Bush reveals source of intel on WMDs by deadlockvictim

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

"Bush won't be impeached. Nor will Cheney , Dr Rice or anyone. NONE will be taken to trial, why ? Because they're not criminals, they're heroes. That's right...BIG DAMN HEROES"

Speaking of delusional - how's that economy going, Rap ? Because I've noticed that once facts turn inconvenient to your true believership you either dump them or deny them.

Great way to drive yourself into the arms of comfortable, happy, welcoming, fact-free reality-free insanity. Hope you enjoy your stay there.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So whatever it takes you to get that through your thick, room-temperature-IQ-having skull, go with it.

That's an insult to the mentally retarded. There's a difference between not having a much mental horsepower or using that capacity to justify a delusion. Auraptor, he's got a lot of horsepower but all he's doing is spinning his wheels and creating a lot of smoke. If that hp could just get a grip on reality he'd go like a bat outta hell.

So, Auraptor: Did Saddam have stockpiles of non-degraded WMD a year before we invaded in 2003? Yes, or no?

Thanks Storymark.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

So, Auraptor: Did Saddam have stockpiles of non-degraded WMD a year before we invaded in 2003? Yes, or no?

His excuse for not giving you his usual delusional response to that question will be that I dismissed him, I'll bet.

Plus, you are delusional yourself, Signy, if you believe we could ever get a nonsense-free simple yes or no from the man.

"Without peeps like AU, Plausible Deniability itself would be impossible."

It's been said Chrisisall

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
the evidence that there WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION is plain and clear.

Except for the ones Saddam used before 1991 and the ones he continued to pretend to be making until his downfall. He had a scheme to pretend to be hiding something...and he did that very well since he was in fact hiding the remnants and faking the existence of an ongoing program.

Quote:

The UN inspectors found no evidence of them

Except for the samples they had in their New York offices. Wrong file...

Quote:

the Coalition of the Coerced

Wow, talk about left wing rhetoric. Who was coerced? Countries could either join or not join. Some joined, some didn't, some even managed to do both and a couple managed to do neither.

Seems there is a lot of legitimate disagreement about Iraq, but this bit is silly.

Quote:

found no evidence of them, and the US military found no evidence of them.

They found remnants. A dozen shells here, a few canisters there, it added up to a nice little stash, but was mostly outdated and improperly stored.

They did find missiles that violated the range agreement. I note for the record that they found an entire squadron of advanced Iraqi fighters buried in the sand next to an airbase and a crapload of small arms stashed just about anywhere (schools, hospitals, mosques, Signy's house...all evidence of a plan to hide weapons.

Quote:

The FABRICATED some evidence to justify the war, but since the invasion, they haven't found one single piece of a WMD program that's been verified.

Most of the findings remained classified until 2006. Unfortunately it was too late. Saddam Hussein could take you on a guided tour of his secret chemical plant and you'd come out saying 'not true'.

The evidence is no longer relevant to the discussion. You reached your conclusion sometime in the summer of 2003 to adopt the WMD issue as false and to invalidate the cause for war. It casually overlooks the OTHER causes for war, which have been discussed at great length and then ignored.

Truth is the issue is moot. The question of 'whether we should have gone to war in the first place' is not relevant because...simply put...we are no longer in the 'first place'.

The issue now is 'we are at war in Iraq, how do we win?' Clearly the new strategy adopted by the President last year has been highly effective. Violence is down, the insurgency as collapsed, the outside support network has collapsed, the govt is showing signs of consolidation, and Iraqi forces are starting to take control.

One option is to continue the fight building up Iraq and then drawing down our forces while remaining ready and able to provide back up and support. In light of the situation this seems to
a strategy for long term victory, although in war there are no guarrantees.

Option two, flee for our lives...er...withdraw. Call it strategic redeployment, advancing to the rear, cut and run, surrender, call it whatever you want, choosing this option leaves Iraq on its own and invites further attacks in Iraq and on American interests around the globe. After all, if you kill enough of us, we give up...and by enough I mean a few thousand or so.

Oddly you could say the same about many of the tiny countries around the world. For example, killing 3,000 Liberian soldiers pretty much defeats Liberia...so its a good deal, knock off the biggest superpower at a bargain price.

Quote:

Bush is a certifiable piece of shit, and will go down in history as the worst President in the entire history of this country. Those are the facts. Deal with it.

Oddly, most Bush-haters decided this around November of 2000. Since then they are shaping the facts to suit the conclusion. Bush could have personally cured cancer in his White House lab and you'd be saying he experimented on to many rats or the vaccine is too expensive or anything and everthing you can to support the conclusion: 'Bush Bad'.

Facts should shape the conclusion...not the other way around.

Bush-Hater Math: 5=2+2...if you ignore certain facts or squint real hard and decide the second '2' is a '3'.

H

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Most of the findings remained classified until 2006. Unfortunately it was too late. Saddam Hussein could take you on a guided tour of his secret chemical plant and you'd come out saying 'not true'.

Except there was none.

Quote:

Bush could have personally cured cancer in his White House lab and you'd be saying he experimented on to many rats or the vaccine is too expensive or anything and everthing you can to support the conclusion: 'Bush Bad'.

Except he didn't.

Quote:

Facts should shape the conclusion...not the other way around.

H

Like the two you listed above....okaaaaay.

That was too easyisall

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:13 AM

SERGEANTX

I think we should take the high road and avoid all the name calling.

Let's just get back to making fun of "The Decider" and let the sycophants focus on applying their KY.

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
the evidence that there WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION is plain and clear.-Kwicko

Except for the ones Saddam used before 1991 and the ones he continued to pretend to make

Pssst! Little boy! Didn't anyone ever tell you that "pretend" guns aren't real?

HERO, let's put this in terms you might understand:
I suppose you COULD make the argument that a paranoid wife-beater holding a fake gun looks as much a threat as a paranoid wife-beaterholding a real gun, so blammo! he's killed.

But that wasn't the case. Let's say that the man is being held and police are in the process of searching the guy's house, and they're not finding any weapons real OR fake. So cops from the next county come over and shoot the guy while the house is being searched because he "might" be a threat someday....
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Let's just get back to making fun of "The Decider" and let the sycophants focus on applying their KY.

"War for oil? See this book, you little punks? I'll rip it in half if I hear that again!"

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Like the two you listed above....okaaaaay.

You say there were no WMDs.

I say there were remnants in the form of several dozen warheads, several dozen morter and artillery rounds, and a relatively small number of storage containers...found in several scattered caches or abandoned weapons depots. Given the improper storage the weapons were largely inert or ineffective and possibly much of it was simply overlooked when the larger stockpiles were found and disposed of after 1991. Never the less those findings exist and amount to several hundred pounds of potentially lethal chemical weapons such as sarin and mustard gas, similar to the weapons he used on his own people in the 1980s.

Saddam also engaged in strategic deception to faake a hidden weapons program so as to maintain a false showing of strength and defiance in order to fool his enemies at home and abroad. If the invasion proved one thing it was the success of the 1991 military campaign to dismantle Saddam's ability to make war.

But you can't see beyond the conclusion...and that was made in the summer of 2004...two years before the facts were released.

I fault the Bush administration for two things in this regard. One, the findings, small as they were, should have been released immediately, along with the conclusion that Saddam was a faker. Two, screw the truth, we should have FOUND a stockpile...real or otherwise (I mean faked one). Now these two suggestions can't both be true...what I mean is we should have picked one or the other...the idea that we simply kept the truth quiet and didn't bother to lie is a major foulup.

Then again the case for war was so strong, even absent WMDs, that the issue is irrelevant. Even after the fact the war can be justified. Certainly we did not know about each town's torture rooms or the extent Saddam was brutalizing his people behind the scenes. Knowing after the fact justifies the war (in the same way that absent EVERYTHING else, the extermination of the Jews alone would have justified war with Germany even though discovered after the fact). Simply put, Justice demanded war, even though we did not realize it at the time.

H

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hero, I'd buy your WMD story except for one thing: There was an aggressive search for prohibited weapons going on when we invaded. It was our invasion that ended the search several weeks-to-a few months before it's conclusion. I guess you didn't read my example about the paranoid wife-beater who was killed by next-county sheriffs while his home was being searched by the police? That would be an appropriate analogy, I think.

Quote:
Certainly we did not know about each town's torture rooms or the extent Saddam was brutalizing his people behind the scenes. Knowing after the fact justifies the war

There are torturers all over the world very bit as brutal as Saddam or even more so. People who killed hundred of thousands with our weapons. We support quite a few of them, if they're useful to "us". (Including Saddam.)

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, Auraptor:

Did Saddam have stockpiles of non-degraded WMD a year before we invaded in 2003? Yes, or no?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:55 AM

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

"several dozen morter and artillery rounds, and a relatively small number of storage containers...found in several scattered caches or abandoned weapons depots"

Well, if you haven't actually been attacked the standard for launching a legal war is 'imminent threat'. Did those constitute an 'imminent threat' ? I'm asking your legal-ship just out of curiosity.

"But you can't see beyond the conclusion...and that was made in the summer of 2004...two years before the facts were released."

UUhhhmm - actually, no. A number of people, myself included, said there were no WMD, that the UN inspectors should be allowed to finish the job of inspecting, that the threat assessment was full of holes, and that the only reason why Bush had to attack immediately was b/c the seasonal window of opportunity was closing.

So while YOU may feel stupid, the more thoughtful of us feel - vindicated. At having reached the obvious and logical conclusions.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

You say there were no WMDs.

I say there were remnants in the form of several dozen warheads, several dozen morter and artillery rounds, and a relatively small number of storage containers...found in several scattered caches or abandoned weapons depots. Given the improper storage the weapons were largely inert or ineffective and possibly much of it was simply overlooked when the larger stockpiles were found and disposed of after 1991. Never the less those findings exist and amount to several hundred pounds of potentially lethal chemical weapons such as sarin and mustard gas, similar to the weapons he used on his own people in the 1980s.

Saddam also engaged in strategic deception to faake a hidden weapons program so as to maintain a false showing of strength and defiance in order to fool his enemies at home and abroad. If the invasion proved one thing it was the success of the 1991 military campaign to dismantle Saddam's ability to make war.

But you can't see beyond the conclusion...and that was made in the summer of 2004...two years before the facts were released.

I fault the Bush administration for two things in this regard. One, the findings, small as they were, should have been released immediately, along with the conclusion that Saddam was a faker. Two, screw the truth, we should have FOUND a stockpile...real or otherwise (I mean faked one). Now these two suggestions can't both be true...what I mean is we should have picked one or the other...the idea that we simply kept the truth quiet and didn't bother to lie is a major foulup.

Then again the case for war was so strong, even absent WMDs, that the issue is irrelevant. Even after the fact the war can be justified. Certainly we did not know about each town's torture rooms or the extent Saddam was brutalizing his people behind the scenes. Knowing after the fact justifies the war (in the same way that absent EVERYTHING else, the extermination of the Jews alone would have justified war with Germany even though discovered after the fact). Simply put, Justice demanded war, even though we did not realize it at the time.

H

Never said Saddam didn't need to go.
Wow. That was a waste of an explanation...

Tired Chrisisall

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I guess you didn't read my example about the paranoid wife-beater who was killed by next-county sheriffs while his home was being searched by the police? That would be an appropriate analogy, I think.

A police example...excellent:

Actually, its dead wrong. In this case your analogy only fits if the wife-beater is NOT in custody and is in fact in the act of beating his wife in another room while your police are searching for his weapons (and ignoring the wife-beating...oh, and taking billions in oil bribes).

In such a case perhaps other officers arriving, finding the man in the process of beating his wife and armed with what appears to be a handgun (and with a known history of violence and threatening to use said weapon)...in that case I would fully support them if they felt the need to open fire AFTER (as in the case of Saddam) they identified themsleves and he was given an ultimatum to put down the gun and come out with his hands up.

I'd say, given those facts, the first cops were ineffective and or corrupt, while the second cops were very much able to restore order and enforce the law. I'd maintain that position even if the apparent handgun turned out to be much smaller and likely inoperable then originally thought (because he was intentionally concealing the condition of his gun...for whatever reason).

H

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:59 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:

"Which one of you reprobates tore the pages out of this book? Kwicko, aren't you a little old to be in this class, and what's that you have in your mouth."

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"several dozen morter and artillery rounds, and a relatively small number of storage containers...found in several scattered caches or abandoned weapons depots"

Well, if you haven't actually been attacked the standard for launching a legal war is 'imminent threat'. Did those constitute an 'imminent threat' ? I'm asking your legal-ship just out of curiosity.

Your comparing what we actually found with what we and EVERY other intellegence agency in the world THOUGHT we would find (and what Saddam was pretending to have). If we thought we'd find a whole big program ready to start firing on day one, then yes it was an imminent threat.

But I would argue, based upon history, that imminent threat is NOT the standard for launching a legal war. Causes for war can be many, just causes are slightly fewer. Legally speaking an American war is legal if Congress says the President can do it (and in modern times this can mean a lot of different degrees, such as his limited authorization to deploy troops under the standing authorization of the War Powers Act...or as broad as a declared war).

But what about international law says you?

Thats much easier. In Korea, for example, the United States was not attacked or threatened with attack. We had no mutual defense treaty with South Korea. What we had was authorization from the United Nations to act under their authority. Such authorization is not necessary or binding and many wars have been waged in the absense (the British fight with Argentina, India wars with Pakistan, the Arabs and Isrealis, etc.)

In this case the UN authorized large scale military action against Iraq on two occaisions. First in 1990, which later became the 1991 Gulf War. Second in 2002, which resulted in the 2003 invasion. The first conflict was never resolved and ended in a cease fire under which the Iraqis promised a crapload of stuff. Most of their promises where never honored, thus technically is was game on pretty much anytime we wanted another round (Clinton used this to justify the 1998 Lewinsky Storm...he also cited the need to prevent Saddam from "threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons").

Another favorite example of mine is the thousands of Kuwaiti civilian and military prisoners who were supposed to be returned...but have never been found (Iraq acknowledged them, but I guess they got misplaced although mass grave sites continue to be investigated and some remains have been found in recent years).

The 2002 authorization was somewhat vague...on purpose, because France and Russia (bought and paid for by Iraqi oil money) opposed a strongly worded statement. But in the end being vague left it open to interpretation and ultimately we relied on both resolutions and the spirit of all the ones in between to give our operation the UN stamp.

But your original premise that Iraq must have been a threat is far to simplistic to encompass the whole of international law.

Quote:

"But you can't see beyond the conclusion...and that was made in the summer of 2004...two years before the facts were released."

UUhhhmm - actually, no. A number of people, myself included, said there were no WMD, that the UN inspectors should be allowed to finish the job of inspecting, that the threat assessment was full of holes, and that the only reason why Bush had to attack immediately was b/c the seasonal window of opportunity was closing.

There were a lot of reasons to invade, Bush rattled off a bunch when he addressed Congress. The anti-war types looked close, picked one and decided that one was the all or nothing.

Ultimately the final decision was Saddam's. We said 'get out or we'll invade', at that point he could have gotten out and would probably still be alive today.

But you are correct. The seasonal window was closing and many of our troops were in position. While it would have been better to have another month to soothe Turkey into letting us deploy 4th ID in the north, diplomatic manuvering tied us up for months. We simply ran out of time for a 2003 campaign. Given the different sort of campaign likely in 2004 we needed to get the show on the road.

The scenario is much different had Russia and France stood with us. In the face of such a united front, as in 1991, Saddam would have backed down. Thats why he went to such lengths buying off France, Russia, and the UN. Thats why he funded international peace organizations and thats why he funded terrorist attacks and the flare up of Palestinian violence against Isreal (who Russia and France are not particularly fond of). He was seeking to divide international support and subvert the 1991 coalition. He was largely successful.

President Bush embraced a new coalition of former Soviet bloc powers along with secondary NATO partners like Spain and Italy who were unhappy with French bullying in the EU and Russian bullying in the Balkans. He was largely successful.

The politics of this were extremely complicated, especially since they span three American administrations one of which that downsized American military and intellegence capability and did little or nothing to effectively confront Saddam or address the growing radical Islamic movement.

As for the timing of the war, that was dictated by military necessity. I note for the record that I think the war was too successful. Iraq's complete collapse like a house of cards was unexpected and has caused us a lot of trouble since. I believe the initial plan was to capture the Iraqi govt intact and use it as a frame to transition to a pro-US Democratic govt. That was a failure because we demolished them from day one leaving no effective structure in place to fill the vaccume. While the President deserves a lot of credit, I think he should have changed course in 2005 rather then 2007, the problems were apparent then and could have been addressed. While this is likely explained by poor advise...ultimately the President is responsible. But such is war.

H

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:26 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
it's not the USA's job to stamp out EVERY fire in the world,
LOL, oh, so only the fires YOU and you pals Bush & Cheney deem righteous, eh?
I thought as much.
Self-justifying biped.
Your lack of empathy for the truly in need disgusts me.
Active wholesale rape & murder HAPPENING NOW just doesn't trump sins of the past, I guess.
Dumb biped.
I dismiss you as irrelevant.

Dismissive Chrisisall

Where's the rest of the world's " empathy " ?? Oh, they don't get such scrutiny, do they? We save 1 region, we're expected to save them all ? Sorry Alice, the real world don't work like that.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:34 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, Auraptor:

Did Saddam have stockpiles of non-degraded WMD a year before we invaded in 2003? Yes, or no?

.

There were stockpiles of illegal munitions, chem warheads, which he wasn't suppose to have. The key you're adding is " non -degraded " . Gee, why would you say that ? Because it's known that old suppplies, still ILLEGAL supplies, were unaccounted for by Iraq. That being the mustard gas, which he never reported, until found. Another misnomer that there HAD to be " stockpiles " is a media made concept, not one that the U.N. or the US felt was vital. Chem weapons can be stored in vary small containers, there need not be " stockpiles " of any such material at any one place. It's likely that stuff is buried out in the desert, or was shipped over to Syria, right before the war.

But everyone already knows this, you're just babbling about the obvious.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

We save 1 region, we're expected to save them all ? Sorry Alice, the real world don't work like that.

Eff the biped once again.
We 'saved' them? I thought it was to protect ourselves? Oh well, there are many reasons, I guess.
So we picked the easiest target- that's fair. We wouldn't want to be saving innocent women and children who are actively being murdered when we can pound on a more or less spent regime for killings in the past.
I expected a better unreasonable rationale from you, AU- this is how a grade schooler biped might respond.

Sincerely, Chrisisall

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

There were stockpiles of illegal munitions, chem warheads, which he wasn't suppose to have. The key you're adding is " non -degraded " . Gee, why would you say that ? Because it's known that old suppplies, still ILLEGAL supplies, were unaccounted for by Iraq. That being the mustard gas, which he never reported, until found. Another misnomer that there HAD to be " stockpiles " is a media made concept, not one that the U.N. or the US felt was vital. Chem weapons can be stored in vary small containers, there need not be " stockpiles " of any such material at any one place. It's likely that stuff is buried out in the desert, or was shipped over to Syria, right before the war.

See? Incapable of a yes or no.
BTW AU, you never break the law, huh? Never go a couple miles over the speed limit? That endangers people you know. You oughta be shot for that, I guess.
*and AU misses the analogy*
So Saddam got rid of weapons on the eve of our emminent attack? Sorry, mad, evil dictators don't work that way, Alice.

Chrisisall

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:52 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Your comparing what we actually found with what we and EVERY other intellegence agency in the world THOUGHT we would find (and what Saddam was pretending to have). If we thought we'd find a whole big program ready to start firing on day one, then yes it was an imminent threat.

To say that "we and EVERY other intelligence agency" thought anything with any consensus or certainty is a lie. Not a misstatement, not an exaggeration, but an outright LIE. You're lying, plain and simple. You are fabricating the truth; you are making things up out of whole cloth. You say WE thought this, and that's simply not borne out by the evidence. Bush and his dimwitted cronies repeatedly had their people insert words that the intelligence experts kept removing, such as the infamous "16 dirty words" in the State of the Union. Eventually, some of those things got through, and then they were given the air of truth - what Stephen Colbert coined the term "truthiness" to describe - things that sound like they OUGHT to be true, but which are simply not true. In other words, LIES.

Also, we had the British and Italian intelligence agencies working on outright forgeries of documents "proving" that Saddam had a nuclear program. These were roundly dismissed by nearly every reputable intelligence agency that reviewed them, yet Bush & Co. still passed them off as "proof". They weren't proof; they weren't even close.

Oh yeah - all this happened WELL BEFORE the runup to the invasion, not (as you stated) just last year. It was a known fact, in the intelligence agencies and in the real world, that the Administration's "proof" was false, well before he even gave his State of the Union address in which he lied.

As you've said already, you and the "heroes" in the administration are completely willing to lie in order to justify an illegal invasion, so why are you trying to convince me that you're telling the truth now? You're a liar, and known and proven to be such.

Mike

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts DO!

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:02 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

We save 1 region, we're expected to save them all ? Sorry Alice, the real world don't work like that.

Eff the biped once again.
We 'saved' them? I thought it was to protect ourselves? Oh well, there are many reasons, I guess.
So we picked the easiest target- that's fair. We wouldn't want to be saving innocent women and children who are actively being murdered when we can pound on a more or less spent regime for killings in the past.
I expected a better unreasonable rationale from you, AU- this is how a grade schooler biped might respond.

Sincerely, Chrisisall

Well, there was the Balkans, which still has US soldiers there. Then there's Somolia, which working w/ the U.N. proved to be such a HUGE F-ING success. The hard fact of the mattter on Darfur is , no one ,not us, not Europe, not Japan, not Australia wants to waste their military saving folks who don't want us there in the first place.

At the very least, we should get something back for our troubles.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:15 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
There were stockpiles of illegal munitions, chem warheads, which he wasn't suppose to have. The key you're adding is " non -degraded " . Gee, why would you say that ? Because it's known that old suppplies, still ILLEGAL supplies, were unaccounted for by Iraq.

"Stockpiles"??? Tell me, how many of something does it take to make a "stockpile?" I think all together they may have found about 500 bits and pieces of mostly degraded stuff all over Iraq. Certainly not a "stockpile" of anything, especially as it was scattered about.

Furthermore, why would Saddam deliberately hide something for a decade that would degrade in two years or less? Either Saddam was utterly stupid because he was "stockpiling" bit and pieces of useless junk, or it was accidental. Either way, it's not a threat.

And he didn't "account" for the WMD that he destroyed? EGAD! We invaded Iraq because of an ACCOUNTING ERROR???? Man the green eyeshades! Full speed ahead!

So let's see... we invade in 1991. Saddam's army is in full flight, leaving behind tanks, rockets, and other weapons... a few chemical warheads... several drums of mustard gas. And shortly thereafter Saddam destroys his MWD, missing a few bits here and there. Bits and pieces which would do him no good because they'd been lost. And that's why we invaded Iraq.

Yep- makes sense to me.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:15 PM

America loves a winner!

kwicko.... not only am I NOT lying, I'm right. Flat out, dead on right. And that's what burns your noodle, doesn't it ? You literally can't handle the truth, so you sooth your frustration by claiming I'm lying. When we both know I'm not. All Bush, who is far more brilliant than you and most of this board, did was to force the Intel guys to put their $$ where their mouth was. For over 10 yrs, the intelligence gurus spun tales of this and that being done in Iraq. When Bush then is about to send troops in , based on THEIR intelligence, some start to hymm and haw and start the double speak.... Bush wasn't having any of it. Some pin head intel guys get their widdle feelings hurt by big , bad mean Mr Bush, and start crying like little bitty bitches. F-them! Bush has far more important things to worry about than whether weenie Lifer agent in the CIA getting demoted a pay grade or two because he F-d up the story of what was going on in Iraq for the past 10 yrs. Oh, I know, it's not a easy thing to do , but it's ONLY his G-D JOB!! God forbid we send troops into harms way and weenie intel guy has to fess up that he's been jerkin' off for the past 10 yrs, and only writing shit that's made him look good by GUESSING Saddam is on the verge of this or that weapons system.

The British ? They still stand by their Yellow Cake / Niger findings, so any claims that they've been " dismissed " is bullshit. So sorry.

I'm not the liar here, you are, and it's all because you hate Bush, hate America and hate freedom.

F you now and forever, Jihad lovin' meat puppet.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'm not the liar here,

True, actually. To lie, one must know the truth, and you know nothing of that, therefore you cannot lie.

Quote:
you are, and it's all because you hate Bush, hate America and hate freedom.

You'd make a very good Nazi, AU.

Quote:

F you now and forever, Jihad lovin' meat puppet.

Hey you effin' biped, stop with name calling or I'll report you to the mods!!!!

Notimeforjerkswhocallfolknamesisall

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:33 PM

America loves a winner!

Ha-ha. Made ya break out the "nazi" slur.

I win !

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:33 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, I missed this part

Quote:
Chem weapons can be stored in vary small containers, there need not be " stockpiles " of any such material at any one place. It's likely that stuff is buried out in the desert, or was shipped over to Syria, right before the war.

You don't know much about chemical or bioweapons, do you? I know I've told you before, but I'll say it real slow this time and maybe it'll sink in.

All... of... Saddam's.... weapons .... were.... INCAPABLE... of... being...stored...for...more...than... two... years...except... mustard... gas.

After a year or two in the summer heat they go kaput. There is absolutely no sense in squirreling away bioweapons and CWs for the future; all you'll have is a container of degraded crap.

AFA sending it to Syria.... If Saddam was so damned paranoid and dangerous, whyever would he think that he might actually get his WMD back?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Ha-ha. Made ya break out the "nazi" slur.

I win !

I guess I made it easy for you then.

AU, if you weren't such a pleasant, agreeable fellow outside of the RWED, I wouldn't even bother with this here...

Later.

Chrisisall

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:05 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Then again the case for war was so strong, even absent WMDs, that the issue is irrelevant. Even after the fact the war can be justified.

Really have enjoyed reading both sides of this debate, but Hero's comment is the only thing that really stood out to me.

Congrats on the win Auraptor. The other side's fixation on WMD's makes it impossible for them to see the facts you have so clearly laid out. It seems pointless to argue with the usual suspects on this issue, but I'm sure many others reading your posts with an open mind are more enlightened because of them.

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:50 PM

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

Hero, as usual you are wrong, and I have a detailed discussion saved and ready to post with all the particulars.

But I have a question for you:

Which of the many rationalizations do YOU accept as the LEGAL basis for the war ?

'Enforcement' of UN resolutions (in contravention of the UN's charter)
Imminent threat
Preventative war (not a recognized international standard)
Hussein not leaving Iraq in 48 hours as 'required' by Bush as a condition to avoid attack
Other

The reason I ask is b/c you seem to have no clue as to why exactly it was OK to attack a non-attacking, non-threatening nation.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:51 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So to retierate...

All of Saddam's weapons were INCAPABLE of being stored for more than two years except mustard gas. There's absolutely no reason to think that Saddam could either squirrel them away in the desert for "later", or (even stupider)give them way with the ideas that (a) they wouldn't be used ON him (b) he'd get them back and (c) they'd be "good to go" if he did get them back.

Quote:
The other side's fixation on WMD's makes it impossible for them to see the facts you have so clearly laid out

Facts? Like... what???

I think we have a folie a trois.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:09 PM

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

Rap

"I'm right. Flat out, dead on right."

PN feels he's right, too. We don't take his word for it, so why should we take yours ?

***************************************************************
And how's that roaring economy doing ?

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 4:23 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rap

"I'm right. Flat out, dead on right."

PN feels he's right, too. We don't take his word for it, so why should we take yours ?

Not mine, the UN Resolutions, the cease fire agreements for Iraq, their failure to live up to their obligations.

I'm tired of having to go over these things every fucking year, year after year, simply because some have it out for Bush. This has nothing to do w/ him, just the facts. I wish the haters would simply face reality and get over it.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 4:33 PM

THOLO

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
AU, you had to be a fucking asshole, didn't you?

More name calling, huh.

We should pull out of Iraq, so they can go back to taking naps.

Keep Flying!!

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 4:55 PM

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

"Not mine, the UN Resolutions, the cease fire agreements for Iraq, their failure to live up to their obligations."

Uhmm, well the UN chrter forbids nations from attacking other nations under color of UN authority without specific UN authorization. Which, if I may point out, the US failed to get.

So, why are you right, again ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tholo:

More name calling, huh.

Biped.

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:33 PM

THATWEIRDGIRL

I wonder what the thread(s) was that made me like you guys. It couldn't have been in RWED. Five years ago I read something somewhere and decided you all were intelligent fun folks...and you are...but a newbie would think we are all mean jerks that hate each other. We don't! (Do we?)

Continue arguing/debating. It's great entertainment and sometimes I learn things.

Chris,
What's with Stargate Atlantis without Jewel? I don't watch it, but that's sorta like blasphemy on this board, isn't it?

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:49 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Not mine, the UN Resolutions, the cease fire agreements for Iraq, their failure to live up to their obligations."

Uhmm, well the UN chrter forbids nations from attacking other nations under color of UN authority without specific UN authorization. Which, if I may point out, the US failed to get.

So, why are you right, again ?

U.N. Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441, in short gives any member nation (that's us ) the right to use military force on Iraq if it does not abide by the sanctions agreed upon by the U.N. and Iraq.

Iraq failed to abide, we responded, eventually, w/ military force.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 6:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Which of the many rationalizations do YOU accept as the LEGAL basis for the war ?

'Enforcement' of UN resolutions (in contravention of the UN's charter)
Imminent threat
Preventative war (not a recognized international standard)
Hussein not leaving Iraq in 48 hours as 'required' by Bush as a condition to avoid attack
Other

First of all your list is not exhaustive.

Second, there is no reason to pick one...I pick them all and all the ones not mentioned.

Third, there is a distinction between a legal basis for war and casus belli (which is the reason for war). As I pointed out, the legal basis for American war is found in the Constitution and ranges from the limited consent of the War Powers Act to the broad consent of a full declaration of war...I would argue the the Iraq resolution and the post 9-11 resolutions fall in between and can be withdrawn (another option is to defund the war).

Quote:

The reason I ask is b/c you seem to have no clue as to why exactly it was OK to attack a non-attacking, non-threatening nation.

Thats subjective. I could argue my reasons and opinion all night, you simply dismiss them as having 'no clue'. Thats because while you disagree you lack the reasonable basis to refute the arguments, you cant, for example, argue the historical development of the so called 'international law' nor can you defend the Saddam regime. You argument amounts to simple saying "nuh uh" and pouting.

I note for the record that your non-threatening, non-attacking Iraq had a record of brutalizing its people, attacking its neighbors, funding Palestinian terrorists, harboring some nasty terrorist types, including some Al Queda types folks in the north, tried to assinate the first President Bush after he left office, and regularly fired on US and British warplanes flying in the no-fly zone established as part of the cease fire agreement after the 1991 war. This to is not an exhaustive list.

H

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 6:22 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Sadly, TWG, it appears for some the facade of intelligence, reason and tolerance was about as real as those WMDs...

This is what some folk look like when the mask comes off, is all, and the primary reason why I ain't debatin em, just pokin em with a stick once in a while to watch them flail about in a rage like any other angry primate.

I only really bother if theres an actual possibility of rational discussion and you are correct, it's become less and less common around here as of late thanks in part to a level of rabidity and fanaticism that I, personally, find dangerous as a whole no matter the direction it takes.

But knowing how that thought process works, and watching it in action is essential, critical even, to throwing monkeywrenches in the works thereof, a defensive practice I am most fond of.

We could of course, just flat ignore them and discuss something else.. Manga, for example, I think you'd get a big kick out of The Wallflower, a series the Fremgirl recently picked up, it seemed something that would appeal to your sense of humor and weirdness.

Let em rant, I just wanna watch and label all the gears and levers so I know how and when to pull em to get the results *I* want out of it.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 6:44 PM

THOLO

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Tholo:

More name calling, huh.

Biped.

hehehe, as compaired to quadrupeds hahahaah

Keep Flying!!

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

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:42 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Look, Auraptor, first you say Iraq had WMD. The, when you're shown icontrovertibly that the weapons of WMD they had were degraded beyond use, your resort to the Syria gammbit. When you're shown that Saddam would likely not have "given" WMD to Syria, you say Saddam was a "bad man". When it's pointed out to you that we supported Saddam when he was useful (yanking the moralistic rug out form under your feet) you whine... "Well,, the UN resolutions....!" AS IF you gave a fig for anything that the UN had to say!

So if you're so hot to enforce UN resolutions, why don't get bent about THESE?

Resolution 127: " ... 'recommends' Israel suspends its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
Resolution 162: " ... 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
Resolution 171: " ... determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
Resolution 228: " ... 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
Resolution 237: " ... 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967): Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area. Calls on Israel's neighbors to end the state of belligerency and calls upon Israel to reciprocate by withdraw its forces from land claimed by other parties in 1967 war. Interpreted commonly today as calling for the Land for peace principle as a way to resolve Arab-Israeli conflict
Resolution 250: " ... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
Resolution 252: " ... 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
Resolution 256: " ... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
Resolution 259: " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
Resolution 262: " ... 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
Resolution 265: " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
Resolution 267: " ... 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 270: " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
Resolution 271: " ... 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
Resolution 279: " ... 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 280: " ... 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 285: " ... 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
Resolution 298: " ... 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 313: " ... 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 316: " ... 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 317: " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
Resolution 332: " ... 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 337: " ... 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
Resolution 338 (22 October 1973): cease fire in Yom Kippur War
Resolution 339 (23 October 1973): Confirms Res. 338, dispatch UN observers.
Resolution 347: " ... 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 425 (1978): 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon". Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was completed as of 16 June 2000.
Resolution 427: " ... 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 444: " ... 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
Resolution 446 (1979): 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 450: " ... 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
Resolution 452: " ... 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
Resolution 465: " ... 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
Resolution 467: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
Resolution 468: " ... 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
Resolution 469: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".
Resolution 471: " ... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 476: " ... 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
Resolution 478 (20 August 1980): 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'.
Resolution 484: " ... 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".
Resolution 487: " ... 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility".
Resolution 497 (17 December 1981) decides that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.
Resolution 498: " ... 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
Resolution 501: " ... 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
Resolution 509: " ... 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
Resolution 515: " ... 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in".
Resolution 517: " ... 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 518: " ... 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
Resolution 520: " ... 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
Resolution 573: " ... 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
Resolution 587 " ... 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
Resolution 592: " ... 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
Resolution 605: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
Resolution 607: " ... 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 608: " ... 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
Resolution 636: " ... 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 641: " ... 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 672: " ... 'condemns' Israel for "violence against Palestinians" at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
Resolution 673: " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
Resolution 681: " ... 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 694: " ... 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Resolution 726: " ... 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.

I would have limited these resolutions to those that "call on" and "demand" Israel to do this and that, but I wanted you to get an idea of the sheer number of resolutions against Israel since 1955.

The only thing that you could say which you haven't really said yet is that Bush is more moral than the previous administrations, because while previous administrations supported Saddam, Bush decided to bring him down for moral reasons (forgetting the whole WMD issue, which is complete BS.) Is THAT your argument?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

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

Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:07 AM