BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 09:26 PM

Teribus:

I agree. all these doomsayers are like the Joe Btfsplk character in the Li'l Abner comic strip. They always have a raincloud over their head.

They feel like shit and they want everybody else to feel like shit so they won't be so odd. So they will blend in with the crowd.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Peter Piglet
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 09:21 PM

OINK!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 09:10 PM

Still no counter arguements boys, and the promise from Akenaton that he will be cheering from the rooftops if by the end of 2006 US troop levels in Iraq are 160,000 or more - Got news for you Ake they ain't even 160,000 now.

But Ake loves gloom, despondency and disaster - hasn't actually happened yet but why spoil the guys fun.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 08:30 PM

In today's Times...
"Senior military officials made clear yesterday, that the Bush Administration's goal is to cut troop numbers in Iraq from 160,000 to
BELOW 100,000 by the end of 2006."

The game is up boys, as Bobert says its 'Nam all over again, but the bastards are trying to sqirm out with their "integrity" intact.
This is the reason for the spin offensive.
We are being told that Iraqi troops are gradually taking over the security role, when in fact we will leave a factional nightmare, with militias and religious fundamentalists torturing and murdering at will.   A haven for all manner of terrorists, another Afghanistan, manufactured by America and Britain.

WE are accused by Teribus of being Saddam apologists, when in reality Teribus is the apologist, in trying to justify a policy which has been a disasater to ourselves and the Iraqi people.

Our intervention in Iraq, and its consequences must not be allowed to fade from memory like Vietnam, but should be held up like a light to show the faces of the guilty and those who support them...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 03:27 PM

Just an excerpt:

But a comparison of public statements by the president, the vice president, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld show that in the days just before a congressional vote authorizing war, they professed to have been given information from U.S. intelligence assessments showing evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.

"You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," President Bush said on September 25, 2002.

The next day, Rumsfeld said, "We have what we consider to be credible evidence that Al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts with Iraq who could help them acquire … weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities."

The most explosive of allegations came from Cheney, who said that September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta, the pilot of the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center, had met in Prague, in the Czech Republic, with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, five months before the attacks. On December 9, 2001, Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press: "[I]t's pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in [the Czech Republic] last April, several months before the attack."

Cheney continued to make the charge, even after he was briefed, according to government records and officials, that both the CIA and the FBI discounted the possibility of such a meeting....

A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 03:26 PM

I for one have endorsed bankrolling Iraqi groups who planned to topple him--it should have been done from the inside.

Bush, who was so concerned (allegedly) with world-wide terror, has by his incredible short-sightedness and arrogance--created Iraq as the perfect incubator of terror.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 03:20 PM

As I said bring back the old Teribus-this one is defective. The old one would never have alleged that any of us against Bush's war in Iraq would prefer to have Saddam in charge there.

Proof please--exactly who, and with exact quotes.

The charge is so ludicrous, that, were it not typical of Bushite slander (I thought better of the old Teribus), it would not merit response.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 02:26 PM

Oh, yeah, speaking of "intelligence":

Teribus thinks that "regime change" and "armed invasion" are precisely the same thing..... *shhhhh* Don't let him know. It's so funny to see him perpetuate his ignorance....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 02:06 PM

Teribus: If anyone reading this thread would care to take note of the last few posts, most have just been personal attacks, none address the points made.

Ummm, yes, I read your last "response" to me, and that seems to fit the bill.

Please note Ron that at NO TIME does he mention Al-Qaeda, at NO TIME does he state that the countries identified as sponsors of terrorism HAVE chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, they are described as seeking them.

I think the American people (65% and growing every day) are a bit pissed at Dubya and his cronies trying to tell them their prezbit thinks it's OK to play "Simon Says" with them without telling them to pay clllooooooossseee attention to his words, and then tell them, "Hah, I didn't say 'Simon Sez', it's all your fault, you lose, haha!" Most people get annoyed when they are made fools of. Not you, but then some folks are such fools that they never twig to the fact that they've been made fools of....

Please don't insult my intelligence.

I don't worry about counterfactual hypotheticals.

IF it's so painfully obvious that Bush and his "team" have lost no opportunity to tie Saddam to 11 September 2001, you will be able to provide incontravertable evidence as to where and when he made such remarks.

At one time a majority of the U.S. public thought that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda, and a scant 20% or so could correctly answer how many of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iraq. I'm sure this wildly successful disinformation campaign that wrought these results was the work of those duplicitous Democrats ... or was it al Jazeera?

You're just wilfully blind (or dishonest) when you claim that the maladministration didn't hype the Iraq/911/al Qaeda stuff.

I know you can Google (you seem strangely interested in my personal life). Try it. Or just be the lazy (or dishonest) a$$ that you are, and click to do some reading: Here's a whole buch of quotes for ya.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 01:32 PM

State of the Union Address 2002:

"Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who SEEK chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world."

That is a clear enough statement Amos and yes it does link the war on terror to any terrorist group or regime that would support them in threatening the United States and the world with WMD in a similar attack to the one that occurred on the 11th September, 2001.

What it DOES NOT DAMN WELL DO is infer that there was a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq or infer that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 911.

Use your intelligence Sir.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 01:02 PM

He has implied the connection over and over again in his speeches in support of the war, both before and after the invasion. He has repeatedly implied that the war on Iraq was part of the war on terror and that it is a response to 9-11.

You insult your own intelligence, sir.


A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:42 PM

Well then Ron Davies - of Post - 24 Nov 05 - 11:34 AM - Fame

Please don't insult my intelligence. IF it's so painfully obvious that Bush and his "team" have lost no opportunity to tie Saddam to 11 September 2001, you will be able to provide incontravertable evidence as to where and when he made such remarks.

Or does the world and it's dog just have to relly on your say so - AGAIN.

Evidence Gentlemen.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 11:37 AM

I humbly submit that we who actually live in the US have been more subject to Bushite tripe of the kind mentioned than you, Teribus. So maybe you could be semi-comatose and not have heard it, after all.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 11:34 AM

Teribus--

Please don't insult our intelligence. To anybody who has been at least semi-comatose in the past 4 years-- (perhaps that doesn't include your good self)--it's painfully obvious that Bush and his "team" have lost no opportunity to tie Saddam to 11 September 2001. Have you ever heard the term "war on terror?" Saddam "harboring terrorists"?   Etc., ad nauseam.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 11:19 AM

Ron Davies - 24 Nov 05 - 10:25 AM

Quotes my post:

Teribus 23 Nov 2005 4:40 PM--G W Bush "establishes very early on that Saddam Hussein and Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the attacks" (of 11 Sept 2001).

Then asks:

"And how long did that last? About 20 minutes?"

And you are correct Ron, when you state - "Neither Bush nor his minions ever thereafter implied that Saddam and the events of 11 September 2001 were linked?" - That was done by anti-Bush media spin, and by the likes of yourself and Bobert, the man who would prefer to see Saddam still in power in Iraq.

Now this is WHAT HE DID SAY - State of the Union Address 2002:

"Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who SEEK chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world."

"...some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: IF THEY DO NOT ACT, AMERICA WILL."

"Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America OR OUR FRIENDS AND ALLIES with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime ARMING with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively PURSUES these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has PLOTTED TO DEVELOP anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, ARMING TO THREATEN the peace of the world. By SEEKING weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. THEY COULD PROVIDE THESE ARMS TO TERRORISTS, GIVING THEM THE MEANS TO MATCH THEIR HATRED. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. AND ALL NATIONS SHOULD KNOW: America will do what is necessary to ensure OUR nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

Please note Ron that at NO TIME does he mention Al-Qaeda, at NO TIME does he state that the countries identified as sponsors of terrorism HAVE chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, they are described as seeking them.

Now that is what he said Ron - Not what a bunch of left-wing anti-Bush journalists and a bunch of anti-war bloggers THOUGHT he said.

If anyone reading this thread would care to take note of the last few posts, most have just been personal attacks, none address the points made.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 10:25 AM

Teribus--

Teribus 23 Nov 2005 4:40 PM--G W Bush "establishes very early on that Saddam Hussein and Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the attacks" (of 11 Sept 2001).

And how long did that last? About 20 minutes?

Neither Bush nor his minions ever thereafter implied that Saddam and the events of 11 September 2001 were linked? Whatever you say, since you're obviously the ultimate authority. And you never mislead us.

The mind boggles.

"We taught them a lesson in 1918--and they've hardly bothered us since then"

Bring back the old Teribus. This one is defective.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 08:46 AM

"Agree to disagree" is Bushspeak fir...

... "Yeah, we were wrong and we're still wrong..."

As irritating as it sounds to be hearing this Bushite PR line it's comforting to know that when it is used that the party using it is part of the Bushite cover-up scheme...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 06:26 AM

Teribus:

GUEST,Arne Langsetmo - 23 Nov 05 - 02:50 PM, have read through your post and found that it says nothing.

Ahhh. "Brave, brave Sir Robin, bravely turned his tail and fled...."

Your misperception there ... or your dishonesty. Which is it?

Continuing on:

It would be useful if correct quotations of what key figures actually said, as opposed to what some people thought they said, or what they thought they meant.

Just a FYI, Teribus: What they said is not what you think they were saying. Quote-mining's a shady practise. Not to mention the fact that one of the most piss-poor excuses I can think of for f***ing things up badly is to say that others do it also. In fact, they have a name for this logical fallacy: "tu quoque". Or as I like to put it, the "The Democrats were as stoopid as we were" defence (ignoring that there were plenty of liberals that just didn't buy the shite the maladministration was flogging, myself included.

Whereas Clinton supported a policy of containment, post 9/11, GWB did not have that option.

A "constitutional" deficiency on Dubya's part? Or was he just too stoopid to think of anything else? The ol' "when all you've got is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail"?

... the main difference between you and me Boab is that while you a fully prepared to sit back and witness the slaughter of innocents, ...

Nonsense. You're more than happy to have innocents slaughtered. That's what's happening over there now, and you're just tickled pink by it. So don't give us that "holier than thou" shite.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 01:30 AM

Thanks for your post Boab, it looks as though we must just agree to disagree. I still believe that there's lots to debate, and whenever others cite incorrect information, or mere unsubstantiated supposition that can be disproved by fact or by reason I shall. It would be useful if correct quotations of what key figures actually said, as opposed to what some people thought they said, or what they thought they meant.

Whereas Clinton supported a policy of containment, post 9/11, GWB did not have that option.

"The slaughter of civilians didn't start with the illegal invasion;it had been going on for ten years, both by sanctions and by bombing."

And you accuse me of being selective!!! The slaughter of civilians in Iraq had been going on for a damn sight longer than that Boab (At the rate of 154 or 282 per day since 1978 depending on what figures you use). The main difference between you and me Boab

Being opposed to intervention in both Iraq and Kosovo, indicates that the main difference between you and me Boab is that while you a fully prepared to sit back and witness the slaughter of innocents, I am prepared to back those who will take necessary action when required.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:46 AM

Nothing in my posting mentioned nuclear weapons, Teribus; but I certainly DO recall, early in the "game", dire statements about "mushroom clouds". And I refuse to believe that, while your memory is nothing if not selective,you you do not recall such reference in the "whip-up" which preceded the assault on Iraq. And, may I suggest the statement "mushroom cloud" does not, in the minds of most modern humans, conjure up visions of a cloud of mushrooms...
    And I hardly think that Colin Powell made those ridiculous presentations at the U.N. about chemical weapon facilities, etc., without the approval, and probable urging , from the string-pullers [no prizes for their identities]. What bitter regrets that man Powell must have!
Finally, I trust that you do not harbour any illusions regarding my attitudes to the administration of William Clinton,as the text of your last posting seems to imply. He too was a favourite role model for Tony Blair and his crawlies, and anything he accomplished in Iraq [or Kosovo]added up to a big negative. The slaughter of civilians didn't start with the illegal invasion;it had been going on for ten years, both by sanctions and by bombing.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Puzzled
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 09:32 PM

Did someone forget to put the word "NOT" in the title of this thread? Why don't they fix it?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 08:12 PM

Well, ake, I think you have hit the nail on the head... Yes, Bush has had his war and now, no matter the circumstance unless the US is outright invaded, he won't get another one... He's all done...

The problem as I see it is how quickly the American people are to forget. Vietnam wasn't really that long ago and most of the folks involved in gettin' the US into Irq-mire were around back then... It is disgraceful that we didn't learn much from Nam... In a way, it is a further insult to our brothers who died in Nam...

"When will they ever learn..."

What is also disgracefull is fir the pro-war folks here to continue to tell the same lies and to try to distract folks from what more and more folks are coming to thi8nk about how they got duped into supporting this dumbass war...

And they will tell whatever story that Bush's PR folks can think up to keep from havin' to say. "Hey, maybe we did mess up..."

Just this week we learn that the German intellegence community was tellin' the US intellegence community that "Curveball" din't know squt about squt, yet it was Bush who kept from the Congress the disenting opinions in the daily intellegence reports which would have certainly been made public and Joe-Sixpack would have had at least some inkling that there were folks inside the CIA who were sayin' "Bullsh*t" to the Bush/Cheney claims that Iraq had WMD's...

Oh yeah, a couple days before the vote to go to war, some of these were released to Congress with little or no time to get them into the public consciousness... The damage had been done with the relentless pounding of the War Drum so even if some Congressman did make the time to read the report, there plainly wasn't the time to turn back 4 month's of drum pounding...

But even today, folks a small number of folks still gather 'round the drum. like ol' fraternity buds, and pound and pound away telling and retelling stuff that, face it, no one other than themselves, believe...

There's an ol' Conway Twitty songs which I think was entitled "Too BUsy Drinkin'" that has a line that goes, "The last lie I told her was the one she couldn't believe"... Well, to my pro-Bush friends, you are on that side of the lie...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 06:18 PM

Amen to that, Ake!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 05:50 PM

Yes It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

The problem is , this Mudcat pantomime is being played out in the country as well!

USA/UK politicians are busily spinning the disaster they have created, to provide cover for troop withdrawals and to avoid collateral damage from the media.
Using exactly the same tactics as Bruce and Teribus.

At the moment the vast majority of people are full of righteous indignation at being lied to, and at the sheer incompetence of our respective govts.
But memories are short, maybe these tactics will prevail and our leaders will move on to maim and kill in another land.

But there is a chance that the stench of this "war" will stick in the craw of the American and British people, and make them scrutinise their leaders more closely; and more importantly scrutinise the road down which we are travelling....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 05:08 PM

'Round and 'round the mulberry bush.

Get's kinda pointless after a while, donit?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 04:52 PM

Ding! Round...round...ummm...

What the hell round is it now anyway???

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 04:40 PM

GUEST,Arne Langsetmo - 23 Nov 05 - 02:50 PM, have read through your post and found that it says nothing.

Cheers,

GUEST,Boab - 23 Nov 05 - 02:16 AM

"I think a lid should be clapped firmly down on this thread... There is no debate here; no amount of reason will ever sway some of the characters who haunt this forum."

I couldn't disagree more:

There are a number of anti-Bush/Blair/War types who insist that Bush/Blair/Cheney/etc/etc lied when they said that Saddam had nuclear weapons - they didn't lie of course because none of them ever said that Saddam had nuclear weapons, The anti-war lobby believe it because they wanted to over the pudding, they wanted Bush/Blair et al to have said that - but they never did.

Reference: Amos - 23 Nov 05 - 09:07 AM, now maybe these words are Amos's or maybe they are cut-n-paste from Slate:

"...assumptions that Saddam was DEVELOPING WMD"

"the case that Saddam was TRYING to build nuclear weapons, which he had in fact stopped trying to do in 1991. "We now know that Saddam has resumed his EFFORTS TO ACQUIRE nuclear weapons," Cheney said in August 2002, in one of his conclusive comments on the subject. This position was echoed by Bush and Rice, who both conjured the specter of a mushroom cloud, as well as by Rumsfeld and Colin Powell, who went into more detail about aluminum tubes and uranium."

Now in August 2002, the ONLY people outside Iraq who knew anything with regard to what stocks of WMD Saddam might have and what the status of the Iraqi nuclear programme were UNSCOM/UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Some here might declare that Mohamed Al Baredai clearly stated that Iraq had no nuclear capability at that time (Summer 2002) but he didn't, he did not report that until early in February 2003, the report he gave then indicated that the IAEA's initial task in Iraq would be over within weeks provided that they confirm that Iraq was not pursuing any programme targeted at the development of a nuclear capability.

Other things that we have established Boab:

The Clinton Administration established the US Policy calling for Regime Change in Iraq on 31st October 1998 - long before the arrival on the scene of Republican President George Walker Bush.

Democrat President Bill Clinton attacked Iraq without seeking permission from either Senate or House of Representatives.

Democrat President Bill Clinton attacked Iraq without the permission of the United Nations (He was to do the same again in Kosovo) citing Iraqi non-compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 681 (Safwan Ceasefire Agreement).

Now in all this where was the outcry? - strangely silent

Post 9/11 Republican President George Walker Bush:

- Establishes very early on that Saddam Hussein and Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.

- Assists the Northern Alliance in ousting the Taleban from power in Afghanistan.

- Has the Security Committee, Security Services and Intelligence Agencies conduct a threat assessment to identify potential threats to the United States of America. They advise that Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, are all capable of co-operating with any international terrorist organisation with a view to carrying out an attack on America.

- Goes to the UN to refer the as yet unresolved situation with regard to Iraq. This results in unanimous acceptance of UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

- Despatches an American Force to the area to pressure Iraq into allowing the resumption of inspections by UNMOVIC.

- Goes to both Senate and House of Representatives and gets approval for use of force against Iraq.

- After seven material breaches of Last Chance Resolution 1441 Republican President George Walker Bush invades Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power citing material breach of 1441 and non-compliance with 681

Now there are a few similarities there and a number of significant differences. It would appear that GWB did go a damn sight further down the road to get the UN involved than Clinton - who didn't bothered going to them at all - I can now see the wisdom in doing that, maybe GWB should have done the same.

Whereas Clinton supported a policy of containment, post 9/11, GWB did not have that option.

So you see Boab, there's lots to debate, and it would be useful and informative if the anti-war side could just for once provide correct quotations of what key figures actually did say, as opposed to what they thought they said, or what they thought they meant. If just for once they could remain with fact as opposed to fanciful fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 02:50 PM

Teribus: [Arne] ....."Actually, some did. I was not thrilled with the Tomahawking of Iraq in 1993, nor the 1998 Desert Fox. COme to think of it, there were tons of Republicans that were incensed with 1998 .... fancy that."

Of the latter they were hacked off because he did not ask for approval of both houses and it was a poorly thought out exercise that could not accomplish the aim.

Oh, I fully agree ... ummm, sorry, waiddaminnit, you were talking about Dubya there, weren't you??? Oh. Litella-ish "Nevermind...."   ;-)

Are you trying to tell us that after setting Regime Change in Iraq as a corner stone of US Middle-East Foreign Policy, The US did not bomb Iraq after it said it would put its faith in the UN efforts and in the wishes of the people of Iraq? ...

You're getting incoherent as well, Teribus. Better lay off the sauce.

Dessert Fox achieved very little, actions taken by the US since summer 2002 have achieved a great deal.

Well, here again I think I see your point: If you're an undertaker, yes!!!

[Arne]: ...."In fact, the inspectors withdrew at Clinton's request, not because Saddam kicked them out (as the likes of Dubya seem to believe and even more want you to believe .... for some reason)."

I don't believe that I said that Saddam kicked UNSCOM out just before Dessert Fox....

Never said you did. Just clarifying a point the Republicans like to muddy up.

... UNSCOM were advised to withdraw their personnel on the recommendation of the US Government. UNSCOM were kicked out of Iraq in 1997/early 1998 by Saddam, which was one of the factors that sparked the incident.

Here you fall off the deep end. What happened was that Saddam wouldn't allow them to return after Desert Fox. Which is, in a way, rather understandable, as Saddam doesn't have lots of incentive or reason to make nice when we inspect, then take out the inspectors and bomb him, then want to put inspectors back in. Bad reward schedule, you know... Not to mention that Saddam had also gotten a bit pissed that the U.S. had been introducing CIA (or other intelligence) agents into the inspection teams who had their own little agendas, and Saddam thought that this wasn't quite cricket (the U.N. wasn't very happy about it either, as it makes their job in other areas more difficult and gives other countries an excuse for refusing inspections due to the tarnishing of the inspection missions with clandestine spying, something that is not the mission of the inspection teams).

[Arne]:....."But you're simply wrong about it being Clinton's idea to invade Iraq."

When did I say that it was Clinton's idea to invade Iraq ...

Oh, you didn't say it. But you did imply it and/or use Clinton's stance as support for the invasion you so dearly love. And you're continuing to do so. Funny how the worm turns, and now Republicans and the Dubya sycophants are touting Clinton as an "authority", eh? Didn't you know he was impeached ... I mean, IMPEACHED???

The stuff about PNAC and their memo - Red Herring.

You misspelled "fact". But quite like you to ignore it, as it really does throw a spanner in the argumentative works for you....

But noted he did not deny that the countries mentioned above did assist the US, not just Israel, nor does he deny that they are all US allies in the region.

I noted they sent no troops!. They allowed U.S. military operations, hardly contributed. They certainly didn't support the invasion in advance; rather simply agreed (or didn't agree; see Turkey) to allow troop basing in their country. I won't opine on whether they wanted to actually contribute in their heart of hearts and were just inhibited from such by political realities, but the fact is that such "contribution" was pretty much of a passive nature (and not particularly different from their pre-invasion-plan actions WRT U.S. troops over there).

And a FWIW: Oh, I don't deny that "Bandar" Bush is Dubya's ally. Heck, the Saudis got the golden glove treatment after 9/11, and we have Dubya walking hand-in-hand with the Saudis.... But not a single Saudi troop went to Iraq. Did you have a point?

[Arne]:...."When your enemy's shooting himself in the foot, you don't stop him. Say, that all worked out wonderfully for the Iranians, eh?"

I would say that the only people who have been shooting themselves in the foot recently Arne have been the Iranians.

Oh, really? With their buddy Chalabi back in the U.S. good graces, with their Shia allies likely to be running Iraq, Iraq (after 10 years of war with Iran) reduced to rubble and no military threat, and Saddam removed as an opposing power in the Middle East, all with their not having to lift a finger (except of course, perhaps cooking up some phony "intelligence" or otherwise fomenting the was), I'd say the Iranians won ... "big time". They got us to do their dirty work for them. Quite the coup, I'd say....

[Arne]:...."One thing that someone with a bit more rational mind might glean from the Nazi era, though, is that it is dangerous (if sometimes nonetheless the moral position) to allow a country to become very militarised, very aggressive, and to go around occupying other countries. Yes, in such cases, if you wait long enough, the price of removing the cancer of such a country may be immense in blood and sorrow ... but sometimes it may need to be done, when that country has finally slid down into fascism and oppression and started their rampage across the world.".....

Perfect description of Iraq 1990 to 2003, and of the international communities responsibilities and actions.

Yeah, you missed my point. Colour me surprised ... Not!

No, Iraq was not the equivalent of 30's Germany. But see if you might think of some other candidates that might be starting to look a little like them....

The Ba'athist Party in both Iraq and Syria is a National Socialist Party based on the German Nazi Party.

Godwin's Law, eh? Yep, and commies are Nazis because Nazis are the National Socialist party, and Dems are commies because they're seen in public within a mile of Michael Moore (and we know<> he's pink), and thus they're all little fascists ... ummm, make that "Islamofascists" and "Saddam-lovers" too..... There is an anti-Semitic streak to the Ba'ath party, but that's hardly unique to them in that area. But to compare them ... nay, equate them ... with the Nazis is something that should sicken any thinking person.

[Arne]:...."First, I don't know who they were or even if they existed"

You don't know Arne, but you automatically assume that they didn't because it suits your arguement?

Burden of proof is on the proponet of a proposition. You're assuming (or at least arguing based on) facts not in evidence. If you want to be more specific on who died when and why, and why this is such a big deal requiring that another thousand lives, this time U.S. troops, be lost to "cure" these deaths, we might have something to discuss.

And as an aside: I argue my own position (and not under a pseudnym either). If you want to argue with someone else, then just go do it. I'm quite sure my parents have their own opinions, but that's their prerogative to defend, and they're quite capable of doing so. They'd most probably think that you're most unwholesome slime as well, but that is their decision to make.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 02:17 PM

Teribus, I just thought I'd mention that the horse you're beating is dead. It will not get up and run again. It lays there, a pile of lacerated hamburger in a pool of blood, and it has been laying there for some time now. And it's really beginning to stink. And yet, there you are, vigorously wielding your whip with something that verges on desperation.

I'm sorry. But the horse is dead!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Amos
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 09:07 AM

From Slate:
...Here's what we do know already, without a congressional inquiry: Members of the Bush Administration were dishonest with the public and with Congress about prewar intelligence. We've known this for some time—see, for example, the comprehensive and damning story Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus wrote in the Washington Post in August 2003 ("Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence"). Over the past two years, several incidents of executive-branch dishonesty in the run-up to the war have turned into subscandals of their own: the aluminum tubes that Iraq used for missiles and not gas centrifuges, the yellowcake uranium that Saddam didn't try to buy from Niger, the mobile biological warfare laboratories that turned out to be hydrogen generators for balloons, the al-Qaida chemical warfare training that was based on a false confession, the meeting with Mohamed Atta that didn't happen in Prague.

If you examine these and other pillars of the administration's case for invading Iraq, a clear pattern emerges. Bush officials first put clear pressure on the intelligence community to support their assumptions that Saddam was developing WMD and cooperating with al-Qaida. Nonetheless, significant contrary evidence emerged. Bush hawks then overlooked, suppressed, or willfully ignored whatever cut against their views. In public, they depicted unsettled questions as dead certainties. Then, when they were caught out and proven wrong, they resisted the obvious and refused to correct the record. Finally, when their positions became utterly untenable, they claimed that they were misinformed or not told. Call this behavior what you will, but you can't describe it as either "honest" or "truthful."

Many of the White House's most serious misrepresentations involve the case that Saddam was trying to build
nuclear weapons, which he had in fact stopped trying to do in 1991. "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," Cheney said in August 2002, in one of his conclusive comments on the subject. This position was echoed by Bush and Rice, who both conjured the specter of a mushroom cloud, as well as by Rumsfeld and Colin Powell, who went into more detail about aluminum tubes and uranium. If you were on the inside and read even the now notorious National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, you at least knew that such statements were at the very least overdrawn. Analysts at the departments of Energy and State weren't buying the aluminum tubes and yellowcake theory that formed the basis of the nuclear case.

Or consider another component of that case that has gotten less attention, the description of fresh "activity" at Saddam's known nuclear sites. A draft paper produced by Andrew Card's White House working group on Iraq, and cited in the 2003 Post article, was characteristically distorted. The document inaccurately attributed to U.N. arms inspectors the claim that satellite photographs showed signs of reconstruction and acceleration of Iraq's nuclear program. It went on to quote something chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix told Time: "You can see hundreds of new roofs in these photos." But the White House paper left out the second half of Blix's quote: "[B]ut you don't know what's under them." In February 2003, American inspectors visited those sites as part of U.N. teams and saw that nuclear bombs weren't being made at them. But Bush officials acted as if such counterevidence didn't exist.

In retrospect, Cheney casts himself and his colleagues as uncritical consumers of what the CIA and DIA spoon-fed them. Bad intel, he gives us to understand, is like lousy weather—a shame, but nothing policymakers can do anything about. In fact, the Bush hawks were anything but victims of the intelligence community. They challenged any evidence that cut against their assumptions about Saddam, going so far as to set up their own unit within the Pentagon to reanalyze raw data and draw harsher conclusions. And remember that the trigger for the Valerie Plame scandal was the vice president's mistrust of the CIA.

Another giveaway is the administration's lack of outrage over the bad intelligence they now claim to have been victimized by. Only Colin Powell, before his U.N. speech, seems to have pushed back with any skepticism about charges he was being asked to retail. And only Powell has expressed any outrage after it became evident that his U.N. speech had been a case of garbage in, garbage out.

Powell's old colleagues now defend themselves by saying they didn't know their claims about Iraq weren't true. But the truth is most of them didn't care whether their assertions were true or not, and they still don't.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 02:16 AM

I think a lid should be clapped firmly down on this thread. The very title is just as grotesque as the original lie which trumpeted vomit/crap [pick the preferred orifice]about mushroom clouds etc., etc.. There is no debate here; no amount of reason will ever sway some of the characters who haunt this forum. Cheyney was seen and heard on t.v. the other day, giving a freshener to the original pack of lies. There will be no end to the bloodletting until such charlatans are either forced into obscurity, or given just punishment for their catalogue of crimes. Sadaam could link arms with a whole line-up of war criminals, from both sides of the pond.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 01:19 AM

GUEST,AR282 - Date: 22 Nov 05 - 10:36 PM

Your post and point of view is based on cherry-picked ideas, parts of actual statements, all rolled up to serve your purpose.

With regard to members of the MNF leaving, they could all be home in January if the elected Government of Iraq wishes, although I somehow doubt it. For the British sector, we started in March 2003 with just under 40,000 troops, that number has been reduced to about 8,000, it is the opinion of Iraq's current Prime Minister that he can foresee British troops leaving Iraq as early as within the next six months. Is it possible, yes all things are possible, I have no reason to doubt that we will leave, Basra and the South have been more settled than Anbar and the Sunni triangle.

Arne ....."Actually, some did. I was not thrilled with the Tomahawking of Iraq in 1993, nor the 1998 Desert Fox. COme to think of it, there were tons of Republicans that were incensed with 1998 .... fancy that."

Of the latter they were hacked off because he did not ask for approval of both houses and it was a poorly thought out exercise that could not accomplish the aim.

Arne...."But I'd note that "sense of the Congress" resolutions are far different from actually bombing someone, much less an armed invasion and occupation killiong many thousadns of people many of them civilians."

Are you trying to tell us that after setting Regime Change in Iraq as a corner stone of US Middle-East Foreign Policy, The US did not bomb Iraq after it said it would put its faith in the UN efforts and in the wishes of the people of Iraq? Dessert Fox achieved very little, actions taken by the US since summer 2002 have achieved a great deal.


Arne...."In fact, the inspectors withdrew at Clinton's request, not because Saddam kicked them out (as the likes of Dubya seem to believe and even more want you to believe .... for some reason)."

I don't believe that I said that Saddam kicked UNSCOM out just before Dessert Fox. UNSCOM were advised to withdraw their personnel on the recommendation of the US Government. UNSCOM were kicked out of Iraq in 1997/early 1998 by Saddam, which was one of the factors that sparked the incident.

Arne....."But you're simply wrong about it being Clinton's idea to invade Iraq."

When did I say that it was Clinton's idea to invade Iraq - What I did say was that Clinton set Regime Change in Iraq as a corner stone of US Middle-East Foreign Policy. Bit of a difference, but your English Comprehension is poor, you only ever read into something, that which suits your arguement/point of view, something like Guest AR282. The stuff about PNAC and their memo - Red Herring.

Teribus...."Now how about Kuwait, you know that little place from which the Invasion of Iraq was launched, the place that played host to around 250,000 of your countrymen in the lead up to March 2003. What about Saudi Arabia, oh and there's Bahrain, Qatar, and to a much, much lesser extent Egypt, Jordan and Turkey."

Arne's reply to this was the equivalent of .. "Didn't too". But noted he did not deny that the countries mentioned above did assist the US, not just Israel, nor does he deny that they are all US allies in the region.

Arne...."When your enemy's shooting himself in the foot, you don't stop him. Say, that all worked out wonderfully for the Iranians, eh?"

I would say that the only people who have been shooting themselves in the foot recently Arne have been the Iranians.

Arne....."Can you sing "Duuuck ... and coooverrrr..."? But I've read York, Kahn, Rhodes, and whole raft of other books on the subject. Stategery aside, fact remains that the U.S. retains a whole s***load of WoMD. I note you don't dispute it; you simply try to brush it off ... curious tactic for one who complains that I'm "ducking the points"...."

The question asked was completely ignored by young Arne, it would have proved inconvenient to his line of reasoning. No-one disputes that the US retains WMD, as do Britain, France, Russia, China under the terms of the nuclear NPT. Pakistan, India and probably Israel also have nuclear capability, legally as it happens as they are not signatories to the nuclear NPT, therefore not bound by it terms.

Arne...."One thing that someone with a bit more rational mind might glean from the Nazi era, though, is that it is dangerous (if sometimes nonetheless the moral position) to allow a country to become very militarised, very aggressive, and to go around occupying other countries. Yes, in such cases, if you wait long enough, the price of removing the cancer of such a country may be immense in blood and sorrow ... but sometimes it may need to be done, when that country has finally slid down into fascism and oppression and started their rampage across the world."..... Perfect description of Iraq 1990 to 2003, and of the international communities responsibilities and actions. The Ba'athist Party in both Iraq and Syria is a National Socialist Party based on the German Nazi Party.

Arne....You never did say what your parents thought about that idea of someone taking Hitler on over attempted German re-armament in 1933 to 1935. The likely outcome, or the fear of that happening, are not based on my opinion but that of a German General Heinz Guderian.

Arne...."First, I don't know who they were or even if they existed"

You don't know Arne, but you automatically assume that they didn't because it suits your arguement? The UN seemed to believe in their existence, the Kuwaiti Government certainly believed in their existence. Saddam will be dragged in front of a court for this crime sometime in the near future. It is an incident that might even get him in front of an international court.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 10:36 PM

The pro-WMD crowd is losing this one for the simple fact that they have words and little else to offer as evidence of this huge stockpile of deadly weapons that Saddam could have trained on the US within 45 minutes or whatever crap Chalabi fed Bush who willingly swallowed every drop without spilling any.

The claims of the Bush administration regarding Iraq were wrong and it will take more than telling me the leftist/liberal press is suppressing the facts to convince me of the righteousness of that position.

There were no WMD found in Iraq--end of argument. Now unless someone can produce these weapons, it's time to stop with the spin and the charade.

Today, Cheney was quoted as saying it was not the U.S. that had to prove its claim that Saddam had these weapons but rather it was Saddam's burden to prove he didn't. Now, if this isn't the hallmark of being unable to admit you were wrong, I don't know what is. "We woldn't have invaded if he'd proved he wasn't stockpiling weapons" is not cutting it and the American public is not fooled (this time). It's a tiresome argument insulting to the inteligence of anyone who has any.

The bottom line is, if you pro-war people don't start producing results that prove this war can possibly have any other outcome but defeat, you can insist to the rocks and trees that Bush was right about Saddam and you'll have a better chance of getting a response than you will from the average American. We've seen enough. Either we change tactics or we'd better get out while the getting is good.

Staying until we are victorious is synonymous with staying forever with no way out. And the truth is, we getting ready to leave. Already we are hearing stories about the miraculous progress Iraqis have suddenly made in assuming control of their own affairs and--hey presto--we just might be able to leave soon. Isn't that special?

But that won't get your precious Bush off the hook. He owes us an explanation. If that makes me un-American in his eyes, oh well, I'm un-American then but I still want an explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 10:06 PM

Teribus:

No-one quibbled about meddling in the affairs of an independent sovereign nation?

Actually, some did. I was not thrilled with the Tomahawking of Iraq in 1993, nor the 1998 Desert Fox. COme to think of it, there were tons of Republicans that were incensed with 1998 .... fancy that.

But I'd note that "sense of the Congress" resolutions are far different from actually bombing someone, much less an armed invasion and occupation killiong many thousadns of people many of them civilians.

No-one complained about this affecting the sterling efforts of the UNSCOM Inspection teams toiling away 'searching' for WMD in Iraq?

Actually, some did. But not the PTB in the U.S. (executive or legislative). In fact, the inspectors withdrew at Clinton's request, not because Saddam kicked them out (as the likes of Dubya seem to believe and even more want you to believe .... for some reason).

Way back on Clinton's watch Iraq was identified as a threat, as the same people who arrived at that conclusion remained in place when GWB entered the White House, it is not surprising that they gave him the same advice - he accepted it, no reason not to, but NOT HIS IDEA.

The ol' "We're As Stoopid As Clinton" defence is in full flower, IC. You must have gotten your RNC "talking points" memo. But you're simply wrong about it being Clinton's idea to invade Iraq. That came from Dubyas' masters in the PNAC community and their famous memo. Clarke has talked about this, as have Wilkerson and others. It was a whole new game for them, and how they jumped for joy on Sept. 11th....

Now how about Kuwait, you know that little place from which the Invasion of Iraq was launched, the place that played host to around 250,000 of your countrymen in the lead up to March 2003. What about Saudi Arabia, oh and there's Bahrain, Qatar, and to a much, much lesser extent Egypt, Jordan and Turkey.

Oh, BS. At least in GW1, the Kuwaitis offered a token amount of their own troops to help free their country (although, if they had done the thing is typical Kuwaiti fashion, they would have hired mercenaries from SE Asian countries to do the dirty work that is beneath them....

[Iran] certainly did not make any attempt to make things difficult for the US, which they could have done.

When your enemy's shooting himself in the foot, you don't stop him. Say, that all worked out wonderfully for the Iranians, eh?

I don't have a clue what age you are Arne, but my guess is not too advanced in years.

You could have saved yourself some typing and stopped after the first five words.

But if you ever did learn anything about things such as the 'Cold War', MAD, etc, ...

Can you sing "Duuuck ... and coooverrrr..."? But I've read York, Kahn, Rhodes, and whole raft of other books on the subject. Stategery aside, fact remains that the U.S. retains a whole s***load of WoMD. I note you don't dispute it; you simply try to brush it off ... curious tactic for one who complains that I'm "ducking the points"....

What do we get from you - "But your opinions are not entitled to a lack of derision, mainly because they're full'o'shite, and the most gruesomely misanthropic to boot." That is a response to a point made in debate Arne?

Oh, sorry, Teribus, shame on me for trying to stay on point in responding to your assertion that you may have opinions too.

But unfortunately most of the people in reasonable possession of their senses seemed to have followed the lead that you would have advocated in the case of Iraq.

Actually, it was the Republicans and their friends in the American Bunds that were most isolationist (if not openly suggesting that we ought to throw in with Hitler). Do keep that in mind when you think there's a lot of "moral clarity" in world politics.

But FWIW, although it was near-call with Hitler, it's neither certain that efforts to rerun history and say that early intervention in the early '30s would have made a difference (and more than that, a difference for the good) in the long run, nor certain that such policies would be better from a moral perspective. Sometimes we need a watershed event to wake us up, even if that may be near fatal to us. One thing that someone with a bit more rational mind might glean from the Nazi era, though, is that it is dangerous (if sometimes nonetheless the moral position) to allow a country to become very militarised, very aggressive, and to go around occupying other countries. Yes, in such cases, if you wait long enough, the price of removing the cancer of such a country may be immense in blood and sorrow ... but sometimes it may need to be done, when that country has finally slid down into fascism and oppression and started their rampage across the world. Bet that little point is going to zip right over your head.....

... they thought that the people in reasonable possession of their senses, otherwise known as Quislings and Appeasers, ...

Quisling was a Nazi lickspittle, not an appeaser. His name is forever linked with treason and infamy.

You want "appeasers", try the RW Republicans in the U.S., OK?

Arne's concern and comments regarding the sorrow of Cindy Sheehan and two thousand other mothers is plainly an attempt to stir emotion which for some reason.

Which, of course, is lost on you. See my comment that you took offence to above about "opinions".

But you see if you had been able to read, AND UNDERSTAND, some of the posts written by BB and myself, you would have known that had Saddam been complying with the terms of those resolutions as Amos, yourself, Bobert and all the other Saddam Apologists on this site would like us to believe he was, those Kuwaiti Nationals might still be alive.

First, I don't know who they were or even if they existed (see the Rendon Group's fine wormk on the incubator babies). Second, any missing from the 1990 occupation and GW1 may have been long dead. Yes, it's terrible they got killed, and if Saddam had them killed, he ought to stand trial for it (would you say the same for the tortured and killed in Afghanistan and Iraq under Cheney's watch? Should Cheney sit in the dock in the Hague?). But it's impossible to bring them back to life. I know of none of the alleged Kuwaiti prisoners (or even U.S. MIAs) that were found to have been held hostage by Saddam, and then killed in the runup to Dubya's war (or during it). Once they're dead, they can't be brought back to life, no matter how many UNSCR resolutions you issue. The best you can do is demand compensation and/or put the person responsible on trial once you have them in custody....

Going back to read some of your contributions at DSD

Doubt you'll be able to recognise which ones are me and which ones are Gordon the Muddlheaded with his fascination for touching himself and talking about it third person. But give it a stab, if you're really into digging into those miasmatic emanations from a RWer with brains'o'snot....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 09:49 PM

Amen, Ake...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 09:37 PM

Teribus writes.
"Amos, yourself, Bobert and all the other Saddam Apologists on this site"
A typically arrogant and false "fact".
In the years that I have been reading and contributing to these threads, I have never seen anyone of any political persuasion support or apologise for the Saddam regime.
As most of the anti war people here could be characterised as "on the left", I think that most folks would see Teribus himself, with his militaristic views, as closer in spirit to Saddam than anyone on this forum.

As little hawk says all the arguments about resolutions are a load of garbage.
Right or wrong, and no matter how Teribus and Bruce squirm, the world now perceives Iraq to have been a serious mistake.
This is what is important, the World now sees the lie of western "democracy". The world now understands that the West has an agenda, and is prepared to kill in large numbers to attain that agenda.

What troubles Teribus and Bruce is that the coalition in Iraq have lost the battle for "hearts and minds", not only in Iraq but worldwide.

They can bumble on about resolutions and Iraqi history till they're blue in the face and all the rest of us die of boredom, but even the American and British govts know they have lost the trust of the people who elected them and the game is over.

They are attempting to turn control of Iraq over to the Shia, who are forging stronger and stronger links with Iran...Does that sound like a more stable ,more democratic country...not to me it dosen't.

The truth is that any supposed objectives that have been achieved in Iraq, like the "free" elections and much praised constitution have simply facilitated the birth of an Islamic Republic, something I and others here have warned of since before the war began.

Teribus and Bruce are more concerned with winning obscure debating points than in trying to understand what is really happening in Iraq.    I think they have much in common with Bush and Blair..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 08:33 PM

A bit low, even for you Arne. But you see if you had been able to read, AND UNDERSTAND, some of the posts written by BB and myself, you would have known that had Saddam been complying with the terms of those resolutions as Amos, yourself, Bobert and all the other Saddam Apologists on this site would like us to believe he was, those Kuwaiti Nationals might still be alive.

...or if April Gilespie had said to Saddam, "the US would take it very badly" when he asked her how the US would respond if he decided to invade Kuwait, rather than "the US would not consider it any of its business". That right there could have saved a LOT of lives.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Amos
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 07:56 PM

Teribus:

You are an ass. I am no more a Saddam apologist than I am a grandmother.

Talk about distortion. Ptui.


A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 07:48 PM

Does yer dog bite???

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 06:38 PM

So many statistics...so little time! Kato! Bring me my bound copies of the last 20 years of U.N. debates and decisions, and I will score verbal points that will reduce my foolish opponent(s) on this forum to stunned silence. Then they will finally realize that resistance is futile. *(spoken in the voice of Chief Inspector Clouseau)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 06:11 PM

Oh! Dear! Arne, no wonder you completely ducked the points made in my last post.

Regime Change in Iraq - US Government Foreign Policy - The Iraq Liberation Act, October 31, 1998 - Bill Clinton.

No-one quibbled about meddling in the affairs of an independent sovereign nation?

No-one complained about this affecting the sterling efforts of the UNSCOM Inspection teams toiling away 'searching' for WMD in Iraq?

No UN approval, sanction, permission, blessing or co-operation when less than two months later Bill Clinton, without the approval of the Senate or House of Representatives, exercised his right as Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces and ordered an attack on Iraq - otherwise known as Dessert Fox - The justification for this attack was Iraqi non-compliance with the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 681 - seemed to work, nobody was up in arms yelling at Clinton that he didn't have the right to do it.

Way back on Clinton's watch Iraq was identified as a threat, as the same people who arrived at that conclusion remained in place when GWB entered the White House, it is not surprising that they gave him the same advice - he accepted it, no reason not to, but NOT HIS IDEA.

US Allies in the middle-east, the only one that slowly meandered across that vast empty plain of Brain Arne was Israel. Not bad Arne, you got one. Now how about Kuwait, you know that little place from which the Invasion of Iraq was launched, the place that played host to around 250,000 of your countrymen in the lead up to March 2003. What about Saudi Arabia, oh and there's Bahrain, Qatar, and to a much, much lesser extent Egypt, Jordan and Turkey. It could even be argued that the Iranian stance adopted throughout was that of a benign neutrality, they certainly did not make any attempt to make things difficult for the US, which they could have done.

I don't have a clue what age you are Arne, but my guess is not too advanced in years. But if you ever did learn anything about things such as the 'Cold War', MAD, etc, you will be able to explain to all the nice people here what was meant by a nuclear power having a 'second strike capability' and why that was so important to have. At the same time you will be able to explain the established and acknowledged strategy that having a 'second strike' would effectively counter.

As to opinions, well in posting at least I do put forward an arguement and I do address points raised, something I note that you gave up doing a long time ago in this little exchange. What do we get from you - "But your opinions are not entitled to a lack of derision, mainly because they're full'o'shite, and the most gruesomely misanthropic to boot." That is a response to a point made in debate Arne? No it's only your opinion, expressed no doubt in the same manner that resulted in your departure from Dog Snot Diary, by the way I thought the Arne cartoons were hilarious.

One little parallel from History Arne, and you can ask your parents about it, your surname and the mention of Lutefisk for Christmas would probably make then Norwegian and from the West Coast of Norway, north of Bergen, probably up towards Trondheim or Lofoten. It has to do with one of your remarks -   

"Perhaps you're of the opinion that anyone is entitled to attack any neighbour (or even non-neighbour, thousands of miles away) because they have paranoid, delusional hallucinations of some WoMD pointed at them (and I'm being charitable here, and assuming that the maladministration was just plain stoopid and incompetent and didn't lie to us all to further some rather different agenda), but fortunately most people in reasonable possession of their senses see such an act as a great (if not damnable) folly that would quickly turn the entire world into a hell-hole if everyone acted on such a rationale."

Well Arne, you see, if the fortunate people in reasonable possession of their senses who were around in the period 1933 to 1935, had listened to a number of paranoid, delusional hallucinating people who were trying like hell to get all the reasonable people to believe that an ex-German Army Corporal, with an Army of less than 100,000 men, with no heavy weapons (artillery), no armour, no Air Force, and only a small coastal navy was intent on re-armament and conquest, and those people had done something about it when they had the chance - Your Mum and Dad would not have had to put up with that ex-Corporal's troops as unwelcome, non-paying guests for just over five years. But unfortunately most of the people in reasonable possession of their senses seemed to have followed the lead that you would have advocated in the case of Iraq. It was without any shadow of a doubt an act of catastrophic folly that did turn the entire world into a hell-hole for quite some time, it was called the Second World War - ask your parents how they enjoyed it and whether or not they thought that the people in reasonable possession of their senses, otherwise known as Quislings and Appeasers, got it right.

Arne's concern and comments regarding the sorrow of Cindy Sheehan and two thousand other mothers is plainly an attempt to stir emotion which for some reason he does not extend likewise to the 605 Kuwaiti Nationals abducted by Saddam. How did you refer to their suffering and ultimate fate Arne? -

"So Saddam killed a bunch of folks. What do you want him to do? Bring the dead back to life???"

A bit low, even for you Arne. But you see if you had been able to read, AND UNDERSTAND, some of the posts written by BB and myself, you would have known that had Saddam been complying with the terms of those resolutions as Amos, yourself, Bobert and all the other Saddam Apologists on this site would like us to believe he was, those Kuwaiti Nationals might still be alive.

With regard to sorting out the problems and crises of this world Arne the following statement is STILL TRUE:

"The UN has no resources, financial or material. It has nothing other than what member countries are prepared to offer in any given situation. It has absolutely no power and no authority beyond that with which it's member states are prepared to endow it with."

Cheers,

Going back to read some of your contributions at DSD

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:51 PM

Teribus: Very disappointing GUEST,Arne Langsetmo, your post of 21 Nov 05 - 11:09 AM, is mostly spin.

Can you say "projection", Teribus? Good, I knew you could do it. Now we'll teach you what that big word means.....

And a BTW, Teribus: I'm not here to please you; you want that, you'll have to ask one of the swiftly dwindling number of c***sucking sycophant RWers here. Clear now?

Teribus digging back into the memory hole:

"STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Oh, yeah, one of those "sense of the Congress" thingies. That and a couple bucks will buy you a Starbucks cappuccino. The ol' "The Democrats were as stoopid as us" ploy. Quite the smackdown in forensics ttechnique. But note that Clinton didn't say that Saddam had nuclear weapons or that we'd blow a couple thousand U.S. soldiers' lives (plus a cool $2+ billion) tryign to occupy a Muslim country.....

So Arne, [...] you can't think of any country in the middle east supporting US military intervention. If that is the case Arne you just can't think.

Sheer rubbish, matey. You simply can't enumerate.

Pre-emption has been accepted as a valid strategy for defence for decades, international diplomacy has recognised it as a reality for an equal length of time.

Cites, please. Particularly those supporting the "I saw a hallucination" school of 'defence'....

In fact, Arne my 'opinion' here is worth as much as yours.

Every one is entitled to an opinion (just as they are entitled to a fair day in court). But your opinions are not entitled to a lack of derision, mainly because they're full'o'shite, and the most gruesomely misanthropic to boot. Perhaps you're of the opinion that anyone is entitled to attack any neighbour (or even non-neighbour, thousands of miles away) because they have paranoid, delusional hallucinations of some WoMD pointed at them (and I'm being charitable here, and assuming that the maladministration was just plain stoopid and incompetent and didn't lie to us all to further some rather different agenda), but fortunately most people in reasonable possession of their senses see such an act as a great (if not damnable) folly that would quickly turn the entire world into a hell-hole if everyone acted on such a rationale. You're just a tad on the up-hill slope of the bell curve here, Teribus. Do try to catch up.

Please provide examples of what the UN had decided, between April 1991 and June 2002, with regard to resolutions relating to Iraq, particularly the one relating to the release and return of 605 Kuwaiti nationals abducted, taken to Iraq and imprisoned in 1990. Now whereas WMD and other stuff could possibly wait a while, I would have thought as a primarily humanitarian organisation the UN would have really gone in to bat for these people - they didn't of course, only three were found alive subsequent to US action in March 2003 - Only 3, you see because Saddam had had the others killed.

Quite the demand, when the U.S is in the process of "extraordinary rendition", Gulags in the former Soviet satellite states, revoking the Great Writ, and other crimes against human rights and humanity itself.

So Saddam (or his agents and army) killed a bunch of folks (keeping in mind that various stories, such as the "babies thrown out of incubators", were later found to be PR ploys by the United States and Kuwait). What do you want him to do? Bring the dead back to life???

The UN were never going to do anything - that is what the UN does best. The next thing the UN had on the agenda for Iraq was the removal of sanctions at the insistance of France, Germany, Russia and China - Oh, I forgot and George Galloway.

Gotta love how the eedjit Norm Coleman thought he'd have Galloway's a$$ ... but when Galloway showed up, he handed ol' Norm his own on a sterling platter.

You do know, of course, that KB&R (a Halliburton subsidiary) was doing illegal business in Iraq in the '90s? Guess the colour of anyone's money is the same to moral exemplars like Cheney.

The UN has no resources, financial or material.

Not true. But it doesn't help matters that the U.S. has been stiffing them on dues for many a year....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:26 AM

Very disappointing GUEST,Arne Langsetmo, your post of 21 Nov 05 - 11:09 AM, is mostly spin.

The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

Look at the date Arne, it's rather important.

So Arne, you can't think of any US allies in the region apart from Israel, and you can't think of any country in the middle east supporting US military intervention. If that is the case Arne you just can't think.

US required no sanction from the UN, or anybody else.

Pre-emption has been accepted as a valid strategy for defence for decades, international diplomacy has recognised it as a reality for an equal length of time.

In fact, Arne my 'opinion' here is worth as much as yours.


I thought the reply to my question was hilarious - must have been the result of all that background noise and jet-lag:

"As...they...were...UN...resolutions,...when...was.....the..UN...going...to...do....anything....to...enforce...them......and....with....what?"

Please provide examples of what the UN had decided, between April 1991 and June 2002, with regard to resolutions relating to Iraq, particularly the one relating to the release and return of 605 Kuwaiti nationals abducted, taken to Iraq and imprisoned in 1990. Now whereas WMD and other stuff could possibly wait a while, I would have thought as a primarily humanitarian organisation the UN would have really gone in to bat for these people - they didn't of course, only three were found alive subsequent to US action in March 2003 - Only 3, you see because Saddam had had the others killed.

The UN were never going to do anything - that is what the UN does best. The next thing the UN had on the agenda for Iraq was the removal of sanctions at the insistance of France, Germany, Russia and China - Oh, I forgot and George Galloway.

The UN has no resources, financial or material. It has nothing other than what member countries are prepared to offer in any given situation. It has absolutely no power and no authority beyond that with which it's member states are prepared to endow it with.

GUEST,hobie - 21 Nov 05 - 10:54 AM

Damn, still no news on Lord Lucan or Shergar then?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 09:49 PM

Geoduck: Arne Langsetmo is as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.

Remind me to turn down your Yuletide invitation, GD. We prolly have better fare at our place, even with the fabled lutefisk on the table.

Other that that, were you saying something? I'm on a long-distance connection from India this week, and the connection was terrible. All I heard was a loud buzzing....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 08:40 PM

OK the UN had NO resolution in place prohibiting the US from taking unilateral action.

Actually, this is not correct. The very same resolution the US has been using as its justification for the invasion, specifically binds the US as well as all other member nations to honor the sovereignty and borders of the Iraqi nation, and to not interfere in the UN inspectors' ability to do their job. By invading, the US forced the inspectors to leave Iraq, and the invasion was a violation of Iraq's sovereignty and borders. Because of its invasion of Iraq, the US is in violation of the very resolution it has been using to justify the invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 08:27 PM

I think there are two different factions who wanted war in Iraq. I think there is a faction who wanted Iraq to become Balkanized, and another faction who wanted to establish and keep a long-term US presence in Iraq for the purpose of establishing control over Iraqi oil. I think both factions were working together before, and that's why there was almost a complete media blackout of any news that didn't put the war in a good light for the first year or so. I think that the faction that wants Iraq balkanized is agitating in the mainstream media now about the problems in Iraq so that the US will pull out, thus rendering Iraq completely helpless in the face of civil war, and ultimate dissolution.

I don't know what the right course of action would be for the US at this point, but I don't think I feel particularly comfortable with either of the agendas I've described above. Rock and a hard place, looks like to me.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 08:08 PM

Hey, like what is this all about, Amos???...

Looks like the German intellegence community is standin' up to last weeks proclaimation by the Bushites that every intellegence community in the world agreed that Saddam had WMD's...

Yeah, 5 German intellegence folks stood up yesterday and said and said, "Bullsh*t!!!" But they went well beyond that in stating that they went out of their way to tell the US intellegence folks that "Curveball' didn't know Jack from Jill and that he was a nut case who shouldn't be taken seriously...

SO LET'S DO A LITTLE REVIEW...

So the evidence that was used to get us into Iraq-mire came from:

1. Curveball, alias nutball

2. Chalabi, alias "hadn't-been-in-Iraq-in-20-years" and

3. A blatently forged document in possession of Mr. Blair...

(????????????????????????????????????????????????????)

Any other reasons???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 08:05 PM

Arne Langsetmo is as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.

He needs to study history before he can relate history.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: TIA
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 07:36 PM

Oh, I've got an identity, and have never been afraid to state my opinions openly (when my cookie stays put) - and certainly not afraid to state them in front of you. As for the ability to have a discussion... sorry, you are incapable.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 06:00 PM