Is that right mr Bush?

[Skaman]

Hmm....

http://www.moveon.org/false/video/

[Seoulstriker]

suck my chode.

[California Joe]

Well THAT was certainly a statement.

[Seiyuuki]

Posted on 01/10/2004 6:01:43 PM PST by CIBGUY


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

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

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

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, '98

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

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

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of St ate, Nov. 10, '99

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what is your point, ducimus19?

[Resevoir Hogs]

If you want to blame someone blame the intelligence communities.

Ducimus would you have wanted to live in Iraq under Saddam Hussein?

[Skaman]

If you want to blame someone blame the intelligence communities.

Ducimus would you have wanted to live in Iraq under Saddam Hussein?


Absolutely not, yet the reason for this war was never to help the Iraqi people. Bush set the scene for war with these very comments made evident in the video. Did he mention 'lets over-throw a corrupt regime?' No, he said America is in imminent danger, which as we know, was not. Iraq has immense issues, yet why not help a nation with an ounce of hope. I’m sad to say, Iraq is a lost cause under an American reconstructive-mandate.

[the_spec]

The administration simply lied about the reason for war and stuff like

would you have wanted to live in Iraq under Saddam Hussein? is just totally irrelevant for that discussion.
Bush could have said "Saddam is a very evil man and we have to take him out of power", see what the congress thinks about it and that's it.

[Dennis G]

moveon.org is liberal trash this site 100% **** ducimus YOU NEED A LIFE!!

[SFontaine]

Better safe than sorry I say. President Bush wanted to defend his country and was afraid another 9/11 would happen.

Oh and furthermore what was the operation name? Operation Iraqi Freedom?

[the_spec]

Yeah dennis, that video was fake and Pres. Bush never said that.

YOU NEED A LIFE!!
Likewise.


President Bush wanted to defend his country and was afraid another 9/11 would happen.
Apparently he was the only one, otherwise he wouldn't have needed to lie to make the war possible, right?

[EvanL]

Better safe than sorry I say. President Bush wanted to defend his country and was afraid another 9/11 would happen.

Oh and furthermore what was the operation name? Operation Iraqi Freedom?
9/11 was terrorism. Not a country attacking the states. Dont distort it. Iraq was a threat, but not a direct threat. Do not relate it to Sept 11th. I knew ppl, close ppl, that died on sept 11th, and the majority of familys that lost loved ones on sept 11th, are appalled that bush has used the events to wage war on Iraq. Sure im glad the war happened, but not because Iraq had WMD, im glad because Saddam is gone. He was a terrible man responsible for thousands even millions of deaths. But so far he does not have the WMD that Bush and his administration said they had.

[usa320]

Clinton bombed iraq based on the same intelligence in 1998, and Bush had the support of Congress, UN UNANAMOUSLY PASSED RES. 1441, which THREATENED FORCE if IRAQ FAILED TO COMPLY with ALL DEMANDS. We also have the active support of like 30 countries, so to say bush is the only person who wanted to make rid of saddam, is simply a lie.

As a matter of fact i wouldnt be surprised if the war plans for the offensive were written before bush was even in office.

[usa320]

I dont think you as a dude living in Canada can make a statement like this.


I knew ppl, close ppl, that died on sept 11th, and the majority of familys that lost loved ones on sept 11th, are appalled that bush has used the events to wage war on Iraq

And let me say, being born and raised in Brooklyn, and the fact that i go back there every few months to meet with friends and family...everyone i know who knew people in the trade center would have bombed more than iraq if they were in president...

The majority of the families want to take a stick to osama's crotch, a blowtorch to Saddams beard and gouge out mullah omar's good eye.

[Skaman]

Clinton bombed iraq based on the same intelligence in 1998, and Bush had the support of Congress, UN UNANAMOUSLY PASSED RES. 1441, which THREATENED FORCE if IRAQ FAILED TO COMPLY with ALL DEMANDS. We also have the active support of like 30 countries, so to say bush is the only person who wanted to make rid of saddam, is simply a lie.

As a matter of fact i wouldnt be surprised if the war plans for the offensive were written before bush was even in office.


Clinton was an idiot. Bush and Clinton go hand in hand as horrible leaders. No one is defending Clinton.

[EvanL]

I dont think you as a dude living in Canada can make a statement like this.


I knew ppl, close ppl, that died on sept 11th, and the majority of familys that lost loved ones on sept 11th, are appalled that bush has used the events to wage war on Iraq

And let me say, being born and raised in Brooklyn, and the fact that i go back there every few months to meet with friends and family...everyone i know who knew people in the trade center would have bombed more than iraq if they were in president...

The majority of the families want to take a stick to osama's crotch, a blowtorch to Saddams beard and gouge out mullah omar's good eye.
Well you should pay more attention to my posts man. I am a Canadian living in NYC. And have been living here for 4 years. And saw 9/11 with my own eyes. Not through a tv set.
DOnt tell me what comments i can and cant make. The majority of families do want to stick it to osama cus thats who pulled off 911. Not Saddam.

[Jack Mehoff]

The only thing i regret was U.S. did not finish off Saddam in the first Gulf War

[EvanL]

The only thing i regret was U.S. did not finish off Saddam in the first Gulf War
That is where the whole problem started. We should have never stopped at the border. We should have gone in. And when the uprisings started we should have supported them instead of abandoning* then.

[Jack Mehoff]

:lol:

http://brain-terminal.com/video/nyc-2003-02-15/

[usa320]

had we made rid of Saddam in 91, we would be getting the same bitching from Europe we are now.

And frankly, im not certain our intelligence was good enough in 1991 to be able to get an idea, more or less an exact location to capture or kill Saddam. Also, a full scale war in 91 would have had FAR more casualties on our side, as 1) the Iraqi army was FAR bigger than it is now, and 2) Their weapons of mass destruction wouldnt be 20 years old back then, and they wouldnt be burried in the ground or in a basement in syria.

[khukuri]

moveon.org is liberal trash this site 100% **** ducimus YOU NEED A LIFE!!

WOW, what a good argument!

[Jack Mehoff]

The only thing i regret was U.S. did not finish off Saddam in the first Gulf War
That is where the whole problem started. We should have never stopped at the border. We should have gone in. And when the uprisings started we should have supported them instead of abandoning* then.

That's why i wanted Saddam off his power even before Bush came to the White House.

[Skaman]

The only thing i regret was U.S. did not finish off Saddam in the first Gulf War


Do you think America acted in the interest of Kuwait in the gulf war? Or where other subversive motives present?

[usa320]

And anyone who still thinks that Saddam hussein wasnt supporting terrorists, is either not sober, or a jack-ass stubborn ignoramus.

Thats right dicmus, your a jackass.

[Jack Mehoff]

The only thing i regret was U.S. did not finish off Saddam in the first Gulf War


Do you think America acted in the interest of Kuwait in the gulf war? Or where other subversive motives present?

Yeah, we went to Vietnam so we could have have their rice. We went to Korea so we could have their kimchi

[usa320]

moveon.org is liberal trash this site 100% **** ducimus YOU NEED A LIFE!!

That is an impressive and thought provoking argument, i agree.

and no, im not kidding.

We could really get in depth about evidence that supports the claims that moveon.org is liberal BS...they even get funding from certain communist groups...

We could also get into the psychology of dicmus, and there are many many reasons and ways he could get a life...

He could start by landing himself a decent job, get a woman and stop spending like 30 hours a day spamming message boards with crooked **** no one gives a damn about.

[Skaman]

And anyone who still thinks that Saddam hussein wasnt supporting terrorists, is either not sober, or a jack-ass stubborn ignoramus.

Thats right dicmus, your a jackass.


Hell, the US supported Saddam in a brutally violent war with Iran by way of weapons and significant funding. Is it logical to support such unstable nations?
If the US was interested in a ME peace process, efforts to stabilize the region admits war would have been more logical through neutrality and negotiation than abiding an instable militaristic regime.

[EvanL]

moveon.org is liberal trash this site 100% **** ducimus YOU NEED A LIFE!!

That is an impressive and thought provoking argument, i agree.

and no, im not kidding.

We could really get in depth about evidence that supports the claims that moveon.org is liberal BS...they even get funding from certain communist groups...

We could also get into the psychology of dicmus, and there are many many reasons and ways he could get a life...

He could start by landing himself a decent job, get a woman and stop spending like 30 hours a day spamming message boards with crooked **** no one gives a damn about.
Look at the number of his posts, then look at yours. Whose the loser?
At least hes serving. You sit here talking about how we should send soldiers here or there and have never served a day in your life. Why dont you sign up? Are you scared you might end up in Iraq? AFghanistan? Stop criticizing people that actually do stuff for this world unlike you who sits here talking about what to do but doesnt do jack ****.

[Skaman]

moveon.org is liberal trash this site 100% **** ducimus YOU NEED A LIFE!!

That is an impressive and thought provoking argument, i agree.

and no, im not kidding.

We could really get in depth about evidence that supports the claims that moveon.org is liberal BS...they even get funding from certain communist groups...

We could also get into the psychology of dicmus, and there are many many reasons and ways he could get a life...

He could start by landing himself a decent job, get a woman and stop spending like 30 hours a day spamming message boards with crooked **** no one gives a damn about.


As I recall, I have a job. Im an infantry reservist. Im also a full time student.

Additionally, USA posts:
Total posts: 1699
[1.40% of total / 7.76 posts per day]

My Posts:
[0.89% of total / 4.37 posts per day]

It seems you spend almost as much as twice the amount of time posting as I do.

[Jack Mehoff]

And anyone who still thinks that Saddam hussein wasnt supporting terrorists, is either not sober, or a jack-ass stubborn ignoramus.

Thats right dicmus, your a jackass.


Hell, the US supported Saddam in a brutally violent war with Iran by way of weapons and significant funding. Is it logical to support such unstable nations?
If the US was interested in a ME peace process, efforts to stabilize the region admits war would have been more logical through neutrality and negotiation than abiding an instable militaristic regime.

Oh man, where is Budenski when i need him?

France, Russia and Germany didn't support Saddam? rofl I'm assuming Saddam was such a nice guy so he borrowed billion of dollars from those countries and feed his people. I'm not saying USA is innocent but ****sucker19 should stop blaming everything on America.

[Skaman]

moveon.org is liberal trash this site 100% **** ducimus YOU NEED A LIFE!!

That is an impressive and thought provoking argument, i agree.

and no, im not kidding.

We could really get in depth about evidence that supports the claims that moveon.org is liberal BS...they even get funding from certain communist groups...

We could also get into the psychology of dicmus, and there are many many reasons and ways he could get a life...

He could start by landing himself a decent job, get a woman and stop spending like 30 hours a day spamming message boards with crooked **** no one gives a damn about.
Look at the number of his posts, then look at yours. Whose the loser?
At least hes serving. You sit here talking about how we should send soldiers here or there and have never served a day in your life. Why dont you sign up? Are you scared you might end up in Iraq? AFghanistan? Stop criticizing people that actually do stuff for this world unlike you who sits here talking about what to do but doesnt do jack ****.


Thanks man. p-)

[Skaman]

And anyone who still thinks that Saddam hussein wasnt supporting terrorists, is either not sober, or a jack-ass stubborn ignoramus.

Thats right dicmus, your a jackass.


Hell, the US supported Saddam in a brutally violent war with Iran by way of weapons and significant funding. Is it logical to support such unstable nations?
If the US was interested in a ME peace process, efforts to stabilize the region admits war would have been more logical through neutrality and negotiation than abiding an instable militaristic regime.

Oh man, where is Budenski when i need him?

France, Russia and Germany didn't support Saddam? rofl I'm assuming Saddam was such a nice guy so he borrowed billion of dollars from those countries and feed his people. I'm not saying USA is innocent but ****sucker19 should stop blaming everything on America.



They did it too, so its okay for us as well! :cantbeli:


I dont see Russia, France and Germany kicking the **** out of Iraq right now....

[EvanL]

moveon.org is liberal trash this site 100% **** ducimus YOU NEED A LIFE!!

That is an impressive and thought provoking argument, i agree.

and no, im not kidding.

We could really get in depth about evidence that supports the claims that moveon.org is liberal BS...they even get funding from certain communist groups...

We could also get into the psychology of dicmus, and there are many many reasons and ways he could get a life...

He could start by landing himself a decent job, get a woman and stop spending like 30 hours a day spamming message boards with crooked **** no one gives a damn about.
Look at the number of his posts, then look at yours. Whose the loser?
At least hes serving. You sit here talking about how we should send soldiers here or there and have never served a day in your life. Why dont you sign up? Are you scared you might end up in Iraq? AFghanistan? Stop criticizing people that actually do stuff for this world unlike you who sits here talking about what to do but doesnt do jack ****.


Thanks man. p-)
Listen man. I dont agree with alot of the stuff u say or post. We have different views. Im not here to back you up. Im just giving my input. And for anyone whoe serves, whether they be a liberal or conservative, deserves the same respect. More respect than someone who doesnt serve.

[usa320]

oh douchebag19 no one even gives two ****s what you say.

YOur like ****ing herpes dude...no matter what the **** people tell you, you still bitch and moan. Seriously, go to a militant islam forum and bitch about how America sux- im sure the will be more interested than the majority of us. NO ONE EVEN READS your posts. PEOPLE JUST ARGUE over RATHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD EVEN WASTE YOUR TIME POSTING.

So do us all a favor and either post some military photos, or shut the **** up with the whining.


And where is Budanski?

[Jack Mehoff]

And anyone who still thinks that Saddam hussein wasnt supporting terrorists, is either not sober, or a jack-ass stubborn ignoramus.

Thats right dicmus, your a jackass.


Hell, the US supported Saddam in a brutally violent war with Iran by way of weapons and significant funding. Is it logical to support such unstable nations?
If the US was interested in a ME peace process, efforts to stabilize the region admits war would have been more logical through neutrality and negotiation than abiding an instable militaristic regime.

Oh man, where is Budenski when i need him?

France, Russia and Germany didn't support Saddam? rofl I'm assuming Saddam was such a nice guy so he borrowed billion of dollars from those countries and feed his people. I'm not saying USA is innocent but ****sucker19 should stop blaming everything on America.



They did it too, so its okay for us as well! :cantbeli:


I dont see Russia, France and Germany kicking the **** out of Iraq right now....

Maybe because lost all their money if they attack Iraq. Do you alway think with your ass?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7960

[Skaman]

:lol:

http://brain-terminal.com/video/nyc-2003-02-15/


Just like Jay Leno's Jaywalking!

After all, Americans can be associated in the same pool as those idiots; just as all left wingers can be associated with these morons.


:roll:

[EvanL]

oh douchebag19 no one even gives two ****s what you say.

YOur like f*** herpes dude...no matter what the f*** people tell you, you still bitch and moan. Seriously, go to a militant islam forum and bitch about how America sux- im sure the will be more interested than the majority of us. NO ONE EVEN READS your posts. PEOPLE JUST ARGUE over RATHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD EVEN WASTE YOUR TIME POSTING.

So do us all a favor and either post some military photos, or shut the f*** up with the whining.


And where is Budanski?
Whats with not replying to me man? You choking on your words still?
Stop arguing like a child man. If you dont wanna read his stuff dont read it. Do you really feel u have to reply to all of his posts?
How do you think the left leaning posters on this board feel when everyone else posts right wing stuff?
Its the same way you feel. I dont see them complaining.

[Skaman]

oh douchebag19 no one even gives two ****s what you say.

YOur like f*** herpes dude...no matter what the f*** people tell you, you still bitch and moan. Seriously, go to a militant islam forum and bitch about how America sux- im sure the will be more interested than the majority of us. NO ONE EVEN READS your posts. PEOPLE JUST ARGUE over RATHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD EVEN WASTE YOUR TIME POSTING.

So do us all a favor and either post some military photos, or shut the f*** up with the whining.


And where is Budanski?



I dont Hate America. I dislike American foreign policy.

Hmm, well, read my other posts. I do post on other such topics, or have you overlooked those?

[Skaman]

And anyone who still thinks that Saddam hussein wasnt supporting terrorists, is either not sober, or a jack-ass stubborn ignoramus.

Thats right dicmus, your a jackass.

You mean HAMAS and its efforts in Israel? Last time I checked they were acting in Israel, not in association with 911. Saudi Arabian terrorist cells have the right to that.



p-)

[WARPIG]

Wholly crap. I can't believe I clicked that stupid link. I feel like I just ordered a dog**** sandwhich and a large cup of piss.
Once again ****amus uses bull**** sources and trivial factoids in a truly inept and pitiful attempt to piss on the US.
Your credibility just seems to sink lower and lower. rofl <<<Wait. You would have to have had credibility to sink it.

[Dennis G]

moveon.org is liberal trash this site 100% **** ducimus YOU NEED A LIFE!!

WOW, what a good argument!

You cant even have a good agrument with douchebag19 you little pinko. douchebag has show himself time and time again to be a moron


Look at the number of his posts, then look at yours. Whose the loser?
At least hes serving. You sit here talking about how we should send soldiers here or there and have never served a day in your life. Why dont you sign up? Are you scared you might end up in Iraq? AFghanistan? Stop criticizing people that actually do stuff for this world unlike you who sits here talking about what to do but doesnt do jack ****.

ducimus its hard to believe that there are soldiers acting the way you do. Tell me if a month from now canada was to send troops to Iraq and you were one of those troops would you go and act like a ****ing man or still have the same objection.







Yeah dennis, that video was fake and Pres. Bush never said that.

YOU NEED A LIFE!!
Likewise.


President Bush wanted to defend his country and was afraid another 9/11 would happen.
Apparently he was the only one, otherwise he wouldn't have needed to lie to make the war possible, right?

rofl rofl Shut up bitch

[Parzival]

That guys is an idiot. He lieng to his own peapole. Shame Bush!

[Kriz]

Well personally I did think that Bush and Blair seriously oversized the threat posed by Saddam to the rest of the world. Both on the issues of terrorism and WMD.
If those declarations were based on intellinge that now seems to be totally incorrect the ones responsible for it should be punished imho.

If they really wanted to try and change the world in a positive way they should have dealt with North Korea, that country has WMD and sell that info to terrorist groups. So that would have been a far better "target" in the war on terror then Saddam.


Anyway just my two cents, hope noone is offended by this.

[Truthsayer]

And I think 'usa320' is infact 16 years old and like spending all his days here, reposting what his older friends tell him and flaming anyone that writees something otherwise, since he can't for the life of him muster up any arguments. Ever.

We all know that the intelligence used to base the war was flawed. It might have been doctored with, it might have been an 'clerical error'.

Can we all hope the investigation is going to be keeped unbiased and not run by the goverment itself? I would hate to have an impeachment on Bush, like the right-wing fanatics drow up on Clinton. That just looks silly to the rest of the world.

[hood]

And anyone who still thinks that Saddam hussein wasnt supporting terrorists, is either not sober, or a jack-ass stubborn ignoramus.

Thats right dicmus, your a jackass.


You mean HAMAS and its efforts in Israel? Last time I checked they were acting in Israel, not in association with 911. Saudi Arabian terrorist cells have the right to that.

He didn't say Al Qaeda, he said terrorism. Hamas is a terrorist organization which has close ties to other well known terrorist organizations. He was correct in his statement.

[Seiyuuki]

So...this is what...the millionth time this is brought up by ducimus19 in another attempt shove his own ideology down the Americans' throats?

I seriously lost count...can anyone help?


Hmm....

http://www.moveon.org/false/video/


Posted on 01/10/2004 6:01:43 PM PST by CIBGUY


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

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

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

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, '98

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

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

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of St ate, Nov. 10, '99

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SO...WHAT IS YOUR POINT???

[Trident-za]

Seiyuuki, in all fairness - your list of democrat quotes doesn't mean a thing in this context.

Ducimus19 isn't playing the democrats VS Bush card at all. He is anti-Bush, that doesn't mean he thinks the democrats didn't say anything about WMD.

Other than that, Im not gonna get involved here.

[hood]

Nah, just that the problem is that he posts the same thread over and over, people spend lots of time replying and responding with points that rebuke his statements, and he never responds. He only responds to the ones that personally attack him, almost never to the ones that challenge his argument. Then he waits a few weeks and then posts another one. I've spent various large amounts of time researching and arguing his points, and he never responds to my replies. His threads are a waste of everyone's time.

[Seiyuuki]

Seiyuuki, in all fairness - your list of democrat quotes doesn't mean a thing in this context.

Ducimus19 isn't playing the democrats VS Bush card at all. He is anti-Bush, that doesn't mean he thinks the democrats didn't say anything about WMD.

Other than that, Im not gonna get involved here.

In all fairness, in this context, it does mean something.

Frankly, I don't care if some Republicans said some of those comments...but think about this, how many of those comments are not "lied" to justify launching a few missiles a few times into Iraq?

What is the different between some cruise missiles and the full armada of the U.S. military?

[Seiyuuki]

I’m sad to say, Iraq is a lost cause under an American reconstructive-mandate.

Does that comment also go with your previous signature? Extremely good way to respect fallen soldiers...dismissing their miserable attempts, too bad they all die for "lost cause," but according to you...they are the "future oil."



The only thing i regret was U.S. did not finish off Saddam in the first Gulf War
That is where the whole problem started. We should have never stopped at the border. We should have gone in. And when the uprisings started we should have supported them instead of abandoning* then.

:cantbeli:

WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE NOT GET???

There were several MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRIES in the coalition to LIBERATE Kuwait, that was the MAIN objective. Condition for using bases in Saudi Arabia and having the support of those countries in the Middle East includes: keeping Israel out of the fight, which the U.S. did and not proceeding on to conquer Iraq.

Do I think that is wise, no and it came back and bite the U.S. in the ass, but the FACT remain...if we would have said, "By the way, after kicking Iraq out of Kuwait we will take advantage of their weaken state and proceed into Iraq and topple Saddam and take over the country..." Yeah, like heck any of those countries would agree to that plan and they probably wouldn't even allow the U.S. to even step so much as a toe onto the Arabian Gulf.


I dont Hate America. I dislike American foreign policy (You also need to add "Americans' domestic policies").

Hmm, well, read my other posts. I do post on other such topics, or have you overlooked those?


Just like Jay Leno's Jaywalking!

After all, Americans can be associated in the same pool as those idiots; just as all left wingers can be associated with these morons.

It is one thing coming from a comic like Jay Leno, it is another thing coming from you...and it won't help you to promote your "I love America" campaign.

[Seiyuuki]

...Another post...

[Trident-za]

Valid points Hood.

Seiyuuki, the only thing your quotes mean is that everyone was wrong, not just Bush. If thats the pont you're trying to make, fine. If you're trying to use the quotes to prove that the video is incorrect, then.... it hasn't happened. Bush WAS wrong... I suspect that Ducimus is trying to insinuate a whole lot more than that, though (which I don't necessarily agree with) .... and I can understand why some of you are getting a bit pissed at him :)

No offence intentded to anyone.

[Seiyuuki]

moveon.org is liberal trash this site 100% **** ducimus YOU NEED A LIFE!!

That is an impressive and thought provoking argument, i agree.

and no, im not kidding.

We could really get in depth about evidence that supports the claims that moveon.org is liberal BS...they even get funding from certain communist groups...

We could also get into the psychology of dicmus, and there are many many reasons and ways he could get a life...

He could start by landing himself a decent job, get a woman and stop spending like 30 hours a day spamming message boards with crooked **** no one gives a damn about.


As I recall, I have a job. Im an infantry reservist. Im also a full time student.

Additionally, USA posts:
Total posts: 1699
[1.40% of total / 7.76 posts per day]

My Posts:
[0.89% of total / 4.37 posts per day]

It seems you spend almost as much as twice the amount of time posting as I do.

See the light yet?...statistic can be use to represent anything.

The amount of postings someone do is POINTLESS.

I can continue and within a span of 10 minutes probably raise my number of postings up close to 1000...

[Trident-za]

Sigh..... I'm not arguing about any of that, :lol:

You appear to have misunderstood me. Hood got it, though.

[army cadet_ngcsu]

I personally support the ongoing war in Iraq. However, I believe that someone needs to step up to the plate and take responsibility for the ****ty intel that we were getting.

George Tenet should have lost his position after 9/11, now he definetly needs to resign, the guy is a bum. I mean think about, Bush in so many speeches (I was there and attended one of them in the video shown at moveon) was talking about how there were "Wal-Mart superstores" filled with nothing but WMD's. We get there and all we can find are some old beat up mobile chemical units.

It reflects very badley upon the credibility of him and our country's resources that we were completely wrong. The war in Iraq overall was the right thing to do...those people needed us, the Iraqi people have been through alot and if there is any country where democracy can succeed, it is in Iraq.

[Seiyuuki]

Sigh..... I'm not arguing about any of that, :lol:

You appear to have misunderstood me. Hood got it, though.

Eh...no biggie...I stop arguing with you about 823 posts ago.

[Trident-za]

Agreed cadet_ngcsu

Unfortunately, whatever the reasons for the bad intel, the affect is the same - loss of credibility for Bush (whether it was his fault or not is irrelevent). The USA is going to have one HELLUVA time convincing anyone that a preemptive strike, based on "intelligence" is justified anytime soon.

Can you just imagine the global uproar if Mr. Bush tries in 6 months time to put together a coalition to take out some bad leader, based on intelligence??

[Beowulf]

I dont Hate America. I dislike American foreign policy.


I fear that much of the world cannot withstand this flood of Americanization, and will eventfully be poisoned by this horrible virus. McDonalds to Jerry Springer- America is that seed attempting to spread its filth to a clean world.


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6035&start=0

[Jack Mehoff]

****amus19 wrote:


I fear that much of the world cannot withstand this flood of Americanization, and will eventfully be poisoned by this horrible virus. McDonalds to Jerry Springer- America is that seed attempting to spread its filth to a clean world.


I dont Hate America. I dislike American foreign policy.


It turned you into an ignorant prick no? oops soorry, enlighten me, I forgot your american, I should have known that. hehe(valley girl giggle)

[maw]

read former treasury secretary paul o'neils book "the price of loyalty".
http://www.fairandbalanced.us/docs/StoryID1784.htm

in it he states that gwb was talking about invading iraq and taking out saddam within weeks of taking office. it was part of his agenda waaay before 9/11.

9/11 was the instrument gwb used to rationalize the war. the intelligence agencies were told to fluff up the intel on wmd's. gwb is now blocking any probe into failures by the intel community.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3446849.stm

don't hate me for being the messenger, paul o'neil was there. and to dismiss his book as a bitter retaliatory outburst against gwb is too convienient.

secondly, we've discussed this before, but gwb doesn't give a rat's turd about the people of iraq.

i don't know what's going inside gwb's head, but 9/11 related security issues and iraqi human rights concerns were not at the top of his list of agenda items when he was pushing for the invasion.

what should we do? i believe we should roast him. seriously. i also believe we are perilously close to a civil war in iraq. we should take a giant sharpie marker and divide iraq into three parts. sunni, ****e and kurd. give each group access to oil and if possible access to the coast. if anyone needs assistance building their new country they can give us a call. if they want to reunite later as part of a greater iraq they can have a referendum.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Wow this thread is like fresh dog**** on your new shoe's...it just drives me up the wall....

Ok. Lets get this straight...once n for fawking all.


Bush was wrong about the WMD. Even the dudes there looking for the weapons admitt it, they aint going to find ****. Sure they've found a couple missles that Saddam shouldnt have had in the desert but theres been no chem/bio weapons found. Now considering that was the reason for Iraq to be an "immanent threat" (or however the hell you spell it) and the reason why the Us(n coalition) went to war with Iraq makes many people wonder about what type of information the president is getting.
Obviously it has been off, and it should be admitted that they were wrong in that sense and the problem corrected so they wont have any intelligence failures/short comings again.

Now having that said about the "Saddam supports terrorism" threads here.
He did support Hamas, he did send money to suicide bombers familys for bombing Israeli's.

However he was NOT involved with Al-Queda, I've already proven this in a thread around November so dont make me go research it all again.

And to fellow forum members. Dont try to say "oh bastard's just a left wing commie pinko bastard" cause im not. I havent even hit the fawking submit button and im feeling the heat already. If you dont like my post feel free to discuss it maturely or otherwise eat my ass with a silver spoon.

[hood]

in it he states that gwb was talking about invading iraq and taking out saddam within weeks of taking office. it was part of his agenda waaay before 9/11.

Of course he was. They were thinking of ways to invade Iraq and take out Saddam all the way back to early in the Clinton presidency. Invading Iraq was hardly a new idea. Why people use this to bolster their point, I have no idea.

[Seiyuuki]

read former treasury secretary paul o'neils book "the price of loyalty".
http://www.fairandbalanced.us/docs/StoryID1784.htm

in it he states that gwb was talking about invading iraq and taking out saddam within weeks of taking office. it was part of his agenda waaay before 9/11.

9/11 was the instrument gwb used to rationalize the war. the intelligence agencies were told to fluff up the intel on wmd's. gwb is now blocking any probe into failures by the intel community.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3446849.stm

don't hate me for being the messenger, paul o'neil was there. and to dismiss his book as a bitter retaliatory outburst against gwb is too convienient.

secondly, we've discussed this before, but gwb doesn't give a rat's turd about the people of iraq.

i don't know what's going inside gwb's head, but 9/11 related security issues and iraqi human rights concerns were not at the top of his list of agenda items when he was pushing for the invasion.

what should we do? i believe we should roast him. seriously. i also believe we are perilously close to a civil war in iraq. we should take a giant sharpie marker and divide iraq into three parts. sunni, ****e and kurd. give each group access to oil and if possible access to the coast. if anyone needs assistance building their new country they can give us a call. if they want to reunite later as part of a greater iraq they can have a referendum.

His words may have some value, but in this case, I find it hard to find his reasoning to be objective. The man was "release" by the Bush's administration and one must question whether he harbor any resentment toward this administration to pass any sort of objective judgement.

[maw]

in it he states that gwb was talking about invading iraq and taking out saddam within weeks of taking office. it was part of his agenda waaay before 9/11.

Of course he was. They were thinking of ways to invade Iraq and take out Saddam all the way back to early in the Clinton presidency. Invading Iraq was hardly a new idea. Why people use this to bolster their point, I have no idea.

"people use this" precisely because the gwb administration used wmd's and the veiled association with terrorism (hence 9/11) as the legitimate basis for the invasion.
the catch22 for gwb is that whatever reasons gwb states as rationalizations for the war will be scrutinized. the reason we're having this discussion is that his stated reasons don't stand up to scrutiny.

i have no problem with taking out saddam. i'd have respected gwb more if he came out and said that saddam was a bad egg and needed to be thrown out. honestly that would've been good enough for me. what i resent is the fabricated justifications, the pulling on emotional scars (9/11) and the suggestive use and manipulation of an unquantifiable fear of some unseen looming spectre waiting to gas us to death.

you get what i'm saying? i'm not against the war. i'm against the reasons presented to us. i don't like being lied to. i don't like having the real issues hidden from me as if i was some sort of child unable to follow the presidents's elevated reasoning. but i guess gwb followed the path he took because he needed popular consensus. and for popular consensus to occur he needed to portray saddam as some sort of boogie man.

read the first link i provided, gwb felt was a bad man that had to go. also, within days of 9/11, plans were being thrown around for a invasion of iraq.

[maw]

read former treasury secretary paul o'neils book "the price of loyalty".
http://www.fairandbalanced.us/docs/StoryID1784.htm

in it he states that gwb was talking about invading iraq and taking out saddam within weeks of taking office. it was part of his agenda waaay before 9/11.

9/11 was the instrument gwb used to rationalize the war. the intelligence agencies were told to fluff up the intel on wmd's. gwb is now blocking any probe into failures by the intel community.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3446849.stm

don't hate me for being the messenger, paul o'neil was there. and to dismiss his book as a bitter retaliatory outburst against gwb is too convienient.

secondly, we've discussed this before, but gwb doesn't give a rat's turd about the people of iraq.

i don't know what's going inside gwb's head, but 9/11 related security issues and iraqi human rights concerns were not at the top of his list of agenda items when he was pushing for the invasion.

what should we do? i believe we should roast him. seriously. i also believe we are perilously close to a civil war in iraq. we should take a giant sharpie marker and divide iraq into three parts. sunni, ****e and kurd. give each group access to oil and if possible access to the coast. if anyone needs assistance building their new country they can give us a call. if they want to reunite later as part of a greater iraq they can have a referendum.

His words may have some value, but in this case, I find it hard to find his reasoning to be objective. The man was "release" by the Bush's administration and one must question whether he harbor any resentment toward this administration to pass any sort of objective judgement.

Seiyuuki - o'neil was dismissed from his post because he disagreed with gwb regarding the value of the $300 tax return as an instrument to stimulate the economy. he wasn't the only whitehouse team member dismissed at that time for not swallowing that particular pill.

o'neil is a smart man and feels that taking control of the spiraling deficit needs to be the priority.

just a few weeks ago, the imf warned that the US debt was increasing to the size where it could threaten the world economy:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/nft/op/227/index.htm

The Brookings Institute, a think tank in Washington, DC, just finished a paper that describes some long-term consequences of ignoring the budget deficits. Alice Rivlin, former vice-Chair of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors co-authored the paper.It is written for the interested outsider, rather than the professional economist. In short, allowing the government to run deficits indefinitely raise interest rates for all of us, risks inflation of US currency, and limits long-term economic growth.
http://www.brookings.edu/budget

i could go on, but my point is don't dismiss paul o'neil. his fiscal recommendations directly conflicted those of gwb. that's what got him canned.

finally, NONE of his allegations have been disputed by the whitehouse. instead they've been side stepped, ie:
""An administration official dismissed his allegations Saturday, saying, "No one listened to his wacky ideas when he was in office. Why should we start now?""

his "wacky ideas" seem to resonate very well inside the walls of both the imf and brookings institute.

the only option for the whitehouse was to launch a counter strike in the form of an investigation against o'neil to determine if he divulged confidential information in his book:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108263,00.html

the only other altertnative for the whitehouse is to let the whole thing die down and hope that no-one notices this policy speedbump.

[Skaman]

It turned you into an ignorant prick no? oops soorry, enlighten me, I forgot your american, I should have known that. hehe(valley girl giggle)[/quote]


I should not have made this comment. That was erroneous and of poor-character, I look back on that with disgust and ignorance. Not all Americans are ignorant; rather I let my temper get to me and I should acknowledge that. I don’t hate America, and that is the truth. I am significantly appalled by the mentality of much North American culture; additionally the methods of National policy by the USA aggravate me.

[Skaman]

Wow this thread is like fresh dog**** on your new shoe's...it just drives me up the wall....

Ok. Lets get this straight...once n for fawking all.


Bush was wrong about the WMD. Even the dudes there looking for the weapons admitt it, they aint going to find ****. Sure they've found a couple missles that Saddam shouldnt have had in the desert but theres been no chem/bio weapons found. Now considering that was the reason for Iraq to be an "immanent threat" (or however the hell you spell it) and the reason why the Us(n coalition) went to war with Iraq makes many people wonder about what type of information the president is getting.
Obviously it has been off, and it should be admitted that they were wrong in that sense and the problem corrected so they wont have any intelligence failures/short comings again.

Now having that said about the "Saddam supports terrorism" threads here.
He did support Hamas, he did send money to suicide bombers familys for bombing Israeli's.

However he was NOT involved with Al-Queda, I've already proven this in a thread around November so dont make me go research it all again.

And to fellow forum members. Dont try to say "oh bastard's just a left wing commie pinko bastard" cause im not. I havent even hit the fawking submit button and im feeling the heat already. If you dont like my post feel free to discuss it maturely or otherwise eat my ass with a silver spoon.




And anyone who still thinks that Saddam hussein wasnt supporting terrorists, is either not sober, or a jack-ass stubborn ignoramus.

Thats right dicmus, your a jackass.


You mean HAMAS and its efforts in Israel? Last time I checked they were acting in Israel, not in association with 911. Saudi Arabian terrorist cells have the right to that.

He didn't say Al Qaeda, he said terrorism. Hamas is a terrorist organization which has close ties to other well known terrorist organizations. He was correct in his statement.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Talk about beating a dead horse. All we have here is the left - outraged at the bold action of a conservative president who has succeeded where the liberals have failed. Saddam laughingly thumbed his nose at the West for years, knowing that the slender yielding body politic of the left couldn't step up to the plate.

Well that ended when the conservatives came to town. Now all the left can do is embrace their pathetic outdated 60's mantra & watch world events pass them by. And it makes them really angry. Knowing they can't possibly get traction on the larger issue, they instead attack the minutiae, hoping to at least remain relevant.

The 60s are over. These poor aging hipsters, emasculated academics & their unwitting youthful thralls are political dinosaurs. Like children, they still naively believe that all war is wrong, that there is never an excuse for violence. Now that violence has undeniably led to improved security for the region & better lives for the Iraqi people - the left has egg on its' face. So they are left picking apart the policy decisions & finger pointing like bickering siblings.

Bush takes his job seriously. He will not wait for a consensus of America's enemies to determine our national policy. So he acted in the interests of the US. Neither he, nor I particularly care if the interests of others were served.

An American President is not a dictator. He cannot make things happen purely based upon his whim. Hundreds of others had access to the same classified information and came to the same conclusions.

What possible ulterior motive could these people have? Some fanciful notion of war profiteering? This would involve the criminal complicity of hundreds - thousands of people who were both morally bankrupt & willing to stake their entire future on an insane gamble. It's quite simply not within the realm of possibility, and anyone espousing this theory has watched too many ridiculous Oliver Stone movies.

Get over it. There's more to come :)

[Beowulf]

Whoaaa dude. wicked solid post.

On another note:
I'm sorry 2shedsJackson wooooo I am for reeeeal....never meant to make your daughta cry....I apologize a million times.....

[Resevoir Hogs]

Ducimus19 said

Absolutely not, yet the reason for this war was never to help the Iraqi people. Bush set the scene for war with these very comments made evident in the video. Did he mention 'lets over-throw a corrupt regime?' No, he said America is in imminent danger, which as we know, was not.

What is true in reality and what one man says are two different things. If you think that coalition forces weren't thinking to themselves "we will help Iraq by ridding it of Saddam Hussein" then I pity your lack of reasoning. On a second note I do recall many times the Bush administration saying that liberating Iraqis from Hussein will bring new stability to the region in the long term.

Here's an excerpt from a radio address by the President on 14 Sept, 04:
"By supporting terrorist groups, repressing its own people and pursuing weapons of mass destruction in defiance of a decade of U.N. resolutions, Saddam Hussein's regime has proven itself a grave and gathering danger.
"
True, WMD is mentioned in the address. However, before that he says supporting terrorist groups and repressing his own people. Perhaps you have never heard of Ansar Al-Islam or of Saddam sending funds to Palestinian terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. If not I suggest you read up on them before counting out that Saddam did in fact support terrorism. As for Saddam's human rights record I see no reason to debate such an obvious thing.

Here's another excerpt from a speech the President made before the war:
"Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans."

Again not making the case for war based on WMD but on clear ties to terrorism. This isn't just a war against Al-Qaeda but against all fundamentalist groups that threaten us.

This one is from his ultimatum speech to Hussein 48 hours before the war.
"We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

Notice the graphic destription of some of the injustices Saddam inflicted on Iraqi's.

Maybe for you who opposed the war it is acceptable to say that we who supported the war did so only on the case of WMD. However, from my point of view the war was ALWAYS most importantly about one thing removing Saddam Hussein so that he could not harm his people or his neighbours anymore. I'm sure that my neo con hawk buddies in DC felt the same way. Sure Bush said things about WMD many times but I can remember just as many times he stated things about Saddam's oppression of his people and of supporting terrorist groups. Maybe if you had watched and listened to the majority of his speeches you may have remembered that.[/code]

[Skaman]

Ducimus19 said

Absolutely not, yet the reason for this war was never to help the Iraqi people. Bush set the scene for war with these very comments made evident in the video. Did he mention 'lets over-throw a corrupt regime?' No, he said America is in imminent danger, which as we know, was not.

What is true in reality and what one man says are two different things. If you think that coalition forces weren't thinking to themselves "we will help Iraq by ridding it of Saddam Hussein" then I pity your lack of reasoning. On a second note I do recall many times the Bush administration saying that liberating Iraqis from Hussein will bring new stability to the region in the long term.

Here's an excerpt from a radio address by the President on 14 Sept, 04:
"By supporting terrorist groups, repressing its own people and pursuing weapons of mass destruction in defiance of a decade of U.N. resolutions, Saddam Hussein's regime has proven itself a grave and gathering danger.
"
True, WMD is mentioned in the address. However, before that he says supporting terrorist groups and repressing his own people. Perhaps you have never heard of Ansar Al-Islam or of Saddam sending funds to Palestinian terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. If not I suggest you read up on them before counting out that Saddam did in fact support terrorism. As for Saddam's human rights record I see no reason to debate such an obvious thing.

Here's another excerpt from a speech the President made before the war:
"Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans."

Again not making the case for war based on WMD but on clear ties to terrorism. This isn't just a war against Al-Qaeda but against all fundamentalist groups that threaten us.

This one is from his ultimatum speech to Hussein 48 hours before the war.
"We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

Notice the graphic destription of some of the injustices Saddam inflicted on Iraqi's.

Maybe for you who opposed the war it is acceptable to say that we who supported the war did so only on the case of WMD. However, from my point of view the war was ALWAYS most importantly about one thing removing Saddam Hussein so that he could not harm his people or his neighbours anymore. I'm sure that my neo con hawk buddies in DC felt the same way. Sure Bush said things about WMD many times but I can remember just as many times he stated things about Saddam's oppression of his people and of supporting terrorist groups. Maybe if you had watched and listened to the majority of his speeches you may have remembered that.[/code]
I am aware of comments in this context. Yet I find it hard to swallow that Bush brought America into war under the ideal of liberation. Foremost, the concern was WMD. Liberation provided a convenient supportive device in such operations. If Bush was concerned about injustice and affliction, liberations in other such parts of the world would have been much more viable. Iraq is a mess; the liberation America environed is not realistic. The people of Iraq have been served a great justice by ridding the nation of that mad-man, however, what is to become of Iraq now? I see it as futile endeavor under a US coalition mandate.

[Fox2]

Hey, leaders of the world, if you are reading this... Please start a new war so we can have a new subject to argue and insult each other over.

Thanks,

A Bored Forum Poster.




Good post, 2Sheds.

Damn. How many times has this topic been argued about? And always the same arguments. Always. I say, do what you can if you don't like how the world is.

If you don't agree with the USA's reasons for going to war, write your representative. Tell someone who might be able to do something. Whining about it changes nothing.

Whining on an internet message board is not going to change foreign policy. And slandering Americans or their leader on a message board sure as hell is not going to make the world a better place.

I think by now everyone knows everyone else's possible opinions, arguments, and banter. It's pointless at this point to continue to argue about something we have no real control over.

[Resevoir Hogs]

Sure it might be easier to liberate Cuba, or Saudi Arabia, or perhaps Quebec(just kidding)
However, where did the largest use of chemical weapons on a civilian population take place? Iraq(Kurdistan)
Who invaded two of his neighbours in the last twenty years Saddam Hussein. Whom has plotted to kill both H.W Bush and Clinton? Saddam Hussein.
Just because the Saudis are a bad regime doesn't mean the time has come to confront them especially not when they have our economy by the balls.
It should also be noted that the Bush administration has NEVER said it prescribes pre-emptive war to solve ALL the worlds ailments. To believe something like that is rediculous. But when faced with a man as determined to maintain power as Saddam Hussein I'm affraid to say force is the only effective measure in ensuring his removal.
Your argument "we went into Iraq and now have to go into every other place" is precisely the kind of ignorance the left constantly accuses us on the right of.
And btw the belief that the persuit of democracy for the world is a futile endeavor will assure that it is.

[Skaman]

Sure it might be easier to liberate Cuba, or Saudi Arabia(does not need to be'liberated' ,terrorist cells need to be dealt with), or perhaps Quebec(just kidding)
However, where did the largest use of chemical weapons on a civilian population take place? Iraq(Kurdistan)(many wepaons in-fact provided by CIA in 80's by America)Who invaded two of his neighbours in the last twenty years Saddam Hussein. Whom has plotted to kill both H.W Bush and Clinton? Saddam Hussein.
Just because the Saudis are a bad regime doesn't mean the time has come to confront them especially not when they have our economy by the balls.(saudis are not under a BAD regime, nothing absolutely horrendous in comparison to Iraq) It should also be noted that the Bush administration has NEVER said it prescribes pre-emptive war to solve ALL the worlds ailments. To believe something like that is rediculous. But when faced with a man as determined to maintain power as Saddam Hussein I'm affraid to say force is the only effective measure in ensuring his removal.( The goal was not to remove Saddam, it was to ensure American 'safety' in the pre 9-11 world. If Saddam was a concern, Bush Senior would have removed him in the last Gulf War.)Your argument "we went into Iraq and now have to go into every other place" is precisely the kind of ignorance the left constantly accuses us on the right of.(That is not my argument by any means.)
And btw the belief that the persuit of democracy for the world is a futile endeavor will assure that it is.(oh, so the US is not going to only Democratize Iraq, but the ENTIRE world?)

[Resevoir Hogs]

1. Terrorist cells are being dealt with 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan, 3,000 in the Phillipines, and many covert operations neither you or I will know about are a testament to that.

2. I do recall a hearing over US corporations providing seed stocks to Iraq and chemical plant materials. However, selling seed stocks and chemical factory materials was not illegal then or now. France and Russia sold fighter aircraft, long range missile technology. USSR sold armored vehicles rifles, SCUD-B mobile launchers. These countries had a big economic reason for keeping Saddam in charge, so that they would get paid eventually.
http://www.solport.com/resources/Iraqi%20Weapons.JPG

3. H.W. Bush and Clinton both expressed the idea that Saddam Hussein should be removed. That their administrations did not has no bearing on current US policy and the current administration. At least dubya is getting the job done.

4.
oh, so the US is not going to only Democratize Iraq, but the ENTIRE world-muh hah hah
If you think bringing democracy to the world is a joke then I again invite you to go live under a totalitarian regime and see for yourself what that is like. Frankly your government could do more to help the cause of democracy in the world rather than focusing it's efforts on gay marriage and decriminalising mary jane. Playing the submissive negotiator at the UN won't help those under the firm control of a dictator. My government choses to use soft power in some places and invasion in others to advance this cause.

[Skaman]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040129/lester.gif

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040130/keefe.gif

[Skaman]

http://www.treasoninc.com/SaddamRumsfeld.jpg

USA companies supplied Saddam with arms and WMD.
by John T. Tuesday December 16, 2003 at 02:56 PM


The USA helped arm Saddam and even helped him to develop chemical,biological and a nuclear weapons program.Then they used his supposed WMD as an excuse to invade killing thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Full List Of US Weapons
Suppliers To Iraq
By Anu de Monterice
coachanu@earthlink.net
12-19-2

Here is my translation of the original article of 12-18-02 published in the Taz (die tageszeitung), followed by a link and translation of the supplier list of 12-19-02.

USA CENSORS IRAQ REPORT

Germany and the other non-permanent members of the UN Security Council received only a truncated version of the weapons dossier. Data concerning foreign suppliers of Iraq are missing.

Geneva: The 10 non-permanent members of the UN Security Council--to which Germany will belong starting in January--have been withheld substantial parts of the Iraqi arms report. All information about the supplies from--and the support of--foreign companies, research labs and governments from the mid-1970's on, related to Iraqi arms programs, have been deleted. The 5 permanent Council members, the USA, Russia, China, France and Great Britain, are aware of this censorship. According to the German Press Agency DPA, it has reduced the 12,00 page report to only 3000 pages.

From information gathered from UN diplomats of 2 of these 5 countries taz learned that the censorship was agreed on primarily upon the urging of the United States. Among the 5 constant members of the Security Council it was the USA that stood out by giving the strongest support to Saddam Hussain's regime by arming it with the means of mass destruction.

The report gives us a complete overview of these supplies for the first time. In particular it names the 24 US companies and when and to whom in Iraq the supplies were delivered. And it makes clear how strongly the Reagan and the first Bush administrations supported the arming of Iraq, from 1980 up to the Gulf conflict of 1990/91. Substantial construction units for the Iraqi nuclear weapon and rocket programs were supplied with permission of the government in Washington. The poison Anthrax for the arming of Iraq with biological weapons stemmed from US laboratories. Iraqi military and armament experts were trained in the US and there received know-how having to do with their domestic arms programs.

According to the estimation of Susan Wright, a US arms-control expert from the University of Michigan, publication of this information would be "especially embarassing for the USA." It would "remind people in the USA of a very dark chapter, which the Bush administration would prefer to forget about." Whether the US had already struck out this information before it made copies for the other 4 permanent Council members continues to be unclear.

Author: Andreas Zumach
Original in German at http://www.taz.de/pt/2002/12/18/a0049.nf/text
Translator: Anu de Monterice


The full list of arms suppliers to Iraq, as published by the taz on 12/19/02, can be found at http://www.taz.de/pt/2002/12/19/a0080.nf/textdruck

Legend used in this list:

A = nuclear program,
B = bioweapons program,
C = chemical weapons program,
R = rocket program,
K = conventional weapons, military logistics, supplies at the Iraqi Defense Ministry and the building of military plants.

After the list of US firms are these remarks: "In addition to these 24 companies home-based in the USA are 50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises which conducted their arms business with Iraq from within the US. Also designated as suppliers for Iraq's arms programs (A, B, C & R) are the US Ministries of Defense, Energy, Trade and Agriculture as well as the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories." (Anu's translation)


US CORPORATIONS

1 Honeywell (R, K)

2 Spectra Physics (K)

3 Semetex (R)

4 TI Coating (A, K)

5 Unisys (A, K)

6 Sperry Corp. (R, K)

7 Tektronix (R, A)

8 Rockwell (K)

9 Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)

10 Finnigan-MAT-US (A)

11 Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K)

12 Dupont (A)

13 Eastman Kodak (R)

14 American Type Culture Collection (B)

15 Alcolac International (C)

16 Consarc (A)

17 Carl Zeiss - U.S (K)

18 Cerberus (LTD) (A)

19 Electronic Associates (R)

20 International Computer Systems (A, R, K)

21 Bechtel (K)

22 EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. (R)

23 Canberra Industries Inc. (A)

24 Axel Electronics Inc. (A)

Zusätzlich zu diesen 24 Firmen mit Stammsitz USA werden in dem irakischen Rüstungsbericht knapp 50 Tochterfirmen ausländischer Unternehmen aufgeführt, die ihre Rüstungskooperation mit dem Irak von den USA aus betrieben. Außerdem werden die Washingtoner Ministerien für Verteidigung, Energie, Handel und Landwirtschaft sowie die Atomwaffenlaboratorien Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos und Sandia als Zulieferer für Iraks Rüstungsprogramme für A-, B- und C-Waffen sowie für Raketen benannt.

CHINA

1 China Wanbao Engineering Company (A, C, K)

2 Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (K)

3 China State Missile Company (R)


FRANCE

1 Commissariat a lEnergie Atomique (A)

2 Sciaky (A)

3 Thomson CSF (A, K)

4 Aerospatiale and Matra Espace (R)

5 Cerbag (A)

6 Protec SA (C)

7 Thales Group (A)

8 Societé Général pour les Techniques Nouvelles (A)


GREAT BRITAIN

1 Euromac Ltd-Uk (A)

2 C. Plath-Nuclear (A)

3 Endshire Export Marketing (A)

4 International Computer Systems (A, R, K)

5 MEED International (A, C)

6 Walter Somers Ltd. (R)

7 International Computer Limited (A, K)

8 Matrix Churchill Corp. (A)

9 Ali Ashour Daghir (A)

10 International Military Services (R) (im Besitz des brit. Verteidigungsministeriums)

11 Sheffield Forgemasters (R)

12 Technology Development Group (R)

13 International Signal and Control (R)

14 Terex Corporation (R)

15 Inwako (A)

16 TMG Engineering (K)

17 XYY Options, Inc (A)


USSR-RUSSIA

1 Soviet State Missile Co. (R)

2 Niikhism (R)

3 Mars Rotor (R)

4 Livinvest (R)

5 Russia Aviatin Trading House (K)

6 Amsar Trading (K)

Weitere Länder


JAPAN

1 Fanuc (A)

2 Hammamatsu Photonics KK (A)

3 NEC (A)

4 Osaka (A)

5 Waida (A)


NETHERLANDS

1 Melchemie B.V. (C)

2 KBS Holland B.V. (C)

3 Delft Instruments N.V. (K)


BELGIUM

1 Boehler Edelstahl (A),

2 NU Kraft Mercantile Corporation (C),

3 OIP Instrubel (K),

4 Phillips Petroleum (C)

5 Poudries Réunies Belge SA (R)

6 Sebatra (A),

7 Space Research Corp. (R)


SPAIN

1 Spanien: Donabat (R)

2 Treblam (C)

3 Zayer (A)


SWEDEN

1 ABB (A)

2 Saab-Scania (R)

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Frankly your government could do more to help the cause of democracy in the world rather than focusing it's efforts on gay marriage and decriminalising mary jane.

We as Canadians are a peacefull nation, our army is already involved in many peacekeeping operations across the world. You might want to do some research into it and see what we are doing for yourself, we make our contribution.

[Seoulstriker]

douchimus,

as has been stated before by budanski, scientists and universities trade highly dangerous chemical and biological specimens for the purpose of research.

NOT, as you insinuate, to be used as weapons. hope that logic gets through to you. :|

[Skaman]

douchimus,

as has been stated before by budanski, scientists and universities trade highly dangerous chemical and biological specimens for the purpose of research.

NOT, as you insinuate, to be used as weapons. hope that logic gets through to you. :|


Did you miss my last post by chance. Read it.

[mocking_loudly_died]

Who likes short shorts?

[aFgHaNibOi]

00:57---> '...and with Fissible fissile material'

WHAT? rofl

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

00:57---> '...and with Fissible fissile material'

WHAT? rofl



Hey afghaniboi give me whatever you've been taking woot ahahha i want some....

[aFgHaNibOi]

00:57---> '...and with Fissible fissile material'

WHAT? rofl



Hey afghaniboi give me whatever you've been taking woot ahahha i want some....
Hey, my best friend :hug: how've you been? woot

I'm taking nothing man. It's just that I couldn't understand what he said. rofl Can you make it out? :|

[Capt. Canada]

The only thing i regret was U.S. did not finish off Saddam in the first Gulf War


Do you think America acted in the interest of Kuwait in the gulf war? Or where other subversive motives present?

Yeah, we went to Vietnam so we could have have their rice. We went to Korea so we could have their kimchi

No...you went to Vietnam for the money that the industrialists would make off of it, We went to Korea you lump of dogmeat because it was invaded by the north....read up on your histry before you run your mouth off about it :slap:

[budanski]

Theres really no point debating with Doucheboy19. Whatevers presented in front of him, (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=98722&highlight=intelligence#98722) ( as many have done to disproved him ) He'll always be the token dissenter. What I don't get is no matter how many times I've stated that there were a hosts of reasons to rid of Saddam, he always plays like a broken record. Whats new?

Lets see...

Douchebag19 continues to lie about the reasons we went to Iraq.

The United States did not invade Iraq for the sole purpose of WMD. If it were the case...

Number one - We would be justified to attack Russia, China, France and the other nations that have WMD.

Number Two - It is common knowledge that the Unted States would not have attacked Iraq if they already had nuclear weapons. That is what kept the United States from ever attacking the Soviet Union. I think you should review Bush's case for having dealt with Iraq instead of taking words out of context. The Bush administration has said all along the same as former President Clinton, democrats and republicans had said, and that is the fact that "we cannot wait until Saddam Hussein, who has ties and supports terrorist groups, succeeds in developing weapons of mass destruction or it will change the political face of the middle east"

You may not know this, but presidents act based on the intel that is presented to them.

On WMD Intelligence:
Presidents Do What They Must With Info They Have (http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031773404333&path=%21editorials%21oped&s=1045855935007)

[Skaman]

Theres really no point debating with Doucheboy19. Whatevers presented in front of him, (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=98722&highlight=intelligence#98722) ( as many have done to disproved him ) He'll always be the token dissenter. What I don't get is no matter how many times I've stated that there were a hosts of reasons to rid of Saddam, yet its all they got to use to protest the war. Whats new?

Douchebag19 continues to lie about the reasons we went to Iraq.

The United States did not invade Iraq for the sole purpose of WMD. If it were the case...

Number one - We would be justified to attack Russia, China, France and the other nations that have WMD.

Number Two - It is common knowledge that the Unted States would not have attacked Iraq if they already had nuclear weapons. That is what kept the United States from ever attacking the Soviet Union. I think you should review Bush's case for having dealt with Iraq instead of taking words out of context. The Bush administration has said all along the same as former President Clinton, democrats and republicans had said, and that is the fact that "we cannot wait until Saddam Hussein, who has ties and supports terrorist groups, succeeds in developing weapons of mass destruction or it will change the political face of the middle east"

You may not know this, but presidents act based on intel.

On WMD Intelligence:
Presidents Do What They Must With Info They Have (http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031773404333&path=%21editorials%21oped&s=1045855935007)


Give me a break.... Have you been reading ANY of the posts made in this thread?

[budanski]

Give me a break.... Have you been reading ANY of the posts made in this thread?

Yes I have.


Absolutely not, yet the reason for this war was never to help the Iraqi people. Bush set the scene for war with these very comments made evident in the video. Did he mention 'lets over-throw a corrupt regime?' No, he said America is in imminent danger, which as we know, was not. Iraq has immense issues, yet why not help a nation with an ounce of hope. I’m sad to say, Iraq is a lost cause under an American reconstructive-mandate.


I am aware of comments in this context. Yet I find it hard to swallow that Bush brought America into war under the ideal of liberation. Foremost, the concern was WMD. Liberation provided a convenient supportive device in such operations. If Bush was concerned about injustice and affliction, liberations in other such parts of the world would have been much more viable. Iraq is a mess; the liberation America environed is not realistic. The people of Iraq have been served a great justice by ridding the nation of that mad-man, however, what is to become of Iraq now? I see it as futile endeavor under a US coalition mandate.

[maw]

2Sheds_Jackson wrote:

"What possible ulterior motive could these people have? Some fanciful notion of war profiteering? This would involve the criminal complicity of hundreds - thousands of people who were both morally bankrupt & willing to stake their entire future on an insane gamble. It's quite simply not within the realm of possibility, and anyone espousing this theory has watched too many ridiculous Oliver Stone movies."

motives you ask, i suspect that for whatever reason gwb decided a long time ago that saddam had to go. that was the objective, he just wasn't sure how to get there. then 9/11 occured and suddenly the pieces started to fit.
however, i feel it's abundantly clear that there is a very wide chasm of inconsistancies between the stated motives and the real motives. that's my issue.

[maw]

Resevoir Hogs wrote:

"True, WMD is mentioned in the address. However, before that he says supporting terrorist groups and repressing his own people. Perhaps you have never heard of Ansar Al-Islam or of Saddam sending funds to Palestinian terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. If not I suggest you read up on them before counting out that Saddam did in fact support terrorism. As for Saddam's human rights record I see no reason to debate such an obvious thing.

Here's another excerpt from a speech the President made before the war:
"Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans."

Again not making the case for war based on WMD but on clear ties to terrorism. This isn't just a war against Al-Qaeda but against all fundamentalist groups that threaten us."

i think in that last sentence you came closest to hitting the nail on the head (imho). we are not at war against terrorism. that's the fanciful pc label for the sheeple.
let's not kid ourselves, we are not in a war against global terrorism, we are in a war against habibi islam. almost without exception, all the terror groups in the world today have a common set of objectives: some land, some rights, a bigger slice of the pie etc. not the habibi fundamentalists, they represent a fringe element of islam that is at war with all infidels. they are fighting for an ideaology that brings them into direct conflict with western society. we can fight them now or we can sit on our asses and fight them in fifty years when they control several countries (pakistan comes to mind) and have a much more formidable arsenal.
this current war will not end with the eventual destruction of obl, this war will continue for at least a couple of generations and that's what the whitehouse foreign policy thinkers are having to contemplate. hence the need for more military bases in the middle east. under the pretense of establishing regional stability and presence the iraq invasion makes perfect sense. but you can't go on national tv and tell the sheeple that we are war with a specific religious group. that's why "terrorism" is such a convenient label. gwb capitalized on the ambiguity of the label and dovetailed saddam into the agenda.

[maw]

Fox2 wrote:

"Whining on an internet message board is not going to change foreign policy. And slandering Americans or their leader on a message board sure as hell is not going to make the world a better place."

it's a forum.

"I think by now everyone knows everyone else's possible opinions, arguments, and banter. It's pointless at this point to continue to argue about something we have no real control over."

the o'neil allegations just surfaced recently and shed some new light on the chronological sequence in gwb's roadmap.

[maw]

douchimus,

as has been stated before by budanski, scientists and universities trade highly dangerous chemical and biological specimens for the purpose of research.

NOT, as you insinuate, to be used as weapons. hope that logic gets through to you. :|

that is simply incorrect. there are currently several dozen programs being funded with federal funds for the purpose of developing chemical and biological weapons. one example that comes to mind is a program currently underway at texas a&m university that is working on developing new production methods for refining ricin and increasing yield. ricin has no commercial application.

[Trigger]

douchimus,

as has been stated before by budanski, scientists and universities trade highly dangerous chemical and biological specimens for the purpose of research.

NOT, as you insinuate, to be used as weapons. hope that logic gets through to you. :|

that is simply incorrect. there are currently several dozen programs being funded with federal funds for the purpose of developing chemical and biological weapons. one example that comes to mind is a program currently underway at texas a&m university that is working on developing new production methods for refining ricin and increasing yield. ricin has no commercial application.
He didn't say for the sole purpose of research, so he's not incorrect.

[maw]

00:57---> '...and with Fissible fissile material'

WHAT? rofl



there's no safety in relying upon the percieved complexity surrounding building a nuclear device. the process is quite simple and the materials are almost readily available. americanium (the stuff in smoke detectors) is fissionable.

unfortunately the cat's out of the bag. as physicists continue to break matter down into ever smaller particles, the energy potential starts becoming orders of magnitude greater than anything we've previously seen. the ability, within fifty years to have a post grad build a neutrino weapon that could instanly vaporize all the worlds oceans is a possibility that i'm afraid is approaching.

i'll leave you with a link to a fascinating article from harpers regarding a kid who built a fast breeder reactor as a scout project, it's a long one but well worth the read.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1111/n1782_v297/21281407/print.jhtml

[maw]

douchimus,

as has been stated before by budanski, scientists and universities trade highly dangerous chemical and biological specimens for the purpose of research.

NOT, as you insinuate, to be used as weapons. hope that logic gets through to you. :|

that is simply incorrect. there are currently several dozen programs being funded with federal funds for the purpose of developing chemical and biological weapons. one example that comes to mind is a program currently underway at texas a&m university that is working on developing new production methods for refining ricin and increasing yield. ricin has no commercial application.
He didn't say for the sole purpose of research, so he's not incorrect.

trigger, i'm sorry, but i'm not getting you. it's late and i just got back from a superbowl shindig and i've had a few. ok then, try this. the project at texas a&m is tasked with developing more efficient ways of mass producing ricin. ricin has NO peacetime application - it's a weapon.

[Trigger]

maw, all I was saying is that the vast majority of chem/bio specimens seoulstriker and budanski mentioned are for use in research. I'm sure some (like the one you mentioned) are being researched/developed as weapons. Some people (not you) hear the words 'chemical or biological samples' and assume the worst.

[maw]

maw, all I was saying is that the vast majority of chem/bio specimens seoulstriker and budanski mentioned are for use in research. I'm sure some (like the one you mentioned) are being researched/developed as weapons. Some people (not you) hear the words 'chemical or biological samples' and assume the worst.

that's cool. my visions a bit blurry after all those drinks - can't be 100% sure what i wrote :oops: i'm off to get some sleep and wake up with a headache. go panthers!

[Trigger]

No worries bud.
uh, I take it you didn't see the end of the game? :D

[2Sheds_Jackson]

2Sheds_Jackson wrote:

"What possible ulterior motive could these people have? Some fanciful notion of war profiteering? This would involve the criminal complicity of hundreds - thousands of people who were both morally bankrupt & willing to stake their entire future on an insane gamble. It's quite simply not within the realm of possibility, and anyone espousing this theory has watched too many ridiculous Oliver Stone movies."

motives you ask, i suspect that for whatever reason gwb decided a long time ago that saddam had to go. that was the objective, he just wasn't sure how to get there. then 9/11 occured and suddenly the pieces started to fit.
however, i feel it's abundantly clear that there is a very wide chasm of inconsistancies between the stated motives and the real motives. that's my issue.

Fair enough - but I must ask again - what would these hidden motives be? To build an Iraqi Disneyland? To make Haliburton rich from DoD contracts? There's a lot more money to be made elsewhere - and while spending a lot less political capitol.

Fundamental to this argument is the aspect of trust. Since none of us control the direction of national policy, we have to trust our leaders. I trust GWB. He has nothing in his past that tips me off to the possibility that he may be unethical, evil, or untrustworthy. There are things he knows about the situation that we probably never will. This is not to say that he has never lied.

For example, if your girlfriend asks you "do I look fat in this dress", is it unethical to tell her "no" even though she does? A silly example, but you see my point. So it is obviously not always unethical to lie - and in some instances it may be unethical to not lie.

Government administrations commonly have to lie, in a similar fashion, since they have information that they can't share with the public. So we come back to trust - do we trust the administration to only lie when it's appropriate?

Obviously there are those, chiefly on the left, who don't trust Bush. They base this not upon his record, but upon the fact that they disagree with him politically. They must doubt his motives. So I ask what those motives would be? Since he's established that he's ethical & trustworthy, I have to conclude that GWB's motives are in line with US & regional security.

For comparison purposes, I dredge up the rotting corpse of the Clinton presidency. I did not trust Clinton. On numerous occasions in his past in Arkansas, and while in national office, he demonstrated that he could not be trusted. He lied for the wrong reasons. Thus I suspected everything the guy said or did as self-serving. Once that trust is broken, it can't be regained. It was natural and expected that people mistrusted his policy decisions.

If you ask me, I'd say that what's happening is that Bush is hated primarily those who are at odds with US interests. Of course they would hate the person who betters the US position, since it's contrary to what they would like to see happen. There's no other basis upon which to criticise his decisions.

Come on...just come on out and say that you hate the establishment...that the man is keepin' you down...that we've gotta fight the power...put on that Castro T-shirt...you know you want to!

[Nunavut's sewage]

This is what I think of Ducimus19 and his libby university mental midgets
http://www.orclinic.com/cardiothoracic/photos/LungResection/03-pulmonary.jpg

[Seoulstriker]

nice lung resection! woot woot woot

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Jeezus H Christ on a polo pony I was eating!!!!

[RomanS]

not to be a **** or anything,

But Sadam Hussein was the greatest man the Iraq ever had.
How dare evil AMericans invade a country and put down a man who only killed almost a million of his own people, burried women and children through out Iraqy desert, launched chemical weapons on his neighbors, executed thousands of his politicians, and on top that admited how bad ass gangsta he was.

GO BUSH
GO USA

those who don't agree, well hijack a plane or something. (its a popular way to prove your point amongst the innocent "misunderstood" religious fanatics.

[Nunavut's sewage]

You PermskiiOMON win the prize
http://i3.ebayimg.com/01/i/01/2e/5c/b9_1.JPG
The brand new entertainment system of tommorow today!!!
http://i12.ebayimg.com/02/i/01/2e/65/8b_1.JPG
http://i16.ebayimg.com/01/i/01/2e/ce/27_1.JPG

Ducimus This is what I think of your university "informed" opinion
http://www.portalmix.com/englishimages/funnypicture001.jpg
http://www.deiman.nl/weird/images/batboy.jpg
http://www.deiman.nl/weird/images/manbackwardsbutt.jpg
http://www.deiman.nl/weird/images/inj-piercedcheeks.jpg

[maw]

Fair enough - but I must ask again - what would these hidden motives be? To build an Iraqi Disneyland? To make Haliburton rich from DoD contracts? There's a lot more money to be made elsewhere - and while spending a lot less political capitol.

Fundamental to this argument is the aspect of trust. Since none of us control the direction of national policy, we have to trust our leaders. I trust GWB. He has nothing in his past that tips me off to the possibility that he may be unethical, evil, or untrustworthy. There are things he knows about the situation that we probably never will. This is not to say that he has never lied.

For example, if your girlfriend asks you "do I look fat in this dress", is it unethical to tell her "no" even though she does? A silly example, but you see my point. So it is obviously not always unethical to lie - and in some instances it may be unethical to not lie.

Government administrations commonly have to lie, in a similar fashion, since they have information that they can't share with the public. So we come back to trust - do we trust the administration to only lie when it's appropriate?

Obviously there are those, chiefly on the left, who don't trust Bush. They base this not upon his record, but upon the fact that they disagree with him politically. They must doubt his motives. So I ask what those motives would be? Since he's established that he's ethical & trustworthy, I have to conclude that GWB's motives are in line with US & regional security.

For comparison purposes, I dredge up the rotting corpse of the Clinton presidency. I did not trust Clinton. On numerous occasions in his past in Arkansas, and while in national office, he demonstrated that he could not be trusted. He lied for the wrong reasons. Thus I suspected everything the guy said or did as self-serving. Once that trust is broken, it can't be regained. It was natural and expected that people mistrusted his policy decisions.

If you ask me, I'd say that what's happening is that Bush is hated primarily those who are at odds with US interests. Of course they would hate the person who betters the US position, since it's contrary to what they would like to see happen. There's no other basis upon which to criticise his decisions.

Come on...just come on out and say that you hate the establishment...that the man is keepin' you down...that we've gotta fight the power...put on that Castro T-shirt...you know you want to!

i'm afraid you've got me pigeon-holed into the wrong slot.

i'll start with:
"what would these hidden motives be?"
firstly, i don't know. but they don't have to be grandiose, illuminati involving conspiracy theories. a motivation can stem for an internal conviction, perhaps one that tells gwb to finish the job with saddam. perhaps it has something to do with my rant about the coming long term conflict with habibi islam:

"let's not kid ourselves, we are not in a war against global terrorism, we are in a war against habibi islam. almost without exception, all the terror groups in the world today have a common set of objectives: some land, some rights, a bigger slice of the pie etc. not the habibi fundamentalists, they represent a fringe element of islam that is at war with all infidels. they are fighting for an ideaology that brings them into direct conflict with western society. we can fight them now or we can sit on our asses and fight them in fifty years when they control several countries (pakistan comes to mind) and have a much more formidable arsenal.
this current war will not end with the eventual destruction of obl, this war will continue for at least a couple of generations and that's what the whitehouse foreign policy thinkers are having to contemplate. hence the need for more military bases in the middle east. under the pretense of establishing regional stability and presence the iraq invasion makes perfect sense. but you can't go on national tv and tell the sheeple that we are war with a specific religious group. that's why "terrorism" is such a convenient label. gwb capitalized on the ambiguity of the label and dovetailed saddam into the agenda."

my point is that the there is a gap between the stated motives and the real motives. that gap is called the truth.

"Fundamental to this argument is the aspect of trust. Since none of us control the direction of national policy, we have to trust our leaders. I trust GWB. "

frankly, over the years i've learned to trust very few people at face value and unfortunately, i stopped trusting politicians from a young age. call me jaded, sure. cycnical, perhaps. a card carrying liberal/castro lover, never.

"Government administrations commonly have to lie, in a similar fashion, since they have information that they can't share with the public. "

what i'm saying is that i believe that the real motives behind the war aren't shielded from us for national security reasons, i believe the real motives are shielded from us because they are either sooo far forward thinking (in a long term global security context) or so subjective that it wouldn't be possible to rally enough popular support (voters, congress and senate) to be able to proceed with an invasion. hence the use of the boogie man (saddam) and his new toy (wmd's).

"If you ask me, I'd say that what's happening is that Bush is hated primarily those who are at odds with US interests. Of course they would hate the person who betters the US position, since it's contrary to what they would like to see happen. There's no other basis upon which to criticise his decisions."

i don't hate bush, i've never met him and probably never will. regarding his policies, i'm mostly concerned with his environmental position and most his fiscal belief in supply side economics (reaganomics). interestingly, his father does not share his son's beliefs in the trickle down economy. i'm also kinda ticked off with his religous reproductive agenda. we'll see where he stands on the second amendment when the assault rifle ban comes up for expiration/extention later this year.
i consider analysis and critical thinking a mandatory part of civic duty. i don't follow anyones party line. this gets my into trouble with both my card carrying republican and my "yellow dog" democrat friends who are all too willing to make leaps of faith. politics in america under the two party system has become too polarized. there's also a tendency to dumb down the issues to the lowest common denominator to garner votes. but i feel it's the best system for humanities needs that we've been able to come up with so far.

i'd like to wrap up by thanking you for giving me the opportunity to voice my opinion.
very often when an opinion is voiced, the person is labeled and categorized into a category, left or right, pro-choice or pro-life, anti this or for that. experience has shown me that there is usually a large grey area between these opposing points, and in my experience the truth usually rests in there, but you have to look for it.

fyi, ducimus for all of his energy holds in my opinion an unrealistic view of the world. i know he's a soldier, but i don't know how much he's travelled, i've been to a bunch of third world ****-holes and even with all our faults, america still shines like a beacon of hope. there's a lot of evil out there and you can't just curl up and hope it will never bother you, sometimes you have to be willing to go out into the darkness and cut it's head off. and sometimes that involves getting your hands dirty.

[WARPIG]

Just to put a little perspective on dicamus's threads. One thing we can all admit, we love the hate the little ****. His skewed views and limited outlook seems to be just enough spark to keep dialogue about many of the controversies we see every day. We all know he has an overt "dislike" of America and Americans. He says that he just doesn't like our foreign policy. All the while he bashes our President ,who is criticized about being overly conservative, and in the same breath calls our country and culture a virus and a filth compared to the clean world outside our borders.
It doesn't matter what we are.. dicamus is opposed to it. Really that is the only real beef we have of him. Conflicting and/or controversial opinions are exactly what we like to see in this forum. Ever notice when a thread talks intelligently and pragmatically that it dies eventually because we all end up agreeing?
We love to hate the little punk because his ridiculous prattle is the fuel we use to validate our own views. When we have a little doubt or distaste about something that our country is criticized for.. count on people like dicamus to blow it out of proportion and hold it up to your face. We are then forced to look at it, weight he facts, look at the overall impact or intent, and then validate our opinion.
I fear the day that dicamus actually tries to validate his views instead of just having a view and justifying it through media blurbs and sound bytes. No longer will he turn to biased prattle and controversial horse **** to prove his uninformed point. What will we have to talk about then?
I welcome dicamus's opinions and views. I welcome every idiotic statement as they sometimes bear thought-provoking fruit. I only issue the challenge to him to step up the content. Stop relying on your self proclaimed academic progress. ( Frankly it is not all that much progress.) Instead, ask some real questions of us. It will take your changing tactics, but I think it will benefit all of us.

[Whistler]

If you want to blame someone blame the intelligence communities.

Ducimus would you have wanted to live in Iraq under Saddam Hussein?


Absolutely not, yet the reason for this war was never to help the Iraqi people. Bush set the scene for war with these very comments made evident in the video. Did he mention 'lets over-throw a corrupt regime?' No, he said America is in imminent danger, which as we know, was not.

Yes, he did say that he wanted to remove a horrible regime, on SEVERAL occasions.

That isn't in your little video though because MoveOn.org is a horribly biased partisan organization that has no desire to tell the whole story. They will only broadcast what they believe will smear George Bush, that is their stated objective.

Sorry to burst your bubble :( .

[budanski]

The Know-'Em-All
Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004640)

Many people look back on their college years and regret how much they missed of the great intellectual resources of the university. Not me. My regrets are about failing to meet more of the remarkable people who were my fellow undergraduates at Harvard and nearby MIT. I thought of such socializing as mere fun, which came after coursework. As a result, there were a lot of interesting students I never got to meet, from Benjamin Netanyahu to Benazir Bhutto, from Bill Gates to Scott McNealy, even though some of these people knew friends of mine. But my regrets are more wistful than realistic, since no one knew everyone in college.

Except George W. Bush. His Yale classmates claim that he knew everyone in their undergraduate class, and one can almost believe this was literally true. Classmate Clay Johnson recalled the time when he and George Bush were freshman pledges for the DKE fraternity. Upperclassmen were berating them as "the sorriest bunch of pledges that they had ever heard of," Mr. Johnson told PBS's "Frontline" in 2000:

Normally most pledge classes are very tight and very supportive of one another, and we were 50 individuals and were not interested in each other and there was no unity in our class. And they said it was really quite deplorable.

To make this point to us, they started calling on people to get up and name their fellow pledge members. And they called the first person, and he named four or five. And then he didn't know anybody else's name, and they told him what a sorry human being he was and how little he cared about his pledges. Then they called on somebody else and he named eight or ten but didn't know anybody else.

Anyway, the third or fourth person they called on was George. He got up and named all 50. There was this hush that fell over the room.
Mr. Bush went on to become the president of the fraternity. He didn't know just the names--classmates marvel about how he could sum up each person's essence with great insight and humor.

When intellectuals tell me how much they hate President Bush and how stupid they think he is, I know that he excelled at the crucial form of learning whose importance I didn't fully appreciate when I was in college. It sank in only years later as I watched people in business do wonders by drawing on their personal relationships, much as scientists do wonders by marshaling knowledge that is more abstract. This focus on personal relationships may be the key to the president's success--and to why so many intellectuals disdain him.

When Mr. Bush ran against John McCain in 2000 presidential primaries, the Arizona senator was quick on his feet and had a good answer for every question. The Texas governor, on the other hand, had a great team. Mr. McCain was the know-it-all; Mr. Bush was the know-'em-all. Both sets of skills are important, but the presidency is a job in which you can't know everything about every issue or make things happen just by yourself. Being a good judge of people and having a great team is of huge importance.

To a typical intellectual, how much you know is far more important than knowing whom you can trust and count on. This is why Mr. Bush is so infuriating to intellectuals. He makes no pretense that he has all the answers, and he talks like a regular guy--but the team he leads is reshaping the Middle East with a brashness and vision equal to that of his Reaganite predecessors, as well as making major changes in domestic policy.

Polls show that most Americans admire Mr. Bush's personal qualities, but to intellectuals he doesn't show the personal quality they most admire. Thus to them Mr. Bush's successes seems undeserved, attributable to others. Although the president's IQ is estimated (based on SAT scores) as greater than that of 90% of Americans, he is portrayed as the puppet of smarter men.

It's hard to budge stereotypes, but Mr. Bush could use his talents at personal relationships to reassure intellectuals, emulating some of his predecessors. John F. Kennedy made a big show of inviting intellectuals to the White House, and President Clinton had widely publicized policy sessions with thought leaders while president-elect. These actions were crucial to cementing their reputations for wisdom. President Bush, through a series of lunches with a wide variety of thought leaders at the White House, could get across the message that being a know-'em-all is a great way to pool the wisdom of the community and channel it into wise policy. And I bet he'd have a lot of fun doing it.

Dr. Segal is a neurologist and neuroscientist.