 sj |
||
|
||
BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST Date: 28 Nov 05 - 08:05 AM Cow pies are better for the garden. Horses do not digest weed and other seed but pass them directly through and hence, they sprout in your garden. This announcement brought to you by a 30+ years organic truck gardener. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Bobert Date: 28 Nov 05 - 07:42 AM I accept yer apology for Nellie and Battle Ax who aren't allowed in the house, much less play on the pudder... But, mind you, if I did bring 'um in and leanrt 'um up on this pudder, they'd make more sense than a couple folks 'round here that come to mind... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 28 Nov 05 - 04:59 AM Bobert: No offence intended. Yes, indeed, horse turds are quite a bit less aromatic, and if I had my druthers (that is, I had only a choice of which turds to choose), horse ones would come before chicken turds, pig turds, cow turds (*EEEEWWWW!*) and Dubya (in approximately that order). But I'd rather not have a pile of any of them in my bed, unlike the excited little boy who exclaims, "Oh, goody, goody, my new pony must be around here someplace!!!" And with that .... I'm sincerely sorry, Bobert. ;-) Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: dianavan Date: 28 Nov 05 - 12:58 AM Thats true, bobert. It would be far more appropriate to call Bush, 'chicken shit'. 'Road apples' are excellent in the garden and quite easy to collect. 'Cow pies' are often too wet to be much use and I don't even want to think about hog shit. There must be a name for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Bobert Date: 27 Nov 05 - 10:17 PM okay, Arne... Now ya got my goat... What's wrong with a pile of horse turds??? Music to my nose... Hog turds? NO way... Cow turds? No way... Chicken turds? No way... But horse turds is like okay in my book... That's why I got horses and not pigs, chickens 'er cows... Bush, if he lived to be a hunner years old wouldn't measure up to horse turds... Now say yer sorry... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 27 Nov 05 - 10:01 PM Some RW flacker blog for Dubya posted a post gloating at the fact that the stock market was doing so well that "it was at a 4 1/2 year high"! Well, put in language that places this fact in the proper context, that means that it's almost recovered to the point at which Dubya inherited it back in 2001. Good thing that Dubya came in to turn things around from the terrible days of peace and prosperity of the Clinton administration, eh, Old Guy? Aren'tcha glad we turned the corner? Old Guy kind of reminds me, with his trust in Dubya, of the little kid on seeing the pile of horse turds.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,TIA Date: 27 Nov 05 - 09:47 PM Hey Old Guy - Funny you should crap on Clinton for not catching UBL. GWB done any better? And who has cruised fucking missled more empty buildings Clinton or GWB? And under who is the stock market doing better? And how do gas prices under GWB compare to gas prices under Clinton? Sheesh. You got friggin' nothing, but you keep on coming. You are the Cool Hand Luke of political arguments. Just like George Kennedy, I gotta admire that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Bobert Date: 27 Nov 05 - 08:39 PM Refresh... an' waitin'... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Bobert Date: 26 Nov 05 - 07:42 PM You are so full of bull, T-Bull, that you oughtta be livin' in a fenced in pasture.. Google again "Saudi Proposal" and read more than just the one wingnut, who happened to be braodcast on the BBC... Hey, Lee Haervey Oswald was brodcast on ABC, NBC and CBS... Do you eben know what the basic framework of the Saudi Porposal was??? If so, your "source" certainly was misinformed... The Bush administartion dismissed the Suadi Proposal likeit was radioactive OR do you wnat to rewrite that bit of history with all the rst of the reviasonism that you are into.., Yet yer source sayas that the US was for it??? Is that right, T-Bull??? You stickin' by that claim... Yes ______ No _______ Pick one... No big homework assignment here. Just pick one. But I'd do a little more research than what you've done so far on the Saudi Proposal before pickin' this time... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 26 Nov 05 - 03:22 AM Clinton was a do nothing clusterfuck. For one, he let UBL slip through his fingers and later on had to try to kill him with criuse missles fired into empty training camps "The Clinton administration heavily emphasized the Iraq link to justify its 1998 strikes against al Qaeda". Presdided over two stock market declines, The beginning of gas prices going rising, two embassy, and one navy ship bombing. A disgrace in Somalia, kast minute pardoning of criminals including arms dealer Marc Rich for personal gain. (Henry Cisneros, Clinton administration's secy of HUD negotiated a plea agreement with the under which he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of lying to the FBI and was fined $10,000. He did not receive jail time or probation. He was pardoned by President Bill Clinton in January 2001) Whitewatergate, Travelgate, Filegate, Chinagate, Vince Foster, Pardongate, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Jennifer Flowers, on and on and on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 22 Nov 05 - 03:51 PM Things were good under Clinton. You can't deny it. The Repubs were actually Repubs back then. They forced Clinton to change welfare, forced him into a balanced budget by keeping the spending rules that were agreed upon by HW and a democratic congress and stopped him from setting up a more socialist medical system than we already have. Also, in the long democratic tradition he resisted the Unions and was a free trader. Granted he did hand W a recession it is neither here nor there. The length and strength of the expansion was impressive by any standard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Amos Date: 22 Nov 05 - 03:44 PM LEt me just add that he conducted the business of the United States about twentyfold better, in between his lustful liaisons, than Bush has done with his knickers in a wad and his head up his tail. Maybe there's something to this Bacchanalian philosphy after all...as I recall we had a balanced budget, a strong constitution, and better civil rights then. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 22 Nov 05 - 02:49 PM I didn't mean to ignore you Bobert but 'websense' has become my enemy in the last couple of days. Anyone who knows how to get around this oppressive software, please share :). I did in fact google search both the saudi plan and mitchell plan and came up with what was previously referred to as plans to deal with the israeli palestinian issue. On the issue of HRC, I am not so sure that she would win the ticket. She is a very polarizing figure. She would generate large revenues for the republicans. In the last election, Howard Dean was the candidate most like Hillary IMHO. I think she could energize the base but I think they, in the end, would go for some one wiht a better chance to win ala Kerry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 22 Nov 05 - 02:05 PM Old Guy: I do. I would think he would be conducting the business of the United States instead of adultery. So don't vote for him. If Hillary wasn't a power hungry scumbag like him she would want a divorce but instead she stays with him. Unlike, say, the many wives of fine, upstanding Republicans such as Newt "Knobby" Gingrich (now on his third, who happened to be an office aide when she slurped his licorice and got him to dump his last one), "Whipped Cream Boobies" Barr, "Bastard Son" Burton, "Homewrecker" Hyde, "Lashes" Livingston, "Limp Balls" Limbaugh (trying for his fourth now), etc. Hell, even the 'Saint' Reagan had one on the side, and eventually dumped his wife to marry her..... Hate to say it, but such folks as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton just can't compete in that amoral free-for-all.... Yep, the Party Of Greed (that's "God" spelled backwards) is certainly a sterling example of "family values", and honouring vows despite our humanity.... Right?? Isn't that true??? Tell me, Old Guy, doesn't the Republican Party just want you to stand up and sing "Hallelujah, Thank God For An Honest Man"? Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: CarolC Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:09 AM Peace doesn't have to use innertubes to get to Cuba. He lives in a free country which allows its citizens to fly to Cuba in airplanes any time they want (unlike the US). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Amos Date: 21 Nov 05 - 11:26 PM I didn't say I didn't object, Old Guy. Why do you insist on putting these stereotype words in my mouth. I do think that it is a lot more serious to bring about the untimely deaths of thousands of people through stupidity than it is to have an affair with a girl. Do you think one murder is more serious than one affair? Or is killing people part of your moral code"? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 21 Nov 05 - 10:47 PM Notice to former Clinton Supporters that now claim they don't like Clinton and get hostile when someone brings up Monica Gate: Hillary will be the next Democratic Presidential candidate. A vote for Hillary will be supporting Bill. Are you ready for that or would you rather immigrate to Canaduh? Amos: So you do not object to the commander in chief of the US having oral sex in the oral office with a girl half his age on company time? I do. I would think he would be conducting the business of the United States instead of adultery. If Hillary wasn't a power hungry scumbag like him she would want a divorce but instead she stays with him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Geoduck Date: 21 Nov 05 - 09:17 PM Peace: This is not time to talk about love. We have a national crisis to solve. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Teribus Date: 19 Nov 05 - 04:45 AM On the Saudi Proposal that Bobert mentioned (Source BBC News - Caroline Hawley found by Google "Iraq Saudi Proposal"): "The US wants it (A Muslim Force) to be within the framework of the coalition efforts it leads, and the Saudis want it to be distinct, in order to be acceptable to public opinion in the Muslim world. Mr Powell said both he and Mr Allawi favoured the Saudi initiative. "We discussed the Saudi initiative. It is interesting," he said at a news conference after meeting the Iraqi prime minister. "We welcomed the idea to have Muslim troops either part or separate from the coalition forces." He suggested that the force could provide protection to the UN or security for facilities. "This is a global war. These are forces of evil who are acting against us," he said. "I call upon the leaders of the Islamic countries and the Arab countries to close ranks." He repeated the government's view that Iraq's neighbours - Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Syria and Turkey - would not be included. But the world's largest Muslim country, Indonesia, said it was only interested in sending troops under United Nations command. And the Arab League ambassador in London told the BBC that Arab countries were not interested in sending troops to a country with occupation forces on its territory. The Americans have to leave before any such contributions are discussed, Ali Mohsen Hamed told BBC World Service's Newshour programme." Bobert claimed that - "The first and formost alterbative that Bush poopooed was the Saudi Proposal" Reading the above, if Ms Hawley got her facts right, it does not appear to be the Americans that are placing obstacles in the way with regard to this proposal - they say they actaully welcome it. But somehow I don't think the above was the Saudi Proposal that Bobert was really referring to, because he also mentions "The Mitchell Proposal". Both the proposals that Bobert may be referring to relate to the Arab/Israeli peace process, not Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Peace Date: 18 Nov 05 - 09:59 PM Dear Geoduck. FUCK YOU! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Geoduck Date: 18 Nov 05 - 09:53 PM Hey Peace: Go strap some leaky worn out innertubes together, go down to Key West and float over to Cuba. You and Castro would make good friends. Both of you hate the US. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Peace Date: 18 Nov 05 - 09:50 PM As long as everybody's gettin' along. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 18 Nov 05 - 09:42 PM Amos: My Idea is to say what I want, When I want, where I want about anybody I want. You and everybody else is invited to do the same. In addition anybody can think whatever they want and not be told what to think. Gee ain't this a great country? Those that are Fed up can leave whenever thay want and go wherever they want. I can't think of any other country that needs to put up a fence to keep people out. Usually it is the other way around. Maybe it is the miserable governenbt here that attracts them. They can't wait to be in America where they can cry, piss and moan about how horrible it is here but hey, a few hours reading your shit can turn most anybody in a crybaby. That is your objective isn't it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Bobert Date: 18 Nov 05 - 07:52 PM Rarelamb: If you will take the time to search my postings here in Mudville during the Bush administrations run-up to war you will find that not only did I not approve of going into Iraq but I also offered alternatives... The first and formost alterbative that Bush poopooed was the Saudi Proposal... Without gettin' into a lot o detail her if You'd like to learn the specfics of it a Google search is highly recommended... A similar proposal was made here in the US known as the "Mitchell Plan"... These two plans were darned good plans that would have averted this war and the world would undoubtedly been better off with either of them and thwe utter chaos that Bush has created in Iraq... But, hey, unlike many here, I am not a one trick pony... Upon wakin' up one morning and saying to myself, "Hey, this nut is actaully going to start a war" I reluctantly suggested that rather then go off and kill a lot of innocent people that maybe Bush should just order that Saddam be assassinated... No, this ain't really the kind of stuff I would thibnk of doing but when it became painfully clear to the entire world that Bush was gonna have his war, come Hell 'er high water, I figured offin' Saddam was better tha a stupid friggin' war... So I suggested that as my second option... I hope this clears things up fir you, rarelamb, and I would highly recommend a Google search of the Saudi Plan and maybe you'd like to come back and tell the good folks here, most of whom were poopooin' the Saudi Plan 'cuase their fearless leader told them to, what it actually was all about... If you don't, maybe I will... It really would have put a lot of the security of the Middle East on the Middle East... Something that the US is now struggling to do... But with no war... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 18 Nov 05 - 06:19 PM I've always thought that the amount of 'discussion' between bbruce and carol and between dianavan and teribus that they must be married. Who but a married couple could 'discuss' so much :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,watching... Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:49 PM He's a godsend? Hell, you two are each other's mutual godsend... *grin* You should marry or become business partners or something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Teribus Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:07 PM Oh Arne Langsetmo, you are a God-send, how I do love rippin' you to shit! Keep it comim' pal, now lets take a look at your latest offering: Point 1. OK Arne let us all hear you clearly state that you are fully prepared to live in a country where the, presumably elected, political representatives delegate responsibility and all matters relating to your security and national interests to others. Arne apart from your personal attack on the the person posting, what have you actually got to say? One rather obvious point Arne that you seem to continually over look. Saddam and his pet regime in Iraq had had over 12 years to do what was required of them under the auspices of the UN. First via UNSCOM and then by UNMOVIC, whose presence in Iraq was down purely to American pressure. So how much MORE TIME should they have been given - another 12 years? - No, definitely NO, your pal Saddam came up against the only man in the world who could guarantee that he was holding a royal flush and Saddam was stupid enough to try and bluff. The result, a foregone conclusion, Saddam lost. The way you play poker, Saddam would have got away clear and complete, within months the sanctions would have been lifted and he would have been free to pursue any path he wished - well done Arne. Oh! and Arne, give me one bloody example where in conflict situations the UN has actually ever resolved anything - So don't put too much faith in them, because without the US firmly onboard they ain't worth a shit. Rarelamb's question: "...does it really matter whether there were wmd?" No it doesn't. What the world wanted to know was whether or not Iraq did posses WMD. And for as long as Saddam(Bloody)Hussein was in power you would never get an honest answer to that question in a verifiable form that you could have any degree of confidence in. Now another Arne-ism - "simply declaring something doesn't make it so" Which he then backs up by saying: "I'm not disputing that the U.N. declared that co-operation was "essential". What I'm saying is that whether "co-opertion" was "essential" to the primary task of determining whether there were WoMD is far from clear. In fact, I'd submit that it was not (primarily, for the reason I've explained to Teribus, because even if they do "co-operate fully", you need to go an check anyway to make sure that they did co-operate and that they didn't hide anything away)." Now what Arne fails to recognise is that we are talking about a land mass the size of California, or France. To do things Arne's way successfully requires how many inspectors? I could not begin to fathom, which was why full and pro-active co-operation was required from the outset. The checking relates to records of how much they have made, how much they have weaponised, how many shells/warheads they have armed, how many are offered up for destruction. Arne it is a very simple process - Now you tell me why the Iraqi Government of the day did not play ball. Either they HAD something to hide, or they wanted to create the ILLUSION that they HAD something to hide. "Teribus: Remarkable achievement the UN had been trying for the best part of five years without success and George W Bush had to park an American Army on Iraq's border before Saddam caved in and invited them back...." And the evidence that you Arne Langsetmo were pushing was what? That by the bye Arne was what you were asked. Now, please either you answer that question or let it go and acknowledge that the only reason UN inspectors EVER got back into Iraq was because of the actions of GWB ( Shouldn't be too difficult Hans Blix is already on record as saying as much) "Teribus: One thing is for certain Iraq doesn't have any WMD now, and has no plans to acquire them, and the world and its dog KNOW that." Arne..."Oh, yeah, one other thing that we also know NOW is that he didn't have any back then. But that same fact could have been determined without Teribus throwing away the lives of 2000 U.S. soldiers." How Arne?? Saddam was going to tell us and we were going to believe him, Or does your reasoning rely on an American Army of 250,000 being parked on Iraq's borders? Arne..."Life is cheap to Teribus ... at least soldiers' lives ... but you won't find Teribus signing on for any unit besides the Fighting 101st Keyboarders." Really Arne? Now come on tell the truth, you know absolutely nothing about me. What you state above is nothing but pure conjecture, but that is always good enough for you, whereas anyone who dares question or doubt your reasoning must jump through how many hoops in order to disprove your groundless assumptions. But I will tell you this sunshine, I have been in harms way for a damn sight greater proportion of my life than not. Whether you have or not is not of the slightest interest to me, but, by what you say and the way you say it, I would rather think not. "Teribus: The world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before. Go to http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/17/war.un.ap/index.html" Now this was a source that Arne actually asked for. Did he read it? did he comment on it - did he fuck. What we got from Arne was - "Here ya go. Actually, if you look at the State Department's web page, it ain't there. It got hanked, because the maladministration wants to keep you in the dark rather than admit that things ain't looking up,so they won't post it. But they wrote it, and it ain't a prtty sight." Now just exactly what is our Yank of Scandinavian descent trying to say here - That he takes as gospel what the Government is telling him about Iraq? You see Arne can do that when it suits him. "Teribus: Aljazeere.net says nothing about what Arne orginially contended - 99% of Sunni's in some places voting for the new Iraqi Constitution, and shock and surprise neither does the other link Pick and choose, eh?" Well you picked 'em Arne. Now you show me in either of those articles where 99% of Sunni voters ANYWHERE voted for the Iraqi Constitution - that is what you were originally implying - IT DIDN*T HAPPEN you pig ignorant stupid bastard - IT DIDN'T HAPPEN - So stop trying to tell people that it did. Arne's advice to me - You might try reading more than the first paragraph, difficult as that may be" Mine to him - Try understanding what it is that you are reading, you may find that of some use in formulating a coherent arguement, which you have failed to do so far. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:20 PM USA Military Intelligence Advisor: Mr President, I've got some good news and some bad news. Dubya: Okay....ummm....what's the good news? Advisor: The good news, Mr President, is that we've finally FOUND WMDs in Iraq. Duya: AwRIGHT!!! (smacks down fist in other hand) Now we've got 'em dead to rights! I knew it! Ummm....so what's the bad news? Advisor: They're all ours. Dubya: You're shittin' me. No? You're not shittin' me. How the hell did the Eye-raqis get ahold of OUR WMDs? How many are there? Where are they now? Advisor: The Iraqis don't have them sir. We do. On our aircraft carriers, in our hangars, on our airplanes and our other equipment. More WMDs than you can spit on. (long silence) Dubya: So, you're sayin' the WMDs are ours? Advisor: Yessir. Dubya: Well, what about back before we invaded? Were they ours then too? Advisor: Yessir. Dubya: Well...look, I don't exactly get what is the problem here. We are the good guys. They are the bad guys. We are supposed to have the WMDs aren't we? That's what this was all about. Advisor: Yes, but we wanted to prove that the Iraqis had them, sir. So we could invade. ('nother long silence) Dubya: I get your point. Maybe we should've given them some WMDs first, and then invaded. Then we could have found the WMDs. Advisor: Well, we did that, sir, but it was a long time ago. It was back when Reagan was president, and all those WMDs were pretty much either used up or gone after the Gulf War when your dad kicked ass over there. Dubya: So...you're saying President Reagan was to blame for Iraq's WMDs???? Advisor: Well, I don't know if I'd exactly say that.... Dubya: Shit! And all the time I thought he stood tall for America. I thought he was a Republican. This whole thing makes me feel sad for America and sad for our World. Who can you trust??? (deep and heartfelt silence) Dubya: Look, I tell you what. Just...lose some of our WMDs. Misplace them, know what I mean? Then find 'em again. Then we blame the Iraqis and say it's their WMDs that got found. That oughta work. They ARE the bad guys...(I mean like the insurgents are, not the nice ones who voted for our guy.) It's the kind of thing they would do if they had half a chance. You think you can do that? Advisor: Sounds like a plan, sir. I'll get right on it. Dubya: Good boy. Right will triumph in the end. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 17 Nov 05 - 08:56 PM Rarelamb: Secondly, if it were the real reason it would not have mattered. If you believe in UN (which I don't) and are willing to give up sovereignty, then you must enforce its rules. Sure, you're free to hold your own opinions. But, just for the record, let's see if we can figure out under what circumstances you think that: 1). Starting aggressive wars against someone who hasn't attacked you is justified. 2). Getting 2000 U.S. soldiers killed, only to be in a worse situation that what pertained before you started, is justified. As for "enforc[ing] the U.N.'s rules", we hardly gave up an "sovereignty" in going to war despite the wishes of the majority of the U.N. Security Council that the inspections be given more time to complete (and then seeing what further action if any was needed). Where you ever got the ide that Dubya knuckled under to the wishes of the Security Council that he invade -- despite his reluctance to do so -- is quite beyond me. Perhaps you have a secret stashj of some really powerful stuff.... Rarelamb again: So I ask, does it really matter whether there were wmd? I think so. I'm afraid many of the U.S population think so (and many more across the world). Why you think differently is quite mystifying. BB: Arne, "simply declaring somethign doesn't make it so" "You really do have a perverse idea of the way things work in the real world. Or you're just intentionally intellectually dishonest....." I agree with these statements, entirely- in reference to your presentation of evidence and/or UN reports... ie, NONE. I'm not disputing that the U.N. declared that co-operation was "essential". What I'm saying is that whether "co-opertion" was "essential" to the primary task of determining whether there were WoMD is far from clear. In fact, I'd submit that it was not (primarily, for the reason I've explained to Teribus, because even if they do "co-operate fully", you need to go an check anyway to make sure that they did co-operate and that they didn't hide anything away). Seeing as you need to double check, it's the efficiency of that process, not the level of "co-operation" that determines whether you can really do the job. Clear now? Teribus: Remarkable achievement the UN had been trying for the best part of five years without success and George W Bush had to park an American Army on Iraq's border before Saddam caved in and invited them back.... Yeah, we park a bunch of soldiers there and say "if you don't let us inspect, we'll invade". Not surprisingly, they do let the inspectors back in with unprecedented freedom (contrary to the more recent hallucinations of Dubya to the effect that Saddam didn't let them in; see my early posts on this subject for Dubya's strange statement to that effect). So it works, and you get what you want. Then the numbnutz Dubya and his PNAC folks say "we're going to invade you anyway!!! Ha-ha!" Now that's real bright thinking. First off, you end up squandering a couple thousand troops lives (and billions of dollars) to "accomplish" what you have already managed to do. Secondly, now you've told the world that there's no percentage in them letting inspectors in; they'll get invaded even if they do "co-operate", so they may as well stiff-arm any inspections down the road. Now that's real stoopid, in my book, but it seems that Teribus and BB think it's a swell idea.... Teribus: One thing is for certain Iraq doesn't have any WMD now, and has no plans to acquire them, and the world and its dog KNOW that. Oh, yeah, one other thing that we also know now is that he didn't have any back then. But that same fact could have been determined without Teribus throwing away the lives of 2000 U.S. soldiers. Life is cheap to Teribus ... at least soldiers' lives ... but you won't find Teribus signing on for any unit besides the Fighting 101st Keyboarders. Teribus: The world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before. Go to http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/17/war.un.ap/index.html Here ya go. Actually, if you look at the State Department's web page, it ain't there. It got hanked, because the maladministration wants to keep you in the dark rather than admit that things ain't looking up,so they won't post it. But they wrote it, and it ain't a prtty sight. Teribus: Aljazeere.net says nothing about what Arne orginially contended - 99% of Sunni's in some places voting for the new Iraqi Constitution, and shock and surprise neither does the other link Pick and choose, eh?: Among the allegations are that police took ballot boxes from heavily "no" districts and that some "yes" areas had more votes than registered voters. and The main electoral battlegrounds were provinces with mixed populations, two of which went strongly "yes". There were conflicting reports whether those two provinces were among those with questionable figures. and But the commission found that the number of yes votes in most provinces appeared unusually high and would be audited, with random samples taken from ballot boxes to test them. and But the official with knowledge of the counting process said the unexpected results were not isolated to the Shia and Kurdish provinces and were "all around the country". and Sunnis had to get a two-thirds no vote in any three of Iraq's 18 provinces to defeat the charter, and they appeared to have got it in western Anbar and central Salah al-Din, both Sunni. and Earlier, United Nations election officials in Iraq said the vote had gone well, but some Sunni Arab politicians have alleged corrupt practices were allowed to boost the "yes" vote. and The IECI said votes in several governorates required "re-examination, comparison and verification because they are relatively high compared with international averages for elections". and But Ninevah and Diyala provinces, which are thought to have slight Sunni majorities, appeared to have voted in favour. You might try reading more than the first paragraph, difficult as that may be, Teribus.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Teribus Date: 17 Nov 05 - 08:41 PM Kendall, "As I understand it, Kuwait was part of Iraq in the first place, and Bush number 1's ambassador told Saddam that we don't care what he does over there." You are a poor student of history, and if given what you state on the same line line of reasoning what reparations are you prepared to pay for those you and your forebearers have robbed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: kendall Date: 17 Nov 05 - 05:07 PM As I understand it, Kuwait was part of Iraq in the first place, and Bush number 1's ambassador told Saddam that we don't care what he does over there. Dean Acheson made the same statement about Korea which led to the north invading the south. Will we ever learn? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:52 PM I look forward to it. I have found her posts interesting. At least the ones that aren't laden with insults. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST Date: 17 Nov 05 - 01:55 PM CarolC posted way back when, during the aftermath of 9/11 ...she had some sensible, non-reactionary ideas that were well thought out and well reasoned. Hopefully she'll step in here and do a cut and paste of her own plan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 17 Nov 05 - 12:25 PM *you knew it was a set up ** Your solution is.....? I don't see a solution. I also don't see how you understand the situation that exists/existed. Let's back up a little bit and review the sequence of events. 1. Saddam attacks Kuwait 2. US and allies free Kuwait 3. Saddam attacks Kurds and Shia 4. US imposes no fly zones 5. US establishes bases in several Mideast countries including Saudi Arabia 6. OBL becomes agitated that non muslims are on holy land and takes it up with Sauds 7. Sauds take the strategic choice of relying on the US for security. This effectively puts the Sauds in opposition to OBL 8. This leads to his expulsion. 9. OBL fights the 'infidel' through a number of terrorists attacks against US ship and embassies. 10. This leads to 911 The neo cons thought they would remove Saddam. This had the virtue of: 1. eliminating a threat to Iraqs neighbors, including SA 2. This would end the necessity to have no fly zones 3. Which would end the necessity to have the large force structure in the middle east. 4. This would remove the principal cause of agitation for Al Queda and other islamic terrorists 5. This would allow the US to help form a democratic Iraq 6. Which would allow the US, through a proxy to export democratic values in the region 7. including the use of soft power to effect change in Saudi Arabia. Given the geopolitic situation that existed on 911 and given the stated aims of securing middle east oil, this plan of action is very reasonable and pretty clever. It hits 2 birds with one stone so to speak. I have not seen where anyone on this board has proposed any sort of plan that would have achieved the objectives that the invasion of Iraq is trying to accomplish. I ask anyone to feel free to put up a plan and let the mudcatters treat unto it the same respect the Bush policies have received to date. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Don Firth Date: 17 Nov 05 - 12:10 PM GUEST,rarelamb asks, ". . .what would you have done to stop Islamic terrorists?" Well, I wouldn't go to war with a country that didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 terrorist attack. Although terrorism is often used in wartime, the 9/11 attacks were not an act of war, they were a crime, and should have been treated as such. This calls for acute intelligence (in both senses of the word), accurately identifying who was involved (and Saddam Hussein was not—in fact, he and Osama bin Laden hated each others' guts), track them down, and bring them to justice. If we had done that, the whole world would have been with us wholeheartedly in the effort. The Bush administration has made a pig's breakfast of the whole thing, and in the process, has lost whatever prestige the United States had and equated us, not with a beacon of democracy and a moral leader in the world, but with the international equivalent of the schoolyard bully. Don Firth P. S. Bush is now saying that those who accuse him of misleading the country into going to war with Iraq are "irresponsible." Well, misleading the country in order to launch an illegal war—now that's really irresponsible! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:36 AM "solutions which lead to improvement in the human rights situation in Iraq, not further deterioration, needless loss of life and increased suffering" And the proper solutions are not always NOT taking action. Other than the activities of the insurrectionists, where are the Iraqis now? And should not those who are fighting against the present government of Iraq be held responsible for their own actions? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Wolfgang Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:15 AM Amnesty International about the Human Rights situation in Iraq You'll find links to all major AI reports about Saddams Iraq: Human rights violations have been committed on a massive scale against all sectors of society in Iraq. But you'll find also AI warning that those reports should not be taken as an argument for invasion: The international community should pursue solutions which lead to improvement in the human rights situation in Iraq, not further deterioration, needless loss of life and increased suffering. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Wolfgang Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:03 AM If the answer is no is the puzzling part for me in the questions for Bobert. A slight variation makes more sense to me: Knowing what you know now, would you still have invaded Iraq? But that's not a question to Bobert. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:24 AM Bobert, I have a question for you. Knowing what you know now, would you have invaded Iraq? If the answer is no, what would you have done to stop Islamic terrorists? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:02 AM "Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq, Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein, Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance," |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Wolfgang Date: 17 Nov 05 - 09:57 AM Amnesty International Report 2003 Iraq (covers 2002) Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Wolfgang Date: 17 Nov 05 - 09:55 AM Amnesty International Report 2001 Iraq Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 08:03 AM Amos, "That includes the crazy and murderous mistake of unleashing war machines under any circumstances where a better solution is available." THAT is what is under discussion. IF there were programs for WMD and prohibited material, a very good case was made that teh 14 years of "better solutions" had failed, and military action was required. Please explain why, if Saddam ever intended to comply, he did NOT after 14 years and a stated "LAST CHANCE"? Could it have been all those anti-war protests that gave him the idea he could continue to work on whatever he wanted, and get away with it? WHen the coalition forces were lined up on his border, why didn't he just declare the country open, and invite them in unopposed? He CHOSE to put up a fight. Do you really think he was NOT trying to hide his violations of the cease-fire? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 07:40 AM Sorry about the thread drift- Back top our regularly scheduled arguement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 07:33 AM "By the way, Scooter lied -- just like he was charged with. Doesn't much matter whether he had sex with Judy or not, because what he is charged with is falsifying evidence before the committee." Amos, The following is also true: By the way, Clinton lied -- just like he was charged with. Doesn't much matter whether he had sex with Monica or not, because what he is charged with is falsifying evidence before the committee. The law works on precedence: The DEMOCRATS have established that lying to a grand jury is no big deal. I think BOTH of them should be jailed: BUT if you let Slick Willy off, you have to let Scooter off, to be fair. Isn't that what justice is about? Or are you saying there are two sets of laws, one for those you agree with and one for those you dislike? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Bobert Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:14 PM Read my lips, Old Guy.... SCREW CLINTON!!! What does he have to do with the subject at hand??? Well, don't bother answerin that 'cause I'm about to tell you... NUTHIN, that's what!!! None of any of this has any thing to do with Clinton... Hey, that dog don't hunt no more... Do you have the slightest clue of how friggin' dumb you sound when you bring up Clinton??? Like you hated him when he was presdient and now, pushin 6 years later, yer still draggin' him into yer arguements... Yer the one who needs to grow up, pal!!! Not me.... Think about it... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Don Firth Date: 16 Nov 05 - 09:59 PM Things must be going badly for the righties on this thread. They're resorting to bringing up Clinton--again. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Amos Date: 16 Nov 05 - 08:06 PM Old Guy: Lessee....your definition of "maturity" is engaging in public slaughter and deception whenever you feel like it? By the way, Scooter lied -- just like he was charged with. Doesn't much matter whether he had sex with Judy or not, because what he is charged with is falsifying evidence before the committee. And that doesn't change even if Valerie's job description turns up on the Internet from 1997, or som'pn. Incidentally, the lying, not the muff-diving, is what got Clinton framed. You feel like playing softball on liars, ya gotta treat them all with the same brush -- even so your team would come out way ahead on the deal. Besides, what do you have against muff-diving? Or is that a taboo subject where you come from? Finally, let me point out that in most parlance, maturity involves NOT repeating the crazy mistakes of the past. That includes the crazy and murderous mistake of unleashing war machines under any circumstances where a better solution is available. It takes REAL ignorance and obsessive juvenile self-centeredness to try and rationalize away that kind of offense. And it takes real maturity to know when the dogs of war are a BAD idea, in the broader interests of national integrity, repute, and humanity as a whole. Mebbe you'd rather work for the bloodthirsty lizard-brains of the world. At least if you're killing people, you won't have to put up with their different points of view!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 16 Nov 05 - 08:04 PM And another thing Mr Saddam apologist Bobert: Do you consider 1.77 tons of semi enriched uranium a weapon of mass destruction or not? To support your claim that no WMDs were found in Iraq, you have to deny that the uranium was not found or you must deny that The uranium is a WMD. So quit talking like a man with a paper asshole and say something conclusive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 16 Nov 05 - 07:57 PM Bobert: Your history must not include muffdiver Clinton. Read his history. His crowning achievement was pardoning Mark Rich in exchange for campaign money for Hillary. By the way are you happy that Bob Woodward blew the case against Scooter out of the water? If you want to talk about all of the wars the US had fought and all the wrongdoings you have to go back to the American Indians. All of their land was stolen by foreign invaders, our ancestors. You want to give it all back. Bobert please move to Canada or France where your crybaby, chickenshit attitudes will be appreciated. Presently you sounfd like a teenager that is not satisfied with his parents. Grow up. |
