| Author | Message | ||
| James Lee (Aventino)
Junior Member Username: Aventino Post Number: 116 Registered: 6-2003 |
Ross, since the Taliban was crushed Opium production has gone through the roof in Afghanistan. So there are more addicts ODing from the increased supply of the drug each and every year than died from the WTC collapse. Adding to which the social and family cost must eventually exceed the 200 Billion you talk of. Put into context, it makes the continued search pointless doesn't it? And no, there's no red mist but I watched a bit of CNN in the Hotel in Osaka today. Interviewing a family who has a son in the US army in Bagdad. Every reported death of a US serviceman and they wait for the phone call, every day, every week, for months. They are a lot of good kids over there and it just ain't worth it. So give up a few of the contracts and get the rest of the world involved in the reconstruction and policing. US companies may not make as much but a few more sons and daughters get to come home and grow old. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1346 Registered: 3-2002 |
once again, telson, your contention is far from reality. the hunt for alqueda in aghanistan and pakistan continues today with specialized forces as well as regular military. they are making progress - some reports of it which you may find in your apparent close perusal of the daily papers. afghanistan/pakistan are very different places geographically than iraq, and therefore require a different kind of force than that used now in baghdad. just ask your favorite military spokesperson, even wesley clark will confirm this difference. so you are wrong when you say we drew forces away from where they were needed more. you are wrong when you say that we are not focused on catching terrorists in afghanistan. but don't believe me, do the research and you will find the same answer. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
New member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 50 Registered: 8-2003 |
Horsefly: "Terrorists killed thousands of innocent people on 9/11." Exactly. And they, Al Qaeda, are the ones we should have gone after, not Saddam, who wasn't behind 9/11. After all, Bush diverted limited resources away from following Al Qaeda, that attacked us, to launching an unprecedented pre-emptive attack on Iraq, that hadn't attacked us, wasn't linked to Al Qaeda, and posed no threat to us. By so doing Bush severely compromised the security of the USA while giving Al Qaeda a massive recruiting drive, using lies and deceit as his sole modus operandi. Apart from strengthening Al Qaeda all Bush has achieved is undercutting the war on terrorism by refusing to accept the harsh reality that terror needs no state or institutions to thrive, all terror needs is a mind set. Bush has destroyed alliances and all US credibility needed for tackling the real threat, terrorism, and has, on top of that failure, set dangerous precedents in which other countries will build up their arsenals now and also feel emboldened to pre-emptively attack other states triggering wars we might otherwise have avoided, sadly, Bush is also eviscerating America's moral legitimacy. "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 Best, | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1491 Registered: 5-2002 |
"No thinking person with half a brain cell would still link 9/11 with Iraq, " Then I guess that half of my brain is gone. Fortunately, the remaining half sees it this way: Terrorists killed thousands of innocent people on 9/11. Saddam Hussein's Iraqi dictatorship regime killed thousands of innocent people for 25 years. Seems like 2 birds of a feather to me. | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 834 Registered: 3-2002 |
Art: Good Morning. #1. We do not go cap in hand to the Frogs. Remember Chariots of Fire ? More than likely most countries will not provide much helpful assistance to the USA. Fighting with the French is like hunting with someone who brings an accordian. Sure some countries might help with supplying military police. The way to probably end the hit and run tactics is to improve the basic lifestyle for the Iraqis, find S.Hussein (or what is left of him), help a free government come to power (with assistance), and patrol the Iranian border to look for infiltrators sent to destabilize the reqion. Realize one thing. You are probably going to be here for the long haul. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2652 Registered: 6-2001 |
Ralph: YOur arguments would be great, if indeed our government had made them, used them to justify the war, and we, the people had agreed with them, at that time. Unfortunately, this goverment didn't make those arguments, didn't get us on board with those arguments, nor did the rest of the world agree with our attack upon Iraq, because at least in part, they believed that we'd exaggerated the claims of WMDs. At this point in time, we now need the resources of those we've snubbed, inssulted, and otherwise alienated. We've done that because our current attitude towards those who have any disagreements with us is to threaten, ignore, or otherwise attempt to dispose of them, rather than listen, and on those occassions when their right, adjust our behavior. Art | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 832 Registered: 3-2002 |
Iraq no threat to US interests and secruity ? Oh yes they do ! Well maybe they do not see it that way in Europe. That is fine. However Mr. S. Hussein has demonstrated several times his willingness (in the past) to try and make offensive land grabs with regional neighbors. It may not be prudent to let him add more "OIL" revenue which will enable him to become stronger. It would have negatively effected world oil markets had he (had) the opportunity to grab more oil fields. People: nations are competitors ~ not friends. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
New member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 48 Registered: 8-2003 |
No thinking person with half a brain cell would still link 9/11 with Iraq, let alone Bushs Big Lie to his fellow citizens that Iraq posed any kind of a threat to the USA, yet Cheney still does it. Back at the old Spin, Lies and Deceit of the pre-war days, all while Al Qaeda is getting stronger and stronger every day because Bush chose to ignore that very real threat while going of on his wild goose chase in Iraq: "Washingon Post Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked By Cheney In making the case for war against Iraq, Vice President Cheney has continued to suggest that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with a Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker five months before the attacks, even as the story was falling apart under scrutiny by the FBI, CIA and the foreign government that first made the allegation...." Continued: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14901-2003Sep28.html "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: 1329 Registered: 3-2002 |
amir i understand far more than you are willing to concede. it is pragmatic to have taken saddam out now because we will not have to do it later when his capabilities could have been greater. we will take out whoever we need to take out to ensure your way of life can continue in the same manner as it does now (this does not include cuba because they cannot affect us). the war was not illegitimate because we had reason to believe they would become a greater threat in the future - so why wait. america's security is not lessened by the taking out of iraq - given that those with intense evil intentions towards us will have had those anyway, and those with merely a small beef will think twice. yes we do care about iraqs freedom because we can use them as example to turn syria and iran and maybe a few others- that is real pragmatism since this would ultimately benefit the usa, benefit to the iraqis is incidental but i am sure they like it. oil prices will lessen over the next few years because a free iraq will put out more oil than the former regime was able to. simple supply and demand, and that was definetely an ulterior motive for the usa - pragmatism once again. usa oil companies might make some money out of it but thats not why anybody goes to war despite how convenient an argument it is for you (for further reference has to how much the usa govt likes oil companies read 'the prize' by daniel yurgin). the world trade center bombing cost america over $200 billion and probably more if you could monetize anxiety and grief, so $87 billion which represents about 0.004% of our gdp is money well spent. pragamtic. no american soldier's death is welcome, and i feel deeply indebted to each and every one of these brave men. however, war as a further extension of diplomacy necessitates their deaths at some times. it is regrettable but unavoidable. fewer iraqis are dying needlessly than at any time in the last 30 years. to say you don't want iraqi's to die is to say you are happy that saddam is gone. reality sinking in yet? the world is now in a better place than it was and it will be even better in the future because saddam is no longer a pivotal character in middle east politics. syria, iran, yemen etc will have to reasess their old strategies and come to grips with the reality that a secular democracy will be sitting right in the middle of their despotic and/or religious extremist totalitarian systems - which if you have been paying attention, are neither good for business or security. so pragmatically speaking we have less of a mess now. patriotism is not the reason i agree with the president's actions. that is a heartfelt emotion. pragmatism and realism are the reasons why i agree that our actions have been correct. | ||
| DL (Darth550)
Member Username: Darth550 Post Number: 367 Registered: 7-2003 |
I know this is a little off this topic but it is Rosh Hashanna. I get so angry the state of affairs in this f*ucked up world when I see a line of cars, almost a block long, waiting to park at Sinai Temple here on Wilshire Bl. It is that long due to the fact that there is a team of three (with a dog and mirrored sticks) inspecting every car that is entering the parking structure...in order to ensure some masked, d*ckless, suicidal piece of sh*t won't be driving in with a bomb under his car. Sorry to vent but I can't help it. DL | ||
| Chris Tanner (Ctanner)
Junior Member Username: Ctanner Post Number: 66 Registered: 5-2001 |
The only good to come out this war is that Saddam is gone. Unfortunately, this is now being touted as why we went to war as the other reasons are not passing scrutiny. The United States did not go to Iraq to liberate its people...liberation was just an out come. If liberation of the oppressed was the US goal, then we would be a very busy nation indeed. However, no one talks of invading Cuba, deposing its communist dictator and liberating this poor, oppressed country. | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Junior Member Username: Amir Post Number: 129 Registered: 2-2003 |
ross, we were attacked by Al Qa'eda. Noone had a problem when we went after Al Qa'eda. Iraq had nothing to do with it. And Iraq did not pose a threat. It was not even remotely becoming a threat. There is NO linkage with Sept. 11, except in the pig-headed mentality of the administration. Do you understand yet why the war was illegitimate? Do you understand that Invading Iraq was somehow supposed to enhance Americans' security but has actually undermined it? Do you understand that we don't give a sh1t about making Iraqis free or bringing democracy to it? Do you understand that it's about oil and other big money for a chosen few while the general population is having to needlessly shell out $87 billion (probably a lot more) that don't exist? Do you understand that Americans are dying needlessly? Do you understand that Iraqis are dying needlessly? Pragmatic? How is it being pragmatic to end up with a bigger mess than what you started with? Especially if it was preventable? Patriotic? How is it patriotic to screw your own country under mistaken beliefs or hidden agendas? Either you are falling for the propaganda, or your logic is warped beyond belief. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1327 Registered: 3-2002 |
jonas, be pragmatic. the usa will always look out for itself first and others second. that is the mission statement for the leader of any country - including yours. the reasons people don't like us are so numerous they defy counting. they are also irrelevant to americans in general. america was attacked on home soil for the first time in its history. this changed the strategy that had been in effect since the usa took any interest in the world (roughly 1900 for arguments sake). prior to 2001, we could sit back and only react to attacks after the fact, largely because the attack would occur against one of our allies, not us. call it selfish but that was the reality in ww1, ww2, and the cold war. this is no longer a viable strategy. no president of our country can allow another 9/11 incident, which therefore precludes sitting back and reacting after the fact. we have to be preemptive and take out those who we consider to be a threat. and why do we feel this is our right? because we are the prime target. not denmark, not malaysia, not mexico (name your favorite other country besides the uk). you think i am just saying this because i am patriotic? yes, but i am also pragmatic. i would rather we pay the price now, than to wait for another attack. there is no mileage in appeasement. that was shown after the trade center was attacked the first time - nothing was done that mattered, so the enemy gained courage. throughout history appeasement has not worked - and you as a dane ought to be well aware of this considering your southern neighbor. as to the number of people dying in iraq, if you care to look at the actual numbers you will find that your statement is incorrect. | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 591 Registered: 11-2002 |
I thinks its sad that you all are so patriotic that aren't thinking clearly. I live in Denmark, which atcually partisipates in this war. Over here, and in the rest of Europe, Bush is looking like a foolk who likes to lie. No one has sympathie anymore. Yes, for the Iraqi's that are getting killed down there every day. Are you aware that more innocent people are getting killed down there everyday, then when Saddam was there? - Things are out of control. Someone wrote in an earlier post, that it was stupid not to do anything about those attacks that hits the us every 10th year. To some point I agree, and some then I don't. You are again blind, if you cant see why these middle-east countries hate you (The US) - It's because you go and do something about these attacks. When one person attacks you, the take a whole country down. Off course that pisses the nation and population off. I know, if we had a "bad" leader in this country, and the US started bombing us, I would hate the US with my guts too. George Bush is a War-horny and powersick man, just like Saddam. Not in the same level at all, but things start somewhere. Bush want's to disarm everyone who has WMD, so that no one can be a threat to the US. That's great, then Bush. Remove yours too, why is the US allowed when other countries arent? - It's redicilous. If the US were to have a evil leader once in the future, no one could do anything about it. Cuz' Bush removed all weapons all over the world that could do something about it. It's rotten whats going on. I have alot of more oponions and facts, but I do not express myself that good in english  My 2. cents | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Junior Member Username: Amir Post Number: 127 Registered: 2-2003 |
Telson, you're hitting too close to home. All that chest-thumping "patriotism" (or mockery thereof) can't stop the discomfort and nagging doubts from seeping into the war-mongers' feeble brains. Why can't you be happy being branded a traitor or left-wing nut and give it a rest? Thanks for understanding. I love the way ross accuses you of using a dictionary when I suspect he's the one madly thumbing through the definitions. Funny how you gotta comprehend something before you can respond. | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 522 Registered: 11-2002 |
Christ almighy, telson! Give it a rest! Nobody cares enough to read those "war and Peace" posts of yours except for Art and MFZ. GIVE IT UP! | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1324 Registered: 3-2002 |
telson, whatever floats your boat. you obviously do not get paid much attention anywhere else or from anybody else so knock yourself out, ramble and quote away. i am sure everyone here appreciates your pithy quotations and extensive use of the dictionary. hahahahaha | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
New member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 47 Registered: 8-2003 |
"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/news/washington/2003-09-25-wmd-usat_x.htm  Why, Ross, you spinning me ?!? Now, I do understand, and can even commiserate with, the fact that a severe case of denial and cognitive dissonance is an extremely unpleasant experience, but, to quote Albert Einstein, who famously remarked that "in order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep," that is simply the price one has to pay post facto for being a gullible sheep that switched its brains off while it was being lied to on a scale that would have made many a dictator twist over in his grave from sheer envy at the audacity Bushs White House demonstrated in the Spin, Lies and Deceit Department of Propaganda. Last time I checked, that was your choice, not mine. As for your instrumentalized, to leave it at that, remark about credibility on the web being linked, of all ridiculous things, hehe, to a full name being published on a chat board on the web, and not, oh-my-gawd, arguments and facts, well, just a moments effective usage of the little gray cells should very rapidly dispose of that thought into the dustbin of murky thinking: after all, we all know the full name of the President of the United States, while simultaneously realizing that he is a fraud and a liar, who spun his evil web of deceit to his fellow citizens and the world at large, with the one caveat that the world at large cleverly disbelieved his case based on nothing but unproven allegations. A little less POSITION based credibility and a little more usage of the little gray cells in analyzing the proposition being made on the facts and merits alone would have prevented the nightmare the neoconservative extremists have led us into. Not only did Bush divert limited resources away from following Al Qaeda, that attacked us, to launching an unprecedented pre-emptive attack on Iraq, that hadn't attacked us, wasn't linked to Al Qaeda, and posed no threat to us, by doing which Bush severely compromised the security of the USA while giving Al Qaeda a massive recruiting drive. Now, was that all, you ask ? No sir. Once Dubya gets going, he really packs a punch. Not satisfied with having squandered all the international good will and sympathy the USA had in abundance after 9 /11 because practically nobody abroad believed Bushs non existent "evidence", "evidence" that consisted of nothing but endlessly repeated verbal allegations that Iraq posed a huge and imminent threat. As well as compromising world peace and stability abroad, he is also devoting his very limited capabilities to working as hard as is possible for him to creating a fascist totalitarian state of the unfree at home, where judicial due process and civil rights are rapidly turning into little more than fond memories. According to Bushs lies and deceit, Iraq was allegedly a breeding ground of terror, an incubator for Al Qaeda and a clear and present danger to "the civilized world". Bush made it the heart of his case. At his eve-of-war press conference back in March, he cast the coming attack as the next step in a story that had begun on September 11 2001. Iraq was providing "training and safe haven to terrorists, terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries". The tragedy is that, at the time, this was not true. But it is now. LIES, SPIN and DECEIT by the ChickenHawk-in-Chief President of the United States vs HARD FACTS as in, duh, honey, where did you put the Weapons of Mass Disappearance again ?: 8/26/02 Cheney: Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. (Remarks to VFW, 8/26/03). 9/02 Rumsfeld: Rumsfeld told Congress that Saddam�s "regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas�� (U.S. News 6/03). 9/19/2002 Rumsfeld: There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction -- Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, just to name but a few. But no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. (Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing Transcript, 9/19/2002) 1/28/03 Bush: �The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.� (The State of the Union Address, 1/28/03) 2/05/03 Powell: �Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.� (Remarks, U.N., 2/05/03) 2/08/03 Bush: "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." (Radio Address, 2/08/03) 3/16/03 Cheney: �We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.� (The Washington Post, 5/20/03) 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) 3/30/03 Rumsfeld: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." (Remarks, ABC, 3/30/03) This one takes the cake : 10/06/02 Bush: Saddam Hussein could strike without notice and inflict "massive and sudden horror" on America. (AP, 10/6/02) Yeah, right ! lol   "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 Nevertheless, have a great weekend, all ! Best, | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2638 Registered: 6-2001 |
Ross: Why do you seem to have a problem with facts quoted to you, which tend to disagree with your perceptions? This forum is a place where we can, with a certain decorum (not abided by all, but most) facts with which we may agree or disagree. Why turn this into a place for personal insults? Art | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1321 Registered: 3-2002 |
telson, when you can express yourself with some original thought then please do so. in the meantime spare us the acres of copy from your particular favorite media that you keep spewing. and how about a full name to go with those thoughts unless you feel the need to hide behind a handle.... | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
New member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 46 Registered: 8-2003 |
Art: I blame our press for this. Yup. The US press acted more like a State Propaganda Department in a dictatorship than what you'd expect from free media in a true democracy. ThanK God we had access to foreign media that, unlike our homegrown "journalists", were NOT hyping and promulgating the Spin, Lies and Deceit gushing forth from NeoCon 1 at the White House in seemingly endless supply. "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......" http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-09-14-media-mix_x.htm Best, | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
New member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 45 Registered: 8-2003 |
Hey Art, thx for helping out by providing clarification on who gets to say what on that one issue down there a couple of days back, if I can just leave it at that :-) Best, | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2635 Registered: 6-2001 |
Arlie: You'd be right, but for the statements quoted here from Bush, Cheney, Powell, etc. who said: 1. They knew where the weapons were, and 2. There was massive quantities of them. We then heard that we would find them, once we captured the individuals who took part in making them. One problem, despite the promises we made them, they all denied existance of such weapons. The reality is that they made up the story, used it to justify the war, and are now getting caught in the lie. I blame our press for this. The consolidation of power in the press produced this. Had our press been more independant, this couldn't have happened. The government has quite a bit of power over the press, and when the editorial staff starts getting run by the business half of the industry, this is exactly what we get. We need a lot more diversity in those who bring us news, and we aren't getting it. The argument that there are indeed more sources is falacious because very few people look at alternate sources such as the internet for their news. Had our press worked at finding the news, worked at finding the agenda of our government, told the other side's story, I suspect this would never have happened. Art | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
New member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 44 Registered: 8-2003 |
WMD... Weapon of Memory Destruction... hehe Things take a little longer here as, umm, a good education is more the exception than the rule, and, accordingly, the ability to question issues on their merits is somewhat limited. Couple that with an often misguided type of patriotism, and there you go. But, there are lots of good folks here, they are actually the huge, albeit unfortunately all too often uninformed silent majority that will, however, in the end do the right thing, and the good guys will eventually win over the really bad guys we currently have to endure in the White House. Best, :-) | ||
| Gordo A. (Gordo)
Junior Member Username: Gordo Post Number: 174 Registered: 2-2003 |
This thread is turning into a serious WMD... Weapon of Memory Destruction... I never realised there was such a difference of opinion in the US of A. Over here we get CNN which makes it sound like everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet! Sorry but GWB reminds me all to much of Martin Sheen in the Dead Zone. He wants to be the hero to push the button, total goose on the loose.. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
New member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 43 Registered: 8-2003 |
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/news/washington/2003-09-25-wmd-usat_x.htm 8/26/02 Cheney: Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. (Remarks to VFW, 8/26/03). 9/02 Rumsfeld: Rumsfeld told Congress that Saddam�s "regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas�� (U.S. News 6/03). 9/19/2002 Rumsfeld: There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction -- Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, just to name but a few. But no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. (Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing Transcript, 9/19/2002) 1/28/03 Bush: �The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.� (The State of the Union Address, 1/28/03) 2/05/03 Powell: �Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.� (Remarks, U.N., 2/05/03) 2/08/03 Bush: "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." (Radio Address, 2/08/03) 3/16/03 Cheney: �We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.� (The Washington Post, 5/20/03) 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) 3/30/03 Rumsfeld: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." (Remarks, ABC, 3/30/03) This one takes the cake : 10/06/02 Bush: Saddam Hussein could strike without notice and inflict "massive and sudden horror" on America. (AP, 10/6/02) Yeah, right ! lol | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
New member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 42 Registered: 8-2003 |
  "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  No weapons of mass destruction have been found to this day, nor will any be found. WMD's were just the Big Lie used by Bush to get the American population behind the war. Outside of the USA of course practically nobody believed Bushs evil fabrications, for which no proof was ever forthcoming, as no proof existed. It was just the President of the United States lying to his fellow citizens and the world at large.  Six months after the launch of the invasion, it has become ever clearer that the war was not only a crime of aggression, but a gigantic political blunder for those who ordered it and who are only now beginning to grasp the scale of the political price they may have to pay. While George Bush has squandered his post-September 11 popularity, raising the spectre of electoral defeat next year as American revulsion grows at the cost in blood and dollars, Tony Blair's leadership has been fatally undermined by the deception and subterfuge used to cajole Britain into a war it didn't, and once again doesn't, support. Every key calculation the pair made - from the response of the UN to the number of troops needed and the likely level of popular support and resistance in Iraq - has proven faulty. It was known before the war against Iraq that Al Qaeda and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq. A war against Saddam would dramatically increase the risk from international terrorism, all of that was known before the war, yet ignored by the neoconservatives that have hijacked this country, and who not only based a war of aggression against another state that posed no threat to us on nothing but lies and deceit, but that are also hell bent on turning the USA into a land of the unfree, where civil rights, individual freedom and judicial due process are increasingly turning into little more than fond memories. Fact is, Bush chose to wage the war of aggression against Iraq, wasting hundreds of billions of dollars we couldn't afford in the first place, and that cost us the sympathy and cooperation of the world we so desperately need, simply because that was the easy way out. Rather than fighting what really threatens us, ie international terrorism, but which unfortunately is not easily fought and located, he chose to go after the easy, albeit nonsensical and highly counter productive target of a nation you can find on a map and attack, which just happened to be Iraq, the main motive was not doing something effective against terror, but an intended demonstration of US power and strength to the world. Never mind that that has completely back fired, we stand there as vilified incompetent bunglers and liars with no more international credibility, and Al Qaeda got a massive free recruiting drive. Osama really couldn't have hoped for more. According to Bushs lies and deceit, Iraq was allegedly a breeding ground of terror, an incubator for Al Qaeda and a clear and present danger to "the civilized world". Bush made it the heart of his case. At his eve-of-war press conference back in March, he cast the coming attack as the next step in a story that had begun on September 11 2001. Iraq was providing "training and safe haven to terrorists, terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries". The tragedy is that, at the time, this was not true. But it is now.  Best, | ||
| Michael (Mtabije)
Member Username: Mtabije Post Number: 302 Registered: 10-2001 |
Here's my observations/experience, Many Liberals (any here?) love to use emotion and Ad hominem in their arguments in lieu of facts to prove a point. Bush's actions were appropriae when you consider that for 12 years Saddam has not complied with the UN and has killed and tortured his countrymen and that Iraq has ties with terrorism. Many in the left slanted media will have you believe that it's miserable in Iraq after the U.S. campaign. Flip the channel to FOX news sometime and watch the footage and interviews with Iraqi citizens- they overwhelmingly support and appreciate the ousting of Saddam. If he did in fact lie, did the means justify the ends? Yes and No. No because we were lied to but the end result, in it's due course will come to it's fruition. In stabilizing a country, there will be casualties of War, that's just war. Soldiers do that in the name of Freedom. A huge task of building infrastructure, laying out a constitution and government and stabalizing the economy cannot be done overnight. Many people thought they can breathe a sigh of relief when Bush landed on the carrier and said the war was over. However, the major military campaign is over. We are there to ensure stabilization until the Iraqi's can go at it on their own. (Why can I picture some Birkenstock wearing college kid yelling Imperialism?) If you look at history, and you don't have to look back very far. It has been done before. In due course, we will find those WMD, and won't that be something if it's right before elections? On another note hand it burns me and hurts me at the same time when I see an American burning the flag in protest. Consider this: It is a soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped with a flag. Your opinion as well as mine is protected because of these soldiers. God Bless. | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1487 Registered: 5-2002 |
Art, my point is this: Whether your search team is Democrat, Republican, military, or United Nations; you can't search an ENTIRE country in 3 or 4 months! Saddam and his boys were so corrupt and deeply entrenched that there is no telling what they might have had stashed away. I think that we just need to continue the searching process until we can be as sure as humanly possible that we've uncovered all the weapons of any kind, whether they are of the "mass destruction" caliber or whatever. And for what it's worth, I think that whole Haliburton deal smells like grade A dead fish! I saw a news story about how they were charging $6000 a day for crews to fight those oil well fires and that there were other companies willing to do the same for $3000 a day. But Haliburton had it in the bag. It's not what you know, but who you know. I still say that the invasion of Iraq was justified whether there were WMDs or not. Enough people died under Saddam and his boys to justify our attempt to put him permanently out to pasture. | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 520 Registered: 11-2002 |
art - you are nothing but an old fart hippie who still wishes there were "love ins" around your old stomping grounds. It's totally evident by your posts. I've seen college freshmen rant about our murderous government better than you do! And they don't make any sense, either! Go home and pack a big, fat bowl, roast it up, put on your Peter Paul & Mary LP's, and bong your night away. Put a flower necklace around your pencil-neck and dream about the good old days, when you and your hippe pals would get tear-gassed for chaining yourselves to oil rigs. Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ. An old friggin' hippie who still thinks the conservatives are out to kill "love" and "happiness" and the "little man." Wadda joke! | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 806 Registered: 3-2002 |
Haliburton buys from us. They are ok in my book. RK | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2634 Registered: 6-2001 |
Arlie: The report is from Bush's team. No WMDs. Period. Not Democrats, not people opposed to Bush, his own team: No WMDs. The shoe just dropped on these lying murders, and my simple question is: what should we do to them for these murders? I'm sure you'd give them a medal. But with no WMDs, what was the basis for the war? Conquest, mistake, what? One of the reasons no many countries (except those that we pay money to) are willing to assist us in the occupation was our duplicity. Make no mistake about it, this is going to cost Bush the 04 election. It'll probably cost our kids a sizeable percentage of their income over the years also. Bush has repeated Johnson's guns and butter plan, and the 80s were where we paid the price. We never seem to learn. If you're a music fan look up Peter, Paul & Mary's song: where have all the flowers gone. It's appropriate here. However, despite all of the deaths, the costs to our country, all of Bush's friends are making a lot of money. Check out Haliburton's 10k, wonder if their profits are up? What do you think? Art | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1486 Registered: 5-2002 |
WOW! According to the whining Democratic liberals, after only 3 or 4 months of searching, authorities have ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY determined that there were ABSOLUTELY no weapons of mass destruction ANYWHERE in Iraq! JUST THINK OF THE IMPLICATIONS!!! With our efficient "liberal Democratic" search techniques, we can search EVERY single solitary nook and cranny of an entire country in only 4 months! That must be the case, otherwise, how can the whining liberal Democrats know with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that Saddam Hussein's regime had ABSOLUTELY NO weapons of mass destruction? We need to quickly bring those liberal Democratic search teams back home to the United States and have them scour OUR country looking for illegal drugs and other contraband. America is only 4 or 5 times the size of Iraq, so they should be able to COMPLETELY search the ENTIRE country within 2 or 3 years. Then we can all sleep better at night knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are no illegal drugs or contraband ANYWHERE within the United States. It has to be true because the whining, liberal, Dubbya bashing Democratics said so!!!!!!!! | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 801 Registered: 3-2002 |
The troops were probably there to prevent real mass murder. Perhaps Turkey told the USA it would not stand by forever while the muslims were murdered ? What would happen then ? Russians and Serbs are historical allies the way the US and UK are. Remember 1914 ? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2632 Registered: 6-2001 |
Ralph: We shouldn't have gone to Kosovo and changed the government. There is a slight argument about keeping them from committing mass murder, we could see it and possibly stop it. I personally felt just terrible looking at the various pictures of what was happening. I didn't agree with Clinton then, nor with Bush now. We don't and never did have the right to kill other than in self defense. I'd have supplied weapons to those in trouble in Kosovo, not troops. Let them portect themselves. Art | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Junior Member Username: Kds Post Number: 208 Registered: 5-2003 |
Art.... I can "accept" your reasoning in your last post to me while still not agreeing totally with it. Fair enough. But to use the "Bush lied" mantra as a campaign slogan because the Dem's can't bring up anything better is totally uncalled for and wrong to even the most obvious observer. That's my point here. | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 785 Registered: 3-2002 |
Iran a country in very poor financial condition awash in Texas Tea/Black Gold/oil is financing the construction of nuclear reactor"s" !!! | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1320 Registered: 3-2002 |
once again art, you are speaking out of your depth. we agree that saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. that does not mean that he did not have some potentially catastrophic intentions against the usa. never mind what he was doing to is own people. whatever the number of iraqi casualties you want to quote, it is still less than the number of people who died at the hands of his police force and military on a yearly basis in the last 30 years. so make it clear: your heart bleeds for people who died during the conflict but not for those who died before and would have after? 'smell the roses?' are you kidding? so if we had done nothing after 9/11 the world would be leaving us alone and not trying to hurt us any more? this is so wrong-headed there isn't even any point to elaborate. iran and nkorea have had a nuclear program and nuclear intentions for a very long time (25 years in iran's case, and they have 17 nuclear reactors - not something you can build overnight). not a recent thing and not something that was catalyzed by our routing of the taliban. 'people have the right to chose their own govt.' true statement in a democracy, total fantasy under a dictatorship. have you ever been to a totalitarian country? didn't think so. go to one sometime and see just how free the people are to choose a new govt. 'we don't have the right to assist one fraction (sic) against another'.? by that argument you wouldn't have gone to the aid of kosovo, liberia, western europe etcetc. pick which side you are on and stay on it will you. randall, no name, no credence. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 688 Registered: 1-2003 |
"come clean or get out - aren't those your words?" Nope, those aren't my words. I'd post my full name if there weren't so many psychotic patriots on the group that figure if you disagree with the president you're unAmerican and on the verge of becoming a terrorist. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2627 Registered: 6-2001 |
Ross: There is only one defect in your reasoning: Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. There was no reason to kill tens of thousands of people. Period. As to whether or not Bush has made life more dangerous for us: look around, more dead, and they keep coming. Smell the roses: we are engaged in a active war with a lot more people than the taliban, etc. It didn't start that way, but Bush made sure that literally the entire world is angry with us. In the near future, we will see other countries trying to obtain nukes and delivery systems. The difference between North Korea, who has weapons, and Iraq which didn't is readily apparently to anyone with a brain: you have nukes we talk, no nukes, we do what we will. People get to chose their own governments. If they have an oppressive dictator, they have the right to change, whether by force, or by the ballot. We don't have the right to assist one fraction against another. Remember what caused our initial problem with Iran? the CIA had installed the Shaw, and the Iranians had had enough of him and of us. We're doing it again, and I suspect with the same or worse consequences. As to those who would justify Bush's actions by pointing out other's people's mistakes, I suggest that it's like saying someone else committed murder, therefore its ok. It isn't, it wasn't, and it will never be ok to do those things, period, and that includes Clinton, etc.'s behavior. That that's irrelevant here, what we are doing is killing innocents (don't tell me we aren't, because we are, women, children, etc are dying from our troops actions in Iraq), and for the life of me, I can't see how you folks can justify that. Art | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1315 Registered: 3-2002 |
telson, either figure out how to link or stop crowding the bandwidth with the book report. how can you say that by taking out saddam we have compromised our national security? sounds assbackwards to me. since 9/11 we can no longer rely on the strategy of only reacting to attacks. that was fine when the first strike was coming from russia and would hit the germans first. now the strikes are directly on our home turf, so we don't have the option to react after the fact, we need to act preemptively to take the battle to the enemy's turf. you may not have perceived saddam as an imminent threat but he would have been one at some stage, so might as well nail him when you can. to object to that is to ignore reality. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 325 Registered: 2-2003 |
There was a post earlier on F-chat this year (around June or so) proclaiming the so-called smoking gun in the form of the Iraq's fighter jets buried under the sand. So there goes the theory of the jets being in Syria then. BTW, the jets turned out not to be the smoking gun after all. Telson has some valid points. Instead of going after the remnants of al-Qaeda scattered around Afghanistan and Pakistan, the US invaded Iraq. Talk about having the wrong priorities. Sure, all of us are glad Saddam is gone, but too bad the method used to remove him from power basically created more Osamas and Saddam wannabes instead of eradicating them. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
New member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 41 Registered: 8-2003 |
Hmm, no idea why this is suddenly so wide, it doesn't do that in "Preview" mode. Hope it's still readable. Best, | ||
| djmonk (Davem)
Member Username: Davem Post Number: 432 Registered: 1-2002 |
Syria hid Iraq's military jets. Not the same as WMDs but not hard to ponder Syria hid more than jets. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
New member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 40 Registered: 8-2003 |
 "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' The only relevant point is that Bush diverted limited resources away from following Al Qaeda, that attacked us, to attacking Iraq, that hadn't attacked us and posed no threat to us, and has by doing so severely compromised the security of the USA while giving Al Qaeda a massive recruiting drive, and that he used lies and deceit as his sole modus operandi. Trying to justify the Iraq war at this stage with Iraqi "freedom" 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.   Quote: "We are facing death in Iraq for no reason A serving US soldier calls for the end of an occupation based on lies Tim Predmore Friday September 19, 2003 The Guardian For the past six months, I have been participating in what I believe to be the great modern lie: Operation Iraqi Freedom. After the horrific events of September 11 2001, and throughout the battle in Afghanistan, the groundwork was being laid for the invasion of Iraq. "Shock and awe" were the words used to describe the display of power that the world was going to view upon the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. It was to be an up-close, dramatic display of military strength and advanced technology from within the arsenals of the American and British military. But as a soldier preparing to take part in the invasion of Iraq, the words "shock and awe" rang deep within my psyche. Even as we prepared to depart, it seemed that these two great superpowers were about to break the very rules that they demanded others obey. Without the consent of the United Nations, and ignoring the pleas of their own citizens, the US and Britain invaded Iraq. "Shock and awe"? Yes, the words correctly described the emotional impact I felt as we embarked on an act not of justice, but of hypocrisy. From the moment the first shot was fired in this so-called war of liberation and freedom, hypocrisy reigned. After the broadcasting of recorded images of captured and dead US soldiers on Arab television, American and British leaders vowed revenge while verbally assaulting the networks for displaying such vivid images. Yet within hours of the deaths of Saddam Hussein's sons, the US government released horrific photographs of the two dead brothers for the entire world to view. Again, a "do as we say and not as we do" scenario. As soldiers serving in Iraq, we have been told that our purpose is to help the people of Iraq by providing them with the necessary assistance militarily, as well as in humanitarian efforts. Then tell me where the humanity is in the recent account in Stars and Stripes (the newspaper of the US military) of two young children brought to a US military camp by their mother in search of medical care. The two children had, unknowingly, been playing with explosive ordnance they had found,and as a result they were severely burned. The account tells how, after an hour-long wait, they - two children - were denied care by two US military doctors. A soldier described the incident as one of many "atrocities" on the part of the US military he had witnessed. Thankfully, I have not personally been a witness to atrocities - unless, of course, you consider, as I do, that this war in Iraq is the ultimate atrocity. So what is our purpose here? Was this invasion because of weapons of mass destruction, as we have so often heard? If so, where are they? Did we invade to dispose of a leader and his regime because they were closely associated with Osama bin Laden? If so, where is the proof? Or is it that our incursion is about our own economic advantage? Iraq's oil can be refined at the lowest cost of any in the world. This looks like a modern-day crusade not to free an oppressed people or to rid the world of a demonic dictator relentless in his pursuit of conquest and domination, but a crusade to control another nation's natural resource. Oil - at least to me - seems to be the reason for our presence. There is only one truth, and it is that Americans and Iraqis are dying. There are an estimated 10 to 14 attacks every day on our servicemen and women in Iraq. As the body count continues to grow, it would appear that there is no immediate end in sight. I once believed that I was serving for a cause - "to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States". Now I no longer believe that; I have lost my conviction, as well as my determination. I can no longer justify my service on the basis of what I believe to be half-truths and bold lies. With age comes wisdom, and at 36 years old I am no longer so blindly led as to believe without question. From my arrival last November at Fort Campbell, in Kentucky, talk of deployment was heard, and as that talk turned to actual preparation, my heart sank and my doubts grew. My doubts have never faded; instead, it has been my resolve and my commitment that have. My time here is almost done, as well as that of many others with whom I have served. We have all faced death in Iraq without reason and without justification. How many more must die? How many more tears must be shed before Americans awake and demand the return of the men and women whose job it is to protect them, rather than their leader's interest? � Tim Predmore is a US soldier on active duty with the 101st Airborne Division, based near Mosul in northern Iraq. A version of this article appeared in the Peoria Journal Star, Illinois" Unquote  Tens of thousands dead and mutilated because of a counter-productive war based on lies and deceit, and international terrorism is stronger than ever ! "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 | ||
| Lawrence Coppari (Lawrence)
Member Username: Lawrence Post Number: 780 Registered: 4-2002 |
There has always been a double standard when it comes to elephants and donkeys. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1313 Registered: 3-2002 |
wmd/no wmd; who the hell cares. saddam was a sadistic dictator and needed to be ousted, for the good of americans, the civilized world in general, and his own people. art, you can't call yourself a liberal or a democrat and still be on the side of totalitarian dictators for partisan reasons. of course i don't think you are even a liberal, you are simply a cynic. as for the sudden concern by the left that bush may have lied in order to get the approval needed to go into iraq (something i don't believe)....where was all this concern when clinton and gore were lying about anything and everything, even when telling the truth would have been better for them? the clinton's are lie-aholics ! randall, you still have never had the decency to post your full name, so statements from you are just as compromised as those from 'ferrari king' et al. come clean or get out - aren't those your words? | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 686 Registered: 1-2003 |
 | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 2875 Registered: 1-2002 |
 | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2626 Registered: 6-2001 |
Kds: Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in 91. He agreed to destroy them. There were weapons inspectors in Iraq until 98, when we withdrew them. The reason we withdrew them was that Saddam stopped co-operating with them, saying that the US was using them for spying tasks. Turns out that we were, he was right. In the mid 90s, Saddam said he destroyed those weapons, but didn't keep adequate paperwork. By his accounts he had destroyed them completely in 98. There is something going on there that I just don't understand: Iraq posed no threat to the USA, other than the potential that it could attack and take over its neighbor's oil fields. HOwever, given the shitty governments that were present in those countries, I don't see any great loss there. Iraq was a secular country, without any major basis against the USA. The counties of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have a strong segement of their populations who hate us and they feed those that would attack us. Bottom line, something else, which I'm not aware of is going on here. Art | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 781 Registered: 3-2002 |
Art: Sadamm Hussein is a Baath Arab Nationalist Party Muslim who befriended Bashar Assad of Syria, whom is also a Baath Arab Nationalist Party Muslim. They are both politically cut from the same cloth. Of course they are both nepotistic dictatorships. Their Country is run like a family business. They also shared in the greed of exporting illegally Iraqi oil through Syria and Lebanon. This net the Syrian dictator ( who is cash strapped with little hard currency ) one million dollars a day. Our inept Sec of State, C. Powell tried to shut the pipeline down on several occasions before the start of the war without results . It seems the young B. Assad has learned to stand up to people demanding he curb his terrorist ways. Hey what did the world say in 1982 when his father slaughtered 20,000 fundamentalists in his own country in the City of Homs ? Daddy was a good teacher. The weapons you are looking for are in Syria. S. Hussein had played cat and mouse with the UN for how many years. He was given ample opportunities to come clean through the world body. There were ( NUMEROUS ) violations on behalf of the Iraqis for years. School buses breaking down on bridges which bogged down inspection teams for hours while Iraqis were working out the back door of a milk factory. Stand off's in parking lots. There is much more here that I can post. We all know there were numerous violations that went well beyond petty mistakes. We certainly do not know the answers to all the games they played. I have a 1990 photo of S. Hussein holding nuclear triggers which he boasted to the world. One of the European intelligence agencies had just uncovered an Iraqi front company that had been importing the triggers into Iraq. S. Hussein wanted to show the world that he could outflank the intellegience agencies. Why would he bring ruin to his private country, himself, family, and political system if there was NO reason to hide something ? When the trains leave Ft. Hood, Texas loaded with offensive equipment heading east, one can certainly begin to reason that your opponent is not bluffing. The 1990 photo of S. Hussein smiling with his nuclear (WMD) triggers in his slimey hands; is on Page 58 of Time Magazine dated 31 March 2003. One more thing everyone "here" in the USA knows: ~ GWB is not A.H. !!! | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1733 Registered: 2-2001 |
God Bless our president, for doing the things the prior "president" didnt have the guts to do because he was too busy doing "other" thinsgs. Eliminate these morons before they do anything stupid, what Clinton should have done with OBL and what should have been done with Hitler. Thank God Gore didnt win the past election! Ernesto | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Junior Member Username: Kds Post Number: 207 Registered: 5-2003 |
Art.... Then why are we there ? Saddam could have done it 12 years ago. Is the entire world full of fools with bad intelligence ? Blix could have spoken up if this is true.....not after he retired and has nothing to lose....it's probably pretty easy to hide a chem/bio weapons program or destroy one in a few days time...... | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 517 Registered: 11-2002 |
Art - I disagree about Eisenhower starting Bay of Pigs and Vietnam, but I ain't arguing over that. I also disagree with the Vietnamese gov't asking for help - the gov't may have, but the people wanted communism. You and I both know that the S. Vietnamese gov't was a corrupt org that was not out for the good of the people. But again, that is not what I am arguing. My point is this: you call Bush Hitler, not because of his actions, but because you don't like him, conservatives, or republicans. Many oter presidents did the same actions, yet I've never heard you or anyone else refer to them as "Hitler". You just don't like the guy, and so your brain is constantly in an offensive mode. It think it's sad that you, as intelligent as you are, are so damn blinded by your partisanship. It really is sad. But, in order to end the argument that I really wish I'd never started with you, BUSH IS HITLER. HE IS EVIL, TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD, AND TRYING TO ANNIHILATE JEWS. Happy? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2620 Registered: 6-2001 |
Kds: From this report it appears that Saddam was telling the truth, he didn't have any such weapons. Art | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2619 Registered: 6-2001 |
Nebula: Viet Nam was under Eisenhower as the Bay of Pigs invasion. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon all continued this behavior. Do you remember that we caused the deaths of about 1,000,000 vietnamese? While Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon did some pretty good things, their behavior in war stunk to high heaven. However, in that instance, the government of Viet Nam asked for our assistance. How you can compare that to Iraq, I can't fathom for the life of me, but I'm willing to listen. Art | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 354 Registered: 5-2002 |
From as outside a point of view as I can get, I think Bush is coming out of this whole ordeal looking like a fool. Getting rid of Saddam was absolutely necessary - the time was even right - the method however, was terribly wrong. Instead of basing everything on the WMD issue, why didnt he combine that (but suspected or has in the past, messing with un weapons inspectors, etc.) with the Israel/Palestine issue, the terrorism issue, and the human rights issue. This would have been much more credible, and justified. I know Art is going to come back and say how we can not just start a war, but look at the facts - Saddam had been giving the UN the run around for over 10 years - this was the last straw. It was his time to go. I am going crazy over all of this because I am worried about what is going to happen next. Bush doesn't seem to be the ideal leader at this moment, but who else? John Kerry? Howard Dean? Al Sharpton? Wessely Clark? HILLARY?!?! Come on now, we have to take the lesser of 2 evils. There is not much else we can do, except hope for the best. | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Junior Member Username: Kds Post Number: 206 Registered: 5-2003 |
Yes.....everybody...Art is correct. We (the world) were lied to......but it was by Saddam Hussein for 12 years.....and by Hans Blix as well. What this leftist "canard" about "lying" does is it forgets the preceding decade of history and the world situation after 9/11.............. | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 516 Registered: 11-2002 |
Alright then Art - was Kennedey like Hitler? After all, is was under his administration that Vietnam started. People died there, right? Also, I beleive that the Bay of Pigs Fiasco was done under his leadership. If I recall correctly, 1300 Cubans were killed as a result of his double-step. I assume that makes him Hitler. Hmmmm...what about your beloved Clinton? Didn't he bomb an Asprin Factory, killing a lot of Iraqis? I guess that makes him Hitler as well. Oh yeah - Lincoln curtailed Habeus Corpus during the Civil War. That limited our liberties, again maing him akin to Hitler in your book. He also was in charge when hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed in the Civil War, which he had a hand in starting. Look at that! More proof that Lincoln was like Hitler! Wow! It looks like, based on your criteria for calling Bush Hitler, ALL of our presidents are like Hitler! Amazing! | ||
| MarkPDX (Markpdx)
Member Username: Markpdx Post Number: 754 Registered: 4-2003 |
 | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2618 Registered: 6-2001 |
By the way, this is just off the wire: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030924/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_reservists Let's see if this happens, just how popular this president will be to his fellow Americans. Art | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 515 Registered: 11-2002 |
Art - When Bush invades Canada and Mexico in order to make "Lebensraum"; when Bush decides to ignore all foreign debts in order to increase our economy; when Bush creates a group of officials whose main purpose is to find a solution to the Jewish population; when Bush attempts to annihilate the entire Jewish race; when Bush begins to force immigrants out of the US and seizes all their property; when Bush decided to take over the free world: When THOSE THINGS HAPPEN, then compare him to Hitler. Until any of that happens, compare him to a bad president. Critize his policies, his actions, his grammar, whatever you want. But making a serious charge like that is completely rediculous, and prooves that the left is attempting to create fear where there is no warrant. Plain and simple. Comparing any US president to Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini is a SERIOUS CHARGE. These three guys are considered the worst human beings to have ever existed. They were evil and hell-bent on creating "their world." It is truly in bad taste, and until any proof can be given that Bush has done any of the above, you need to reconsider your views, and decide if you are being rational or not. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2617 Registered: 6-2001 |
They are upset that he (Bush) would curtail their liberties, that he started a war, killed people, etc. Remember that Hitler, in addition to having a hatred of Jews,and other ethnics groups, also had a penchant for starting wars, Poland, etc., Remember despite what you feel about Iraq now, we were lied to about the inital reasons for going to war. There is no other rational explanation. People died as a result of our going to war. Those people may not have had to be killed. Anyone who causes death, unless in self defense, is a monster. I don't recall which of the 10 commandments says don't commit murder, but I'm sure its one of them. Art | ||
| MarkPDX (Markpdx)
Member Username: Markpdx Post Number: 753 Registered: 4-2003 |
Art So let's hear just how your relatives compare Bush to Hitler. You may not like anything about him but what has George done that makes him comparable to Adolf? Was the US invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq comparible to the German invasion of Poland? Is the prison camp at Gitmo comparable to Auschwitz? I didn't watch the president's last speach, did he quote anything from Mein Kampf? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2616 Registered: 6-2001 |
Nebula: Some of my relatives are camp survivors. A lot of them compare Bush to Hitler. Art | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 514 Registered: 11-2002 |
Telson - any credibility you *might* have had with your rediculous arguments, you just sh!t out of your a$$. No matter WHAT has happened, for you to even DARE to compare our president with Hitler is just in bad taste. Go tell a surviving Auschwitz victim living in Florida somewhere that Bush is like Hitler. That old fart will kick you in the nuts, hard. You and your radical cronies LOVE to compare any politician you don't like to Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. All that tells me, and the rest of the intelligent world, is that you are nothing more than a brainwashed dog, fetching the sticks that redical left-wing groups are tossing for their enjoyment. It is INSULTING. If he lied, that makes him HITLER? Are you insane? Do you know what HITLER DID? Go read a history book, little kid. Get acquainted with what Hitler did, and then TRY to convince anyone with an education that he's like Hitler. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
New member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 39 Registered: 8-2003 |
"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  It's really incredible how well Bush did Osama Bin Ladens job for him. Just go back to the hype of the prewar days, when Bush was desperate to sell the war, if not to the world that never believed his non existent evidence in the first place, then at least to his fellow citizens. The warning uttered lacked no clarity. Iraq was allegedly a breeding ground of terror, an incubator for Al Qaeda and a clear and present danger to "the civilized world". Bush made it the heart of his case. At his eve-of-war press conference back in March, the president cast the coming attack as the next step in a story that had begun on September 11 2001. Iraq was providing "training and safe haven to terrorists, terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries". The irony is that, at the time, this was not true. But it is now. With astonishing speed, Bush is making the United States nightmare come true. Iraq is fast becoming the land Dubya warned about but that it was not before we attacked: a throbbing hub of terror. Islamists bent on murder, all but non-existent in Saddam's Iraq, are now flocking to the country, from Syria, Iran and across the Arab world. In the way that hippies used to head for San Francisco, jihadists are surging towards Baghdad. For those eager to strike at the US infidel, Iraq is the place to be: a shooting gallery, with Americans in easy firing range. Afghanistan is perilous terrain, but Iraq is open country. For the Islamist terrorist hungry for action, there are now rich pickings. All thanks to a war based on nothing but lies and deceit, conceived by our own brand of extremists, the neocons hopefully not in power for much longer. Operation Iraqi Freedom blew off the gates, and Islam's holy warriors have rushed in.  Not only has Bush compromised and massively denigrated the security of the USA and its citizens through the counter productive war against Iraq based on his lies, he is also hell bent on turning the very elements that define us as a country on it's head: our civil liberties, freedom, and judicial due process.  Best, | ||
| Gordo A. (Gordo)
Junior Member Username: Gordo Post Number: 135 Registered: 2-2003 |
I really do hope you are right but I sincerely doubt it. The real lesson is there is no difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. We have created these monsters | ||
| James P. Smith (Tigermilk)
Junior Member Username: Tigermilk Post Number: 198 Registered: 7-2001 |
While I agree it's good to have Saddam out, the whole thing raises one important point: Is Pres. Bush a capable leader? If the decision to go to war was based on lies, half-truths, sketchy information, etc, it puts all of his decisions into question. I told my wife months ago Iraq would be the downfall of Bush because his credibility would suffer greatly if no WMDs were found. If Bush lied, he suffers because he lied. If it was an honest mistake, the American public deserves more than an administration willing to gamble the lives of American soldiers. Military action should not be flippant; it should be for clear and deliberate goals. I think the only thing that will save Bush is a weak Democrat running against him. | ||
| Matt (Matt_lamotte)
Member Username: Matt_lamotte Post Number: 589 Registered: 10-2002 |
Well said Ernesto. I think the benefits we will have from taking care of things over there are something we may never actually see but at least there isn't a insane ruler oppressing everyone over there. Hopefully we can help set up a government that can take control and calm things down. | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1732 Registered: 2-2001 |
I dont care if there were WMD or not. We got that crazy wacko out of there, and thats good enough for me. If we could have gotten rid of OBL years ago by raiding Afghanistan, shouldnt we have? Even with no proof of WMD or any other "imminent" threat? Of course we should have, and saved 3,000 lives in the process. The problem is, you never know what you prevented by removing these crazy people because what could have happened never happens. You people would probably be complaining had we invaded Afghanistan 6 years ago (when we should have done it) because we found no WMD or other clear threats. You still dont understand that removing these people (ie Hitler, OsamaBL, Saddam, etc etc) BEFORE they cause major destruction and death is better than doing it AFTERWARDS. Ernesto | ||
| Jim Schad (Jim_schad)
Intermediate Member Username: Jim_schad Post Number: 1887 Registered: 7-2002 |
I agree it is sad that we have found none. But what about these comments in the article? Not trying to redirect, but..... But, Mr Neil added, the report would publish computer programmes, files, pictures and paperwork which it says shows that Saddam Hussein's regime was attempting to develop a WMD programme. It is alleged that Saddam's programme of deception involved fake facilities and infrastructure to deceive and hinder the work of UN weapons inspectors. Documents have been uncovered showing weapons facilities were concealed as commercial buildings, the report is likely to say. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
New member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 38 Registered: 8-2003 |
Hmm. Very funny that. No weapons ? Why, my beloved and blindly trusted President promised me that Saddam practically had them falling out of his ears, that Saddam was this huge and imminent threat to the USA, was behind 9/11, had all these links to Al Qaeda, etc. I mean, I'd wondered a tiny bit why Bush had diverted limited resources away from following Al Qaeda, that had attacked us, to ourselves doing an unprecedented pre-emptive attack on Iraq, that had not attacked us and did not pose a threat to us. After all, rather than fighting what really threatens us, ie international terrorism, but which unfortunately is not easily fought and located, Bush chose to go after the easy, albeit nonsensical and highly counter productive target of a nation you can find on a map and attack, which just happened to be Iraq, the main motive was not doing something effective against terror, but an intended demonstration of US power and strength to the world. Never mind that that has completely back fired, we stand there as vilified incompetent bunglers and liars with no more international credibility, and Al Qaeda got a massive free recruiting drive. Ole Osama really couldn't have hoped for more. Hmm. Anyway, all that work with the grey cells not only started giving me a severe headache, nope, I also started getting serious cognitive dissonance on that, so I decided to just switch my brain off, forget about asking where the evidence was, and like any good Sect member just shout Hale to the Fuhrer ! Then: 8/26/02 Cheney: Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. (Remarks to VFW, 8/26/03). 9/02 Rumsfeld: Rumsfeld told Congress that Saddam�s "regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas�� (U.S. News 6/03). 9/19/2002 Rumsfeld: There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction -- Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, just to name but a few. But no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. (Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing Transcript, 9/19/2002) 10/06/02 Bush: Saddam Hussein could strike without notice and inflict "massive and sudden horror" on America. (AP, 10/6/02) 1/28/03 Bush: �The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.� (The State of the Union Address, 1/28/03) 2/05/03 Powell: �Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.� (Remarks, U.N., 2/05/03) 2/08/03 Bush: "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." (Radio Address, 2/08/03) 3/16/03 Cheney: �We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.� (The Washington Post, 5/20/03) 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) 3/30/03 Rumsfeld: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." (Remarks, ABC, 3/30/03) Now: Spring 2003 Bush official: �The Iraqis may have poured it into the ground someplace.� (The Washington Post, 4/10/03; Newsday, 3/16/03) 5/04/03 Rumsfeld: "We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country." (Interview, Fox News, 5/04/03) 5/12/03 Rice: U.S. never expected that �we were going to open garages and find� WMDs.� (Reuters, 5/12/03) 5/27/03 Rumsfeld: "They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer." (Remarks, Council on Foreign Relations, 5/27/03) 6/03/03 Lt. Gen. James Conway: �We were simply wrong�. It was a surprise to me then, it remains a surprise to me now, that we have not uncovered [nuclear, chemical, or biological] weapons [in Iraq.] � believe me, it�s not for lack of trying. We�ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwait border and Baghdad, but they�re simply not there.� (L.A. Times 6/03/03) 6/16/03 Bush: �And we acted in Iraq, as well. We made it clear to the dictator of Iraq that he must disarm. We asked other nations to join us in seeing to it that he would disarm, and he chose not to do so, so we disarmed him. And I know there's a lot of revisionist history now going on, but one thing is certain. He is no longer a threat to the free world, and the people of Iraq are free.� (Remarks, 6/16/03) 7/06/03 Former Amb. Joseph C. Wilson IV: �The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government. The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership.� (Op-Ed, The New York Times, 7/06/03) 7/09/03: Senator Pryor: When did you know that the reports about uranium coming out of Africa were bogus? Rumsfeld: Well, within recent days, since the information started becoming available. (Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, 7/09/03) 7/09/03: Question: Yes, Mr. President. Do you regret that your State of the Union accusation that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa is now fueling charges that you and Prime Minister Blair misled the public? Bush: �[T]here's no doubt in my mind, when it's all said and done, the facts will show the world the truth. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind. And so there's going to be a lot of attempts to try to rewrite history, and I can understand that. But I am absolutely confident in the decision I made.� One thing is for certain, he's not trying to buy anything right now.� (Remarks, 7/09/03) 7/13/2003: Mr. Russert: In March, you did say, "We know where they are?" Rumsfeld: Yeah. The phrase was almost always suspect sites, and in -- the next day one would have to say where they were, not where they are, because things are moveable. And when you can take a relatively small amount of very lethal chemical or biological weapons or capability, and move it in an hour, and -- I mean, think of the person went out under their rosebush in the back yard of their private home and dug up things that he'd been told to bury there a decade.... (Meet The Press, 7/13/2003)  "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, | ||
| Augustine J. Staino (Azzuro328)
Member Username: Azzuro328 Post Number: 435 Registered: 4-2003 |
I don't know who to be upset with more. Our government, or the Philadelphia Eagles. No, seriously, this sucks. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2614 Registered: 6-2001 |
The final report is coming out, and it appears that we've been lied to, and indeed despite the comments from the US government, there aren't any such weapons, they weren't removed, and all the statements made were false. The big question is was this an honest mistake, or did Bush, et al lie? See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3135932.stm Art |