PDA

View Full Version : President Bush Is Going To Give IRAQ WMD Evidence Information


Pages : [1] 2

Jedi Knight
5th June 2003, 03:46 PM
Radical leftists in the United States with their Stalinist allies in Europe for the past week have been attacking the Bush Administration for not providing evidence of Iraqi WMD.

President Bush said he is going to provide (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/sprj.irq.wmd.controversy/index.html) the proof.

I think the left is going to have a huge cream-pie in its face again. Or maybe a lard-pie lol.

Whatever the pie, the US has Iraqi WMD evidence and the left will cower when the evidence is revealed.

JK

no one in particular
5th June 2003, 04:01 PM
Odd, Jedi. I found the word “proof” no where in the document. I certainly do hope that the final justification for the war is found. And the “mobile biological weapons facilities” are actually somewhat encouraging. Not that I care so much; I would have supported the action without the wmd charade. However, the credibility of the administration is stressed by the issue.

You should view your ability to find what you want out of this story as an example of your inability to look at a given situation with impartiality. The closest President Bush comes to meeting your claim is that he says: We're on the look. We'll reveal the truth.I find this actually to be a step back from President Bush’s previous claims.

Nasarius
5th June 2003, 04:02 PM
That's what I thought too when I saw the headline, JK. But then you actually read what he said and it's just another empty promise of "yeah, we'll find something...some day".

Segnosaur
5th June 2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by no one in particular
Not that I care so much; I would have supported the action without the wmd charade. However, the credibility of the administration is stressed by the issue.



I have to agree here.... I too supported the war, partly for WMD (not because of Bush's claims, but because of Iraqi actions), and partly for other reasons (humanitarian, terrorism, and others.)

However, I feel the administraton went too far in their claims prior to the war, and continued insistance that 'proof is coming' damages credibility, especially if the 'proof' is not substantial. (I do consider the mobile labs important, but they've already been presented in the past.)

Jedi Knight
5th June 2003, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by no one in particular
Odd, Jedi. I found the word “proof” no where in the document. I certainly do hope that the final justification for the war is found. And the “mobile biological weapons facilities” are actually somewhat encouraging. Not that I care so much; I would have supported the action without the wmd charade. However, the credibility of the administration is stressed by the issue.

You should view your ability to find what you want out of this story as an example of your inability to look at a given situation with impartiality. The closest President Bush comes to meeting your claim is that he says: I find this actually to be a step back from President Bush’s previous claims.

Well, the problem with dealing with socialist-terrorists like Saddam is that they have many allies in Europe (France and Germany are two).

You see, to France and Germany, 300,000 men, women and children tortured, gassed with sarin/VX and killed overall and buried in mass graves was not enough of a reason to invade. Plus the fact that the UN collectively weighed 56 UN resolutions against Iraq which Iraq disobeyed in their entirety also wasn't a reason to invade.

So between the 56 UN resolutions he ignored and the 300,000 people he killed, I can see why no excuse to go in and get him is really good enough for the radical left.

In fact, I am glad we invaded and took Saddam out. I didn't even need a reason to feel that we shouldn't.

JK

Malachi151
5th June 2003, 04:36 PM
To quote myself:

Whether this war be right or wrong, and whether its immediate consequences be good or bad, there can be no denial that the nation was moved to war with lies.

The Fool
5th June 2003, 04:40 PM
Hey JK.

WMD nave already been found remember? You said Blair had announced it remember? ooops..... I'm quite surprised that you have not got GWB announcing they have been found, after all, Blair saying he thinks they will be found was enough for you to fabricate a blair statement that they have actually been found....whats the difference here? Why are you comfortable with Fabricating statements from Blair but not Bush?

Tricky
5th June 2003, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Well, the problem with dealing with socialist-terrorists like Saddam is that they have many allies in Europe (France and Germany are two).
This is the howler to me. Saddam was a socialist? Tell me Jedi, what socialist programs did Saddam espouse? Socialized medicine? Redistribution of wealth?

Really do you just spout these words because of some strange bigots' Turrette's syndrome? Did you misplace your tokens for the clue bus?

Ion
5th June 2003, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

...
...the US has Iraqi WMD evidence and the left will cower when the evidence is revealed.

JK
So:

there is no evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq.

After Bush:

.) yelled "Iraq must disarm." 48 hours before attacking Iraq,

.) cut the U.N. inspections searching for WMD in Iraq,

.) bypassed the U.N. Security Council,

.) lied in Congress with a forged document that there were ties between Nigeria and Iraq in an Iraqi nuclear program, so based on this forged document the Congress declared war on Iraq,

.) attacked Iraq and killed Iraqis with $78 billion so far;

.) neglected the U.S. economy by not stimulating it with this $78 billion;

.) 'liberated' Iraq, U.S.S.R. style (i.e.: the invasion of Afghanistan in 1980);

.) gets the Iraqi oil to be traded in U.S. dollars and not Euros anymore.

Nice:

'Ace Ventura, Pet Detective' and his supporters in these facts, are not comic anymore.

They are tragic, as in lives that are lost and maimed, because of 'Ace Ventura' Bush's lies, faith and incompetence.

corplinx
5th June 2003, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Tricky

This is the howler to me. Saddam was a socialist? Tell me Jedi, what socialist programs did Saddam espouse? Socialized medicine? Redistribution of wealth?



Most employed Iraqis worked for the state. Currently its a source of tension since now the majority of employed Iraqis were layed off as a result of their employer filing chapter 86.

What do you call a country like Iraq? Communist? Socialist? I call it a cluster-f*ck.

a_unique_person
5th June 2003, 05:29 PM
First of all it took ages to present the evidence to the UN, now it is taking ages to present the evidence again.

I think the truth is easy to say, it is the lies that take a while to work out.

Gem
5th June 2003, 05:30 PM
.) 'liberated' Iraq, U.S.S.R. style (i.e.: the invasion of Afghanistan in 1980);

I would have to disagree on this point. the USSR Afgan invasion is a lot different fromt he Iraq war, in terms of military strategy, time and humanitarian treatment of civilians. If you want to compare Soviet invasion of Afganistan to a US war, compare it to Viet-Nam.

Gem

Ion
5th June 2003, 05:46 PM
My point there, is that according to the news of the fights and protests in Iraq, the Iraqis feel as much 'liberated' by Bush in this war, as they would have been by the former U.S.S.R., or by Japan, China or any other culture that has nothing in common with them.

The Iraqis say to this kind of 'liberation':

no, thanks.

And by the way:

there are no WMD, imminent threat WMD -mind you-, either.

But gee:

there is oil in Iraq, and there is Halliburton in U.S. where the U.S. Vice-President Cheney was C.E.O. in 2000.

The Fool
5th June 2003, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Tricky



Really do you just spout these words because of some strange bigots' Turrette's syndrome? Did you misplace your tokens for the clue bus?

Tricky..... When all the worlds problems are caused by an evil conspiracy of socialists then anyone who causes a problem must be a socialist. Thats how JK can comfortably label totalitarian dictators as socialists....

Anyway, why not join me in a song?

Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
Cryptofacistfeminaziliberalalidocious!
Even though the sound of it
Is something quite atrocious
If you say it loud enough
You'll always sound precocious
Cryptofacistfeminaziliberalalidocious!

no one in particular
5th June 2003, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Ion

there is oil in Iraq, and there is Halliburton in the U.S. where the U.S. Vice-President Cheney used to be C.E.O. in 2000. My, my Ion . You certainly are pessimistic. I would think you would be more positive .





I herby declare that this joke should never be used again!



edited to bold/size4/underline/color the main premises of the joke.

Ion
5th June 2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by no one in particular

...
I herby declare that this joke should never be used again!
OK.

Tell this "...this joke should never be used again!" to Bush:

this joke of a war went way too far.

no one in particular
5th June 2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Ion

OK.

Tell this "...this joke should never be used again!" to Bush:

this joke of a war went way too far. Chuckle, I assumed you would get the joke, sorry. Would someone else like to explain to “Ion” what he/she missed?

Ion
5th June 2003, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by no one in particular

...
Would someone else like to explain to “Ion” what he/she missed?
Start with what you missed.

Jedi Knight
5th June 2003, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Tricky

This is the howler to me. Saddam was a socialist? Tell me Jedi, what socialist programs did Saddam espouse? Socialized medicine? Redistribution of wealth?

Really do you just spout these words because of some strange bigots' Turrette's syndrome? Did you misplace your tokens for the clue bus?

Gosh, you mean to say Iraq was a democracy before we invaded? :eek:

JK

Bjorn
5th June 2003, 06:35 PM
I don't believe what I'm reading.

Are there only two alternatives - democracy or socialist? :rolleyes:

What about all the americans here claiming that the US is not a democracy? It must be socialist then ... :p

Ion
5th June 2003, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

...you mean to say Iraq was a democracy before we invaded? :eek:

JK
You mean to say that Iraq is a democracy after U.S. invaded it?

Jedi Knight
5th June 2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by Bjorn
I don't believe what I'm reading.

Are there only two alternatives - democracy or socialist? :rolleyes:

What about all the americans here claiming that the US is not a democracy? It must be socialist then ... :p

America isn't a socialist country yet, but it is well on its way to turning into one.

Iraq was a socialist Satrap nation-state.

If you guys want lessons about all these countries and their political systems, I tutor for $45.00 an hour.

JK

Jedi Knight
5th June 2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Ion

You mean to say that Iraq is a democracy after U.S. invaded it?

Right now it is even freer. That will change once the angry feminist matriarchal totalitarians begin to influence policy remotely over there and really do a job on the Iraqis.

JK

Ed
5th June 2003, 06:42 PM
And if GWB produces nothing in some reasonable time (say a month), JK, will you agree with me that he is a lieing coward?

Again, I am not saying that the war was not for the good, just that GWB is an LC.

Ion
5th June 2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Right now it is even freer.
...
JK

It is as free as China invading Iraq with Chinese style of freedom values.

By the same token of 'freer', how would you like the Iraqis taking over U.S. with their 'freeing' values?

Jedi Knight
5th June 2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Ed
And if GWB produces nothing in some reasonable time (say a month), JK, will you agree with me that he is a lieing coward?

Again, I am not saying that the war was not for the good, just that GWB is an LC.

Bush never lied. You guys are perpetuating a European socialist pro-Saddam cover. France and Germany provided cover for Saddam to shift his WMD assets. The weeks the UN was indecisive before the invasion combined with the majorly wasted time Hans Blix used bringing a handful of inspectors back to Iraq was used by the Baath Party to mask its WMD.

I have no doubts whatsoever that more Iraqi WMD will turn up because it already is.

JK

Ion
5th June 2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Bush never lied.
...
JK
Under Bush's watch:

.) it was a U.S. report lying in the U.N. Security Council,

.) it was a forged document about an Iraqi nuclear program aided by Nigeria, that convinced the U.S. Congress to war against Iraq.

These lies killed Iraqis in a war costing U.S. $78 billion.

The $78 billion were not invested instead in the U.S. economy.

The newspaper The San Diego Union Tribune from Thursday May 22, 2003, reports under 'CIA conducting review of prewar reports on Iraq':

"The failure of U.S. forces to find either conclusive evidence of Iraq's ties to Al-Qaeda or unconventional weapons has added urgency to the study's outcome.
The review, which has the support of many analysts and officials who have said the intelligence on Iraq was politicized,..."

Read carefully:

"...the intelligence on Iraq was politicized,...".

Like U.S.S.R. used to be, U.S. is now:

.) military,

and

.) not much of a strong economy -2.8 million jobs lost since 2000, that could have been better supported with $78 billion-.

Bush spells disaster.

Crossbow
5th June 2003, 07:06 PM
These boobs said they had the proof that would show just what a danger Iraq actually is long before the shooting even started. But of course, they never showed it.

Now that the shooting is over, they still do not have this proof.

Guess what? We have been lied to again in order to justify a war that was not necessary.

Bjorn
5th June 2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight
If you guys want lessons about all these countries and their political systems, I tutor for $45.00 an hour.
JK Hehe.

I'll think about listening for that kind of money .... please send a recorded lecture and the money order? :p

Ladewig
5th June 2003, 07:19 PM
The Fool-
Cryptofacistfeminaziliberalalidocious!

Bravo! Bravo!

Ion
5th June 2003, 07:39 PM
Okey dokey, then.
Originally posted by Crossbow
These boobs said they had the proof that would show just what a danger Iraq actually is long before the shooting even started. But of course, they never showed it.

Now that the shooting is over, they still do not have this proof.

Guess what? We have been lied to again in order to justify a war that was not necessary.
Yes:

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

"I don't know the answer."

Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003

and from:

Wolfowitz admits war about oil. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970331,00.html)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, how much of this U.S. religious and neo-conservative goofing is affecting life on earth?

Hundreds of dead and mutilated, $78 billion wasted, 2.8 million jobs in U.S. that are lost and not fought for, U.S. international relations severed from Europe to Africa.

Ed
5th June 2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Bush never lied. You guys are perpetuating a European socialist pro-Saddam cover.
JK

Horseshet, JK. I said precisely this (about how he damn well better deliver WMD's) before the stupid war even started since GWD was hanging the whole thing on that assertion. Tell me. Is demanding honesty particularly European or socialist? Are you suggesting that the outrage that some felt over Clinton's unfamiliarity with the concept of truth was socialist? This is not a reaction on the part of commies to a sucessful war, rather it is a question that was held in abeyance during hostilities that now is appropriately surfacing.

Frankly, JK, the more you spin this thing, the less your credibility.

Jedi Knight
5th June 2003, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Ed


Horseshet, JK. I said precisely this (about how he damn well better deliver WMD's) before the stupid war even started since GWD was hanging the whole thing on that assertion. Tell me. Is demanding honesty particularly European or socialist? Are you suggesting that the outrage that some felt over Clinton's unfamiliarity with the concept of truth was socialist? This is not a reaction on the part of commies to a sucessful war, rather it is a question that was held in abeyance during hostilities that now is appropriately surfacing.

Frankly, JK, the more you spin this thing, the less your credibility.

My credibility sparkles like the sun with brilliance and warmth and unwavering power.

You said Bush lied. He didn't lie. The only thing Bush has done is quote accurate intel reports of Saddam's WMD capabilities. If Saddam came clean he would not have been invaded and destroyed. Saddam wanted the fight and he got it.

Also, my pointing out of the leftist attacks on Bush regardless of the circumstances regarding the war is right on target too. European leaders knew of the genocide there. Saddam has killed more Muslims than any other man in written history--yet Europe was silent about it.

The US has found WMD in Iraq. Case closed. Iraq was taken out and is now being rebuilt--game over.

Bush is the man, the myth, the legend. He is untouchable. He is the real kevlar president, and he saved the United States from destruction from Iraqi terrorist WMD support. Bush deserves a medal.

I think guys like you in denial are the ones with credibility issues.

JK

Ion
5th June 2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

...
Bush is the man, the myth, the legend. He is untouchable. He is the real kevlar president, and he saved the United States from destruction from Iraqi terrorist WMD support. Bush deserves a medal.
...
JK
Sure, Bush deserves a medal:

from you.

Me, I stick with this:
Originally posted by Ion

...
The newspaper The San Diego Union Tribune from Thursday May 22, 2003, reports under 'CIA conducting review of prewar reports on Iraq':

"The failure of U.S. forces to find either conclusive evidence of Iraq's ties to Al-Qaeda or unconventional weapons has added urgency to the study's outcome.
The review, which has the support of many analysts and officials who have said the intelligence on Iraq was politicized,..."
...

To each, its own, you know?

Ion
5th June 2003, 08:33 PM
Below is as 'good' as the mobile biological weapons facility get, according to a report by the Pentagon.

The report notes that the trailers contain a fermenter, water-supply tanks, an air compressor, a water-chiller, a device for collecting exhaust gases—just the right components for an "ingeniously simple, self-contained bioprocessing system." The trailers are also "strikingly similar" to descriptions of mobile-bioweapons plants provided by Iraqi exiles who claim to have worked in them or witnessed others who did. Secretary of State Colin Powell displayed drawings, based on these descriptions, during his Feb. 5 "smoking-gun" briefing to the U.N. Security Council.

Together with this Pentagon report, a CIA report reveals considerable ambiguity about the nature of these vehicles. For example, it notes that Iraqi officials—presumably those currently being interrogated—say the trailers were used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather-balloons.

(Note: many army units float balloons to monitor the accuracy of artillery fire.)

In response to this claim, the report states:

"Some of the features of the trailer—a gas-collection system and the presence of caustic—are consistent with both bioproduction and hydrogen production. The plant's design possibly could be used to produce hydrogen using a chemical reaction, but it would be inefficient. The capacity of this trailer is larger than the typical units for hydrogen production for weather balloons."

(One could ask: since when was Saddam's Iraq considered a model of efficiency?)

The report concedes that U.S. officials found no traces of any bioweapons agent inside the trailers. "We suspect," it states, "that the Iraqis thoroughly decontaminated the vehicle to remove evidence."

(Comment: that's possible.)

The report also notes that, in order to produce biological weapons, each trailer would have to be accompanied by a second and possibly a third trailer, specially designed to grow, process, sterilize, and dry the bacteria. Such trailers would "have equipment such as mixing tanks, centrifuges, and spray dryers"—none of which were spotted in the trailers that were found.
The problem, the CIA acknowledges, is that "we have not yet found" these post-production trailers.

(Question: is it that they haven't been found—or that they don't exist?)

Ed
5th June 2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


My credibility sparkles like the sun with brilliance and warmth and unwavering power.

You sound like a laundry detergent. If you would have said "unwashed" rather than "unwavering" it would have been more manly. As it is it sounds rather pretty boy

You said Bush lied. He didn't lie.

So far the only interpretation is that he did. I really do hope that that changes

The only thing Bush has done is quote accurate intel reports of Saddam's WMD capabilities.

You have no idea what he quoted, where it came from, how it was reworked. Neither do I. We only know what he said

If Saddam came clean he would not have been invaded and destroyed. Saddam wanted the fight and he got it.

Saddam was an idiot and got what he deserved. Whether he could have avoided it or not is another issue. You will recall GWB raising the stakes at the last minute, not unlike adding to an already winning bid on ebay. S was doomed from the start of this charade, IMO

Also, my pointing out of the leftist attacks on Bush regardless of the circumstances regarding the war is right on target too.

I have no doubt that leftists attack Bush. Frankly the syncopated whining about Nixon, Regan, GWB1 and GWB2 is so pro forma and predictable that it has as much impact as Jesse Jackson yelling "racism". Your pointing this out is superfluous

European leaders knew of the genocide there. Saddam has killed more Muslims than any other man in written history--yet Europe was silent about it.

Many if not most governments in Europe strike me as craven and perfidious. JK, this is not a news flash.

The US has found WMD in Iraq. Case closed. Iraq was taken out and is now being rebuilt--game over.

WHOA THERE SPARKEY. If what they found requires technical interpritation that resulkts in debate it is not the discovery of anything.

Bush is the man, the myth, the legend. He is untouchable. He is the real kevlar president,

I agree with the "man" and "myth" part. Legends can be good or bad, we'll see. For the moment he is untouchable and that implies teflon more than kevlar. Had he told the truth at the outset I might have voted for kevlar

and he saved the United States from destruction from Iraqi terrorist WMD support. Bush deserves a medal.

Oh please. Were you chuckling when you typed this? Tell me you were.

I think guys like you in denial are the ones with credibility issues.

I ask for proof, you believe anything. Let me ask you the critical question that one would ask any woo-woo believer (like in crystals and that crap) "what would it take for you to change your opinion?" If the answer is "nothing would" or silence, you have abandoned rational, critical thought.

JK
ED

Ed
5th June 2003, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Ion
Below is as 'good' as the mobile biological weapons facility get, according to a report by the Pentagon.

Vanishing Agents

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report notes that the trailers contain a fermenter, water-supply tanks, an air compressor, a water-chiller, a device for collecting exhaust gases—just the right components for an "ingeniously simple, self-contained bioprocessing system." .


Criminey. It sounds like a still:eek: AND in a Moslem country. I am shocked, shocked.

Khalid01
5th June 2003, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Bush is the man, the myth, the legend. He is untouchable. He is the real kevlar president, and he saved the United States from destruction from Iraqi terrorist WMD support. Bush deserves a medal.


JK never ceases to amaze me... in a disheartening and nauseating manner. I just can't comprihend the above statement. Having recently finished 1984 recently, I can't help thinking that JK is participating in some sort of "doublethink". This is statement is just buried in falsehood. I think I need to lie down...

Jedi Knight
5th June 2003, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by Khalid01


JK never ceases to amaze me... in a disheartening and nauseating manner. I just can't comprihend the above statement. Having recently finished 1984 recently, I can't help thinking that JK is participating in some sort of "doublethink". This is statement is just buried in falsehood. I think I need to lie down...

Go ahead and lie down. What I am talking about can't be learned inside a leftist university.

How can the leftist talking heads really understand the real world? Do you honestly believe that guys like Saddam can be bargained with--negotiated with? You can't negotiate with those people. You have to set the rules and when the rules get broken by men like Saddam you have to go in there and kill them. In my life I have been a pretty good judge of men. Men can be judged by how they value life.

The left attacks the very attempt to defend from men like Saddam. The debate to go to war with Iraq started with 300,000 dead Muslims at the hands of Saddam, the most killed in history by any man on Earth. The left ignored it, went to McDonald's, bought a cheeseburger, watched a movie, then went home to figure out ways to subvert US national security.

No amount of apologist rhetoric stopped Iraq from going down. The left can whine about the WMD, and the remarkable thing about that is that I think the WMD delay is to shield allies who helped Saddam with his WMD, especially France. Imagine that--we are shielding France from international embarrassment, while at the same time we are getting blamed for shielding them.

I guess the Bush Administration chose France and NATO over US international prestige with the WMD issue. That is what I think is happening but I could be wrong.

Either way, if you really need to lie down, go take a nap and ponder how the left can be apologists for a man like Saddam who killed more Muslims than anyone ever in the entire history of man.

JK

Ion
5th June 2003, 09:58 PM
Jedi Knight,

read this, to help you growing up:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

It's about considering Bush to be impeachable from the U.S. Presidency due to his lying on whether WMD exist in Iraq, then attacking Iraq in an almost solo U.S. war.

Good luck to you.

corplinx
5th June 2003, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by Ion
(Question: is it that they haven't been found—or that they don't exist?)


Interesting question.

A. Perhaps they don't exist, because the trailers were not intended as mobile germ labs.

B. Perhaps they don't exist, because they weren't built yet. One of the discovered trailers apparently wasn't finished.

C. Perhaps the latter processing was done in a bunker. (perhaps that part would eventually be done in mobile labs also)

Many possibilities. What we need are uncoerced confessions corroborating what these were for.

Jedi Knight
5th June 2003, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Ed



Criminey. It sounds like a still:eek: AND in a Moslem country. I am shocked, shocked.

Why hasn't France demanded to see the WMD? Because they helped Saddam make it, hide it, and now that the US has forgiven them, they are conveniently forgetting it.

JK

Gem
5th June 2003, 10:04 PM
Why hasn't France demanded to see the WMD? Because they helped Saddam make it, hide it, and now that the US has forgiven them, they are conveniently forgetting it.

Yeah, the US is such a great country with JK apoligies everything the US does, unless it was done by a democratic president (except FDR).

Gem

P.S.: Are we suppose to call you a Bush apoligizer now? I won't until next year.

Jedi Knight
5th June 2003, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Ion
Jedi Knight,

read this, to help you growing up:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

It's about considering Bush to be impeachable from the U.S. Presidency due to his lying on whether WMD exist in Iraq, then attacking Iraq in an almost solo U.S. war.

Good luck to you.

Good luck to me? I am a 4-leaf clover, baby. Bush is the man and don't you forget it.

JK

Jedi Knight
5th June 2003, 10:19 PM
The last time Castro said nasty things about President Bush, Castro fell off a stage and wound up in the hospital.

Good men have mantles of protection. It is really strange how things like that work.

JK

peptoabysmal
5th June 2003, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Ion
"Some of the features of the trailer—a gas-collection system and the presence of caustic—are consistent with both bioproduction and hydrogen production. The plant's design possibly could be used to produce hydrogen using a chemical reaction, but it would be inefficient. The capacity of this trailer is larger than the typical units for hydrogen production for weather balloons."

(One could ask: since when was Saddam's Iraq considered a model of efficiency?)


One could also ask why, in an oil-rich country would you need hydrogen? Thermonuclear warheads perhaps? Besides, weather baloons usually use helium, because it doesn't have the nasty side effect of exploding like the Hindenburg.

Ion
5th June 2003, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by corplinx

...
Many possibilities. What we need are uncoerced confessions corroborating what these were for.
In any case, like the U.N. Security Council was saying:

there was no imminent clear threat, the U.N. inspections were in progress, and Saddam didn't have missiles to launch WMDs to neighboring countries, never mind to launch WMDs into the U.S., 3000 miles too far away for that -WMDs that don't exist in proof anyway-.

Ion
5th June 2003, 10:30 PM
Any evidence for this, kiddo?
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Why hasn't France demanded to see the WMD? Because they helped Saddam make it, hide it, and now that the US has forgiven them, they are conveniently forgetting it.
JK
Because without evidence, you might as well post in this thread about Santa Claus' possession of WMD.

Jedi Knight
5th June 2003, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Ion
Any evidence for this, kiddo?

Because without evidence, you might as well post in this thread about Santa Claus' possession of WMD.

Really? Santa gassed 100,000 of his own people like Saddam did? Then Santa just wasn't interested in WMD anymore? Gosh, you are a bright one.

JK

Ion
5th June 2003, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Really? Santa gassed 100,000 of his own people like Saddam did?
JK
You know?

This is a good question for you and Bush.

I hope you two, work it out.

Then it would make sense for both of you, that based on it, you and Bush attack someone, some country, somewhere and claim war on terrorism.

Jedi Knight
5th June 2003, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by Ion

You know?

This is a good question for you and Bush.

I hope you two, work it out.

Then it would make sense for both of you, that based on it, you and Bush attack someone, some country, somewhere and claim war on terrorism.

You're funny. Saddam gassed 100,000 of his own people with Sarin, killed 300,000 more with death squad activity and buried the victims in mass graves, invaded a defenseless neighbor (Kuwait), and you mean to tell me he was innocent?

Sorry, there is nothing to work out but the continued destruction of perverse states like Iraq, replacing them with conservative democracies.

JK

Ion
5th June 2003, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

...
...and the remarkable thing about that is that I think the WMD delay is to shield allies who helped Saddam with his WMD, especially France.
...
JK
With your cartoonish IQ, you didn't learn the news:

1.) the U.S. did provide Saddam Hussein (Iraq) with WMD, not France like you claim, when U.S. helped propping up Hussein's regime during the Iran/Iraq war;

2.) then, Hussein committed atrocities;

3) since 1991, especially in 1995, Iraq destroyed WMDs, under U.N. inspections;

4) in 2003, after attacking Iraq, Bush doesn't find WMDs in Iraq like he was bragging that he was going to do, but he sure finds oil -which he is not bragging about-.

Way to go, kid:

don't despair, you will get this, if you work hard and ask for help...

Ed
6th June 2003, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Really? Santa gassed 100,000 of his own people like Saddam did? Then Santa just wasn't interested in WMD anymore? Gosh, you are a bright one.

JK

You seen any elfs lately? No? Thought not.

About your rational thinking, JK. What would it take for you to admit that Bush lied? You must answer.

The Fool
6th June 2003, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Really? Santa gassed 100,000 of his own people like Saddam did? Then Santa just wasn't interested in WMD anymore? Gosh, you are a bright one.

JK
Well well well...I think you are loosing it young Mr Knight. At least, for once, you are not manufacturing your own lies...you are just repeating the lies of others. Iraq is guilty as hell of using Gas, so is Iran, But this figure of 100,000 is (where should I put the *?) absolute bulls*it. It is Bulls*it that bush loves to repeat, and being a good little bush sycophant...you love to repeat it too. Its funny how you slag crack users but coke users are so high on your list of great men... Its basically the same stuff...:)

Cool down JK, its only a game......

LW
6th June 2003, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Besides, weather baloons usually use helium, because it doesn't have the nasty side effect of exploding like the Hindenburg.

Artillery weather balloons use hydrogen. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about on this subject, I spent 6 months as an artillery weatherman and sent more than 50 of those beasts to sky.

The reason why they use hydrogen is that it is possible to manufacture it on the site if necessary. This is a large advantage in situations where timely transport of helium is not convenient. You can get only roughly 5-6 weather balloons from a standard-sized gas bottle, and in war-time you send one up every three hours.

But having a full mobile trailer for artillery hydrogen manufacture sounds like a serious overkill to me. When we practiced making hydrogen in field conditions we used a pressurized steel kettle that weighted ~40 kg. We poured in some water and chemicals (NaOH and some compound of iron and silicon, if I remember correctly, it was eight years ago and we manufactured our own hydrogen only four times).

And for Ed: you need only very little alterations to get a moonshine still from a hydrogen kettle. We planned how we could do it but in the end we didn't.

[Edited to add a side note: hydrogen balloons don't usually ignite when punctured. I saw four of them burst, but none exploded. However, one of the nastiest shocks that I've ever had was when I was trying to hold one in place while it was being filled in a gusty wether. Then a high gust (~20 m/s) caught the balloon and I don't know for certain what exactly happened in the moment, but I felt the balloon hit my back and burst. If it had ignited, I would have been in a hospital for some time, but it didn't.]

Malachi151
6th June 2003, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You're funny. Saddam gassed 100,000 of his own people with Sarin, killed 300,000 more with death squad activity and buried the victims in mass graves, invaded a defenseless neighbor (Kuwait), and you mean to tell me he was innocent?

Sorry, there is nothing to work out but the continued destruction of perverse states like Iraq, replacing them with conservative democracies.

JK

Actually to this day NO ONE KNOWS who gassed the Kurds. The official reports are unconclusive. The last report I read stated that the Kurds were more likely killed by the Iranians.

Here is the whole story.

The US supplied Iraq with the bio/chem weapons.

Iran invaded Northern Iraq and took up defensive positions with the Kurds, who then joined forces with the Iranians to oppose Saddam.

In order to get these people out of the defensive Saddam announced that we was going to gas the area. He gave a 1 week warning via radio, TV, and new paper of the area that was going to be gassed so that people could evacuate.

Then he began launching chemical weapons. Iran was also using chemcial weapons in battels in the area around the same time.

They were both using two different types fo gas, I forget who was using what.

After all was said and done, the US found that the Kurds had been killed by the Iranians.

Then, when Saddam invaded Kuwait the positions was changed to say that Saddam had killed the Kurds.

What is most likely true is that the Kurds were killed by the Iraqis, but at the time of the Iran/Iraq war we were on the side of the Iraqis so we said that the Iranians killed the Kurds.

To this day, the latest reports I have read still say that the true source of the attacks that killed the Kurds is not known, they dont know if it was Iraqi or Iranian WMDs that killed the Kurds.

In any event Saddam gave a week warning before he launched, at least in that instance, which is the only one I know if.

Ed
6th June 2003, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by LW


And for Ed: you need only very little alterations to get a moonshine still from a hydrogen kettle. We planned how we could do it but in the end we didn't.



I guess it proves the old truism: If you want to know about alchohol, ask a Scandinavian:D

Crossbow
6th June 2003, 08:04 AM
Once again JK is arguing both sides of opposing issues and he sees no conflict between these positions.

Just to recap, it goes something like this ...

> The authorities state that the USA has to fight Iraq because of their WMDs, but the USA refuses to share the details of this data.

> So there is a fight, and after the shooting has stopped, no WMDs are found in the places they were thought to be.

> Now these same authorities are stating that we know Iraq had WMDs and that they will be found before too long.

> So, after it has been clearly established that the original data was in serious error, these same authorities still expect the public to belive them.

Apparently some people do not have any problem doing so, but I sure do.

On a personal note: if anyone is seriously thinking of taking JK up on his tutoring offer, then I would advise against it because $ 45.00/hour is way too high of a fee. I am a part-time college professor and I only charge about $ 26.00/hour and most flight instructors charge about that much as well.

Ed
6th June 2003, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by Crossbow

On a personal note: if anyone is seriously thinking of taking JK up on his tutoring offer, then I would advise against it because $ 45.00/hour is way too high of a fee. I am a part-time college professor and I only charge about $ 26.00/hour and most flight instructors charge about that much as well.

Wait a minute, I thought that HE was paying for you to listen.

Segnosaur
6th June 2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Ion

1.) the U.S. did provide Saddam Hussein (Iraq) with WMD, not France like you claim, when U.S. helped propping up Hussein's regime during the Iran/Iraq war;

2.) then, Hussein committed atrocities;

3) since 1991, especially in 1995, Iraq destroyed WMDs, under U.N. inspections;

4) in 2003, after attacking Iraq, Bush doesn't find WMDs in Iraq like he was bragging that he was going to do, but he sure finds oil -which he is not bragging about-.


Ok, first of all, remember I supported the war, but do believe that Bush lied about certain things. However, a few of your points must be addressed:

1) Although the US did provide Saddam with some WMD, it was other nations who did the most 'supporting' of Iraq. The US supplied only a very small fraction of Iraq's conventional arms (about 1%), while the bulk was provided by Russia and France. Germany was also responsible for providing some of the WMD technology.

It should also be noted that during that time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and the US had to decide whether it would allow Iran to win (which would mean more spread of Islamic fundamentalism) or help Iraq in some small way. Perhaps they made the wrong decision, but in some cases a country has to decide to pick the lesser of 2 evils.

And even if the U.S. was wrong in supporting Iraq in the past, does that mean that it is wrong to try to try to fix past mistakes? (Some U.S. companies traded with Nazi Germany; should the U.S. have said during WW2 "sorry, we can't invade, we were friends with Germany in the past"?)

3) Although much of Iraq's WMD program was destroyed in the 90s, the inspectors actually found very little of it. Most of their weapons programs were discovered only AFTER a defector showed them exactly where to look. So, although I don't totally discount the job of the inspectors, it is quite possible that even a small finding by them could indicate the presence of a much larger (but better hidden) program.

The inspections required Iraq's cooperation. Despite all of Blix's insistences that Iraq was 'increasing cooperation', there was just some things that Iraq was not doing. (And, the inspecters were finding things in Iraq that they should not have had, or should have declared but didn't.) When the first round of inspections ended, they had some stockpiles of chem weapons. When the second round started, Iraq said they had destroyed their stocks, but gave no proof.

Perhaps Iraq did get rid of the last of their weapons. But then, it brings up the question: Why did they not fully comply? Why not show the required proof of the destruction of existing chem stocks? Why not allow interviews with scientists/technicians?

4) Yes, I think Bush is bragging far too much, and he is destroying what credibility he had over the issue. However, your statement insinuates that this war was about oil.

I have to agree... there is some element of truth to that... A free Iraq will be able to sell oil on the open market, which will help produce prices that are both lower, and more stable. But I doubt very much whether the US will be able to 'control' or 'steal' Iraq's oil. Revenues from Iraq's oil sales are going into special UN accounts to help rebuild the country. And, there will be 3 possibilities: 1) The US manages to install a 'free' government, in which case they will be able to decide themselves where to sell the oil, or 2) A US friendly dictatorship takes over; however, the US will be under the microscope on this so they'll want to avoid this, or 3) A non-US friendly dictatorship takes over, in which case all oil contracts go out the window anyways.

Crossbow
6th June 2003, 08:37 AM
OK then! That sounds like a deal, JK is paying $ 45.00/hour for people to listen to him.

Way cool!

Jedi Knight
6th June 2003, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by Malachi151


Actually to this day NO ONE KNOWS who gassed the Kurds. The official reports are unconclusive. The last report I read stated that the Kurds were more likely killed by the Iranians.

Here is the whole story.

The US supplied Iraq with the bio/chem weapons.

Iran invaded Northern Iraq and took up defensive positions with the Kurds, who then joined forces with the Iranians to oppose Saddam.

In order to get these people out of the defensive Saddam announced that we was going to gas the area. He gave a 1 week warning via radio, TV, and new paper of the area that was going to be gassed so that people could evacuate.

Then he began launching chemical weapons. Iran was also using chemcial weapons in battels in the area around the same time.

They were both using two different types fo gas, I forget who was using what.

After all was said and done, the US found that the Kurds had been killed by the Iranians.

Then, when Saddam invaded Kuwait the positions was changed to say that Saddam had killed the Kurds.

What is most likely true is that the Kurds were killed by the Iraqis, but at the time of the Iran/Iraq war we were on the side of the Iraqis so we said that the Iranians killed the Kurds.

To this day, the latest reports I have read still say that the true source of the attacks that killed the Kurds is not known, they dont know if it was Iraqi or Iranian WMDs that killed the Kurds.

In any event Saddam gave a week warning before he launched, at least in that instance, which is the only one I know if.

So you are saying Saddam is innocent?

JK

Jedi Knight
6th June 2003, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Ed


You seen any elfs lately? No? Thought not.

About your rational thinking, JK. What would it take for you to admit that Bush lied? You must answer.

It would take a lie, something that Bush knew was incorrect but claimed it as fact anyway.

Bush hasn't done that and that is the crack in the leftist argument about the Iraqi WMD issue. Bush quoted intelligence information about Iraq WMD. That is all he did. He did not lie.

The radical left knows it too and that is why they shifted to attack Tony Blair instead of Bush today. The leftist Marxists will stop at nothing to discredit Bush and Blair. WMD issues in Iraq are just cover for subversion by the left.

JK

Jedi Knight
6th June 2003, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by The Fool

Well well well...I think you are loosing it young Mr Knight. At least, for once, you are not manufacturing your own lies...you are just repeating the lies of others. Iraq is guilty as hell of using Gas, so is Iran, But this figure of 100,000 is (where should I put the *?) absolute bulls*it. It is Bulls*it that bush loves to repeat, and being a good little bush sycophant...you love to repeat it too. Its funny how you slag crack users but coke users are so high on your list of great men... Its basically the same stuff...:)

Cool down JK, its only a game......

huh?

JK

Ion
6th June 2003, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


So you are saying Saddam is innocent?

JK
Saddam Hussein is not innocent: he is a local dictator.

.) That's why there is a U.N., and a World Court in Netherlands.

.) That's why there shouldn't be a Bush.

Remember this in the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections.

Heck, if you like the Republicans so much, there is John McCain syle within the Republican party, which is OK by me.

ssibal
6th June 2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Besides, weather baloons usually use helium, because it doesn't have the nasty side effect of exploding like the Hindenburg.

The Hindenburg was destroyed because it was essentially painted with rocket fuel.

Ion
6th June 2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

...
Bush hasn't done that and that is the crack in the leftist argument about the Iraqi WMD issue. Bush quoted intelligence information about Iraq WMD. That is all he did. He did not lie.
...
JK
Nah:

I already told you to read this link

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55189

It has:

"
...
Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
...
Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the decisionmaking process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly suggests manipulation, of the intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine, said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that "[t]he country swims on a sea of oil."
...
"
So you got here the culprits of the useless Iraqi war:

religious fundamentalist Bush, and neo-conservative Volfowitz preying on Bush's naivety.

(By the way, there is documentation that the neo-conservatives tried to pull this same gag on Clinton in 1999, but it didn't work with Clinton who went -like a U.S. President should- the U.N. way).

Jedi Knight
6th June 2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Ion

Nah:

I already told you to read this link

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55189

It has:

"
...
Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
...
Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the decisionmaking process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly suggests manipulation, of the intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine, said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that "[t]he country swims on a sea of oil."
...
"
So you got here the culprits of the useless Iraqi war:

religious fundamentalist Bush, and neo-conservative Volfowitz preying on Bush's naivety.

(By the way, there is documentation that the neo-conservatives tried to pull this same gag on Clinton in 1999, but it didn't work with Clinton who went -like a U.S. President should- the U.N. way).

All those statements by Bush were from accurate intelligence estimates.

JK

Tricky
6th June 2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


All those statements by Bush were from accurate intelligence estimates.

JK
No they weren't according to this Newsweek article (http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp?0cv=KB10&cp1=1#BODY).

It appears that Bush and (especially) Chaney demanded that the CIA give them the information they wanted and when the CIA tried to tell them there was no such information, they created another "cabal" who would tell them what they wanted. They knew they were, if not outright lying, at least highly exaggerating.

Ion
6th June 2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Segnosaur

...
But I doubt very much whether the US will be able to 'control' or 'steal' Iraq's oil. Revenues from Iraq's oil sales are going into special UN accounts to help rebuild the country.
...

Not at all:

revenues from Iraqi's oil sales were going into a special U.N. account, as long as the U.N. was running a program of sanctions against Iraq, the 'oil-for-food'.

In order to have the Iraqi's oil sales going into U.S. accounts (thus ensure payback time for the U.S. energy interests -like Halliburton and Texaco- that funded Bush's election), U.S. asked U.N. and got it ten days ago, to have the U.N. sanctions of 'oil-for-food' lifted from Iraq.

Therefore, oil sales start to come now to U.S..

Also, Iraq and EU countries were having contracts to deal oil for Euros after 'oil-for-food' expired.
U.S. doesn't have Euros, unless it works to export goods to Europe and gets paid in Euros.
However, U.S. has American dollars that it can print without much work.
Forcing Iraq -and the world- to deal in U.S. dollars, means that the U.S. has dollars galore to pay for goods in the world, without much work.

So much for the Bush's 'free enterprise', done by killing in Iraq.

'Liberation of Iraq' is Bush's 'Plan B' in order to fool the public, since his 'Plan A' (i.e.: WMD in Iraq) is a forgery.

People who believe in these Bush's 'Plan A' or 'Plan B', are fools.

Tricky
6th June 2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by ssibal


The Hindenburg was destroyed because it was essentially painted with rocket fuel.
And it didn't explode. It burned. In fact, it burned so slowly and with such low heat, that the majority of the passengers survived.

Frank Newgent
6th June 2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by ssibal

The Hindenburg was destroyed because it was essentially painted with rocket fuel.

http://www.failuremag.com/images/hindenburg.jpg

Oh yeah? What's that I see at the base of the tower?

http://www.seabeecook.com/equipment/images/kit_truck_trailer.JPG

Segnosaur
6th June 2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Ion

revenues from Iraqi's oil sales were going into a special U.N. account, as long as the U.N. was running a program of sanctions against Iraq, the 'oil-for-food'.


A little off topic, but the Oil for Food program didn't really work that well:
- A lot of the money ended up going to the UN for administrative purposes
- Much (perhaps most) of the money for 'food' was used by Saddam for his military and to build his palances
- Despite restrictions, Iraq regularly 'cheated'. After the war, the US found (and shut off) a pipeline selling oil illegally to Syria

Originally posted by Ion

In order to have the Iraqi's oil sales going into U.S. accounts (thus ensure payback time for the U.S. energy interests -like Halliburton and Texaco- that funded Bush's election), U.S. asked U.N. and got it ten days ago, to have the U.N. sanctions of 'oil-for-food' lifted from Iraq.


Yes, the US asked for (and got) the UN to lift sanctions. But you are making very serious accusations that this is somehow related to 'payback' for Bush's reelection. (That's a very serious charge and requires some evidence.)

Are you suggesting that the sanctions should have been left on? If so, should the 'reconstruction' be delayed?

Although Halliburton did sign some contracts (and I'm no fan of the secrecy involved), they were for specific purposes, and did not guarantee payment if work was not needed. I'm not sure where you got Texaco from; I'm not familiar with any contracts they've signed.

However, it should be noted that the liberation of Iraq would not necessarily be in the interests of all the American oil producers. Oil companies are in the business of extracting, processing and selling oil at a profit. A reduction in world supply means that they can sell oil at a higher price. Now that Iraq can sell more, the global prices should fall, and American producers may see their profits decline a little as a result.

Whatever money is earned from oil sales, it will go into a development fund. And although it will be administered by the U.S. and U.K. (who, as occupying forces, have that responsibility), it will be overseen by the U.N. and other global financial bodies. (See: http://www.kstp.com/article/view/98966/, "A new advisory body including the United Nations and international financial institutions will oversee the fund".)

Originally posted by Ion

Therefore, oil sales start to come now to U.S..

Got any references that state that oil sales will be made to the US and the US only? (Much Iraqi oil went to the states during the oil-for-food program, but they were allowed to sell very little. Why could a free-Iraq not sell its oil to whomever it wants?)

In the past, most US oil has either been produced domestically, or has been imported from North America (Canada, Mexico). Very little comes from the middle east. In fact, middle east oil is more likely to end up in Asia/Japan, or Europe. See: http://www.apiinformation.org/factsheets/oil_imports.html

Now, even if Iraq was only allowed to sell to the US (which you've never provided proof for), would that really matter? Iraq would likely be getting the world price for its oil (unless you can provide evidence otherwise), so the US purchasing a barrel of oil from Iraq means that some other country will have to purchase a barrel of oil from some other producer. But at the end of the day, the same amount of oil was produced and sold, and the same amount was purchased.


Originally posted by Ion

Also, Iraq and EU countries were having contracts to deal oil for Euros.
U.S. doesn't have Euros, unless it works to export goods to Europe and gets paid in Euros.
However, U.S. has American dollars that it can print without much work.
Forcing Iraq -and the world- to deal in U.S. dollars, means that the U.S. has dollars galore to pay for goods in the world, without much work.


First of all, the only organization that can print American money is the American governemt. Guess what? Oil companies do not have the ability to print their own currency.

Ultimately, the currency used is irrelevant. Somewhere along the way, the 'currency' has to be translated to actual products, and THAT is what ultimately gets traded.

Even if payment was left in Euros, it would not be that big of a deal... Dollars get tradded for Euros all over the world, every day, on a regular basis. Ooooo... the horrors!

Originally posted by Ion

'Liberation' of Iraq, is Bush's 'Plan B' in order to fool the public, since his 'Plan A' (i.e.: WMD in Iraq) proved to be a forgery.

People who believe in these Bush's 'Plan A' or 'Plan B', are fools.

So, you've made a bunch of unsubstantiated statements (some may be true, but you don't have evidence), many of which just don't make sense logically.

And, you are also denying the possibility that some of us (like me) did not believe a lot of what Bush said, but STILL supported the war because we believe the world (and Iraq) will be better off without Saddam.

Jedi Knight
6th June 2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Frank Newgent


http://www.failuremag.com/images/hindenburg.jpg

Oh yeah? What's that I see at the base of the tower?

http://www.seabeecook.com/equipment/images/kit_truck_trailer.JPG

Hahaha

JK

Jedi Knight
6th June 2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Tricky

And it didn't explode. It burned. In fact, it burned so slowly and with such low heat, that the majority of the passengers survived.

Baha

JK

Segnosaur
6th June 2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Frank Newgent


http://www.seabeecook.com/equipment/images/kit_truck_trailer.JPG

Hey, wait a sec... isn't that the truck that Bush is using for evidence of WMD?

Ed
6th June 2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Segnosaur


Hey, wait a sec... isn't that the truck that Bush is using for evidence of WMD?


Nah, it's a Finnish mobile still.

Segnosaur
6th June 2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Ed



Nah, it's a Finnish mobile still.

Can't it be both?

Ion
6th June 2003, 04:01 PM
After blah-blah galore in a post, I stumble there on this 'pearl':
Originally posted by Segnosaur

...
And, you are also denying the possibility that some of us (like me) did not believe a lot of what Bush said, but STILL supported the war because we believe the world (and Iraq) will be better off without Saddam.
Iraq complying with U.N., that was somewhat achieved and achievable further more, under U.N. and the World Court:

.) after the first Gulf War in 1991, Iraq didn't attack any neighbors and was subdued into inspections and dismantling its WMDs by the U.N.;

.) U.S. didn't support Hussein's opposition in Iraq to overthrow Hussein, and didn't work under Bush with the U.N. resolutions against Hussein's regime, which are cheaper ways than a war.

You are too slow for me, because I posted this:
Originally posted by Ion

Saddam Hussein is not innocent: he is a local dictator.

.) That's why there is a U.N., and a World Court in Netherlands.

.) That's why there shouldn't be a Bush.
...

Now, since religious Bush's lone-cowboy-'freedom'-war in Iraq:

there's a lack of law and order, so criminals are running wild, people are mourning their dead, there are people mutilated by the war, there's a lack of running water and electricity, there are no clear prospects for Iraqi self rule in the near future, wages are not being paid, the country's archaeological heritage has been stolen, rumors are spreading that the foreign troops will shoot civilians without good reason, various groups are threatening violence, and the health system is in shambles.

So, where are the WMDs in Iraq to justify this abuse by Bush, acting against the U.N. way?

Ed
6th June 2003, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Segnosaur


Can't it be both?

Yes. Silly me.:D

peptoabysmal
6th June 2003, 10:48 PM
Sheesh.

Anyone care for a ride in a hydrogen airship?

I'll pay the fare. :D

Ion
6th June 2003, 11:02 PM
In line with this:
Originally posted by Ion

...
So, where are the WMDs in Iraq to justify this abuse by Bush, acting against the U.N. way?

the U.S. Constitution states:

Art II, Sec 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and Misdemeanors.

Bush commited "...high crimes..." when pushing U.S. to make an unprovoked attack, on a sovereign nation, for no true reason, but for his pretense of knowing about WMDs.

In reality it won't get to Bush being impeached, due to the procedure needed in the House and Senate where Republicans are abundant, but it can get into electing a better person than what Bush is, in the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections.

Providing that voters are consistent with these facts...

Ion
6th June 2003, 11:43 PM
Enjoy this cartoon:

http://www.ucomics.com/tomtoles/2003/05/29/

Segnosaur
7th June 2003, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by Ion

Iraq complying with U.N., that was somewhat achieved and achievable further more, under U.N. and the World Court:


Ok, i'm going to explain something to you....

The terms of 1441 indicated that Iraq had give COMPLETE and IMMEDIATE cooperation to the UN inspectors.

Now, the term IMMEDIATE means "right away", "without delay". The term COMPLETE means "entirely", "not leaving out anything". Iraq was NOT doing either of these. They were not allowing interviews with Iraqi scientists/techicians, they were not declaring all aspects of their weapons programs, etc.

The UN, time after time, has shown itself to be a totally useless organization, incapable of stopping serious crimes against humanity. So, excuse me if I don't jump up and sing the praises of an organization willing to let hundreds of thousands die in various conflicts throughtout the world, who lets Libya head its human rights organization, and who spends more time condemming the west instead of trying to find the real source of world problems.'

As for the World Court, that is going to be another big waste of time and money. They would not be able to remove Saddam or any of his top people So why bother bringing it up?

You may been willing to let 10s of thousands of innocent Iraqis die by Saddam's own governemt; personally, I think the people of Iraq deserve something better.

Originally posted by Ion
.) after the first Gulf War in 1991, Iraq didn't attack any neighbors and was subdued into inspections and dismantling its WMDs by the U.N.;

Did you by chance actually READ any of my postings?

The main reason why most of Iraq's WMD program was dismantled in the 90s was not because of the inspectors, it was because of an Iraqi defector. (I explained that earlier.... I suggest you go back and read it.)

And of course Iraq didn't attack any of its neighbours. There was a strong UN military presence which prevented it. (At the cost of billions to enforce sanctions, which also negatively affected Iraqi civilians.)

Originally posted by Ion
.) U.S. didn't support Hussein's opposition in Iraq to overthrow Hussein, and didn't work under Bush with the U.N. resolutions against Hussein's regime, which are cheaper ways than a war.


Agreed, it is unfortunate that the US did not support Iraqi opposition leaders in the early 90s. It is also unfortunate that the U.S. did not actually invade Iraq in the mid 90s when the depth of their weapons programs was discovered.

(You, ah, do realize that GW Bush was not President during those above cases?)

Unfortunately, in the years 2002/2003, those options were no longer open. And even if the US made mistakes, as I've said before, a country should be allowed to make ammends for past mistakes.

Originally posted by Ion
You are too slow for me, because I posted this:

Saddam Hussein is not innocent: he is a local dictator.

.) That's why there is a U.N., and a World Court in Netherlands.

.) That's why there shouldn't be a Bush.
...


Rather than assuming I'm too slow, a more reasonable explaination is that your 'points' are rather, well, pointless. The U.N. and World Court are, for the most part, powerless to actually provide any real benefit to the world.

I'll change my opinion if/when they have the leadership of other brutal dictatorships like North Korea and/or Cuba in front of the World Court. Until they do, I strongly suggest you lay off suggesting the World court as a solution for anything.

Originally posted by Ion
Now, since religious Bush's lone-cowboy-'freedom'-war in Iraq:

there's a lack of law and order, so criminals are running wild, people are mourning their dead, there are people mutilated by the war, there's a lack of running water and electricity, there are no clear prospects for Iraqi self rule in the near future, wages are not being paid, the country's archaeological heritage has been stolen, rumors are spreading that the foreign troops will shoot civilians without good reason, various groups are threatening violence, and the health system is in shambles.


Ahh, how many left-wing cliches can you fit into one paragraph?

Nobody expected an overnight change. Its unfortunate that looting has gone on so long, but when Iraq had been suffering for so long under Saddam, it takes time to rebuild. So, lets look at your points one by one, shall we?

- Criminals running wild: True, there has been looting. But remember, much of Iraq's resources had been stolen by Saddam and company long ago. Or don't you remember the millions of dollars recovered around Iraq? So, criminals were running wild BEFORE the war too... its just that they were members of Saddam's governemt.

- People are mourning their dead; A lot MORE people are mourning the dead people found in various mass graves around Iraq (including one particularly disturbing one filled with children, possibly burried alive.) Of course, at this point you also have families HAPPY because they've been reunited with people who had been jailed for years. (Remember the children that were jailed by Iraq because their parents refused to join the Baath party?) And, most importantly, There will less mourning overall, because Saddam was killing more people than the war ever did.

- Countrie's archeological heritage stolen? In case you didn't hear, the number of pieces actually taken has been revised downwards by, well, quite a bit. Very little is missing. The museums had stored the most valuable peaces where they were safe, other pieces have been recovered. (It should also be noted that many of the pieces had been 'looted' long before the war started; it should also be known that many pieces of ancient art is stored in other museums thoughtout the world, so its not all concentrated in one location.) I suggest you look up some more recent information on just what had happened when the museums were looted.

- The health system was already in shambles from before the war. Saddam took money from the oil-for-food program and used them to build palaces. Now that Iraq has a chance to form a democratic governemt, it can actually make sure health care dollars to to the people in need.

NOw, it is unfortunate that they don't have water/electricity, and self rule is a little ways away. But like I said, nobody expected everything to be fixed overnight.

Originally posted by Ion
So, where are the WMDs in Iraq to justify this abuse by Bush, acting against the U.N. way?

Given the fact that the "U.N. way" is to let dictators slaughter their own people, I don't think that the U.N. can claim any moral high ground.

Now, the question of where the WMD are is something that needs to be uncovered. It could be that they never had any. It could be that they had them, but acually destroyed them immediately before the war. Or it could be that they are still there and will be found

The question is, if Iraq had actually disarmed, then why the deceptions? why not provide proof that its stocks were eliminated (as required by 1441), instead of using the "my dog ate it" defence" Why not let the inspectors interview technicians, etc? Why not declare everything, which they failed to do?

Ion
7th June 2003, 07:06 AM
OK, I will explain to you how you waste time:

the U.N. Resolution 1441 asks for Iraq's compliance with disarmement and with the U.N. inspections on weapons;
when full compliance by Iraq is not given to U.N., the text of 1441 does not call for automatic attack on Iraq, but it gives the U.N. the latitude to assess action.
(I can bring the text of 1441 here, if you challenge this).

When attack on Iraq was floated by Bush in the U.N. Security Council, the U.N. Security Council rejected it as undeserved.

So, Bush went outside U.N. to attack Iraq.
Disrespecting international law.
Like a thug disrespecting common law and attacking a store.

So, where are the WMDs in Iraq, justifying Bush to attack Iraq contrary to U.N., and justifying your aplogies?

WMDs in Iraq were taunted by Bush as being an 'imminent danger' too, requiring his 'imminent' attack.

Gee, I don't see any WMDs in Iraq.

Do you?

Ion
7th June 2003, 07:32 AM
What's the point to have a war on Iraq based on existence of WMDs in Iraq, when it turns out that the existence of WMDs in Iraq is unsubstantiated and Bush lied about it?

This highly-ranked intelligence worker tells when Bush did lie about the existence of WMDs in Iraq:

Intelligence analyst: Bush lied (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030607/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_us_intelligence&cid=542&ncid=716)

Ed
7th June 2003, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by Ion
What's the point to have a war on Iraq based on existence of WMDs in Iraq, when it turns out that the existence of WMDs in Iraq is unsubstantiated and Bush lied about it?

This highly-ranked intelligence worker tells when Bush did lie about the existence of WMDs in Iraq:

Intelligence analyst: Bush lied (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030607/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_us_intelligence&cid=542&ncid=716)

Which gets back to my earlier point that GWB is a lier on the WMD count and gutless because he did not raise humanaterian issues as a cassus belli.

ssibal
7th June 2003, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Ion
...when full compliance by Iraq is not given to U.N., the text of 1441 does not call for automatic attack on Iraq, but it gives the U.N. the latitude to assess action

Uhm, if you read 1441 it clearly states that it is Iraq's "final opportunity" to comply. They had their final chance and they lost it, did you really expect that we would just ignore them after they blew their last chance?

Jedi Knight
7th June 2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Ed


Which gets back to my earlier point that GWB is a lier on the WMD count and gutless because he did not raise humanaterian issues as a cassus belli.

But the humanitarian piece was put on the table and European leaders laughed about it.

'Humanitarian' issues only matter if they are connected to a Marxist agenda via the European Union.

JK

Ion
7th June 2003, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Ed


Which gets back to my earlier point that GWB is a lier on the WMD...
...

Bush made the Congress declare war on Iraq, based on his false knowledge of WMDs in Iraq.

Bush didn't make Congress declare war on Iraq based on Hussein being "...evil.".

I cannot begin to think how the professional standards in my work are way higher in ethics and analytical than what Bush's standards are.

My work being technical without directly affecting people's lives, while Bush's work directly affects people's livelihood.

So, Bush standards should be higher than mine, not lower.
Originally posted by Ed

...
...and gutless because he did not raise humanaterian issues as a cassus belli.
Bush was dismissing the thinking against his war in Iraq as being "...irrelevant.".

Bush is a dumb bully.

There is more data in line with the points I made earlier (in the style of "...shifts the spotlight to Iraq as the best chance for U.S. firms to land a share of the Middle East's energy riches. The Middle East is home to 685 billion barrels of oil reserves, with Iraq's estimated at 120 billion to 200 billion barrels..."), but I want to stay streamlined:

.) Bush went to war on Iraq by bypassing U.N., based on WMDs in Iraq;

.) so, where are the WMDs in Iraq?

Ion
7th June 2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by ssibal


Uhm, if you read 1441 it clearly states that it is Iraq's "final opportunity" to comply.
...

It doesn't say action is automatically taken against Iraq., by U.S. or by U.N. or by anyone.

It says the situation and the action in Iraq is to be determined by U.N..

Ion
7th June 2003, 10:35 AM
Are you fabricating history now, Jedi?
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

But the humanitarian piece was put on the table and European leaders laughed about it.
...
JK
When?

Ion
7th June 2003, 10:40 AM
People,

streamline here:

1) Bush bypassed U.N. to war against Iraq, based on 'imminent danger' WMDs in Iraq;

2) where are the 'imminent danger' WMDs from Iraq?

There is data in the link I posted earlier today, showing that Bush lied about WMDs.

ssibal
7th June 2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Ion

It doesn't say action is automatically taken against Iraq., by U.S. or by U.N. or by anyone.

It says the situation and the action in Iraq is to be determined by U.N..

The situation was pretty clear if you read any of Blix's reports. He said in every report that they were not cooperating fully (which they were supposed to). Given that this was their final opportunity and they were threatened with "serious consequences", what would you interpret that to mean other than military action? What other action could have been taken that was a serious consequence for Iraq?

Globert
7th June 2003, 11:29 AM
It seems to me IMHO that veracity and assiduous adherence to the rules has been demanded and relaxed by both sides. Whether or not one holds GWB in high esteem or high treason, I had 300 brothers die. On that day I saw another 3000 dead. THAT was what this war was about. We said we had enough. The only way for the United States to change the world in one day is with a large radioactive cloud. That being abhorrent to most,(though not out of the Question) we embarked upon a path of reformation. Afganistan: beligerant, now reforming. Iraq: beligerant, now reforming. And Who Gave Us The Right To Reshape the World?!? We did. No One said it would be easy. No One said it would be in line with everyones world veiw.(especially if it was "peace at any price") Whether GWB, had a WMD "Smoking Gun" is not IMHO The "Casuss Belli", it was their turn to answer, they didn't say much, they got bombed. Afganistan had as much oil as a turnip. Iraq's liberation is not about that. It's simply their turn. (which begs the Question "Who's next?" but that should be another thread.)

Uncle Sam, Have GBU-28 Will Travel.

That said, I do not think the WMD intelligence to be fabricated from Whole Cloth.

Ed
7th June 2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


But the humanitarian piece was put on the table and European leaders laughed about it.

'Humanitarian' issues only matter if they are connected to a Marxist agenda via the European Union.

JK

Never heard about the first part. You telling me that the President could not conjure up a massive PR thingie? Nonsense. Have them laugh in public.

If you believe the second point then GW is an incompetent fool as well as a liar and gutless. He could have co-opted the Marxists in a heartbeat. Criminey, you never heard of marketing?

Nasarius
7th June 2003, 01:03 PM
The "humanitarian piece" fails because there are dozens of nations that are as bad or worse than Iraq as far as human rights abuses go.

http://www.hrw.org

Unless it can be proved that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States, then acting without the consent of the UN was one big *********** mistake.

Ed
7th June 2003, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Nasarius
The "humanitarian piece" fails because there are dozens of nations that are as bad or worse than Iraq as far as human rights abuses go.

http://www.hrw.org

Unless it can be proved that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States, then acting without the consent of the UN was one big *********** mistake.

I respectfully disagree.

Ion
7th June 2003, 08:04 PM
Ed,

the post below is fine by me:
Originally posted by Nasarius
The "humanitarian piece" fails because there are dozens of nations that are as bad or worse than Iraq as far as human rights abuses go.

http://www.hrw.org

Unless it can be proved that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States, then acting without the consent of the UN was one big *********** mistake.
Regarding:
Originally posted by Nasarius
The "humanitarian piece" fails because there are dozens of nations that are as bad or worse than Iraq as far as human rights abuses go.
...

the point is that this Bush's 'Liberation of Iraq', is Bush's copeout and not his true reasons for attacking Iraq.

The link has indeed worse nations than Iraq, as far as human rights go, if human rights were truely a concern to Bush and not a copeout to grab oil:

for example, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Israel occupying with U.S. financial aid non-Israel land in Palestine (as far as Israeli borders are recognized in U.N.), while Israel does have WMD.

Regarding:
Originally posted by Nasarius

...
Unless it can be proved that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States, then acting without the consent of the UN was one big *********** mistake.
I agree with it.

1.) U.N. was stating that Iraq poses no imminent threat, and that the U.N. inspections of WMDs in Iraq were progressing.

2.) Contrary to the U.N., U.S. stated that Iraq posed an imminent threat in WMDs ("Iraq must disarm." is what Bush yelled 48 hours before attacking Iraq), warred Iraq without the U.N. approval, but now doesn't find WMDs in Iraq to back Bush's claim.

Today's The San Diego Union Tribune, under 'Pentagon had no hard data on Iraq weapons, officials say', writes:

"Bush administration officials blamed the U.N. inspectiors' findings for undermining the U.S. government's case for war."

and

"Two months after the major fighting in Iraq ended, the United States has yet to find any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons."

Globert
7th June 2003, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Ion
Ed,

the post below is fine by me:

Regarding:

the point is that this Bush's 'Liberation of Iraq', is Bush's copeout and not his true reasons for attacking Iraq.

The link has indeed worse nations than Iraq, as far as human rights go, if human rights were truely a concern to Bush and not a copeout to grab oil:

for example, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Israel occupying with U.S. financial aid non-Israel land in Palestine (as far as Israeli borders are recognized in U.N.), while Israel does have WMD.

Regarding:

I agree with it.

1.) U.N. was stating that Iraq poses no imminent threat, and that the U.N. inspections of WMDs in Iraq were progressing.

2.) Contrary to the U.N., U.S. stated that Iraq posed an imminent threat in WMDs ("Iraq must disarm." is what Bush yelled 48 hours before attacking Iraq), warred Iraq without the U.N. approval, but now doesn't find WMDs in Iraq to back Bush's claim.

Today's The San Diego Union Tribune, under 'Pentagon had no hard data on Iraq weapons, officials say', writes:

"Bush administration officials blamed the U.N. inspectiors' findings for undermining the U.S. government's case for war."

and

"Two months after the major fighting in Iraq ended, the United States has yet to find any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons."


I fail to see the alleged hypocrisy, we had serious inquery met with obfuscation, legitemate request met with lies. When ones concerns are un-answered one prudently must presume the worst. A U.N. in the midst of bureaucratic paralysis is inefective as a forum for international discourse. Nations with an economic interest in Iraq became humble shepherds of peace, looking for any reason to obstruct American Interests. We shall strive to make this world safe for our children, our childrens children. Please save the "we're breeding terrorism" retort, it makes one think we're cloning them in Frankensteins Lab. The proper analogy would be the carnival midway game "Whack-a-mole"TM. as fast as they pop up, beat them on the head with a Big Freakin' Hammer! There will be less moles over time.

Ion
7th June 2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Globert



I fail to see the alleged hypocrisy,...
...

So what if you fail?

Where are the WMDs that U.S. went to war for, bypassing U.N.?

Globert
7th June 2003, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by Ion

So what if you fail?

Where are the WMDs that U.S. went to war for, bypassing U.N.?

Then your point is obtuse. you prattle on like a child on a long auto trip "are we there yet are we there yet are we there yet?"

...save for your mantra is "GWB has no WMD".

As simple as I can say this:
"We Did Not Need U.N. Approval To Bomb Iraq"

Never have I heard such reverence for institutionalized hot air as when the mighty U.N. gets invoked.
The United States of America NEVER ceded sovreign power to the U. N..
Where do people get the idea that some foreign body has veto power to U.S. interests?

Ion
8th June 2003, 12:06 AM
Globy,

how is the evidence for WMDs in Iraq coming along?

Because, without it, Bush lied in U.N. -the international organization that oversees U.S.-, and Bush lied in U.S..

You know?

Lying.

Globert
8th June 2003, 12:24 AM
Ion,



Lying involves an intent to deceive. Going with the worst case scenario is prudent given the nature of the allegation(Iraqi Wmd).

that said, it seems your veiw of the U.N. would have the Ambassador to that institution higher in the chain of command than the oft vilified GWB.

That is not so, America retains the right to act in its own interest.
There is nothing wrong with that.

Peace through Superior Firepower.

Ion
8th June 2003, 12:28 AM
So where are the WMDs in Iraq, Globy?

If you ask Bush he doesn't know this, but he knows where oil in Iraq is.

The today's newspaper starts to know also, where the oil in Iraq is.

Slowly catching up with this, Globy?

Ion
8th June 2003, 07:09 PM
Globo,

you got me thinking about this:
Originally posted by Globert

...
Peace through Superior Firepower.
Sure, and that's how you have a criminal by the U.N. international law (Bush), and -inside the U.S.- you have this record number of criminals compared to Europe, from Bush's administration, down to Enron, down to rednecks carrying guns, down to small time hustlers.

Jedi Knight
8th June 2003, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Ion
Globo,

you got me thinking about this:

Sure, and that's how you have a criminal by the U.N. international law (Bush), and -inside the U.S.- you have this record number of criminals compared to Europe, from Bush's administration, down to Enron, down to rednecks carrying guns, down to small time hustlers.

lol you freedom hater.

JK

Globert
9th June 2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Ion
Globo,

you got me thinking about this:

Sure, and that's how you have a criminal by the U.N. international law (Bush), and -inside the U.S.- you have this record number of criminals compared to Europe, from Bush's administration, down to Enron, down to rednecks carrying guns, down to small time hustlers.

Ion,

If you were hustled by an armed redneck with some worthless Enron stock, welcome to capitalism. A phrase you should investigate is "lassez faire", let the buyer beware. Unless said Armed Redneck drew his weapon and forcibly sold you Enron stock at gunpoint, you have little redress.

I think Your Crime statistics need some scrutiny as well.

Exactly which statute of International Law is GWB in violation of?(aside from making the world safer?)

Segnosaur
9th June 2003, 10:35 AM
Strange... you make all these claims (Iraq's cultural heritage destroyed, people mourning their dead, most of which I refute) and this is the only thing you respond with...

Originally posted by Ion

the U.N. Resolution 1441 asks for Iraq's compliance with disarmement and with the U.N. inspections on weapons;
when full compliance by Iraq is not given to U.N., the text of 1441 does not call for automatic attack on Iraq, but it gives the U.N. the latitude to assess action.

You're right, there was nothing in 1441 which indicated an automatic attack. And guess what? It just goes to show how useless the UN is. So, before you get on your high horse about how the UN will magically solve all the worlds problems, remember that they were unable/unwilling to pass a resolution strong enough to eliminate one of the worlds worst dictators.

Also, it should be noted: The first gulf war technically did not end; the fighting stopped with a cease fire. The terms of that cease fire required certain Iraqi concessions (on WMD, human rights, and terrorism). By failing to live up to more than a dozen resolutions, technically they 'broke' the cease fire.

Originally posted by Ion

(I can bring the text of 1441 here, if you challenge this).


I'm very familiar with it. That's why I know how/where Iraq was violating the terms of 1441. Perhaps you should study it yourself more carefully.

Originally posted by Ion

When attack on Iraq was floated by Bush in the U.N. Security Council, the U.N. Security Council rejected it as undeserved.


You're right... it was rejected... In large part by France (who had financial interests in Iraq), Russia (who was owed billions of dollars), and to a lesser extent China (who is a dictatorship in its own right.)

Originally posted by Ion

So, Bush went outside U.N. to attack Iraq.
Disrespecting international law.
Like a thug disrespecting common law and attacking a store.


So you complain about Bush disrepecting national law? Where is your outrage over Iraq's disrespecting international law? Where is your condemnation of Iraq's refusal to live up to UN resolutions? Where is your condemation of Iraq's refusal to live up to certain aspects of the UN and its various organizations?

Originally posted by Ion

WMDs in Iraq were taunted by Bush as being an 'imminent danger' too, requiring his 'imminent' attack.

Gee, I don't see any WMDs in Iraq.



You do realize that there were other reasons for the attack. You may have your head stuck so far up your behind that you only hear the WMD argument, but other factors (such as human rights and terrorism) WERE mentioned prior to the war. In fact, if you read the start of 1441, it specifically mentions how Iraq had not lived up to anti-terrorism and human rights resolutions.

Bush probably did push WMD far too much as the reason, but it does not mean the other factors did not exist and could be ignored.

Segnosaur
9th June 2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Ion
Globo,

you got me thinking about this:

Sure, and that's how you have a criminal by the U.N. international law (Bush), and -inside the U.S.- you have this record number of criminals compared to Europe, from Bush's administration, down to Enron, down to rednecks carrying guns, down to small time hustlers.

First of all:
- You do have higher rates of incarceration in the US, but much of that is from the US "drug war".
- Enron (and Worldcom) were mostly a product of lack of regulation during the 90s, prior to GW Bush's administraton. Do you think Clinton was part of the problem? Are you against the entire system of government?

Malachi151
9th June 2003, 10:58 AM
Peace through Superior Firepower.

Hitler and Napoleon said the same thing :rolleyes:

Globert
9th June 2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Malachi151
Peace through Superior Firepower.

Hitler and Napoleon said the same thing :rolleyes:


ahhh.... I see, Because Something was Uttered by Bad People.

That is a good basis not to do something, I believe they were fond of eating red meat and respiration. Would that mean those are Evil acts too? :p

(I am NOT a fan of either man. My Position Has Nothing to Do with Imperial France nor National Socialist Germany.)

Ion
9th June 2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Globert

Ion,
...
A phrase you should investigate is "lassez faire", let the buyer beware. Unless said Armed Redneck drew his weapon and forcibly sold you Enron stock at gunpoint, you have little redress.
...

Globolini,

when Bush attacks Iraq pretending WMDs and finds oil instead (I already posted here from The San Diego Union Tribune of Saturday June 7 -if you care to have a background and read this thread rather than reading the last two posts, then post your unmovable opinions- "...shifts the spotlight to Iraq as the best chance to land a share of the Middle East riches, analysts told Reuters. The Middle East is home to 685 billions of barrels of oil reserves, with Iraq's estimated at 120 billion barrels..."), then Bush is against free enterprise.

By the way, "lassez faire" -as you make believe to write in French- doesn't exist, but "laisser faire" does exist.

Trust the multi-lingual that I am on this, trust that French is not my native language but that I am tired of IQs that botch cultures.
Originally posted by Globert

...
Exactly which statute of International Law is GWB in violation of?(aside from making the world safer?)
Well, the same San Diego Union Tribune from Saturday June 7, writes:

"But the United States cut the U.N. inspections when it went to war without the Security Council backing."

Seems to me from this, that the U.S. went to war outside the U.N., whose mission is international law to which U.S. already signed (i.e.: from a history book comes "...United Nations, which the Americans believed would help preserve peace after the war; it was founded in April 1945 in San Francisco.").

Ion
9th June 2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Segnosaur

...
Are you against the entire system of government?
A few times, yes.

In your Canada -where I lived for six years- and now in U.S..

I am an European, with the European mentality and education.

What made me coming and persist here, is a hobby that I cultivate.

Outside this hobby, I disagree and put up with many things that I see being practiced here.

Like seeing greed and force overtaking human values.

Segnosaur
9th June 2003, 04:39 PM
I notice you tend to post similar statements repeatedly, despite them being refuted in previous posts. Kind of like chanting them over and over to make them come true....

Originally posted by Ion

when Bush attacks Iraq pretending WMDs and finds oil instead (I already posted here from The San Diego Union Tribune of Saturday June 7 -if you care to have a background and read this thread rather than reading the last two posts, then post your unmovable opinions- "...shifts the spotlight to Iraq as the best chance to land a share of the Middle East riches, analysts told Reuters. The Middle East is home to 685 billions of barrels of oil reserves, with Iraq's estimated at 120 billion barrels..."), then Bush is against free enterprise.


So? Iraq has big oil reserves. Probably the second biggest in the middle east.

Now, I ask... If oil were the sole reason for the US going into Iraq, then why bother at all? If they are so keen to be 'bad', why not just offer to buy right from Saddam? (People here like to point out how they were friends with Iraq before.) That way they get a more guaranteed supply, without any risks from a war. But instead, they will install an alternate government (hopefully a democracy) which may or may not 'trade' with the US.

Now, I do believe that oil did play a small part in the war... Not because I felt they were going to 'steal' Iraq's resources, but because they probably felt that a reduction in price and an overall stabalization that would occur once Iraqi sanctions were lifted would benefit the world economy.

Originally posted by Ion

"But the United States cut the U.N. inspections when it went to war without the Security Council backing."

Seems to me from this, that the U.S. went to war outside the U.N., whose mission is international law to which U.S. already signed (i.e.: from a history book comes "...United Nations, which the Americans believed would help preserve peace after the war; it was founded in April 1945 in San Francisco.").

The US may have believed that the UN would help preserve peace, but recent events have shown it to be a worthless organization. Probably best left on the scrap heap of history like the "League of Nations". Time after time, it has shown itself to be unwilling/unable to help many of the truly disadvantaged in the world.

Now, You love pointing out how the US broke "International law" which the US signed... I ask again, what about all the "International law" that Iraq signed onto that Iraq later 'broke'? Where is our outrage over it?

Segnosaur
9th June 2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Ion

I am an European, with the European mentality and education.

...
Outside this hobby, I disagree and put up with many things that I see being practiced here.

Like seeing greed and force overtaking human values.

Europeans have very little to be proud of...
- Remember, the 2 world wars were both fought in large part in Europe
- Anti-war people love to point out how the US armed Iraq, yet Russia and France (both at least partly in Europe) supplied the bulk of their conventional arms
- People claim that the US is 'imperialist', but it wasn't that long ago that France etc. gave up their colonies around the world

As for "human values"... what about the value of life? Where was the European outrage over the massacres that happened in the world? Have you no concern over the people that Saddam was slaughtering while the UN, France, Germany, etc. stood by?

Ion
9th June 2003, 05:02 PM
Like you say, I also note that you post arguments that I refuted:
Originally posted by Segnosaur

...
As for "human values"... what about the value of life? Where was the European outrage over the massacres that happened in the world? Have you no concern over the people that Saddam was slaughtering while the UN, France, Germany, etc. stood by?
What I already refuted about this argument, is that in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Israel-Palestine conflict where Israel with U.S. backing occupies non-Israel land (as defined by U.N.) while Israel has WMDs (breaking a U.N. Resolution, 12xx that I can pinpoint more accurately), is plenty of "...value of life..." for U.S. to care for if U.S. was genuinely concerned.

The difference between these and Iraq, is oil.

Right now, the French are in Congo under a U.N. mission for "human values".

mickky
9th June 2003, 05:22 PM
A phrase you should investigate is "lassez faire", let the buyer beware.

You're thinking of 'Caveat Emptor'...

By the way, "lassez faire" -as you make believe to write in French- doesn't exist, but "laisser faire" does exist.

'Laissez-faire' means 'Let it be', or 'let it go'-It refers to a school of capitalist thought.

Globert
9th June 2003, 05:31 PM
Ion-iot,

Random House Unabridged Dictionary (second edition)1993

lais•sez faire (les fâr‚;Fr. le s feR‚)

1. the theory or system of government that upholds the autonomous character of the economic order, believing that government should intervene as little as possible in the direction of economic affairs.
2. the practice or doctrine of noninterference in the affairs of others, esp. with reference to individual conduct or freedom of action.
Also, laisser faire‚.[1815–25; < F: lit., allow to act]lais•sez-faire (les fâr‚;Fr. le s feR‚) adj.of, pertaining to, or conforming to the principles or practices of laissez faire.
Also, laisser-faire‚.[1815–25]— lais‚sez-faire‚ism, n.



While I'm understanding enough to accept multiple spellings, I don't presume to criticize the intelligence of the contrary view.

And considering the shakeup at the New York Times I would suggest one not beleive everything one reads. (yes, one must ascribe some trust to news else lead a busy life seeing everything with ones own eyes)

as far as the WMD question the jury is still out.

Globert
9th June 2003, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by mickky



You're thinking of 'Caveat Emptor'...



'Laissez-faire' means 'Let it be', or 'let it go'-It refers to a school of capitalist thought.



I did not mean to imply the meaning of Caveat Emptor for Laissez Faire, tho both apply to the thought I was attempting to convey,(you're on your own, and the government should keep regulation to a minimum).
thanks for pointing out the french though :D

It's been a while since Economics 101

Ion
9th June 2003, 05:54 PM
"lassez faire" does not make a 'laissez faire' or a 'laisser faire'.

Not when I am fluent in French, and limited knowledge of it is glaring to me.
Originally posted by Globert

...
as far as the WMD question the jury is still out.
Gee, five months ago they were the 'imminent' threat to the U.S., according to Bush.

Now, I guess they were not the 'imminent' threat to the U.S..

Bush just lied in U.N. and in U.S. that they were, because it turns out that they are not.

But an Exxon Mobil-led consortium 'finds out' -according to The San Diego Union Tribune of June 7- that a $15 billion gas project is 'imminent' oil in Iraq.

So much for Bush's 'free enterprise' like that, by force.

crocodile deathroll
9th June 2003, 06:35 PM
How can one trust US using these trailers as evidence of a biological weapon program when they are stubbornly sitting one them.

Why, because I suspect they will be debunked as evidence as any evidence of WMD, like they debunked all their so called intelligence reports leading up the war which is still persisting up till this day with a odd pot shot still taken on US troops on a daily basis.

Using these trailers as so called evidence is like police sitting on the evidence and never allowing the prosecutor to table them in court. Then stating we have got the evidence but we wont let the jury see it.

Globert
9th June 2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Ion
"lassez faire" does not make a 'laissez faire' or a 'laisser faire'.

Not when I am fluent in French, and limited knowledge of it is glaring to me.

Gee, five months ago they were the 'imminent' threat to the U.S., according to Bush.

Now, I guess they were not the 'imminent' threat to the U.S..

Bush just lied in U.N. and in U.S. that they were, because it turns out that they are not.

But an Exxon Mobil-led consortium 'finds out' -according to The San Diego Union Tribune of June 7- that a $15 billion gas project is 'imminent' oil in Iraq.

So much for Bush's 'free enterprise' like that, by force.


My condolences for having to have suffered through French.

End of hostilities May 6 2003? today's June 9 2003,

thats an eon Ion (or aeon if you prefer).

I posit the large lady is still warming up, you have her hoarse, drunk at the cast party reading her reveiw in Variety.

And having read you profess to european values, I also understand your fondness for a Nanny State.

Time will Tell.

Ion
9th June 2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Globert

...
And having read you profess to european values, I also understand your fondness for a Nanny State.

Time will Tell.
I don't know about your 'Nanny State'.

I was hoping to know about a just state.

A few years ago.

Segnosaur
10th June 2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Ion

What I already refuted about this argument, is that in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Israel-Palestine conflict where Israel with U.S. backing occupies non-Israel land (as defined by U.N.) while Israel has WMDs (breaking a U.N. Resolution, 12xx that I can pinpoint more accurately), is plenty of "...value of life..." for U.S. to care for if U.S. was genuinely concerned.


Yes, I would like to know very much what resolution you are referring to. And, keep one thing in mind; there are different 'types' of UN resolutions; Most of the resolutions against Iraq were Chapter 7 "enforcable" resolutions; most resolutions against Israel are Chapter 6 "unenforcable" resolutions, meaning that they are only guidelines, and they require cooperation from other parties. The same goes for WMD (Israel never signed on to non-poliferation treaties.) For more information, see: http://economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1378577

Now, the whole "there are bad areas in the world" is a really poor one... If you give $1 to charity, do people turn around and say that you haven't done anything good because there are other people in need in the world? No, you take the donation as it is.

The US doesn't have the resources to 'police' the entire world. But to say "they shouldn't act in one place because they can't act everywhere" makes no sense. You'd be very hard pressed to find a worse dictator that Saddam in the world.

Originally posted by Ion
The difference between these and Iraq, is oil.


Yes, as you like to chant mindlessly, without paying attention to my refutation of that. If oil were the only thing that the US wanted, they would have simply made a deal with Saddam. By overthrowing Saddam, the US is not guaranteed to 'reap' any oil benefits.

Just saying "its all about ooooiiillll over and over again doesn't make it so.

Originally posted by Ion
Right now, the French are in Congo under a U.N. mission for "human values".

You mean THIS Congo mission? http://www.guardian.co.uk/congo/story/0,12292,961954,00.html

(While people slaughter each other, the UN forces hide in their camps... Just goes to show how absolutely useless the UN is. Good job UN.... way to save human life!)

Of course France is also in the Ivory Coast, despite the people there saying they'd prefer to have the Americans.

Ion
11th June 2003, 01:12 AM
Where are the 'imminent' threat WMDs from Iraq?

Because they are long due:

two months ago.

Ion
11th June 2003, 02:33 AM
Segnosaur:

1) To answer your question about Israel breaching U.N. Resolutions on WMDs, from the list below showing Israel being in breach of U.N., the Resolution 673 does it, and the proposal #24 vetoed in U.N. by U.S. only (no other members vetoed it) shielded Israel from non-compliance with a Geneva Convention on WMDs:

UN RESOLUTIONS CONDEMING ISRAEL

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

1. Resolution 106: "... 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid"
2. Resolution 111: "...'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"
3. Resolution 127: "...'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem"
4. Resolution 162: "...'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions"
5. Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria"
6. Resolution 228: "...'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
7. Resolution 237: "...'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"
8. Resolution 248: "... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"
9. Resolution 250: "... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"
10. Resolution 251: "... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
11. Resolution 252: "...'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
12. Resolution 256: "... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation""
13. Resolution 259: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"
14. Resolution 262: "...'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport"
15. Resolution 265: "... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"
16. Resolution 267: "...'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"
17. Resolution 270: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"
18. Resolution 271: "...'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
19. Resolution 279: "...'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"
20. Resolution 280: "....'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"
21. Resolution 285: "...'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"
22. Resolution 298: "...'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem"
23. Resolution 313: "...'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"
24. Resolution 316: "...'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"
25. Resolution 317: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"
26. Resolution 332: "...'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon"
27. Resolution 337: "...'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty"
28. Resolution 347: "...'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
29. Resolution 425: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
30. Resolution 427: "...'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon'
31. Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"
32. Resolution 446: "...'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
33. Resolution 450: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
34. Resolution 452: "...'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"
35. Resolution 465: "...'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program"
36. Resolution 467: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon"
37. Resolution 468: "...'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"
38. Resolution 469: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians" 39. Resolution 471: "... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
40. Resolution 476: "... 'reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'"
41. Resolution 478: "...'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'"
42. Resolution 484: "...'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"
43. Resolution 487: "...'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility"
44. Resolution 497: "...'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"
45. Resolution 498: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"
46. Resolution 501: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"
47. Resolution 509: "...'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"
48. Resolution 515: "...'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"
49. Resolution 517: "...'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
50. Resolution 518: "...'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon"
51. Resolution 520: "...'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut"
52. Resolution 573: "...'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
53. Resolution 587: "...'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"
54. Resolution 592: "...'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops" 55. Resolution 605: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
56. Resolution 607: "...'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
57. Resolution 608: "...'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"
58. Resolution 636: "...'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
59. Resolution 641: "...'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians
60. Resolution 672: "...'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
61. Resolution 673: "...'condemns' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations on a Middle East free of biochemical weapons
62. Resolution 681: "...'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
63. Resolution 694: "...'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
64. Resolution 726: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians
65. Resolution 799: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.

The following are the resolutions vetoed by the United States during the period of September, 1972, to May, 1990 to protect Israel from council criticism:
1. ....condemned Israel's attack against Southern against southern Lebanon and Syria..."
2. ....affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, statehood and equal protections..."
3. ...condemned Israel's air strikes and attacks in southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians..."
4. ....called for self-determination of Palestinian people..."
5. ....deplored Israel's altering of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognized as an international city by most world nations and the United Nations..."
6. ....affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people..."
7. ....endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people..."
8. ....demanded Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights..."
9. ....condemned Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva convention protocols of civilized nations..."
10. ....condemned an Israeli soldier who shot eleven Moslem worshippers at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount near Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem..."
11. ....urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon..."
12. ....urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Beirut..."
14. ....urged cutoff of economic aid to Israel if it refused to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon..."
15. ....condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace..."
16. ....deplores Israel's brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urges its withdrawal..."
17. ....condemned Israeli brutality in southern Lebanon and denounced the Israeli 'Iron Fist' policy of repression...."
18. ....denounced Israel's violation of human rights in the occupied territories..."
19. ....deplored Israel's violence in southern Lebanon..."
20. ....deplored Israel's activities in occupied Arab East Jerusalem that threatened the sanctity of Muslim holy sites..."
21. ....condemned Israel's hijacking of a Libyan passenger airplane..."
22. ....deplored Israel's attacks against Lebanon and its measures and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon..."
23. ....called on Israel to abandon its policies against the Palestinian intifada that violated the rights of occupied Palestinians, to abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and to formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations..."
24. ....urged Israel to accept back deported Palestinians, condemned Israel's shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention on biochemical weapons, and called for a peace settlement under UN auspices..."
25. ....condemned Israel's... incursion into Lebanon..."
26. ....deplored Israel's... commando raids on Lebanon..."
27. ....deplored Israel's repression of the Palestinian intifada and called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians..."
28. ....deplored Israel's violation of the human rights of the Palestinians..."
29. ....demanded that Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel's crackdown on the Palestinian intifada..."
30. ...called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands..."-

2) You chant mindlesslly about oil being just a factor in the war of U.S. against Iraq, but you are too slow to understand my post mentioning the trading of the Iraq's oil in U.S. dollars and not in Euros, and the recent Exxon Mobil $15 billion contract for Iraq's oil.

3) Regarding the UN mission in Congo, you chant mindlessly about U.N. not being efficient in the world's conflicts, but I keep spoon feeding you that $78 billion from U.S. wasted in a war with no sincere cause, would have been more honestly spent on strenghtening the U.N. and the U.S. economy.

4) Any news about evidence of WMDs in Iraq, claim that Bush made in order to bypass U.N. and war against Iraq?

Agammamon
11th June 2003, 07:33 AM
So, six days and four pages of posts and the same two trailers that have been poured over since the end of the war still are not considered to be viable for the manufacture of WMD.

Three teams of Western experts have examined the trailers. The first two groups concluded the trailers could have been used to manufacture bioweapons, a third, more senior group was sharply divided on the issue.

There are three flaws in the government's argument.

1 No gear for steam sterilization. Though a separate module could be used to supply this, we haven't found it.

2 Low capacity. Each unit could only grow a small amount which would need further processing at a larger facility.

3 The tanks were not designed for easy/safe removal of the BW by the techs.

Granted, the trailers could be modified to provide what was needed, but then so can a tin can, if you want to pour enough money into it.

Segnosaur
11th June 2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Ion
Segnosaur:

1) To answer your question about Israel breaching U.N. Resolutions on WMDs, from the list below showing Israel being in breach of U.N.,


Very nice cut and paste job... Now, do you have any links to the actual text of these resolutions? (Unfortunately, I tried searching the UN site, but they seem to have too many dead links and a very poor search facility.) Excuse me for being skeptical, but the anti-war (and pro-palestinian side) has a habit of cherry-picking parts of Israeli resolutions while ignoring important parts of the document.

As I said before (and as pointed out in my article)... There are different 'types' of resolutions... Which "chapter" of resolutions are these? Unless they are 'chapter 7' they are pointless.

As for WMD... believe it or not, it is not "illegal" for a country to possess WMD... What IS illegal is for a country to posess them if they have signed a non-poliferation treaty (or other document) claiming they will not produce them. I strongly suggest you read the article I had posted earlier.

Originally posted by Ion
2) You chant mindlesslly about oil being just a factor in the war of U.S. against Iraq, but you are too slow to understand my post mentioning the trading of the Iraq's oil in U.S. dollars and not in Euros, and the recent Exxon Mobil $15 billion contract for Iraq's oil.


I already refuted your "dollars, not Euros" argument. The currency used is ultimately irrelevant... Oil companies do not 'print' their own money; and even if Euros were still used, they could still exchange dollars for euros on the open market. (Ultimately, all 'trade' takes place not in forms of currency, but in goods and services anyways.)

As for contracts with Iraq... Who ultimately receives the money from Iraqi oil sales?


Originally posted by Ion

3) Regarding the UN mission in Congo, you chant mindlessly about U.N. not being efficient in the world's conflicts, but I keep spoon feeding you that $78 billion from U.S. wasted in a war with no sincere cause, would have been more honestly spent on strenghtening the U.N. and the U.S. economy.


Perhaps you should use that spoon to feed yourself some brain food... you obviously need it.

Why would the US spend billions of dollars to support an organization that is wasteful and ineffectual now? An organization that has policies that run contrary to US goals? Do you think they'll suddenly say "hey, we have money; lets go get rid of some horrible dictators?" So, the US could give Billions to the UN, and there would still be the horrible human rights abuses that exist in the world.

As for $78 billion "wasted"... There are economic benefits to the war that will at least in part ofset the costs...
- Increased world supply of oil from the lifting of sanctions will lower prices/stimulate the economy
- The long-term costs of patrolling the "no fly" zones will be eliminated
- A democratic Iraq will be able to take its place in the global market, increasing the economy of the world overall

Originally posted by Ion


4) Any news about evidence of WMDs in Iraq, claim that Bush made in order to bypass U.N. and war against Iraq?


Well, strangely enough... Iran has actually come out and supported the US position that Iraq had hidden weapons: http://dynamic.washtimes.com/print_story.cfm?StoryID=20030609-114511-9442r

I admit, they may never find WMD in Iraq.

But guess what? They weren't invaded because they had WMD... They were invaded because the US feels they did not comply with UN resolutions (on WMD, and also on terrorism and human rights.). Sad to say, the rules that Iraq agreed to were to give complete cooperation, which they failed to do.

If Iraq truly had disarmed, then why the deception? Why not come clean? Why not provide the documentation on the destruction of existing weapons stocks, rather than use the "my dog ate it" defence" Why not allow interviews with scientists/technicians?

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Agammamon
So, six days and four pages of posts and the same two trailers that have been poured over since the end of the war still are not considered to be viable for the manufacture of WMD.

Three teams of Western experts have examined the trailers. The first two groups concluded the trailers could have been used to manufacture bioweapons, a third, more senior group was sharply divided on the issue.

There are three flaws in the government's argument.

1 No gear for steam sterilization. Though a separate module could be used to supply this, we haven't found it.

2 Low capacity. Each unit could only grow a small amount which would need further processing at a larger facility.

3 The tanks were not designed for easy/safe removal of the BW by the techs.

Granted, the trailers could be modified to provide what was needed, but then so can a tin can, if you want to pour enough money into it.

OK, using your argument, what are the trailers used for then if not WMD?

JK

DrChinese
11th June 2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


OK, using your argument, what are the trailers used for then if not WMD?

JK

Moving cans of pea soup, naturally. The soup has already been consumed by hungry Iraqis.

Now if you're right, where are the WMD they produced? We're still waiting...

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by DrChinese


Moving cans of pea soup, naturally. The soup has already been consumed by hungry Iraqis.

Now if you're right, where are the WMD they produced? We're still waiting...

Evasion. What are the trailers designed to do? Don't evade, answer the question.

JK

DavidJames
11th June 2003, 03:35 PM
"what are the trailers used for then if not WMD?"


This thread seems to have moved from the skeptical approach of "prove the claim" and into the "woo-woo" approach of proving the claim is not true. Maybe this thread should be moved to the paranormal section.

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by DavidJames
"what are the trailers used for then if not WMD?"


This thread seems to have moved from the skeptical approach of "prove the claim" and into the "woo-woo" approach of proving the claim is not true. Maybe this thread should be moved to the paranormal section.

Hey Sylvia, answer the question. It is leftist morons like you that said Bush lied about the WMD.

If the trailers are not WMD factories, then what are they?

Should be an easy question for a leftist psychic like you.

JK

Ion
11th June 2003, 04:42 PM
Segnosaur,

I even don't read much of your last post, because you don't know more than Bush (which is to say: you know nothing) where the WMDs are, for which Bush bypassed U.N..

When you have found the first WMDs in Iraq, do get back to me.

Then, we start talking why Bush needed an 'imminent' war for them, when the U.N. inspections were already searching for them.

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Ion
Segnosaur,

I even don't read much of your posts anylonger, because you don't know more than Bush knows now (which is to say: not knowing at all) about where are the WMDs for which Bush bypassed U.N..

When you have found WMDs in Iraq, get back to me.

Then, we start talking why Bush needed a war for them, when the U.N. inspections were already searching for them.

Another psychic leftist lol. The trailers are part of the WMD found in Iraq.

If they aren't, what are they?

JK

Ion
11th June 2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hey Sylvia, answer the question. It is leftist morons like you that said Bush lied about the WMD.

If the trailers are not WMD factories, then what are they?

Should be an easy question for a leftist psychic like you.

JK
So were are the WMDs in Iraq, Jedi?

These trailers, aren't:

a war for two trucks of chemicals, and no missiles to send chemicals, that must satisfy Jedi's wishes only.

You think, you can manage exams in school like that, Jedi?
I don't think so, you would need better analytical skills.

Ion
11th June 2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Another psychic leftist lol. The trailers are part of the WMD found in Iraq.
..

Which 'part' are you referring too?

'part' of nothing?
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

...
If they aren't, what are they?
JK
Trucks.

Segnosaur
11th June 2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Ion
Segnosaur,

I even don't read much of your posts anylonger, because you don't know more than Bush knows now (which is to say: not knowing at all) about where are the WMDs for which Bush bypassed U.N..

When you have found WMDs in Iraq, get back to me.

Then, we start talking why Bush needed a war for them, when the U.N. inspections were already searching for them.

You mean you were actually reading my posts to begin with?

Frankly, you have shown that you do not understand the slightest bit of anything I've posted. I have refuted arguments you have made over and over again, yet you fail to acknowlege it.

Ion: "Dollars instead of Euros"...
Me: "Here's why it doesn't matter.... "
Ion: (silence)

Or how about:

Ion: "Bad things done elsewhere..."
Me: "Here's where it doesn't matter..."
Ion: (silence)

Or what's worse, instead of silence, you prattle on the same garbage you've mentioned before, pretty much word for word, even though it A) does nothing to address my refutation, and B) provides no new information

By the way, you still haven't provided links to the text of those UN resolutions "condemming" Israel. Considering you haven't provided them, can we assume that they weren't the "chaper 7" enforcable/unilateral resolutions that Iraq was under? (You brought up the issue; therefore it is up to you to actually come up with the proof.)

Originally posted by Ion
When you have found WMDs in Iraq, get back to me.

Then, we start talking why Bush needed a war for them, when the U.N. inspections were already searching for them.

At no point did I say WMD are sure to be found. And at no point did I say that WMD were the only reason why an invasion of Iraq was a good idea. Go back and read my posts from before the war; I have been very consistent all the way though. (If you need help.

And as I've said before, my belief in the invasion of Iraq had very little if anyting to do with statements or evidence from Bush. Iraq was not complying with Weapons inspectors. History (read: most of the 90s) had shown that when Iraq was not complying, they were usually hiding stuff.

And get this: In the past, the inspectors have had a very poor record of finding stuff. In case you need a history lesson, very little was actually found in the past by the inspectors; instead, it was an Iraqi defector who showed where everything was hidden. Now, with a track record like that, why should we expect the inspectors to be able to find everything?

By the way, in case you didn't know (and it seems like there is a lot you don't know...) It was not the job of the inspects to 'search' for weapons; it was their job to verify Iraq's compliance. Simply put, if Iraq didn't provide cooperation, then there was no guarantee that they could perform their tasks.

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Ion

Which 'part' are you referring too?

'part' of nothing?

Trucks.

More leftist evasion. What were they used for?

You need to take off your Bush-hating glasses and let some reality through.

JK

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Ion

So were are the WMDs in Iraq, Jedi?

These trailers, aren't:

a war for two trucks of chemicals, and no missiles to send chemicals, that must satisfy Jedi's wishes only.

You think, you can manage exams in school like that, Jedi?
I don't think so, you would need better analytical skills.

Come on psychic, you say you have the answer. What were they used for?

JK

Ion
11th June 2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Come on psychic, you say you have the answer. What were they used for?

JK
Jedi,

how is the schoolwork coming along?

Ion
11th June 2003, 05:39 PM
Segnosaur,

have you found any WMDs, yet?

ImpyTimpy
11th June 2003, 05:44 PM
Geez Jedi, I didn't realise the claimant had the right to ask for proof that their claim is somehow false. You really should consider the believer boards, you'll be much more at home there. Like you said, we're a bunch of kook haters here.

Seriously, there are many possible uses for a mobile laboratory, it could've been used to manufacture industrial chemicals or to transport them.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Come on psychic, you say you have the answer. What were they used for?

JK

Segnosaur
11th June 2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Ion
Segnosaur,

have you found any WMDs, yet?

They're right beside the text of those Israeli resolutions that you seem to be hesitant to produce.


P.S. do you ever actually read anything that anyone else posts?

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Ion

Jedi,

how is the schoolwork coming along?

Don't evade, lefty. What were the WMD trailers really used for? Did you take off your Bush-hating glasses yet to allow some reality to get through, or are you still lying about not finding WMD in Iraq?

JK

Segnosaur
11th June 2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Geez Jedi, I didn't realise the claimant had the right to ask for proof that their claim is somehow false. You really should consider the believer boards, you'll be much more at home there. Like you said, we're a bunch of kook haters here.


As much as I think JK is a kook, I do think that the question of 'alternate uses' has to be addressed.

If there are a limited number of possible uses for the trucks, and all alternate uses can be ruled out (for whatever reasons), then its reasonable to assume that the last remaining possibility (that it was designed as a mobile weapons facility) is probably correct. (Its decuctive reasoning.) It doesn't mean that it was actually used for that purpose, but even having the potential to use it for bio weapons was something Iraq was not supposed to have.

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

Seriously, there are many possible uses for a mobile laboratory, it could've been used to manufacture industrial chemicals or to transport them.



I don't think it would be feasable to use it for transport. (The equipment it had in it was more for production than storage/transport). There was a possibility that it could be used for fertilizer production, but that too is not very feasable. (The trucks would be quite expensive to use for that purpose, and probably wouldn't scale very well to produce the large amounts of final product.)

Either way, the trucks were not declared by Iraq. (Under the terms of the UN resolution, they were required to declare even stuff that had dual uses.) Which brings up the question... If this truck was used for fertilizer production, why not declare it?

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Geez Jedi, I didn't realise the claimant had the right to ask for proof that their claim is somehow false. You really should consider the believer boards, you'll be much more at home there. Like you said, we're a bunch of kook haters here.

Seriously, there are many possible uses for a mobile laboratory, it could've been used to manufacture industrial chemicals or to transport them.



They weren't used for industrial chemicals.

Legitimate Uses Unlikely

Coalition experts on fermentation and systems engineering examined the trailer found in late April and have been unable to identify any legitimate industrial use—such as water purification, mobile medical laboratory, vaccine or pharmaceutical production—that would justify the effort and expense of a mobile production capability. We have investigated what other industrial processes may require such equipment—a fermentor, refrigeration, and a gas capture system—and agree with the experts that BW agent production is the only consistent, logical purpose for these vehicles.

* The capability of the system to capture and compress exhaust gases produced during fermentation is not required for legitimate biological processes and strongly indicates attempts to conceal production activity.

* The presence of caustic in the fermentor combined with the recent painting of the plant may indicate an attempt to decontaminate and conceal the plant's purpose.

* Finally, the data plate on the fermentor indicates that this system was manufactured in 2002 and yet it was not declared to the United Nations, as required by Security Council Resolutions.

Some coalition analysts assess that the trailer found in late April could be used for bioproduction but believe it may be a newer prototype because the layout is not entirely identical to what the source described.

Manufacturer's data plate on the fermentor.
[Click image to enlarge]

A New York Times article on 13 May 2003 reported that an agricultural expert suggests the trailers might have been intended to produce biopesticides near agricultural areas in order to avoid degradation problems. The same article also reported that a former weapons inspector suggests that the trailers may be chemical-processing units intended to refurbish Iraq's antiaircraft missiles.

* Biopesticide production requires the same equipment and technology used for BW agent production; however, the off-gas collection system and the size of the equipment are unnecessary for biopesticide production. There is no need to produce biopesticides near the point of use because biopesticides do not degrade as quickly as most BW agents and would be more economically produced at a large fixed facility. In addition, the color of the trailer found in mid-April is indicative of military rather than civilian use.

* Our missile experts have no explanation for how such a trailer could function to refurbish antiaircraft missiles and judge that such a use is unlikely based on the scale, configuration, and assessed function of the equipment.

* The experts cited in the editorial are not on the scene and probably do not have complete access to information about the trailers.

---source (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/index.html), CIA Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants Intelligence Assessment

JK

Tricky
11th June 2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Don't evade, lefty. What were the WMD trailers really used for? Did you take off your Bush-hating glasses yet to allow some reality to get through, or are you still lying about not finding WMD in Iraq?

JK
They were used for manufacturing pharmaceuticals. Prove me wrong. I don't want any stories about how "no pharmaceuticals were found." I don't want any questions of why they would be producing pharmaceuticals and then hiding them. I say thay were for pharmaceuticals and if you can't prove that they weren't then I am correct.:rolleyes:

Ion
11th June 2003, 06:02 PM
Jedi-Segnosaur,

here is a joke:

∫ dx/cabin = log(cabin)


You will get it, before WMDs.

(I am not sure about Jedi, though: WMDs and the joke, might be forever impossible for Jedi).

Gem
11th June 2003, 06:03 PM
Come on psychic, you say you have the answer. What were they used for?

JK

JK, you sound like me when I was asking you to locate the confession for the Sweeney murders. You still haven't answered that.

Also, the W in WMD stands for weapon. a truck isn't a weapon. But that beside the point.

I did not even know chemical/biological weapons could be produced from trucks. Now I assume that not many people on this forum knew that before the war in Iraq. So what I wonder is how can we even know what it can be used for, if we didn't even know it existed before?

Also, let me take a guess.
Mobile hospitals. Saddam did care about the Sunnies in Iraq.

And probably the most important thing: People are looking for the tons and tons of anthrax, toxins with weird names etc, not trucks. Find a couple of trucks isn't the same thing as finding chemical ammunition dumps.

Gem

P.S.: You can call me Bush hater all you want, now.

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Segnosaur


They're right beside the text of those Israeli resolutions that you seem to be hesitant to produce.


P.S. do you ever actually read anything that anyone else posts?

He has Bush-hating glasses on and reality isn't getting through. You could drop an evidence bomb in his lap and he would think it was a watermelon.

JK

Segnosaur
11th June 2003, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Tricky

They were used for manufacturing pharmaceuticals.

Oh great.... Just what we need. Lets export the "War on Drugs" to Iraq.

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Tricky

They were used for manufacturing pharmaceuticals. Prove me wrong. I don't want any stories about how "no pharmaceuticals were found." I don't want any questions of why they would be producing pharmaceuticals and then hiding them. I say thay were for pharmaceuticals and if you can't prove that they weren't then I am correct.:rolleyes:

Check out the CIA report I linked above. There is no logical reason Iraq would build a series of trailers like those for legitimate pharmaceutical reasons. It goes against the grain of skepticism to think they were used for legitmate purposes since Iraq has tens of millions of square feet of industrial space for such purposes already.

I guess instead of critical thinking in this thread we have "Iraq doesn't have WMD because of Bush-hating agendas." :rolleyes:

JK

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Ion
Jedi-Segnosaur,

here is a joke:

∫ dx/cabin = log(cabin)


You will get it, before WMDs.

(I am not sure about Jedi, though. It might be equally tough for Jedi).

So what were the WMD trailers really used for, Bush-hater?

JK

Segnosaur
11th June 2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Gem

Also, the W in WMD stands for weapon. a truck isn't a weapon. But that beside the point.

True, but Iraq wasn't even supposed to have the MEANS to produce weapons. (Having facilities such as this means that Iraq could easily start producing bio weapons at any point after the inspectors left.)

Originally posted by Gem

I did not even know chemical/biological weapons could be produced from trucks. Now I assume that not many people on this forum knew that before the war in Iraq. So what I wonder is how can we even know what it can be used for, if we didn't even know it existed before?


Weren't the 'trucks' mentioned in Powel's pre-war speach to the UN?

I know that during the inspection process, several trucks were found (that were different than these ones), but were assumed to be mobile labs for food testing (or something along those lines.)

Gem
11th June 2003, 06:14 PM
Iraq has tens of millions of square feet of industrial space for such purposes already.

Really? Where did you learn that? (Hint, we need a link)

Gem

Ion
11th June 2003, 06:16 PM
That's what we have in this thread, Jedi?
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

...
I guess instead of critical thinking in this thread we have "Iraq doesn't have WMD because of Bush-hating agendas." :rolleyes:

JK
My, my.

We shouldn't have that, here, so you need to improve a little bit.

Ion
11th June 2003, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


So what were the WMD trailers really used for, Bush-hater?

JK
Trucks.

Gem
11th June 2003, 06:19 PM
True, but Iraq wasn't even supposed to have the MEANS to produce weapons. (Having facilities such as this means that Iraq could easily start producing bio weapons at any point after the inspectors left.)

Yes, I realize that Iraq was in UN breach. If I remember just about everyone beleived that Iraq had WMD, but I think it varried on how much they had (a lot, a little, etc).

Weren't the 'trucks' mentioned in Powel's pre-war speach to the UN?

Yes, I think what I meant was "pre iraq debate," and not "pre-war." I was arguing that not a lot of people knew about mobile labs before the US brought it up.

I know that during the inspection process, several trucks were found (that were different than these ones), but were assumed to be mobile labs for food testing (or something along those lines).

Not a lot of people are experts in this domain, we'll have to forgive them.

Gem

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Gem
Also, the W in WMD stands for weapon. a truck isn't a weapon. But that beside the point.

Oh, so if a terrorist drives a truck laden with ammonium-nitrate-filled barrels towards a target, that is not a weapon?

This goes into the heart of why the trailers exist. They exist for:

1) Secrecy.

2) Creation of biological warfare agents.

There is no legitimate purpose for those trailers and they are WMD facilities. They are the reason President Bush went into Iraq and I am proud my president had the guts to go in and get them before they could be used to produce more deadly toxing than they already have produced.

Now we just have to find the toxin they made before it falls into the hands of the evil terrorists.

JK

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Ion

Trucks.

Well good for you. You finally admit to Iraqi WMD.

JK

Gem
11th June 2003, 06:26 PM
Oh, so if a terrorist drives a truck laden with ammonium-nitrate-filled barrels towards a target, that is not a weapon?

The truck alone isn't a weapon, but as a delivery system of the weapon, which are toxins/chemicals/etc. That truck laden with explosives could as well be used for plain transport.

They are the reason President Bush went into Iraq

No, they weren't. Bush mention WMD in general, including weapons, missles, scuds, ammunition, and yes, including these trucks, according to Powell. But if I remember well, Bush didn't go into Iraq because Saddam was a nasty fellow who disobeying the UN, but because these weapons were a threat to American soil. It's the "threat to Americans" that people think wasn't real.

I know there was a lot of talk about a "fleet of unmmaned drones that could carry chemical/biological payloads into america." Invading a country because it can make illegal weapons is not very convincing, is it?

Gem

Ion
11th June 2003, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Oh, so if a terrorist drives a truck laden with ammonium-nitrate-filled barrels towards a target, that is not a weapon?
...
JK
So Hussein wanted to drive these trucks accross Asia and the ocean, 3000 miles, right into an 'imminent' attack on U.S.?

Evil, Hussein...

Ion
11th June 2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Well good for you. You finally admit to Iraqi WMD.

JK
Sure, I see trucks with chemicals in U.S..

They must be WMDs, Jedi.

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Gem
Invading a country because it can make illegal weapons is not very convincing, is it?

Gem

It is completely convincing and should be US policy for the forseeable future. The policy of preemption is necessary when dealing with WMD threats and madmen who order them into existence to be used against the west and free people everywhere.

JK

Ion
11th June 2003, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


It is completely convincing and should be US policy for the forseeable future.
...
JK
It 'certainly' should.

Take charge of doing this, Jedi.

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Ion

Sure, I see trucks with chemicals in U.S..

They must be WMDs, Jedi.

lol, you hate Bush so much you are in permanent denial. I bet you worship Marx too, huh.

JK

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Ion

It 'certainly' should.

Take charge of doing this, Jedi.

lol, no amount of whining is going to change the fact that Bush is president. :)

Get over it already. ;)

JK

Gem
11th June 2003, 06:34 PM
It is completely convincing and should be US policy for the forseeable future. The policy of preemption is necessary when dealing with WMD threats and madmen who order them into existence to be used against the west and free people everywhere.


Where do I begin? Ah yes. Illegal weapons isn't a motive for preemption. The fact that they would use them against you in the near future IS a case for intervention, which is what the Bush administration did. But Bush argued for threat, not illigicitamy (sorry about spelling). That's what I'm saying, Bush isn't in Iraq because it disobeyed the UN, I think other countries disobey the UN when they want to.

free people everywhere.
I thought there were no free people in the world according to you. The US is rampamt with the infamous feminazis while Europe is in the grap of beaurocratyrany.

Gem

Segnosaur
11th June 2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by Gem


No, they weren't. Bush mention WMD in general, including weapons, missles, scuds, ammunition, and yes, including these trucks, according to Powell. But if I remember well, Bush didn't go into Iraq because Saddam was a nasty fellow who disobeying the UN, but because these weapons were a threat to American soil. It's the "threat to Americans" that people think wasn't real.


I do think Bush over-emphasized WMD. I really wish he would have spent a little more time talking about Iraq's support of terrorism, and their poor human rights record. (Why did he put so much emphasis on it? Perhaps he needed to emphasize the 'danger' to get wide support, perhaps he did so to make Iraq distinct from all the other terrorist supporting dictators with poor human rights records.)

Frankly, I think I supported the war in spite of Bush, rather than because of him.

However, a few things must be remembered:

- Even though I think that WMD may have been overhyped (and possibly lied about) by Bush, they were an issue; even ignoring everything Bush said, there were reasons to believe Iraq was hiding stuff.

- The other factors, even though they weren't given the same emphasis that WMD were, were still mentioned prior to the war

- Even if none of the other factors (terrorism, human rights, and oil) were mentioned at all, it does not mean that they did not exist.

If Bush said he wanted to invade Iraq because magical pixies whispered in his ear that Saddam was planning on reuniting the Beatles, I still would have supported the war because the reasons I felt were valid, still existed (even if Bush's reasoning was not).

Gem
11th June 2003, 06:46 PM
I do think Bush over-emphasized WMD. I really wish he would have spent a little more time talking about Iraq's support of terrorism, and their poor human rights record. (Why did he put so much emphasis on it? Perhaps he needed to emphasize the 'danger' to get wide support, perhaps he did so to make Iraq distinct from all the other terrorist supporting dictators with poor human rights records.)

Yes, little mention was given about human rights, but there were mentions of terrorism. He connected Al-Queida to Iraq (he said after the war that Al was wounded, but not dead). I don't think he put a lot of spotlight on his support of palestenians terrorist groups (and that 25000 cash award to families of Suicide bombers).

But I remember that WMD were not the issue itself. It was more along the lines of: Are they really a threat to us? Can the inspections work? And so forth. Everyone knew, even I think some who were against the war, that Iraq had WMD. But that wasn't really base on evidence, but on deductive reasoning. You know, he had a lot of them before, lied a lot, etc etc. Now that they haven't been found (yet, at least), people are crying foul because the government could have lied to them.

Gem

Ion
11th June 2003, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Get over it already. ;)

JK
Over what?

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Ion

Over what?

...over the fact that you wished Gore became President lol. We already talked about this previously too, but you obviously have an attention span of a turtle.

JK

Gem
11th June 2003, 06:54 PM
You might want to debate instead of using ad hominem JK, considering that you yourself have repeatedly exposed ad hominem.

Gem

Ion
11th June 2003, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Segnosaur

...
If Bush said he wanted to invade Iraq because magical pixies whispered in his ear that Saddam was planning on reuniting the Beatles, I still would have supported the war because the reasons I felt were valid, still existed (even if Bush's reasoning was not).
He didn't say that, or regime change, or something else.

He said in Congress that he knows where WMDs in Iraq are, that they are an 'imminent' threat to the U.S., and that "Iraq must disarm.".

He is a phony, generating killings.

Ion
11th June 2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


...over the fact that you wished Gore became President lol. We already talked about this previously too, but you obviously have an attention span of a turtle.

JK
I never wrote the word Gore, or wrote that I wished Gore to be President, in this forum.

A little senile, Jedi?

Segnosaur
11th June 2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by Ion

He didn't say that, or regime change, or something else.

He said in Congress that he knows where WMDs in Iraq are, that they are an 'imminent' threat to the U.S., and that "Iraq must disarm.".

He is a phony, generating killings.

And the award for "totally missing the point" goes to..... ION!!!

Huzzah! Stand up and take a bow. Sorry, you had your head too far stuck up your butt to do that. Oh well, next time. With your lack of brain power, I'm sure you'll have plenty of more chances to win this award.

By the way, if Bush is a liar, then is Blix, Gore, Saddam, and a whole host of other people who, somewhere along the way, claimed that there were WMD unaccounted for in Iraq. See: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/1946168

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by Gem
You might want to debate instead of using ad hominem JK, considering that you yourself have repeatedly exposed ad hominem.

Gem

I am pointing out facts. Don't misconstrue them as ad hom.

JK

Gem
11th June 2003, 07:03 PM
I am pointing out facts. Don't misconstrue them as ad hom.

yeah, calling someone a psychic is poiting out a fact?

Gem

Segnosaur
11th June 2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Ion


He is a phony, generating killings.

As I've stated many times before...

The total number of people killed in Iraq (from the war) is likely far less than the total killed in an average year by Saddam.

Ion
11th June 2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I am pointing out facts.

JK
When did I use the name Gore, in this forum?

Senile, Jedi?

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Segnosaur


And the award for "totally missing the point" goes to..... ION!!!

Huzzah! Stand up and take a bow. Sorry, you had your head too far stuck up your butt to do that. Oh well, next time. With your lack of brain power, I'm sure you'll have plenty of more chances to win this award.

By the way, if Bush is a liar, then is Blix, Gore, Saddam, and a whole host of other people who, somewhere along the way, claimed that there were WMD unaccounted for in Iraq. See: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/1946168

I second that award noimination for Lon. He deliberately ignores facts like most leftists do.

It is called "leftist denial."

JK

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Ion

When did I use the name Gore, in this forum?

Senile, Jedi?

I am not going to waste my time debating with you anymore, Lon. I have you figured out. You are a leftist in denial, a Bush-hating leftist. Nothing you say will be taken seriously by me, ever.

Good luck to you.

JK

Ion
11th June 2003, 07:07 PM
So, when did I use the name Gore in this forum, Jedi?

You must be senile.

Jedi Knight
11th June 2003, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Gem


yeah, calling someone a psychic is poiting out a fact?

Gem

Well, if I give you facts and then you claim you have the facts about Iraqi WMD (that there isn't any) like Lon is, he must be a psychic because there is no other way to look at such a brain disorder.

JK

Ion
11th June 2003, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I am not going to waste my time debating with you anymore, Lon. I have you figured out. You are a leftist in denial, a Bush-hating leftist. Nothing you say will be taken seriously by me, ever.

Good luck to you.

JK
Jedi, I don't follow you.

Lon, is you, Jedi?

Ion
11th June 2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Well, if I give you facts and then you claim you have the facts about Iraqi WMD (that there isn't any) like Lon is, he must be a psychic because there is no other way to look at such a brain disorder.

JK
Jedi (or Lon, I am confused about what name you take):

when did I ever debate about Gore in this forum?

I didn't.

You must be senile, Jedi.

Ion
11th June 2003, 07:15 PM
Jedi (or Lon, whatever name you want to take):

from reading the quote, it is Segnosaur who wrote the name Gore.

Not me.

Segnosaur is not me, but is another poster.

I never discussed Gore in this forum.
Never wrote the name Gore, until you said I did write it.

Jedi (or Lon):

you are senile.

Segnosaur
11th June 2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Ion
Jedi (or Lon, whatever name you want to take):

from reading the quote, it is Segnosaur who wrote the name Gore.


Sorry, you can't that on me.

The subject of Gore came up long before I ever mentioned his name. (And the only reason I mentioned his name is as one of the many politicians and beaurocrats who believed Iraq had WMD before the war; it had nothing to do with the election.)

I know you're not too smart, so you probably have trouble following threads.

Of course, I'm still waiting for the text of those "chaper 7 UN resolutions" involving Israel.

Ion
11th June 2003, 07:27 PM
This is garbage:
Originally posted by Segnosaur


As I've stated many times before...

The total number of people killed in Iraq (from the war) is likely far less than the total killed in an average year by Saddam.
People live and die for a cause.

People who die from Hussein, die because of their chosen cause.

People who die from Bush attacking Iraq, die for Bush's WMDs, which is no chosen cause, but is a phony.

The Iraqis are as much 'liberated' as if U.S.S.R. or Bush is 'liberating' them:

the newspapers have them as resisting the U.S. invasion.

Ion
11th June 2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Segnosaur

...
I know you're not too smart, so you probably have trouble following threads.
...

You are less smart than me:

I never debated Gore, or mentioned the name before Jedi (or Lon now) wrote five minutes ago, that I did.

Senile too, like Jedi (or Lon), Segnosaur?

So, can I still trust you about asking you where Bush's WMDs are?

Segnosaur
11th June 2003, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by Ion
This is garbage:

People live and die for a cause.


Actually, many of the mass graves uncovered recently by forces in Iraq show evidence that they were killed 'execution' style, sometimes with their hands tied behind their backs.

Also, some of the mass graves contain the remains of children. Some were found burried with dolls. (Now, some of those are reports from Kurdish areas, so they may need additional verification.)

Don't forget, all the children that were released from Saddam's prison.

Its hard to believe that children and innocent people killed 'execution style' really were "fighting for a cause".

Ion
11th June 2003, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Segnosaur


Actually, many of the mass graves uncovered recently by forces in Iraq show evidence that they were killed 'execution' style, sometimes with their hands tied behind their backs.
...

Segnosaur,

let me state the obvious, once more:

Bush didn't war on Iraq because of regime change, he did war on Iraq because he 'knows' WMDs.

So, Bush is phony and people died because of this.

Segnosaur
11th June 2003, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by Ion

You are less smart than me:

I never debated Gore, or mentioned the name before Jedi (or Lon now) wrote five minutes ago, that I did.


If you pull your head out of your butt, you'd see that the name Gore was mentioned before I did. I don't care who mentioned it first; I just know I was not the cause. If you were able to actually do some checking you woudl have noted that. (yeah, I know, hard work actually checking stuff.... don't worry, I don't expect you to actually do anything that would strain your brain)

Or are you trying for another shot at the "totally misses the point" award?

Originally posted by Ion


So, can I still trust you about asking you where Bush's WMDs are?

Depends; can I actually expect you to provide with the text of those Chaper 7 resolutions condemming Israel?

And can you tell me how Blix, Chirac, German Intelligence, etc. could claim before the war that Iraq had WMD?

Segnosaur
11th June 2003, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by Ion

Segnosaur,

let me state the obvious, once more:

Bush didn't war on Iraq because of regime change, he did war on Iraq because he 'knows' WMDs.

So, Bush is phony and people died because of this.

I'll try to explain this to you in small words so you can understand it....

It is possible to support the war even if they do not agree with Bush's weapons claims.

See? No word more than 3 sylables. Or do you need even shorter words?

I'm strongly beginning to think that you're really a troll.

no one in particular
11th June 2003, 07:44 PM
Please, allow me to explain the “Ion”/“Lon” confusion. Jedi thought that the “I” in “Ion” was actually a lowercase “L”, when, in fact, it is an uppercase “i". Therefore, Jedi thought that “Ion”’s name was actually “Lon”.


Okay, all, carry “on”…

Ion
11th June 2003, 07:45 PM
Segnosaur,

you are as lost as Jedi (or Lon now) is here, addressing to me:
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


...over the fact that you wished Gore became President lol. We already talked about this previously too, but you obviously have an attention span of a turtle.

JK
Again, for you and Jedi (or Lon):

I never debated Gore in this forum, unlike Jadi (or Lon) claims.

Still senile, Segnosaur?

a_unique_person
11th June 2003, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Segnosaur


I'll try to explain this to you in small words so you can understand it....

It is possible to support the war even if they do not agree with Bush's weapons claims.




Of course it is, but Bush didn't want to for reasons of his own. He chose to fight it on terms of WMD. No one made him choose that reason, it was all his own work.

Ed
11th June 2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by a_unique_person



Of course it is, but Bush didn't want to for reasons of his own. He chose to fight it on terms of WMD. No one made him choose that reason, it was all his own work.

This is exactly the point. Being for or against the war is completely irrelevant.

Ion
11th June 2003, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by no one in particular
Please, allow me to explain the “Ion”/“Lon” confusion. Jedi thought that the “I” in “Ion” was actually a lowercase “L”, when, in fact, it is an uppercase “i". Therefore, Jedi thought that “Ion”’s name was actually “Lon”.


Okay, all, carry “on”…

Still, when did I debate Gore in this forum, which Jedi claims that I did, with his "...over the fact that you wished Gore became President lol..."?

I never brought up whether Gore would be better than Bush, as President.
Never got into this discussion and never wrote the name Gore, before now.
The only thing I discussed here is that there are no WMDs.

Jedi and Segnosaur are senile, both of them.

Segnosaur
11th June 2003, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Ion
Segnosaur,

you are as lost as Jedi (or Lon now) is here, addressing to me:

...

I never debated Gore in this forum, unlike Jadi (or Lon) claims.



I wasn't claiming you were. What I was responding to (if your limited attention span could follow) is that I did NOT mention Gore first; the subject was brought up by Jedi before I ever mentioned his name.

Originally posted by Ion

Still senile, Segnosaur?

Still unable to follow a simple thread, or actually respond to issues brought up in other people's posts?


Really, come clean... Are you really a troll? You have all the traits... You post the same stuff over and over (almost word for word), never actually responding to other people's statements.

no one in particular
11th June 2003, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Ion

Still, when did I debate Gore in this forum, which Jedi claims that I did, with his "...over the fact that you wished Gore became President lol..."?Why are you asking me?!

Ion
11th June 2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by a_unique_person

Of course it is, but Bush didn't want to for reasons of his own. He chose to fight it on terms of WMD. No one made him choose that reason, it was all his own work.
That's my point.

Facts show now, that Bush is wrong.

And he is the U.S. President, in charge with administering grave decisions.

Ion
11th June 2003, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Segnosaur

...
Still unable to follow a simple thread, or actually respond to issues brought up in other people's posts?
...

I don't get it:

did you find WMDs?

Gem
11th June 2003, 08:05 PM
It's starting to get really irrevelant here.

If there are WMD, they'll be found. I doubt that Saddam was able to kill every single individual, hide every ammuniton that he had.

I say March next year is the month of reconing.

Gem

Ion
11th June 2003, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by no one in particular
Why are you asking me?!
It's a rhetoric question, with the obvious answer:

never.

Unless, Segnosaur and Jedi get confused in it, but they are not too well.

Ion
11th June 2003, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Gem
It's starting to get really irrevelant here.

If there are WMD, they'll be found. I doubt that Saddam was able to kill every single individual, hide every ammuniton that he had.

I say March next year is the month of reconing.

Gem
March or April or something else, the question is since WMDs are obviously not 'imminent', then what's the point of cutting the U.N. inspections that were searching, and war on Iraq?

Bush is not honest.

MRC_Hans
11th June 2003, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


My credibility sparkles like the sun with brilliance and warmth and unwavering power.

*snip*

I think guys like you in denial are the ones with credibility issues.

JK Really fascinating! What puzzles me is how guys like you managed to learn to read and write in the first place. There must have been some stage in your life when you were able to react rationally to outside stimuli.

The brilliance and warmth from your credibility comes from it being on fire. Again you keep surprising me: I would have expected you to hit rock bottom long ago, but, against all odds, you seem to be able to continue to reduce it.

I have rarely met somebody with such a creative perception of reality. :rolleyes:

Hans

Jedi Knight
12th June 2003, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I have rarely met somebody with such a creative perception of reality.

Just say you want my autograph. You don't have to give a speech about it.

JK

JAR
12th June 2003, 01:09 AM
Jedi Knight, I am amazed at your ability to continually come up with counterarguments. If it was me who started this thread, I would have given up long ago on convincing the leftists that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But as we know, even if chemical weapons are found in Iraq, the leftists will say that the U.S. planted them there. It's a conspiracy theory with no hard evidence to back it up. Of course, the left will say that they do have evidence. Their evidence will be that they have a gut feeling that the U.S. planted them there.

How can we argue with that?

Hopefully their gut feeling will go away.

MRC_Hans
12th June 2003, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Just say you want my autograph. You don't have to give a speech about it.

JK Sure, why not? But will it be false?

JAR:
I think you are missing the main point here: The Bush administration claimed that they knew that Saddam had WMD, and that they knew where they were, they just could not disclose the information because it would jeopardize sources's safety (mmm, old line that one).

Sooo now when they are in control of the country, why don't they just walk up to those locations and say: "Here! Thats what we were talking about."?

This (for me at least) is not about justification of the war, actually I think that Saddam needed to be removed, this is about a government again lying to everybody in order to sell their idea.

This happens not only in the USA, and it is one of the greatests threats to democracy: Instead of following the needs and/or wishes of the population, politicians follow their political (and personal) agendas and lie and cheat to sell it to the public.

-

As a right-wing nationalist, JK ought to be the first one to balk at a dishonest politician, but instead he grinds his, already eroded to rubble, credibility into fine dust by blindly following Repulican hard-core groupthink: "The boss is always right, anybody claiming otherwise is a damn leftist!".

You are not narrow-minded, you have absolute tunnel vision.

But you are fun to read :p

Hans

Jedi Knight
12th June 2003, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by JAR
Jedi Knight, I am amazed at your ability to continually come up with counterarguments. If it was me who started this thread, I would have given up long ago on convincing the leftists that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But as we know, even if chemical weapons are found in Iraq, the leftists will say that the U.S. planted them there. It's a conspiracy theory with no hard evidence to back it up. Of course, the left will say that they do have evidence. Their evidence will be that they have a gut feeling that the U.S. planted them there.

How can we argue with that?

Hopefully their gut feeling will go away.

I believe that it is possible for a series of immoral men to seize power in Europe and that a moral American president would have a difficult time convincing them that there is a moral case for war against a country such as Iraq.

The WMD issue isn't even relevant. History has proved that Saddam used the weapons and with the WMD trailers and biological labs found, it also proves that he was still embarking on forbidden research, development and manufacturing of WMD. I have no doubts whatsoever that WMD will be found and yes, some on the radical left will say it was 'planted', but that will be sorted out by independent experts who will prove it was manufactured in Iraq.

The real issue is simply President Bush. The radical left would rather see Saddam in power and working against the United States than allowing President Bush the power and moral right to do away with him. The left in this country will never get over the fact that Gore didn't win the presidential election and couldn't even win his own home state. They will say Bush didn't win the election--that he 'stole it", yet they will never talk about the fact that Gore lost his own home state which is what really cost him the election.

President Bush could find a hydrogen bomb in Iraq and the left would say it wasn't enough to go to war lol.

The left also couldn't bear to see yet another socialist nation-state (Iraq) bombed into freedom. It gives leftist ideology a bad name lol.

JK

synaesthesia
12th June 2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

The WMD issue isn't even relevant.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say it's irrelevant, I think the justification of this war stands or falls independently of finding actual WMD.

First of all, it had long been known that Saddam DID have them. Bill Clinton acted on this information, many UN agencies acted on this information, so this can hardly be construed as a fabrication of this admiknistration. Anyone who thinks it is has blinded themselves in the interest of politics. Enjoy your blindness.

Secondly, for God's sake, look at the sort of atrocities Saddam was committing. If war isn't worth waging over thousands of helpless people being murdered for various trivial or selfish reasons, WMD are sure as hell not going to be justification.

Third, the war aims at remaking middle east politics. For instance, it provides the united States with a reason to pull out of Saudi Arabia. I count that as a good thing. Whether overall it will be effective in this regard remains to be seen, but I don't think that it's self evident one way or the other.

Crossbow
12th June 2003, 09:13 AM
Wow JK!

That last post of yours was, well, all you.

When you left for those few days that was exactly the sort of thing that I enjoyed not having around.

Monketey Ghost
12th June 2003, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Crossbow
Wow JK!

That last post of yours was, well, all you.

When you left for those few days that was exactly the sort of thing that I enjoyed not having around.

Sorry Crossbow~~ that sort of coming-out-of-the stands-from-right-field-only-to-get-hit-in-the-skull-by-the-ball post is what I missed. JK's the five dollar bottle in our wine tasting.
I kind of like to read his cartoonish stuff.

Bjorn
12th June 2003, 10:03 AM
The guy starts a thread named:

President Bush Is Going To Give IRAQ WMD Evidence Information

257 replies later he posts:

The WMD issue isn't even relevant. :p

Tricky
12th June 2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by No Answers


Sorry Crossbow~~ that sort of coming-out-of-the stands-from-right-field-only-to-get-hit-in-the-skull-by-the-ball post is what I missed. JK's the five dollar bottle in our wine tasting.
I kind of like to read his cartoonish stuff.

I hadn't thought of this before, but JK's posts are like a terrorist bombing: Sure it hurts people and he gets to watch them scurry around for a while, but ultimately he hurts his own cause. Even the (few) people who agree with him really wish he weren't on their side.

Jedi Knight
12th June 2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by synaesthesia
While I wouldn't go so far as to say it's irrelevant, I think the justification of this war stands or falls independently of finding actual WMD.

No, the justification for the war came from UN resolution 1441 (Iraq's breach of it).

The WMD issue was a secondary outlined threat along with Saddam's war crimes.

JK

Jedi Knight
12th June 2003, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Tricky


I hadn't thought of this before, but JK's posts are like a terrorist bombing: Sure it hurts people and he gets to watch them scurry around for a while, but ultimately he hurts his own cause. Even the (few) people who agree with him really wish he weren't on their side.

You can't debate, Tricky. You have no skillz. Don't blame me for your own inadequacies.

JK

Jedi Knight
12th June 2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by No Answers


Sorry Crossbow~~ that sort of coming-out-of-the stands-from-right-field-only-to-get-hit-in-the-skull-by-the-ball post is what I missed. JK's the five dollar bottle in our wine tasting.
I kind of like to read his cartoonish stuff.

Sockpuppet.

JK

Jedi Knight
12th June 2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Bjorn
The guy starts a thread named:

President Bush Is Going To Give IRAQ WMD Evidence Information

257 replies later he posts:

:p

No one on this forum has disproved the WMD trailers. No one.

WMD was found--that's a fact.

JK

Tricky
12th June 2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


No one on this forum has disproved the WMD trailers. No one.

WMD was found--that's a fact.

JK
Really? What was they? Trailers isn't weapons.

JAR
12th June 2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
[B]Sure, why not? But will it be false?

JAR:
I think you are missing the main point here: The Bush administration claimed that they knew that Saddam had WMD, and that they knew where they were, they just could not disclose the information because it would jeopardize sources's safety (mmm, old line that one).

Sooo now when they are in control of the country, why don't they just walk up to those locations and say: "Here! Thats what we were talking about."?

This (for me at least) is not about justification of the war, actually I think that Saddam needed to be removed, this is about a government again lying to everybody in order to sell their idea.

This happens not only in the USA, and it is one of the greatests threats to democracy: Instead of following the needs and/or wishes of the population, politicians follow their political (and personal) agendas and lie and cheat to sell it to the public.

-
[snip]
So let me get this straight. You think the politicians were lying when they said chemical weapons were in Iraq and now they are wasting time having a big search in Iraq to find chemical weapons that aren't there. If there was a conspiracy going on, wouldn't the U.S. government have already planted the chemical weapons and said, "Hey look, we found them."

Crossbow
12th June 2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


No one on this forum has disproved the WMD trailers. No one.

WMD was found--that's a fact.

JK

Preach on brother Jedi! The more you ignore the obivious, the better.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/09/timep.wmd.tm/index.html

Weapons of mass disappearance

...

After dispatching dozens of G.I. patrols to some 300 suspected WMD sites in Iraq over the past two months, only to come up empty-handed, the Pentagon announced last week that it will shift from hunting for banned weapons to hunting for documents and people who might be able to say where banned weapons are — or were.

...

Jedi Knight
12th June 2003, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by JAR

So let me get this straight. You think the politicians were lying when they said chemical weapons were in Iraq and now they are wasting time having a big search in Iraq to find chemical weapons that aren't there. If there was a conspiracy going on, wouldn't the U.S. government have already planted the chemical weapons and said, "Hey look, we found them."

No, the politicans weren't lying, they were deceived by so-called NATO allies.

The WMD evidence is there, but France and Germany knew the attention-span of most Americans is 30 seconds and that the radical leftist commies in America that hate Bush anyway would scream and whine for immediate WMD evidence.

The folks sent there now to locate the weapons will find them. It may take some time because Saddam, with the help of his pal Chirac and an inept UN weapon's inspection team headed by Hans Blix (a guy who was number 24 on the list to lead it with the previous 23 bipassed as another stalling measure), had months to hide them and tens of thousands of troops to bury them.

The point I was making is that the WMD is a non-issue now because we found the BW trailers and BW mobile labs. That proves Iraq non-compliance. It is proof and is no longer an issue for the leftists to whine about.

But the left loves to whine about facts, trying to make them into skeletons.

JK

Jedi Knight
12th June 2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Tricky

Really? What was they? Trailers isn't weapons.

What are they then? I have asked that question 100 times and no one, especially you, can answer it.

JK

Jedi Knight
12th June 2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by Crossbow


Preach on brother Jedi! The more you ignore the obivious, the better.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/09/timep.wmd.tm/index.html

Weapons of mass disappearance

...

After dispatching dozens of G.I. patrols to some 300 suspected WMD sites in Iraq over the past two months, only to come up empty-handed, the Pentagon announced last week that it will shift from hunting for banned weapons to hunting for documents and people who might be able to say where banned weapons are — or were.

...

And? We already found WMD. We are looking for the rest. Your point?

JK

JAR
12th June 2003, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight
[snip]
The point I was making is that the WMD is a non-issue now because we found the BW trailers and BW mobile labs. That proves Iraq non-compliance. It is proof and is no longer an issue for the leftists to whine about.

But the left loves to whine about facts, trying to make them into skeletons.

JK
Good point.

It seems unlikely that Saddam would have done nothing to hide the chemical weapons when the U.S. was planning on invading his country.

JAR
12th June 2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Tricky
I hadn't thought of this before, but JK's posts are like a terrorist bombing: Sure it hurts people and he gets to watch them scurry around for a while, but ultimately he hurts his own cause. Even the (few) people who agree with him really wish he weren't on their side.
I often agree with Jedi Knight and I'm glad he's on my side. I'm just not as good at coming up with counter-arguments as he is. He knows tons of things I don't. I was unaware about all the U.N. resolutions Iraq ignored until he told me about it.

Crossbow
12th June 2003, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight
...

The folks sent there now to locate the weapons will find them. It may take some time because Saddam, with the help of his pal Chirac and an inept UN weapon's inspection team headed by Hans Blix (a guy who was number 24 on the list to lead it with the previous 23 bipassed as another stalling measure), had months to hide them and tens of thousands of troops to bury them.

...

JK


Wow! JK when you dig yourself into a hole, you just keep getting bigger shovels.

If what you say is true, then why have not one of these "tens of thousands of troops" or any of the other numerous Saddam flunkies come forward to show where the WMD cookie jar(s) is hidden? The USA is offering serious money for such data.

Crossbow
12th June 2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


And? We already found WMD. We are looking for the rest. Your point?

JK

Sorry if I was not clear about that.

My point is that no WMDs have been found in Iraq and that the trailers are not WMDs.

Jedi Knight
12th June 2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Crossbow


Sorry if I was not clear about that.

My point is that no WMDs have been found in Iraq and that the trailers are not WMDs.

The trailers weren't part of Iraq's WMD? OK hero, what were they?

JK

Jedi Knight
12th June 2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by JAR

Good point.

It seems unlikely that Saddam would have done nothing to hide the chemical weapons when the U.S. was planning on invading his country.

Weapons of mass destruction are a tricky business. Saddam knew that if he used them against our troops we would have retaliated with our own and his country would be a graveyard.

Saddam was insane, but not that insane. :D

JK

Tricky
12th June 2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The trailers weren't part of Iraq's WMD? OK hero, what were they?

JK
I already told you. Pharmaceuticals. And you have failed to disprove it. You made some comments but you have not proven anything! So, terrorist, let's see your proof.
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Weapons of mass destruction are a tricky business.
I never sold them anything, and you don't have any receipts to prove it.

Crossbow
12th June 2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The trailers weren't part of Iraq's WMD? OK hero, what were they?

JK

OK digger, pay attention to the facts:

There were no WMDs found in the trailers.

Jedi Knight
12th June 2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Tricky

I already told you. Pharmaceuticals. And you have failed to disprove it. You made some comments but you have not proven anything! So, terrorist, let's see your proof.

I never sold them anything, and you don't have any receipts to prove it.

What types of pharmaceuticals were the Iraqis making? (Anthrax, Botulism, etc)

JK

Monketey Ghost
12th June 2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Sockpuppet.

JK

Huh. News to me. But then, it goes foot-in-mouth with your pattern of making assertions without backing them up.

no one in particular
12th June 2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Tricky

I never sold them anything, and you don't have any receipts to prove it. That is the SECOND best pun on this thread!

Jedi Knight
12th June 2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Crossbow


OK digger, pay attention to the facts:

There were no WMDs found in the trailers.

They are part of the Iraqi WMD program, a program banned by resolution 1441 as well as others and the reason why the US went to war in Iraq.

Done trolling now?

JK

Jedi Knight
12th June 2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by no one in particular
That is the SECOND best pun on this thread!

But we have Iraqi WMD trailers so it was a good idea that we went in and took them out.

JK

Jedi Knight
12th June 2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by No Answers


Huh. News to me. But then, it goes foot-in-mouth with your pattern of making assertions without backing them up.

You're a sockpuppet.

JK

Monketey Ghost
12th June 2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You're a sockpuppet.

JK

*sigh* No, you're the sockpuppet.

Jedi Knight
12th June 2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by No Answers


*sigh* No, you're the sockpuppet.

Well gosh, this is the only account I use. How could I possibly be a sockpuppet like you?

Golly, you have to get your thinking straightened out, son. Don't be angry with me because Bush is president. :D

JK

Monketey Ghost
12th June 2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Well gosh, this is the only account I use. How could I possibly be a sockpuppet like you?

Golly, you have to get your thinking straightened out, son. Don't be angry with me because Bush is president. :D

JK

Don't assign positions to me I haven't taken. Ask Hal if I'm a sockpuppet. That ought to settle the matter. This is the only account I use.

And shove your stupid little smiley up your browneye.

Let's let this thread return to its topic.

Jedi Knight
12th June 2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by No Answers


Don't assign positions to me I haven't taken. Ask Hal if I'm a sockpuppet. That ought to settle the matter. This is the only account I use.

And shove your stupid little smiley up your browneye.

Let's let this thread return to its topic.

lol! You are another Bush hater!

JK

Tricky
12th June 2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Knight


What types of pharmaceuticals were the Iraqis making? (Anthrax, Botulism, etc)

JK
Ibuprofin. After a hard day destroying WMDs, the Iraqis needed a lot of relief for their aching joints.

Jedi Knight
12th June 2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Tricky

Ibuprofin. After a hard day destroying WMDs, the Iraqis needed a lot of relief for their aching joints.

lol

JK

Ed
12th June 2003, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by JAR

I often agree with Jedi Knight and I'm glad he's on my side. I'm just not as good at coming up with counter-arguments as he is. He knows tons of things I don't. I was unaware about all the U.N. resolutions Iraq ignored until he told me about it.

Don't feel too bad. JK seems to think that name calling is argument, bad form. You will notice that the "Trailors of Mass Destruction(TMD)" have sorta fallen by the wayside along with the other detritious that was turned up. Time will tell.

JK, I am beginning to think that you have impure thoughts about GWB, am I wrong?:o

Jedi Knight
12th June 2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Ed
JK, I am beginning to think that you have impure thoughts about GWB, am I wrong?:o

You're high. GWB is the man, the myth, the legend!

JK