of patriotism isn't whether you are willing to wave the flag, or agree with whatever the president says. It's whether you are willing to take risks and make sacrifices, including political sacrifices, for the sake of your country. This episode is a test for Mr. Bush and his inner circle: a true patriot wouldn't hesitate about doing the right thing in the Plame affair, whatever the political costs. Mr. Bush is failing that test." www.nytimes.com "There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. Don't attack Saddam. It would undermine our antiterror efforts." Brent Scowcroft National Security Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford & George Bush senior Wall Street Journal, 15 Aug 2002 QED Best, | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1360 Registered: 3-2002 |
ralph, save your breath. the apologists, cynics and allies of dictatorial regimes like art, amir, mfz and telson, will not accept anything you might be able to offer in defense of bush and our efforts in iraq. they want the usa to fail in their foreign policy efforts. they want bush to fail, so that one of theirs can be elected, never mind the damage done by the smear and hatemongering along the way. the only way any of these types would ever change their minds would be if they went there to see for themselves, and that is unlikely to happen. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2666 Registered: 6-2001 |
Ralph: These guys don't give a damn about the war, Saddam, etc. They care about their jobs, and their power. Read what a non-political victim of this war had to say about the disclosure of the name of a CIA agent: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031002/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_spann_2 Art | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 878 Registered: 3-2002 |
Not a threat to regional stability ? Why not comply and come clean ? Once again when the trains leave Ft. Hood, Texas and head east loaded with offensive equipment one can begin to figure out that your opponent is not bluffing. Why not open up the country and resolve the issue once and for all ? Nobody said S. Hussein was cooperating well after Gulf War I. S. Hussein had stand offs in parking lots, school buses brake down on bridges to help the inspection teams bog down, scientists threatned, papers going out the back door, and chem factories made to look like baby formula plants; in addition to other clever games. I suppose Sadamm was just playing with the nuclear triggers ? Sadamm cannot be bargained with. He can only be disposed. | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Junior Member Username: Amir Post Number: 159 Registered: 2-2003 |
Ralph, I am not in the market for any bulletproof vehicles. Read my original post. The enquiry was for someone else. How nice of the president to let us know gently that he was lying. As for Saddam being left unchecked, his military capabilities were decimated after the first Gulf War. He was in no position to threaten anyone. He was not a threat to regional stability. Those new pharmaceuticals sure do pack a potent punch. Do you sell to the White House too? | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 877 Registered: 3-2002 |
Get out of here F1 Milky Way Galaxy Champ | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Senior Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 6807 Registered: 8-2002 |
Oink, oink, ZooPals! Ribbet, ribbet, ZooPals! | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 876 Registered: 3-2002 |
No Amir: I only sell what they ask for. I am not the bizarre one trying to avoid a kill box in an armed Suburban ? It was about both. It was mostly about oil. This is life. I am sure the pres was happy to let the people of the world down as nicely as he could. Perhaps you also may realize that S. Hussein is no Boy Scout. The region does need stability. The region does not need a power hungry dictator who took a grab at Iran's oil fields, Kuwaits oil fields, and threatned the Saudi oil fields. How much of the world market would he control if left unchecked ? | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Junior Member Username: Amir Post Number: 158 Registered: 2-2003 |
Then why claim steadfastly that it was not about oil? Why pretend it was about WMD? Why pretend it was about our love and concern for the poor downtrodden Iraqis and Kurds? Why pretend it's about democracy in Iraq? Why pretend it's about the stability of the region? Ralph, you sure you're selling those meds and not OD'ing on them? | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 875 Registered: 3-2002 |
LOL ~ I liked your last comments. Yes Absolutely: As I previously had mentioned in a previous post, nations are competitors. Should a small tin pot dictator try and corner the oil market at the expense of the U.S. economy ? ""NO"" The government is responsible for protecting the economy. There job is to keep the oil supply intact. This is to be taken care of at all costs. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 335 Registered: 2-2003 |
If you followed the events earlier this year, Saddam Hussein did try to comply, remember? (Keyword here is 'try', I'm not saying that he's complying 100%, just in case you'd tag me as a Saddam sympathiser.) He destroyed those Al-Samoud missiles when the UN inspectors found out that the missiles where over the limit by a few miles. As for not coming clean, that baffled me too. Perhaps he realised that 9/11 changed everything, and knew no matter what he do, the US or the UN would bust his balls even if he didn't have WMDs. Saddam Hussein deserved to be ousted from power, but unfortunately the Iraqi people who hated Saddam also seemed to hate the people who overstayed their welcome, judging from what I read from Reuters etc. As for protecting your interests, does that mean that the US can invade any other country who has oil so that your supply can be sustained? Does that also mean that other country can invade their oil supplier to prevent the disruption of supply? | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 874 Registered: 3-2002 |
So why would S. Hussein not come clean and give the inspectors what they wanted ? Even the Arab League recommded that he cooperate. He wiped out all his power that he has had since 1976 for nothing ? Again as I posted before Oil is a product that directly effects the United States economy. It is in the nations interest to protect its supply. Yes you have to defend those vital interests. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 332 Registered: 2-2003 |
Ralph, we all know he had them WMDs before. You don't have to prove that. What we want you to prove is whether Saddam Hussein still had them around 1998-2003. There has been at least one report as far back as 1995 that basically states that Saddam's WMD capabilities have been destroyed or at least crippled. Let's face it, the war was built on a huge lie, nobody believe it then, and nobody believes it now either. It wasn't about the WMDs, or the supposed threat of Iraqi aggression against US or it's allies, it was all about the OIL. | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 873 Registered: 3-2002 |
Greetings: Art: As far as moving WMD's into Syria; I read this on the internet "before" the Gulf War II. There was quite a bit of tension between the USA and Syria during and after the hostilities. I suppose this had to do with more than just finding fugatives ? We all do read the news on the interenet from time to time. I reluctantly cannot provide the link for you. I try to do my best when I can. I DID provide the information for you that shows a beaming and smiling S. Hussein who posed in 1990 for a news confrence showing his nuclear triggers that he had in his possession. Feel free at your earliest convenience to look back at the "Final Say no WMD," post located below for the specific information on the mug shot. Again: I suppose people who have views outside of the mainstream feel that it is ok for him to just possess WMD parts for no apparent reasons. It is ok to have a large trunk of machine gun parts in your cellar that is unassembled ? Do you or do you not possess the weapons; if you have all the parts? According to the Iranians "and" Kurds, he had those parts and WEAPONS in the immediate past and present. Sure he is just collecting centrifuges, yellow cake, botulism, anthrax, on and on. Yes; it is all for show and bluffing correct ? As far as using the weapons on the good old G.I.s when Sadamm's back was against the wall ? Uncle Sam has a slightly bigger hammer than S. Hussein. That is called deterence. It worked before in the Cold War. He does not believe we have the patience to complete the mission. Remember 1991 ? Fourth quarter end of football game. Sadamm can wait. Can we ? I answered your questions yet you all have not answered my previous inquiry from the "Final Say no WMD post." I asked why would one bring ruin on their own family owned country, party, and themselves for the sake of protecting something they claim they do not have ? Everyone from the Russians and Frogs asked him to cooperate with the hard working inspectors of the UN. The UN was very very patient with all the games. Yet he insisted the UN leave before they had the opportunity to certify that there were no WMD's. It is obvious he has no desire to cooperate and instead invited doom. Please kindly comment on why someone would do this given that you both feel there was never any WMD's to begin with after Gulf War I ? | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 872 Registered: 3-2002 |
Thanks for the comments. I have to get orders out. Please kindly be patient. I have some information to post. Thanks. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 56 Registered: 8-2003 |
Hehe, it's like riding a spinning wheel, Bush starts a war that is part of the problem and not of the solution in what SHOULD have been our main objective, fighting international terrorism. Then this war Bush so desperately wanted is based on nothing but unfounded allegations practically nobody in the world believes, not a SINGLE ONE of his allegations prove true MONTHS after our big-mouth, Chicken-Hawk-Commander-in-Chief prematurely claimed war was over, and yet he has the audacity to actually place the burden of proof on us, betting on Americans short memories, etc etc, lol. Spin, Lies and Deceit at it's best, but I do believe that gradually at least the majority of Americans are starting to see through the charade, and that this counter-productive, unprecedented pre-emptive war of aggression will prove to have been Bushs last of many miscalculations. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2664 Registered: 6-2001 |
There's any old saying in racing the bullsh*t stops when the flag drops: Ralph where are your facts, cites. Not ten year old data, facts about WMO being moved to Syria. Where are they? Where are they? If you don't have them, perhaps an apology is in order? Art | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 55 Registered: 8-2003 |
Ralph, it's all pretty simple. First off, the main rationale cited ad nauseam by Bush for invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, had weapons of mass destruction and was best buddies with extremist groups like Al Qaeda whom he was allegedly supporting, according to Bushs DoubleSpeak. Fact is, since last March's invasion no one has been able to find any such weapons in Iraq, nor evidence of a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, the actual group behind (hello) 9/11, let alone any evidence that Saddam posed an imminent threat to the USA, as claimed by Bush. Also, you mustn't forget that Saddam in the early days was an ally of the USA whom we supported through, more or less, thick and thin until he invaded Kuweit. On top of that, Saddam was pretty clever, you have to be to survive in power so long. Being a clever guy he not only realized that war was coming as Bush wanted this war come hell or high water, accordingly Saddam fully realized that he was fighting the fight of his life, and he was also aware of the imminence of war commencing. When you're fighting the fight of your life you use EVERYTHING you have. If he had had WMD's, he would have used them. Also, don't forget that BUSH & Co claimed he had them there in Iraq, he was using them right there, and that he could strike the US "without notice and inflict sudden horror" etc, can't, uhh, do that if you don't have dem dang nasty WMD'S and don't pose a threat: "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." - Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003 Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." - George W. Bush, September 12 2002 "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." - George Bush, February 8 2003 10/06/02 Bush: Saddam Hussein could strike without notice and inflict "massive and sudden horror" on America. (AP, 10/6/02) The Spin, Lies and Deceit Bush based this on claimed that Saddam was behind 9/11, posed an imminent threat to the USA through huge amounts of WMD's, and that he sponsored Al Qaeda. And all of that was nothing but lies. THE WASHINGTON POST WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 � Leaders of the House intelligence committee have criticized the U.S. intelligence community for using largely outdated, �circumstantial� and �fragmentary� information with �too many uncertainties� to conclude that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda. TOP MEMBERS of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which spent four months combing through 19 volumes of classified material used by the Bush administration to make its case for the war on Iraq, found �significant deficiencies� in the community�s ability to collect fresh intelligence on Iraq, and said it had to rely on �past assessments� dating to when U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998 and on �some new �piecemeal� intelligence,� both of which �were not challenged as a routine matter.� �The absence of proof that chemical and biological weapons and their related development programs had been destroyed was considered proof that they continued to exist,� the two committee members said in their letter Thursday to CIA Director George J. Tenet. The Washington Post obtained a copy this weekend. SIGNIFICANT CRITICISM The letter constitutes a significant criticism of the U.S. intelligence community from a source that does not take such matters lightly. The committee, like all congressional panels, is controlled by Republicans, and its chairman, Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), is a former CIA agent and a longtime supporter of Tenet and the intelligence agencies. Goss and the committee�s ranking Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), signed the letter. www.washingtonpost.com PS, don't forget what I wrote earlier: The TV Report cited in the newspaper at the beginning of this thread, basically stating that the war against Iraq was based on nothing but Spin, Lies and Deceit, is actually corroborated by Reuters News Agency, where Colin Powell was caught out when it was revealed that on his first trip to the Middle East back in February 2001 he made these interesting comments: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place." | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 871 Registered: 3-2002 |
In fact he DID have them ! Just ask the Kurds and the Iranians ? He did not use them for the same reason during the Cold War the weapons were never used. He moved them out of the country with the idea that he could get them back after the USA pulled out. He still does not believe we have the patience and years to see this thing out. There is plenty of evidence that he has more than just baby milk factories producing components for the manufacturing of WMD's. I never implied that Iraq was a DIRECT threat to the U.S.A. He does not have the ability to launch a missile at the USA. He does fund international terrorism according to several Iraqi exile groups based abroad. I DID post just "recently" that he did pose a direct threat to OUR national interests. He did have the ability to run up the price of oil and threaten neighbors that provide oil that fuels our economy. That "IS" a direct threat to the USA. As far as "euro rags" the Mirror is a pretty good example for you. He does collect art and was also busy trying to build his little covert arsenal. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 54 Registered: 8-2003 |
Oh Ralph, really, you think if he had had them he wouldn't have used them, lol. He just had them like other people collect art, right, nice to look at, otherwise useless. Look, the whole world didn't believe Bushs lies, our own spooks didn't, so why are you still clinging to an illusion way after it's become totally obvious that Bush lied his ass off ?! Amazing, that. BTW, the NyTimes is not, uhh, a Euro rag, nope, New York is actually, hmm, in the USA, and, last time I checked, the commies in China or wherever hadn't taken over the Washington Post, REUTERS or USATODAY, either. Although, come to think of it, making that claim might be a brilliant pretext straight out of Dubyas Spin, Lies and Deception dept for Bushs next imbecilic war he's going to have to start in order to win the next elections. No dumber than Bushs justifications for the last war, after all. As for Eurorags, well you couldn't believe sthg like 99% of the US media during the war, so we should thank God that we had other reliable media sources helping us out. US Media: "USA TODAY Media Mix Peter Johnson Posted 9/14/2003 Amanpour: CNN practiced self-censorship CNN's top war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, says that the press muzzled itself during the Iraq war. And, she says CNN "was intimidated" by the Bush administration and Fox News, which "put a climate of fear and self-censorship." As criticism of the war and its aftermath intensifies, Amanpour joins a chorus of journalists and pundits who charge that the media largely toed the Bush administrationline in covering the war and, by doing so, failed to aggressively question the motives behind the invasion." www.usatoday.com US Spooks on War lies: "The New York Times May 30, 2003, Friday Save Our Spooks By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF (NYT) 752 words Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 27 , Column 6 ABSTRACT - Nicholas D Kristof Op-Ed column says no weapons of mass destruction have showed up in Iraq, but evidence is mounting that Bush administration grossly manipulated intelligence about weapons threat; says there is widespread outrage among intelligence professionals, who say administration officials leaned on them to exaggerate Iraqi threat and deceive public; says Central Intelligence Agency is now examining its own record, but asserts that outside examination is essential; suggests that Brent Scowcroft lead inqury and, in public report, suggest steps to restore integrity to America's intelligence agencies (M)" PS, anyone wants the links I can post them, problem is that long links make the page wider. | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 870 Registered: 3-2002 |
uh... did Sadamm have plenty of "time" to move the weapons out of the country ? Pehaps the Mirror and other euro rags forgot to publish that story on the cover ? | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 53 Registered: 8-2003 |
Ralph, thanks for the insight, hehe, it's a time honored method that when one is unable to contribute factually one will instead try and denigrate the message / medium etc, as Bush is currently demonstrating with Ambassador Wilson and spouse, but still, try and answer just one question, the one question Bush murdered tens of thousands and turned us into a pariah state for: Where are dem darned dangerous weapons of mass disappearance Bush couldn't stop gushing about ? Spin, Lies and Deceit: 3/17/03 Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." (Address, D.C., 3/17/03) 10/06/02 Bush: Saddam Hussein could strike without notice and inflict "massive and sudden horror" on America. (AP, 10/6/02) vs Reality: "Expectations shrink in hunt for Saddam's weapons By John Diamond and Bill Nichols, USA TODAY Posted 9/25/2003 11:27 PM WASHINGTON - U.S. search teams have dramatically scaled back their expectations for finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Months of searching have produced no announced discoveries that would validate the bulk of the allegations that fed its rationale for going to war." www.usatoday.com PS, don't pretend to get upset at the fact that I'm repeating those little Bush gems of wisdom up there a bit, after all, many didn't get upset when Bush was repeating them 24/7 without ever coming up with anything even remotely resembling proof. lol | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 868 Registered: 3-2002 |
Comic Book news Put down the scissors and read a real book. Ad Nauseum... | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 52 Registered: 8-2003 |
Ah, remember when we were going to get Saddam Hussein, find his weapons of mass destruction / disappearance, lol, pay for the war that had nothing to do with terrorism using nothing but Iraqi oil revenues, and the only thing getting in our way would be the Iraqi people throwing flowers at us? Yes, those were the days. Unfortunately every key calculation made has proven faulty, let alone the entire, hehe, justification for going to war in the first place, and so, things haven't quite gone according to the imbecilic neocon plan, and now we can't find Saddam or his weapons that Bush would have had us believe Saddam practically had falling out his ears, the Iraqi people are blowing us up with car bombs, and Our Great Leader had to make a groveling speech to the nation asking for another $87 billion to rebuild Iraq. And that's just for one year. That brings the total budget for the war - so far - to $166 billion. Just to put things in perspective, $87 billion is three times the amount Bush intends to spend on education this year, and twice the budget for Homeland Security. To put it further into perspective, the 1991 Gulf War, where we actually had allies contributing the by-far bulk of total budget as we weren't the bad guys, accordingly only cost the United States about $20 billion total. All that money our bankrupt nation doesn't have in the first place for nothing but a counter productive, unprecedented pre-emptive war of aggression based on nothing but lies against a nation that had not attacked us, did not pose a threat to us, and carries an outcome that isn't making the US a safer, but a much more dangerous place to live.  The TV Report cited in the newspaper at the beginning of this thread, basically stating that the war against Iraq was based on nothing but Spin, Lies and Deceit, is actually corroborated by Reuters News Agency, where Colin Powell was caught out when it was revealed that on his first trip to the Middle East back in February 2001 he made these interesting comments: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place." So how does Powell reconcile this with his own presentation to the UN where he went into great detail about Saddam's supposed "significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction?" Not to mention Bush's pre-war State Of The Union speech, in which he read out a laundry list of Saddam's alleged chemical and biological weapons? "A lot changed between February 2001 (and the invasion)," said Powell, "but I don't find anything inconsistent between what I said then and what I've said all along." Oh right. I see. So between February 2001 and April 2003, Saddam Hussein miraculously developed lots and lots of weapons of mass destruction that he didn't have before. That makes perfect sense. As mentioned, Spin, Lies and Deceit. Not that any of that is, umm, news: "The New York Times Waggy Dog Stories May 30, 2003, Friday By PAUL KRUGMAN (NYT) 744 words Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 27 , Column 1 ABSTRACT - Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says Iraq war was justified to public by links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda and by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, but no Qaeda link has ever surfaced and no such weapons have been found; says failure to find weapons has been described as 'intelligence failure,' but this ignores fact that intense pressure was placed on intelligence agencies to tell Bush and Blair administrations what they wanted to hear, resulting in 'cooked intelligence'; says it is also now clear that Pres Bush had no intention of reaching diplomatic solution; draws comparison with plot of 1997 movie Wag the Dog (M)"  "There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. Don't attack Saddam. It would undermine our antiterror efforts." Brent Scowcroft National Security Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford & George Bush senior Wall Street Journal, 15 Aug 2002 QED  "That's the spirit, George. If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett, 'Blackadder Goes Forth' | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 329 Registered: 2-2003 |
I'm still LOL'ing at all the responses here. Anyway, while I don't believe that everything's as rosy as the pro-Bush groupies here cite, I'm not saying that it's all doom and gloom in Iraq either. It's gonna get better in Iraq, but hopefully the US will realise that you can't build a nation as politically unstable as Iraq by going at it alone and insisting that they retain overall control of the rebuilding efforts. As for WMDs, that issue is falling apart like a sandcastle being hit by a tidal wave. It's gonna blow up big in the US, in fact, it has blown up big in good ole' Britain. Iraqi WMDs are in Syria, LOL! | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1507 Registered: 5-2002 |
"Provide one fact, with one witness, that the weapons were moved." Provide one fact, with one witness, that Adolph Hitler or Charles Manson ever killed anybody. (Sorry Art. I have to drag that one out every once in a while!) | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2662 Registered: 6-2001 |
Ross: Witness facts, source? Art | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1356 Registered: 3-2002 |
art, i could ask you to provide the same, after all 'till proven guilty' is the phrase i remember... as far as the iraqis i am speaking to, they are all in baghdad. some are sunni, some shiite. all of them are happy to be rid of saddam. even those who were wealthy and in high social circles had been arrested and tortured by saddam at some point. be careful about speaking of things you are unfamiliar with - that seems to be a liberal disease though.......... | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2660 Registered: 6-2001 |
Ross: Provide one fact, with one witness, that the weapons were moved. That story has long since been discredited. Provide one fact, with its source. Bet you can't. Art | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 862 Registered: 3-2002 |
Art: You are talking about the wealthy Sunnis in the middle who are making their money off of everyones back who frequent the Baath Party social events. The Sunnis in the middle who cannot afford basic items such as a loaf of bread are not exactly friendly towards Sadamm's regime. In Iraq unlike California, you cannot protest anything more than once. Sadamm provides the protection for the wealthy Sunni elites in the middle. Just like the Mafia. | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 861 Registered: 3-2002 |
The weapons were moved to Syria well before any bombs were dropped. They had plenty of time to "prepare" "before" the hostilities. Frog intransigence certainly helped the Iraqis prepare ahead of time. Bashar Assad Arab Nationalist Baath Party Dictator who runs his family owned country - Syria Sadamm Hussein Arab Nationalist Baath Party Dictator who ran his family owned country - Iraq Both dictators had a very lucrative illegal oil exportation deal going where the Black Gold / Texas Tea was going out the back door through Lebanon. Lebanon is owned by the Assad Family in Syria. Syria desperatly needs Iraqi money. That is one sweetheart deal. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2659 Registered: 6-2001 |
Ross: Believe it or not, not everyone believed that Hussien had WMDs. When I'm out of the "trial that lasts for every" sometime next week, I'll go back and find the specific items which show that. If you'll recall, before the war started, I kept saying there were no such weapons, and it looks like I was right. There was information available about that, the mainstream press didn't pick it up, nor was it made available to our citizenery. Blix himself indicated that was a possibility before we attacked, our allies, the French, Germans and Russians had strong reservations about our claims. Seems they were right. This is another example of spin. As to the comments about most Iraqis wanting us to stay: Maybe, maybe not. Which area, which group of people are they talking to? I suspect that it may be true in the North, and it might be true in the south, but it certainly isn't true where the Sunnis are located in the middle, near Baghdad. Art | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1354 Registered: 3-2002 |
must be an echo on this page.... art keeps saying the same thing, which is surprising given that he is a lawyer....condemning bush for defrauding and lying to the american public, thereby ignoring the fact that bush's decsion was based on commonly held intelligence that has not yet been proven not to be true....guess in art's world the innocent are only innocent until art thinks you're guilty. and russ, thank you for repeating what i have heard from my military friends - the reality on the ground is that for the most part iraqis are happy to see us there, the situation is improviong dramatically, and the outcome will be incredibly more positive than what was there and what the liberals think it 'should' be. | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1500 Registered: 5-2002 |
Very interesting, Russ. That seems to confirm that all is not "gloom and doom" in Iraq as the liberal media would have us believe. Nice to know that many Iraqis appreciate our efforts to establish a road to recovery. | ||
| Russ Turner (Snj5)
Member Username: Snj5 Post Number: 526 Registered: 2-2003 |
Just talked to a couple of former unit commanders in my class, Army and Marine, who just returned last month from Iraq. They can't believe what is on TV here - they say that most Iraqis want us to stay. Interesting. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 2921 Registered: 1-2002 |
Mark, thanks for the new material! Isn't it interesting that the national symbol of France is the rooster, which is a male CHICKEN? How freaking Freudian is THAT??? LOL! | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1496 Registered: 5-2002 |
"allowed them to believe that the Iraqis would welcome us with flowers instead of bombs." Sorry, but I just don't believe that our defense department and their intellegience networks were so naieve that they thought our armed forces could just roll into Baghdad and set up shop overnight with no big problems. The news MEDIA which is pro-Democrat and pro-liberal delights in making it appear that Iraq is one giant cauldron of civil unrest that will last for decades as American GIs get killed by the thousands as happened in Vietnam. Sorry folks, but I don't buy that scenario at all. The MEDIA is so use to instant gratification that it wants a televised invasion that is over within a week, a democracy established and running the next week, and everybody goes home and lives happily ever after the next week. And if something slows down the process for a while, then THE SKY IS FALLING and things are going horribly wrong. How can anybody actually think that one can UNDO 25 years of Saddam Hussein's atrocities within a few months? But that's what the liberal Democratic line of thinking DEMANDS, and if it doesn't happen quick enough, then THE SKY IS FALLING again. This Democratic whining is just partisan politics driven by Uncle Teddy and his band of bleating sheep. Instead of bashing the current administration's Iraq policies, Uncle Teddy needs to learn how to dial a telephone while soaking wet. That way, his secretaries won't suffocate inside an upside down car the next time Uncle Teddy takes them for a late night drive and flies off a bridge. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2657 Registered: 6-2001 |
Arlie: I have no problem going to war in Iraq over Saddam Hussein's behavior if that is what we as a Nation decided to do, and it was authorized by the UN. Unfortunatetly, duplicity was used, false premises were used, and the people were defrauded. The same logic that allowed our government to start this war based upon these false premises, allowed them to believe that the Iraqis would welcome us with flowers instead of bombs. The effect of that is that we are now bogged down in an unconvential war, with no end in sight. That is the reason people are complaining. It's about right and wrong, its about lives lost, and money spent. All of those effect all of us, and is an appropriate area for discussion. Art | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1494 Registered: 5-2002 |
Once again, the Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" debate rages on and on. And as always, none of the liberal Democrats care to acknowledge the fact that THOUSANDS of innocent Iraqi citizens were shot, beaten, tortured, to death and buried in mass graves. Why do the Democrats conveniently ignore this fact and concentrate on the absence of actual nuclear weapons, as if that's the only way for innocent people to be killed by a ruthless dictator like Saddam Hussein? I suppose these liberal Democrats all go to sleep at night with their doors unlocked because they think that the only way for an evil person to harm another is with nuclear weapons? And since nobody is walking around with an atomic bomb under their arm, then no harm can come to them as they snooze the night away with visions of big fat sugar plums shaped like Teddy Kennedy dancing through their heads. Ignorance is bliss. | ||
| Andrew-Phillip Goalen (Andrewg)
Member Username: Andrewg Post Number: 406 Registered: 9-2002 |
Dave, I agree that the Mirror is a terrible paper, so this article in the Telegraph should be Ok as the Daily Telegraph is one of the most respected newspapers in the World The decision to go to war in Iraq was a "first-class political disaster" for the Government, former Cabinet minister Robin Cook has said. Robin Cook Mr Cook, who resigned the Cabinet over the Iraq war, urged Tony Blair to be ready to say "No" to US President George W Bush if he turned to Britain for help in further military "adventures" abroad. He called on Mr Blair to shift the Government to the left by pushing Labour's redistribution agenda and halting the use of private companies to deliver public services. Mr Cook told a fringe meeting at Labour's annual conference in Bournemouth: "It is still possible to find colleagues who will defend the decision to invade Iraq. It is very difficult to find anybody in the parliamentary party who doesn't recognise it has been a first-class political disaster for the party and the Labour Government. "I don't discount the possibility that the neo-conservatives in Washington are planning another intervention. I think next time they come knocking on our door looking for support, they should get a different answer." Former international development secretary Clare Short, who quit the Cabinet after the war, told the meeting Mr Blair should resign to help the Government regain public trust. His decision to go to war without adequately consulting party members had "deeply offended" Labour's traditions and demoralised activists, she said. Mr Cook stopped short of calling for the Prime Minister's resignation. He played down suggestions that Mr Blair had acted alone in deciding to go to war, recalling he had repeatedly discussed Iraq in Cabinet and had won the support of the House of Commons in the March vote. " Glad I didn�t make the decision to go to war, my would my face be red now! As Saddam was a monster this episode should be shoved to the back of the archives as soon as possible, preferabley before Bush's oil based profits become public!! if your chimp of a pres's profits become public before he's voted out you'r all going to look very very silly, I for one think both Bush and Blair whilst trying to act in the publics interest are simply trying to stick money in their pockets and write their names into the history books, if only Lee Harvey Oswald could sort them out................ | ||
| Andrew-Phillip Goalen (Andrewg)
Member Username: Andrewg Post Number: 405 Registered: 9-2002 |
Mark, at least the french are fighting something, if it was Bush there wouldn't even be a chicken! | ||
| MarkPDX (Markpdx)
Member Username: Markpdx Post Number: 837 Registered: 4-2003 |
Here is one for Dave's lineup French Bullfighting  | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 2920 Registered: 1-2002 |
Art, thanks...but, in this case, cut & pasting from one of the worst tabloids in the world only deserves my contempt. No articulate commentary needed or deserved. When someone makes an educated or thoughtful observation, I will respond in kind. When they cut & paste Sterno-induced gibberish from Rag #1 (regardless of political slant), they get the back of my hand. 'Nuff said. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2655 Registered: 6-2001 |
The good thing about the articles, is that by posting them, there is little area for dispute regarding the prior statements. Having said that, editorial comment is sometimes essential to make the case. It's clear to me that Bush either lied, or relied upon faulty information. What makes this so important is that, having either been caught, or discovered that the information was wrong, Bush, et al are now trying to re-write history regarding the reasons. Paul's postings of actual articles, actual statements point out those attempts to lie about the past. To that end these are important. An interesting note: Dave, usually very articular, very factual, can only post an obscene comment to this. Come on Dave, let's see some of your usually well reasoned thoughts on these issues. Art | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Intermediate Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 1078 Registered: 8-2001 |
Yeah, I agree with Dave. Do something besides cut and paste articels on F Chat. Just provide the link and say you have no mind of your own and can't debate a damn lick. I have contributed posts that were three times as long as your CUT AND PASTE articles. Do you have an educated mind of your own or do you simply free load other peoples ideas. You want to debate on this forum you need to SPEAK UP! Regards, Jon P. Kofod 1995 F355 Challenge #23 www.flatoutracing.net | ||
| Johnny Bravo (Ben) (Johnny_bravo)
Junior Member Username: Johnny_bravo Post Number: 79 Registered: 7-2003 |
LMAO!  Pardon my *ahem* French... | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 2917 Registered: 1-2002 |
Mr. Cut-n-Paste From No-Credibility Tabloids Telson:  | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 851 Registered: 3-2002 |
Do you get your news anywhere besides while standing in line at the grocery store ? Try reading a book or journal and compile the facts. Put the comic book news away. | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 370 Registered: 5-2002 |
does anyone actually read his posts? | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1345 Registered: 3-2002 |
am i the only one who thinks we are now getting reruns from telson? come on buddy, if you are going to give us a free copy of the daily mirror and usa today everyday, please make it a current one so that i don't have to buy them. don't forget to include the personals section.... | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 51 Registered: 8-2003 |
 When one cannot attack the message, they'll try their best to denigrate the messenger. I prefer to let the facts speak for themselves: Bush Admin Spin, Lies and Deceit: 10/06/02 George Bush: Saddam Hussein could strike without notice and inflict "massive and sudden horror" on America. (AP, 10/6/02) Reality: "Expectations shrink in hunt for Saddam's weapons By John Diamond and Bill Nichols, USA TODAY Posted 9/25/2003 11:27 PM WASHINGTON - U.S. search teams have dramatically scaled back their expectations for finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Months of searching have produced no announced discoveries that would validate the bulk of the allegations that fed its rationale for going to war." http://www.usatoday.com "There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. Don't attack Saddam. It would undermine our antiterror efforts." Brent Scowcroft National Security Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford & George Bush senior Wall Street Journal, 15 Aug 2002 QED  | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1344 Registered: 3-2002 |
telson, i will give you the benefit of the doubt this time since you are probably located in the usa, but the daily mirror is about as credible a source as 'news of the world'. but certainly don't let that stop you from informing all of us of what you have read. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
New member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 49 Registered: 8-2003 |
 Spin, Lies and Deceit: The President of the United States and his neoconservative extremists that have hijacked this country in action: "The Daily Mirror THE BIG LIE Sep 22 2003 JOHN PILGER REVEALS WMDs WERE JUST A PRETEXT FOR PLANNED WAR ON IRAQ John Pilger EXACTLY one year ago, Tony Blair told Parliament: "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing. "The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running now." Not only was every word of this false, it was part of a big lie invented in Washington within hours of the attacks of September 11 2001 and used to hoodwink the American public and distract the media from the real reason for attacking Iraq. "It was 95 per cent charade," a former senior CIA analyst told me. An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary Breaking The Silence, together with interviews with former intelligence officers and senior Bush officials have revealed that Bush and Blair knew all along that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed. Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East. In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public. Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box". Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." So here were two of Bush's most important officials putting the lie to their own propaganda, and the Blair government's propaganda that subsequently provided the justification for an unprovoked, illegal attack on Iraq. The result was the deaths of what reliable studies now put at 50,000 people, civilians and mostly conscript Iraqi soldiers, as well as British and American troops. There is no estimate of the countless thousands of wounded. In a torrent of propaganda seeking to justify this violence before and during the invasion, there were occasional truths that never made headlines. In April last year, Condoleezza Rice described September 11 2001 as an "enormous opportunity" and said America "must move to take advantage of these new opportunities." Taking over Iraq, the world's second biggest oil producer, was the first such opportunity. At 2.40pm on September 11, according to confidential notes taken by his aides, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, said he wanted to "hit" Iraq - even though not a shred of evidence existed that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the attacks on New York and Washington. "Go massive," the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." Iraq was given a brief reprieve when it was decided instead to attack Afghanistan. This was the "softest option" and easiest to explain to the American people - even though not a single September 11 hijacker came from Afghanistan. In the meantime, securing the "big prize", Iraq, became an obsession in both Washington and London. An Office of Special Plans was hurriedly set up in the Pentagon for the sole purpose of converting "loose" or unsubstantiated intelligence into US policy. This was a source from which Downing Street received much of the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction we now know to be phoney. CONTRARY to Blair's denials at the time, the decision to attack Iraq was set in motion on September 17 2001, just six days after the attacks on New York and Washington. On that day, Bush signed a top- secret directive, ordering the Pentagon to begin planning "military options" for an invasion of Iraq. In July 2002, Condoleezza Rice told another Bush official who had voiced doubts about invading Iraq: "A decision has been made. Don't waste your breath." The ultimate cynicism of this cover-up was expressed by Rumsfeld himself only last week. When asked why he thought most Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of September 11, he replied: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe I could say that." It is this that makes the Hutton inquiry in London virtually a sham. By setting up an inquiry solely into the death of the weapons expert David Kelly, Blair has ensured there will be no official public investigation into the real reasons he and Bush attacked Iraq and into when exactly they made that decision. He has ensured there will be no headlines about disclosures in email traffic between Downing Street and the White House, only secretive tittle-tattle from Whitehall and the smearing of the messenger of Blair's misdeeds. The sheer scale of this cover-up makes almost laughable the forensic cross-examination of the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan about "anomalies" in the notes of his interview with David Kelly - when the story Gilligan told of government hypocrisy and deception was basically true. Those pontificating about Gilligan failed to ask one vital question - why has Lord Hutton not recalled Tony Blair for cross-examination? Why is Blair not being asked why British sovereignty has been handed over to a gang in Washington whose extremism is no longer doubted by even the most conservative observers? No one knows the Bush extremists better than Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer and personal friend of George Bush senior, the President's father. In Breaking The Silence, he tells me: "They were referred to in the circles in which I moved when I was briefing at the top policy levels as 'the crazies'." "Who referred to them as 'the crazies'?" I asked. "All of us... in policy circles as well as intelligence circles... There is plenty of documented evidence that they have been planning these attacks for a long time and that 9/11 accelerated their plan. (The weapons of mass destruction issue) was all contrived, so was the connection of Iraq with al Qaeda. It was all PR... Josef Goebbels had this dictum: If you say something often enough, the people will believe it." He added: "I think we ought to be all worried about fascism (in the United States)." The "crazies" include John Bolton, Under Secretary of State, who has made a personal mission of tearing up missile treaties with the Russians and threatening North Korea, and Douglas Feith, an Under Secretary of Defence, who ran a secret propaganda unit "reworking" intelligence about Iraq's weapons. I interviewed them both in Washington. BOLTON boasted to me that the killing of as many as 10,000 Iraqi civilians in the invasion was "quite low if you look at the size of the military operation." For raising the question of civilian casualties and asking which country America might attack next, I was told: "You must be a member of the Communist Party." Over at the Pentagon, Feith, No 3 to Rumsfeld, spoke about the "precision" of American weapons and denied that many civilians had been killed. When I pressed him, an army colonel ordered my cameraman: "Stop the tape!" In Washington, the wholesale deaths of Iraqis is unmentionable. They are non-people; the more they resist the Anglo-American occupation, the more they are dismissed as "terrorists". It is this slaughter in Iraq, a crime by any interpretation of an international law, that makes the Hutton inquiry absurd. While his lordship and the barristers play their semantic games, the spectre of thousands of dead human beings is never mentioned, and witnesses to this great crime are not called. Jo Wilding, a young law graduate, is one such witness. She was one of a group of human rights observers in Baghdad during the bombing. She and the others lived with Iraqi families as the missiles and cluster bombs exploded around them. Where possible, they would follow the explosions to scenes of civilian casualties and trace the victims to hospitals and mortuaries, interviewing the eyewitnesses and doctors. She kept meticulous notes. She saw children cut to pieces by shrapnel and screaming because there were no anaesthetics or painkillers. She saw Fatima, a mother stained with the blood of her eight children. She saw streets, mosques and farmhouses bombed by marauding aircraft. "Nothing could explain them," she told me, "other than that it was a deliberate attack on civilians." As these atrocities were carried out in our name, why are we not hearing such crucial evidence? And why is Blair allowed to make yet more self-serving speeches, and none of them from the dock? A special report by John Pilger, Breaking The Silence: Truth And Lies In The War On Terror, will be shown tonight on ITV1 at 10.45 pm" www.mirror.co.uk  "There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. Don't attack Saddam. It would undermine our antiterror efforts." Brent Scowcroft National Security Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford & George Bush senior Wall Street Journal, 15 Aug 2002 QED Best, |