PDA

View Full Version : WMDs and lies



avatar4321
04-28-2007, 06:47 AM
If Bush and Cheney lied about WMDs in Iraq, why didn't the plant some in Iraq in all the chaos and have them discovered? They would have had to known that once the war was one their "lies" would be discovered without evidence if they were lying. So why was there no attempt to plant evidence?

Could it possibly be that the administration actually believed Saddam had stockpiles of Weapons of Mass destruction and concluded that it was better to do something to eliminate a potential threat then wait around for them to attack?

Gaffer
04-28-2007, 09:53 AM
Yeah but why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?

Hobbit
04-28-2007, 02:15 PM
It's what I don't get about the conspiracy theorists.

First, let's bypass the fact that every one of these theorists thinks Bush is an idiot, and assume Cheney pulls all the strings. So, they were not only willing to kill thousands of people, wreck the economy, and even attack a government building, but they were able to silence the thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of people who were involved in this conspiracy. After that, they managed to trick every intelligence agency in the world into thinking that Saddam had WMDs, involving not only thousands more people, but somehow providing incentives to get those people to lie to their own government in order to favor another country's government. However, this beautifully executed, brilliantly planned, and nearly flawless conspiracy failed, somehow, to bump off the guys who made "Loose Change" and somehow couldn't sneak a few of our many WMDs into Iraq and hide them somewhere to make themselves more believable?

It's like those people who say Jesus was a good person, but he wasn't the Messiah. He said he was the Son of God, so he was either lieing, crazy, or he really was the Son of God.

diuretic
04-28-2007, 02:47 PM
If Bush and Cheney lied about WMDs in Iraq, why didn't the plant some in Iraq in all the chaos and have them discovered?


Because a simple forensic examination of the area would have revealed the planting of them.



They would have had to known that once the war was one their "lies" would be discovered without evidence if they were lying. So why was there no attempt to plant evidence?

They thought they didn't need to plant evidence. They thought they would get away with it. Let me give you an analogy. A criminal doesn't put a great deal of effort into hiding his tracks if he thinks he won't be held accountable for his crime.



Could it possibly be that the administration actually believed Saddam had stockpiles of Weapons of Mass destruction and concluded that it was better to do something to eliminate a potential threat then wait around for them to attack?

It could be, except that it's now been proven that - regardless of the source of the mis-information - they didn't want to look a gift horse in the mouth even if they knew they were buying from a horse thief.

avatar4321
04-28-2007, 03:21 PM
Because a simple forensic examination of the area would have revealed the planting of them.



They thought they didn't need to plant evidence. They thought they would get away with it. Let me give you an analogy. A criminal doesn't put a great deal of effort into hiding his tracks if he thinks he won't be held accountable for his crime.



It could be, except that it's now been proven that - regardless of the source of the mis-information - they didn't want to look a gift horse in the mouth even if they knew they were buying from a horse thief.

how difficult would it be to manipulate forensic results?

you are right about one thing, they didnt think they needed to plant evidence. But only because they actually believed Saddam had them... Heck Saddam believed it as well.

diuretic
04-28-2007, 05:51 PM
how difficult would it be to manipulate forensic results?

Depends on what you're trying to do.





you are right about one thing, they didnt think they needed to plant evidence. But only because they actually believed Saddam had them... Heck Saddam believed it as well.

If I could find a "shrug" smilie I'd us it. For now let me say it's a moot point. The fact is that WMD were not there.

It’s doubtful if they believed Saddam had WMD. If they did then why didn’t they allow the UN programme to deal with it? I need an answer to that to pursue that line of thought.

In the meantime, here’s my hypothesis:

Bush and Cheney had made their collective mind up to invade Iraq. They knew that Iraq had the second largest oil reserves in the world (now we think they have the largest, new discoveries have been made ). Perhaps Saddam was going to cut off trading in oil with the west and focus on Russia, China and India. Perhaps – and I’m certainly no expert in this – he had decided to trade in a currency other than greenbacks in his dealings with Russia, China and India. Perhaps Bush and Cheney knew this and could see the immense economic damage such a move would do to the US and western interests. Perhaps that was sufficient motivation to decide the invasion had to take place.

Now, having made the decision it had to be sold. The message that the military had to go into Iraq to get the oil would not be popular. Even though the military is used for economic reasons all the time it’s never actually publicly acknowledged. No country – unless it’s composed totally of wingnuts, wants to send its military to war without just cause. In a country like America which is probably the most religious in the western world and Christian, the words of St. Augustine on a just war are almost part of the culture. St Augustine wouldn’t have approved. But telling prospective allies and the populus that the invasion was necessary to find WMD which were a threat to what passes for peace in that part of the world met St Augustine’s requirements and would have pacified the American people’s concerns. No country should make war lightly. Telling everyone that WMD existed was a winner.

There was now a need for someone to come along to point the finger at Saddam and allege he had WMD. Fortunately for the Bush Administration there was someone in the wings. Chalabi. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5040846/site/newsweek/

Now when the police deal with an informant they need to do several things but the most important is to test what he is telling them. The recent shooting to death of that grandmother in Atlanta by Atlanta PD narcotics officers shows you what happens when an informant is not properly grilled. You have to take an extremely sceptical approach to what you’re being told, test and test until you’re absolutely sure that you are convinced you are not being sold a pup. With Chalabi I suggest, there was no such test. This wily man had worked out how to ingratiate himself with the Bush Administration. He told them exactly what they wanted to hear and they grabbed at it. They didn’t test the informant.

So, now we know – thanks to people like Colin Powell – that the whole WMD story was a fabrication. From that I can only conclude this:

1. The Bush Administration wanted to believe Chalabi so badly, they saw their invasion justification right there, that they failed in their duty of due diligence.

or

2. They knew Chalabi was lying but they were confident that that would never be discovered because, well, who would ask? They had a compliant Congress and cowardly and complicit mainstream media. What were the risks? None apparently.

So, no need to plant evidence. When they realised that there was indeed a need to plant evidence, to provide false evidence to cover their arses, it was, alas for them, too late.

The criminal can’t revisit the crime scene when the cops are all over it.

Gaffer
04-28-2007, 08:10 PM
Depends on what you're trying to do.





If I could find a "shrug" smilie I'd us it. For now let me say it's a moot point. The fact is that WMD were not there.

Itís doubtful if they believed Saddam had WMD. If they did then why didnít they allow the UN programme to deal with it? I need an answer to that to pursue that line of thought.

In the meantime, hereís my hypothesis:

Bush and Cheney had made their collective mind up to invade Iraq. They knew that Iraq had the second largest oil reserves in the world (now we think they have the largest, new discoveries have been made ). Perhaps Saddam was going to cut off trading in oil with the west and focus on Russia, China and India. Perhaps Ė and Iím certainly no expert in this Ė he had decided to trade in a currency other than greenbacks in his dealings with Russia, China and India. Perhaps Bush and Cheney knew this and could see the immense economic damage such a move would do to the US and western interests. Perhaps that was sufficient motivation to decide the invasion had to take place.

Now, having made the decision it had to be sold. The message that the military had to go into Iraq to get the oil would not be popular. Even though the military is used for economic reasons all the time itís never actually publicly acknowledged. No country Ė unless itís composed totally of wingnuts, wants to send its military to war without just cause. In a country like America which is probably the most religious in the western world and Christian, the words of St. Augustine on a just war are almost part of the culture. St Augustine wouldnít have approved. But telling prospective allies and the populus that the invasion was necessary to find WMD which were a threat to what passes for peace in that part of the world met St Augustineís requirements and would have pacified the American peopleís concerns. No country should make war lightly. Telling everyone that WMD existed was a winner.

There was now a need for someone to come along to point the finger at Saddam and allege he had WMD. Fortunately for the Bush Administration there was someone in the wings. Chalabi. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5040846/site/newsweek/

Now when the police deal with an informant they need to do several things but the most important is to test what he is telling them. The recent shooting to death of that grandmother in Atlanta by Atlanta PD narcotics officers shows you what happens when an informant is not properly grilled. You have to take an extremely sceptical approach to what youíre being told, test and test until youíre absolutely sure that you are convinced you are not being sold a pup. With Chalabi I suggest, there was no such test. This wily man had worked out how to ingratiate himself with the Bush Administration. He told them exactly what they wanted to hear and they grabbed at it. They didnít test the informant.

So, now we know Ė thanks to people like Colin Powell Ė that the whole WMD story was a fabrication. From that I can only conclude this:

1. The Bush Administration wanted to believe Chalabi so badly, they saw their invasion justification right there, that they failed in their duty of due diligence.

or

2. They knew Chalabi was lying but they were confident that that would never be discovered because, well, who would ask? They had a compliant Congress and cowardly and complicit mainstream media. What were the risks? None apparently.

So, no need to plant evidence. When they realised that there was indeed a need to plant evidence, to provide false evidence to cover their arses, it was, alas for them, too late.

The criminal canít revisit the crime scene when the cops are all over it.

Your definately out there. I thought you had more on the ball than that.

Iraq is selling its oil through contracts. The chinese and Japan and some european countries are getting the contracts. The US isn't getting any of the oil or the money. So how was the war for oil?

we were barely in iraq a month when the dems began their screeching that there were no WMD's. Bush could have had them placed there at any time, just to cover his ass. But to do that would be a lie. He may be wrong at times but he's not a liar.

diuretic
04-28-2007, 10:36 PM
Your definately out there. I thought you had more on the ball than that.

Gratutious insult observed. Gratuitious insult passes. Effect. Nil.




Iraq is selling its oil through contracts. The chinese and Japan and some european countries are getting the contracts. The US isn't getting any of the oil or the money. So how was the war for oil?

The US, the Chinese, Japan, Europeans countries aren't getting the oil. Companies are negotiating oil contracts but of course with the help of their government representatives. Our government in Australia is particularly keen to see one of our companies get its chop - http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/0723bhpconfidential.pdf - since we lost our wheat contract in Iraq, US farmers have benefited from the invasion and occupation, our government is in there trying to get BHP-Billiton a foothold in the frantic carpetbagging that's going on.

But no matter. Back to my hypothesis. The fact that the Iraqis are now trading with international oil companies, including those apparently in China and India simply isn't relevant to my hypothesis. It doesn't disprove it. It simply illustrates that the Iraqi government is negotiating contracts for the sale of its oil.



we were barely in iraq a month when the dems began their screeching that there were no WMD's. Bush could have had them placed there at any time, just to cover his ass. But to do that would be a lie. He may be wrong at times but he's not a liar.

I'm careful about who I call a liar, I like to make sure I have the evidence before I lean over the table, look them in the eye and say, "you're lying", because I then follow it up with how I know they're lying, just to watch their faces. I won't call Bush or Cheney a liar here. I don't have the evidence.

I remember though, the first moves of US forces in Iraq involved securing the Oil Ministry. If Bush and Cheney knew that WMD were in Iraq then why didn't they assign - through orders to the military - troops to immediately locate and secure the WMD? The briefings Powell gave were highly detailed. WMD were here, here, here, here and there and so on. But were troops assigned to locate and deal with them? Perhaps, but the Oil Ministry was numero uno on the mission objectives list.

Now, given the detailed presentation of the locations of WMD in Iraq, it shouldn't have take a month to find them anyway. Conclusion - they weren't there. They didn't exist.

stephanie
04-28-2007, 11:35 PM
Well then......If they weren't there, they didn't exist...
I guess that would make of these people liars and idiots, also...


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003



Anybody with half a brain knew Saddam had WMD...Take a look at the pictures of the 5000 Kurdish men, women and children he killed with them..
It has been said over and over, they we're moved before we invaded Saddam..So I'll believe them first..

You all can keep repeating over and over there weren't any, but it still won't make it come true....But we know you all will never drop that argument, because it fit's into your agenda...:slap:

Fountainhead
04-28-2007, 11:57 PM
Brilliant ! The TRUTH must really hurt these two-faced politicians.

And I wonder EXACTLY WHAT Hans Blix was being paid to accomplish ? Wasn't he a UN WEAPONS inspector ? Wasn't he systematically DENIED access to numerous suspicious sites over and over and over ? Didn't Saddam deny access to UN weapons inspectors in violation of UN mandates ? Wasn't Blix pretty much a political fox guarding Saddam's hen house ?

Didn't BUSH repeatedly petition the United Nations for meaningful UN inspections ? Efficatious inspections. Not bullshit UN windowdressing. Not ficticious reports about baby formula factories. But unfettered access to ALL of Iraq. Surprise inspections. Whenever and wherever investigators suspected weapon activity ?

The UN had their chance to enforce serious, no-nonsense inspections. But Hans Blix, and highly-placed French and German politicians were lining their pockets with hush money doled-out by Saddam.


Well then......If they weren't there, they didn't exist...
I guess that would make of these people liars and idiots, also...


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003



Anybody with half a brain knew Saddam had WMD...Take a look at the pictures of the 5000 Kurdish men, women and children he killed with them..
It has been said over and over, they we're moved before we invaded Saddam..So I'll believe them first..

You all can keep repeating over and over there weren't any, but it still won't make it come true....But we know you all will never drop that argument, because it fit's into your agenda...:slap:

diuretic
04-29-2007, 12:20 AM
Well then......If they weren't there, they didn't exist...
I guess that would make of these people liars and idiots, also...


(snipped a series of quotes that can be read in the post by stephanie - above - and if I was bothered I'd analyse but since I can't be stuff going through a lot of rhetorical crap here's my response)



Anybody with half a brain knew Saddam had WMD...Take a look at the pictures of the 5000 Kurdish men, women and children he killed with them..
It has been said over and over, they we're moved before we invaded Saddam..So I'll believe them first..


Of course he had WMD, the US gave them to him. I knew that. I bet you did too. Don Rumsfeld knew, he gave them to Saddam. Much of those WMD given by the generous US to its good ally Saddam were used by Saddam on -


5000 Kurdish men, women and children

among others. No point in stockpiling the generous gifts of the USA, may as well use them, that's what they're there for. Now, unless I'm wrong, if WMD were used up then....well.....they wouldn't be there any more. Right?

Oh heavens I must be wrong. That nice man Colin Powell had all those press briefings to show where the WMD possessed by Saddam were located.



You all can keep repeating over and over there weren't any, but it still won't make it come true....But we know you all will never drop that argument, because it fit's into your agenda...:slap:


I won't repeat it without a need. Unlike your president I don't need to keep repeating things to myself in the hope they come true.

And you will continue to deny because it's imperative to you that the party and the leader is right. You can't even begin to imagine that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was built on a farrago of lies, half-truths, deception and outright bullshit. You are one of the 28% percent that still support your failure of a president and his corrupt regime.

Next time you come to a battle of wits, bring some weapons - even WMD if you must :lol:

diuretic
04-29-2007, 12:22 AM
Brilliant ! The TRUTH must really hurt these two-faced politicians.

And I wonder EXACTLY WHAT Hans Blix was being paid to accomplish ? Wasn't he a UN WEAPONS inspector ? Wasn't he systematically DENIED access to numerous suspicious sites over and over and over ? Didn't Saddam deny access to UN weapons inspectors in violation of UN mandates ? Wasn't Blix pretty much a political fox guarding Saddam's hen house ?

Didn't BUSH repeatedly petition the United Nations for meaningful UN inspections ? Efficatious inspections. Not bullshit UN windowdressing. Not ficticious reports about baby formula factories. But unfettered access to ALL of Iraq. Surprise inspections. Whenever and wherever investigators suspected weapon activity ?

The UN had their chance to enforce serious, no-nonsense inspections. But Hans Blix, and highly-placed French and German politicians were lining their pockets with hush money doled-out by Saddam.

See my response to stephanie. It addresses the mindless drivel you posted here. Have you no self-respect? Your post is full of calumny, speculation and rhetorical questions. Talk about dragging down the level of debate.

stephanie
04-29-2007, 12:33 AM
(snipped a series of quotes that can be read in the post by Stephanie - above - and if I was bothered I'd analyse but since I can't be stuff going through a lot of rhetorical crap here's my response)




Of course he had WMD, the US gave them to him. I knew that. I bet you did too. Don Rumsfeld knew, he gave them to Saddam. Much of those WMD given by the generous US to its good ally Saddam were used by Saddam on -



among others. No point in stockpiling the generous gifts of the USA, may as well use them, that's what they're there for. Now, unless I'm wrong, if WMD were used up then....well.....they wouldn't be there any more. Right?

Oh heavens I must be wrong. That nice man Colin Powell had all those press briefings to show where the WMD possessed by Saddam were located.




I won't repeat it without a need. Unlike your president I don't need to keep repeating things to myself in the hope they come true.

And you will continue to deny because it's imperative to you that the party and the leader is right. You can't even begin to imagine that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was built on a farrago of lies, half-truths, deception and outright bullshit. You are one of the 28% percent that still support your failure of a president and his corrupt regime.

Next time you come to a battle of wits, bring some weapons - even WMD if you must :lol:

:laugh2: Read it and weep, dear..I see you can't stand seeing the facts of what the Democrats said about Saddam...
Go cry to your Democrats in Congress about them giving Saddam WMD's..
And go cry to your Democrats in Congress who voted for this war in Iraq..
I'll stand behind our Military men and women, and the 50 million people they liberated, any day...
If that's all ya got...You need to write in, for a new book of Democrat talking points...:poke:

diuretic
04-29-2007, 12:47 AM
:laugh2: Read it and weep, dear..I see you can't stand seeing the facts of what the Democrats said about Saddam...
Go cry to your Democrats in Congress about them giving Saddam WMD's..
And go cry to your Democrats in Congress who voted for this war in Iraq..
I'll stand behind our Military men and women, and the 50 million people they liberated, any day...
You don't sound like you stand for anything....Not my fault..
If that's all ya got...You need to write in, for a new book of Democrat talking points...:poke:

Don't be silly stephanie, you really think I care what any Democrat said about Saddam? I'm not a member of their party, I'm not an American. For mine the Democrats are merely a mirror of the GOP, there are some smart ones, some dumb ones and a lot of liars amongst both parties.

I stand for plenty. Since you don't know my name, you don't know my history, you don't know what I do for a living, you haven't got a clue about me other than what I choose to write here, then making a judgement about me is drawing a low bow. It's also pretty stupid. Now I know nothing about you, apart from the fact that you seem to have great difficulty in putting a cogent argument together here. I can validly conclude that from the tripe I am reading that has your signature attached. Aside from that, I know nothing about you and I'm okay with that. However if you were in an important postion somewhere I'd be a bit worried.

stephanie
04-29-2007, 12:59 AM
Don't be silly Stephanie, you really think I care what any Democrat said about Saddam? I'm not a member of their party, I'm not an American. For mine the Democrats are merely a mirror of the GOP, there are some smart ones, some dumb ones and a lot of liars amongst both parties.

I stand for plenty. Since you don't know my name, you don't know my history, you don't know what I do for a living, you haven't got a clue about me other than what I choose to write here, then making a judgement about me is drawing a low bow. It's also pretty stupid. Now I know nothing about you, apart from the fact that you seem to have great difficulty in putting a cogent argument together here. I can validly conclude that from the tripe I am reading that has your signature attached. Aside from that, I know nothing about you and I'm okay with that. However if you were in an important position somewhere I'd be a bit worried.

Awww...U urt mi fweellllllings...snif snif..
At least I don't think so highly of myself, that I have to go out of my way to try and tear a person apart.....
But I see you are so much more intelligent than I am...So from now on, I will try and not bore you with my ignorance...



http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/thcheer.gif

diuretic
04-29-2007, 01:09 AM
Awww...U urt mi fweellllllings...snif snif..
At least I don't think so highly of myself, that I have to go out of my way to try and tear a person apart.....
But I see you are of so much more intelligent than I am...So from now on I will try and not bore you with my ignorance...



http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/thcheer.gif

Nice smilie.

stephanie, if someone takes a shot at me I give it right back and I can be, as you can read, a really nasty bastard. I'm not that intelligent, really, I'm just reasonably well read and I have a bloody foul temper when I put my mind to it. Put together in the right circumstances and they can be very damaging if you get in the way. I told you you know nothing about me. I'll let you know a bit. I have worked my entire adult life in a job that has conflict - mental and physical - every working day. I have no hestitating in lining anyone up - here in the forum or out there where I work - if they have a go at me. By all means attack my ideas but don't attack my character or the person using the nick of diuretic. You did so I shot back at you. I prefer, much prefer to deal with ideas and not attack individuals.

stephanie
04-29-2007, 01:16 AM
Nice smilie.

Stephanie, if someone takes a shot at me I give it right back and I can be, as you can read, a really nasty bastard. I'm not that intelligent, really, I'm just reasonably well read and I have a bloody foul temper when I put my mind to it. Put together in the right circumstances and they can be very damaging if you get in the way. I told you you know nothing about me. I'll let you know a bit. I have worked my entire adult life in a job that has conflict - mental and physical - every working day. I have no hestitating in lining anyone up - here in the forum or out there where I work - if they have a go at me. By all means attack my ideas but don't attack my character or the person using the nick of diuretic. You did so I shot back at you. I prefer, much prefer to deal with ideas and not attack individuals.

Agreed...If you go back and look...I guess you were in the processes of replying to me, but I went back and edited out the one part I think you took offense too...I read it and felt it was a cheap shot on my part and I took it out...You missed it, no problem..
I understand what your saying and I'm sorry if you felt you character was attacked....It's not what I intended....


We'll start over.....K
:cheers2:

But, I still think I won the argument over Saddam and his WMD,s...
Everybody thought he had them, on both side of the political parties...
So did a lot of intelligence agencies from other countries...And now for the Democrats and other's to try and deny this........is where there agenda needs to be shoved back in their face.....in my opinion...:coffee:

And I agree with Avatar.......If we didn't believe he had them.....Then why not plant some, it would of been easy enough...???

diuretic
04-29-2007, 01:47 AM
Agreed...If you go back and look...I guess you were in the processes of replying to me, but I went back and edited out the one part I think you took offense too...I read it and felt it was a cheap shot on my part and I took it out...You missed it, no problem..
I understand what your saying and I'm sorry if you felt you character was attacked....It's not what I intended....

We'll start over.....K
:cheers2:

But, I still think I won the argument over Saddam and his WMD,s...
Everybody thought he had them, on both side of the political parties...
So did a lot of intelligence agencies from other countries...And now for the Democrats and other's to try and deny this........is where there agenda needs to be shoved back in their face.....in my opinion...:coffee:

That's kind of you. Thank you and I look forward to getting away from the personalities. I wish I could offer something else as a peace offering but I think I would look totally hypocritical and insincere given my - I have to admit it - tirade.

Yes, everyone thought he had them. But some knew it was rubbish. The British Government for one - the infamous Downing Street memo is the evidence. Blair is on the nose in his own party as well as in the UK in general because they now know he wasn't sucked in by Bush, Blair knew it was rubbish, but he, fool, thought Bush would listen to him. The Democrats, except one or two , in Congress were chickenhearts to the GOP chickenhawks ("chickenhawk" comments about GOP and Dems is not meant for those who actually served, for example, Mertha). They were caught up in what Obama has called "9/11 fever." In short they went along with it, because they were scared of losing in political terms. I have much contempt for them, they let you down by not doing their job of loyal opposition.

In my opinion (note I never use "humble", even I'm not that much of a bullshit artist, I am highly opinionated) the Dems wanted to hear the "evidence" from other countries. Yes, you're right, they were spineless cowards.

stephanie
04-29-2007, 02:01 AM
That's kind of you. Thank you and I look forward to getting away from the personalities. I wish I could offer something else as a peace offering but I think I would look totally hypocritical and insincere given my - I have to admit it - tirade.

Yes, everyone thought he had them. But some knew it was rubbish. The British Government for one - the infamous Downing Street memo is the evidence. Blair is on the nose in his own party as well as in the UK in general because they now know he wasn't sucked in by Bush, Blair knew it was rubbish, but he, fool, thought Bush would listen to him. The Democrats, except one or two , in Congress were chicken hearts to the GOP chickenhawks ("chickenhawk" comments about GOP and Dems is not meant for those who actually served, for example, Mertha). They were caught up in what Obama has called "9/11 fever." In short they went along with it, because they were scared of losing in political terms. I have much contempt for them, they let you down by not doing their job of loyal opposition.

In my opinion (note I never use "humble", even I'm not that much of a bullshit artist, I am highly opinionated) the Dems wanted to hear the "evidence" from other countries. Yes, you're right, they were spineless cowards.

I still disagree with you...shock....:laugh2:
If you go and look at the list of Democrats who stated they thought Saddam had WMD,s, the list started with Clinton in 1998 and went all the way into 2003....
It has been said, they were moved out of Iraq before we invaded, and they had enough warning, for them to do just that..
I'm very disappointed in President Bush in a lot of areas, but I still stand behind his reasons for trying to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq..
No it hasn't been handled all that well, and who knows how it will turn out..
But, I'm sitting here pulling for the people of those two countries, to stand up, be free, and take control of their countries..I don't think that is a bad thing...

And, I'm very proud of the way our Military men and women have conducted themselves in their handling of the civilian populations...Of course it's always sad when any civilian is injured or killed...But, it's the terrorist fighter's who are using them as human shields, and don't care if a civilian dies...
That shows me, just how evil the terrorist are...

diuretic
04-29-2007, 03:22 AM
I still disagree with you...shock....:laugh2:
If you go and look at the list of Democrats who stated they thought Saddam had WMD,s, the list started with Clinton in 1998 and went all the way into 2003....
It has been said, they were moved out of Iraq before we invaded, and they had enough warning, for them to do just that..
I'm very disappointed in President Bush in a lot of areas, but I still stand behind his reasons for trying to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq..
No it hasn't been handled all that well, and who knows how it will turn out..
But, I'm sitting here pulling for the people of those two countries, to stand up, be free, and take control of their countries..I don't think that is a bad thing...

And, I'm very proud of the way our Military men and women have conducted themselves in their handling of the civilian populations...Of course it's always sad when any civilian is injured or killed...But, it's the terrorist fighter's who are using them as human shields, and don't care if a civilian dies...
That shows me, just how evil the terrorist are...

Damnit I'm losing my touch. Wait a minute I never did have the touch anyway. I'm curmudgeonly though, people are supposed to warm to grumpy curmudgeons. Dunno what these young folks are coming to nowadays...

Agree to disagree on those WMD.

Afghanistan. You have no way of knowing if this is true or not but I supported the ops into Afghanistan. It was on the money. But then it became another grab for energy resources and the cover was "nation building". I know I sound cynical and that's no surprise, I am. Bush lost interest when all that oil and gas in region and the pipeline came up. Actually I reckon Cheney took Bush's focus off bin Laden and his gangsters.

Anyway Afghanistan is now a mess, the so-called government there is in disarray, they can control Kabul but that's about it. They're having yet another pissing match with Pakistan (hey they speak English they should come in here, the site owner could sell tickets) and the Taliban (I have told myself that swearing in forums is unpleasant to those who have to read it so I'll pause for moment).

Yes, the Taliban....the Taliban are resurgent. I dearly wish they would disappear from the face of the Earth but there they are again, fouling the atmosphere with their breath.

Your military. They and the Brits are pulling the heavy loads in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops are doing a bit more in Afghanistan now (Special Air Service) and we are sending more into Iraq - a policy from our government I and many other Australians vehemently disagree with by the way - to help out but the US and the Brits are still doing the hardest work. Yes, by and large your military is doing a good job. Some are murderers and are a disgrace to their uniform and to their country but they are very, very few.

The task they are being asked to perform in Iraq is damn difficult. I have no military experience but I can see the task they are being asked to do is as occupation troops, something I don't think they're particularly trained to do or have the temperament to do. That's the sort of work that is best done by a paramilitary type police force such as you see in France (Gendarmerie Nationale) or Italy (Carabinierie) or Germany (Bundespolizei) or Holland (Marechausse) and so on. Of course the military would need to provide heavy support but the central hearts and minds work and the CT work could be done by such an organisation.

The terrorists are motivated by many things. Religious fervour, hatred of modernity, hatred of the west - all pretty negative. They are called "terrorists" because they use terror of course and ipso facto they are murdering bastards.

stephanie
04-29-2007, 04:02 AM
Dammit I'm losing my touch. Wait a minute I never did have the touch anyway. I'm curmudgeonly though, people are supposed to warm to grumpy curmudgeons. Dunno what these young folks are coming to nowadays...

Agree to disagree on those WMD.

Afghanistan. You have no way of knowing if this is true or not but I supported the ops into Afghanistan. It was on the money. But then it became another grab for energy resources and the cover was "nation building". I know I sound cynical and that's no surprise, I am. Bush lost interest when all that oil and gas in region and the pipeline came up. Actually I reckon Cheney took Bush's focus off bin Laden and his gangsters.

Anyway Afghanistan is now a mess, the so-called government there is in disarray, they can control Kabul but that's about it. They're having yet another pissing match with Pakistan (hey they speak English they should come in here, the site owner could sell tickets) and the Taliban (I have told myself that swearing in forums is unpleasant to those who have to read it so I'll pause for moment).

Yes, the Taliban....the Taliban are resurgent. I dearly wish they would disappear from the face of the Earth but there they are again, fouling the atmosphere with their breath.

Your military. They and the Brits are pulling the heavy loads in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops are doing a bit more in Afghanistan now (Special Air Service) and we are sending more into Iraq - a policy from our government I and many other Australians vehemently disagree with by the way - to help out but the US and the Brits are still doing the hardest work. Yes, by and large your military is doing a good job. Some are murderers and are a disgrace to their uniform and to their country but they are very, very few.

The task they are being asked to perform in Iraq is damn difficult. I have no military experience but I can see the task they are being asked to do is as occupation troops, something I don't think they're particularly trained to do or have the temperament to do. That's the sort of work that is best done by a paramilitary type police force such as you see in France (Gendarmerie Nationale) or Italy (Carabinierie) or Germany (Bundespolizei) or Holland (Marechaussee) and so on. Of course the military would need to provide heavy support but the central hearts and minds work and the CT work could be done by such an organisation.

The terrorists are motivated by many things. Religious fervour, hatred of modernity, hatred of the west - all pretty negative. They are called "terrorists" because they use terror of course and ipso facto they are murdering bastards.


It's late here, so for now we'll have to agree to disagree on some things..
I'll catch up with ya, later...That's a promise....:laugh2:

:cheers2:

diuretic
04-29-2007, 04:04 AM
It's late here, so for now we'll have to agree to disagree on some things..
I'll catch up with ya, later...That's a promise....:laugh2:

:cheers2:

I look forward to it, sleep well. And that's fair dinkum :D

gabosaurus
04-29-2007, 03:14 PM
WMDs were never found. Because they were never there. It was one of many lies Bush used to sway popular and political opinion toward an invasion of Iraq.

WMD arguments are like those of the 2000 Presidential Election -- over and done.

Sitarro
04-29-2007, 04:27 PM
See my response to stephanie. It addresses the mindless drivel you posted here. Have you no self-respect? Your post is full of calumny, speculation and rhetorical questions. Talk about dragging down the level of debate.

What a pathetic joke you are. You know nothing but the crap fed to you by the biased assholes from your Aussie media and now you parrot that garbage like it is something new and with an arrogance that would lead one to believe you had something to say.

Where is your proof to any of the assertions you make, shouldn't you produce some or are we just suppose to be stunned and frightened by your childish bully act. You are a pompous ass that is void of any original thought or ideas and I for one am bored reading your condescending bullshit.

Produce some credible sources for any of your silly accusations or shut the fuck up....we have all heard the garbage you are spewing many times before!

diuretic
04-29-2007, 04:55 PM
What a pathetic joke you are. You know nothing but the crap fed to you by the biased assholes from your Aussie media and now you parrot that garbage like it is something new and with an arrogance that would lead one to believe you had something to say.

Where is your proof to any of the assertions you make, shouldn't you produce some or are we just suppose to be stunned and frightened by your childish bully act. You are a pompous ass that is void of any original thought or ideas and I for one am bored reading your condescending bullshit.

Produce some credible sources for any of your silly accusations or shut the fuck up....we have all heard the garbage you are spewing many times before!

Put me on ignore, there's a good chap.

avatar4321
04-29-2007, 06:20 PM
WMDs were never found. Because they were never there. It was one of many lies Bush used to sway popular and political opinion toward an invasion of Iraq.

WMD arguments are like those of the 2000 Presidential Election -- over and done.

You seem to be missing the point of the thread.

If Bush was lying about WMDs, he would have known there were none there. If he wanted to he simply could have had them planted. It wouldn't have been that difficult. Heck its alot easier than this 9/11 conspiracy you on the left are claiming he did.

But he didnt plant WMDs. So why?

diuretic
04-29-2007, 06:46 PM
You seem to be missing the point of the thread.

If Bush was lying about WMDs, he would have known there were none there. If he wanted to he simply could have had them planted. It wouldn't have been that difficult. Heck its alot easier than this 9/11 conspiracy you on the left are claiming he did.

But he didnt plant WMDs. So why?

There are a couple of possibilities. Complacency is one. But there's a more important one.

If he did then word would have leaked out about it and he would have been impeached. That would have been far too risky. Think of it, think of the massive and widespread effort it would have taken to plant WMD. It's easy for a cop to plant a bag of cocaine on someone, much, much more difficult to organise a plant of WMD.

That's the reason.

avatar4321
04-29-2007, 09:58 PM
There are a couple of possibilities. Complacency is one. But there's a more important one.

If he did then word would have leaked out about it and he would have been impeached. That would have been far too risky. Think of it, think of the massive and widespread effort it would have taken to plant WMD. It's easy for a cop to plant a bag of cocaine on someone, much, much more difficult to organise a plant of WMD.

That's the reason.

Please, Democrats were going to claim he planted them regardless of whether he did or not. It would be hard to make them look like lunatics. especially since these are the same people claiming that 911 was a government conspiracy. And that would have been far more complex than this one.

Sitarro
04-29-2007, 10:28 PM
There are a couple of possibilities. Complacency is one. But there's a more important one.

If he did then word would have leaked out about it and he would have been impeached. That would have been far too risky. Think of it, think of the massive and widespread effort it would have taken to plant WMD. It's easy for a cop to plant a bag of cocaine on someone, much, much more difficult to organise a plant of WMD.

That's the reason.

You're somewhat of a simpleton aren't you?

manu1959
04-29-2007, 10:36 PM
If Bush and Cheney lied about WMDs in Iraq, why didn't the plant some in Iraq in all the chaos and have them discovered? They would have had to known that once the war was one their "lies" would be discovered without evidence if they were lying. So why was there no attempt to plant evidence?

Could it possibly be that the administration actually believed Saddam had stockpiles of Weapons of Mass destruction and concluded that it was better to do something to eliminate a potential threat then wait around for them to attack?

tenet just said as much on 60 minutes...

diuretic
04-29-2007, 10:51 PM
Please, Democrats were going to claim he planted them regardless of whether he did or not.

And you know that how? Or is that just a hyperbolic claim made for effect but not meant to be taken seriously?





It would be hard to make them look like lunatics. especially since these are the same people claiming that 911 was a government conspiracy. And that would have been far more complex than this one.

Who are the people claiming 9/11 was a government conspiracy?

diuretic
04-29-2007, 10:52 PM
You're somewhat of a simpleton aren't you?

If you're unable to work out my post just ask for an explanation. Insulting me with childish taunts just makes you look foolish.

diuretic
04-29-2007, 10:53 PM
tenet just said as much on 60 minutes...

"Said as much" is an equivocation. What exactly did Tenet say?

diuretic
04-29-2007, 10:54 PM
Come on you blokes, lift your bloody game. It's three on one and you still can't muster enough logic to make sense.

-Cp
04-29-2007, 11:19 PM
The US, the Chinese, Japan, Europeans countries aren't getting the oil. Companies are negotiating oil contracts but of course with the help of their government representatives. Our government in Australia is particularly keen to see one of our companies get its chop - http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/0723bhpconfidential.pdf - since we lost our wheat contract in Iraq, US farmers have benefited from the invasion and occupation, our government is in there trying to get BHP-Billiton a foothold in the frantic carpetbagging that's going on.

Perhaps, but the Oil Ministry was numero uno on the mission objectives list.

Now, given the detailed presentation of the locations of WMD in Iraq, it shouldn't have take a month to find them anyway. Conclusion - they weren't there. They didn't exist.


Perhaps you need to read this:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq's new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

diuretic
04-29-2007, 11:21 PM
Perhaps you need to read this:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq's new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

Yes I knew that, but I appreciate your pointing it out.

Sitarro
04-30-2007, 12:24 AM
Yes I knew that, but I appreciate your pointing it out.

And yet you continue to let everyone know how silly you are by repeating the old standard bullshit found on all radical leftist web sites. It is you that isn't worth any effort at all, don't you have a kangaroo waiting for you?

I'm bored with you and while I won't bother to put you on ignore, I will not respond to your infant like attempts at attention.....bahh-bye.

avatar4321
04-30-2007, 12:25 AM
And you know that how? Or is that just a hyperbolic claim made for effect but not meant to be taken seriously?





Who are the people claiming 9/11 was a government conspiracy?

Because I saw Democrats claiming he was going to plant evidence.

you are not that naive to tell me you dont know who is claiming 9/11 was a government conspiracy.

manu1959
04-30-2007, 12:27 AM
"Said as much" is an equivocation. What exactly did Tenet say?

that he believed wmds were there....

diuretic
04-30-2007, 03:07 AM
And yet you continue to let everyone know how silly you are by repeating the old standard bullshit found on all radical leftist web sites. It is you that isn't worth any effort at all, don't you have a kangaroo waiting for you?

I'm bored with you and while I won't bother to put you on ignore, I will not respond to your infant like attempts at attention.....bahh-bye.

I think you mean "infantile-like attempts at attention."

diuretic
04-30-2007, 03:09 AM
Because I saw Democrats claiming he was going to plant evidence.

you are not that naive to tell me you dont know who is claiming 9/11 was a government conspiracy.

For what it's worth I have read - not a lot because I find it a bit tiresome to be blunt - about the Let It Happen On Purpose and Made It Happen On Purpose. I don't believe either "theory". I stay away from anything that looks like it's going to morph into LIHOP/MIHOP.

diuretic
04-30-2007, 03:10 AM
that he believed wmds were there....

I appreciate the clarification, thanks - no, this is not sarcasm.

Sitarro
04-30-2007, 07:17 AM
I think you mean "infantile-like attempts at attention."

I really didn't want to respond but, if I wanted to write infantile, I would have just written infantile. The dash and the word 'like" isn't needed in that case, why would you think it was? I find it cute that you would attempt to correct my grammar but really, I don't want nor do I need your help.

How is that roo?

diuretic
04-30-2007, 07:19 AM
I really didn't want to respond but, if I wanted to write infantile, I would have just written infantile. The dash and the word 'like" isn't needed in that case, why would you think it was? I find it cute that you would attempt to correct my grammar but really, I don't want nor do I need your help.

How is that roo?

An infantile-like attempt.

Sitarro
04-30-2007, 08:27 AM
An infantile-like attempt.

You're wrong ace......An unfantile attempt would be correct.....then again infant-like is also correct. Your correction was wrong...live with it.:coffee:

in∑fan∑tile
Pronunciation: 'in-f&n-"tI(-&)l, -t&l, -"tEl, -(")til
Function: adjective
1 : of or relating to infants or infancy
2 : suitable to or characteristic of an infant; especially : very immature <infantile humor>
- in∑fan∑til∑i∑ty /"in-f&n-'ti-l&-tE/ noun

diuretic
04-30-2007, 08:44 AM
You're wrong ace......An unfantile attempt would be correct.....then again infant-like is also correct. Your correction was wrong...live with it.:coffee:

in∑fan∑tile
Pronunciation: 'in-f&n-"tI(-&)l, -t&l, -"tEl, -(")til
Function: adjective
1 : of or relating to infants or infancy
2 : suitable to or characteristic of an infant; especially : very immature <infantile humor>
- in∑fan∑til∑i∑ty /"in-f&n-'ti-l&-tE/ noun

Is "unfantile" a typo or do you speak Italian? "Unfantile" isn't a word in English. Infantile is and the use of "infantile-like" as a descriptor is acceptable. You can check one of your very own wingnut sites - http://www.townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2006/09/25/radical_islam_vs_radical_christianity


They share the same unrealistic, childish view of the world driven by an infantile-like egotism.

I'm not going to quibble but if you sent her an email and told her she was wrong she would probably be grateful for the correction.

Ace. :finger3:
.

-Cp
04-30-2007, 12:05 PM
Why do folks attack their own country first - assuming they lied etc? Wouldn't our efforts be MUCH better focused on saying "Hell, we KNOW he had them, we sold him some back in the 70's and he used them on his own folks" - so "WHERE THE HELL DID HE SHIP THEM OFF TO or Bury them in the sand at!?!???!"

I'm still standing by my belief that he shipped them off to Syria during all those years we were dumb enough to keep warning him we were eventually going to come in and remove him...

Lightning Waltz
04-30-2007, 12:10 PM
Why do folks attack their own country first - assuming they lied etc?

I think it has something to do with living in a glass house and throwing stones...

gabosaurus
04-30-2007, 01:28 PM
Why do folks attack their own country first - assuming they lied etc? Wouldn't our efforts be MUCH better focused on saying "Hell, we KNOW he had them, we sold him some back in the 70's and he used them on his own folks" - so "WHERE THE HELL DID HE SHIP THEM OFF TO or Bury them in the sand at!?!???!"

It is the belief of many members of the Daddy Bush administration that pretty much all of the alleged WMDs were destroyed in the first Gulf War. This caused a strain between Daddy Bush and Shrub Bush when Shrub made the initial claims about WMDs.
No one is "attacking their own country." They are attacking the credibility of a lying President desperate to start a war.

avatar4321
05-01-2007, 12:20 AM
It is the belief of many members of the Daddy Bush administration that pretty much all of the alleged WMDs were destroyed in the first Gulf War. This caused a strain between Daddy Bush and Shrub Bush when Shrub made the initial claims about WMDs.
No one is "attacking their own country." They are attacking the credibility of a lying President desperate to start a war.

Still ignoring the entire point of the thread I see...

lily
05-01-2007, 12:55 AM
I remember though, the first moves of US forces in Iraq involved securing the Oil Ministry. If Bush and Cheney knew that WMD were in Iraq then why didn't they assign - through orders to the military - troops to immediately locate and secure the WMD? The briefings Powell gave were highly detailed. WMD were here, here, here, here and there and so on. But were troops assigned to locate and deal with them? Perhaps, but the Oil Ministry was numero uno on the mission objectives list.

I don't ususally like to do this, read the first page and reply without reading the rest of the posts, and I didn't peek to see if this has gone off into an insult fest or off topic, but I did want to reply to this post.

Yes the Oil Ministry was top priority on the to do list......and your buddy Chalabi was made head of the Oil Ministry.


Now, given the detailed presentation of the locations of WMD in Iraq, it shouldn't have take a month to find them anyway. Conclusion - they weren't there. They didn't exist.

That is one thing I could never figure out. They held up maps with X marks the spot, why didn't they make those spots priority? Why invade at all, if they knew where the weapons were, why not just bomb the spots?

lily
05-01-2007, 12:56 AM
Well then......If they weren't there, they didn't exist...
I guess that would make of these people liars and idiots, also...


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003



Anybody with half a brain knew Saddam had WMD...Take a look at the pictures of the 5000 Kurdish men, women and children he killed with them..
It has been said over and over, they we're moved before we invaded Saddam..So I'll believe them first..

You all can keep repeating over and over there weren't any, but it still won't make it come true....But we know you all will never drop that argument, because it fit's into your agenda...:slap:

Is this list on speed dial here? I must have seen the same thing 20 times in various forms of argument.

stephanie
05-01-2007, 01:05 AM
Is this list on speed dial here? I must have seen the same thing 20 times in various forms of argument.

I know it must be a bitch to see what the Democrats said before President Bush came into office, and after he took the office........But..:poke:
===================

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
:

lily
05-01-2007, 01:22 AM
[QUOTE=-Cp;49116]Why do folks attack their own country first - assuming they lied etc?

Well, for one thing I see diuretic was the main poster here and he's not American.


I'm still standing by my belief that he shipped them off to Syria during all those years we were dumb enough to keep warning him we were eventually going to come in and remove him...

While I will agree that we gave him enough warning, I can't understand this he shipped them to Syria. First of all, there is no proof of that. Next why would he ship them to Syria and not himself? What makes you think Syria would accept all those WMDs and put itself in the same danger that Iraq was in? He knew the US was going to invade him, so instead of using all the WMD we thought he had on invading soldiers, he sent all of them to Syria? I mean that's what the whole show was about WMD, yet he just shipped them off and not use them? He's used them before, why not when he really needed them?

lily
05-01-2007, 01:22 AM
I know it must be a bitch to see what the Democrats said before President Bush came into office, and after he took the office........But..:poke:

A bitch? No. Boring and overused? Definately.

stephanie
05-01-2007, 01:27 AM
A bitch? No. Boring and overused? Definitely.

Oh.....I'm sure it's BORING AND OVERSUDED.........FOR YOU ALL...:coffee:

It's never going away...So try and defend it???

Naaaa, just call it...Boring and overused.........:laugh2: :lol:

lily
05-01-2007, 01:31 AM
Oh.....I'm sure it's BORING AND OVERSUDED.........FOR YOU ALL...:coffee:


Hey dear, if that's all you got, then go for it. Me, I like to learn new things. That C&P is so over used it just takes up space, no one even debates it anymore.......but that's ok Stephanie I understand why you need to use it.

stephanie
05-01-2007, 01:33 AM
Hey dear, if that's all you got, then go for it. Me, I like to learn new things. That C&P is so over used it just takes up space, no one even debates it anymore.......but that's ok Stephanie I understand why you need to use it.

Yeah sure.....What else ya got????
You all can pretend that your party didn't know what the Fxxk was going on,....
And, to think that you all can sit here and play like you all weren't involved in this war, when your own Democrats voted for it........Pffffeeeesssswh

Bring it on......:clap:

This really bugs you........doesn't it.......


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


Poor ole Saddam, It was Bushes only thinking.....AND.......ta da taaa.
It was only the Bush administration.......
who though about taking the Hussein OUT......
.Now.....don't FORGET THAT....
Shucks e darn.......them Democrats never though(aa sucks in breath) that Saddam was a threat)..
Oh how they wish these quotes weren't available........
as they say........on a speed dial...:laugh2: :laugh2:

lily
05-01-2007, 05:46 PM
Yeah sure.....What else ya got????
You all can pretend that your party didn't know what the Fxxk was going on,....
And, to think that you all can sit here and play like you all weren't involved in this war, when your own Democrats voted for it........Pffffeeeesssswh

Can you show me some examples of who is defending the Democrats and how they voted? What most liberals realize is that the information was flawed and sorted to make the point that Bush and Cheney wanted. If you paid any attention to the news and some of the hearings you would realize this.......yes Democrats voted on and had the same information that Bush had.......because he picked and chose what he wanted them to read. You can only vote on the information you are given and Bush has shot himself in the ass, for saying that it was information from the CIA, ect. because now no one believes what he or they say.




This really bugs you........doesn't it.......

Why would it bug me? Your the one that's got nothing but the same old C&P to put up as argument. On the contrary.....makes you look sort of silly so please post it again!:salute:

stephanie
05-01-2007, 05:48 PM
Can you show me some examples of who is defending the Democrats and how they voted? What most liberals realize is that the information was flawed and sorted to make the point that Bush and Cheney wanted. If you paid any attention to the news and some of the hearings you would realize this.......yes Democrats voted on and had the same information that Bush had.......because he picked and chose what he wanted them to read. You can only vote on the information you are given and Bush has shot himself in the ass, for saying that it was information from the CIA, ect. because now no one believes what he or they say.





Why would it bug me? Your the one that's got nothing but the same old C&P to put up as argument. On the contrary.....makes you look sort of silly so please post it again!:salute:

And you are??:coffee:

lily
05-01-2007, 06:22 PM
And you are??:coffee:

Maybe you should stick to the C&P, because that reply makes no sense.:salute:

stephanie
05-01-2007, 06:25 PM
Maybe you should stick to the C&P, because that reply makes no sense.:salute:

HUH??
I thought it made perfect sense..:coffee:

lily
05-01-2007, 06:27 PM
HUH??
I thought it made perfect sense..:coffee:


Ok, well then I guess you got me, 'cuz I have no idea what you are saying. Looks like you win this debate!:clap:

stephanie
05-01-2007, 06:30 PM
Ok, well then I guess you got me, 'cuz I have no idea what you are saying. Looks like you win this debate!:clap:

Yea for me....:laugh2: