Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

WMD's
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 19 12:42:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Please read the following and then make an intelligent argument that Dubya lied about the Iraq's WMD's.

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

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

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

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
time since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998

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

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

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

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

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

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




 
libra Posted: Thu Feb 19 15:38:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i think hif's itchin for a fight...i mean...'discussion'


 
marsteller Posted: Thu Feb 19 15:56:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  umm....the ends justify the means?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 19 15:58:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Well, there is just no way to intelligently argue that Dubya lied about WMD'S when virtually the whole world believed the same thing, but I keep seeing the left wingers continually calling him a liar precisely because of this. Even some of the people quoted above are calling him a liar because of this.
How could anything smack more of partisan politics ?


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Feb 19 16:00:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  the error you're making is trying to convince us based on authority and no other reason. in basic logic, this is a flaw in argumentive thinking.

i don't know who was behind the forging of those documents and whatever other information was falsified. either everyone was duped or someone is lying.

hif: what do you think about the whole forging of those documents and that sort? gotta make you think that someone wants to get into this war for "immoral" reasons... any ideas on who?


 
marsteller Posted: Thu Feb 19 16:10:25 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  eh, what's it matter really? the good guys won, the bad guy lost, and we'll all live happily ever after.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 19 16:12:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>the error you're making is trying to convince us based on authority and no other reason. in basic logic, this is a flaw in argumentive thinking.
>
>i don't know who was behind the forging of those documents and whatever other information was falsified. either everyone was duped or someone is lying.
>
>hif: what do you think about the whole forging of those documents and that sort? gotta make you think that someone wants to get into this war for "immoral" reasons... any ideas on who?

Virtually every country who had some sort of stake in Iraq (either for, or against, it didn't matter) believed that Saddam had WMD's. That is a fact.
Another fact is that when Hans Blix and Co. were expelled from Iraq in late nineties, they had documented large quantities of VX nerve gas, anthrax, and various other chemical and biological WMD's. Where are they now ?
We know they were there. Does anyone believe that he voluntarily destroyed them and then kept it a secret ?
Now we are hearing that Saddams scientists were falsifying documents and telling Saddam that he had stuff that he really didn't have. If Saddam believed his weapons programs were flourishing, it's not too much of a stretch to think intelligence agencies could have been fooled as well since there were reams of documentation saying they existed.
Back to my original argument, knowing what we know, there is no way to put a compelling argument together for Dubya to have lied to us about this.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Feb 19 16:15:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  yes, you can repeat yourself till you're blue in the face but you're still not answering me on who do you think forged those documents? that signifies that someone wanted this war to happen for reasons that wern't apparently clear and/or beneficial to the masses.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 19 16:22:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>yes, you can repeat yourself till you're blue in the face but you're still not answering me on who do you think forged those documents? that signifies that someone wanted this war to happen for reasons that wern't apparently clear and/or beneficial to the masses.

Apparently I don't understand your question. Which forged documents ?


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Feb 19 16:33:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i believe there have been a couple found already and quickly "forgotten about". I think we spoke about one set that was in a nigerian embassy, not sure if my memory's clear though on that. Some guy was looking over logs online and apparently the guy who signed the thing saying Iraq had WMD's wasn't even there that day.

the other had to do w/ an English doctor who had knowledge of something w/ Tony Blair lying and knowing he was lying. The doc went for a walk w/ his dog one morning and apparently committed suicide w/ no note or nothing. he was also very quickly forgotten about.

there could be minor slip ups in information, or they could be cover ups of a global plot of evil of sorts...

warfare definatly needs to return to the days of old where before a battle the commanders would discuss their terms before blowing each other's heads off. much cleaner and there's less options to blame shit on other people. did dubya sit down w/ saddam and "talk about shit" before getting into this mess?

have there been any reports on what the hell saddam was thinking just before this war broke out? did he want to fight? i assume he had to have. what were his reasons for not putting up the white flag?? what are all those blokes still fighting over there for?


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 19 16:56:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm wondering if I should get into this again lol


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 19 16:59:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I really hate to be the one to always strike up a disagreement with you hif. Either every other gter here is a conservative, or they're too wimpy to stand up for their beliefs and do a little verbal debating with ya.

sounds to me like youz feeling a little cocky with this one, hif. Or could it be you fear the inevitable (President Kerry),and are striking out at anything, like a cornered rat?

You can search all of my past quotes. Never did I say bush was alone in his belief that Saddam possessed WMD's and was a threat. Not once. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that at one time Saddam did have some WMD's and that he was trying to posess more, and would have given his son's left testy to develop and posess a nuclear bomb. We know now in hindsight that most of the imminent threat was on paper and disks at the time of the invasion.

None of the people you quoted, that I know of, was pushing for an invasion of Iraq on Bush's timetable, or was saying it was the only means to diffuse the Iraq problem. To me the major difference is that politicians on both sides were duped, or misled, but it took the combined will power of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and a whole host of other republicans to make the invansion a reality. I go with Harry Truman on this one: The Buck Stops Here! As our President and Commander in chief it is his responsibility to make sure the intelligence he is getting is correct. It is his responsibility to make sure that before committing soldiers to certain death he has based his crucial decision on facts, and not partial and gray evidence(as it has clearly turned out to be). Kennedy, Kerry, and the others you quote above talked. Bush acted, and therin lies the huge difference to me. Bush was the power, the "primary mover" in this whole business. Not Albright, not Hillary, not any one else. His administration provided the latest "facts" of Saddamns capabibities to our congressmen and senators. They freely offered the factual bad stuff about Saddam to the press. I also believe they repressed information that didn't help their war cause, and manipulated other facts to strengthen their case. And please don't tell me that Kennedy had access to the same top secret information that Bush's right hand people and cabinet members did. Hooie! They were fed what this administration wanted them to be fed as far as the most recent data on Saddam's capabilities. The few scraps of truth that came out fell from the table and were pounced on by reporters. Bush guards his secrets tighter than any previous administration in decades.

All the people you mention talked and said things that now come across as hypocritical.
THE DIFFERENCE: Bush said, "Ta Hell with ya! Fuck You, UN! Fuck you Latin America! Fuck you 99% of the world!", pulled out his gun and started shooting,..... and THEN started dealing with the questions and the "truth" after bodies started falling right and left (they continue to fall on a dailey basis).


As president of my country. As president of the most influential and powerful country on the planet right now I see that as irresponsible and extremely disturbing behavior.
Reckless words and reckless actions are not the same thing.

*I feel compelled to state (once again) that Saddam was a horrible dictator. The more I hear about the things he did to his citizens the less I could care about what happens to his sorry ass now. That is a separate point however from Bush's timing and rational for invading Iraq when he did, and how he did it, and under what pretext.


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 19 17:03:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I think it's funny though that america will be stuck in iraq for at least another 5 years or so.


What goes around comes around.


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 19 17:04:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>I really hate to be the one to always strike up a disagreement with you hif. Either every other gter here is a conservative, or they're too wimpy to stand up for their beliefs and do a little verbal debating with ya.


I resent that.


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 19 17:05:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>eh, what's it matter really? the good guys won, the bad guy lost, and we'll all live happily ever after.

Jeesuz fucking christ! tell me that was just a poor joke on your part!!!




 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 19 17:07:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>I resent that.
deal with it.
i wrote that when no one had written any response to hif's post. yeah, it took me a fuckin hour! gah damn political threads! stay the fuck away from them addi!!!!!


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 19 17:07:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>marsteller said:
>>eh, what's it matter really? the good guys won, the bad guy lost, and we'll all live happily ever after.
>
>Jeesuz fucking christ! tell me that was just a poor joke on your part!!!
>
>

Was going to say the same thing *shivers*


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 19 17:09:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Christophe said:
>
>>I resent that.
>deal with it.
>i wrote that when no one had written any response to hif's post. yeah, it took me a fuckin hour! gah damn political threads! stay the fuck away from them addi!!!!!


As far as I recall I've had my part in the discussions about Iraq and such.

Also i believe everything has already been said anyway.


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 19 17:14:56 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>As far as I recall I've had my part in the discussions about Iraq and such.
>
>Also i believe everything has already been said anyway.

yeah you have christophe, Sorry
and I should have known better than to fall into hif's trap asking me on another thread to comment here. stinkin waste of time! like I'm gonna change anyone's mind. stupid


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 19 17:16:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Christophe said:
>
>>As far as I recall I've had my part in the discussions about Iraq and such.
>>
>>Also i believe everything has already been said anyway.
>
>yeah you have christophe, Sorry
>and I should have known better than to fall into hif's trap asking me on another thread to comment here. stinkin waste of time! like I'm gonna change anyone's mind. stupid


Don't be too hard on yourself, some day he'll see :o)


 
novemberrain Posted: Thu Feb 19 17:42:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  >addison said:
>>I really hate to be the one to always strike up a disagreement with you hif. Either every other gter here is a conservative, or they're too wimpy to stand up for their beliefs and do a little verbal debating with ya.


Some of us just like to watch, addi ;)


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 19 17:51:48 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  novrain said:

>Some of us just like to watch, addi ;)

: )
I need to be a little more voyeuristic here myself


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 19 18:35:19 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>I really hate to be the one to always strike up a disagreement with you hif. Either every other gter here is a conservative, or they're too wimpy to stand up for their beliefs and do a little verbal debating with ya.
>
>sounds to me like youz feeling a little cocky with this one, hif. Or could it be you fear the inevitable (President Kerry),and are striking out at anything, like a cornered rat?
>
i got a steak dinner that says Kerry will lose in a landslide victory.

>You can search all of my past quotes. Never did I say bush was alone in his belief that Saddam possessed WMD's and was a threat. Not once. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that at one time Saddam did have some WMD's and that he was trying to posess more, and would have given his son's left testy to develop and posess a nuclear bomb. We know now in hindsight that most of the imminent threat was on paper and disks at the time of the invasion.
>
You have to believe had those WMD's, they were documented by Mr. Blix.

>None of the people you quoted, that I know of, was pushing for an invasion of Iraq on Bush's timetable, or was saying it was the only means to diffuse the Iraq problem.

Sure they were, they voted for the war.

To me the major difference is that politicians on both sides were duped, or misled, but it took the combined will power of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and a whole host of other republicans to make the invansion a reality. I go with Harry Truman on this one: The Buck Stops Here! As our President and Commander in chief it is his responsibility to make sure the intelligence he is getting is correct. It is his responsibility to make sure that before committing soldiers to certain death he has based his crucial decision on facts, and not partial and gray evidence(as it has clearly turned out to be). Kennedy, Kerry, and the others you quote above talked. Bush acted, and therin lies the huge difference to me. Bush was the power, the "primary mover" in this whole business. Not Albright, not Hillary, not any one else. His administration provided the latest "facts" of Saddamns capabibities to our congressmen and senators. They freely offered the factual bad stuff about Saddam to the press. I also believe they repressed information that didn't help their war cause, and manipulated other facts to strengthen their case. And please don't tell me that Kennedy had access to the same top secret information that Bush's right hand people and cabinet members did. Hooie! They were fed what this administration wanted them to be fed as far as the most recent data on Saddam's capabilities. The few scraps of truth that came out fell from the table and were pounced on by reporters. Bush guards his secrets tighter than any previous administration in decades.

You don't think Kennedy had access to the same intelligence during the Clinton administration ?
And I got news for you, most of the intelligence that goes to the White House is scrutinized many times by both conservative and liberal officers before it gets to Dubya, so I would say yes, Kennedy had and still has access to the same intelligence as Dubya, if not directly, then certainly through the leaks. LOL
>
>All the people you mention talked and said things that now come across as hypocritical.
>THE DIFFERENCE: Bush said, "Ta Hell with ya! Fuck You, UN! Fuck you Latin America! Fuck you 99% of the world!", pulled out his gun and started shooting,..... and THEN started dealing with the questions and the "truth" after bodies started falling right and left (they continue to fall on a dailey basis).
>
Absolutely hypocritical, and say what you want about Dubya, he doesn't waffle on his principles just to get a vote. He is a leader and if you don't like him, then vote him out. You can't say that about Kerry now can you ?

>As president of my country. As president of the most influential and powerful country on the planet right now I see that as irresponsible and extremely disturbing behavior.
>Reckless words and reckless actions are not the same thing.
>
>*I feel compelled to state (once again) that Saddam was a horrible dictator. The more I hear about the things he did to his citizens the less I could care about what happens to his sorry ass now. That is a separate point however from Bush's timing and rational for invading Iraq when he did, and how he did it, and under what pretext.

Are you saying that you didn't believe those things about him before the invasion ?
As far as Bush's timing, it was certainly time to act as it was becoming obvious that the UN was going to do nothing more than another ad nauseum resolution.
After he thumbed his nose at the world for 12 years and 14 resolutions ya gotta do something.
And if you really go back and look at the speeches, WMD was not the only rationale for the invasion anyway, it was merely the one that everybody could agree on. After seeing the atrocities committed by Saddam, can you really say we shouldn't have liberated those people ?
And the cost in lives is certainly worth it. No, I don't like to hear about our soldiers dying, but I am proud that they are willing to go, as did I, and my brothers and father and uncles and all those before me went.
Our military now is all-volunteer, none of those serving now are being forced to go.
My nephew just returned with the 101st and I'm certainly relieved and happy to see him home safe, but had he lost his life over there, I would still be proud he went, and no less committed to our cause over there.
Talk to people who have been there, the Iraqis are glad we are there, but you won't see that on Dan Rather in the evening.


 
libra Posted: Thu Feb 19 18:35:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Christophe said:
>
>>I resent that.
>deal with it.
>i wrote that when no one had written any response to hif's post. yeah, it took me a fuckin hour! gah damn political threads! stay the fuck away from them addi!!!!!

I don't have time to do the political threads anymore...i wish i did, the debating is good for me, it teaches me, but I have too much to do for school.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 19 18:36:17 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  By the way, all the points that you made here, some valid, some not in my opinion, still don't make a case for calling Dubya a liar about the WMD's.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 19 18:39:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I think it's funny though that america will be stuck in iraq for at least another 5 years or so.
>
>
>What goes around comes around.
Funny ?
Stuck in Iraq ?
you don't think we planned to be there for several years ?
More likely for 50-75 years.
You can rest assured there will be at least two major military bases in Iraq and they will be there for a long time.


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 19 18:50:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>I think it's funny though that america will be stuck in iraq for at least another 5 years or so.
>>
>>
>>What goes around comes around.
>Funny ?
>Stuck in Iraq ?
>you don't think we planned to be there for several years ?
>More likely for 50-75 years.
>You can rest assured there will be at least two major military bases in Iraq and they will be there for a long time.


Last thing I heard a large number of troops were going to be recalled from Iraq.

Am I the only one who thinks that "Dubya" (Dubious?) might just be saying that to win some votes back?


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 19 18:54:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  "The battle can't be won with an 'idealism' that is of an egotistical, greedy and selfish nature"

Thomas Friedman, Columnist in The New York Times


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 19 19:09:07 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Christophe said:
>>>I think it's funny though that america will be stuck in iraq for at least another 5 years or so.
>>>
>>>
>>>What goes around comes around.
>>Funny ?
>>Stuck in Iraq ?
>>you don't think we planned to be there for several years ?
>>More likely for 50-75 years.
>>You can rest assured there will be at least two major military bases in Iraq and they will be there for a long time.
>
>
>Last thing I heard a large number of troops were going to be recalled from Iraq.
>
>Am I the only one who thinks that "Dubya" (Dubious?) might just be saying that to win some votes back?

They just brought the entire 101st Airborne Division home last week.
And no, he didn't do that to win votes.
A combat tour for an American soldier will not last more than a year give or take a couple of months, depending on the situation.
Simply put, it was time for them to come home. And for the record, they were there for less than a year.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 19 19:10:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>"The battle can't be won with an 'idealism' that is of an egotistical, greedy and selfish nature"
>
>Thomas Friedman, Columnist in The New York Times

If you read the New York Times you will believe anything.
They spent more time last year backpedaling and printing retractions, I don't know how they found time to print their usual drivel.


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 19 19:12:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Something that strikes me is that some dumb fucks have actually presented Bush and Blair as candidates for the next Nobel Prize for peace... Don't know if I should laugh or cry about this.

Something I'd like to add myself as well: Having nukes is 1 thing, just wanting them and trying to get them is someting entirely different.

Remember Blair saying that Iraq's WMD's could be ready within 45 minutes?



Anyway, I just took a bath and I was reading my Humo (did any of you guys hear anything about the Belgian Minister of Defence who said he wouldn't have voted for Bush in an interview in Humo?) and I happened to read this letter from one of the readers: (took the time to translate and type this addi so you're no the only one putting an effort into this :o)


"Weapons of Mass Destruction"

What many people have known for so long, Bush now has to admit step by step: in recent years there weren't any WMD's or ABC weapons left in Iraq.
In the eighties, when Saddam was still an ally of the US against Iran, he did own those weapons thanks to western technology. The US didn't have any problems with him when he actually used those weapons at that time.
When the Iraqi regime gassed a few thousands of Kurds in '88 the British newspaper The Financial Times wrote an extensive article about this.
The British prime minister of that time, Margaret Thatcher, complained to the newspaper saying that British economical interests could be damaged by such reports and that it was better if they avoided articles about Saddam.

Maybe the world can now focus it's attention to the country that not only has the most WMD's, but has also used them on numerous occasions, the US, resulting in hundreths of thousands of innocent victims. A few examples are the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which happened AFTER Japan had surrendered) and claimed almost exclusivly civilian casualities.
Or the use of chemical weapons in Vietnam, where the US sprayed over 20 million tons of the toxin Agent Orange over the Vietnamese jungle.
On Cuba the US has conducted various attacks with bacteriological weapons, on animals, plants and people. To date 344.203 Cubans have become the victim of this, 158 of them died as a direct result.
In Yugoslavia and Iraq the US used weapons with depleted as well as enriched uranium, with cancers and birth-deformities as a result from the radioactive waste they left behind.

If there is one nation in the world which should be under the surveillance of weapons inspectors, it's the US itself.


Roger Liekens, Kessel-Lo, Belgium.


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 19 19:14:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>"The battle can't be won with an 'idealism' that is of an egotistical, greedy and selfish nature"
>>
>>Thomas Friedman, Columnist in The New York Times
>
>If you read the New York Times you will believe anything.
>They spent more time last year backpedaling and printing retractions, I don't know how they found time to print their usual drivel.


Have never read it, just read that quote in an interview with a political analyst (interview wasnt about Iraq but it was mentioned briefly during the interview)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 19 19:23:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Something that strikes me is that some dumb fucks have actually presented Bush and Blair as candidates for the next Nobel Prize for peace... Don't know if I should laugh or cry about this.
>
>Something I'd like to add myself as well: Having nukes is 1 thing, just wanting them and trying to get them is someting entirely different.
>
>Remember Blair saying that Iraq's WMD's could be ready within 45 minutes?
>
>
>
>Anyway, I just took a bath and I was reading my Humo (did any of you guys hear anything about the Belgian Minister of Defence who said he wouldn't have voted for Bush in an interview in Humo?) and I happened to read this letter from one of the readers: (took the time to translate and type this addi so you're no the only one putting an effort into this :o)
>
>
>"Weapons of Mass Destruction"
>
>What many people have known for so long, Bush now has to admit step by step: in recent years there weren't any WMD's or ABC weapons left in Iraq.

Really ? Are you sure ?
Did Mr. Blix just imagine that they were there when he docmented them in 1996 ? Where are they now ?

>In the eighties, when Saddam was still an ally of the US against Iran, he did own those weapons thanks to western technology. The US didn't have any problems with him when he actually used those weapons at that time.

How do you account for the American outrage then ?
And where was the European outrage btw ?

>When the Iraqi regime gassed a few thousands of Kurds in '88 the British newspaper The Financial Times wrote an extensive article about this.
>The British prime minister of that time, Margaret Thatcher, complained to the newspaper saying that British economical interests could be damaged by such reports and that it was better if they avoided articles about Saddam.
>
Sorry I'm not buying that one either.

>Maybe the world can now focus it's attention to the country that not only has the most WMD's, but has also used them on numerous occasions, the US, resulting in hundreths of thousands of innocent victims. A few examples are the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which happened AFTER Japan had surrendered) and claimed almost exclusivly civilian casualities.

Nope, another lie, unconditional surrender was all that was needed to stop the bombing, the surrender you are talking about was not unconditional.

>Or the use of chemical weapons in Vietnam, where the US sprayed over 20 million tons of the toxin Agent Orange over the Vietnamese jungle.

Agent Orange is not a weapon dude.

>On Cuba the US has conducted various attacks with bacteriological weapons, on animals, plants and people. To date 344.203 Cubans have become the victim of this, 158 of them died as a direct result.

????????????wtf is this bullshit ?
you actually want people to believe that the US launched chemical and biological attacks against Cuba ?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha

>In Yugoslavia and Iraq the US used weapons with depleted as well as enriched uranium, with cancers and birth-deformities as a result from the radioactive waste they left behind.
>
bullshit, all armies of industrialized nations use depleted uranium with none
of the effects you are talking about.
And show me where we used enriched uranium anywhere in Yugoslavia or Iraq.

>If there is one nation in the world which should be under the surveillance of weapons inspectors, it's the US itself.
>
What a huge load of horse shit !
You will believe anything that is anti-american won't you ?


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 19 19:28:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  You seem to be pretty happy to believe anything pro-American as well.

Anyway, I didn't write the letter so I'm not going to comment on it, I'm not responsible for somebody else's words, I posted it to give a broader view of the opinions/viewpoints/whatever you want to call it out there.


Ah, and Agent Orange isnt a weapon, it's a toxin.

Can I spray your children with it?


 
iggy Posted: Thu Feb 19 19:36:30 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>I really hate to be the one to always strike up a disagreement with you hif. Either every other gter here is a conservative, or they're too wimpy to stand up for their beliefs and do a little verbal debating with ya.

i resent that too. like u, hif, christophe , the rest of GT has their own point of views on this too.

but we know from our experiences here that this will be one of those neverending argument with all fact and figures proving each others point and all... and nothing will be resolved. just like one of those boring government meetings.

for this matter, i would rather sit out.



 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 19 19:48:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Some quotes I'd like to throw at all of this:



Truth is always the enemy of power. And power the enemy of truth.


A grasshopper is always wrong in an argument with a chicken.


Anything that begins well, ends badly.
Anything that begins badly, ends worse.


The greatest of all faults, I should say, is to be conscious of none.


One should guard against believing the great masses to be more stupid than they actually are




And las but not least:

Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 19 20:05:16 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  chanz, christophe, libra, Asswipe, marsteller, others?

all I was trying to do was bait a few more of you to join in. It was just my tongue in cheek way (okay, a poor one in hindsight) of callin out any reserves, hoping to avoid a hif, addi, hif, addi, etc., thread. At the time I started writing my response hif's was the only post there.

I hope you know me well enough by now to know that I wasn't trying to create resentment or make personal attacks.


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 19 20:08:16 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
> I hope you know me well enough by now to know that I wasn't trying to create resentment or make personal attacks.


Hmm, no kidding.

I really thought you were trying to offend and hurt me so that I wouldn't be able to sleep tonight.

:o)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 19 20:11:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>And las but not least:
>
>Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.

ah yes, and this is the one I would like to commment on because, in my younger years, I was a liberal.
As I have grown older and wiser, I have come to the conservative side of the political pendulum.
I believe that last quote applies very much to you Christophe.

In any event, I was not trying to open up this can of worms.
My original intent was to get some kind of compelling argument for the liberals calling Dubya a liar over the WMD's in Iraq and that never happened.
The reason it didn't is because he did not lie about them and there is absolutely no evidence that he did. However the liberals continue to say he lied to get us into a war.
It just didn't happen.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 19 20:15:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>chanz, christophe, libra, Asswipe, marsteller, others?
>
>all I was trying to do was bait a few more of you to join in. It was just my tongue in cheek way (okay, a poor one in hindsight) of callin out any reserves, hoping to avoid a hif, addi, hif, addi, etc., thread. At the time I started writing my response hif's was the only post there.
>
> I hope you know me well enough by now to know that I wasn't trying to create resentment or make personal attacks.

you guys took offense at that ?
c'mon . . . he just needs help to parry and thrust with king thong, that's all.
No offense was intended I'm sure as it is very obvious when addie's pen is pissed and this surely was not one of those times.
Besides, it's a goddamm election year here and his guy has no hope whatsoever.


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 19 20:20:43 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>And las but not least:
>>
>>Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.
>
>ah yes, and this is the one I would like to commment on because, in my younger years, I was a liberal.
>As I have grown older and wiser, I have come to the conservative side of the political pendulum.
>I believe that last quote applies very much to you Christophe.

I never said it didn't.

I feel a bit offended by that last remark, don't know if it was intentional but there is something I'd like to say about that though:

I don't like to be paternalised.

I think the quote applies as much to you as it applies to me.

Because you changed sides it doesn't mean you automaticly changed to the 'good' one.

I have my believes, you have yours.

It's not because you were of the same opinion when you had my age and your views changed that mine will change as well and that you can consider being a conservative as an evolution of being a liberal.

You being "older and wiser" doesn't have anything to do with automaticly giving you the benefit of the doubt or giving you the right to think that your opinions are worth more than mine because of the fact that I happened to be born a bit later than you.

By saying that you make it seem like liberals don't have a clue about what life is about and the wise people who know what they're talking about chose to be conservatives.

I think that most of the time I know pretty well what I'm talking about and I have arguments to back the things that I say, you can correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Again, I don't know if I took this the way it was meant, and if the way it came across was intentional or not, whatever the case might be, know very well that I don't like to be discriminated solely because of my age and the seemingly automatic lack of intelligence as a result of it.


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 19 20:20:50 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I resent that.

chanz said:
>i resent that too.

just responding to what was posted. I know you're not gonna lose any sleep. lol
just wanted to make sure folks knew my intent, cuz it obviously struck a bad chord.


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 19 21:04:04 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

Hif coming to Addi's defense. What's this world coming to? I can't ignore this! : )

>you guys took offense at that ?
>c'mon . . . he just needs help to parry and thrust with king thong, that's all.

Sounds kinda sexual LOL!!
Keep it coming, hif. It will make this Novembers results all the sweeter for me.


>Besides, it's a goddamm election year here and his guy has no hope whatsoever.

take a long hard look at the most recent polls. I did (even Fox News poll, big smile) Yeah, there's many miles to go yet, but it's beginning to look like Dubya is pulling off the same trick his daddy did during his election year. The decline in his poll numbers over the past months, and the increased numbers for ANY democratic opponent should be giving republican strategists nightmares.
The American voters are a constant sourse of puzzlement and mystery. What looked all but over not that long ago is now a neck and neck horserace, and the big "M"(momentum) is not with Dubya. We shall see.





 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Feb 19 21:46:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i think the most insightful words came from the fingers of mr marstellar here w/ his Machiavelli quote. although marstellar is a dumb ass who prolly doesn't even know what country we recently invaded, The Prince is a very insightful book into the ways of the rulers.

to very vaguely outline it he talks about fear being the ultimate control of power(something very much existing today, although how it's being used is not entirely sure), also he talks about the ruler never allowing people to see his true sides and his true intentions. he must always keep them thinking he're something noble and just, benefiting the public good, etc. no matter what your intentions are.

what i'm getting at, and i usually get at w/ these stupid political threads, is that no one knows what the fuck is going on. no one knows who forged those certificates guarenteeing that saddam had WMD's, no one knows why bush and his buddies pushed to invade as quick as they did w/ only the least bit of diplomacy. there are theories, but they're prolly not right, or only containing a bit of the reasons.

no one has enough certifiable knowledge about this shit to make an educated decision, it's like our fackin religious debates.

payce!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 19 21:49:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>Hif coming to Addi's defense. What's this world coming to? I can't ignore this! : )
>
>>you guys took offense at that ?
>>c'mon . . . he just needs help to parry and thrust with king thong, that's all.
>
>Sounds kinda sexual LOL!!
>Keep it coming, hif. It will make this Novembers results all the sweeter for me.
>
>
>>Besides, it's a goddamm election year here and his guy has no hope whatsoever.
>
>take a long hard look at the most recent polls. I did (even Fox News poll, big smile) Yeah, there's many miles to go yet, but it's beginning to look like Dubya is pulling off the same trick his daddy did during his election year. The decline in his poll numbers over the past months, and the increased numbers for ANY democratic opponent should be giving republican strategists nightmares.
>The American voters are a constant sourse of puzzlement and mystery. What looked all but over not that long ago is now a neck and neck horserace, and the big "M"(momentum) is not with Dubya. We shall see.
>
ah yes, but you very well know that the polls mean nothing right now.
Dubya hasn't even started campaigning in earnest. When he does, he will bury JFK.
In my opinion, Edwards would be a better challenger than Kerry.
Kerry has a lot of skeletons in his closet and they will all come back to haunt him in the fall.
Heck, I don't even think badly of Edwards, but I prolly bear more animosity towards Kerry than you do for Dubya.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 19 21:54:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>what i'm getting at, and i usually get at w/ these stupid political threads, is that no one knows what the fuck is going on. no one knows who forged those certificates guarenteeing that saddam had WMD's, no one knows why bush and his buddies pushed to invade as quick as they did w/ only the least bit of diplomacy. there are theories, but they're prolly not right, or only containing a bit of the reasons.
>
A couple of things wrong with your argument.
Firstly, those "forged" documents you speak of had nothing to do with the big picture. The facts are that Mr. Blix had documented WMD's before he was expelled and there was no reason to think they were no longer there. That in itself was enough to enforce the UN resolutions.
As for the lack of diplomacy, don't you really think that 12 years of UN resolutions and demands to disarm were enough ? I mean really. . .12 years !
This was not a rush to war.


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 19 22:30:04 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:


>what i'm getting at, and i usually get at w/ these stupid political threads, is that no one knows what the fuck is going on. >no one has enough certifiable knowledge about this shit to make an educated decision, it's like our fackin religious debates.

I am mostly with you here Asswipe. We don't and can't really know for sure what intensions were and get 100% into the minds of the people who make the decisions. But I see it somewhat like a puzzle. After a while pieces are slowly put together hear and there and a pattern starts to develop. You can have an educated guess about what the whole picture looks like.
Over the past year bits and pieces of the truth, relatively speaking, have become evident. Past Bush employees, UN people, intelligence officials, even the president himself finally admitted to mistakes in intelligence analysis, knowing he couldn't continue to ignore all the facts. Those bits and pieces don't give us perfect clarity, as you point out, but they do shed some light on the matter, and help us come to reasoned conclusions. We're in the dark, but we do have bic lighters to make out the shadows from reality.

And being in the dark about God and religion, and being clueless about political events I view as two entirely different things. In matters of faith we are usually ignorant. In politics we are more often stupid.


 
Asswipe Posted: Fri Feb 20 02:21:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>>
>A couple of things wrong with your argument.
>Firstly, those "forged" documents you speak of had nothing to do with the big picture. The facts are that Mr. Blix had documented WMD's before he was expelled and there was no reason to think they were no longer there. That in itself was enough to enforce the UN resolutions.

We don't know what those forged documents mean. Listen, if they were forged, that means someone wanted to give us evidance that would help push us into a war with Iraq. That means someone wants the US to go to war for reasons that would not be publicly approved of. We don't know how that connects to the big picture at all, but it certainly could mean something major.

I didn't know what you were talking about w/ Blixx so I searched for him on the net and the first article I found has quotes with blix saying that there is "no concrete evidence" for WMDs existing and any "massive evidence of a system of secret laboratories in Iraq" is pure "innuendo." Blix believes the weapons were destroyed in the early '90s.

Blix rejects Blair WMD claims:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3326077.stm

>As for the lack of diplomacy, don't you really think that 12 years of UN resolutions and demands to disarm were enough ? I mean really. . .12 years !
>This was not a rush to war.

well, i also wasn't too sure about the facts behind this one so I tried to do some research. I looked up UN resolutions and Iraq on Google, got a list of the resolutions they apparently broke. I began to search for the exact resolutions to read over what exactly they broke but this just linked me to more referals to other resolutions... lots of document reading... not good for stoned eyes. oh well, maybe i'll look into it tomorrow.


 
Asswipe Posted: Fri Feb 20 02:41:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>I am mostly with you here Asswipe. We don't and can't really know for sure what intensions were and get 100% into the minds of the people who make the decisions. But I see it somewhat like a puzzle. After a while pieces are slowly put together hear and there and a pattern starts to develop. You can have an educated guess about what the whole picture looks like.

good point

>Over the past year bits and pieces of the truth, relatively speaking, have become evident. Past Bush employees, UN people, intelligence officials, even the president himself finally admitted to mistakes in intelligence analysis, knowing he couldn't continue to ignore all the facts. Those bits and pieces don't give us perfect clarity, as you point out, but they do shed some light on the matter, and help us come to reasoned conclusions. We're in the dark, but we do have bic lighters to make out the shadows from reality.
>

heh, real nice image at the end of that piece there but i'm not sure if i fully believe these bic lighters are powerful enough for our lazy hands. Do any of us actually research the stuff moreso than watching various news channels that slap us w/ a point of view?

It may be because I'm stoned but i'm suddenly driven to start... checking out all the facts as best I can, cause i definatly don't as much as I should.

its a shitty world to be paranoid in.



 
addi Posted: Fri Feb 20 07:04:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:

>its a shitty world to be paranoid in.


: ) Great line. The Feds should consider using that as copy in their next anti-drug commercials...


"Wanna get stoned? Remember: It's a shitty world to be paranoid in!"




 
marsteller Posted: Fri Feb 20 12:48:16 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  does anyone disagree that Saddam was a bad guy? or that things will generally be better/safer for the people of Iraq and the rest of the world now that he's out of power?


 
marsi Posted: Fri Feb 20 16:30:07 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I agree that Saddam was a bad guy and that things will generally be better/safer for the people of Iraq now that he's out of power.


 
Asswipe Posted: Fri Feb 20 23:06:56 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>does anyone disagree that Saddam was a bad guy? or that things will generally be better/safer for the people of Iraq and the rest of the world now that he's out of power?

it ain't that simple man. tell me the forging of documents to supply more evidance to support a war doesn't make you think something else is going on.


 
Kira Posted: Sat Feb 21 00:35:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>
>In my opinion, Edwards would be a better challenger than Kerry.
>Kerry has a lot of skeletons in his closet and they will all come back to haunt him in the fall.
>Heck, I don't even think badly of Edwards, but I prolly bear more animosity towards Kerry than you do for Dubya.

John Edwards is a fucking asshole.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Feb 21 08:21:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sailovzi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>
>>In my opinion, Edwards would be a better challenger than Kerry.
>>Kerry has a lot of skeletons in his closet and they will all come back to haunt him in the fall.
>>Heck, I don't even think badly of Edwards, but I prolly bear more animosity towards Kerry than you do for Dubya.
>
>John Edwards is a fucking asshole.

Of course he's and asshole, but he's still better than Kerry.


 
mat_j Posted: Sun Feb 22 13:23:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Brilliant, one of these.


George Bush touches my peepee


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]