The dog ate my WMDs

Here's an interesting editorial by New York Times author William Rivers Pitt.

Quote:

---

No one on earth is more inventive than a high school sophomore backed into a corner and faced with a zero on an assignment.

No one, perhaps, except Bush administration officials forced now to account for their astounding claims made since September 2002 regarding Iraq's alleged weapons program.

---

The list of claims is endless... One million pounds of nerve gas can't just be hidden... Over 300 possible hot-spots have been researched... absolutely nothing has been found. The dog must have eaten it. Or maybe it wasn't there to begin with...

The Bush administration does everything it can to not have to answer questions... they are being asked anyways: 35 Representatives demand "with specificity that the administration back up it's oft-repeated claims about the Iraqi weapons arsenal with evidence and fact."

Quote:

---

Representative Henry Waxman's letter to Condoleezza Rice
What I want to know is the answer to a simple question: Why did the President use forged evidence in the State of the Union address?" the letter concludes. "This is a question that bears directly on the credibility of the United States, and it should be answered in a prompt and forthright manner, with full disclosure of all the relevant facts."

---

Here's a summarized list of people who are responsible for those lies...

- George W. Bush: Brainwashed -although it's hard to use the words 'Bush' and 'brain' in one sentence - by the neo-cons, and now the biggest neo-con of them all, although he'll never call himself one... he can't pronounce it. Probably doesn't understand the tactics of the neo-cons, and is probably the only neo-con who actually believed that Saddam's mass-destruction weapons (oh wait... the dog ate those) were a direct treath to the US.

And the spindoctors behind Bush...

From bottom to top:

- Michael A. Ledeen: member of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI)... Richard Perle's companion.... Specialisation: intimidation... Quote: "Everyone who has studied the national character of the United States, will conclude that we are a war-hungry people and that we love war"

- John Bolton vice-minister of Foreign affairs... Colin Powell's bulldog, always watching the 'soft' Powell... Vice-president of the AEI. Quote: "International laws and organisations who stand in our way, can be ignored."

- Donald Rumsfeld minister of Defense... Wolfowitz's puppet after Wolfowitz was found 'too controversial' to be minister of Defense....Connected to the AEI, the Wall Street Journal, and the infamous Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Captured memo of his: "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough to hit S H (Saddam Hussein) at the same time. Not only UBL (Usama)... Go massive. Sweet it all up. Things related and not." (memo captured by NBS).

Things related or not... well well... :/

- James Woolsey Pentagon, CIA and marines advisor... managed to connect 911 *and* the anthrax-letters to Saddam...

- William Kristol The Weekly Standard CEO... Used to run the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which is part of the New Citizenship Project, an educational organisation aimed at promoting American world domination.
The PNAC produced the infamous Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century-report. This was relaesed way before Bush became president. It set the outlines for a war on Iraq...

- Douglas Feith Vice-minister of Defense. Maintains the contacts with the Jewish lobby, and with Jeruzalem Likoud-party. Perle and Feith wrote a memo to Likoud-leader Netanyahu in 1996, advising him to dynamitize the Oslo-peace-talks.

- Richard Perle Member of the Defence Policy Board in the Pentagon (he quit a couple of months ago because of his ties with The New Yorker). Spread the fable that an Iraqi secret agent had met with Mohammed Atta in Prague.

- Paul Wolfowitz Vice-minister of Defense. Propagandist for a more agressive Cold War-strategy. Has relatives in Israel, and is the link between the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Bush-government.

- Dick Cheney Vice-president. Got Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and Bolton in the government. Turned the Ministry of Foreign Affairs into a PNAC-club. Has been president of Halliburton for five years, the world-leader in petrol-engineering. During that period, he managed to get 3.8 billion dollars in government-support. Leader of the first Gulf War. Founder of the Office of Homeland Security. Voted in 1985 against Mandela's freedom. Co-writer of the Defence Policy Guidance 1992-1994, setting the outlines for pre-emptive wars.

Why so impatient Negative? Heh. It's only been around 6 weeks, and Iraq is the size of California.

If your gonna cast such a small net, then perhaps i should give you a bigger one to toss around. I'm sure you are familiar with U.N resolution 1441 right? Where even the U.N believed Saddam had WMD. So don't just act like this was our sole belief, many nations believed WMD to be in existence inside Iraq.

Don't get me wrong, i want to see these "WMD" myself, but i say give it a little while longer, 6 weeks just isnt enough time to finish looking.

Quote:

---

In UNSCR 1441, all 15 members of the Security Council declared that Iraq's non-compliance with its disarmament commitments was a threat to the international community, and that Iraq remained in material breach of its obligations under relevant UNSC Resolutions.

---

I don't think anyone really believed that those weapons existed,
but I also doubt the other easy explanations. What plausable theories
are there for this war?

[list=a][*]To steal Iraq's oil[*]To satisfy the Israeli lobby[*]neo-wilsonian idealism mixed with stupidity[/list=a]

Oil; I doubt it, but time will tell. There would be no way to hide it if they tried
to exploit that oil for US benefit

Israel; They have concerns closer to home. Sadaam Hussein is (was?) not a
radical islamist, and not the most aggressive opponant of Israel. Why would
they use their dwindling influence to agitate against Iraq when they have
bigger threats right on their doorstep?

Yeah, the third option, ie the self-righteous belief that the USA is
the evangelist for democracy. This messianic faith in our political
system has been the justification for all US wars since 1860
:cool:

Quote:

---

Oil; I doubt it, but time will tell. There would be no way to hide it if they tried
to exploit that oil for US benefit

Israel; They have concerns closer to home. Sadaam Hussein is (was?) not a
radical islamist, and not the most aggressive opponant of Israel. Why would
they use their dwindling influence to agitate against Iraq when they have
bigger threats right on their doorstep?

Yeah, the third option, ie the self-righteous belief that the USA is
the evangelist for democracy. This messianic faith in our political
system has been the justification for all US wars since 1860

---

The oil: Yeah we don't want that darn oil, if we did we would have taken it back in 90-91. I still think a trip to ANWR would do the trick.

Israel: Yeah, they have too much terror at home to fight against. I would also add that Saddam was giving upwards of 20,000 dollars to each "homicide bombers" family, so i think he has done more than his fair share of harm against Israel (if not directly,indirectly).

We only flirted with colonialism one time (if i'm not mistaken) in the Philippines , and it just was'nt our taste or style. Democracy is what we promote, we have no interest in occupation or colonialism.

Forgive me for yawning. :rolleyes:

I'll be back in a year or so when the experts have a little time to find what they are looking for.

In the mean time you go ahead and discuss lack of evidence, while France and Russia get repaid for all of their "legal activities" in Iraq. :thumbsup:

A) I have no more trust in the Times after the Jayson Blair incident. ;)

B) Who are you to say that what the United States did was right or wrong... the people who went to war had their reasons and if they say its for security then its for security.

C) The leaders of our nation (US) have been given a certain amount of authority to decide what to do in times of danger. So obvisioulsy they felt that Iraq and Saddam were a threat to the world and they did what they felt was approriate. I, as a United States citizen, respect my government's authority and fully support what they did in Iraq.

D) Additionally, if Saddam or Iraq did something in the future, who would the world blame for not taking him out? It would be the United States, not only would we get blasted for not killing him during the Gulf War, we would get blasted for not foreseeing the incident and stopping him and his country when we had the chance.

- Cheers,
jag291

:p

A) I have no more trust in the Times after the Jayson Blair incident.

One person out of how many in the Time? Please. If you let one person represent the whole, -laughs-, then that just speaks volumes about you.

B) Who are you to say that what the United States did was right or wrong... the people who went to war had their reasons and if they say its for security then its for security.

We all have the right to say whether or not the US was right or wrong. Who are you to imply that we don't have that right?

Our "president" claimed at first that Iraq had ties to Osama Binladin (that was never proven). So he said we went to war to fight terrorism. Then he changed his tune. We were then fighting to liberate the people of Iraq. After a little time, we were going to war because "they had weapons of mass distruction". Which were never found, though Bush's administration are frantically trying to find anything that would justify their attack on Iraq. Good luck Bush Minor.

The people who actually went to war had no reason or say about it. Remember that.

C) The leaders of our nation (US) have been given a certain amount of authority to decide what to do in times of danger. So obvisioulsy they felt that Iraq and Saddam were a threat to the world and they did what they felt was approriate. I, as a United States citizen, respect my government's authority and fully support what they did in Iraq.

That's one of the few problems in our constitution; that we give one man the ability to decide whether we go to war or not.

The problem with thinking that Saddam was "the biggest threat out there" was that, well, he was not the biggest threat out there.

The threat of nuclear war between India Palistine is a bigger threat. The leader of Northern Korea is a bigger threat. Al-Quida is a bigger threat (it's a world wide organization that spans numerous countries. Ecetera.

We had "bigger fish to fry" and more important issues to deal with. That war was just a mistake. Sure it was an under budget war (the budget on it was huge), but since Bush refuses to allow other countries and the UN to help us rebuild the country, the bill falls on us, baby. Piping alone will cost us 9 billion. No wonder the federal government is making such huge cut backs in each state money wise.

D) Additionally, if Saddam or Iraq did something in the future, who would the world blame for not taking him out? It would be the United States, not only would we get blasted for not killing him during the Gulf War, we would get blasted for not foreseeing the incident and stopping him and his country when we had the chance.

That's a silly statement. We can say that about any country or person, this could even be said about the USA. "If we don't take them out now, then by golly, they'll get us eventually!"

That argument has no solid foundation, it's simply an assumption, a guess. It's no foresight into the future. We had no proof that Saddam would do anything to the USA, but we did have proof of other middle eastern leaders that did openly say that they would harm the US. We knew of many organizations that vowed Terrorism. We had proof of so many others, but why did Bush go after the one in which he had no proof of hostilities?

Sure, he may have killed his own people, but there are so many more countries with leaders who do that as well! even more so! And they had weapons of mass distruction.

"To each their own."

Take care

'Chelle

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Green Bird
:p

A) I have no more trust in the Times after the Jayson Blair incident.

One person out of how many in the Time? Please. If you let one person represent the whole, -laughs-, then that just speaks volumes about you.

B) Who are you to say that what the United States did was right or wrong... the people who went to war had their reasons and if they say its for security then its for security.

We all have the right to say whether or not the US was right or wrong. Who are you to imply that we don't have that right?

Our "president" claimed at first that Iraq had ties to Osama Binladin (that was never proven). So he said we went to war to fight terrorism. Then he changed his tune. We were then fighting to liberate the people of Iraq. After a little time, we were going to war because "they had weapons of mass distruction". Which were never found, though Bush's administration are frantically trying to find anything that would justify their attack on Iraq. Good luck Bush Minor.

The people who actually went to war had no reason or say about it. Remember that.

C) The leaders of our nation (US) have been given a certain amount of authority to decide what to do in times of danger. So obvisioulsy they felt that Iraq and Saddam were a threat to the world and they did what they felt was approriate. I, as a United States citizen, respect my government's authority and fully support what they did in Iraq.

That's one of the few problems in our constitution; that we give one man the ability to decide whether we go to war or not.

The problem with thinking that Saddam was the biggest threat out was that, well, he was not the biggest threat out there.

The threat of nuclear war between India Palistine is a bigger threat. The leader of Northern Korea is a bigger threat. Al-Quida is a bigger threat (it's a world wide organization that spans numerous countries. Ecetera.

We had "bigger fish to fry" and more imortant issues to deal with. That war was just a mistake. Sure it was an under budget war (the budget on it was huge), but since Bush refuses to allow other countries and the UN to help us rebuild the country, the bill falls on us, baby. Piping alone will cost us 9 billion. No wonder the federal government is making such huge cut backs in each state money wise.

D) Additionally, if Saddam or Iraq did something in the future, who would the world blame for not taking him out? It would be the United States, not only would we get blasted for not killing him during the Gulf War, we would get blasted for not foreseeing the incident and stopping him and his country when we had the chance.

That's a silly statement. We can say that about any country or person, this could even be said about the USA. "If we don't take them out now, then by golly, they'll get us eventually!"

That argument has no solid foundation, it's simply an assumption, a guess. It's no foresight into the future. We had no proof that Saddam would do anything to the USA, but we did have proof of other middle eastern leaders that did openly say that they would harm the US. We knew of many organizations that vowed Terrorism. We had proof of so many others, but why did Bush go after the one in which he had no proof of hostilities?

Sure, he may have killed his own people, but there are so many more countries with leaders who do that as well! even more so! And they had weapons of mass distruction.

"To each their own."

Take care

'Chelle

---

A) No, its not just Jayson Blair... how many top executives resigned after the incident, the entire place is corrupted.

B) I'm not saying that you can't have an opinion but I believe the people that took our country to war are in a better position to judge what they did than you. These people have access to plenty of information that you don't and are able to see things that you don't so unless you are actually in the President's cabinet or in Congress, I take your opinion as worthless (no offense). As the connection between Saddam and bin Laden is concerned, I'm aware that our government said that there was a link between the two, and has yet been unable to back it up, but remember, it's only been (guess) six weeks since we had troops in Iraq. I doubt that sensitivie information like that will easily be found... it will take time and when we do find it, you all'll be singing a different song. President Bush never changed his statements, he always said that we are fighting terrorism (and continues to) but he added another objective to our agenda, what's wrong with that? And then finally you said that people that fought in the war had no choice? Did we draft them? No, we don't have a mandatory military service in America. They joined and they knew they would be taking orders from a higher power, additionally if they don't want to fight for America, they can easily get an dishonorable discharge.

C) Our President does not have the right to declare war on anyone by himself. I recommend that you freshin up on your constitutional knowledge. Our government is based on a sytem of checks and balances, in which, to declare war, Congress (538 or so members, Sen + Reps) must approve war. Bush cannot simply say that I don't like Mr. Putin so let's bomb his ass, he must go to Congress and get it approved. Secondly, who are you to judge, with your limited knowledge, to say which was a bigger threat. You are a mere civilian, so unless you see what the President saw, I wouldn't make those statements if I were you.

D) I agree that my last statement is an assumption but let's look at the current world views of many countries and imagine what would happen... would everyone say the world as a whole is to blame? NO! Or would it be... the US missed his ass in the Gulf War and now he's bombed _________!!!! (Fill in the possibilities.) YES!!! The entire international community would be on our asses.. you know that as well as I do. Then you said we had no proof.... back into history we go... how about Kuwait.. doesn't history repeat itself... who could tell what Saddam would've done next... he could've launched SCUD's at Isreal or he could started terrorist attacks against America... we did what most people do, we got rid of a problem before it got out of hand.

- Cheers,
jag291

Quote:

---

One person out of how many in the Time? Please. If you let one person represent the whole, -laughs-, then that just speaks volumes about you.

---

Well i have to head out for my education here in a bit, so i don't have much time to go through your entire post here, but i would like to add one more person to the list there, let's see, oh how about a nobel peace prize winner Rick Bragg.

Quote:

---

Our "president" claimed at first that Iraq had ties to Osama Binladin (that was never proven). So he said we went to war to fight terrorism. Then he changed his tune. We were then fighting to liberate the people of Iraq. After a little time, we were going to war because "they had weapons of mass distruction". Which were never found, though Bush's administration are frantically trying to find anything that would justify their attack on Iraq. Good luck Bush Minor.

The people who actually went to war had no reason or say about it. Remember that.

---

Ok mrs green bird, would you care to explain this facility? Salman Pak

Quote:

---

These people have access to plenty of information that you don't and are able to see things that you don't so unless you are actually in the President's cabinet or in Congress, I take your opinion as worthless (no offense).

---

Consider the diabolical logic of it. They have information that we don't have because
they keep secrets from us Since they keep us in the dark, they claim to be
better qualified to make decisions that ultimately affect our security. They can't
reveal these secrets because we can't be trusted with such sensitive information.

Do you get some perverse pleasure from having your government treat you like
a child? "Trust me. I know what's best for you." Those claiming most
loudly to be fighting for "democracy" need to practice it here at home.

BTW, did you know that few members of congress are allowed to read
much of that information. I guess they don't have "security clearance"
Who's in charge here any way?
:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by rcgreen


Consider the diabolical logic of it. They have information that we don't have because
they keep secrets from us Since they keep us in the dark, they claim to be
better qualified to make decisions that ultimately affect our security. They can't
reveal these secrets because we can't be trusted with such sensitive information.

Do you get some perverse pleasure from having your government treat you like
a child? "Trust me. I know what's best for you." Those claiming most
loudly to be fighting for "democracy" need to practice it here at home.

BTW, did you know that few members of congress are allowed to read
much of that information. I guess they don't have "security clearance"
Who's in charge here any way?
:cool:

---

:mad: First off, I'm sick of listening to everyone's anti-American rants, it's a good discussion and all, but if you really have such a problem w/ our country then leave it. No here is forcing you to stay (as in other countries), and I guarntee that no one will come looking for you if you decide to leave. So here's the famous uneducated saying: "Love it, or leave it!".... back to our topic.

You said it yourself rcgreen, we can't be trusted w/ sensitive information. Who knows what people would do if they found out that Iraq (hypothetical) had a Hydrogen bomb. Just think of our current society, think of what would come about if our government released sensitive information like that. I can picture chaos, millions running the streets, thousands moving down into Mexico, the hicks gearing up for war... ! Even if our government said a simple thing like Iraq launched SCUD's at Kuwait again, it would be chaos, most people in America are complte ingrates and are unaware what goes on outside our country, so hearing information like that would only scare them and lead to go crazy. Think of the aftermath of Sept. 11, how many millions of people went out and bought smoke masks, stocked up on food. Then do you remember Tom Ridge raising the security level a notch... remember the duct tape and plastic wrap... our society went crazy, so the government figures that the people that need to find out will find out and the rest shouldn't.

Secondly, you asked if I got some kind of pleasure from having my government tell me what's best for me. Honestly, yes I do. Our government does an excellent job keeping our country safe in times of danger but furthermore, in times of peace. Where else are you going find an FDA, that checks out the medicines to see if they're safe, that checks our food to see if it's contaminated. Our government does what is best for the people, thus we have elections and we pick who we think is the best person to make those decisions for us. And if you don't like the people running for office, you can run yourself, that's what makes America great. And if you're a lazy ass and don't want to run, you can always state your opinion and not be killed for it.

I'm assuming that you menat that some members of Congress aren't allowed to much of the information... so I'll keep it short. If we've bombed Afghanistan and we've liberated Iraq, then I guess they've seen enough information to back the war up.

- Cheers,
jag291

PS. This becoming a good debate.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by jaguar291

:mad: First off, I'm sick of listening to everyone's anti-American rants, it's a good discussion and all, but if you really have such a problem w/ our country then leave it. No here is forcing you to stay (as in other countries), and I guarntee that no one will come looking for you if you decide to leave. So here's the famous uneducated saying: "Love it, or leave it!".... back to our topic.
Secondly, you asked if I got some kind of pleasure from having my government tell me what's best for me. Honestly, yes I do. Our government does an excellent job keeping our country safe in times of danger but furthermore, in times of peace. Where else are you going find an FDA, that checks out the medicines to see if they're safe, that checks our food to see if it's contaminated. Our government does what is best for the people, thus we have elections and we pick who we think is the best person to make those decisions for us. And if you don't like the people running for office, you can run yourself, that's what makes America great. And if you're a lazy ass and don't want to run, you can always state your opinion and not be killed for it.
- Cheers,
jag291
PS. This becoming a good debate.

---

So basicly you want to live in a facist state where the goveermnet controlls all aspects of your life...well at least I understand why you are a conservative...the rest of us enjoy our freedom too much to watch it be striped away by a group that rigged an election. See unlike you and most Neo-Conserivtive I beleive that the goverment serves the will of the people as such they are accountable to us. The hole idea of secrate and top secrate information disgustes me. Just imagin you where a stock holder in a company that refuedsed to giv you or any of the other share holders finacil info, you would replace the CEO and he would go to jail. As for your last statment, that is normaly true, but now if you state your oppinion bushes cronies drage you off to a "detention" (read concentration) camp.

Quote:

---

You said it yourself rcgreen, we can't be trusted w/ sensitive information. Who knows what people would do if they found out that Iraq (hypothetical) had a Hydrogen bomb. Just think of our current society, think of what would come about if our government released sensitive information like that. I can picture chaos, millions running the streets, thousands moving down into Mexico, the hicks gearing up for war... ! Even if our government said a simple thing like Iraq launched SCUD's at Kuwait again, it would be chaos, most people in America are complte ingrates and are unaware what goes on outside our country, so hearing information like that would only scare them and lead to go crazy. Think of the aftermath of Sept. 11, how many millions of people went out and bought smoke masks, stocked up on food. Then do you remember Tom Ridge raising the security level a notch... remember the duct tape and plastic wrap... our society went crazy, so the government figures that the people that need to find out will find out and the rest shouldn't.

---

Umm Unlike you most americans are not mindless sheep that go histarical at the first sign of trouble...look at 9/11 besides a few nutjobs most of us had life back to normal within a week...hell there was no rioteing when we found out Russia had nukes, or when they put them in Cuba, why is Iraq so specail?. As for the duct tape, society didn't go crazy, I sawno one stocking up on duct tape and plastic, it was the media desperate for a story that went crazy. I would love to see the proof of "millinos" of americans buying "smoke masks" dose any one here no any one that did this?

Yeah, i personally don't like the idea of many congressmen and women getting to hear this secret info. I say just let those on the intelligence comittee hear it, both donkey's and elephants (just to get everyone laughing) . Besides, the congressmen and women that are not allowed on the intelligence comittee are notorious for leaking secrets to the press, not to mention those who sit on them.

The bottom line is there will be those on both sides of the isle who will leak certain info if it's in their parties best interest. It's really a shame either way you slice it. Just take Joseph biden for example, he had to step down from a different committe he was on for leaking secret info, and to be fair, look at nixon. I'm a conservative and i'm still having a hard time forgiving him for what he did to the Republican party. So this crap goes both ways. Unfortunately we have to trust these guys, if you don't like one, be sure to vote for another next time, that's just the way we solve things in America.

edit/

obviously nixon's story is a bit different, but im sure conservatives have made their share of intelligence leaks over the years.

Quote:

---

The hole idea of secrate and top secrate information disgustes me.

---

Really? I guess the US government should just post how all their great wizbang weapon systems work out on the web for everyone to read...and while we are at it, why don't we tell everyone how to weaponize biological agents, or build a bigger and better nuke, or improve guidance on their missle systems...I am not a big fan of government folk who hide behind the veil of the classified label (as an excuse to not have to fess up to screwups), but there are countless troves of knowledge that are classified for a very good reason and I have no problem whatsoever with them remaining classified until such time that their contents are not a risk to the security of our nation or anybody elses.

Quote:

---

Yeah, i personally don't like the idea of many congressmen and women getting to hear this secret info.

---

I completely agree that US congresspersons have in the past been way to quick to leak information to the press that they have learned from classified breifings; however, I would much rather have them continue to be briefed on such topics. Why? Simple, classified information is a necessary evil and your elected representatives are the only ones who can keep that information and the government that holds it from being abusive. They are the check and the balance...

As far as the NY Times goes, it has to be one of the biggest sources of virulent anti-conservative demogogory in the United States, and given that Mr. Bush is one of the most conservative presidents in quite some time, you should consider taking anything they say against a Republican administration with a grain of salt (consider the source), and that is not withstanding their most recent scandal with Jason Blair. I would have to expect by your post that you filter a source like Fox News in the same way that I am saying that perhaps you should filter the NY Times...

Now as far as the WMD discussion goes, Mr. Bush strikes me as a lot of thing, but dishonest is not one of them, in fact I would have to say that one of his major problems with making nice around the world is that he is BLUNT. That is not an attribute I would expect from someone serving a cold lie. I firmly believe that HE believes there are WMD's, and that if it turns out there are not, then I hope the US Congress can get to the bottom of who fed him such convincing information, that he has placed countless US servicemen and servicewomen's lives at risk (and thus far costing ~150 of them their lives).

Even if the US and the UK are proven wrong in their claims of WMD's in Iraq, I don't think anyone can claim that Iraq won't be any better in the long run free of Sadaam's grip. Hell ask his own people, there is a really good reason they were hitting his picture with their shoes (a major insult in the Arab world), mass graves, countless reams of documented torture and executions, and on and on and on...My only hope with the current situation in Iraq is that the US can get its act together and provide decent security until the Iraqis can get their own government up and running along with basic infrastructure, and then have us get the hell out...

/nebulus

Very true, the New York times is a very liberal leaning paper, and i, a constant watcher of Fox News know full well that it is a conservative cable news outlet.

Quote:

---

Hell ask his own people, there is a really good reason they were hitting his picture with their shoes (a major insult in the Arab world), mass graves, countless reams of documented torture and executions, and on and on and on...My only hope with the current situation in Iraq is that the US can get its act together and provide decent security until the Iraqis can get their own government up and running along with basic infrastructure, and then have us get the hell out...

---

Yes, thank God that the mass graves arent still being filled. They hated Saddam with a passion, although i do agree we should take care of business and then get the hell out of there.

I saw on the news where families are buying torture tapes on the street just to bring some closure on whether or not their family members are dead.

Saddam=Hitler

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jaguar291
Who are you to say that what the United States did was right or wrong... the people who went to war had their reasons and if they say its for security then its for security.

---

The Gestapo said that, too, you know... :/

Quote:

---

Our government does what is best for the people, thus we have elections and we pick who we think is the best person to make those decisions for us.

---

Hail to the thief!

Sorry, couldn't resist :(

And you can doubt the NY Times all you want, but House Resolution 260 *is* real, you know... all of the quotes used are *real* quotes, by *real* people... most of them have been proven false already... and the other ones? Time will tell, I guess... But if time proves that they are false, I must conclude that "George W. Bush and his people used the fear and terror that still roils within the American people in the aftermath of September 11 to fob off an unnerving fiction about a faraway nation, and then used that fiction to justify a war that killed thousands and thousands of people"...

And that doesn't say anything about whether this war was just or not... just says something about how it's been 'sold' to the public ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nebulus200


Really? I guess the US government should just post how all their great wizbang weapon systems work out on the web for everyone to read...and while we are at it, why don't we tell everyone how to weaponize biological agents, or build a bigger and better nuke, or improve guidance on their missle systems...I am not a big fan of government folk who hide behind the veil of the classified label (as an excuse to not have to fess up to screwups), but there are countless troves of knowledge that are classified for a very good reason and I have no problem whatsoever with them remaining classified until such time that their contents are not a risk to the security of our nation or anybody elses.

/nebulus

---

Yes all of that should be in the public domain if known by the government (guidance systems probably fall under some IP rights of the corp. who developed them) While they are at it the government needs to tell the public about the Chemical and Biological weapons factories we maintain, the dictators we keep in power (including Hessian until 1990...So yes all of those atrocities we hear about him committing happened with our governments approval), all of the third world nations we are trying to undermine and keep down. A democracy is supposed to be by and for the people, as soon as information is with held from the people we leave the realm of democracy and start down the slope towards a dictatorial fascism.

"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. " -Thomas Jefferson.


As for this war being good/justified lets put it to the show on the other foot test. For all of the conservatives out there, if president Clinton went to war with Iraq for the reasons the bush camp has pushed, and then it turned out that he had lied about our WMD’s being in Iraq/the threat to our country what would you say?

I would bet most of you would be hollering for Clintons impeachment for “lying to the country”.

Then you aren't aware that Clinton, on more than one occasion, gave the go ahead for a few submarines to lob some cruise missiles at Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, etc.

No need to seek public approval for that now is there?

And not that I'm a conservative but I'll answer your open question from my point of view.

Nope, if Clinton had the balls to go about this issue the right way there may never have been a 9/11. So, no, I would not have hollered for anything. Hell I didn't back the call for his impeachment for lying to Congress. I mean the guy obviously has a sex problem and I couldn't care less about his intimate relationships most especially with that horse of a wife he has.

my 2 cents.

Quote:

---

I would bet most of you would be hollering for Clintons impeachment for “lying to the country”.

---

That is because Clinton has the credibility of a street-corner whino swearing he will never have another drink, and quite frankly he already did lie to the American public rather shamelessly. And while we are on the topic of Mr. Clinton, do I need remind you that it was Mr. Clinton that allowed Osama bin Laden to run free to do whatever he pleased. It was Clinton that turned down offers on more than one occasion from the Sudanese government to hand over his head on a silver platter (and then of course nicely replied with cruise missles)...(After Osama admitted responsiblity for the first World Trade Center attack, the bombings at the Khobar towers, and bombings at another place in Saudi Arabia (sorry I don't remember the exact place)).

As far as your statements on turning over our weapons secrets to the rest of the world, you are hopelessly naive. The only thing that would accomplish is to garuntee the destruction of the United States by giving those hostile to the United States the capability to destroy it (no I am not saying they have no reason to not be hostile). As far as chemical and biological weapons factories in the US, there are none, we banned their use in the 70's. The US may have some stockpiles laying around, but there, to the best of my knowledge, isn't any large scale production of either in the US (there is some small scale production to help with researching ways to counteract the weapons).

Quote:

---

A democracy is supposed to be by and for the people, as soon as information is with held from the people we leave the realm of democracy and start down the slope towards a dictatorial fascism.

---

First thing is, the US is not a democracy, it is a representative republic, there is a difference. That difference is that in a democracy every person has a direct role in the affairs of government, in a republic, they elect representatives to conduct the affairs of governmetn for them. If the US slips toward dictatorial facism, it is the fault of its own citizens, not the government. It is the citizens alone who have the responsibility to watch how their representatives govern and to vote them out of office if they do not follow the wishes of the citizenry. If you fail to have citizen viligence, then yes, a dictatorial or facist government is a
distinct possibility.

The declaration of Independence itself says:

Quote:

---

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

---

And if you will re-read what I said, you would see clearly that I fully support a congressional investigation to find out exactly what happened. You will also see that I fully support disclosing as much information as possible to the American public; however, I do not support crossing the line of endangering the peace and security of the entire nation in order to do so, which IMHO, is where the area of military knowledge falls, be it weapon systems, methods, intelligence, whatever, versus say classifying information about the Kennedy assassinations...

/nebulus

Quote:

---

As for this war being good/justified lets put it to the show on the other foot test. For all of the conservatives out there, if president Clinton went to war with Iraq for the reasons the bush camp has pushed, and then it turned out that he had lied about our WMD’s being in Iraq/the threat to our country what would you say?

I would bet most of you would be hollering for Clintons impeachment for “lying to the country”.

---

That's where your wrong bballad, i backed every military action clinton ever took, the only points i criticised him on was not a hard enough response. I know scores of conservatives who sing the exact same tune.

I'll just put another out there for everyone to think about, where was all this clamoring when clinton fired the cruise missles at Iraq, where was all the criticism then from the democratic party? Hold up, i'll answer that for you, none, not a peep from that party when ole billy goat went knocking on Saddam's door during that day. So much of what we are seeing is political, as usual.

Quote:

---

. And while we are on the topic of Mr. Clinton, do I need remind you that it was Mr. Clinton that allowed Osama bin Laden to run free to do whatever he pleased. It was Clinton that turned down offers on more than one occasion from the Sudanese government to hand over his head on a silver platter.

---

So true nebulus, Mansoor Ijaz a democratic contributer for many years mind you, tried to broker that deal between the Sudan and the Clinton administration.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by bballad


Yes all of that should be in the public domain if known by the government (guidance systems probably fall under some IP rights of the corp. who developed them) While they are at it the government needs to tell the public about the Chemical and Biological weapons factories we maintain, the dictators we keep in power (including Hessian until 1990...So yes all of those atrocities we hear about him committing happened with our governments approval), all of the third world nations we are trying to undermine and keep down. A democracy is supposed to be by and for the people, as soon as information is with held from the people we leave the realm of democracy and start down the slope towards a dictatorial fascism.

"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. " -Thomas Jefferson.


As for this war being good/justified lets put it to the show on the other foot test. For all of the conservatives out there, if president Clinton went to war with Iraq for the reasons the bush camp has pushed, and then it turned out that he had lied about our WMD’s being in Iraq/the threat to our country what would you say?

I would bet most of you would be hollering for Clintons impeachment for “lying to the country”.

---

without a doubt the dumbest thing i have heard in a long time.

as for clinton. i recall bush spending several months trying to convince ppl of why this war is neccasary, stating case after case as to why. i recall clinton just going off and bombing someone whenever a new twist in the monica case came up.

The problem with trying to argue with you ppl is that no matter what the U.S. does, you will critisize and think well I could do better, (HEY MAN LETS HAVE PEACE MAN) << looser, why should you have peace? what makes you deserve peace? untill everybody has peace nobody ever really will. "what about north korea" I here ppl say untill it drives me almost insane enough to kill them, if america does attack north korea, those exact same ppl will be the ones that say leave them alone. why send our troops over? well you tell me why they joined the ARMY or NAVY or WHATEVER. simple if they dont want to go to war then dont join the bloody thing. they are not paid to have opinions, they are paid to do whatever they are told. If they want opinions they will speak to a anylist.
I remember growing up not even knowing what a muslim was, I wish I never did!! I am going insane, I want to kill them all, they want to kill me, I am blind with hate! I hate so much that it makes, words cant describe what it makes me. I know my thoughts are not normal but what is? maybe I will get help soon because I am not dumb and I know when I need it.

If I can hate so much and others even more, then there is defently something wrong with this world! instead of critisizing why not use that efforts to come up with a better idea, untill I come up with a better solution, I like the idea of kill the bad ppl!
Maybe I should be the next!

There is so much I could say, just cant

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Worm Wood



without a doubt the dumbest thing i have heard in a long time.

as for clinton. i recall bush spending several months trying to convince ppl of why this war is neccasary, stating case after case as to why. i recall clinton just going off and bombing someone whenever a new twist in the monica case came up.

---

Actualy with Clinton congress basicly demanded that we go into bosnia (them and NATO forceing our allience) we where basicly forced in there without a choice. With Somalia he didn't want to go in but again public opinion was for the war and at least he didn't go agenst the will of the people (he did leave the Somalia campaing to a group of inept generals who put otgether the most inane war plan I had ever seen but thats a difrent issue.). bush on the other hand lied to the public to drive up public sentament for his war in iraq.

Was Husain a very bad man? yes but remember the group that took him out of power was made up of mostly the same guys as those that put him in power in the first place.

Quote:

---

Was Husain a very bad man? yes but remember the group that took him out of power was made up of mostly the same guys as those that put him in power in the first place.

---

Nope: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/cr...acy/216328.stm

Quote:

---

The path to power

The Iraqi president was born in a village just outside Takrit in April 1937. In his teenage years, Saddam immersed himself in the anti-British and anti-Western atmosphere of the day. At college in Baghdad he joined the Baath party and in 1956 he took part in an abortive coup attempt.

After the overthrow of the monarchy two years later Saddam connived in a plot to kill the prime minister, Abdel-Karim Qassem. But the conspiracy was discovered, and Saddam fled the country.

In 1963, with the Baath party in control in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein returned home and began jostling for a position of influence. During this period he married his cousin Sajida. They later had two sons and three daughters.

But within months, the Baath party had been overthrown and Saddam was jailed, remaining there until the party returned to power in a coup in July 1968. Showing ruthless determination that was to become a hallmark of his leadership, Saddam gained a position on the ruling Revolutionary Command Council.

For years he was the power behind the ailing figure of the president, Ahmed Hassan Bakr. In 1979, Saddam achieved his ambition of becoming head of state. The new president started as he intended to go on - putting to death dozens of his rivals.

---

Hmmm...I am not seeing the US, Britain, Australia, or any other of the coalition members listed here...

Quote:

---

Actualy with Clinton congress basicly demanded that we go into bosnia (them and NATO forceing our allience) we where basicly forced in there without a choice.

---

wrong and wrong and wrong again...
The congress was Republican at the time and opposed Clinton's plan to intervene; however, the did bow to pressure over the issue of human rights...

http://www.kstatecollegian.com/issue...nsas-16.6.html
Title: GOP gives Clinton's Bosnia plan grudging support

Useful index on stores at the time at USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/b...95/nbnov95.htm
Title: # Republicans split on plan to send troops - Nov. 29, 1995
Title: # Still to be won over: Congress and the public - Nov. 22, 1995
Title: # Gore pushes mission, sets 1-year time frame - Nov. 24, 1995
Title: # Clinton's Bosnia mission clear - Nov. 27, 1995
Title: # Clinton sells Bosnia troop plan Monday night - Nov. 27, 1995

Quote:

---

bush on the other hand lied to the public to drive up public sentament for his war in iraq.

---

They have yet to even investigate the matter yet (Congress) and you are already handing down verdicts...quite the impressively open mind there.

And while I am at it, you also might want to look up other interesting events at the time Clinton was in office...specifically look for Jimmy Carter's envoy to North Korea and the 'treaty' they agreed to. You know the one where we gave N. Korea all kinds of economic and humanitarian aide for them supposidly ending their nuclear program...you know the one where the clinton administration was advised by intelligence that the N. Koreans still had an active program...you know the one where they are NOW threatening to turn the US 'into a sea of fire'...

Or perhaps you may want to look into the deals with Loral, missle technology, and China...who is N. Korea's only 'ally'? China...wow, quite the shock that five years later N. Korea now has missles capable of hitting the US...wonder how that happened?

If you are going to spout of bballad, at least have your facts right...

/nebulus

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by bballad


Actualy with Clinton congress basicly demanded that we go into bosnia (them and NATO forceing our allience) we where basicly forced in there without a choice. With Somalia he didn't want to go in but again public opinion was for the war and at least he didn't go agenst the will of the people (he did leave the Somalia campaing to a group of inept generals who put otgether the most inane war plan I had ever seen but thats a difrent issue.). bush on the other hand lied to the public to drive up public sentament for his war in iraq.

Was Husain a very bad man? yes but remember the group that took him out of power was made up of mostly the same guys as those that put him in power in the first place.

---

as some one else ahst stated that is not quite true, and not what i was referrign to.how many missiles did we throw at saddam, sudan, and the balkans? and only whenever his trial started going badly.

I love how you gloss over the entire Iran, Iraq war. Or the fact that the US assested with the Coup that the Baath party initiated in the 70's. He was The CIA's (and there for Bush seniors) boy in the 70's and 80's. Hell he asked Bushes permission to invade Kuwait (which we gave him then lied about)

we gave permission? i assume u have some proof of this? and the rest of your post, has nothing to do with what im talking about, or if it does i cant place it.

He asked the then ambassador of the US in Iraq what the US response would be if they had to enforce their "rights" in Kuwait. The ambassador said that we would consider it a regional issue and it was US policy not to deal with regional issues...this was a internationally televised interview.

Now to get this back to what the point of the thread was. When Sadamm was committing the worst of his atrocities (killing the Olympic team, gassing the Kurds, ect.) we where his strong allies, infact a number of people in power now where in power then and knew exactly what he was doing. The 80's were when we should have been stopping him not 2000's after he was defanged (besides if we are out to free people from tyranny why are we doing nothing about the Congo?). In the 80's he was a military power that we where propping up and maintaining, in 2000's he was nothing, no WMD's and no way to deliver them. No air force and no army to speak of.

So lets look at reasons for this war. WMD's well all signs are pointing at the fact that their where none (those mobile labs where built by a British firm to produce hydrogen balloons for artillery spotting). To save the "people" of Iraq, this administration has shown that it doesn’t care about the poor of this country why would it care about the poor of Iraq? Besides if it was to save the people shouldn't we be going into Congo, Somalia, China, N. Korea ect? So what dose that leave us with...humm Halliburton got a lot of very lucrative contracts and oil reserves (after bush failed to deliver the Alaskan felids to them). Remember folks when dealing with Neoconservitives fallow the money it will lead you to the truth.

u simply cant stick to a point can you?

Alright Negative, the rnc and i usually don't resort to these measures, but you are proving to be a tough resistor.

Just listen to the loop on this page for atleast an hour a day, and you will feel better about the foriegn policy of the Bush administration in no time, i promise. ;)

George W. Bush

:rofl: Only kidding...

Just think how scary it would be if someone really did try and force you to support someone you did'nt want to. Just a thought.

The reason i posted this, is sometimes it seems this is how many nations are viewing our President and Nation, and trust me, it's just not so. :)

Our record as a nation is very clear, we don't want your land, we don't want to own you, we don't want your possessions, all we want is justice. If the nations of the world are going to be complacent and not do anything about terror, you leave this mighty nation no choice but to go after those who engage in it.

peaple look at a map of the world. What is between Afganistan and Iraq

the next war?

Excuse my lateness on this response, Jaguar291 , but I only come on every so often. Work and my personal life keeps me away.

A) Oh! I SEE! It's all clear now, my dear. So if top Executives are bad, that must mean all the workers are bad too!

Bull.

You are still using the minority to represent the majority here, which is just ridiculous.

--------------------------------

I can understand Bush adding to his evil agenda, but as you said, his goal has been from the begining: Terrorism. Al-Qieda. The search for Mr. Osama mama Binladen. Yea, see, funny thing is, he's not doing that anymore. He's not going after the organization in which he has solid proof to go hunt down. Bush is now just blindly pointing his oiled up finger on targets that had nothing to to with his "Clean out the Terrorist" agenda. His ever changing agenda is very scary.

B) I'm not saying that you can't have an opinion, but when the "president" sent Colin Powel to the U.N. to reveal some ground breaking information to garner support for war from our fellow nations, the information was nothing more than assumptions, blurry gray photos, and only cut out excerpts of crackly intercepted calls (which didn't reveal much either). Needless to say, no one really jumped into the U.S.A.'s war band-wagon. They asked for more, better proof. None could be given, not even in private. Even now, nothing can be shown for the silly war.

I'm sorry, but if our leaders have all this "information that we don't have access to", than one would assume that by now, they would have shown us solid proof for the war. Where are the weapons of mass distruction? How Is Saddam connected to Al- Quieda? This terrorist organization proudly omits to who their "important" memebers are. It would not be hard to confirm Saddams connection to such an organization. Time is passing quickly, and still nothing. I thought you said that they had that "only for my eyes" information! If the infomation was as good as you claimed, they would have had something to show for it. Instead, all they have to show for it is dead U.S. soliders, and even more dead civilians.

I'm sorry honey bunny, but when someone wants to go to war, I want them to go with solid proof and fact, not on a bloody guess.

So my dear, I take your opinion as worthless, but, to each their own.

Darling, when I said the people who were fighting (the U.S. toops) had no reason or say, it was true. I know many people in the military and none agree with the war, but as my close friend Krystal best phrased it "We don't get to choose our battles ." She's right, no soldier gets to pick what cause or war to fight in.

They all joined before the Sept. 11th thing, mind you. Why did they join? Why do this stay? College money. The same reason why many young people join the army stright out of high school. I did it too.

I believe the people that took our country to war are in a better position to judge what they did than you. These people have access to plenty of information that you don't and are able to see things that you don't so unless you are actually in the President's cabinet or in Congress, I take your opinion as worthless (no offense). As the connection between Saddam and bin Laden is concerned, I'm aware that our government said that there was a link between the two, and has yet been unable to back it up, but remember, it's only been (guess) six weeks since we had troops in Iraq. I doubt that sensitivie information like that will easily be found... it will take time and when we do find it, you all'll be singing a different song. President Bush never changed his statements, he always said that we are fighting terrorism (and continues to) but he added another objective to our agenda, what's wrong with that? And then finally you said that people that fought in the war had no choice? Did we draft them? No, we don't have a mandatory military service in America. They joined and they knew they would be taking orders from a higher power, additionally if they don't want to fight for America, they can easily get an dishonorable discharge.

C) I may be a mere civilian, but so are you. To just disregaurd me (and your self) for that mear fact that we are civilians is just supid. As civilians and citizans of this country, we have every right to question things that will affect us. It's our job to do so, our founding fathers made sure we had the right to do so.

I did phrase what said wrongly earlier, but it happens. Let me rephrase:

The only thing wrong with the Constitution is that one man gets to decide whether or not the option of war is needed. It may need to go through congress (this I know, I always have), but to me, this is not a real "check and balance"; especially if the majority or congress is from the president's part (Rebulican). It's not real "check and balance" when the majority of congress have the same political agenda as Bush. It's not real "Check and balance" when the majority of congress are his supporter.

So essentially, one man gets to decide. The choices made by the party leader is almost always supported by his fellow party supporters.


D) I'm glad you agree with the last statement, but to mention Kuwait was a bad angel on your part. We had proof of that invation, we also had an alliance with that little country, thus we were obligated to help the poor country out at the time. An alliance held us to Kuwait.

The international community would not be on our asses for not jumping into wars before taking a closer look. Know why? Because we are not the world's police. We only have obligations to allies (alliances is what turns a war into a wold war. It's like a domino effect, but alliances are not as big as they use to be before. They seem to cause more harm than good .) they only jump on our ass when we do something stupid.

"He coulda...He woulda...He's gonna...He might...I'll bet..." nothing but guess, nothing but assumptions, nothing but nothing. there are many other threats we had proof of, that were more dangerous, why didn't we get to those guys first?

If we make it a habit of going into a war on a hunch, some other countries may follow in our foot steps, and we won't be able to really contest them since we do the samething. If it becomes a trend, we have only our selves to blame.

I am for war when it's needed, when we have proof. I am not for it when someone just "feels" such-and-such is a threat. Honey, it don't cut it.

American didn't get rid of a problem in the Golf War. They kept a nation from taking another. That's it. No one got rid of Saddam.

As a civilian who married into the military (my wife was a LT in the navy) lets clear one point up. If you look ata command chart in any militray base whose on top...thats right civilians. In this country we as civilians are a setp above the military personal not the other way around. They are our employies even if a bunch of right wing nuts fail to remember that.

Green Bird wrote:

Quote:

---

I can understand Bush adding to his evil agenda, but as you said, his goal has been from the begining: Terrorism. Al-Qieda. The search for Mr. Osama mama Binladen. Yea, see, funny thing is, he's not doing that anymore. He's not going after the organization in which he has solid proof to go hunt down. Bush is now just blindly pointing his oiled up finger on targets that had nothing to to with his "Clean out the Terrorist" agenda. His ever changing agenda is very scary.

---

No offence, but how can you justify any of your claims here? Do you work for the U.S government, are you on the terrorism task force, do you work for the FBI or CIA, my guess is no.

I suggest you really take a look at what our forces are actually doing before you make such broad statement.

I would take a good look at this page if i were you greenbird:

counterterrorism

Quote:

---

Bush is now just blindly pointing his oiled up finger on targets that had nothing to to with his "Clean out the Terrorist" agenda.

---

I think i have pointed this out to you in another thread, but it's worth repeating to discount your claims.

Here's a quote from globalsecurity.org:

Quote:

---

Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

---

For the full article go here:

Salman Pak