The duping of America by G.W. Bush |
| Posted by: oneofpeace | | [center]Why America is Waking Up to the Truth About WMD[/center]
http://www.globalpolicy.org/securit...608wakingup.htm
Since approximately September, 2002 all the world heard from president Bush was how Saddam had WMD. Bush was clear in his accusation.
Bush demanded Saddam comply, had the UN draft a rewritten resolution by the US, then used it to justify the invasion on a soverien country.
Bush made many accusations, including but certainly not limited to drone aircraft, mobile labs, and weapons and/or documents in his palaces. Bush demanded inspectors back into that country. Saddam let them in, and after 5 yrs the UN had to hasten to get inspectors organized and back into the business at hand.
Clearly Bush wanted to invade that country and this is why he accused Saddam on every hand of something dealing with WMD.
Bush knew that Saddam didn't have the capacity to make more since 93 and the old batch of chemicals he had was useless sludge because they simply expired. Yet this did nothing to stop him from his quest to invade.
After the inspectors were let back in Blix wanted more time, but Bush would not allow them more. Why? I'm glad you asked. Because Bush knew that if those inspectors inspected Iraq and found nothing, his case for invasion (as if it need any more help for this) would look shabby at best. They already could not find what Bush asserted so he had to move if the US was to invade that country. And so he did.
Now ask yourself a question. Why was Bush so adament about invading that country? Certainly Saddam didn't pose an imminent threat at the time so why the haste?
I want you to check out the above link. It's very informative and has other links at the bottom. Please click them, those of you who wants to know the more. You will have to decide whether it's true or not, but there are certain facts that cannot be denied. The US indeed supplied Saddam with these WMD to use on Iran.
The truth can be a beatiful thing, but often it can expose you and become an ugly thing, but only to those it exposes. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: JY_French | | Oneofpeace,
Thanks for bringing this stuff here, it is really informative. I am waiting for the time when DIA Director Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby will be labeled a leftist Anti-American terrorist by some hysterical folks on this board. Truely truth can hurt ... some people's underconnected brains. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: jvstr | |
| quote: |
JY_French said this in post #2 :
Oneofpeace, Thanks for bringing this stuff here, it is really informative. |
Isn't this funny... watching the mentally-ill oneofdeath, and the foreign terrorist bum, JY_French, salivating and drueling over a piece of journalistic smut written by Marion McKeone from Glasgow's 'Sunday Herald'.
Let's pick apart Marion McKeone's smut profferings:
Marion writes: "The top-secret report by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) last September concluded that it could find no evidence of chemical weapons activity in Iraq."
She then quotes this partial sentence from the report: 'There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons,'
Here is the full unclassified excerpt from the 2002 DIA Study:
A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions. Nevertheless, we believe Iraq retained production equipment, expertise and chemical precursors and can reconstitute a chemical warfare program in the absence of an international inspection regime. Iraq's successful use of chemical weapons in the past against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians increases the likelihood of a chemical warfare reconstitution. Iraq has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities. Unusual munitions transfer activity in mid-2002 suggests that Iraq is distributing CW munitions in preparation for an anticipated U.S. attack. Iraq retains all the chemicals and equipment to produce the blister agent mustard but its ability for sustained production of G-series nerve agents and VX is constrained by its stockpile of key chemical precursors and by the destruction of all known CW production facilities during Operation Desert Storm and during subsequent UNSCOM inspections. In the absence of external aid, Iraq will likely experience difficulties in producing nerve agents at the rate executed before Operation Desert Storm.
Iraq is steadily establishing a dual use industrial chemical infrastructure that provides some of the building blocks necessary for production of chemical agents. In addition, Iraq has renovated and added production lines at two facilities formerly associated with Baghdad's chemical warfare program -- Habbaniyah I and Habbaniyah II. Activities include building reconstruction, salvage operations, and equipment movement and deliveries in the months that followed the 1998 expulsion of United Nations inspectors. Baghdad is rebuilding portions of its chemical production infrastructure under the guise of a civilian need for pesticides, chlorine, and other legitimate chemical products, giving Iraq the potential for a small "breakout" production capability.
Although we lack any direction information, Iraq probably possesses CW agent in chemical munitions, possibly including artillery rockets, artillery shells, aerial bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. Baghdad also probably possesses bulk chemical stockpiles, primarily containing precursors, but that also could consist of some mustard agent or stabilized VX.
Iraqi doctrine for the use of chemical weapons evolved during the Iran-Iraq war, and was fully incorporated into Iraqi offensive operations by the end of the war in 1988. Iraq demonstrated its ability to use chemical weapons during that conflict in the following roles: in a defensive role to disrupt or halt an overwhelming enemy offensive; as a preemptive weapon to disrupt staging areas before an offensive attack; and as an offensive weapon during well-staged attacks to regain territory. Authority for use of chemical weapons during that war eventually became delegated to corps commanders. The Iraqis delivered chemical agents with artillery, multiple rocket launchers, mortars, and aerial bombs dropped by fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. Iraq also used chemical agents against Kurdish civilians in 1988. Historical precedent suggests Saddam already may have deployed chemical weapons to western Iraq, as he did during Operation Desert Storm to be used against Israel in the event of coalition military action that threatens the regime.
Iraq will develop various elements of its chemical industry to achieve self-sufficiency in producing the chemical precursors required for CW agent production. Iraq might construct a new dedicated CW facility or facilities at remote sites to avoid detection or, alternatively, upgrade the production capabilities at its Habbaniyah I and II facilities to produce the agent mustard and binary components necessary for the production of nerve agents.
Marion later writes: "But the belief Saddam had stockpiled weapons -- and the imminent threat they posed -- was the core reason cited by Bush during his historic address to the UN last September."
Marion is lying. The only mention of stockpiled weapons in that entire speech by Bush to to the UN is this single sentence:
Bush: United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.
In regards to the 'imminent threat' that Marion claims above that Bush made , including the following she made earlier in her smut article: "...the Bush administration's warnings of a dire, imminent threat to the US from Iraqi chemical weapons."... the word 'imminent' doesn't even exist in Bush's entire speech to the UN.
Bush does says this: We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.
But Bush does make use of the word 'imminent' about Iraq in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union Address:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
That whole article is nothing but a two-bit leftist smut and spin piece written by a dingbat from Glasgow.
| quote: |
JY_French said this in post #2 :
I am waiting for the time when DIA Director Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby will be labeled a leftist Anti-American terrorist by some hysterical folks on this board. |
I'm glad to hear that you like what Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby has to say. Here's an excerpt from something else he said on February 12th 2003 to the Senate Armed Services Committee:
Saddam Hussein appears determined to retain his WMD and missile programs, reassert his authority over all of Iraq, and become the dominant regional power. He recognizes the seriousness of the current situation, but may think he can 'outwit' the international community by feigning cooperation with UN weapons inspectors, hiding proscribed weapons and activities, playing on regional and global 'anti-American' sentiments, and aligning himself with the 'Palestinian cause.' Saddam's penchant for brinksmanship and miscalculation increases the likelihood that he will continue to defy international will and refuse to relinquish his WMD and related programs. Should military action become necessary to disarm Saddam, he will likely employ a host of desperate measures.
| quote: |
JY_French said this in post #2 :
Truely truth can hurt ... some people's underconnected brains. |
You wouldn't know truth if it came up and bit you in the a*ss.
In the final analysis, JY_French, you are nothing more than a smelly stinky Frenchman... and a cheap 2nd-rate terrorist bum.
--JV
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | | Unfortunately the immaturities of some who continue to radiate their ignorance and prejudices in these forums sometimes call for a response.
After months of hearing Saddam had WMD from the Bush administration we now have a shift in strategy from pro Bush supporters. Now their chapeau is “this war wasn’t mainly about WMD but other things”.
As I pointed out earlier, Bush was very clear about why he invaded Iraq. His foundation was WMD. Everything else he spewed was in support of this assertion. This was Bush’s words just prior to going into Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast.../sprj.irq.main/
Now that there’s no evidence what so ever and looks like their never will be, we have these that want to spin this into a different direction other than what Bush told us it is. This is done because they realize there is absolutely no position to stand on, so they must create one.
As for the DIA reports, read this below. You will see that this administration would except NOTHING less than unfavorable reports and completely dismissed anything that said Saddam did not have these weapons. This is supported by Bush’s actions to STOP weapon inspectors and to invade Iraq. Further reports favorable to Saddam would undermine his true intentions to invade Iraq regardless.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...1052334,00.html
The truth cannot be spun or denied, it is simply fact. The world is now watching. This administration is now lacking in the view of the world. The vigilante attitude of the end justifies the means is not the right course of action, nor is it justice. And though now we have these that are trying very hard, nothing can dismiss the claims of this administration that Saddam had tons of these weapons and that we had “undeniable proof” those such weapons existed.
I’m not surprise that we now have these like the above who continues to spew their insults, hatred and prejudices on any one who is non American or any that believes differently than they. It shows the under development of their maturity of reason, or lack thereof. They simply want to dismiss Bush’s misleadings and favor reports and documents found almost a year after this invasion to justify an invasion almost a year ago.
I sincerely hope that one day we do not have someone who thinks like these in the office of president one day. As we see now how dangerous someone can be who lacks insight, diplomacy, and intelligence leading such a powerful country can hurt the country and the world. Ultimately we all will have to pay the price for reckless disregard of facts simply to improve one’s economical position. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Curley Joe | |
| quote: |
jvstr said this in post #3 :
Isn't this funny... watching the mentally-ill oneofdeath, and the foreign terrorist bum, JY_French, salivating and drueling over a piece of journalistic smut written by Marion McKeone from Glasgow's 'Sunday Herald'.
Let's pick apart Marion McKeone's smut profferings:
Marion writes: "The top-secret report by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) last September concluded that it could find no evidence of chemical weapons activity in Iraq."
She then quotes this partial sentence from the report: 'There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons,'
Here is the full unclassified excerpt from the 2002 DIA Study:
A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions. Nevertheless, we believe Iraq retained production equipment, expertise and chemical precursors and can reconstitute a chemical warfare program in the absence of an international inspection regime. Iraq's successful use of chemical weapons in the past against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians increases the likelihood of a chemical warfare reconstitution. Iraq has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities. Unusual munitions transfer activity in mid-2002 suggests that Iraq is distributing CW munitions in preparation for an anticipated U.S. attack. Iraq retains all the chemicals and equipment to produce the blister agent mustard but its ability for sustained production of G-series nerve agents and VX is constrained by its stockpile of key chemical precursors and by the destruction of all known CW production facilities during Operation Desert Storm and during subsequent UNSCOM inspections. In the absence of external aid, Iraq will likely experience difficulties in producing nerve agents at the rate executed before Operation Desert Storm.
Iraq is steadily establishing a dual use industrial chemical infrastructure that provides some of the building blocks necessary for production of chemical agents. In addition, Iraq has renovated and added production lines at two facilities formerly associated with Baghdad's chemical warfare program -- Habbaniyah I and Habbaniyah II. Activities include building reconstruction, salvage operations, and equipment movement and deliveries in the months that followed the 1998 expulsion of United Nations inspectors. Baghdad is rebuilding portions of its chemical production infrastructure under the guise of a civilian need for pesticides, chlorine, and other legitimate chemical products, giving Iraq the potential for a small "breakout" production capability.
Although we lack any direction information, Iraq probably possesses CW agent in chemical munitions, possibly including artillery rockets, artillery shells, aerial bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. Baghdad also probably possesses bulk chemical stockpiles, primarily containing precursors, but that also could consist of some mustard agent or stabilized VX.
Iraqi doctrine for the use of chemical weapons evolved during the Iran-Iraq war, and was fully incorporated into Iraqi offensive operations by the end of the war in 1988. Iraq demonstrated its ability to use chemical weapons during that conflict in the following roles: in a defensive role to disrupt or halt an overwhelming enemy offensive; as a preemptive weapon to disrupt staging areas before an offensive attack; and as an offensive weapon during well-staged attacks to regain territory. Authority for use of chemical weapons during that war eventually became delegated to corps commanders. The Iraqis delivered chemical agents with artillery, multiple rocket launchers, mortars, and aerial bombs dropped by fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. Iraq also used chemical agents against Kurdish civilians in 1988. Historical precedent suggests Saddam already may have deployed chemical weapons to western Iraq, as he did during Operation Desert Storm to be used against Israel in the event of coalition military action that threatens the regime.
Iraq will develop various elements of its chemical industry to achieve self-sufficiency in producing the chemical precursors required for CW agent production. Iraq might construct a new dedicated CW facility or facilities at remote sites to avoid detection or, alternatively, upgrade the production capabilities at its Habbaniyah I and II facilities to produce the agent mustard and binary components necessary for the production of nerve agents.
Marion later writes: "But the belief Saddam had stockpiled weapons -- and the imminent threat they posed -- was the core reason cited by Bush during his historic address to the UN last September."
Marion is lying. The only mention of stockpiled weapons in that entire speech by Bush to to the UN is this single sentence:
Bush: United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.
In regards to the 'imminent threat' that Marion claims above that Bush made , including the following she made earlier in her smut article: "...the Bush administration's warnings of a dire, imminent threat to the US from Iraqi chemical weapons."... the word 'imminent' doesn't even exist in Bush's entire speech to the UN.
Bush does says this: We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.
But Bush does make use of the word 'imminent' about Iraq in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union Address:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
That whole article is nothing but a two-bit leftist smut and spin piece written by a dingbat from Glasgow.
I'm glad to hear that you like what Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby has to say. Here's an excerpt from something else he said on February 12th 2003 to the Senate Armed Services Committee:
Saddam Hussein appears determined to retain his WMD and missile programs, reassert his authority over all of Iraq, and become the dominant regional power. He recognizes the seriousness of the current situation, but may think he can 'outwit' the international community by feigning cooperation with UN weapons inspectors, hiding proscribed weapons and activities, playing on regional and global 'anti-American' sentiments, and aligning himself with the 'Palestinian cause.' Saddam's penchant for brinksmanship and miscalculation increases the likelihood that he will continue to defy international will and refuse to relinquish his WMD and related programs. Should military action become necessary to disarm Saddam, he will likely employ a host of desperate measures.
You wouldn't know truth if it came up and bit you in the a*ss.
In the final analysis, JY_French, you are nothing more than a smelly stinky Frenchman... and a cheap 2nd-rate terrorist bum.
--JV |
Well-said, JV! 
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: jvstr | |
| quote: |
oneofdeath said this in post #4 :
After months of hearing Saddam had WMD from the Bush administration we now have a shift in strategy from pro Bush supporters. Now their chapeau is ?this war wasn?t mainly about WMD but other things?.
|
Everybody pay attention....
This is a classic case of how oneofdeath's warped mind works. He makes a false claim... an outright lie... and then argues against it. This is indicitive of a very sick person.
Casting the rest of oneofdeath's mentally bankrupt thoughts into a garbage can, right where they belong... we'll focus on this specific bit that constitutes the root of oneofdeath's further bellowings:
"Now their chapeau is 'this war wasn't mainly about WMD but other things'"
The above is an outright lie.
The chapeau is "WMD wasn't the *only* thing the war was about."
And there is no 'now they are saying' about it... it has always been known to anyone who has been paying attention.
--JV
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | | Still no facts, still no WMD, still no case,...... still no intelligence, still the insults, still the ignorance,.......still the supremacist, still the immature, still in denial....
still no arguement....and it's still a shame.
Sometimes characters like JV makes it hard pressed to boost that the US is an intelligent and great nation. I really think he needs theropy. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: JY_French | | From your own quote above, Mr JV:
| quote: |
jvstr said this in post #3 :
"A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions."
"There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities ." Unusual munitions transfer activity in mid-2002 suggests that Iraq is distributing CW munitions in preparation for an anticipated U.S. attack. Iraq retains all the chemicals and equipment to produce the blister agent mustard but its ability for sustained production of G-series nerve agents and VX is constrained by its stockpile of key chemical precursors and by the destruction of all known CW production facilities during Operation Desert Storm and during subsequent UNSCOM inspections . In the absence of external aid, Iraq will likely experience difficulties in producing nerve agents at the rate executed before Operation Desert Storm ."
Iraq is steadily establishing a dual use industrial chemical infrastructure that provides some of the building blocks necessary for production of chemical agents. In addition, Iraq has renovated and added production lines at two facilities formerly associated with Baghdad's chemical warfare program -- Habbaniyah I and Habbaniyah II. Activities include building reconstruction, salvage operations, and equipment movement and deliveries in the months that followed the 1998 expulsion of United Nations inspectors. Baghdad is rebuilding portions of its chemical production infrastructure under the guise of a civilian need for pesticides, chlorine, and other legitimate chemical products, giving Iraq the potential for a small "breakout" production capability.
Although we lack any direction information , Iraq probably possesses CW agent in chemical munitions, possibly including artillery rockets, artillery shells, aerial bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. Baghdad also probably possesses bulk chemical stockpiles, primarily containing precursors, but that also could consist of some mustard agent or stabilized VX.
Iraqi doctrine for the use of chemical weapons evolved during the Iran-Iraq war, and was fully incorporated into Iraqi offensive operations by the end of the war in 1988. Iraq demonstrated its ability to use chemical weapons during that conflict in the following roles: in a defensive role to disrupt or halt an overwhelming enemy offensive; as a preemptive weapon to disrupt staging areas before an offensive attack; and as an offensive weapon during well-staged attacks to regain territory. Authority for use of chemical weapons during that war eventually became delegated to corps commanders. The Iraqis delivered chemical agents with artillery, multiple rocket launchers, mortars, and aerial bombs dropped by fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. Iraq also used chemical agents against Kurdish civilians in 1988. Historical precedent suggests Saddam already may have deployed chemical weapons to western Iraq, as he did during Operation Desert Storm to be used against Israel in the event of coalition military action that threatens the regime.
Iraq will develop various elements of its chemical industry to achieve self-sufficiency in producing the chemical precursors required for CW agent production. Iraq might construct a new dedicated CW facility or facilities at remote sites to avoid detection or, alternatively, upgrade the production capabilities at its Habbaniyah I and II facilities to produce the agent mustard and binary components necessary for the production of nerve agents.
--JV |
All right.
Now, let's have a look to this:
[QUOTE]More on "imminent threat" (11/13)
By Ben Fritz
Many readers have responded to our column last week about whether the Bush administration argued that Iraq posed an "imminent threat." In particular, they have noted an additional instance of a Bush aide using the phrase, questioned the connection of administration arguments that Iraq could pose an imminent threat to Turkey, and, most frequently, argued that the Bush administration scared the public into thinking Iraq was an imminent threat. None of these cases, however, alter the argument we have made.
Several readers, echoing Josh Marshall, have pointed to a quote from White House Communication Director Dan Bartlett that should have been included in the piece. Appearing on CNN's Late Edition on January 26, Bartlett was asked by host Wolf Blitzer, "Is [Saddam Hussein] an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home? " Bartlett responded:
Well, of course he is . He has made it very clear his hatred for the United States of America. He's made it very clear through the past years and since he's been in power his desire to dominate the region.
And as he acquires these weapons, particularly if he were to get a nuclear weapon, it would change the game in the entire world if Saddam Hussein, based on his past, based on his history of aggression, to acquire the type of weapons and then potentially to marry up with terrorists so he wouldn't have the finger prints, is a scenario that we can't afford to take.[QUOTE]
Terrorist: namely, someone who spreads terror.
I disagree with you: I am a terrorist. Coming here to discuss with people is "hitting a US server".
But I am not only a terrorist. I am a cheap 2nd rate terrorist bum. Other nice names are available:
- foreign terrorist bum,
- complete idiot,
- moron,
- smelly stinky Frenchman
Mr JV, I should thank you for contributing to improve my knowledge of english vocabulary, even if your lessons are applicable to a limited number of issues.
I have put anyone yet on my "ignore list" - and won't do so. Everybody has the right to express his opinion. But is it really necessary to call names and point fingers ? If this is your way to articulate your opinion ... that's really poorly minded of yours.
If you think that being able to post links and quotes in your replies, provide you a lucid and relevant knowledge of the rest of the world - I mean, everything around your bunker- the awakening might be dolorous one day. And you won't have a smelly Frenchman to blame and insult to relieve your pain. You are the one inflicting this pain to yourself in the first place. I hope you enjoy your life of hate and resentment. Just check from time to time if you don't have some stomach ulcer - in case you don't have already one. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | | JY you are trying to appeal to something that isn't there,..intellect. I'm sure your plea will fall on deaf ears. As sure as Bush is a liar, JV will respond with an insult or 2, or 3.....
In as much, I choose not to engage such a limited mind with such a limited vocabulary. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: jvstr | |
| quote: |
JY_French said this in post #8 :
Appearing on CNN's Late Edition on January 26, Bartlett was asked by host Wolf Blitzer, "Is [Saddam Hussein] an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home? " Bartlett responded:
Well, of course he is . He has made it very clear his hatred for the United States of America. He's made it very clear through the past years and since he's been in power his desire to dominate the region. |
Frenchie, you're a miserable clown. For starters, Dan Bartlett isn't George Bush... and Dan Bartlett speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer isn't George Bush addressing the United Nations, the United States, and/or U.S. Congress.
Secondly, it's obvious that Bartlett was overlooking or misunderstood the word 'imminent' because the reasons he gave don't describe anything 'imminent' at all.
What you are Frenchie is a desperate miserable terrorist bum trying to grasp at straws. You are pathetic. That you are allowed access to any U.S. servers at all is nothing short of a crime.
| quote: |
JY_French said this in post #8 :
But I am not only a terrorist. I am a cheap 2nd rate terrorist bum. Other nice names are available:
- foreign terrorist bum,
- complete idiot,
- moron,
- smelly stinky Frenchman |
That's right Frenchie... you are a terrorist. A terrorist bum.
I regard the internet as a gigantic security hole in that it allows foreign trash like yourself to permeate within U.S. borders and submit your propaganda filth all over the place.
That there are, and have been, naive Americans that get influenced and/or brainwashed by heathen scum just like you is enough to make me f*ucking sick.
--JV
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Coogee Beach | | You're sick alright. Mate go and take a powder or run in some fields or smell some flowers, you nasty little malcontent. Jesus. Chill the **** out and stop abusing people.
And how can a report YOU QUOTE from say: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."
And yet you'll still take the parts of it that Bush says as gospel and the rest as horse sh*it. Who's kidding who fellah? You want to get Curley's sand bucket off your head. You're like a Christian fundamentalist zealot, believing the bits of the bible he wants to and disregarding the other bits.
Honestly. How can you only believe what you want to? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USA1 | | Coogee, peace, French,
The Guardian and CNN? Come on guys! I can't believe that you have the ability and where withall to be able use the internet and research all of this information and STILL are brainwashed. For some reason the BrainBlinders are on you guys. Narrowly focused on one wishful thought and ignoring the truths in hopes that you won't have egg on your face. We don't care. I don't know you and could care less. Efforts to bash Bush on this forum are viewed by a very few people and probably by only the ones who are willing to waist time to answer to your rhetoric.
Every person who has visited Iraq agrees on one thing, regardless of any media spin. Iraq had the abiltiy to create and launch WMD within a certain time period. What part of this don't you understand? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | | Yeah I can see how you can come to this conclusion USA. After all, everything Bush has said has come true now hasn't it?
You talk about brainwashed. How do you believe anyone that says something and after 9months later they cannot produce it?
I notice how your crowd points to the media that supports your arguments. The same media you call "liberal" when they don't support your views.
As for your assertion of "Every person who has visit Iraq agrees on one thing, rgardless of media spin" remark. The UN inspectors didn't. Why you think Bush did not want to give them any more time? He wanted no more favorable reports out of Baghdad.
You are simply blinded by your own biased. There is no way anyone with any reason can conclude that Bush was justified. The position is now shifting from WMD to that's not the only reason why. You can't even fathom that the man has lied despite his lack of evidence and pure accusations.
And you call what we say rhetoric? Bush spewed a whole bunch of nonsense and you fell for it. Now in the absence of proof and the capture of the real terrorist threat, you simply believe that Saddam had to be invaded when it was because of some imagined imminent threat to the US. The man couldn't even put up a conventional fight and despite nothing Bush asserted is there, you continue to believe the rhetoric.
Please, come back with something that makes sense and leave that nonsense at the door will ya? It's growing tired. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USA1 | | peace,
You strip out anything to support your wishes. That's obvious to everyone on this forum, including me. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | | Yes, this may be true USA, I realize that, but in light of there not being any WMD, how is it that we can simply dismiss it as a technicality?
Considering the events that led up to the invasion, Bush has been less that convincing. His stretch of Saddam somehow being involved with 9/11 and his refusal to let inspectors regroup and search Iraq, then the absense of these weapons Bush said he had proof of can lead only the reasonable to conclude that Bush was being less than truthful.
And that's no media hype in there whatsoever. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USA1 | | peace,
Nobody has dismissed anything! Because you are looking for the TONS of WMD, you may never be satisfied. I for one don't care if they never find them, I just hope SH didn't give them to OBL. They had 'em and you know it, we know it.
I know this fact, SH is finished and will never have the chance to use even one ounce. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | | USA when did SH last have these weapons? Back in 89. Nothing shows that Saddam made any new weapons since. We already know that those chemicals wouldn't last indefinately and has expired.
Do you not believe that if Saddam gave those weapons to OBL, they surely would have been used by now? All indications point to that Saddam never had them in the first place (since their destruction by the UN in 95), so why do you believe that he gave OBL these weapons?
Out of all the rhetoric about meetings here and meetings there, there is absolutely nothing saying Saddam gave anyone anything. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if Saddam had them he would have used them in some capacity by now?
It's more than just WMD missing, it's the Bush administrations approach to Iraq. You cannot see that Bush was intent on invading Iraq and 9/11 gave him the vehicle to do it.
Is it quite possible here that we could be wrong USA? We're the only ones who see ourselves as right. That's usually a pretty good indicator. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USA1 | | peace,
You haven't convinced me. The difference between me and you is, that I have patience. This is something you are lacking. Without it you will grow old very quickly. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | | Patience? How much longer do we have to wait for something this President already said he had?
I tell you what, you keep on waiting. Just don't hold your breath. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Coogee Beach | | Patience was what Hans Blix asked for. Patience was what anyone opposed to rushing into an ill-thought out war asked for. Patience was in short supply about this time last year when Dubya was scaring us all ****-less with made-up stories about Saddam giving anthrax to al Queda, about Saddam's weapons that his intelligence told him Saddam had, this same intelligence which told him Saddam was buying uranium from Niger (from a document so badly forged that the foreign minister of Niger who "signed" the thing had retired 10 years previously - I mean, what is going on there), intelligence that is either incompetent, lying or both.
It's just a bit rich asking the world to be patient looking for something Dubya told us was there.
I mean - AINT IT???? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | | Amen Coogee. Bush had no patience in going into Iraq because if those inspectors had come out of there with a favorable report, he knew he would like exactly like he does now….an a$$. 
Oh, I found a way to get around the typing of a capital B. I guess someone has to try something else on me now… | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Coogee Beach | | Yeah I was getting that capital b thing too - are we getting hacked at or something? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Controversial J | | No it was a feature of the board. Shift + B. It's been disabled/worked out. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: fred hooper | | I didn't care if they had WMD & never will. I still supported the ousting of Saddam which is now reality all based on human rights. Many scientists in Iraq have claimed Saddam was always after weapons & do you think that missile contract with North Korea was for New Years fireworks celebrations for example. There probably are WMD anyway but I don't care.
Whatever leaders of the coaltion said about their case for war, Iraq is liberated & their people are free. Suppose I'm different from your left wingers, I put the reality of what would happen in Iraq which is a finished regime causing liberation to freedom before internal politics of a Western country.
Some people, as long as my viewpoint & politics are safe who cares if another bunch of Iraqis dies for the next couple of years. They're really more important to some people which is frightening. How do you sleep at night?
FH | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Sayzak | | Saddam would kill anyone he didn't need, who had any incriminating information against him. (Undeniable).
Saddam has used WMD to murder thousands of people. (Undeniable).
Saddam was not a leader, he was a dictator. (Undeniable).
Saddam helped assassinate the former leader of Iraq. (Undeniable).
Saddam did not care about anyone but himself. (Undeniable).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's more than just WMD missing, it's the Bush administrations approach to Iraq. You cannot see that Bush was intent on invading Iraq and 9/11 gave him the vehicle to do it. "
So terrorism is the vehical to wipe out terrorists? I'm glad we both understand eachother. This means that as long as terrorists are attacking people, it will be hunting season for the U.S. army. Maybe they'll get the point. Ever see swordfish? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | | I simply don't know how to respond to Fred's post. I think it's disturbing.
As for Sayzak
The US could care less about Iraqi freedom (undeniable)
The US gave Saddam his chemical & Bio weapons (undeniable)
Saddam used them on Iran & the US was muted on the subject (undeniable)
After Saddam gassed the Kurds the US still supplied germs to SH (undeniable)
US played Saddam & Iran against one another (undeniable)
Saddam no longer friendly, US used their influence to oust him (undeniable)
US interest in Iraq is purely economics (undeniable)
Bush administration wanted to raid Iraq before 9/11 (undeniable)
Bush used 9/11 to scare America into supporting invasion (undeniable)
Many dictators in the world, some worse than Saddam (fact)
N. Korea has WMD capable of reaching US soil (fact)
Saddam never had capabilities to reach US soil (fact)
Bush now searching for evidence he said he had to justify war (fact)
Saddam was a tyrant no doubt. So is Kim Jung in N. Korea. Just read up on his atrocities. He is no better than Saddam Hussein and has lied to the UN and world about it's WMD program. They have something Saddam never had, nukes capable of hitting the US.
Don't hand me that "we freed the Iraqis" crap. That just conveniently fits the US agenda for ousting Saddam. We could care less about freedoms, and more about economic dominance.
You both have been duped because you got it twisted. No way we're justified. We're not the global police despite the c**k measuring mentality in abundance in these forums. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Curley Joe | |
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #28 :
You both have been duped because you got it twisted. No way we're justified. We're not the global police despite the c**k measuring mentality in abundance in these forums. |
Same o' sh!t from oneofdeath. Breaking news for ya, oneofdeath: WE WENT IN MONTHS AGO! IT'S DONE!
You isist on pounding sand—you know what happens when you pound sand, oneofdeath? You get what you started with.... more sand....
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | | I'm convinced you need medication Crazy Joe, AmeriKOOk or whom ever one of your split personalities are shining forth.
You sound like an old southern nut that fought possibly in Korea or Vietnam. At any rate I think you've inhaled too much agent orange or something. If only Bush cared maybe he could get you some help with that fella. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Curley Joe | | Whatever you say, oneofdeath. Nonetheless, IT'S DONE!
Keep pounding the gritty stuff! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Curley Joe | | Yes I am.... and so is the President of the United States—who, by the way, has got y'all by the 'nads....
Now go pound that gritty stuff on yo beach.....
HOO-AH! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Optics | |
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #28 :
I simply don't know how to respond to Fred's post. I think it's disturbing.
As for Sayzak
The US could care less about Iraqi freedom (undeniable)
If we cared less about Iraqi freedom then why are we helping to get a government in place that will keep them FREE for years to come ?
The US gave Saddam his chemical & Bio weapons (undeniable)
So did many many other countries, why not point the fingers at them also ???
Saddam used them on Iran & the US was muted on the subject (undeniable)
The majority of the WORLD was mute on the subject not just the US
After Saddam gassed the Kurds the US still supplied germs to SH (undeniable)
Along with other countries
US played Saddam & Iran against one another (undeniable)
How so ?
Saddam no longer friendly, US used their influence to oust him (undeniable)
Saddam raised his ugly head one to many times in defying the UN and the weapons inspections. Many Many countries helped oust Saddam not just the US
US interest in Iraq is purely economics (undeniable)
Yes we will get some money from this but it will be far far shorter then the over 87 Billion dollars the US has spent
Bush administration wanted to raid Iraq before 9/11 (undeniable)
Really how so ?
Bush used 9/11 to scare America into supporting invasion (undeniable)
Bush did not scare anyone. The attackers on the Twin Towers did that
Many dictators in the world, some worse than Saddam (fact)
Yes there are other dictators in the world but Saddam would be hard pressed to be toped in the Worse catagory
N. Korea has WMD capable of reaching US soil (fact)
Yes they do
Saddam never had capabilities to reach US soil (fact)
Saddam and his people could enter the US at will. Reaching the soil of the US is no problem, taking over a plane would be no problem, and there they have there weapon of mass destruction.
Bush now searching for evidence he said he had to justify war (fact)
Bush is not searching his troops are. The information he received was from many many countries. Evidence will come give it some time.
Saddam was a tyrant no doubt. So is Kim Jung in N. Korea. Just read up on his atrocities. He is no better than Saddam Hussein and has lied to the UN and world about it's WMD program. They have something Saddam never had, nukes capable of hitting the US.
Don't hand me that "we freed the Iraqis" crap. That just conveniently fits the US agenda for ousting Saddam. We could care less about freedoms, and more about economic dominance.
You both have been duped because you got it twisted. No way we're justified. We're not the global police despite the c**k measuring mentality in abundance in these forums. |
I'm sorry you feel that way. Kim Jung as not lied he has openly come out saying that they were restarting nuclear sites and programs to get the componets needed to build a nuclear weapon.
Economic dominance well it will take years upon years to get our money back from this war. They had what 87 Billion dollars given to the Military how many months ago. I bet it is over an 100 Billion dollars now, when will the countries fighting Sadam even break even on this war ????
We were justified as showed by the support we have through out the world. Just because you don't like it..... well alot of countries did not like it but alot of countries did. So who would be wrong ???
Measuring the mentality in abundance on this forum. Well who here thought they were being supressed from using capital B's and it was because of your view points, Oneofpeace ? Then only to find out it was a board glitch and did you say My fault or I'm sorry for pointing a finger with out all the facts ???
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | | Optic, I'm not sure what you are saying here, but I'll take a stab at it.
| quote: |
| If we cared less about Iraqi freedom then why are we helping to get a government in place that will keep them FREE for years to come ? |
This is where you buy into the nonsense. The only one's Bush is helping is himself. We are NOT sending troops to die simply to free the Iraqi people. This is where many of you cannot fathom that the US has another agenda there. With all the people that need "freedom" we pick another oil rich country to free. Cut me a break!!!
| quote: |
| The majority of the WORLD was mute on the subject not just the US |
Percisely, so why now are we raising hell about Saddam's weapons? We didn't say a word until Saddam was anti-West. And yes we did play both ends against the middle by supplying Iran & Iraq with weapons and intel on each other during their war in the 80's. Saddam found out, and that's when our relations soured with him. Until then, we didn't care who he gassed long as it wasn't allies or the US.
| quote: |
| Saddam raised his ugly head one to many times in defying the UN and the weapons inspections...etc |
And who led the charge against Iraq? It was the US. Don't hand me this crap when Bush wouldn't even let the inspectors in there to do their work. Remember, inspectors WERE in Iraq. They were just getting organized and Bush told them to get out because he didn't want any more favorable reports. It would make it harder for his true intentions to invade Iraq. Iraq was no imminent threat to no one. We busted into that country like Saddam any day would launch nukes on the US.
| quote: |
| Bush did not scare anyone. The attackers on the Twin Towers did that |
You're saddly mistaken here son. Bush did use scare tactics to validate the invasion in the psyche of America. Doesn't it ever occur to you that Bush never mentioned Saddam and 9/11 until he wanted to invade that country? Wake up Opt, you're asleep man.
| quote: |
| Saddam and his people could enter the US at will. Reaching the soil of the US is no problem, taking over a plane would be no problem, and there they have there weapon of mass destruction. |
Are you saying the Bush invaded Iraq because they had airplanes? None, of the hijackers were Iraqis Opt, they were Saudis. Are we bombing Saudi Arabia? Nope because we buried the report exposing them and their role in 9/11. They had more to do with it than Saddam and we're still Saudi friendly.
| quote: |
| Bush is not searching his troops are. The information he received was from many many countries. Evidence will come give it some time. |
Obviously you don't know the difference so why bother. Just know this, when you say you have something, it doesn't take you almost a year to turn it up in your possesion. We are searching for evidence in December to justify why we invaded in March? And this is suppose to retroactively justify why we invaded?
You are in a dream land. Wake up Optic. You really need to look around you. Believe the events, not the rhetoric. You will see that Bush is indeed lacking in evidence. All his words are empty with it.
[quote]So did many many other countries, why not point the fingers at them also ???{/quote}
First, your wrong about other countries supplying Saddam with chemical weapons. The other countries supplied Saddam with conventional weapons. It was the US that supplied him with chemical and bio weaponry, right up until 1989. This is why I don't "point the figer" at them. We're not invading Iraq because of conventional weapons remember? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: jvstr | |
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #35 :
First, your wrong about other countries supplying Saddam with chemical weapons. The other countries supplied Saddam with conventional weapons. It was the US that supplied him with chemical and bio weaponry, right up until 1989. This is why I don't "point the figer" at them. We're not invading Iraq because of conventional weapons remember? |
More abhorrent lies and deception from the mentally bankrupt, oneofdeath.
Maybe USA1 was right... oneofdeath's license to speak should perhaps be revolked... for the sake of protecting our children.
--JV
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | | And I'm deceptive? jvstr the supremacist says I'm deceptive.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...n20020926.shtml
You have to be kidding me. I heard maybe Germany supplied them, maybe, but everyone knows it's the US that is mainly responsible.
If I'm wrong the show me. At least I'm willing to learn, unlike your biased blind hatred of any country that isn't US or US supported. You spew the same rhetoric in other forums dealing with other countries like Palestine. Like I said before, you're nothing but a supremacist. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USA1 | | peace,
you have demostrated that you are incapable of learning anything. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Optics | |
| quote: |
From Oneofpeace:
Obviously you don't know the difference so why bother. Just know this, when you say you have something, it doesn't take you almost a year to turn it up in your possesion. We are searching for evidence in December to justify why we invaded in March? And this is suppose to retroactively justify why we invaded?
[/qoute]
Well Saddam knew we were going to attack so what does he do he moves his weapons to other areas. Thus the US can not find them right away.
[quote]
From Optics :
Bush did not scare anyone. The attackers on the Twin Towers did that
From Oneofpeace:
You're saddly mistaken here son. Bush did use scare tactics to validate the invasion in the psyche of America. Doesn't it ever occur to you that Bush never mentioned Saddam and 9/11 until he wanted to invade that country? Wake up Opt, you're asleep man.
|
No son you are mistaken Bush did not scare anyone. The Terrorist did that all on there own. Just because Bush did not talk publicly about Saddam, that does not mean he was not talking about him behind public doors. Just because you and I know nothing about what is going on that does not mean Bush and his advisors are working on it.
Is this war the only reason you have to dislike Bush or do you have others, oneofpeace ?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USA1 | | peace didn't vote in the last election so, anything he says is irrelivant. He is funny to watch though. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Charles | |
| quote: |
| This is where you buy into the nonsense. The only one's Bush is helping is himself. We are NOT sending troops to die simply to free the Iraqi people. |
Exactly. There is a perfect mix of strategic, regional, economic, and "human" interests that coincide and just begged for a solution.
| quote: |
| This is where many of you cannot fathom that the US has another agenda there. With all the people that need "freedom" we pick another oil rich country to free. Cut me a break!!! |
How many times will you try to work this "steal oil" hybrid argument into your posts. We are not stealing oil. We are not raping and pillaging. Oil is definitely one of the reasons we went in. We are tired of having a brutal aggressive dictator on top of 1/3 of all the worlds oil reserves. It is in everyone's interest to see secure and stable and prosperous Iraq. Why do you continue playing naive ande harp on this B.S.???
| quote: |
| Percisely, so why now are we raising hell about Saddam's weapons? We didn't say a word until Saddam was anti-West. |
Lot's of words were said. There were lot's of competing interests. State and Commerce were at eachothers throats. Government is a big machine. Bottom line, within two years of Halabja we were kicking Saddam's ass. Was there any other country doing as much? Its fine to complain about US, but aren't you damning every other country by a factor of ten times more? Try putting things in context for ONCE.
| quote: |
| And yes we did play both ends against the middle by supplying Iran & Iraq with weapons and intel on each other during their war in the 80's. Saddam found out, and that's when our relations soured with him. Until then, we didn't care who he gassed long as it wasn't allies or the US. |
Brilliant assessment! And your partially correct - but not in the part that you think. Alas.
| quote: |
| And who led the charge against Iraq? It was the US. |
As usual. Who the hell else gives a damn? Surely not the glorious UN?
| quote: |
| Don't hand me this crap when Bush wouldn't even let the inspectors in there to do their work. Remember, inspectors WERE in Iraq. They were just getting organized and Bush told them to get out because he didn't want any more favorable reports. |
They had already submitted several. None of them represented aglowing reports on complete, immediate, and unconditional compliance. That's all we needed.
| quote: |
| It would make it harder for his true intentions to invade Iraq. Iraq was no imminent threat to no one. We busted into that country like Saddam any day would launch nukes on the US. |
In your mind of misinformation - probably.
| quote: |
| You're saddly mistaken here son. Bush did use scare tactics to validate the invasion in the psyche of America. Doesn't it ever occur to you that Bush never mentioned Saddam and 9/11 until he wanted to invade that country? Wake up Opt, you're asleep man. |
Please answer honestly:
1. Did UNSC consider Saddam a threat because of weapons and support for terrorism (among other things)?
2. Was there general consensus among US politicians that Saddam was a threat?
| quote: |
| It was the US that supplied him with chemical and bio weaponry, right up until 1989. |
You are an A$$. You are either a perpetrator of deliberate anti-US propaganda, or you are a stooge.
The US did not supply Saddam with ANY WMD. Period. You will of course back track now and say, "but what I meant was that some US companies traded lots of agricultural products with Saddam, some of which are precursors, and some research non-profits engaged in providing samples of germs, etc." But you will of course fail to mention that these non-profits do the same all over the world. Hopefully less so now.
| quote: |
| This is why I don't "point the figer" at them. We're not invading Iraq because of conventional weapons remember? |
Its reached the point where you are like an old LP with some deep scratches. You get stuck in the same spot. We try to pick up the needle and move to a new groove - but then there is another scratch. The next time we listen to your record you will get stuck on the same spot again.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | |
| quote: |
Optics said this in post #40 :
No son you are mistaken Bush did not scare anyone. The Terrorist did that all on there own. Just because Bush did not talk publicly about Saddam, that does not mean he was not talking about him behind public doors. Just because you and I know nothing about what is going on that does not mean Bush and his advisors are working on it.
Is this war the only reason you have to dislike Bush or do you have others, oneofpeace ? |
Well I simply do not like the way Bush is giving corporate America breaks and the people aren't getting any real breaks.
Just like Bush's O.T. bill which stops O.T. for millions that are middle class. It seems everything he does benefits corporation in some way regardless if the little man gets screwed.
As for Iraq, it's as plain as the nose on your face that Bush indeed did this on a very weak case to say the least. Despite this we have people that still believe "so what". I find that disburbing because it shows a flagrant disregard for the truth to accomplish hidden agendas. I simply don't trust that. If you lie for this, you'll lie for anything that is of personal gain.
I simply do not expect any of you to be convinced I'm right and you're wrong. If you see what's happening and you come to your conclusions anyway, then there is no way I can convince anyone. I just hate it that people are saying we're "freeing the Iraqis". This war has little to do with that and much to do with economical dominance. It seems that Charles thinks this is wise to bomb a country for this as long as they can benefit in some way. I guess the families of our troops dying in Iraq daily isn't enough to convince him we did the wrong thing when we did it. There were other options.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Optics | |
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #43 :
Well I simply do not like the way Bush is giving corporate America breaks and the people aren't getting any real breaks.
Real breaks, a tax break, jobless rate is the lowest in many many years (even during clinton's years)
Just like Bush's O.T. bill which stops O.T. for millions that are middle class. It seems everything he does benefits corporation in some way regardless if the little man gets screwed.
The O.T. bill will also ensure that workers who never before could get O.T. will now get O.T. pay.
But this is for another discussion
As for Iraq, it's as plain as the nose on your face that Bush indeed did this on a very weak case to say the least. Despite this we have people that still believe "so what". I find that disburbing because it shows a flagrant disregard for the truth to accomplish hidden agendas. I simply don't trust that. If you lie for this, you'll lie for anything that is of personal ga
Accomplish hidden agendas...... that you have cracked ???? Bush went to war on information from hundrends of countries, not just the US's.
I simply do not expect any of you to be convinced I'm right and you're wrong. If you see what's happening and you come to your conclusions anyway, then there is no way I can convince anyone. I just hate it that people are saying we're "freeing the Iraqis". This war has little to do with that and much to do with economical dominance. It seems that Charles thinks this is wise to bomb a country for this as long as they can benefit in some way. I guess the families of our troops dying in Iraq daily isn't enough to convince him we did the wrong thing when we did it. There were other options. |
Yes the war was over weapons of mass destruction, a by product of the war is freeing the people. Was that the main goal NO but it was a goal none the less. Did we gain economicly from this war NO (87 Billion dollars to run this war with what a 1 Billion dollar a day price tag) Just how are we making out economicaly here ??????
For the troops that have died, I'm sure President Bush did not go into this war thinking we would have Zero deaths. For the families that have lost a soldier, I feel for them and I thank them. There were other options that Saddam has been laughing at and disregarding for years. War seems to be the only thing Saddam will reply to honestly.
My edit was for out of control color's 
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | |
| quote: |
| Real breaks, a tax break, jobless rate is the lowest in many many years (even during clinton's years) |
You really need to do your research Opt. You will see that Clinton had the best numbers in recent decades, certainly better than this administration. Bush done absolutely nothing about our economy until elections drew near.
| quote: |
| The O.T. bill will also ensure that workers who never before could get O.T. will now get O.T. pay. But this is for another discussion |
No, this is for this discussion. You are bad as Bush with this misdirection. He raised manditory OT for those that made $8000 yr to $22000. This was totally untouched since the mid 70's.
Secondly you fail to point out that now those that make over $42,000 a year will no longer be eligible for OT. I know these fall within certain job titles but all a company has to do is reclassify your title as administrative and you fall within these guidelines. This is where most of America lie in the middle class. The fact that he raised the manditory level from poverty to poor is no consolation for the middle class that will loose out on O.T.
| quote: |
| Accomplish hidden agendas...... that you have cracked ???? Bush went to war on information from hundrends of countries, not just the US's. |
Sure he did, all information he got that made a case for invasion. Any information he received that showed otherwise, and he did get it, was completely left out of his report to the U.N. Amazingly he sent Powell to quote defector information from the same ones that said Saddam doesn't have anymore WMD. Yes hidden agendas!!!
| quote: |
| Yes the war was over weapons of mass destruction, a by product of the war is freeing the people. |
You keep telling yourself this and maybe you'll believe it after a while. What I don't understand is why you do not even question why we can't even find them now. Let's give it more time? Why do you need time to find something you say you already have? Just invade, search and try to find, then whatever you find while search you say "see I told you so"?
If that isn't twisted I don't know what is. But like some others have said. It's done now. So let's make the best of it. I'll be glad when Bush find a plan on how to deal with these daily death tolls over there.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Curley Joe | |
| quote: |
Optics said this in post #44 :
Yes the war was over weapons of mass destruction, a by product of the war is freeing the people. Was that the main goal NO but it was a goal none the less. Did we gain economicly from this war NO (87 Billion dollars to run this war with what a 1 Billion dollar a day price tag) Just how are we making out economicaly here ??????
For the troops that have died, I'm sure President Bush did not go into this war thinking we would have Zero deaths. For the families that have lost a soldier, I feel for them and I thank them. There were other options that Saddam has been laughing at and disregarding for years. War seems to be the only thing Saddam will reply to honestly.
|
Here is the speech that the President of the Greatest Nation on the Planet, the United States of America, gave to the United Nations in September of 2002 (Before SCR 1441).
Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and brought grief to many citizens of our world. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear.
We've accomplished much in the last year -- in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do -- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, and the people of the United States are grateful.
The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war -- the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.
Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lifts up lives, to extend trade and the prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.
As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to UNESCO. This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning.
Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.
Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.
In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.
Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.
To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.
He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.
In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.
Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.
In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.
In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.
In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.
From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.
And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.
Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.
Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.
In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.
In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.
As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.
We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.
Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.
The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?
The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Curley Joe | | ...continued...
If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.
The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.
We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.
My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.
Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the M |
|
