WMD in Iraq? Nah, nothing to see here, move along... by lynchaj

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You are missing some important parts of history. The UN inpsectors left Iraq in 1998, but returned in 2002 and 2003, so the sites were not left alone for the entire times from 1998 to the invasion, when you imagine that mischief might have been afoot. In the second inspection, the UN was monitoring and inventorying the sites in question, having been granted access to previous off-limits sites (like Sdaddam's palaces) and there was no indication of chemical or biological weapons "programs", let alone the "huge stockpiles" that we were warned about. The UN inspectors- having accounted for all the previously monitored dual use equipment- were forced to leave by the imminent US invasion just before they were about the certify Iraq in compliance Certification would have allowed Russia and France to sign huges contracts with Iraq. The contracts had been drawn up and were just waiting to be inked.

What the UN report refuses to say, for political reasons, is that the equipment went missing AFTER our invasion, when lawlessness and looting was rampant. Many stories have come out about the lack United States security at depots like Kadhimiyah, where equipment, advanced explosives etc. - with UN tags and seals still on it- were stolen out from under our noses. This was not Saddam's doing. The equipment is out there- nobody knows where- but the loss of equipment happened after Saddam was overthrown.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 6:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
We should have kept the focus on minimalizing the terrorist theat dealt with Iraq when and if they ever did become a threat.

Ah, the traditional American approach to conflict. Ignore them till the buildings (or ships, and I say ships cause Clinton showed us one burning ship does not a threat make) are in flames. Then bitch and moan because 'we didn't do anything to stop them'. Bush decided that, for the immediate future, we should adopt a more proactive policy.

Quote:

Granted, hindsight is 20/20, but we had plenty of the 20/20 variety last election and still voted for the SOB. What gives?

What gives is that people see things differently from you. Like you said: 20/20 vision and they still chose Bush. I suggest that using their 20/20 vision they saw that Bush did not lie, the war was justified, and the Democratic plans like surrender first beg for terms later, is just not good for America.

Alot of anti-Bush voters (which are a seperate breed from Democrats in general and Kerry voters in particular) have seen the truth and chosen to turn away. It didn't start during the last election, during the war in Iraq, or after Sept. 11, 2001. They've been doing it since the days after the 2000 election. They could not and can not accept that result and have used every opportunity since to delegitimize the Bush Presidency and undermine American policy.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 6:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Iraq was not only not a threat to the United States, it was not a threat (except as a conventional military power) to its neighbors. The information that the Bush administration chose to scare us with came from sources that had already been discredited. In one case, the whole uranium yellowcake document had been shown to be a forgery by Joe Wilson. (The document was missing a large number of current signatures, but was ostensibly "signed" by people who had been out of office for 10 years, or with misspelled names. It was a shockingly sloppy forgery- but nobody has followed up on who actually created the document. Why not??) In the case of chemical and bioweapons, the informant- Adnan Ihsan Saeed al Haideri- had already been discredited by the CIA and DIA. Bush chose to misrepresent these facts because they did not fit in with his plans. Yet people continue to cite the (let's be generous) "errors" as if they were truth.

EDITED TO ADD: It's hard to delegitimize something that had no legitimacy to begin with.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 7:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Iraq was not only not a threat to the United States, it was not a threat (except as a conventional military power) to its neighbors.

Depends on what a threat is. Aside from active participation in terrorism such as funding suicide bombers in Isreal and efforts to kill George Bush (the first one), Iraq also launched daily attacks on US and British planes seeking to peacefully enforce the UN sanctioned and Iraq agreed to no-fly zone. Further, any chemical and biological weapons, which we and the rest of the world, believed they had, could have been provided covertly to organizations for use agaist the US or Isreal. (Oh, and Al-queda, they had that camp in the north and that big high-ranking guy they caught in Baghdad right after the war, he was there for "medical treatment", sure Iraq's not allied or affiliated with Al-Queda, they just get together for beer and to watch football. Maybe the his cousin marries Osama's brother, or they all went to highschool together or were in the same frat.)

Then there is the mass murder. It has been well established that certain acts hurt not only the direct victims, but indirectly hurt all of humanity. Segregation is a good example. Terror is another. Saddam's systematic murder, torture, and rape of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis caused terrible harm to Iraq, the arab world, and humanity in general. It needed to be stopped and that alone justified the war, despite the fact that the scope was not revealed till after (the same scenario occurred at the end of WW2, when we found sufficient independant cause for war with Germany, just from their attempted genocide of the Jews and other people they didn't like).

Lets not forget the political undermining of the western alliance that occurred during the '90s as Iraq used its illegal oil revenues to corrupt the UN and divide America from many of its traditional European allies. Thats as aggressive an act as any Saddam undertook (sametimes the first shots in a war are diplomatic, not military), and in retrospect, a course he should have pursued prior to the original invasion of Kuwait.

Quote:

EDITED TO ADD: It's hard to delegitimize something that had no legitimacy to begin with.

Thanks for making my other point. Bush-haters cannot accept the legitimacy of the 2000 election, so their opposition to the war has always been grounded in opposition to Bush. Thats why so many of those (particullarly Senators and John Kerry) arguing against Bush find themselves contradicting statements they made in 1998 supporting President Clinton's decision to bomb various countries including Iraq and Serbia.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 7:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
What gives is that people see things differently from you. Like you said: 20/20 vision and they still chose Bush. I suggest that using their 20/20 vision they saw that Bush did not lie, the war was justified, and the Democratic plans like surrender first beg for terms later, is just not good for America.

If it were simply a matter of seeing things differently I suppose I could accept that. But I think most Bush voters knew exactly what was going on and just didn't care.

I think Bush and the neo-cons tapped into the nationalistic emotional needs of people desperate to regain 'pride' in their country. They concocted fantasies that fit those emotional needs and people bought into them eagerly. The pesky details of the truth weren't something to be bothered with.

And anyone with the gall to bring up the glaring inconsistencies in their fantasies was simply labled an 'America Hater'. It's a clever ruse, but a ruse none-the-less.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 7:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Further, any chemical and biological weapons, which we and the rest of the world, believed they had

The rest of the world did not believe Iraq had WMD. UNMOVIC certainly didn't. You keep mistaking Bush's massaged message for the truth.

Quote:
Then there is the mass murder. It has been well established that certain acts hurt not only the direct victims, but indirectly hurt all of humanity

Are you referring to the mass murder by chemical weapons that we made possible by our shipments to Iraq?

Quote:
Lets not forget the political undermining of the western alliance that occurred during the '90s as Iraq used its illegal oil revenues to corrupt the UN and divide America from many of its traditional European allies

Let's not forget that American companies accounted for more illegal oil purchases than all other nations combined.

Quote:
Thanks for making my other point. Bush-haters cannot accept the legitimacy of the 2000 election, so their opposition to the war has always been grounded in opposition to Bush.

Actually, I was referring to an illegitimate war. In order to have a pre-emptive war, you must be able to show imminent threat. The so-called threat was based on informants and forgeries that had already been discredited.

Oh, and BTW- I knew months before the invasion that Bush was lying. There is no 20/20 hindsight here. It had all to do with the timetable that things were moving on. I tried convincing my Senators, Representative, and co-workers. Well, at least my colleagues have the sense to realize that I was right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 7:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
In addition, how do you know that those dual use capabilities were not being used to produce WMDs? No one knows for certain, the UN admitted as much and most indicators were they were making WMDs.

UNMOVIC was within three weeks of certifying Iraq as compliant. If you want to know about the specifics, you can google up Scott Ritter, the ex-Marine inspector, for his viewpoint. They had already investigated all of the sites, some of them mulitple times- there really was nothing there to see. You can cling to your paranoid fantasies if you want, but I suggest that you move along.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 8:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Are you referring to the mass murder by chemical weapons that we made possible by our shipments to Iraq?

Nope, I was refering to massacres by secret police, torture chambers in Baath Part buildings, dragging children from their beds to rape them in front of their fathers, thousands of "missing" Kuwaiti citizens who failed to be returned after the 1st war, big holes filled with bodies, maimed Iraqi Olympic athletes, etc. I wasn't referring at all to the thousands who died because Saddam used his weapons of mass destruction on them. Weapons he had, and used, creating a record upon which the world could reasonably rely that if he chose, he could and would use them again. Thanks.

Quote:
Actually, I was referring to an illegitimate war. In order to have a pre-emptive war, you must be able to show imminent threat. The so-called threat was based on informants and forgeries that had already been discredited.

Oh, and BTW- I knew months before the invasion that Bush was lying. It had all to do with the timetable that things were moving on. I tried convincing my Senators, Representative, and co-workers. Well, at least my colleagues have the sense to realize that I was right.

Or wrong, you did good. Advocate for your point of view. Lobby your elected representives. Make phonecalls, make a sign and shout from the rooftops. Enjoy those liberties, here. Cause if you'd tried that in Iraq before the war, you'd have been lucky to survive, and the female members of your family, lucky to have avoided rape, mutilation and murder for what you did.

Bush began making the case for war a year before it happened. But militarily we needed to go before summer cause otherwise we'd be waiting too long (into mid to late fall). Why too long? Cause we were afraid that if Saddam had another 6 months to prepare, our troops would have been exauhsted (you can only sit so long at the staring gate), his would have been better prepared, thousands of innocent Iraqis would have been murdered, and what weapons of mass destruction he had would have been ready to use.

Up until the last it all could have been avoided. An innocent Saddam could have capitulated and sparred his country invasion.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 8:22 AM

JASONZZZ

Bit confused about what I read in the article here.

Did I miss it? but did the article say over what period or when did these things go missing? moved?

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 8:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:

If it were simply a matter of seeing things differently I suppose I could accept that. But I think most Bush voters knew exactly what was going on and just didn't care.

I describe many of those who voted against Bush the same way. They know what's going on and choose to believe otherwise.

I wonder if that reduces the argument to be purely political after all.

Quote:

I think Bush and the neo-cons tapped into the nationalistic emotional needs of people desperate to regain 'pride' in their country. They concocted fantasies that fit those emotional needs and people bought into them eagerly. The pesky details of the truth weren't something to be bothered with.

You and Michael Moore. Say what you want, make your little movies. Howard Dean and "Republicans never worked an honost days work" and all that. We won. And we'll keep winning. Thats what we do. We win elections, we're winning the war. All Democrats can do is whine.

Quote:

And anyone with the gall to bring up the glaring inconsistencies in their fantasies was simply labled an 'America Hater'. It's a clever ruse, but a ruse none-the-less.

Called ya'll "Bush-haters", whether or not you hate America is your own problem. I think you love America, so long as its on your own terms. Ya'll can't stand opposing views. Me I love a good honost Democrat, unfortunately they're lacking on the national stage. Found more of them at the Republican Convention last year then speaking to and for the Democrats, heck, thats why we really won the election and the last one too, and congress, and the local mayor's race.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 8:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I wasn't referring at all to the thousands who died because Saddam used his weapons of mass destruction on them. Weapons he had, and used, creating a record upon which the world could reasonably rely that if he chose, he could and would use them again.

If he had them. And if he had our OK and protection in the UN to use them. Which he didn't.

Quote:
Bush began making the case for war a year before it happened. But militarily we needed to go before summer cause otherwise we'd be waiting too long (into mid to late fall). Why too long? Cause we were afraid that if Saddam had another 6 months to prepare, our troops would have been exauhsted (you can only sit so long at the staring gate)

compare this to Gulf War I. Bush Sr took six months to assemble 500,000 troops and materiel for a successful invasion. I thought that plan was far beter than dubya's, and certainly had more justification.

Quote:
his would have been better prepared, thousands of innocent Iraqis would have been murdered

In the no-fly zones?

Quote:
and what weapons of mass destruction he had would have been ready to use.

Why do you keep insisting that Bush thought Saddam had WMD? He knew Saddam didn't have them. The Downing Street memo, and Bush's knowing reliance on the yellowcake forgery and the discredited WMD intelligence made it pretty clear that he was simply twisting the truth to suit his purposes.

And if you are truly facing WMD, you don't send in half-prepared troops- as ours were. In fact, if anyone had reason to fear WMD it would have been Bush Sr, when Saddam really did have stockpiles that were not either destroyed by a previous invasion or expired from over a decade of potential storage. That didn't rush his war plans, and I thought he was a lot more successful.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 8:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Jasonzz- The article says

Quote:
U.N. inspectors have been blocked from returning to Iraq since the U.S.-led war in 2003 so they have been using satellite photos to see what happened to the sites that were subject to U.N. monitoring because their equipment had both civilian and military uses.

Without saying so, this implies that the removal occurred after the invasion, because the sites had been inventoried just before.

Quote:
imagery analysts have identified 109 sites that have been emptied of equipment to varying degrees, up from 90 reported in March

implies ongoing removal/ looting in 2005

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 8:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, I'm out of this thread. You can put it all through the spin cycle as often as you want. There were no WMD.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 9:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I said I was out, but I will make one last point. If the way you treated your inital linked article is any indication of the way you filter other information (and you were entirely wrong on your intepretation) then you have discredited your own opinions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 12:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
GW did the right thing and will be remembered as a great US president, probably the best in our lifetimes.

Whoah there, pardner.
Gw is full of it.
So was Clinton.
Heck, the only recent pres we had wasn't full o' crap was Jimmy the C. And look how much he couldn't get done!
Old Money, oil, and testosterone rule. Presidents serve. Citizens obey. We bitch.
Keep voting though, some day it will matter.

This just in: WMD's spotted circling Earth in Blue Sun coffee cans! China must be invaded, says an angry President! Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 1:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
We win elections, we're winning the war.

A new tv series is coming on this fall about soldiers on the front line in Iraq. This, to me, is proof positive that not only are we NOT winning the war, but that it's going to last at least five seaso- uh,..I mean last five more years at least!

T V doesn't lie Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 2:32 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
What was all that "dual use" equipment doing in Iraq in the first place? They had no legitimate need or usage for all that WMD related equipment. Iraq's medical and/or agricultural capacities were to primitive to use more than just a small fraction of it.

Do you have any idea what "dual use" equipment includes? PCs. Laboratory-sized centrifuges. If you read the article, they call out valves, pumps and piping. I don't know how familiar you are with normal lab or industrial operations but this is pretty standard stuff, especially for petroleum operations. In fact, our agency has a rule specifically geared towards refineries called "Valves, Pumps, Flanges, and Fittings".

Let me name you some other "dual use equipment" that- I assure you- is normal industrial stuff:

radioactive tracers- for oil field flow studies
high explosives- for mining operations
chlorine- water chlorination
bioreactors- beer, pharmaceuticals
hydrogen fluoride- refinery alkylation
ammonium nitrate- fertilization

I could go on and on by simply reviewing in my mind all of the dangerous chemicals and equipment that I am personally familiar with as a result of reviewing industrial processes. If I were to pick up the Condensed Chemical Dictionary or Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Processes, I'm sure I could come up with a lot more. When the UN calls a piece of equipment "dual use" they mean dual use: equipment and chemicals that have legitimate use in any reasonably industrial society.

If it is quantities you are concerned about, that is what the inventorying was about. If you think they may have missed traces of "bad stuff" going on- I can go in more detail on how one detects traces of chemical warfare agents (precursors or products), explosives, radioactive material, or biowarfare agents.

Quote:
So, why was it there? It had to be more economical to just buy the pesticides and medical supplies they needed off the open market rather than spend fortunes making their own substandard and very expensive substitutes

Does the term "embargo" mean anything to you?

Quote:
The point is, just because one piece of planted evidence is misleading don't assume the whole issue is discredited.

The point is, if Bush had such solid evidence, why did have refer to evidence that he already knew was phony?

Quote:
The real story is who planted the phony evidence

Youre right- that is the real story. And you would think that the Bush Administraion would be passionately interested in finding out and pinning the blame on some Saddam sympathizer, terrorist, or turncoat. Instead, it seems to be a dead issue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 3:40 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Any half-modern economy is based on equipment that 'could' have a dual use.

Unless you claim that Iraq should have been boiling its water over dung, pounding copper by hand (steel manufacture being forbidden), forgoing refrigeration and lypholization (look it up), devoid of vaccines and other types of modern medicine, without batteries and electricity or petroleum products of all types including fuel and polymers, and abstaining from all the other wonders of technology, you can't make a case that 'dual use' equipment is suspect.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 3:42 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm not sure what "tons and tons" of "pesticide-making" equipment constitutes. Batch reactors? Blanketing equipment? Dryers? What- specifically- are you refering to? But in point of fact, that Iraq had "dual use" equipment- even what seems like an unecessary amount- doesn't mean they were using it for nefarious purposes. Obviously, if that "tons" of equipment was accounted for it was at some point inspected. You can't make chemical warfare agents, bioweapons, or radiological weapons without leaving a trace. And the UN inspectors were, indded, aggressively looking for traces- a well as other things.

Quote:
I gather you believe that GW just flat out lied about the whole thing. To what end?

Yes, I think GW flat-out lied. I can think of a couple of really big reasons, and the first is that very large chunk of untapped oil reserves- second-largest in the world- that Iraq is sitting on. That if Blix had found Iraq in compliance with UN resolutions (he was within a few weeks of isssuing his final report) Russia and France would have gotten their hands on it with billion-dollar contracts. That part of the deal was that the oil was not to be priced in dollars.

I'm not going to get into the second- you wouldn't believe me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 4:54 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Dual Use technologies for creation of special materials associated with rocket motor technology, nuclear, biological weapons manufacturing, chemical weapons, etc are specifically controlled. There is only so much capacity for organophosphates an agrarian nation needs. Iraq had capacity way far exceeding that. For what?

VX thats what.

Same for rocket fuel, rocket motors, biological fermenters, etc. The list goes on endlessly.

Oh please.

Rockets: Iraq was allowed conventional weapons for self defense, as long as they had limited range (so as not to project power). Given the recent history of 'THE Gulf War' - the one between Iraq and Iran - (which the US was more than willing to supply in order to maximally bleed both sides), where more than 1M died on each side and took nearly an entire generation of males, that Iraq should have a lot of conventional rockets is not surprising.

Quote:
nuclear, biological weapons manufacturing, chemical weapons

So where are the tons of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? With all that capacity, you'd think more than a half-dozen old and degraded weapons of any type would have been found.

Sorry. No BW or nuclear weapons have ever been found. And the few CWs found were over a decade old. No amount of hysteria can cover up those FACTS.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 5:15 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
OIF was not the first time we've gone to war with Iraq over WMD

A three day (or four day, depending on source) limited bombing campaign doesn't constitute 'going to war'. You play fast and loose with facts. tsk tsk tsk

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 8:12 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Lynch- Let's go back to the original article that you cited and put it to rest. Do you agree that the article merely points to loss of dual use equipment since the invasion? Or are you still of the opinion that this points to some sort of technology transfer before our invasion?

Moving upwards through the posts:

Quote:
Weren't they supposed to have gotten rid of ALL of their WMD? I suppose the just forgot about all those discoveries that came later.

Apparently, you missed the part of the report that said:

Quote:
...Another source stated that several hundred munitions moved forward for the Gulf war, and never used, were never recovered by retreating Iraqi troops. A thorough post-OIF search of forward depots turned up nothing—if the weapons were indeed left behind, they were looted over the 12 years between the wars.

So the answer- in Duelfer's report, was- Yes, they forgot about them, and then the munitions- if any- were subsequently looted. Still- this does not point to the "huge stockpiles" of chemical and biological weapons" that Bush et al kept repeating.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM: I'm not sure what "tons and tons" of "pesticide- making" equipment constitutes. Batch reactors? Blanketing equipment? Dryers? What- specifically- are you refering to?
Posted by Lynch: OK, you did read the original article right?...Oh I can make a case. This is the stuff I am talking about and that is what was in those facilities mentioned in the article. Read about it in the Duelfer report. www.mtcr.info/english/index.html Yes, MTCR focuses on rocket/WMD technology but there are other guidelines broadly described as "Dual Use".

I went to every single link that you posted. An edit-find for pesticide and organophosphates only flagged one instance in the Duelfer report from 1991 (a history of events) and another that said pesticides are an example of aerosols. Did you just make this stuff up? If not- please quote and link.

Quote:
Oh, I think I see now. So it boils down to a conspiracy theory. One that conveniently has no evidence to support it but can't be disproven.

It's not a conspiracy- it's policy. I've already laid out some evidence. Check my previous posts.

Quote:
I am also an engineer and well familiar with what constitutes dual use materials.

I am not an engineer, I'm a chemist by training, working in the field of indistrial emissions including risk. I also happen to be working on an unrelated project for the DOD involving- ironically- chemical weapons detection.

You have not presented a single piece of evidence that points to the massive stockplies of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that were supposedly ready to be deployed in 45 minutes (according to bush) around Baghdad and Tikrit (according to Rumsfeld). You are pointing and gibbering at everything, at nothing, and have only succeeded in compromising your point and (by extension) the Administration's.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 8:48 PM

NEUTRINOLAD

Quote:
Remember, a lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence.

I see we have a theologian among us.
Thanks for all the great source material for my doctoral thesis, Cognitive Dissonance -Fabrication Facilitation and Logical Fallacies lynchaj.
But then, you probably think all the inspectors and front line intelligence agents are disassembling, don't you

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 3, 2005 8:55 PM

NEUTRINOLAD

Quote:
There are lots of means to destroy WMD but the most effective technique is not to create them in the first place.

And if I were a better person, I would let that pass without comment. But I'm not.
Please have your parents review your comments before you hit the Post button, m'kay?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 4, 2005 5:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
There is plenty of evidence, I have presented and there is plenty more available.

Where is the evidence? Every single item that you pointed to has evaporated. The one real issue with Saddam, which you didn't address, was his attempt to extend the range of his Samud missiles.

I listened to both Scott Ritter and David Kay at length, describing their UN pre- and USA post- inspections respectively. Let me tell you a little about the UN inspections. They went in teams of approx 25 that included missile, chemical, biological, nuclear, engineering and computer exerts, as well as door kicker-inners ("security"). They got their orders on paper at inspection AM, silently, and did not talk about them for fear of listening devices. They split up in four groups and drove around at random for hours until they met at a designated site. They assumed they had five minutes to do the inspection, from the time they arrive on-site to the time that evidence might be sanitized. They kicked in the door (if necessary), fanned out and grabbed PCs, notes, disks, and papers, and took samples. It was an aggressive, intrusive, complete inspection program even though they did not get full cooperation from Saddam or full backing from the UN.

David Kay (whose work forms the basis of the Duelfer report) was a firm believer in WMD and he was part of the UN inspection team. When he went back he took advantage of the new situation, interviewing at length Iraqi scientists, engineers, medical, and military people who might have been involved in a WMD program. His team also did site inspections. They turned up a few items- a laboratory-sized centrifuge, a few PCs, a few vials of cultured non-pathogenic medical reference strains of bacterium in somebody's frig at home... nothing to indicate the kind of robust, ongoing, massive production that you would need to make "huge stockpiles" of WMD of any sort. If you have such evidence please bring it forward, linking to a specific page (not report indexes or public relations blurbs).

Give these guys a little credit. These are bright ppl, who were passionately committed for different reasons to find WMD. They never found WMD nor any indication of the kind of program or production that it would take to produce the tens of thousands of liters of anthrax, the mushroom cloud, the huge stockpiles of chemical weapons ready-to-be-deployed-in-45 minutes around Baghdad and Tikrit that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell scared us with.

I can, OTOH, point to statements made by Bush et al that were known to be false before the statements were made, specifically crafted to give the impression of imminent danger while skirting the actual truth. Quite frankly, when someone parses language in such a lawyerly fashion, they are intending to deceive. And if Bush et al have credible evidence of the stockpiles of WMD used to justify invasion and occupation, don't you think they would be trumpeting it from the rooftop of the White House? They would not have shifted the discussion from WMD to WMD "programs" and "links with al Qaida" to "freedom is on the march" to the "flypaper" theory of counter-terrorism.

I also remember Saddam coming to power. I remember him being portrayed as a strong secular leader, friend of the USA and bulwark against Iran. Recall that Iranian ayatollahs kicked out the Shah, took over the oil, held USA hostages, and became a nation of religious fanatics and sworn enemies of the USA.

If you think this is a veiled criticism of Bush et al, then you have not been open to my statements. There is nothing veiled about it. Bush and his administration deliberately lied, over and over again, and even our friends in British intelligence say so. Bush must have scared you with death with his stories, and it seems to be imprinted in your brain as a kind of PTSD. You need to get over your fears because its warping your perceptions and clouding your reason, and I would say the same about anyone who is still clinging to the notion of massive WMD in Iraq. Even Bush et al have abadoned that argument.

BTW- if you wish, I can dissect for you the whole mad-cow panic, in which the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" was used over and over again, and how that panic was finally resolved. Perhaps a non-WMD example will make clearer how panic dominates the public discussion until the scope of the problem becomes known.... and how some people seem to become permanently fixated on the issue even after panic subsides.

EDITED TO ADD:

Quote:
Why so much "pesticide" capacity for such a small country? Try to answer that one.

Where is that excess capacity you keep talking about. I went through all of your links, I thought I did a resonably thorough job- looking into attachments and so forth- and NOTHING SHOWED UP. PLEASE QUOTE AND LINK TO A SPECIFIC PAGE or I will have to conclude that all this "excess capacity" that you keep referring to is just like the "huge stockpiles" of WMD. And if they use Raid, that's not what they told me. Raid does not have the same dispersion charcteristics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 4, 2005 7:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Heck, the only recent pres we had wasn't full o' crap was Jimmy the C. And look how much he couldn't get done!

Jimmy the C... hate to say it but HE caused much of your current mess by supplying money and arms to terrorists, which helped to provoke the Soviet invasion of Afganistan.

www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/ episodes/20/documents/brez.carter/

www.marxists.org/history/afghanistan/ archive/brzezinski/1998/interview.htm

Face it, they are all full of crap

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 4, 2005 7:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:

PS, don't forget the biggest tragedy of all.. Jimmy Carter betrayed the Iranian people and spawned that incredibly evil regime there now. Not that the Shah was a saint but compared to AK he was a prince.

Perhaps if you are looking to blame someone for political problems in Iran you should start with Eisenhower.

http://www.payvand.com/news/03/aug/1106.html

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 4, 2005 7:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
OIF was not the first time we've gone to war with Iraq over WMD
A three day (or four day, depending on source) limited bombing campaign doesn't constitute 'going to war'. You play fast and loose with facts. tsk tsk tsk

Unless you are on the recieving end of those bombs... in that case I'd be looking to make someone pay. Kind of the history of your foriegn policy troubles.

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 4, 2005 8:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Jimmy the C... hate to say it but HE caused much of your current mess by supplying money and arms to terrorists, which helped to provoke the Soviet invasion of Afganistan. Face it, they are all full of crap

Jimmy had no buisness being in the White House. As much as I like him as a man, he was used, misled, and disgarded. He didn't know how to play the 'game'. He was led into doing a lot of questionable things.
Yes, they all are full of crap. And Regan wasn't like waking up from a nightmare, it was just trading one for another, albeit his nightmare felt better, for a time.

No more posting on political threads for me Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 4, 2005 8:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Jimmy the C... hate to say it but HE caused much of your current mess by supplying money and arms to terrorists, which helped to provoke the Soviet invasion of Afganistan. Face it, they are all full of crap

Jimmy had no buisness being in the White House. As much as I like him as a man, he was used, misled, and disgarded. He didn't know how to play the 'game'. He was led into doing a lot of questionable things.
Yes, they all are full of crap. And Regan wasn't like waking up from a nightmare, it was just trading one for another, albeit his nightmare felt better, for a time.

No more posting on political threads for me Chrisisall

That would be too bad, I have enjoyed your perspective in some of these threads.

Carter may have been a honorable man back then, hard to think of a succesfull naval officer that wouldn't be. His recent actions would lead me to believe you are right... but I can only comment on what happened from a position of hindsight, and unfortunately history doesn't judge many very well. Surprising where the dominoes fall.

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 4, 2005 1:57 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

I can't help but see this as:

"No, Saddam didn't have 100 lb of gunpowder. He just had 75 lb of saltpeter, 12 lb of sulfur, and 13 lb of charcoal. Nothing to worry about."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 4, 2005 2:24 PM

I think what bothers everyone so much about the whole WMD thing was that it was just an excuse to invade Iraq. Whether it was a fantasy or a real threat isn't the issue. The neo-cons who drove this one home have been open and above board about their aims in the middle-east since the mid nineties. It was the president, or his advisors, that thought it prudent to find other "reasons" for the invasion, thus the shifting excuse-of-the-week to sell their cause.

What I don't get is why we aren't talking about the open and documented policies of the neo-cons and where they might lead us. There are lots of resources about their goals, but it's probably best to start at the source:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

I know many of you have probably already read this stuff. I just brought it up because it seems to make the whole WMD thing a moot debate. Iraq was invaded as part of a much larger strategy. When it came down to it, the WMD thing was just a sales gimmick, whether true or not.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 4, 2005 3:00 PM

STAGGERLY

I think this argument could be tailored to suit the Polish September Campaign with very few alterations. It's fascinating and surreal.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 4, 2005 8:24 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
First, I am not your personal research service. You are going to have to do some of your own research. I did, I do, and you should to.

WTF??? I followed and examined every link you posted and all of their secondary links nothing showed. I took your links in good faith and they came up empty. Why did you run all of us around like that? So, for the last time- where did you get the reference to the "excess" pesticide production? I think we all deserve a VALID reference this time

Quote:
Why did Saddam have any suspicious Dual Use facilities at all?

In your opinion, what are "suspcious" dual use facilites versus "non-suspicious" dual use facilities?

Quote:
With his people literally starving to death, why all the rockets? why all the motors? why the liquid rocket fuel processing facilities for SCUDs that presumably he didn't even own?

Saddam was allowed conventional weapons for national defense, provided they didn't have a range longer than about 90 miles (I think Rue referred to this earlier). "Rockets" are not necessarily Scuds, which are intermediate-range (600 mile) rockets. As far as what Kay and Duelfer said about the possible presence of Scud, Kay was convinced that Saddam has stashed a dozen or so Scuds BEFORE the OIF because some defectors claimed that Saddam had reatiend the ability to crate Scud fuel. kay and later Duelfer followed up on these allegations. I think the Duelfer report says it best: The Iraqi Survey Group (ISG) has uncovered no evidence Iraq retained Scud-variant missiles, and debriefings of Iraqi officials in addition to some documentation suggests that Iraq did not retain such missiles after 1991.

Quote:
Why all the spare parts smuggling?

I dunno -WHAT spare parts?

Quote:
Why all those mysterious biological facilities when better products were available essentially free under OFF?

Same question- WHAT "mysterious" facilities? The best quote is again from the Duelfer report: In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambitions to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level.

Quote:
Why the nuclear centrifuge?

I know for a fact there was no nuclear centrifuge. And, if you are going to point to those aluminum tubes that Bush made such a fuss about- they were probably designated for rocket engines (which Saddam was allowed). All nuclear experts agreed that the tubes were completely unsuitable for nuclear fuel purification. I again quote the Duelfer report: Saddam Husay ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest efforts to restart the program.

Quote:
Why all the pointless research when his own people didn't have basic medical access?

Because he was a paranoid dictator? BTW- I might add that many USA citizens don't have basic medical care either, and yet we are shoveling money into "Son of Star Wars"

Quote:
Why all the suspicious "pesticide" and unnecessary "agricultural" facilities

I refuse to even consider this until you bring up a link that works.

Quote:
Fourth, Saddam could have easily gotten rid of the sanctions by just coming clean and simply cooperating.

Rue, David Kay and Duelfer figured this out. I'll post the answer later.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 4, 2005 8:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Please, not more paranoid conspiracy theories about neo-cons (read, Jewish Conservatives such as Wolfowitz, Perle, et al). It is truly lunatic fringe material.

All this is is another thinktank in Washington DC of which there are several both liberal and conservative.

I suppose next you are going to tell us about the goofy Dominionist Theory.

Andrew Lynch

You seem to be misunderstanding me. The link was to the Project for the New American Century, which has been openly acknowledged as the source for much of what has become Bush policy. There's no conspiracy, it's all open and above board. Go read it. I'm not even saying they're wrong, just that they do have a clear agenda. It seems worth taking a look at. Wouldn't you say?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 3:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
August 4 1990 if I recall correctly. I was in grad school and was literally sick when I heard Saddam rolled on Kuwait City because I knew (as most of the US government did and does) that the Saudi oil fields were essentially defenseless against the Iraqis.

Listen, boy, *he plays the age card* we had intelligence that something like that might happen, and real-time satelite images that showed it as it was in progress. We could have stopped it in it's tracks, but chose not to.
Gee, now why would we do that?
I guess the answer to that is that we, umm..didn't really have that kind of, uh, intelligence, and, umm... the satelite systems didn't work that month, I mean...CLOUDS! There were clouds that month! Yeah, that's it! And infra red hadn't been developed yet...

Welcome to yet another FANTASY thread, where governments never lie to the people, and the right thing is always done by hawks Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 4:10 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Welcome to yet another FANTASY thread, where governments never lie to the people, and the right thing is always done by hawks Chrisisall

As opposed to the other FANTASY threads, where the government always lies to the people, and the neo-cons, the Illuminati, the IJC, the Carlyle Group, the Tri-lateral Commission, and the Stupid White Men are all out to screw you over, just because they can?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 5:49 AM

STAGGERLY

Sorry Lynch, I wasn't trying to Godwin ya. Just food for thought.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 6:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I will provide links to the remainder of the info- fair is fair, since I require you to provide yours.

But are you now saying now that Saddam should not have had ANY dual-use equipment? How would they chlorinate their water, then? Chlorine was embargoed. How did they transport their oil? They needed those suspicious pumps, pipes, and valves. I provided several other examples of critical dual-use, embargoed equipment and chemicals and I could provide many more. Would you not allow those?

I already addressed the missile issue, using google to dig up the old suspicions of Scud missiles and the Duelfer report and UN reports to dtermine how those susicions were resolved. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

Nuclear centrifuge, your link, my emphasis:
The parts, with accompanying plans, were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein.

Let's see... Not a working centrifuge, not an active program. How many parts? Well... how big is a nuclear centrifuge, and how many parts can you hide under "a" rose bush?

Pesticides and potential chemical weapons- from your link, my emphasis:
Based on these investigations, ISG assesses that the Tariq Company did not provide Iraq with a break-out capability for nerve agent production. Pesticide (Formerly Fallujah III): Instead of synthesizing precursors and pesticides on site and in Iraq, Tariq imported concentrated commercial pesticides for formulation, repackaging, and local distribution.

Pretty much what you said they should do

Chlorine/Phenol Plant (Formerly Fallujah II): Leading up to OIF, this plant was not fully operational, and was unlikely to have provided any basic chemicals such as chlorine or phenol to an Iraqi CW effort. Because of technical problems, the plant could not even supply local markets with its products.. One of Tariq’s labs, the Baghdad Research Laboratory, was closed at an unknown date, according to interviews with Huwaysh, and he stated its employees did not participate in any CW-related research while it was open. Other ISG interviews indicate that the lab may have engaged in defensive nerve agent detector research.

Lynch, both you and I quoted the Duelfer report multiple times. The report is quite clear: Not only were there no stockpiles of WMD ready to be deployed, there were not even active programs that could have produced WMD. Why do you keep ignoring the findings? Are you suggesting that the Bush administration is lying and covering up the presence of massive WMD through the Duelfer report?

EDITED TO ADD:

Quote:
Is your hatred so great that you take the word of a brutal despot regime over freely elected US and UK leaders?

No, I take the word of David Kay, Charles Duelfer, and UNMOVIC.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 6:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I have looked at it. It is old news. Wolfowitz and Cheney basically authored much of the principles in policy documents in 1992.

You could say the exact same thing about almost anything. The constitution, the Bible, the newspaper, etc. All they are is a think tank, not policy maker. Only elected officials make policy and William Kristol is not one of them. Its not a cabal.

Do you not see the contradiction?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 6:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You asked this question before and I promised to answer. Not only is is Rue's conclusion, it was the conclusion of the CIA.

Quote:
Ask yourself "Why did Saddam appear to be hiding WMD and related technologies for 12 years?" and "Why did Saddam expend so much effort keeping the threat of Iraqi WMD alive if he didn't have any?"

Because Saddam used the threat of WMD to keep his potential enemies at bay, both external (Iran) and internal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 6:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
I have looked at it. It is old news. Wolfowitz and Cheney basically authored much of the principles in policy documents in 1992.

I'm glad you're so well informed. If any of the rest of you are interested, please check out that site. Lynchaj is right. It's not a cabal or a conspiracy. It's a thinktank created by some of the principle architects of our foriegn policy. Whether you agree with them or not, the policies reflect a fairly radical departure from the usual Washington approach and it's well worth looking at their reasoning.

One of the first things that strikes me, when I read their literature, is how comfortable they are with the idea of the United States essentially running the world. As the only remaining superpower, perhaps it is obvious that our role would be one of leadership, but to what extent should we press that leadership? Does it give us reason or right to call for 'regime change' in a given country? Does it give us justification to invade a country that won't bend to our will?

I think the papers at PNAC clearly address these questions and the answers are the same ones enacted into policy by the Bush Administration. I think it's worth looking at. Certainly more productive than endless left-right bickering over minutiae.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 6:57 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Really, step back and think about the situation for a few minutes. Apply Occam's Razor. Ask yourself "Why did Saddam appear to be hiding WMD and related technologies for 12 years?" and "Why did Saddam expend so much effort keeping the threat of Iraqi WMD alive if he didn't have any?"

Ack! Why am I replying to this thread??? Why did I even read this thread??? Ah, well...

Sorry, but this here's a misuse of "Occam's Razor." His is the principle of unnecessary plurality, not the principle of what people seem to be doing they must be doing, aka what you see is what you get. "Why do people believe in God?" By your "reasoning" the obvious answer is because God exists. Wrong.

"Why did Saddam appear to be hiding WMD and related technologies for 12 years?" You're accepting a hypothesis without investigation. It looked like that's what he was doing, but rain looks like God's tears and I've seen faces in the clouds. By Lynch's Razor, I've proven the existence of God and a new species. We're talking about logic here, Lynch, proof, not your blinkered, backyard BBQ "common sense."

"Why did Saddam expend so much effort keeping the threat of Iraqi WMD alive if he didn't have any?" This one is even more spurious. The simplest explaination would be that Saddam expended so much effort to keep the threat alive because he wanted to keep the threat alive, simply. You want to threaten someone, you make yourself look bigger than you are. Ah, but no, he must have expended all that energy out of his simple devotion to the truth. Who's trusting Saddam now, Lynch?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 7:06 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

EDITED TO DELETE
A reply to Geezer.

EDITED TO ADD
HK- thank you for making crystal clear the illogic of taking Saddam's WMD "threat" seriously.

EDITED TO ADD
Lest this question gets lost in the shuffle, I copied it here:

Quote:
Lynch, both you and I quoted the Duelfer report multiple times. The report is quite clear: Not only were there no stockpiles of WMD ready to be deployed, there were not even active programs that could have produced WMD. Why do you keep ignoring the findings? Are you suggesting that the Bush administration is lying and covering up the presence of massive WMD through the Duelfer report?

I think this deserves an answer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 7:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
As opposed to the other FANTASY threads, where the government always lies to the people, and the neo-cons, the Illuminati, the IJC, the Carlyle Group, the Tri-lateral Commission, and the Stupid White Men are all out to screw you over, just because they can?

Listen, Pops, *plays the age card* as opposed to the reality that most of us here will never know 100% of what has and is going on, that as many conspiracy theories are true as not, and, yes, there are Stupid White Men out to screw us over, just 'cause they can, just not most of them.
Remember what Mal said about the edge?

Either the US government is gonna chain up the world's population as slaves, or it's a knight in shiny armour 'round here, no middle Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 8:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Do you have any idea about of which you are talking about? We had little or no sustainable capacity to stop the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Kuwait was our ally, one we had been supporting for YEARS prior its invasion by reflagging their tankers during the Persian Gulf tanker war.

Please, read some history.

All we had to do was TELL Sadam not to do it, or else. He did what he did 'cause he thought we would let him. He was not an imbecile, he was lulled into this delusion, then stepped on, like we wanted. We hung Kuwaite out to the wind, not the first 'ally' we've done that to.
I've read history, that's the problem.
Get your history from more than one or two sources, drop your fear of being incorrect, and learn something new! IMHO.

Didn't play the age card this time Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 9:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
I am merely responding to this atrocious anti-US anti-GW libel such as the oft repeated but never substantiated "BUSH LIED". Someone has to stand up to the America hating left wing wackos and challenge their empty assertions or it will start to replace facts.

See, to me, this is the biggest impediment to any kind of productive discussions on these issues. Each side refuses to see the other as anything besides hateful wackos. Isn't it possible that there are substantial and worthwhile criticisms of Bush doctrine? Isn't it possible that Bush is a reasonable man doing a very difficult job?

Let's try to turn down the volume on the histrionics and look at things a little more clear-eyed, eh?

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 9:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Are you trying to tell me we can stop an invasion of several armored divisions with mere words to a maniacal lunatic?

No, I'm saying that telling him that he would meet with forcefull resistance would have made him think. He was not a lunatic, merely evil. By not tellin' him anything, we let him assume we'd do nothing, and that's what we wanted, a reason to blast him.

Quote:
Again, you blame the US for Saddam's acts of agression like we were responsible for his invasion of Kuwait.

No, we weren't responsible directly, we just looked away until the opportune moment.

Quote:
PS, I have never "played the age card" whatever that means. I don't know your age, I don't care about your age and it is not relevant. Why do you bring it up? You don't know my age and I see no relevance in it to the discussion whatsoever.

It's a joke, as in trying to be humourous- a trait that I see little of here. I made reference to your lack of age and Geezer's abundance of it, as if only I'm the one with the 'correct' age to view this all with perspective, having it both ways, but still being always right, which is obviously stupid. We can all be wrong sometimes.

Quote:
I am merely responding to this atrocious anti-US anti-GW libel such as the oft repeated but never substantiated "BUSH LIED". Someone has to stand up to the America hating left wing wackos and challenge their empty assertions or it will start to replace facts.

Who's the 'America hating left'? You? I detect no such person here, only some that would like to correct mistakes or prevent them from being made. And facts don't matter when the point is being 'right'. I'm not always right, do you think you are?

Lighten up and interject some superfluous sillyness once in a while Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 5, 2005 9:59 AM