BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 07:04 AM

Teribus,

I've gone round and round with them about the 100,000 number they keep throwing around and just what it includes....the following is the first post of a thread that was quite popular for a few day here at the Cat.

"Subject: BS: Libs....get your numbers straight....
From: Susu's Hubby - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:23 PM

I guess all of you libs out there feel like you're in Florida once again by the way you're attributing the numbers of the war dead as all "civilians". (Yes, Bobert, you keep referring to all 100,000 as civilians.) It's as if you're still trying to discover the intent of the voter by looking at a blank ballot and willing it to be a vote for Gore or Kerry or whomever you're putting all of your hope and faith in at the moment.

Let's get to the count.

In another thread, a Catter asked for "proof" of where the 100,000 number came from. A fellow poster listed two links which, while putting on a seatbelt to keep out the river of sh*t because of the liberal slant (actually only one was severly slanted, the other was trying as hard as they could to actually list the numbers with some accuracy), I actually took time to read, once I got home from work. (Because I always try to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to try and care for me and mine.)

First, I'll admit that the 100,000 is an accurate number but the accuracy of the "facts" dreamed up by our fellow catters as to what exactly the 100,000 refers to is way off base.

I shall explain.

Both sites listed that only 15000-20000 of the dead were actually Iraqi CIVILIANS. A number that I actually quoted in one of my first posts on the Cat (if my memory serves me correctly).

The rest of the 100,000 are attributed to Saddam's regular army, Republican guard, and the special guys in the white jump suits ( sorry, I forgot their names). Oh.let's throw in quite a few terrorists into the mix as well as well as other fighters that came in from Syria, and other terrorist supporting countries. They make up the remaining 80,000-85,000 dead. In other words, by far, the HUGE majority of the dead were BAD GUYS.

Now let's throw this out for some analysis. Out of the 15000-20000 civilians killed, how many of these were, perhaps, killed by the 80000-85000 bad guys that we managed to kill? If memory serves me right, our troops in Fallujah stumbled across scores of individuals and entire families that were wiped out due to the bad guys holding the town for so long. How quick you libs are to forget that little fact. Here is where I will state that although the number of civilians killed is still way too many, civilians do get killed in war. Don't forget 9/11/01 and 12/7/41. 6000+ of our innocent people were killed.

So before you go and start spouting off your manufactured "facts", please take a little time to read the whole article from the source where you pull your numbers. You sure will save A LOT of embarrassment in front of your loyal throngs of lemmings.


Hubby"


Just go back and find the thread and witness the attacks that were offered afterwards. It's a little hard to follow because some of the posts are out of order due to the crash a few months ago. But you'll get the jest of what Bobert is rambling about.

Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 08:27 AM

Fact is, noone but God really knows if it's 50,000 or 100,000 'cause. like the incomin' caskets at Dover Airport, Bush ain't gonna let you you in on it...

Why? Simple...

Hurts the heck outtta recruitin' here at home... He wants our kids to think that Iraq is like one of their computer war games...

Plus, he don't want folks to know the real story 'er they might quit supportin' him and his Repub buddies... Boss Hog wouldn't like that at all 'cause Bush and Co. anr a drunkard's dream... Heck, it's the corporations that are writing the legislation... That's why there are ten's of thousands of lobbiest in D.C.... You go to Capitopl Hill and they are thicker than ugly on a gorilla...

Take the Medicare Prescription Program fir instance... You think the seniors are better off with it??? Apparently you ain't a senior... We gotta alot of folks who voted fir Bush in the Luray Valley but whereever you go you hear these folks complainin' about thde ***increase*** in cost's fir the medication... I got one farmer friend who comes up and hangs around my farm who I call Mr. Clifford... His meds are going up from $15 a month to $63 a month and he ain't alone!!!!

Where's these billions of dollars going???

Well, I'll tell ya' where they are going. Right into the pockets of the folks who wrote every word of this legslation: the insurance companies and the pharmacudical companies...

If you thoughgt the average American got screwed by the Bush administration's poor response to Katrina, fasten yer seatbelts, you ain't seen nmuthin' yet...

But one thing you can say... The boy is loyal to the people who bought this job fir him!!! Yep, we got the best democracy that money can buy...

Meanwhile more and more seniors (percentage wias or othwer) will, as they have every years since Bush's lawyers stole the 2000 election, continue to slip into poverty...

Welcome to Boss Hog's America...

Now, bend over and smile...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Tam the man
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 09:09 AM

A load of pro bush crap

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:32 AM

Teribus: Well, apparently George Bush believed it [that Saddam was a real threatto the US]."

Well, he can believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Santa Claus, and flying monkeys, too (although I suspect that this would give me pause as to whether he was in need of stronger medications). But is it your contention that it's right and legal to go to war just because he believes something that ain't so?

With Saddam Hussein left in power and with the removal of sanctions, yes, Iraq would pose a threat to, ...

Yeah, and if wishes were fishes, if pigs had wings, and if cabbages were kings -- ummm, oops, never mind that last one, mon petit chou -- yes, I guess that perhaps beggars would ride and cows would jump over the moon. But there was quite a bit of dispute as to whether that would happen, and also as to what could or should be done about such and when, if such happened. In the meanwhile, Osama bin Forgotten managed to slip away. In fact, there was quite a bit of dispute about what to do if Saddam actually had WoMD in well-known places "north, south, eash and west around Baghdad and Tikrit", as the maladministration had assured us beyond doubt. War was only one of the options, and as Dubya said, it should be the "last resort", all the while making it the first and only one.... Doesn't this make you the least bit mad, Teribus?

Teribus again: ... lets recall the phraseology used by GWB, ...


Why? Are we going to have to parse him closely and carefully? ;-)

Teribus continues: ... The United States of America, the stability of the region, America's allies and the interests of the United States of America and those of her allies - Little Hawk it was never solely the threat to the US.

You must be tired from moving the goalposts around all over creation for Dubya so much. But I'd note that the interests of other nations are usually represented through the United Nations, and the United Nations refused to authorise Dubya's little war of choice. In fact, all of Iraq's neighbours refused to join the "Coalition of the Billing" this time around....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:42 AM

Teribus said [re moving the goalposts]: Case in point regarding Iraq being a threat to the US, if you are going to raise that, then quote the whole phrase and put it in context.

Hell, I'd be more that glad to have us simply agree that Saddam was never a threat to the U.S., making this point of dispute irrelevant. If you agree that Saddam wasn't such a threat, I think we can just dismiss the actual claims of the maladministration that he was as just so much bloviating and fear-mongering based of false premises. But I'd note that even Dubya's most recent speech (or is it?) doesn't back down on the imminent peril we face from Iraq as well as other places....   ;-) But, if you agree that Iraq was not a danger to the U.S. in 2002, then wouldn't you agree that the Iraq war was a "catastrophic success" (to use the words the maladministration actually used to describe it), and a completely bone-headed blunder?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:56 AM

Teribus: One thing is consisted in all of them, he [Blix] clearly states that he and his inspection teams did not receive the full and pro-active co-operation of the Iraqi Authorities - 1441 demanded that from day one - hence the serious consequences that followed, even before March 2003, GWB and the US Administration made no secret whatsoever what was meant by 'Serious Consequences'

Just so we have you on record, Teribus: Do you state, for the record, that because Saddam refused to kiss some one's boots and serve them tea personally on their inspections, that a war (killing 2000 Americans and many more Iraqis) was therefore justified? OK, so I've stretching the language a bit to emphasise a point, but do you think that failure to provide "full and pro-active" co-operation is a casus belli???

I just want to know how cheaply you value himan life.

I'd note, BTW, that "serious consequences" was deliberately left vague (I believe in part so that the U.N. had some flexibility in their potential responses depending on circumstances andthe extent of any transgressions). If they had wanted to leave no doubt as to what would happen, as you seem to be claiming here, they would have said "war". Believe me, they're not unintelligent people (which, of course, brings to mind where we should be placing you).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:05 PM

Susu's Hubby: Both sites listed that only 15000-20000 of the dead were actually Iraqi CIVILIANS.

Well, even if we were to take your numbers as fact, I'd note that this is over five times the number killed in the 9/11 attacks, in a country less than one fifth the size of the U.S. Which means that Iraq has suffered more that 25 times the devastation of an event that some people call the transforming event in the history of the United States, the date after which nothing ever will ever be the same.

I'd note that since Iraq has been damaged in more ways than simply casualties, it is suffering (i.e. WRT infrastructure, economy, medical resources, etc.) even more than that proportion.

The exact numbers don't matter too much. And we may never know them (in part because the U.S. refuses to even try and count them ... but rest assured that Iraqi families know when their loved ones have died). But it's hard to dispute that what the Iraqis have seen in the last two years has been carnage of enormous proportions.

Do you realyl want to belittle that?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:17 PM

GUEST,Arne,

I see that the meaning of the above message has sailed smoothly over the top of your cute little pointed head.

Read the message over and try again.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 02:45 PM

Another point that I think that needs to be made is that in WW2, over 30,000,000 actual VERIFIED civilians died in direct war action. That war was from the end of 1939 until 1945.
Now in that same war, over 24,000,000 military personnel died in direct relation to war actions.

So by your logic, if 15,000 - 20,000 civilians in two years is not acceptable or losing over 2000 soldiers in two years is not acceptable then I guess we should have let Hitler and Mussolini off with a free pass and let them do what they did to Europe and just turn a blind eye to the atrocities that were going on?

How can you, honestly, sleep at night?

Why don't you just admit that your hatred toward this administration is what's driving your outspokenness about this war.

It's not about who's in office.....it's about doing what is right and just.

Cindy Sheehan be damned....


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 02:52 PM

"Cindy Sheehan be damned...."

What an asshole statement to make. She lost a son there. How would YOU feel if it had been your son, Hub? HUH?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 02:54 PM

Bloody people seem to be so willing to send someone else's kid off to get killed. BULLSHIT, and stop this fucking war. It is a war for profit, not freedoms or any of the other fine-sounding words the Bush administration flings around. It's about CORPPORATE GREED. PERIOD!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 03:03 PM

Good posts Arne, refuting all the points made by our "warriors".

Unfortunately these pedants will learn nothing from your words. They have squirmed and wriggled ever since Bush prematurely proclaimed "Mission accomplished".

I'm sorry to say this, but you don't have to ask if these people value human life, to them if you're not British or American, you're barely human.

The points have all been made and the arguments won over Iraq, so let them prattle on attempting to muddy the water and obscure the important points

Iraq is important in that it proves we are led by criminals and liars who care nothing for human life, only power and money.

Even the "Joe Publics" have realised the truth, and it's only they who can stop a repitition...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 03:06 PM

Sorry Bruce...cross posted , agree with you 100%...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 03:32 PM

"It's about CORPPORATE GREED. PERIOD!"


Don't forget about the hundreds of thousands of missing Iraqis and the attempted genocide of the Kurds in the north with chemical weapons. Oh...and don't forget about the many mass graves filled with hundreds of bodies in each one. Oh...and don't forget the torture chambers found in the basements of the prisons. Oh...and don't forget about the WMD's and subsequent parts that helps in the making of those same WMD's that have been found. Oh..and don't forget about the constant shooting and missile locks on planes enforcing the no fly zone enacted by the UN. Those are all important parts too.

How convenient of you to always forget about the human suffering. I thought you guys thought of YOURSELVES as the poor man's champion.


What a shame.

Remember....it doesn't matter who's in charge. What matters is that you do things that are right and just.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 03:34 PM

Susu's hubby says, "If memory serves me right, our troops in Fallujah stumbled across scores of individuals and entire families that were wiped out due to the bad guys holding the town for so long. How quick you libs are to forget that little fact."

This isn't fact, its bullshit.

Nobody really knows what happened to the citizens of Fallujah except that they were caught in a cross fire that would never have happened if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 04:10 PM

Comparing Bush's Iraqi junket with the dynamics that were at work in World War II, or to equate a tin-pot dictator like Saddam Hussein with Adolph Hitler requires the sense of history of a gerbil. There is no comparison, and anyone who tries to makes such a claim is either incredibly stupid or totally disingenuous.

Susu's Hubby, you are a real piece of work!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 04:14 PM

Susu's Hubby: I see that the meaning of the above message has sailed smoothly over the top of your cute little pointed head.

Susu's Hubby [from before]: I've gone round and round with them about the 100,000 number they keep throwing around and just what it includes...

Which you did. You seem to have spent a fair amount of your bandwidth disputing the "100,000" figure (while also seeming unfairly to tar all liberals with actually claiming this number; can you say "straw man"?).

That's what I was responding to. I responded in a different place and with a different point to your rather strange claim about how "lib'ruls" are all railing about how Dubya did too much in Iraq and (unfairly or hypocritically in your perverse logic) too little for Katrina. Feel free to respond to what I said about this other point of yours at your pleasure.

I personally feel that 15-20K civilians is probably on the low side, and that the number of Iraqi combatants killed in the war is far less that 80K. And I'd dispute the number of supposed foreign insurgents killed. I have a hard time believing that it's anywhere near 80K for all your "baddies" combined (but the U.S. has refused to do "body counts" [until recently] so it's hard to know). If you have actual sources to back up those figures, out with them. Regardless, as I said, even your 15-20K number, if we want to take your low-ball estimate as a starting point for discussion, is a grievous total, and particularly for those who have lost loved ones, and even more so because this all was totally unnecessary.... And I'm really sorry that you can't see that.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 04:26 PM

Bobert,

" 100,000 Iraqi women, kids and old folks "

Already discussed and disproven. Think up a new lie.


"noone but God really knows if it's 50,000 or 100,000"

So, now you claim to be God, knowing all, or are your figures somehow blessed?




dianavan,

PM Date: 11 Nov 05 - 10:22 PM - No idea where this came from. Not my comment- that was the report I was asked about.

So we should only believe Saddam?


Arne,

In 1941, Hitler was no threat to the US at all. So why did we bother fighting him? At least we were already at war with Saddam: he had attacked a country we had treaty obligations with, and then substantially violated the terms of the cease-fire.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 04:41 PM

Susu's Hubby: Another point that I think that needs to be made is that in WW2, over 30,000,000 actual VERIFIED civilians died in direct war action.

Don't know what you define as "direct war action" here (nor where you get your figures). In WWII somewhere around 60 million total died. Some 20 million Russians, with a substantial portion of these civilians, many who starved. Yes, it was horrific. Setting the ethical bar a little low, aren't you, in comparing the Russian (and other) dead from Hitler's war of aggression in WWII to Iraq, and saying we aren't nearly so bad?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 04:56 PM

Akenaton: Even the "Joe Publics" have realised the truth, and it's only they who can stop a repitition...Ake

This is true. Poll after poll shows the public awaking from a long slumber.

I truly think that the visceral sycophancy of many in the RW comes from a gnawing, subconscious realisation of the horror of what they have enabled and done, and a consequent willing refusal to allow that they could possibly have made such a colossal mistake. It takes a special and a strong type of person to admit to truly big mistakes; the guilt I imagine can seem almost suffocating, and there seems to be no atonement sufficient to wash the blood off ("Out, out, damn spot!"). But if they truly paid attention to the precepts of the deity-on-earth they most liekly sobscribe to (that is, the other ones besides the ones about rich men and needle's eyes, turning the other cheeks, and "thou shalt not kill"), maybe they'd see the path more clearly.

I am trying to help, and I am trying to be civil (difficult as it is at time in the face of such inhumanity [" Cindy Sheehan be damned...."]). I agree, it may be a Sisyphean task, but it is nonetheless the humane thing to do.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 05:11 PM

Susu's Hubby: Oh...and don't forget the torture chambers found in the basements of the prisons.

"Abu Ghriab: Now Open Under NEW Management!"

Susu's Hubby again: ...the attempted genocide of the Kurds in the north with chemical weapons...

Yeah, didn't bother Republicans all that much when it was happening. Human Rights Watch tried to get the Senate to put sanctions on Iraq for this, and Republicans in the Senate stymied this effort. And then you have Rumsfeld over there shaking hands with Saddam. Neat, eh?

And more lame tripe: ... and don't forget about the WMDs...

Ummm, there weren't any WoMDs. Didn't get your Hannity/Limbaugh talking points for the last year or so? There were "weapons of mass destruction program related activities", according to the "spinmeisters" flacking for the maladministration. Do try and keep up with the latest propaganda.

More shifting the goal posts: How convenient of you to always forget about the human suffering.

Never did. Just thought that making it worse is hardly a solution. Did you know that the U.S. reportedly put the kibosh on a plan to allow Saddam to go in exile? There were plenty of alternatives to a war of aggression, but the blinkered maladministration, egged on by the rosy-eyed ideologues of the Project for the New Global Empi... -- um, sorry, "American Century" - saw only the big aircraft-carrier-on-land in the heart of the oil-rich Middle East....

But are we back to the "nation-building-through-bullets" excuse again?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 05:17 PM

BB: Reread my post... I conceeded that there is no way of provin' or disprovin' the 100,000 figure... That's why I said "only God knows" how many... Think yer speed readin' or whatever it is is missing the essence of the post...

Susu's Hubby:

Like when have you ever posted anything about the genocide that has been going on in the Sudan??? If so concerened about it, why are you bogged down with something that happened 15 years ago and for which we have no control of yet ignore a current situation where we could make a difference??? SDeems a tad on the hypocrtical side to me, pal...

And other Bushites:

Can anyone tell me why if Saddam was the problem that Bush didn't just have him killed??? And don't give me that dribble about not knowin' how to get to him... That's bull... DanRather sat 5 fett from the man, gol dang it just two weeks before the invasion!!!

And also don't gibe me that dribble about it being against the law.... Like, hey, beats the heck outta killing tens upon thousands of innocent old folks, women and children...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 05:19 PM

BB: In 1941, Hitler was no threat to the US at all.

Oh, some would disagree with that assessment (for instance, merchant sailors, etc.).

But a few facts must intrude, dear Bruce:

1). We weren't at war with Hitler in most of 1941 (in fact, the chief opposition to helping England came from the American Bund and their friends in the RW of the Republican party, who were claiming that Hitler wasn't so bad or dangerous, if not going so far as to say we should toss our lot in with Hitler).

2). Germany declared war on the U.S.

HTH.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 05:51 PM

"kendall - PM
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 11:42 PM

If Saddam had had WMDs, he would have used them. Nuff said."

Not necessarily, he didn't use them in 1991 when he definitely did have them, so why would he use them in 2003? I'll tell you why because he was relying on twats like you to take the easy option and let him off the hook one more time. Unfortunately, he ran into somebody with a bit more guts and a hell of a lot more resolution. Shortly he will go on trial for the crimes he has committed, it will be a case of "Wheel the bastard in and lets determine just exactly how guilty he is" and I have no doubt that he will hang - damn sight better than he deserves, and I hope that this process takes place in public so that all who have suffered at his hands can see this truly evil man meet his just deserts. When that does happen he will know that he has been brought to book by one George W Bush.

By the bye, I note that that supercilious fuckwit Arne Langsetmo ducked the question asked of him and has not provided any evidence of Dr. Hans Blix declaring that Iraq possessed no WMD prior to 17th March 2003, Arne neither provides any evidence to counter what Dr. Hans Blix repeatedly told the UNSC regarding Iraqi co-operation. You Mr. Langsetmo are a Saddam apologist - are you by any chance Swedish or of Swedish descent? I certainly hope to hell that you are not Norwegian, or if you are then Quisling must have been a close relation and that the apple didn't fall too far from the tree. By your arguements and your reasoning you are a shoddy excuse for a human being. Peace at any price as long as I don't have to stir myself off my fat backside to do a damn thing to earn it. Thankfully, the peace, security and well being of nobody relies on decisions taken by the likes of you, if unfortunately they were we'd all be well and truly fucked, you clearly demonstrate that you haven't got the sense you were born with.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 06:02 PM

And as for Hitler's not being a threat to the U. S., for Pete's sake learn some history! Hitler was in command of the biggest, deadliest, and most aggressive war machine the world had ever seen, and he had glorious visions of world conquest. Saddam Hussein's ambitions were considerably more modest, but even if he had the mad dreams of someone like Hitler, that would hardly have mattered, because he didn't have the means nor a way to acquire them.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 06:10 PM

And Teribus, you seem to have descended to a new low. Provided, of course, that you are the same Teribus who used to inhabit these threads. If you are, then you seem to have lost the capacity to present an argument worthy of consideration and have replaced it with mere volleys of invective. You render yourself no longer worthy of consideration.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 06:13 PM

T-Lite:

Ahhhh, how can Saddam go on trial in a country with no real consitution, no stability and an occupying army... Seems under these conditions that he is being put on trial at the request of the occupation force and being tried by whom????

Now, I'm not an international law scholar but there seems something very wrong about this trial... Hey, after the US leaves, should that evr happen and should there ever be a real Iraq government that represents the Iraqis then a trial would seem, ahhhhh, legal...

But I'd sho nuff like fir you, in yer own words, explain how this trial can be anything but a side show for Bush's PR team since there isn't a real governemnt in Iraq...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 06:22 PM

Military Strength   
Iraq               Country               Britain
Flag   
$1.3 Billion (pre-invasion) Yearly Military Expense $42,836.5 Million
NA                % of GNP             2.4%
18                Min. Enlist Age       16
6,547,762          Available Manpower    14,943,016
375,000 (possible) Active Military       113,900 (6,380 women)
280,000 (possible) Frontline Personnel   65,000
651                Aircraft             1,891
7,430             Armor                5,121
3,050             Artillery             455
5,210             Missile Defense       1,575
4,000             Infantry Support      3,236
      

So, Britain is no military threat to the US, either. And these numbers are AFTER the 14 years of sanctions to prevent Saddam from being a threat.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 06:28 PM

Arne,

"if you agree that Iraq was not a danger to the U.S. in 2002, then wouldn't you agree that the Iraq war was a "catastrophic success" (to use the words the maladministration actually used to describe it), and a completely bone-headed blunder?"

If YOU agree that Hitler was no threat to the US in 1940, then wouldn't you agree that the WWII was a "catastrophic success" and a completely bone-headed blunder?


I DO NOT AGREE that Iraq was not a potential danger- and I do know that we were in a state of war at the time we attacked Iraq- the cease-fire was conditional on the terms being complied with, which even the UN had declared that Saddam was not complying. It was not just his not kissing butt and serving tea- he was blocking the free access of the inspectors from doing their jobs. HOW can YOU state he had no programms when even the UN said they could not get enough information out of him to determine that? Should I mention that, if he did NOT have the programs, all he would have had to do was to stop trying to hide them?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 06:36 PM

Eh Bobert,

The Iraqi population has just voted for their constitution - FACT

The UN has just extended the mandate for the MNF to remain in Iraq until the end of 2006 - FACT

After the elections to be held on 15th December 2005 there will be a duly elected Goverment of Iraq - FACT

I know you hate those facts Bobert but like GWB winning two terms - you've just got to learn to live with it.

Oh nice to hear from you Don, how's the TAP pipeline coming along, have they laid so much as one joint of pipe yet? By the way Don you are as shakey and weak a student of History as Little Hawk, to wit - "Hitler was in command of the biggest, deadliest, and most aggressive war machine the world had ever seen" No he wasn't, in actual fact if Hitler hadn't acquired the armour he captured in Czechoslovakia he would not have been able to attack in the West. The advantage that the German armed forces had in 1939 lay in their command and control, not in the quality or number of their weapons. When Hitler launched his attack in the west in 1940 the British and the French had greater numbers of tanks, they had technically superior tanks in terms of design, they just didn't know how to use them. The British had far superior aircraft, but they were not used in close co-operation with ground forces, when the Luftewaffe came up against them over Southern England it was Britains superior command and control of those fighter defences that beat the German airforce even although the latter outnumbered the former by damn near six to one.

So Mr Firth before you start spouting a complete and utter load of crap, why don't you do a bit of homework and research what you are talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 08:36 PM

"I thought you guys thought of YOURSELVES as the poor man's champion."

I put it on the live a few times each year. Believe that or not, as you choose. However, I won't sacrifice a kid on the altar of MY vanity, which seems to be what you are doing. Save you're pontificating bullshit. You should know better.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 08:54 PM

Yeah, they voted on a constitution, allright but they don't have a real governemnt in place... Oh sure, some folks would say they do but a governemnt holed up behind walls ain't like a real governemnt... And as fir the constitution, kinda tough to impliment it in the midst of a civil war... Don't ya' think???

Right now it's a document of hope by some folks but their ain't no real governemnt.... If so, then the US/UK could pull out tomorrow... Government implies more than just having a document... It involves, ahhhh, security and it involves being involved with infastructure situations, etc... It is evident that Iraq does not have a government able to govern... I think that seems to be very obvious...

Now, back to the Hans Blix... Whether he said it on the 17th or not 'er before it is releveant that he did say that Iarq was cooperatin' and he did say this, oh maybe a month before the 17th... He also said that prior to the 17th that he had had access to to the sites he wanted to inspect...

Yeah, go ahead and call me a "proven liar", T-Lite, if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy 'cause I got a dat wrong...

Who cares...

It's all you have left in yer litttle arsenal now that the blood is very much on yer hands...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 09:12 PM

Security Council

4644th Meeting (AM)



SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN 'MATERIAL BREACH' OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)



Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,

Recalls Repeated Warning of 'Serious Consequences' for Continued Violations


Holding Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a "final opportunity to comply" with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).



By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations.



Under the new inspection regime established by the resolution, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to any sites and buildings in Iraq, including presidential sites. They would also have the right to remove or destroy any weapons, or related items, they found.



The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution. It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material. Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm


These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.


..........
They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm


Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.



UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.



There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.



I would now like to turn to the so-called "Air Force document" that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.



The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.



The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.



The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.



I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.



Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.


Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.



There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.



As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.



In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq's Foreign Minister stated that "all imported quantities of growth media were declared". This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.


turn now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained SCUD-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of SCUD missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defence system during the 1980s. Yet no technical information has been produced about that programme or data on the consumption of the missiles.



There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years presented by Iraq as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions.



Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fuelled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.



The Al Samoud's diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.



During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programmes. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km.



These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 km are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made, before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the mean time, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.



In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.



Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.



Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.



UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq, but nor is it – or I think anyone else after the inspections between 1991 and 1998 – presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq. Presumptions do not solve the problem. Evidence and full transparency may help.

To date, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have invariably been that the individual will only speak at Iraq's monitoring directorate or, at any rate, in the presence of an Iraqi official. This could be due to a wish on the part of the invited to have evidence that they have not said anything that the authorities did not wish them to say. At our recent talks in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to encourage persons to accept interviews "in private", that is to say alone with us. Despite this, the pattern has not changed. However, we hope that with further encouragement from the authorities, knowledgeable individuals will accept private interviews, in Baghdad or abroad.

#@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

"France and others also seem to ignore a recent 173 page UN inspection team report. Four months after UN Resolution 1441 demanded Iraq's cooperative disarmament, the remaining uncertainties and probable violations are so numerous they are divided up into 29 clusters. Blix expresses hope at the U.N, but his document offers little. Iraq issued its fifth Full, Final, and Complete Declaration (FFCD) on bioweapons in 1997. Five FFCD's is oxymoronic lying, and there are still 40 pages on current BW uncertainties in the Blix report."

http://www.nd.edu/~dlindley/handouts/pyrrhicdiplomacy.htm

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 09:36 PM

Peace:

About 2,000 carriage returns, Blank lines.

Terribus: "But the following every single person person in this world now knows for certain 100%:- Iraq now holds no WMD."

I am not 199 % sure. They were hidden and some were probably forgotten about. Hope someone other that the insurgents finds them first

"- Iraq is no longer pursuing a policy to acquire WMD"

The current government in Iraq is not but the insurgents definately want them.

"- Iraq now no longer is in a position to threaten the peace and stability of the region."

If we get it stabilized. Otherwise it is a festering boil.

"- Iraq no longer subsidises international terorist organisations"

No but insurgent support money flows in through Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Bobert:

Do you hate Christmas too? All you do is put everything down.
Git out yur skinnin' knife and gut this:
10 Nov 2005
Kurds Campaign Thanks U.S. for Liberation

www.newsmax.com
A group representing Kurdistan thanks America for liberating that nation from Saddam Hussein's dictatorship of terrorism.

"The Kurds of Iraqi Kurdistan just want to say 'thank you for helping us win our freedom. Thank you for democracy. Thank you America."

The print and broadcast advertisements are sponsored by the Kurdistan Development Corporation, an organization created by the government of Kurdistan to encourage international investment.

The ad campaign began Monday in the United States with ads in The Wall Street Journal and on Fox News Channel. Ads begin airing Nov. 14 airing in Europe.

The group describes Kurdistan as a place "where peace and prosperity have reigned since liberation from Saddam Hussein."
Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, Chairman of the Kurdistan Development Corporation and Kurdistan's High Representative to the UK, says the commercials are necessary to counter the American media's largely negative coverage of Iraq.

"We feel the mainstream media," she tells Newsmax, "is focusing on the negative stories coming out of Iraq and very rarely highlighting the good news."

"We're not saying that the media doesn't tell the truth. They do tell the truth. There is violence. There is an insurgency. But it's not the whole truth, or the whole picture."

"The truth is that while there is violence," she continues, "there are big strides being taken towards democracy in Iraq, particularly in Kurdistan. There are vast sections of Iraq, and again particularly Kurdistan, where the region is safe, stable, and people are getting on with their lives, doing business, trying to build a future."

Indeed, not a single coalition soldier has died in Kurdistan since March 2003.

Rahman worries, however, about suggestions that the United States should pull out of Iraq.

"If people are saying that America should withdraw their troops now, that would be a catastrophe, not only for the people of Iraq but also for the Middle East and the wider intentional community and the United States," she says.

The current peace and prosperity is a welcome change from conditions under Saddam Hussein, who targeted the Kurds throughout his rule.

Among other atrocities, Hussein ordered the use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds, a majority of which were women and children.

Following the Gulf War in 1991, the United States and the United Kingdom established "no-fly zones" in northern Iraq to prevent continued bombing of Kurdistan by Saddam. Kurds ran a semi-autonomous government under the protection of the "no-fly zones."

Kurdistan President H.E. Masoud Barzani thanked President Bush for his dedication to Iraqi freedom in an Oct. 25 visit to the White House.
"It was a brave decision that you have made," Barzani told the president, "you have liberated a people from a dictatorial regime that has hurt a lot of people."

Rahman goes further, calling President Bush a "hero."

"The people of Kurdistan and the government of Kurdistan," she gushes, "admire President Bush's courage in fighting Saddam Hussein despite some of the doubts of America's international partners."

Rahman says there is no question that the decision to liberate Iraq was just.

"Saddam Hussein was a tyrant," she notes, "a dictator who committed genocide against the people of Kurdistan ... To get rid of someone like that, there should be no question."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 09:50 PM

"President Bush's courage in fighting Saddam Hussein"

Let's look at that one again.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 09:51 PM

All this wimmel wimmel about there was not a significan amount, He wasn't going to use them etc. is just backpedaling.

The anti-war, anti-Bush crowd said that there were NO WMDs in Iraq.

I think 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium is a significant amount. I am not a nuclear physycist but would think that would be enough to make several bombs.

Mebbe the 'ol Wes 'Ginny slide rule can calqlait it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 10:13 PM

"Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect..."

Hans Blix adreesing the UN Jan 27, 2003

Then, Bush countered with, "blah, blah, blah" and rattle4d sabres until the entire universe shook from his sabre rattlin'...

You all remember them days, 'er was you in a fog???

Yeah, verytime the inspectors would say good stuff about how things were going Bush would ratchet up his rhetoric and drown out what Hans Blix was trying' to say...

Hey!!! Wake up!!!!

You folks who think this didn't happen only need to Google in some stuff and get a refresher course...

What, do you think I made up the above quote??? Hey, it's public... Google in Hans Blix and you'll learn, or relearn, a number of things...

Oh sure, the folks here with blood on their hands will point out different things but, bottom line, Hans Blix said the Iraqi'a were cooperating... He also went on to say that he ahs assembled quite a diverse team of inspectors that was then "at the disposal of the Security Council"...

But, hey, if you believe some here, it weren't so... Might of fact some here will call me a liar for even bringin' these quotes into the Catbox??? Hmmmmmm???

They are quotes, folks.... Hey, I don't make them up... Yeah, Bush is accusin' folks who opposed the invasion of Iraq as tryin' to rewrite the reasons for the war...

No, it is Bush, not us, who is wearing out the eraser....

He stands up and tells the American people that Congress had the same intellegence he had???

This is and was a lie... And di he tell this lie 2 years ago, 2 months ago? No, he told it yesterday!!!! And it is a lie!!! Maybe one of you Bushheads would like to challenge me on this and call me the liar... Go ahead, make my day!!! Gonna get you a "proven liar" badge, like the kind that T-Jerk is handin' out, 'cept it will come from me... Yeah, challenge my statement that Bush lied yesterdfay... I dare you!!! Gotta badge waitin' for one and all...No short supply...

Bush lied yesterday!!!

Come on!!! Who's first to step to the plate????

T-Jerk, you want any of this???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 10:16 PM

Sorry, make that day before yesterday... Wee know how T-Jerk is a stickler fir details....

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 10:49 PM

Ok Bobert, have you figgerd out how many tons of enriched uranium it takes to make a bomb?

It was only partially enriched so I guess they would have to use a centrifuge to enrich it more. They had the exact right type of high strength aluminum tube in Iraq to make a centrifuge out of. But it was supposedly for irrigation.

Guess they got all kinds of camels stompin' on ther irrigation tubing so it needs to be high strength to hold up under camel abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:07 PM

LOL, Duck... You are a trip... I would have thought that maybe you were a LH creation but he is off on a mountain top meditatin' and goovin' with his rocks... Ahhh, no, not his rocks... But rocks... Yeah, rocks...

(Shhhhhhh, did you know that LH talks to rocks???)

Okay, I might have had a casual conversation with a rock but never anything too lenghtly, mind you...

No, how much enriched U237 you gonna need??? I might make one myself seein' as they sell aluminum tubin' right down at Gilliam's Hardware...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:25 PM

Maybe you missed it but the "intelligent" people here are claiming the there were no significant amounts of WMD's found in Iraq. My question is how many nuclear bobmbs csn you make with 1.77 metric tons of partially enriched uranium?

Bein' one of the few people entrusted with the massive computational power of the Wes Ginny Slide Rule, you can tell us.

The extra strength aluminum tube to farther enrich it with was found in Iraq but accoring to Saddam it was for irrigation.

Maybe 1.77 tons of uranium is not technically a weapon in itself but I wouldn't want it in my basement workshop.

I don't knoew who LH is but he is welcome to do whatever he wants with his rocks except hurl them at me.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:41 PM

Actually, Duck, the problem is that the aluminum tubes found in Iraq weren't up to snuff fir centrifuges but more for anti-aircraft weaponry so it's good that Saddam didn't try to use them with his weak Uranium 'er he could have possibly blown up maybe part of one of his castles...

The Wes Ginny Slide Rule been on this one fir quite awhile now, er ever since the Bush folks gave in and admitted that the tubes weren't centrifuge material... Okay, just to cover my butt since TeriPrick is goin' 'round askin' everyone to verify their sources 'er be branded a "proven liar", Bush might not have admitted this himself but it has been admitted to... Google, if you'd like....

Ahhhh, LH is Little Hawk, alias God of Rocks... Okay, maybe not God of Rocks but Worshipper of Rocks....

BObert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:43 PM

"Maybe 1.77 tons of [low-enriched] uranium is not technically a weapon in itself but I wouldn't want it in my basement workshop."

It ain't enough to make a bomb.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:55 PM

Now you have justified the intended purpose of the tubing but what do you think the Uranium was for?

I don't think that is the kind to use for a power plant but Iraq was building a nuclear power plant at one time, breeder reactor if I remeber right, but the Jews blew it away one night real sudden like and they didn't even warn Saddam. Didn't even splain what pre-emptive means.

The French probably still got a copy of the plans case Saddam wants another one when he gets off due to the fact that he had all of the lawyers killed.

Maybe thats why he was peelin off $250 grad for any family that could screw up one of their kids enough that they would suicide bomb Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 12:00 AM

There is NO question that Saddam was trying to make a nuclear weapon. Take that as a given. I do, and we're in disagreement about the war. The amount of nuclear crap floating around this world is friggin' incredible. Near to 50% of this World's reactors are dangerous--read unsafe. Hussein HAD weaopns that are dangerous. Sarin for sure--hell, he used it on his own people as well as on Iranians. Saddam was and is an evil sonuvabitch who deserves a very bad headache. Take THAT as a given, too.

However, the thread title is false. NO, they weren't.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 01:12 AM

Peace: I can't find your balls so you have none.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 01:39 AM

Why would a cocksucker be interested in balls?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 01:41 AM

On the other hand, a stupid cocksucker likely would.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:02 AM

Teribus: By the bye, I note that that supercilious fuckwit Arne Langsetmo ducked the question asked of him and has not provided any evidence of Dr. Hans Blix declaring that Iraq possessed no WMD prior to 17th March 2003....

We'll ignore your terrible table manners for the moment. I didn't duck the question. I pointed out that you moved the friggin' goalposts, and demanded a statement from "Dr. Hans Blix, prior to 17th March 2003, that clearly and unequivocally states that that Iraq possesed no WMD, that Iraq held no precursor chemicals to produce WMD, that Iraq had no programmes running aimed at producing WMD." While Blix was stating that it was looking more and more like Saddam didn't have any more WoMD, and was asking for a couple of months more to finish off his job, you're demanding that he sign his firstborn son over on a "clear and unequivocal state[ment]", when it took the U.S. guys a freakin' year, while occupying and having the run of the country, to conclude their survey only to find the same damn thing. Of course, it didn't help Blix any that the U.S. refused for quote some time to even give him information to check out, and now you're demaning that he give you a rock-clad guarantee after just a couple months of searching without any U.S. help at all. Sounds like you're setting him up for failure ... or you are afraid of what he might actually find. More to the point, it looks like that is what Dubya was really afraid of (and seemingly for good reason. But that hardly changes the fact that everything that Blix checked out showed that the U.S. 'intelligence' was wrong, and that there weren't any WoMD. And that's what Blix and his inspectors did say.

But this all also ignores the burden of proof: It is the duty of the proponent of a claim to produce the evidence, not the burden of the doubters to prove it false (and in particular, the proving of a negative is a much more difficult thing to do, so the default is usually to require the proof of the positive assertion). But that's what Blix did check. The U.S. claims. And the claims were "garbage, garbage, and more garbage". Seems that ought to be enough for rational people, particularly when coupled with a general survey and other checks that seemed to show that the programs had been destroyed or halted. Which Blix also reported.

teribus continues: Arne neither provides any evidence to counter what Dr. Hans Blix repeatedly told the UNSC regarding Iraqi co-operation.

No, I covered that garbage. Please state for the record that you think that the loss of 2000 U.S. soldiers is a fair price to slake your ire that Saddam didn't tiptoe while singing "I'm a teapot, short and stout" to make you think you have a bigger phallus than you have. As I said previously, Saddam's lack of "co-operation" in itself is hardly a casus belli to me. But then, I maintain some vestiges of humanity. But feel free to differ ... and then explain this interesting rationale for the war to Cindy Sheehan and a couple thousand other mothers. Hop to it, my man.

More Teribus schlock: You Mr. Langsetmo are a Saddam apologist - ...

Nope. OTOH, I don't expect of him different behaviour than I would of Dubya under similar circumstances. I don't apologise for the behaviour (nor the deaths that either have caused, Saddam and Dubya), but at least I understand human nature, and am not surprised by the behaviour we saw.

Teribus goes on: ... are you by any chance Swedish or of Swedish descent?

Why? Are you going to get into argumentum ad hominem? Or are you just a freakin' bigot?

More crap from Teribus: By your arguements and your reasoning you are a shoddy excuse for a human being.

My, my, my, am I chagrined.... You know, if I thought a bit less of you, Teribus, I might be inclined to say precisely the same about you. Tell you what, Teribus, when I gave a damn about what you< thin of my "arguement" [sic] and reasoning, I'll be sure that you're the first to know, OK?

Teribus [apparently trying totell me what I think]: Peace at any price as long as I don't have to stir myself off my fat backside to do a damn thing to earn it.

Ummm, nope. Never said any such thing. You seem to be infested with a pernicious infection of binary thinking. OTOH, could this be true:

"War at any price as long as I don't have to stir myself off my fat backside to do a damn thing to earn it."

Are you one of the Fighting 101st Keyboarders, Teribus? I'm willing to pay the price of the "peace" that I've argued for. Which is not just giving Saddam ... or that dictator in Uzbekistan ... or the African strongman that bought an audience with Dubya ... or D'Aubissinion, Allende, the Guatemalan junta, etc., etc. ... or Musharraf, for that matter. But are you willing yourself to go fight and die for Dubya's lies? Why aren't you over in Iraq, eh? You see, I accept that terrorism, like plane crashes, lightning, car accidents, random shootings, etc., is not defeatable, but can be reduced. I refuse to institute such measures or commit such horrors as make for a worse situation than the original problem. Cost-benefit, you know. Saddam was bad, but what we have is worse, which makes the war a bad move by any account, and certainly not worth the moral price we pay for instituting an agressive war of choice (and against international opinion), and the human and ethical crime we commit in killing thousands of civilians ourselves.... But that's just me, YMMV.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:06 AM

That proves you have no balls.

None were found.

I am not going to accept your claim that balls were found.