Does this man just totally PISS anyone else off?
I swear if I had one token that allowed me to bean anyone in the free world off the head with a rock. I would chose this pompus fuckhead..

I think hes like a character from one of those tolkien copying books, that is a close advisor to the king but really working for the "Dark One".. like a Wormtounge or something.

I love how he called 87 Billion "affordable"

Maybe THIS explains a few things
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/rumsfeld_of_the_lost_ark.jpg
coincidence? I think not.

Shame on Bush for allowing him and Cheney to isolate Colin Powell and the State Department and allow the Pentagon to assume roles that The SD usually handles.

Seriously.. fuck this guy.. I hope he gets hit by a bus.

Oh my... Lleauric and I actually agree on something. I think the world is going to end ;) .

I wish I could believe that Bush was really a good-intentioned 'compassionate conservative' who just happens to be being run over roughshod by Rumsfeld and Cheney... and maybe he is. But remember who his father was (the former head of the CIA that is, prior to his term as President), that he picked these guys, and his former track record in Texas of letting industry cronies loot that state as well. How much of that 87 billion dollars (of taxpayer money) is going to end up lining the pockets of Haliburton, i.e. Cheney and friends?

And Rumsfeld running around the country telling everyone how 'good' the Patriot Act is for America is just... creepy. Between what's going on in Washington with the Pentagon usurping roles it shouldn't be, the recall election in California, and Rick Perry here in Texas calling special session after special session (on the bankrupt state coffers) in order to force redistricting (when we were just redistricted after the 2000 census) in what is a clear power grab, is anyone else feeling a little nervous about what is going on in the name of freedom and democracy here these days?

It's early, and boy do I realize I've opened a can of worms by going all over the map. But yeah, I think that the amount of power that Rumsfeld and Cheney both have is scary, and I can't recall in my lifetime when the 'shadow government' was operating so openly and unrestrainedly...

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

Why are people so worked up over the Patriot Act? What are you trying to hide?

Donald Rumsfeld has squat to do with the Patriot Act. He's Dick Cheney's butt monkey and the absolute worst choice for Secretary of Defense ever. He's a power hungry micro-manager who spends more time finding ways to keep his fingers in the management of post-war Iraq than letting Colin Powell and the State Department do the job the right way.

There's been a small push for Bush to run in 2004 on the "I'll get rid of Rumsfeld" platform, but I don't think it's going anywhere, unfortunately.

Wow! I really must have been asleep when I wrote that...
John Ashcroft is the one who has been stumping around in defense of the Patriot Act, and yeah, I don't like him either :) . Sorry to have just made a total fool of myself, but in my defense, it *was* 7 am, and all those creepy white guys kind of look alike to me in the morning before I've had my coffee... ;)

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

Though his politics aside, he has said some humorous things, and I think even been misquoted (not sure) of saying some pretty funny shit, wouldn't be surprised it was true though.

The latest one I've heard that he "Said" was "The French are nothing but a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys"

But yeah, I don't like the way he operates, or how he is running things.

Ashcroft be the devil.

That was chef, a character from south park, not a high official in the american government.

Why are people so worked up over the Patriot Act? What are you trying to hide?

I seriously hope this statement is a joke.

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither safety nor freedom"

Sig too large 50K max

I agree 100% with all words L2 wrote in his initial post.
Geez, hell freezes over.
NO, seriously. You are absolutely right!

Why dont you let us Americans worry about our own internal politics? Thanks.

That was chef, a character from south park, not a high official in the american government.


Actually that is from the simpsons, not south park.

yeah Homer said that.

Why dont you let us Americans worry about our own internal politics? Thanks.

Haha. I have a new best friend.

Why dont you let us Americans worry about our own internal politics? Thanks.

Sadly, because your internal politics affects and scares the rest of the world.

Why dont you let us Americans worry about our own internal politics? Thanks.
1. SO I completely agree with somoene of you and still you find a reason to flame me. GG!
2. Because you interfere and "worry" about every country you feel like aswell? I mean.. no you don't worry about them... you just bomb and invade them.
3. Mr. Rumsfeld has to do a shitload with the "rest of the world". If you didn't notice yet, Rumsfeld is one of the responsible persons for the War in Iraq. He is a warmongering bastard behind Bush, together with Cheney. So I highly believe that I am entitled to an opinion about this person.

Wow...

Its getting REALLY bad.. I think Bush is done.
+ Over 200 Billion spent on a War for questionable reasons.
* Goodbye promised Tax Cuts
* No WMD found.. at best, Our President was wrong, making a good choice on bad information.. at worst, he lied to us and used 9/11 fears and emotions to push us into a war for somewhat personal reasons. (Saddam tried to kill his Dad, finish what Dad started. Fill the pockets of Cheney buisness Cronies. Power play for Rumsfeld)
* Neither Saddam NOR Osama found. But most of the Valuable personal used for hunting Osama down was pulled out, taking the pressure off the most dangerous man in the world, to track one who is now killing more Americans than he would ever have if UN sanctions had been applied.
* We are still gonna be in the thick of things when the re-election is going on. Not good for Bush

+ New thing today.. WH officials connected closely to Carl Rowe (Bushs campaign mastermind) MAY have leaked the name of a CIA operative for some type of petty revenge.
This is the kiss of death for this adminstration depending on high it goes.

+ All of a sudden.. a blow job in the Oval Office doesnt seem like such a big deal.

+ Emergence of VERY strong Democratic candidates.. Look of a Wesely Clark/Hillary Clinton card to emerge at the Democratic National convention. Not to mention the Howard Dean Campaign thats staying focused on Bush, gaining momentum and money, keeping the pressure on and letting the real candidates come to the front.

This is how the American system works.. We dont cut our noses off to spite our faces... when it was time to support our President in a time, we do it.. and we trust.. But if you fuck us, or lie to us.. your ass is out of there...

On the Bright side.. Bush will have a Second term... it just took 2 generations to do it.

* Goodbye promised Tax Cuts

Hmm, So far I have recieved 2 tax rebate checks from Bush. MY overall tax take from each check is slightly lower. Yea so much for those tax cuts. Bush will get my vote in '04.

Sure.. they are cutting NOW..

But where is the money gonna from? That cash your getting now will be taken back pretty damn soon...
Bush is thinking VERY short term.. major increase in spending while cutting revenue..
But cause we are spending it on War than on social programs, its okay and doesnt raise taxes??

The economy pays for it... The economy grew something like 3.1 % for the month of July(I need to look up actual numbers to prove). I agree the economy is growing slower then folsk would like to see or should be, but it is growing. There is still a lot of fallout from the last bust. I'm confident it is working it's self out.

Economy at a glance. (http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm)


SHows to me SLOOOOOWWW growth. lost 93k jobs yet avg. hourly wage went up and continues to trend up. Shows me that there are jobs but they are a more "selective" employment that employers are looking for. Meaning you must be specifically qualified for. Not necissarily retail type jobs. Which goes into the rich pay the vast majoity of the tax burden. but thats another argument all together..=)

SO no matter what Mr. Bush does and how, as long as you pay 1$ less on taxes at the end, he succeeded? Don't take this as a flame, this is just what I read our of your argumentation. Feel free to fill me in.

Don't take this as a flame

heheheh.

Osg, your chart has much more to do with the job market than with economic growth. They are tied together, but they are separate issues.

The really interesting thing on that chart? Productivity went up while employment went up.

A ticket of Clark/Clinton would scare me away from any Dem candidates. A general who has zero political experience and a far left wing liberal hawk who likes to increase spending and force national health insurance on me. Great.

Let's look at your statements one by one:

"+ Over 200 Billion spent on a War for questionable reasons."

What reasons are you now questioning? Have you already forgotten 9/11? A few helpful links for you here (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004046), here (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003995), and here. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110003984)

"* Goodbye promised Tax Cuts"

Please show me a link to a bill introduced at the President's request to repeal promised tax cuts.

"* No WMD found.. at best, Our President was wrong, making a good choice on bad information.. at worst, he lied to us and used 9/11 fears and emotions to push us into a war for somewhat personal reasons. (Saddam tried to kill his Dad, finish what Dad started. Fill the pockets of Cheney buisness Cronies. Power play for Rumsfeld)"

Whether WMD are found is and has been irrelevant to the war (though it may be relevant to analyzing our intelligence systems). Hell even the angry left agree with that (here (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/157wjmhn.asp?ZoomFont=YES)) There's no dispute Saddam had WMD (he admitted it and used them remember?). There's no dispute Saddam can no longer use the Iraqi people as guinea pigs as he prepares to kill Americans and Israelis (I'm sure you've seen the pictures of his monetary rewards to Palestinian families of terrorists).

"* Neither Saddam NOR Osama found. But most of the Valuable personal used for hunting Osama down was pulled out, taking the pressure off the most dangerous man in the world, to track one who is now killing more Americans than he would ever have if UN sanctions had been applied."

A majority of the "most wanted" list for Iraq have been captured and/or killed. I believe of the top 10 most wanted, only Saddam remains. Saddam killed 3,000+ people on 9/11 with UN sanction being applied. How many Americans has he killed since?

"* We are still gonna be in the thick of things when the re-election is going on. Not good for Bush"

Depends on how the "thick" of things are going. Economy is recovering nicely with very positive growth rates. Interest rates remain low; housing market is strong; etc. The Iraqi war is going better (see here (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004080) for an article today about the positives in Iraq. There are plenty more positive articles if you get outside the liberal media box)

"+ New thing today.. WH officials connected closely to Carl Rowe (Bushs campaign mastermind) MAY have leaked the name of a CIA operative for some type of petty revenge.
This is the kiss of death for this adminstration depending on high it goes."

Way too early to call it a "kiss of death"

"+ All of a sudden.. a blow job in the Oval Office doesnt seem like such a big deal."

Never was. The lying, thefts, and corruption rampant through Clinton and his administration was.

"+ Emergence of VERY strong Democratic candidates.. Look of a Wesely Clark/Hillary Clinton card to emerge at the Democratic National convention. Not to mention the Howard Dean Campaign thats staying focused on Bush, gaining momentum and money, keeping the pressure on and letting the real candidates come to the front."

I welcome a Dean or Clark challenge to the Bush presidency. Dean is a radical who appeals to the "angry left" but when it comes to the centrists of this country he will not win. It's interesting to note that Dean places Bush as his and America's #1 enemy above Osama or Saddam. And you're worried about Bush dedicating resources to finding those two? Clark can't even get the support of the generals who worked with him. By the way, here's an interesting speech given by Clark here (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065). This is the democratic front runner?

I *really* hope that Dean doesn't commit political suicide by choosing H. Clinton as his running mate. I like what he has to say otherwise, and whose fault is it that he makes the other Democratic candidates look like jackasses for 'supporting' a war that most of them didn't really want to support, and is now quickly bogging down into a giant money pit of a quagmire, anyway?

And Lleauric, nice summary :) . It astounds me that Bush and company were 1) so naive as to think that we could just waltz in and install a democracy in a country that has never had one, and whose leading non-Sadaam factions are religious extremists who want a fundamentalist Islamic state, and 2) that you can simultaneously cut taxes *and* balloon defense (or any) spending without tanking the economy... And what are we getting for our 200 billion, anyway? Is it 'better' spent being thrown down a cesspool on the other side of the world instead of at home on those heinous social programs?

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

Whether WMD are found is and has been irrelevant to the war (though it may be relevant to analyzing our intelligence systems).
Actually, I remember Rumsfeld saying "It's all about the WoMD" when discussing reasons for the war. Colin Powell strained to demonstrate their existence in an attempt to garner UN support. We've found nothing.

Saddam killed 3,000+ people on 9/11 with UN sanction being applied.
Saddam may have had ties to people involved in this operation, but I don't recall seeing any evidence linking him directly to 9/11.

And I hope whatever Democrat wins the nomination doesn't take on Hillary as a running mate. Clark might be a good second, but Hillary carries way too much baggage, and would scare off a lot of voters.

"What reasons are you now questioning? Have you already forgotten 9/11?"

"Saddam killed 3,000+ people on 9/11 with UN sanction being applied"

Umm...even GWB has come out to say that there is absolutely no evidence tying Saddam to 9/11 :rolleyes

"Never was. The lying, thefts, and corruption rampant through Clinton and his administration was."

I agree the lying was the biggest part for me...couldn't trust Clinton. "Thefts, and corruption" have yet to be proven to me.

"And what are we getting for our 200 billion"

A democratic, peaceful Iraq that can server as a beacon of hope in the cesspool that is the Middle East. Not convinced that we won't end up with a terrorist riddled, weekly governed, hellhole of US hatred though....but one can hope.

"I *really* hope that Dean doesn't commit political suicide by choosing H. Clinton as his running mate"

/agree, they would lose for the same reason Gore did...ties to the Clinton Administration.

Actually, I remember Rumsfeld saying "It's all about the WoMD" when discussing reasons for the war.

Read my statement again and then maybe you'll realize your's is a non sequitur. The war may have been about WoMD but it's not about finding them afterward. We know they existed (again -- he admitted he had them and we've seen him use them -- even Hillary Clinton admits as much).

As to the Saddam/Sept. 11 ties, those have been documented in several places (even the links I posted). You can choose to ignore the links but do so at your own peril -- not at my peril. Saddam and his regime have been held financially culpable for the 9/11 attacks as well (see, e.g., Libya and Lockerbie attack for similar instances where we held a government accountable for terrorist acts).

As to the Saddam/Sept. 11 ties, those have been documented in several places (even the links I posted)

Unfortunately, they haven't. Much of what was written has been debunked and is/was hearsay. As for your articles, only one of them speaks to the subject, and the writer admits at the end of the article that the information he presents is not concrete evidence that Hussein was tied to 9/11.

To add to Mirdorr's comments, your reasoning is post hoc. At the time we were considering going to war, the primary reason given by the administration had to do with WoMD, not alleged ties to 9/11.

Did Saddam have biological/mass destruction weapons at one time?

** Yes, I don't think there is any doubt of that.

Did he use them?

** Yes, I don't think there is any doubt of that either.

Did he use them without impunity?

** I think so, but I guess that's a matter of opinion.

Would he use them again, if he had them?

** It seems kind of obvious that he would.

Sooooo.... what's the problem? Even if he has been able to completely sanitize the entire nation of Iraq, he and his sons have been responsible for as many deaths without weapons of mass destruction than with. Either way... if your neighbor starts walking around his yard carrying a shotgun, you're going to call someone to come take it away from him.

The rest of the politics, arguing, finger-pointing and debate is really pointless. The President of the United States took action that should have been done during the first Gulf War, specifically, removing Sadaam from power and toppling his regime. An election year is close at hand and this makes good fodder for the press and those who have an axe to grind with the President.

<shrug> So we saved few thousand lives that would have been otherwise lost to torture and inhumane imprisonment.. I think it's worth $87 billion.. we're certainly spent more on less lofty ventures.

My two coppers...

"Saddam and his regime have been held financially culpable for the 9/11 attacks as well"

Rofl! By whom? It's well documented that both the moolah and the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were of Saudi origin, as is Osama Bin Laden. Years of embargo coupled with the fact that Saddam was despised even in the Arab world left him all but powerless. He might have despised us, but he didn't have the resources, or, more importantly the friends, to do much about it.

I'd be really interested to see your sources for that assertion... :)

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

While I may or may not agree with you, general ideas like this should not be used as the only justification for the invasion of a sovreign country.

"Saddam and his regime have been held financially culpable for the 9/11 attacks"

Not sure what you are reading Furt...but I'm afraid you have been badly misled.

"The alleged meeting in Prague between hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani was the single thread the administration has pointed to that might tie Iraq to the attacks. But as the Czech government distanced itself from its initial assertion and American investigators determined Atta was probably in the United States at the time of the meeting, other administration officials dropped the incident from their public statements about Iraq."

Whole story here:


story.news.yahoo.com/news..._2003sep28 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&ncid=1802&e=2&u=/washpost/20030929/ts_washpost/a14901_2003sep28)

It's well documented that both the moolah and the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were of Saudi origin,

The facts may not even be straight on that one anymore. Identity theft info is starting to come to light.

I just wanted to say one thing about WMD being the cause for invasion. The U.S. never needed WMD as grounds to invade. The last U.N. Resolution passed in Nov. 2002(around there) had a lot of things that Iraq couldn't do otherwise face severe consequences. Like firing at Coalition aircraft in the No Fly Zone, testing of long range missiles, and the lying of missile counts.

i just clicked on xanif's magelo, that looks insane

By whom?

A court of law.

I really hope you're not referring to one of the joke civil lawsuits that survivors' families filed "against Iraq."

Its not a matter of anything else other than we have a president that has been 100% wrong on several HUGE things.

We live in a world we cant afford so many mistakes.

Wow Furtivus, what an utter complete bullshit you're telling us here!
*hides behind Nydia, Thormir and L2*

Funny to see there are still people out there denying the facts...

Nice to see there are plenty of people thinking different about what happened in the last months.


No question. The world and the iraqi people are far better off without Saddam.
But the way how this conflict was begun and justified by the government of the most important democracy in the world is questionable.

The result does not justify every mean.

Why dont you let us Americans worry about our own internal politics? Thanks.
It scares me, for one.



I just wanted to say one thing about WMD being the cause for invasion. The U.S. never needed WMD as grounds to invade. The last U.N. Resolution passed in Nov. 2002(around there) had a lot of things that Iraq couldn't do otherwise face severe consequences. Like firing at Coalition aircraft in the No Fly Zone, testing of long range missiles, and the lying of missile counts.

No, it didn't need WoMD, it could have used any of those. However, have you read the resolution? If so, you'd understand that not a single one of those gives the US the right to invade, but instead give the right to the body of the UN to determine if such invasion would be necessary and to carry out such action if it does indeed deem it so. Unilateralist action is not and never has been outlined in the United Nations resolutions nor in its charter, excepting on the occasion of an unprovoked physical attack on a nation's sovereignty.

Interestingly enough, the Coalition No-Fly Zone (which was in place for quite a long period of time pre-war) is also not an endorsed United Nations action, but instead something enforced over the Saddam's former country by the US and Britain, which also violates his sovereignty as the ruler. Comical, is it not? I dare say you could understand the justifications if China was constantly controlling the airspace over our country and we had no ability to stop them.



What reasons are you now questioning? Have you already forgotten 9/11?
As was stated before, your links are totally inconclusive, and at best, show that there is little proof (much of it, like Prague, already refuted) that minor help was given to a lesser member of Al Qaeda. Have we forgotten 9/11? I'm going to assume, for your own sake, that you are attempting to pass that off as proof of assistance is an attrocious attempt at humor.


Whether WMD are found is and has been irrelevant to the war (though it may be relevant to analyzing our intelligence systems). Hell even the angry left agree with that
As was said before, besides being the basis from which the campaign for the war was generated, I agree- no pertinence whatsoever! And trust me, the "angry left" doesn't agree with that, just because Hillary said that she does.



Saddam killed 3,000+ people on 9/11 with UN sanction being applied.
*ahem*



And to be honest, it takes a pretty big messup for such a large amount of doubt to be shed in the minds of many who believed Bush really has a case. I think we're all kinda closer to understanding why each other had the beliefs we did, and I can say in candor its almost kinda fun being able to be on the same side of the argument as you guys, haha.

Seen a lot of Bush supporters lose faith in what he says and does.

you'd understand that not a single one of those gives the US the right to invade, but instead give the right to the body of the UN to determine if such invasion would be necessary and to carry out such action if it does indeed deem it so.

TO hell with the UN. A debating organization that has accomplished nothing in its entire history.

I can't take a positive stance either way on the successes and setbacks of the UN, and while that may be true, it is still the governing body from which we derived the authority to do everything we'd done to Iraq thus far (ie sanctions, both economic and military). It was the body we've been using, and to go around it is only acceptable imo when attacked or with such overwhelming evidence of an oncoming attack that one would be daft not to. I don't think either of those criteroin were met, nor do many others as of late.

Actually the last resolution had a lot of items in it that are for open interruptation. So you could swing it both ways depending on how good your lawyers are at presenting their cases. But lets get down to brass tacks here. Saddam did need to be taken out. That's not without a doubt but France and Germany want to pussy foot around every damn thing. Nobody ever talks about the European support for the Iraq war. Like most NATO countries. And then other smaller nations with apps to join EU were threatened by France to have their apps vetoed because of stance on the Iraq war. WTF is that? EU now a dictatorship? This is what I say to cocky ass French people that think they are better than US or any other country, "You'll never see German tanks rolling down our streets."......

This is what I say to cocky ass French people that think they are better than US or any other country, "You'll never see German tanks rolling down our streets."......
Yea, those cocky French people! Thank God the US is the greatest and nobody can touch us! Cocky French....

You know the opinion about the UN in here is scary because of one thing.
You find the UN shity and therefore you ignore it and invade the country as you please. YOu ignore the UN, you declare it shitty and go off without it.

Now break that down to your country. Or even your city.
So you find your government shitty. You just ignore it, you decline the laws and rules your government gave out for everyone and go kill your neighbour becuase you think you have the right to do so.

That's what the US did in relation to the whole planet.
See it as you want, this is what Bush did. He declared the UN sucky and went off without him. And don't forget. The US is part of the UN and the UN makes laws. One of them is that no country may invade another country without the approval of the UN.

Where does this lead?
ANARCHY!

Ok, Ok, if it was a flat out case of US directly disobeying a UN order then why hasn't the UN tried to punish the US? Like trade embargos or something to that effect. With this i am at a loss to. There has to be something that we are not seeing that is preventing them from doing this if the US is in direct violation of UN rule.

They try to work with you, not against you, fomr a coalition, a true union for the good of the planet. Thats one way of thinking the US governmentreally doesn't fucking get.
The moment anyone, no matter who, does anyhting against the US, Bush and his boys and Candeezzaas will run amok, threat the world, stop unions, break down all contracts and everything one agred on. it woulnd't solve the problem.
That's what you poeple (yes I dare to generalize as I do not feel ike being very political correct but just wanna make a point) don't get. You live strictly in this "either you do what we want, or you get punished" world. In this "black and white" dimension. In this "either you're with us, or against us" lifestyle.

And its exactly that lifestyle that gets the US on top of the hated countries, gets you in all those wars and which is responsible for the terrorist attacks against your country. Always make confrontations, always threaten, always choose physical violence over negotiations and so on.

And other countries or unions (like the UN) see it different. Actions against the US do no good. The only thing it would do is to stop the globalisation, stop important (important for EVERYONE) "teamwork" in the matters of the planet, it would freeze the relation between the US and the rest of the world even more. And Bush wouldn't hesitate going there. But the UN does. The world is simply not a cheap western movie anymore. Its not "shoot first, or die". Those times are over since a few moons.

Now break that down to your country. Or even your city.
So you find your government shitty. You just ignore it, you decline the laws and rules your government gave out for everyone and go kill your neighbour becuase you think you have the right to do so.

That's what the US did in relation to the whole planet.
See it as you want, this is what Bush did. He declared the UN sucky and went off without him. And don't forget. The US is part of the UN and the UN makes laws. One of them is that no country may invade another country without the approval of the UN

If thats how you see it, then you also have to take into account the treatment of the people being ruled in the house. Since we're talking about normal people, let's call them child slaves. At frequent intervals, this neighbor you portray so innocently will take the female ones and rape them, and if they resist have their brothers beaten and killed.

Not only that, but he has a really gay mustache.

I say if the entire neighborhood isn't raiding his house with you, it's time to rethink the organization that runs the neighborhood.

How many people are being treated unfairly in the US? How many wifes beaten, women raped, children abused? Its all over! Still you let the offical police take care of it. And if you take care of it and lets say.. kil the person that rapes a woman, then you go to jail since you broke the law. Even if you did the right thing. You had no right doing so.

The US goverment is a role model for "If you think somehting is right but the laws / rules / system forbids it, then you still do it, no matter what". Considering this, you can't even blame anyone anymore for practising "self justice".
As soon as you think someone deserves to be punished / freed / taken care of, you just do it. You are the judge and the executor in one. Everyone of us is it. That's where it boils down to. I do not think that this is a very good idea actually.

I am not discussing whether this war was right or not. I am just discussing how it happened. And actually, to come back to the actual topic of the thread, Donald RUmsfeld is one of the creator of this war. I am personally convinced that Rumsfeld is even more guilty of it then Bush.

That's just it, isn't it? The police weren't doing shit.

Yes maybe. The police wanted more facts and wanted prove before they speak out the death penalty on a person.
The fact was given that the suspect is a bad person. But there was no prove whatsoever until today that this person is guilty of what he has been accused of. In the contrary. The facts more and more show that the accusations were simply overdone "advertisement" in order to get the ok for the death penalty.

The really funny thing in this thread regarding 9/11, War on Terorr, WoMD and so forth..Is that for the past 2 years, us Euro-trash argued the exact points some of the Americans here are arguing now.
Some of the Americans who were fiercly opposed to those same views, I might add.

Hindsight's a bitch.

Funny stuff.

Taino: If you're saying that Saddam was actually not such a bad guy, and didn't actually rape, kill, and maim, but instead took the citizens out for a round of brewski's, you're drunk.

Halo: huh?

As was said before, besides being the basis from which the campaign for the war was generated, I agree- no pertinence whatsoever!

And as I said before, learn to READ. WMD "being found" was not "the basis from which the campaign for the war was generated." So yes, it has no pertinence whatsoever to the war. Whether the WMD are found, however, may be pertinent to the coalition's intelligence gathering capabilities.

Taino: If you're saying that Saddam was actually not such a bad guy, and didn't actually rape, kill, and maim, but instead took the citizens out for a round of brewski's, you're drunk.
Did I ever even remotely say that please? No I did not. And this is absolutely not the point.
If you see someone kill another person, then you know it. its sure and that other guy is guilty. Still its not your own responsability to punish that one guy. Its the job of the police to get ahold of him, its the job of a jury to judge on him and its the job of the executive organ to punish him!

Bush played judge and executor at once without having the right to do so. If you "execute a death penalty" on someone that is guilty, then you commit murder in the eye of the law. No matter how very damn guilty that person is. You have no right to do so! This is my point. It has nothing to do with what an oh my god evil person Saddam was.
This all besides the fact that a) i agree that Saddam is evil and that Iraq is better off without him and b) there has never been proof that Saddam had at any point have nayhitng to do with the Al Qaida, nor do we have proof that he had WoMD.
Those things have nothing to do with my actual point in this discussion.

Hindsight's a bitch.

I think you'll find that many of the same people are saying many of the same things. Those what were against the war are still against the war. Those that were for the war are still for the war, but are expressing doubts about our government's intentions.

And hey, the two of you shoehorned U.S. bashing into this thread, so everyone's happy.

I'd discuss Taino's point as it concerns the U.N. but this thread is about Rumsfeld.

I would rather see vigilante justice than no justice at all.

I suppose thats where we differ.

+ All of a sudden.. a blow job in the Oval Office doesnt seem like such a big deal

No, but lets not forget the selling of U.S. nuclear technology to China. That was pretty cool of Bill to make a little ching on the side heh?


Ibudin

Fuck off were they Mirdorr. You can not claim that - at all. How on earth can you say that?
It was Euro v American, through and through. Not one of you agreed with any of our points. LL's views right now could not be *more* opposite to what they were back then.

Hindsight is a bitch. It's your bitch. Because, in every cliche and shallow way you could take this, here it is: WE WERE RIGHT. YOU WERE WRONG.

IN. YOUR. FUCKING. FACE.
"I told you so" never sounded so sweet.

I can't speak for LL, but as far as my beliefs go, I freely admit I was convinced Saddam had WMD and was hiding them from inspectors. Evidence now shows that is likely not the case. Having said that, I still feel he needed to be removed and I still feel the Euro governments were so opposed to it not on moral grounds but on economic ones. I also feel the instant sactions were lifted (under pressure from Russia and France), Saddam would have been right back in business building nasty weapons (and may still be if we don't catch his scurvy ass).

Your "point" that was valid as far as I am concerned is that there was no proof he still had WMD. Many of the "Euro" points (he does not pose a threat, the arab world will explode against the US, it could start WWIII) have NOT been born out. I would wait to see the full report from the UN before I would jump up and down and "In your face" anybody. Illegal missiles were found. Components of mobile labs were found. Etc. Admittedly not chemical weapons or bio weapons.

We should all be happy he did not have a ready arsenal of bio/chem weapons at the ready. Casualties would have been horrendous.

Sorry Halo..

I have NEVER said "Oh Ya.. I 100% agree with Bush"

I still feel the SAME way I did about things then.
I still think the War against Iraq was a 'good' idea.. and I thought we had a chance to make a real difference..

But GWB blew it.. the chance we HAD is gone because they were too stupid, selfish and shortsighted to do things the RIGHT way.
Not because of intentions.. because they were there.. but in the carrying out of them...
I STILL dont think this is about oil.. 99% of Americas oil supply is domestic.
I still think that the UN is a useless organization that would rather limit American power than work to make the world a better place..

I still think Europe fucked up in the reasons and the way they opposed the War..
It wasnt just the US that blew a chance.. it was the world...
I dont regret taking Saddam out of power..
Im pissed we didnt find any WOMD.. because I dont like trusting the word of people who at Worst.. lied to me.. and at best.. were wrong about a thing they absolulty should NOT have been.

I dont like the fact that he blew the opportunity to bring peace to Israel and Palestine...

You were never right Halo.. because I know where you were coming from. You dont give a rats ass about justice or doing the right thing.. your view comes from a place of fear and hate.. Mine comes from a place where I expect more out of my country.. and I hold it to higher ideals.. and when they fail those ideals.. and abuse my trust.. thats when I get angry.

Thats the difference...

You can not claim that - at all. How on earth can you say that?
It was Euro v American, through and through.

How on earth can I say that those who were against the war are still against the war, and those that were for the war are still for the war?

Uh, I can say that because it's true. Unless you've changed your mind, of course.

By the way, please don't group all Europeans together as "Euro's." Many countries comprise the whole of Europe, and and I'd hate to offend any of them by posting insult after insult in every item I see, whether the insults are on topic or not.

besides..
Show me where you said Saddam DIDNT have WMD...

what exactally are you claiming to be right about?

www.reliefweb.int/fts/reports/pdf/ocha_18_2003.pdf (http://www.reliefweb.int/fts/reports/pdf/ocha_18_2003.pdf)

www.reliefweb.int/fts/reports/pdf/ocha_6_2003.pdf (http://www.reliefweb.int/fts/reports/pdf/ocha_6_2003.pdf)

www.reliefweb.int/fts/reports/pdf/ocha_9_2003.pdf (http://www.reliefweb.int/fts/reports/pdf/ocha_9_2003.pdf)

First one is for GLobal Humanitarian Aid
Second is consolidated appeals for aid
Last is for natural disasters.
We pay the damn bills for the UN. If you want the UN to have more say kick in more money.

And as I said before, learn to READ. WMD "being found" was not "the basis from which the campaign for the war was generated." So yes, it has no pertinence whatsoever to the war. Whether the WMD are found, however, may be pertinent to the coalition's intelligence gathering capabilities.
I beg to differ. Perhaps you don't remember Powell's speech before the UN when he showed arial pictures of where the chemical and biological agents were, had audio tapes of them being discussed, and basically tried to pinpoint exactly where and what was being possessed by Iraq in order to give creditability to us waging a war based on their breach of the resolution to be free from any WoMD.

Perhaps I am missing something here, and you believe the case for the war was grounded on some other premise? If so, please enlighten me, as I seem to have forgotten.





And Halo, the pretentious crap really makes a lot of progress, I'd hate for you to resort to some sort of retroactive bickering. /scarcasm off

As a side note, Halo's sentiments are for himself and not the entire liberal population on this board, though others may share it. While I can say its nice to have some new supporters, or at least some now closer aligned in thought, I certainly can't and don't condone Halo's... approach.

Boo fucking hoo.
If you'd spent about 2.5years arguing with these arrogant cocksuckers, you'd jump at any chance to show them how wrong they are. Because that's exactly what they are - wrong. They supported a war on the basis of a country harboring WoMD, supporting and dealing with terrorist groups, and intending to disrupt world peace.
WHAT. SINGLE. ELEMENT. OF. THAT. IS. TRUE ?!
I'll tell you how it went. America's thirst for blood lust vengence wasn't sated when they tore apart Afghanistan, so they went for Iraq. Made up the biggest amount of bullshit since fuck knows what, and are now trying to worm their way in to saying they never took those point of views.

'You were never right Halo.. because I know where you were coming from. You dont give a rats ass about justice or doing the right thing.. your view comes from a place of fear and hate..'

- My view comes from fear and hate? HAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, classic. The paranoia, war starting, peace breaking, panic spreading, world dipshit is telling me my view is born in fear.
It's just.. it's too funny. Tell me that was an attempt (as is so frequently the case with you LL) at humour. PLEASE!

Hahahahhaa. Ya just gotta laugh.

No Halo..

Everything I need to know about how you think I learned the days after 9/11, when you all but came out and said America deserved to be attacked.. and we should do nothing but sit back and try to figure out why we brought it on ourselves..
Thats who you are.. thats where you come from..
Thats hateful.. its sick and it is demented.
The moral equivilant of saying a women deserved to be raped because she wore a short dress.

Afganistan was and is the right thing to do.. but we shouldnt have left until the job was done..
Saddam COULD have waited.. but the admistration decided it was better to capitalize on 9/11 to get the okay to invade..

Thats the problem I have.. Saddam could have waited.. he destroyed his WMD.. there was NO imminent threat... was he a threat? ya.. but no more than he always was.. He had to removed sooner or later.. but I wish it was later so we didnt have to leave Afganistan half done and AL Queda able to stick its head from out from under a rock without it getting blown the fuck off.

You never said Saddam didnt have WMD.. Never..
So answer the fucking question Halo..
What WERE you right about.

'when you all but came out and said America deserved to be attacked.. '

- You are such a fucking wanker.
I stopped reading right there. Because your stupid childish hate has led you to make up complete lies.
God you're an asswipe.

Perhaps you don't remember Powell's speech before the UN when he showed arial pictures of where the chemical and biological agents were, had audio tapes of them being discussed, and basically tried to pinpoint exactly where and what was being possessed by Iraq in order to give creditability to us waging a war based on their breach of the resolution to be free from any WoMD.

You still don't get it do you? I remember Powell's speech very well. His speech had nothing to do with "finding" WMD after a war and everything to do with the threat Saddam posed and his violations of UN resolutions.

If you need things spelled out for you here it is: We went to war because of the threat Saddam posed to the U.S., his own people, and the world. We went to war because Saddam possessed WMD (he admitted it), he used WMD, and he rewarded and supported terrorism against the U.S. and against Israel (have you seen the pictures of his payments to Palestinian terrorist families?). We went to war because Saddam created instability (remember Kuwait?) in a region in desparate need of stability. An unstable Middle East creates a zone for terrorists to train and plan attacks against the U.S., Europe, and Israel.

We did NOT go to war for the purpose of finding WMD. The U.S. does not need more WMD -- we have enough.

Finding more of Saddam's WMD would simply provide evidence to support one of the many stated causes of war but it is only one of many bits of evidence in favor of the war.

Here's a quote from Judge Walter who went to Iraq to help work with their legal system. You can read the entire speech at www.snopes.com.

Despite my initial opposition to the war, I am now convinced, whether we find any weapons of mass destruction or prove Saddam sheltered and financed terrorists, absolutely, we should have overthrown the Baathists, indeed, we should have done it sooner.

What changed my mind? When we left mid June, 57 mass graves had been found, one with the bodies of 1200 children. There have been credible reports of murder, brutality and torture of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqi citizens. There is poverty on a monumental scale and fear on a larger one. That fear is still palpable. I have seen the machines and places of torture. I will tell you one story told to me by the Chief of Pediatrics at the Medical College in Basra. It was one of the most shocking to me, but I heard worse. One of Saddam's security agents was sent to question a Shiite in his home. The interrogation took place in the living room in the presence of the man's wife, who held their three month old child. A question was asked and the thug did not like the answer; he asked it again, same answer. He grabbed the baby from its mother and plucked its eye out. And then repeated his question.

Worse things happened with the knowledge, indeed with the participation, of Saddam, his family and the Baathist regime. Thousands suffered while we were messing about with France and Russia and Germany and the UN. Every one of them knew what was going on there, but France and the UN were making millions administering the food for oil program. We cannot, I know, remake the world, nor do I believe we should. We cannot stamp out evil, I know. But this time we were morally right and our economic and strategic interests were involved. I submit that just because we can't do everything doesn't mean that we should do nothing.

Saddam could have waited

How many more people needed to die under Saddam while we waited? Thousands every day tortured and killed while we waited....The biggest miscalculation America made regarding the war was underestimating the extent of Saddam's cruelty. CNN should carry a lot of that guilt and I will never forgive them for what they did.

How imminent of a threat did Saddam need to be? Wait until another 9/11? Wait until he works up an invasion of another country? We waited during the 1930s because Hitler wasn't an imminent threat to the U.S.

From the reports of people who have been to Iraq the biggest question regarding the war is why did we wait so long?

That should be our outcry.

Well don't want to get into another flame war but anyway, might I suggest you search on the net about geopolitical articles on USA power strategy for the 21th hundred. You ll find out that china is considered as the next superpower and that its basically the real oponent of the usa.

I don't really want to get too deep into it but anyway but 3 weeks ago I spent a night with a french geopolitician that has a big reputation. Well after that night I had another view of current situation hehe. Could make a 300 lines post easy about it but needless to say that most of what is put on this board is really a small thing compared to the big picture.

The UN thing is just for us, the average people. Neither USA or france could give a shit about the UN really. Its all one big picture : oil, saudi arabia irak, china and hell even the anti missile shield the US are building ( thats one very interesting subject too btw ).

Anyway already wrote too much but I don't blame the US for taking over irak. Its perfectly normal considering their interest and honestly who give a crap about the WMD, thats just crap for medias.

PM me your mail addy on EW board L2 I ll give you much more info than anything you will ever read here :) Too many people that just follow whatever tv says on both side hehe, its just a screen of smoke.

Ps: furtivus get real some tho, you are quite lobotomised :( Need to stop watching CNN bud.

How did my quote "CNN should carry a lot of that guilt and I will never forgive them for what they did" lead you to think this:

Need to stop watching CNN bud.

Learn to read lately?

My statement is critical of CNN; not a ringing endorsement to watch it. I don't get any news from TV.

'How many more people needed to die under Saddam while we waited? Thousands every day tortured and killed while we waited'

- Christ. There are some people out there who still believe this bullshit? Do you know how many fucking regimes out there that are equally as bad as, or far surpassing Saddam's regime, in regards to torture, death, and cruelty?
This war was not waged for the 'safety of innocent, cute, lovely Iraqi's.'
It was waged for bloodlust, under the false pretention that the country was a threat through its possession of WoMD. Guess what dick head, it was neither a threat, nor had any WoMD. Remotely either. It's all bullshit. Your lovely dream.
And if anyone is as stupid as to still believe any of the bullshit that was fed to you in trucks a while back, is surely being crushed by the scandals that are now coming out and crushing governments. The CIA shit in America. Dr.Kelly shit in Britain. Incase you hadn't picked up on it yourself, allow me to do you a favour - It was all a lie.
Stop telling yourself at night that the right thing was done.

Judge for yourselves.. Closing remarks of Colin Powels speech to the UN.

For more than 20 years, by word and by deed, Saddam Hussein has pursued his ambition to dominate Iraq and the broader Middle East using the only means he knows: intimidation, coercion and annihilation of all those who might stand in his way. For Saddam Hussein, possession of the world's most deadly weapons is the ultimate trump card, the one he must hold to fulfill his ambition.

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations, and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not someday use these weapons at a time and a place and in a manner of his choosing, at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

The United States will not and cannot run that risk for the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.

My colleagues, over three months ago, this Council recognized that Iraq continued to pose a threat to international peace and security, and that Iraq had been and remained in material breach of its disarmament obligations.

Today, Iraq still poses a threat and Iraq still remains in material breach. Indeed, by its failure to seize on its one last opportunity to come clean and disarm, Iraq has put itself in deeper material breach and closer to the day when it will face serious consequences for its continue defiance of this Council.

My colleagues, we have an obligation to our citizens. We have an obligation to this body to see that our resolutions are complied with. We wrote 1441 not in order to go to war. We wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace. We wrote 1441 to give Iraq one last chance.

Iraq is not, so far, taking that one last chance.

We must not shrink from whatever is ahead of us. We must not fail in our duty and our responsibility to the citizens of the countries that are represented by this body.

something else interesting you may want to consider is the definition of the term "Material Breach"
The casus belli (not the guild) was that Iraq was in "Material Breach of the treaty.. and thus freed us up for war..

But what part? Obviously they didnt have any WMD during the time of the treaty since the gulf war..

Yo Halo...catch a clue!

Bloodlust plays no part in American politics. If it did, we sure as hell would pick a different target than Iraq. If bloodlust was our motiviation, it would be much easier to pick on someone who could not fight back.

Do you deny that Saddam had instituted a policy of murder and terror against any internal opposition?

Do you deny that Iraqi citizens were killed, tortured and maimed by his regime, possibly in horrific numbers over the years of his reign?

Do you deny that he has displayed a pattern of aggression against neighboring countries, invading two of them and for a day or two a third?

As far as your argument that there are other countries out there as bad or worse than Iraq, where is your outrage at countries that protect them? China and Russia keep N. Korea afloat and by accounts it is another cesspool of terror. Never have I heard you utter one disparaging word about either. European countries have no qualms about business as usual with Castro even though his human rights abuses are long documented. It sounds to me like you want them all to stay in business just as they are. Certainly any time the US voices concern about them, you are here on the board heaping scorn upon the US and Americans. Your desire to protect the Saddams, the Sungs and the Castros of the world against the evil USA is very touching and I am sure they appreciate your heartfelt support.

Your desire to protect the Saddams, the Sungs and the Castros of the world against the evil USA is very touching and I am sure they appreciate your heartfelt support.What is it the kids say? pwned?

Nono, it's 'pwnt'.

It was waged for bloodlust,

DAMMIT.

Now I feel SILLY for believing you when you said we did it for the oil.

nor had any WoMD

The attached "proof" are all lies made up by the U.S. -- link (http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html)

Saddam even made up lies at the request of the U.S. when he ADMITTED he had WMD.

You must be one of those that believe the Holocaust and 9/11 were fabricated as well.

There never was a question as to whether Saddam had WMD. There's no doubt he had them.

And LL, thank you for supporting my point. Possessing WMD is an entirely different question than finding WMD. You can establish murder without a body just as the existence of WMD is established without finding them.

You can establish murder without a body just as the existence of WMD is established without finding them.In this case, we had the bodies - scores of corpses of murdered civilians...

Its a simple point that you avoid.

If.. in the beginning of all of this, had the adminstration said:
"Iraq may or may not possess WMD, we arent sure. But we are going to invade anyway.. just to be on the safe side. Because they may or may not supply these weapons which they may or may not have to terrorists who they may or may not have contact with"

Do you think they would have had the backing to do it?
of course they wouldnt have...

Americans dont want to fight wars, bomb people, kill people, send thousands of our troops overseas for what looks to be a LONG time, spend hundreds of Billions of dollars, fuck up relations with our allies, prematurely pull out forces chasing the Man responsible for 9/11, all because a tin horn dictator is playing "hard to get" with some UN inspectors.

War should NEVER be just a "viable option", it must be a Last Resort
I thought it was... I was wrong

"This war was not waged for the 'safety of innocent, cute, lovely Iraqi's"

"It was waged for bloodlust, under the false pretention that the country was a threat through its possession of WoMD"

How lovely for you Halo that everything is so black and white in your mind. There were a lot of reasons this war was fought (and is still being fought). As far as the Bush administration....IMO is was fought for one thing, CASH. Wether you tie that to political power gains(internal and abroad), oil, getting the military industry going again, and of course, to get the poor desitute Chaney's more cash :')

The administration really pushed WoMD and many ignored UN resolutions as a means to try to win over international support. Wether they really believed there was an imminant threat from WoMD, they (Bush and cohorts) will only know.

I supported the war because I felt the world and Iraq was better off Saddam-less. I supported it because of a hope (niave you may argue), that a better more civilized government could grow there.

"Do you know how many fucking regimes out there that are equally as bad as, or far surpassing Saddam's regime, in regards to torture, death, and cruelty?"

Plenty, but the fact that this one used and was actively trying to develop WoMD, had ties to known terrortists (maybe not Al Queada, but terrorists none-the-less). and had a flagrant disregard for the UN and it's mandates....made this one a threat to US interests.

"Stop telling yourself at night that the right thing was done."

I don't...I only hope that it was the right thing. I'm not convinced either way at this point. But it is not based on whether WoMD were found or not, it's based on whether the people that live there have a chance at a better life.

'it would be much easier to pick on someone who could not fight back.'

- You're.. joking, right? There's a lot of jokes coming from the Yanks lately. Because if you think Iraq even resembled a worthy challenge to the US..

'Your desire to protect the Saddams, the Sungs and the Castros of the world against the evil USA is very touching and I am sure they appreciate your heartfelt support.'

- You're a dick.

'Now I feel SILLY for believing you when you said we did it for the oil. '

- Worry more about how silly you feel believing in that WoMD horeshit. Priorities, priorities. One shameful embarassment at a time.

'There never was a question as to whether Saddam had WMD. There's no doubt he had them.'

- Show me a fucking WoMD that was unconvered you twat. Please. Show me a WoMD that exists in Iraq today. Unless.. you're actually arguing that the war was valid on the basis that the country owned chemical weapons in a war that is 12 years old. And if that is so the case - Another joke for the Yanks. You guys are side-splitting tonight baby.

'War should NEVER be just a "viable option", it must be a Last Resort
I thought it was... I was wrong '

- Exactly. Ex-fucking-actly. We said it. We said it continuously and relentlessly. America was not keeping the peace - it was breaking the peace. Iraq was not a threat. And that is what the war was justified upon.

'I supported the war because I felt the world and Iraq was better off Saddam-less'

- Then bring on a War against America. Because you better believe the world is better off Bush-less (Sounds a bit.. odd).
And hey.. you also have WoMD. And, well, you break world peace.
Holy shit. The irony is crazy. You're the perfect target for your own campaign.
Lightbulb moment.

Iraq was not a threat.How many more of their own citizens should they have murdered before someone put a stop to it?

6?

47?

398?

Bring it on...

Anyway, Iraq had one of the top ten armies in the world, even after the Gulf War. They were far from helpless, just inept. My point was if we were so gung ho to kill people for the sake of killing, Venezuela has a much smaller army, is a hell of a lot closer to the US and has the oil you seem to think we are after. Yes, a much easier target.

As far as my being a dick, well, I just pointed out that you are vehemently denying that anyone should oppose such dictators because no one has the right to interfere. Don't blame me for pointing out the logical extension of your argument. If it's not OK to dump Saddam for being a monster, its also not OK to do anything about the other wienies out there torturing their own people.

Although Venesuela has twice as much in oil reserves as the United States does -- I first thought Nigeria would be ripe for invasion. They have 27BB in oil, and they spend 1% of their GDP on the army, so... ..sounds like easy pickin'.

Then I thought... Camaroon! Sure, they've only got 200MB in oil, but they just won a meritime dispute to Nigeria, and they've got new fields. Well, they spent 118M on their Army last year, and we spent 276B on our army last year, so I'm thinking we might (just might) have a 2,000 to 1 advantage on them in that department.

...and if there's one thing we're great it, it's bombing brown skinned people. Sure, we bombed the germans, and they're light skinned, but they were trying to rule the world. BULLSHIT! That's our job! [With apologies to George Carlin.]

that last line brought back memories

If you'd spent about 2.5years arguing with these arrogant cocksuckers, you'd jump at any chance to show them how wrong they are.
I have been on here way pre-war as well under a different name before this character, actually. The difference is I don't argue merely for the purpose of being right, I suppose.





His speech had nothing to do with "finding" WMD after a war and everything to do with the threat Saddam posed and his violations of UN resolutions.
It doesn't matter when you find the WoMD, in fact they should have been found before the fucking war. And you are damn fucking right the WoMD are important, THEY ARE the resolutions he "violated" and the reason for us labeling him a threat. Are you incapable of comprehending this? Just because they weren't found after the war in no way whatsoever makes the war justified because we had said they were existant before the war, and now that its after, its a whole new ballgame. They're still the same WoMD that he did not have. I don't get how you don't understand the rationale the WoMD are terribly important to the justification of this war. Let me take LL's quoting from Powell and post it one more time for you! Pay special attention to when WoMDs are mentioned or referrenced as important:



"For more than 20 years, by word and by deed, Saddam Hussein has pursued his ambition to dominate Iraq and the broader Middle East using the only means he knows: intimidation, coercion and annihilation of all those who might stand in his way. For Saddam Hussein, possession of the world's most deadly weapons is the ultimate trump card, the one he must hold to fulfill his ambition.

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations, and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not someday use these weapons at a time and a place and in a manner of his choosing, at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

The United States will not and cannot run that risk for the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.

My colleagues, over three months ago, this Council recognized that Iraq continued to pose a threat to international peace and security, and that Iraq had been and remained in material breach of its disarmament obligations.

Today, Iraq still poses a threat and Iraq still remains in material breach. Indeed, by its failure to seize on its one last opportunity to come clean and disarm, Iraq has put itself in deeper material breach and closer to the day when it will face serious consequences for its continue defiance of this Council.

My colleagues, we have an obligation to our citizens. We have an obligation to this body to see that our resolutions are complied with. We wrote 1441 not in order to go to war. We wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace. We wrote 1441 to give Iraq one last chance.

Iraq is not, so far, taking that one last chance.

We must not shrink from whatever is ahead of us. We must not fail in our duty and our responsibility to the citizens of the countries that are represented by this body."

I left out a good portion that also led up to talking bout the weapons, mainly just included the sentences that directly referred to the WoMD situation. So please, if you would, explain once again (or for the first time, since you completely failed to before) how the fact that we can't find WoMD is irrelevant to whether or not we had justification in our argument to go to war?

/laughs, are you all as excited for this as I am?


How imminent of a threat did Saddam need to be? Wait until another 9/11? Wait until he works up an invasion of another country? We waited during the 1930s because Hitler wasn't an imminent threat to the U.S.
Hey guys, I'm issuing a Declaration of War on Canada for their involvement in the involvement of the bombing of Pearl Harbor? Rediculous? Absurd? I agree. We've already been through this, there is no proof whatsoever that Saddam had anything to do with the events on September 11th. Although Al Qaeda and Saddam both share a couple common letters.... ooo! and they're from the same region of the world! Laughable, at best. Saddam doesn't want any more power going to the type of organization he spent 20 years attempting to repress.

In response to the totally illogical comparison to Hitler, let me delineate for you the actual comparison. Hitler was successful because he was able to take large enough advances that it was noticed, but just small enough that it didn't seem worthwhile to risk open war over. When he actually declared war and began, we didn't do anything, and waited until we were actually threatened. Now transition to Saddam. Do you remember 1991? He invaded Kuwait, and without hesitation we dominated him and slapped him with the strictest set of sanctions ever imposed by the UN. This is nothing like Hitler, Saddam hasn't even moved an inch towards another country since '91, and you had better believe he wasn't even considering it again. Saying Saddam had imperialistic ideas in mind cannot possibly be anything but utter ignorance as to the real nature of the situation. The true comparison to Hitler would be if Hitler invaded Poland, we all moved in immediately, and he was out within a few weeks and under sanctions. This situation would be us thinking the Hitler had stockpiled weapons he wasn't allowed to possess, then taking over his country to find out they didn't exist. To me, thats a far stretch to compare Iraq to Hitler conquering half of Europe. But hey, whatever floats your boat, right?




From the reports of people who have been to Iraq the biggest question regarding the war is why did we wait so long?
Do you believe we had the moral right to exert our hegemony over any nation that has a dictatorship that isn't favorable to all the people? And another question to follow that, who would you propose lead this new country once we've eliminated this "evil" that was the Hussein regime? I sincerely want to know what you think a good governing body would be- which group(s) of people, and in what distribution?



The attached "proof" are all lies made up by the U.S.
Are you shitting me? 1988 is not 2003, nor is it >1991. You see, numbers progress in increments of 1, starting like this: 1, 2, 3, 4...

Of course he had WoMD then, everyone knew that and nobody opposed that. Shit, who do you think supplied him with 21 different strands of chemical and biological agents in the 1980s? *ahem* Yea, thats right, so thats not an argument whatsoever for an invasion, because it was permissable then! Post '91 and the Gulf War, it wasn't. Post '91 and the Gulf War, he disarmed, and come time for OIF, he had none!

I really hoped you'd had a better argument for proving he was in possession of WoMD. Honestly, do you think the people in this forum are on such an elementary level that you could support an argument with evidence as completely irrelevant as that? Or perhaps to you that somehow seemed like justification for a war?...




In this case, we had the bodies - scores of corpses of murdered civilians...
Palimax, 1988... Remember, back when he was our ally?




If it's not OK to dump Saddam for being a monster, its also not OK to do anything about the other wienies out there torturing their own people.
And on the extension of your argument, since you seem to believe that it was Ok to dump Saddam, when do you propose China, North Korea, Equador, Columbia, Somalia, etc., will be taken care of?

And on a more serious note, why Iraq over any of those other countries? Do you see any possible reasons?

Daidal you have difficulty with reading comprehension don't you?

The possession of WoMD and the threat brought about by Saddam are relevant to the justification for war. I've never stated anything differently. Finding WoMD after the war would simply be an additional piece of evidence to add to the many pieces of evidence already shown supporting the war. Learn the difference between the possession of WoMD and finding WoMD. You can establish possession (which I believe has been conclusively established) without finding WoMD afterward.

Perhaps this will help. If the U.S. stated cause of war was to gain WoMD for ourselves, then finding WoMD would be of paramount importance in the war effort. Do you really believe our purpose was to gain more WoMD for ourselves? The war was not fought for the purpose of finding WoMD but to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam. And that's what I have stated all along. And that is exactly what Powell stated.

By the way, you're choosing to ignore evidence of Saddam's atrocities and links to terrorism does not mean they don't exist. Halo stated Saddam never had WoMD. I refuted that statement. Keep your head in the sand and ignore the facts and maybe you'll feel better.

To answer your question....when it becomes possible to succeed in such a way to insure a minimum loss of life. Even the US can't take on all the world's maniacs ....so we prioritize according to those who pose the biggest threat to us or our interests. Iraq was a threat in the forefront of our concern. Now it isn't.

In the case of China, we have to work on a long term effort to democratize them through integration of our economies and cultural influence. They seem to respond to that, so that is the best way to handle them (i.e. without violence). It seems to be slowly working. Compare China today with China under Mao and you will see the difference.

We are still trying to get a handle on North Korea. That is a problem that is likely to be a bugger to resolve. Other hotspots may be addressed by the world at large and won't need our attention. Others require just a little push like Charles Taylor in Liberia. Some like Cuba we have to leave alone to keep our agreement with another large power. Still others like Iran we leave alone in the hopes their internal reforms will change the situation favorably. Every country is different and may be approached in unique ways.

No one is saying we can be the world's policemen. But we sure as hell are going to effect change to our advantage where we can. Ignoring Saddam's particular brand of tyranny for the sake of making a buck (or Ruble or Euro) is tantamount to condoning it. We have been guilty of that along with all the other countries doing business with Saddam & Co, and I am glad it came to an end.

We, along with the rest of the developed world, need to be a hell of a lot more picky about who we do business with.

Daidal you have difficulty with reading comprehension don't you?

No, au contraire, I believe I'm rather talented at reading comprehension. In fact, I am so to a degree that your, should I be generous, attrocious attempt at an insult, is rather comical. If you'd like me to back that up, please just ask, because while I'm generally a pretty modest person, if somebody insults something that I excell at, I will take my accomplishments and use them to beat you upside the head with.




The possession of WoMD and the threat brought about by Saddam are relevant to the justification for war. I've never stated anything differently.
Ok, we agree on this part. Excellent, now moving on...

Finding WoMD after the war would simply be an additional piece of evidence to add to the many pieces of evidence already shown supporting the war
Here is where I begin to question your thought train. Specifically, how on earth is it simply additional evidence? There is no evidence that Saddam had WoMD in the first place when we invaded him! Remember, the link you posted was from his attack on the Kurds in 1988, when he was permitted to have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and we were his ally as he was doing the dirty work of attacking Iran, whom we saw as a more potent threat to our interests. Of course we know he had WoMD, as I stated multiple times, and that he used them, but (and pay attention here, because its important!) when he invaded Kuwait and was forced into the conditions of the sanctions, he was disarmed and inspected by UN teams consistently. When we invaded in 2003, a full 15 years after we knew he had used chemical weapons, we no longer had any concrete proof that Saddam had WoMD in the 21st century, despite our claims that we knew without a doubt that he had them. What the Bush administration needs, in order to regain creditability and prove that the war was not a big scam and/or complete clusterfuck of information, is to find a WoMD to prove that they were indeed right that Saddam had them. They don't give two shits about having the weapon to keep for their own, they'd simply disarm it. I've never said they wanted it because we are low on WoMD, so I don't know how you derived the conclusion that I believed something to that effect.

You can establish possession (which I believe has been conclusively established) without finding WoMD afterward.
Once again, as I said before, in no way, shape, or form has possession been conclusively established, whatsoever. That is an absolute joke, but I'd love for you to explain (haven't I asked this already?) how it can be conclusively established that Saddam has had WoMD in the past several years. Keep in mind, the proof the Bush administration, ie Collin Powell, gave was very specific as to the absolutely exact location of these WoMD, yet not a single one of these supposedly blatantly obvious WoMD has been found.





Do you really believe our purpose was to gain more WoMD for ourselves? The war was not fought for the purpose of finding WoMD but to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam.
Are you shitting me? I"m still dumbfounded as to where on earth you could possibily gather that I believed that. Please, my head is hurting from reading this drivel, do me a favor and explain how you arrived at the conclusion that I believed that so I can at least see that you have some trace of an intellectual thought process. Please, I beg of you.




Halo stated Saddam never had WoMD. I refuted that statement.
If Halo stated that he deserved to be refuted. Congratulations. But don't get too high up on yourself now Ptolemy, you're not dealing with the kids in the alley here.



By the way, you're choosing to ignore evidence of Saddam's atrocities and links to terrorism does not mean they don't exist.
I'm not ignoring Saddam's attrocities, they were horrible for sure, but not, by any means, the worst of actions currently occuring in the world. So why attack Iraq? Gulor seems to understand, whether or not he was really excited to admit it, the US's interests were at heart. Not the Iraqi people's, it could have been any people's interests, it didn't matter- we hoped to gain from OIF. And his links to terrorism are feeble at best. If giving housing in the past to one person below Osama makes Saddam a terrorist, then we are fucked. Perhaps you'd like recall specific actions the US engaged in in the 1980s, ie specifically arming and assisting Al Qaeda when our interests were being bettered? If you want to link Saddam for something as miniscule as that, then you sure as hell had better be ready to condemn our own nation as far worse than Saddam. Additionally, if Saddam is a terrorist, we are guilty by default as we also helped install him. You see, as a secular leader, he had a very large ideological opposition to the fundamentalist Iranian shi'ites. As we'd hoped for, war broke out between Iran and Iraq, and unfortunately for our interests it stalemated after several years. So, needless to say, we've had our hands in things that are so much worse, a fullscale 200+ billion dollar war for housing a single Al Qaeda member seems to be a biiiiiit of a stretch.



Keep your head in the sand and ignore the facts and maybe you'll feel better.
Likewise.

:lol

Does anyone just start laughing when they see Halo's drivel anymore?

He's owned six ways from sunday every time and still comes back for more.

--Cen

why Iraq over any of those other countries? Do you see any possible reasons?

Maybe because a stable pro western moderate Arab government in one of the Major Middle Eastern Countries is benificial to the entire world?

Where-as you've never made an insightful comment in your life, Cen.

'Venezuela has a much smaller army, is a hell of a lot closer to the US and has the oil you seem to think we are after'

- Uhm, what now? Who said anything about oil?

Are you *sure* you folks over the sea get taught how to read?

Are you *sure* you folks over the sea get taught how to read?

Pretty sure they call that an Ocean dip shit. Give it Red Coat.



Ibudin

Why I like bush, 2 main reasons:

1) The piece of F#$%'ing shit liberal media hates bush, and that alone makes me like him. The way they twist the news is amazing, you would think a nuke landed on iraq from watching CBS or NBC. Go to fox and they actually report what progress(even if little) is being made. The piece of shit liberal media doesn't tell you this though, or hide it as much as possible. This alone sends a chill down my spine when I watch them, or find out who they like and support(the left). They're dishonost in a way I can prove by myself. At least Bush's accusations haven't been proven yet, and with the left being the accusers I doubt they ever will.

2) Most importantly, why I like Bush, is he actually DID something. L2, since you start the thread i'll pick on you. You said you supported him, but not how it went about. What should they have changed? Ignored intelligence about Iraq that even Bill Clinton knew about and acted on himself? Maybe he shouldn't have hyped WMD as much but it was a definate possibility from a country that was getting better and better at hiding them. Al queda isn't destroyed we sure disrupted their network by quite a bit.

The thing is, if the democrats have their way, they're going to have a president that will have upped the ante on what it takes to do the right thing when our country gets attacked. Not only would have no resolve to actually do the right thing, but there would be political anchors attached to keep them from doing them anyway. Democrats could very well get back in power by non-stop ramming bush up the ass with accusations and the liberal media could keep giving half the story(coincidentally, the half that makes bush look bad), but that day will be a day when the USA is going to be a lot more dangerous place to live in.

I'd love for you to explain (haven't I asked this already?) how it can be conclusively established that Saddam has had WoMD in the past several years

Go do your own homework and reach your own conclusions. The amount of material out there (even non classified) is voluminous. Just a quick point though -- you've got the question wrong. The question is "how can it be conclusively established that Saddam destroyed all of the WoMD he had."

Ok Fur.
You can stop posting links to stories 12 years old.

Halo-

Regarding the oil, it has been a common theme throughout these discussions that the side vehemently opposing the war claims the US was doing it primarily for Iraq's oil. If you yourself don't subscribe to this theory, then I apologize for making it seem that you do. However, pretending it is not a theme used to argue the point against the war is obtuse and disingenuous on your part.

Even you should have picked up the intent of my statement. It has nothing to do with reading comprehension and everything to do with refuting your ridiculous (and quite insulting) statement that the US invaded because of bloodlust, i.e. that we enjoy killing people for killing's sake. If you really believe that and are just not stirring up shit for the fun of it, you should certainly not be spending your time playing an online game with so many Americans.

Ask Iran if Iraq had WMD. They know. Iraq used WMD's on them during the war they had with each other. Or how about the Kurds north of Bahgdad? Shit, I think I remember CNN news coverage of that when I was a kid.

Most importantly, why I like Bush, is he actually DID something. L2, since you start the thread i'll pick on you. You said you supported him, but not how it went about.

Well.. I support what he did in Afganistan.. that was Doing something.. it was the right thing to do..
And I in alot of ways agree that taking Saddam out was the right thing to do.. but Bush fucked it up.
If it took longer to get unified international support then he should have waited... there was no immenient theat. And I think the White House KNEW that.. but it was decided to hurry the process along because of 9/11 fears and emotions.. so they made weak links to terrorists and played on our fears by claiming that Saddam MAY (what a pliable and flexable word) supply Al Queda with WMDs.
So the trade was made for giving up International Support for Overwhelming Domestic Support..
Poor choice as it turns out..
Another reason they gave us for hurrying the war along.. was that it might get too hot or the troops to use the Bio Suits they had.. in defense of weapons that Saddam didnt even have.
We should have given more the Euros in trade for support, it would have saved us a TON of money and possible lots of troops, and given us more time to lock down Afganistan, putting more pressure on Al Queda and Osama. Making a more secure situation in Afganistan.. |
meanwhile since Iraq needs to be dealt with... we impose ever increasing stricter restrictions.
I think if the US gave the European countries that one last ultimatum they wanted... it would have different..
Did we have to? No we had legal justification for the invasion.... but it would have been wiser..

No matter how you look at it.. the US now has to maintain a presence in Iraq for at least 10 years.. now the center of the world for Terrorists to gather and take pot shots at Americans.

it should have gone slower.. too many things seem too rushed about this thing looking back on it.
Shit poor Post war plans.
Worsening Situation in the Middle East.
A President who now looks to world as the architect of numberous failures.

I was about to direct the thread back to the original topic, but L2 summed the situation up pretty nicely. We should have waited for U.N. support on Iraq, for a number of reasons, many of which Lleauric already mentioned. It would have given us time to clean up the mess in Afghanistan, and concentrate on finding Osama Bin Laden.

Having an international mandate (or at least international support) for the invasion would have pissed off the other Middle Eastern countries much less (who didn't much care for him anyway, except that he was one of 'theirs'), and drained guerilla support both for Sadaam and for other extremist factions once we invaded. We weren't that far from getting that approval - a couple more months of the resolution pig working its way through the python and we would most likely have been able to go in with U.N. blessing.

Waiting for international support would also have minimized the amount of fuel added to the Israel/Palestine mess - us tromping into Iraq against the wishes of most of the world only cemented in many Islamic countries' minds the image of us as the great Satan, out to spread our evil influence throughout the world with no regard for national soverignty, despite the fact that Saddam was hated by the clerics also. We shot ourselves in the foot here too, undermining the entire Middle east peace process and our credibility as a third party that could be trusted to be fair in brokering an Israeli/Palestinian settlement.

Nobody liked Saddam, not even his neighbors. There's no question that, whether he had WMD at the time we invaded or not, that he had had them in the past, and used them both on his enemies and his own people. Removing him was something that needed to be done. But I think that L2 is absolutely right that this president showed appallingly hasty, bad, and *dangerous* judgement in forcing this war in the face of international opposition, in the absence of a clear and present danger (Saddam was bottled up with embargoes and 'no fly zones', and wasn't going anywhere), in the absence of any substantative linkage to Al Qaeda, and he showed a frightening absence of ability to consider the consequences his actions might have on Middle East and world stability. We still have troops in *Bosnia* for gosh sakes. How long are we going to be tied up in Iraq, thanks to the mess we have made so much worse by jumping the gun here? Did anyone even have a *plan* for how to do this transition, before they went in?

When Faervas and I watched Bush's 'State of the Union' address earlier this year, the question we were asking ourselves was: Why is he rushing this? The only answer we could come up with was 'He's hoping to get this done before the 2004 election starts ramping up...'. Truthfully, I think that Bush and his cronies went in to Iraq, guns ablazing, not because of any WMD, or any clear and present danger, or because of Al Qaeda, or the economy, or any other tangible reason. They went in out of some irrational, emotional craving to finish the job that George Senior had left undone, and now we're sitting here with egg on our face, a less stable world, and no exit strategy...

Sincerely,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

Ask Iran if Iraq had WMD. They know. Iraq used WMD's on them during the war they had with each other. Or how about the Kurds north of Bahgdad? Shit, I think I remember CNN news coverage of that when I was a kid.
Once again, 1988 /= 2003. Nor, for that matter, is 1988> 1991. Proof that he had WoMD in 1988 when he was legally entitled to, and we, along with other nations around the world, supported him and assisted in his programs, is by no means conclusive that he has WoMD in 2003.



Maybe because a stable pro western moderate Arab government in one of the Major Middle Eastern Countries is benificial to the entire world?
Wow, aren't you the objective judge, I'm glad you have decided for these countries that they want a westernized democracy, thanks! By what right can we say something so subjective is automatically what they need?





From myself:
I'd love for you to explain (haven't I asked this already?) how it can be conclusively established that Saddam has had WoMD in the past several years
From Furtivus:
Go do your own homework and reach your own conclusions. The amount of material out there (even non classified) is voluminous

You are an absolute joke. You are so cornered I almost pity you. That has to be the worst cop out I've witnessed on these boards. You can't expect to sound intelligent and somehow aloof in superiority with the "Go do your homework" bullshit, when you haven't brought one thing to the table. So please, do us a favor, and YOU do YOUR homework and then come back here and explain (this consists of presenting your argument with a combination of factual information and conclusions which support your stance) how WoMD can be conclusively established. I don't give a damn if you have a different opinion than me, thats great, but if you can't back it up, be ready to take some flack for your insolence.




Just a quick point though -- you've got the question wrong. The question is "how can it be conclusively established that Saddam destroyed all of the WoMD he had."
Well, if you recall, pre-OIF the UN weapons inspectors were the source of such information. The weapons inspectors did not see any legitimate reason to enter into this war, and despite their inability to conclude that war was necessary, the US did it for them. They were doing their job, and that was the question they were asking. They were the only true source of knowledge on that, and while they were criticized often, guess what? They were right.


Despite the fact that, to humor you, I shot that down, that question is still not the precident for war. It wasn't that we weren't sure he had destroyed everything, but that we knew he had them. As a result, the correct question, like I said before, is and always will be, "How can you prove that he had them?"


You can't.




Also, In order to believe that you actually have a rational thought process, I'm still waiting for an answer on this:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you really believe our purpose was to gain more WoMD for ourselves? The war was not fought for the purpose of finding WoMD but to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Are you shitting me? I"m still dumbfounded as to where on earth you could possibily gather that I believed that. Please, my head is hurting from reading this drivel, do me a favor and explain how you arrived at the conclusion that I believed that so I can at least see that you have some trace of an intellectual thought process. Please, I beg of you.
Thanks in advance.




and now we're sitting here with egg on our face, a less stable world, and no exit strategy...
Amen.

'However, pretending it is not a theme used to argue the point against the war is obtuse and disingenuous on your part.'

- It's about as obtuse as pretending he had WoMD.
Disingenous, one might venture.

Waiting for a U.N. mandate is a nice idea. I'd have liked to have had a U.N. mandate on our side.

However, I firmly believe we would never have gotten it, even if we'd provided evidence of WoMD.

Halo-

Saddam did possess WoMD and used them on a number of occasions. I think you mean to say pretending he had WoMD after 1994 or so.

If you are claiming he never used chemical weapons on the Kurds or the Iranians because he never had them, well, I guess there is no reason to argue with you as our perceptions of reality are just too far apart.

" Show me a fucking WoMD that was unconvered you twat. Please. Show me a WoMD that exists in Iraq today. Unless.. you're actually arguing that the war was valid on the basis that the country owned chemical weapons in a war that is 12 years old. And if that is so the case - Another joke for the Yanks. You guys are side-splitting tonight baby."

No, we are arguing this is only part of the reason...read a little instead of re-hashing yopu're only friggan point (that WoMD have not been found).


"- Then bring on a War against America. Because you better believe the world is better off Bush-less (Sounds a bit.. odd).
And hey.. you also have WoMD. And, well, you break world peace.
Holy shit. The irony is crazy. You're the perfect target for your own campaign.
Lightbulb moment."

Man, you can never make a decent point......My whole post and you come back with this lame excuse for a retort.

"world is better off Bush-less "

What do ya know, we agree on something :')

"And hey.. you also have WoMD"

So do you :'p

"And, well, you break world peace."

So do you :'p

"You're the perfect target for your own campaign"

By your limited logic, so is your country.

umm...duhhh moment

Daidal, I stated that the fact of finding WoMD was irrelevant to the purpose of the war, i.e., finding WoMD was not why we fought the war. You stated I was wrong. Hence, I posed my question above. Clear enough?

As to the backup for my beliefs, which I (as well as others) have posted before, I'll set it out:

Saddam had WoMD in the past so unless they're destroyed, they still exist. Saddam has a past history of lies and deceit so I do not believe any statements from his regime unless backed up by irrefutable susbstantiation.

Read UNSCOM S/1999/94 and AMORIM S/1999/356 as well as Blix's January 2003 report wherein Blix states Iraq has not submitted supporting evidence regarding open disarmament issues.

Those issues you will learn (among others) are:

- Evidence that it had tried to put VX, the deadliest form of nerve gas, into weapon-usable form.

- One thousand tons of poison gas contained in 6,500 missing chemical bombs.

- Several thousand missing rocket warheads for carrying poison gas.

- Some 8,500 missing liters of anthrax and enough growth media to produce 5,000 liters more.

- The illegal import of 300 rocket engines and other components for ballistic missiles.

- Illegal tests of long-range missiles that Iraq is not supposed to possess.

- Three-thousand pages of undeclared documents on the enrichment of uranium at the home of an Iraqi nuclear-weapon scientist.

Show me irrefutable evidence that Saddam destroyed every single WoMD he had and that he had no plans or operations in place to build more. I'll be surprised if you can because Saddam certainly could not.

By the way Daidal, since you do not like looking things up for yourself, Kay's recent preliminary findings presented to Congress are telling. Some highlights:

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG [Iraq Survey Group] has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. . . .

Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts . . .:

A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW [chemical and biological weapons] research.


A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.


Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.


New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.


Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).


A line of UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.


Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.


Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km--well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.


Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles--probably the No Dong--300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
"In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts," Kay continues, "we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence--hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use--are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts."



More evidence....

I'm glad you have decided for these countries that they want a westernized democracy,

Where did I say a Westernized Democracy dip shit? Read what I wrote again.

'"And hey.. you also have WoMD"

So do you :'p

"And, well, you break world peace."

So do you :'p

"You're the perfect target for your own campaign"

By your limited logic, so is your country.'


- Agree, agree, right.
So it's your logic that's flawed.
Unless you're going to invade us and then yourselves.
Whhheeeee!

"- Agree, agree, right."

Now the rest:

Our countries don't kill and torture hundred of thousands of it's citizens, use WoMD on citizens, ignore and/or break multiple UN resolutions, fund suicide bombers, and don't invade neighbors for no just cause (we can argue on this one for days, I see it as justified...you don't, I can live with that).

"Unless you're going to invade us and then yourselves."

Nice logic Halo...you crack me up Halo. :rollin

'Our countries don't kill and torture hundred of thousands of it's citizens,' - Kill? No. Torture? Have you heard of a show called Jerry Springer?

'use WoMD on citizens,' - So you didn't blow up Japan?

'ignore and/or break multiple UN resolutions,' - You're actually boasting about your reputation with UN resolutions? Oh dear god.

'fund suicide bombers,' - True. Just regular terrorists from Ireland.

'and don't invade neighbors for no just cause' - Hahahahah!

Classic.

"'Our countries don't kill and torture hundred of thousands of it's citizens,' - Kill? No. Torture? Have you heard of a show called Jerry Springer?"

As usual, you have no come back so you make a flippant, unrelated joke. ....yes I do consider Jerry Springer torture.

"'use WoMD on citizens,' - So you didn't blow up Japan?"

58 years ago, against a country that had attacked us before declaring war, to avoid millions of more deaths (japanese, american and chinese)...yes we did, once. So now you are comparing Hiroshima to Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the kurds?

"'fund suicide bombers,' - True. Just regular terrorists from Ireland."

As far as I know, our government doesn't fund any "Irish" terrorists.

"Re: hehe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Our countries don't kill and torture hundred of thousands of it's citizens,' - Kill? No. Torture? Have you heard of a show called Jerry Springer?

'use WoMD on citizens,' - So you didn't blow up Japan?

'ignore and/or break multiple UN resolutions,' - You're actually boasting about your reputation with UN resolutions? Oh dear god.

'fund suicide bombers,' - True. Just regular terrorists from Ireland.

'and don't invade neighbors for no just cause' - Hahahahah! "

Once again you prove not only your immaturity, but your inability to argue a valid point. You just continue to spout anything you think that will offend or build up your little ego Yuego...ooopps, I mean Halo.

'"'use WoMD on citizens,' - So you didn't blow up Japan?"

58 years ago, against a country that had attacked us before declaring war, to avoid millions of more deaths (japanese, american and chinese)...yes we did, once. So now you are comparing Hiroshima to Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the kurds?'

- Blahblah. So that's a 'Yes, we did use WoMD on citizens'?
So much bullshit to wade through here.

Hi I like peanuts. I'd love to post on this high brow board so here goes. Pardon my ignorance, but wasn't there a certain UN resolution that Iraq specifically violated anyway? Something about having to have inspectors there, and they kicked them out? The UN is unfortunately never going to do anything about these things. Just like NATO. Anyone remember NATO? LOL exactly. BTW yes i know i should have researched a bit more, but then again that wouldn't be that much fun now would it? *grin*

btw i'm french

"So much bullshit to wade through here."

yeah take a shower...you're reeking of it Halo. :D