BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.

Subject: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:23 AM

Read this link which was kindly provided by GUEST on the thread that stated they WERE found.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051113113309990003&ncid=NWS00010000000001

So, unless someone here knows more about it than Bush's National Security Advisor, perhaps the subject can be put to rest?!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:19 AM

Thank you, Peace.

Some people ...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:45 AM

Refresh.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:36 AM

Hi Peace   Interesting article.

The problem with the search for WMDs appears to be that althought many people were highly sceptical about Saddam having WMDs, very few were prepared to put their credibility on the line just in case either they were wrong , or the Saddam regime was "fitted up" by the West.

Even Blix when making reports to the UN tended to hedge his bets.

Self preservation is a strong urge!!

This of course does not justify the hypocrisy of the pro war stragglers....quite the reverse.

I always cosidered it would have been madness for Saddam to retain WMDs, his power lay with his oil reserves internationally, and with his security services domestically.

When American and British intelligence started manufacturing "evidence" to fit the agenda, other agencies were prepared to agree or say nothing rather than run the risk of ending up with egg on their faces.

Now its obvious to all that those with the omelette foundation are the warriors of Mudcat and Mssrs Bush and Blair...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 06:07 AM

They were buried in Syria

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Tam the man
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 06:57 AM

now that's truth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:40 AM

So now why are the terrorists blowing the crap out of Syria? to get the WMDs?

Puts fingers in ears....

La lalalalalla!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 08:11 AM

Well, well, well....

Unless Iraq's "supposed" WMD's were sent to Syria evn before the inspectors arrived, given the fact that the US was doing daily recon over Iraq since the last was, it seems unlikely that Iraq could have pulled off such a feat... Remember, after the inspectors were there they had not only a plane but a fleet of helicopters at their disposal and in the words of Hans Blix, "cooperative" folks within the Iraqi governemnt...

No, I think what we are seeing here is more of the pea-under-the-ahell game being played out by Bush and Co. much the way they tried to portray Saddam in the run-up to war...

They have circled theier wagons around the the "bad intellegence theme" and are going to ride it as far as it will take them... Hey, if they loose this one they loose the entire game and perhaps find the "e word", as empeachment waitin' fir Bush himself...

No, like the Valarie Plame case, they will play as hard as they can. They have no other choice...

I know that they using either executive privledge or executive order to protect from Cheney havin' to divulge his records of visits to and phone converstaions with the folks over at the CIA... But you can bet he was like a dog on a bone trying to cajole, threaten, or whatever it took to whip analysts into favorable reportas that such weapon did exist...

Wed do know from reading in the Washignton post over the last few days that there were usually descenting (sp) opinions written into reports that were given the President so he he was aware there were folks within the intellegence community who din't buy into Cheney's bullying... And this is the nugget to the story and why Bush and Cheney will sandbag until the cows come home...

They would loved nuthing more than to run out the clock on this one and that will be their strategy... And, hey, I can't think of anyway to get to Cheney's notes and phone records... The Senate can ask for them but Bush can calim executive privelodge or order and refuse... I can't see any court ordering them and even if one did, Bush's daddy's supreme court will protect his drunk frat boy son...

And lastly, there is the concept that both the Wsahington Post and New York Times ahve talked about in that post 9/11 atmosphere and that is "culture, sometimes referred to as "office speak" where folks purdy much were very afraid to look as if they might not be part of the team for fear of being branded un=patriotic...

Remember ho when Bush would try to sell anything in the worol one of is neo-con ideas he's bring 0/11 into the sales pitch so folks would feel that if they didn't go along with it than they were unAmerican??? Might of fact, he pulled that last Friday... "Support the war effort 'er yer giving comfort to the enemy"... What a lot of bull but I guess if I were in Bush's shoes, being the druck frat boy that he is, I'd probably be doing the same thing... Think about it... He has no other choice here but to shift blame... And if we buy that than he's off the hook...

And while I don't hate George Bush, he certainly has been given on "Get Out of Jail" card after another in life... I can't begin to think of anyone in American history who has been given as many "passes" as this man...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 08:24 AM

The information about Syria came from three different sources none of them US

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 09:38 AM

The neocon strategy board has a big decision to make. Either they take a knee and run out the clock as Bobert suggests or they reunite the country with another Pearl Harbor event.

Rumsfeld has used the term Pearl Harbor event for every imaginable threat to the USA to emphasise his budget requests to Congress.

Here is one of his actual letters...
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/runsfeldtext.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:58 AM

There are lots of people arguing on the "WMDs WERE found in Iraq" thread. There's enough of the bastard in me that I wouldn't want THIS thread getting lost. Have a wonderful day everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:12 AM

In the words of someone, payback's a bitch, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:34 AM

Some inconvenient facts for you Akenaton - I know you hate them but go read them for yourself - They are not my opinion, but the UN Mandate outlining UNMOVIC's Role and what has been clearly stated by Dr. Hans Blix himself.

"The problem with the search for WMDs ....."

Therein lies the rub Akenaton, because you see under the terms of UNSC Resolution 1441 and the Mandate forming UNMOVIC there was never meant to be A SEARCH FOR WMD - Remember Iraq was supposed to have been co-operating fully and pro-actively. Hans Blix himself stated that UNMOVIC was not in Iraq to play "hide-and-seek" - the very words out of his own report.

"althought many people were highly sceptical about Saddam having WMDs"

If what you contend above, in any way shape or form, translates to the views held at the time by the 15 members of the UN Security Council can you please explain why 1441 was passed unanimously. Oh yes it was a question of credibility alright Akenaton - those member states and their intelligence services gave great credence to the UNSCOM Report. To try and imply anything else is absolutely ridiculous.

The likelyhood of - " the Saddam regime was "fitted up" by the West." Is a pure figment of your imagination, you have absolutely no evidence to back that up, so it can be dismissed as irrational conjecture.

"Even Blix when making reports to the UN tended to hedge his bets.

Self preservation is a strong urge!!"

Are you trying to tell us Akenaton that the good Doctor was more interested in job preservation than in reporting factually, and honestly, to his employers (UN Security Council). If that indeed was the case then the US and UK had every justification to halt the inspections and take action themselves.

"I always cosidered it would have been madness for Saddam to retain WMDs"

Well Akenaton, at least you can say honestly, with hand on heart, that you, George W Bush and Tony Blair, all share a common point of view and agree on something.

"his power lay with his oil reserves internationally"

No Ake, we'd got by quite happily for the best part of 20 years with barely a drop, by christ that's some real heavy duty leverage, yer mans got there.

As far as the Iraqi people were concerned Saddam's power did definitely lay - "with his security services domestically." What was the latest number over 300 Mass Grave Sites, all filled courtesy of Saddam Hussein, the chap you, Bobert, dianavan, et al, would be more than happy to see in power and continuing the good work. Fortunately for the Iraqi people and the region in general Bill Clinton and GWB did not share that point of view with you.

"When American and British intelligence started manufacturing "evidence" to fit the agenda, other agencies were prepared to agree or say nothing rather than run the risk of ending up with egg on their faces."

As far as I am aware American and British intelligence agencies 'manufactured' no evidence. Actually, on evaluation British Intelligence was right on the button with regard to illegal rocket motors and missile development.

Sorry Ake, the US and UK were perfectly justified in doing what they did, and never mind son, it will all come out right in the end - especially for the Iraqi people.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:39 AM

Wriggle ...Wriggle...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 12:00 PM

Sorry Teribus ...Thanks for your response.

I cant be arsed going over the list again and again, but I think you understood my point fairly well ...without agreeing , naturally.

On the subject of Mr Blix, I take your point that Blix should have been braver... but no one likes to be left looking a fool, so his reports were slightly ambiguous until the very last moment, when he stated that he only needed a couple of months to finish the job.
Al Baradi had previously said Iraq had no nuclear weapons


The whole inspection proceedure was of course a red herring, as we had already decided we were going in legally or illegally..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 12:20 PM

"The whole inspection proceedure was of course a red herring, as we had already decided we were going in legally or illegally..Ake"

Hardly a red-herring Ake, it was only because of GWB and the US Goverments efforts that the UNMOVIC Inspectors were invited back into Iraq.

Had the US developed a plan of attack prior to that? I would be very surprised indeed if they had not. The planning for that possibility would have been run on continuously since Safwan by various planning staffs - that is after all what they do. I have no doubt that the US has plans for invading Iceland and Ireland (both neutral countries) - doesn't mean that they are going to do it any time in the near future.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: kendall
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:56 PM

The UN demanded he get rid of his WMDs. 7 years of inspections turned up some pesticides. We invaded, there were no WMDs. We invaded to secure our supply of OIL. George Bush planned to    invade Iraq before 9-11. Prove me wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:04 PM

It seems to me that Bush was planning to invade Iraq even before they invaded Afghanistan...but 911 forestalled that.

I think it's the USA that needs to be inspected for WMDs. If they won't allow such inspection, and if they won't dismantle or surrender those weapons, then it is incumbent upon the rest of the World to impose santions. If the sanctions don't work, then we are going to have to invade the USA with an international coalition and bring about regime change. That's all there is to it. These guys have shown in the past their willingness to use WMDs to destroy innocent lives, and we have to stop them for the safety and security of the World. They can deny all they want, they can wriggle and twist and prevaricate, but they've GOT WMDs in the USA, and we will prove that if we have to by any means necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:09 PM

So, Kendall, where is all this Iraqi oil you claim we went in to get? Last I heard, we were shipping refined oil products into Iraq to keep the population happy.

Try READING UNR 1441- 14 years of inspections turned up a lot more, including prohibited missiles and prohibited raw materials he did NOT have after the Gulf war, but somehow got hold of despite the UN sanctions that many were depending on to keep them safe.


Next time, the US should wait until the nuclear bombs are produced before trying to stop their production- Oh, wait, that's what we did in Korea. You must be a lot happier about that...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:39 PM

kendall - 14 Nov 05 - 01:56 PM

"The UN demanded he get rid of his WMDs."

Now come along Kendall lets have the rest of it, you're good at remembering words and stuff, what was the rest of it, you valiant seeker and champion of the truth. If you don't, or can't I'll supply the rather important bits that you have left out of your statement.

"7 years of inspections turned up some pesticides." I'm sure they did Kendall, but then the classification and assessment of dual-use precursors is a little tricky. What about telling us what else the UNSCOM inspections and searches turned up, and against what background of evasion, obstruction and harrassment. Don't want to do that, well if you don't want to acknowledge those aspects of UNSCOM's time in Iraq I'll quote them chapter and verse as written by the inspection teams themselves and as reported to the UNSC.

"We invaded, there were no WMDs." Correct and because we invaded Iraq will now no longer seek to pursue the development and acquisition of WMD and means to deliver them. Now isn't that a lot better for everybody concerned, apart from Saddam & Co, still never mind, he'll soon get over it.

"We invaded to secure our supply of OIL." Now how much oil does the good ol' US of A get from Iraq Kendall ould son? It never got that much of it in the past, so why go for it now, if indeed America is buying Iraqi crude. Prior to 1990 most of Iraq's output went to the far east, to Russia and to France.

"George Bush planned to invade Iraq before 9-11. Prove me wrong."

I don't know if George Bush planned to invade Iraq before 9-11. Must be a terribly difficult thing that - a private citizen, a single man invading a country, it's a bit Quixotic, but I wouldn't have thought that that was in GWB's nature. But if you mean in the eight months after he was elected President in 2000 and inaugurated in January 2001 (had to put that bit in for the benefit of you, Kendall, Amos and Bobert) that might be different. Correct me if I'm wrong but around the same time didn't he also inherit the US Government's official foreign policy line on Iraq, yes you know the one, the one put in place in 1998 by that nice Mr. Clinton and his advisors, you know the ones Kendall, the same ones that GWB inherited when he entered the White House. Certainly in those nine months GWB didn't use his power as Pres of the US of A to move troops into Kuwait, or anywhere else along Iraq's borders. Kendall as I have said on another thread, you would be amazed at the number of invasion plans that the US Government has drawn up and keeps updating. You would be amazed at the countries and scenarios addressed by those plans. None of this means that the US Government has any intention of carrying out those plans. Your question? - oh yes! prove me wrong - about what?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 04:19 PM

I bet any of us would be amazed by the number of plans the USA has drawn up to invade people, all right. ;-) So many enemies...so little time...

I still say we have got to do something to control the World's number one user of WMDs and terror tactics: the USA. My suggestion is, everyone stop buying Coke, Pepsi, and McDonalds hamburgers. That will bring them to their knees!

I wish George Bush would try to invade some country personally, just all by himself. It would be a very brief incident, and it would rid us of a very incompetent politician. Hopefully though, they would take him prisoner. I wouldn't want to see him get hurt.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 04:44 PM

"I wish George Bush would try to invade some country personally, just all by himself. It would be a very brief incident, and it would rid us of a very incompetent politician."


I'm glad you feel that way LH. If that's the way you truly feel then why continue supporting the dregs that the Democratic party continue to offer? Afterall, the "incompetent politician" in office today just happened to defeat a sitting VP and then in the next go around, one of the most liberal senators in office.


Doesn't say much about your heroes if that's the way you "truly" feel.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: kendall
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 04:45 PM

His own chief inspector told him there were no WMDs. He branded him a homo. When we invaded Iraq we went straight to the oil fields while the looters cleaned out the museums and stole hundreds and hundreds of years of history in the form of priceless artifacts.
The soldiers found millions of dollars in American money in Saddams palaces. Where did it go? to Halliburton of course. The facts speak for themselves.
Bush lied...thousands died.
No one died when Clinton lied.
Spin this Mate.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 04:53 PM

"No one died when Clinton lied."

Kendall,

You're not the first one here to say that.

The fact that so many of you are trying to justify Clinton's PROVEN lying, just because "no one died", to a Grand Jury speaks volumes about your own ethical belief structure.

I'm sure Vince Foster, Ron Brown and Paul Wellstone would be right there beside you saying the same thing.

If they were able.

(Since you're trying so hard to prove a conspiracy, we too can play that game.)

Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:14 PM

Hey, Susu's Hubby...just because I'm against Bush does not mean I have to be FOR Clinton. ;-) I regard the Democrats as an incompetent, lying, useless political party, which is just about as fond of making war as the Republicans are. My regard for the Republicans is equally low, perhaps even more so. If I lived in the USA, I wouldn't realistically HAVE anyone to vote for most of the time, because those 2 parties are the 2 arms of the same rotten $ySStem. It's a closed shop. They rule, you vote for a face who doesn't really represent you at all, but just pretends to. Clinton killed plenty of people too, in various places.

As long as they can keep Americans fighting each other over meaningless party line differences, they've got you exactly where they want you. Divide and conquer is the game. Matter of fact, your elections are just like a football game...a useless exercise in sound and fury, signifying nothing, intended to entertain and distract the public. It's the arbitrary creation of a "good guy" and a "bad guy" in your mind and every other American's mind, same as the standard plot of a TV drama. It's a tale told by an idiot, and believed only by those already hypnotized by the social status quo they grew up in. Real life just isn't that simple.

All people are the "good guy" in their own personal understanding of things, as best they can see it at the time. (Bush included, of course.)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:24 PM

THE BITS KENDALL RATHER CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT

"The UN demanded he get rid of his WMDs under the supervision of the UNSCOM Inspectors in order that such destruction of weaponised agents, stockpiles of agents, precursor chemical and cultures, munitions and delivery systems, could be documented authenticated and verified."

Iraq was also required to terminate all programmes linked to the development of WMD (CW, BW & Nuclear). Now in all this Iraq had to prove to the UN that they had completed those tasks under the supervision of the UNSCOM Inspection teams.

"7 years of inspections turned up some pesticides." The seven years of Inspections turned up much more than just some pesticides as Kendall would have us all believe. Those inspections were carried out against a background of deliberate hindrance and deception on the part of the Iraqi authorities. In 1995, Kemall's defection blew the lid on Saddam's secret programme to develope nerve agents. UNSCOM Inspectors acting on information gained from Kemall uncovered the programme and closed it down. Now this was something that post dated the First Gulf War.

So it was all done for oil but you can't tell us how much oil the good ol' US of A gets from Iraq - is it a secret Kendall? - Is it brought into the country at the dead of night in a clandestine fleet of super tanker submarines, that only you know about?

Tell us exactly what steps George W Bush had put in train prior to the events of September 11th 2001, that would lead anyone to conclude that he was intent on invading Iraq.

I have no trouble accepting that plans were in place to invade Iraq or that it was the declared foreign policy of the United States Government to effect regime change in Iraq - But Kendall all that was in place long before George W Bush was sworn in as President, and the proof of that can be easily verified.

In your last post Kendall you say let the facts speak for themselves,
now just for the sake of clarity could you highlight any facts that you may have posted, so far all I have read is unsubstantiated gibberish most of which was disproved months ago.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 06:26 PM

T-butt:

In July 2002, the 23d, the Prime Minister of England attended a meeting of high level British government wonks, among whom was the British Defence Secretary.

The minutes of that meeting included the following:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The rest of that memo can be found here.

While this does not pre-date September 11th, it certainly predates any of the publicized panics about Saddam's WMD.

A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: kendall
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:30 PM

I always decide the truth by a close examination of the evidence. I believe it was an English newspaper that published the Downing Street memo exposing the lies that took us to war. Our own media are owned by right wingers like Rupert Murdoch who would rather die than print the truth about Bush.
Where do you get your information, Faux News?
What we have here is two groups who will never agree on what happened, and we have slipped into a pointless debate. The hounds are at his heels, finally, and the truth will out.
Meantime, I'm outta here with better things to do.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: kendall
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:36 PM

By the way, SuSu's hubby, I never claimed to be the author of that quote. So, who died when Clinton lied about his "hummer"?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Kaleea
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 08:12 PM

What alotta fuss about WMDs playing peek-a-boo & prez dubblepew this & prez clinton that. If you want to find the real weapons of mass destruction, then volunteer for diaper changing duty. The results will be clear--er, uh, well actually, sometimes a bit muddy.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 08:33 PM

Both Threads about finding and not finding WMDs are mute points really.
There are no WMD in Iraq. There were none when America Invaded and they haven't appeared there since!
Bush and his henchman lied to the People of America and to the rest of the World, a lie that 2 years later has caused untold deaths and continues to do so daily.
ANYONE who is still defending Bush Inc. actions on this are sad, twisted and frightened people that allowed their judgement to be clouded by over zealous Political views and who do not have the courage to admit, like the Man they support, that they were then, are now and always will be WRONG on this issue.
As for Bill Clinton and a Blowjob, well. lying about Sex vs lying to start a War is a no brainer when it comes to which is the most morally corrupt action!

The worst crime against Humanity in recent years was commited by 51% of Americans at the Polling Booths when they voted for Bush Inc.
Impeach THIS President. There are REAL reasons to do so.
As the Thread topper says "WMDs were NOT found in Iraq"
That is the disgusting, Amoral truth of it all.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 08:42 PM

"The whole inspection proceedure was of course a red herring, as we had already decided we were going in legally or illegally..Ake"

"Hardly a red-herring Ake, it was only because of GWB and the US Goverments efforts that the UNMOVIC Inspectors were invited back into Iraq.   Teribus"

And why was the US govt so keen to get the inspectors back in!
To try to gain UN support for the invasion which had already been decided upon.
They didn't get that support but they went ahead anyway.

The US govt didn't want to go to the UN at all but "advice" from
Blair persuaded them to take the diplomatic road, as it would play better with the British voters. A pay back for Blairs support in the face of public hostility.

How lucky for you that Bush did not at first take the military option.

Then you would have had NO red herrings to throw into the debate...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:48 AM

WMDs Found in Iraq Nov 9, 2005

Contrary to ongoing reports by mainstream media outlets, WMDs have been found in Iraq, so reports New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter in his new book, Disinformation.


Consider these shocking facts:

• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas

• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

This is only a partial list of the deadly weapons Miniter reveals in his new book, Disinformation. Miniter systematically dissects the "No-WMD Myth" (how it started, and why it continues), as well as 21 other War-on-Terror myths perpetuated by the media.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:07 AM

Kendall,

"The soldiers found millions of dollars in American money in Saddams palaces. Where did it go? to Halliburton of course. The facts speak for themselves."


To quote Amos, "Has anyone bothered to isolate the facts around this slander? Or are we just beating drums and dancing around the campfire here?"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:13 AM

Kendall,

"I always decide the truth by a close examination of the evidence."

As should we all, which is why I am asking for your evidence of what you have stated here.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:36 AM

Amos,

"There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."


True, and the failure of the administration to plan for that aftermath is one of the points where Bush did make a mistake. BUT that does not alter the fact that the original invasion was the right thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Peace
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 11:16 AM

What is most interesting about this to me is that when a Washington personage states the obvious--like DUH, we KNOW WMDs were not found, we herald it as a beacon of hope. Sttrange. Are we so used to lies that when the truth--which we know already--is verified, we then see it as something important?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:32 PM

Bruce for goodness sake give up the ghost.

They could have made a hundred plans for the aftermath and it would still have been a disaster!!

The whole endeavour was ill conceived, they just failed to realise what they were getting into.

And now..... the world sees them as they really are for once. Thats whats important, not me winning a point, or you refuting one.

The Iraq war has given USA/UK pariah status.....And a very good thing too....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:33 PM

Teribus: Therein lies the rub Akenaton, because you see under the terms of UNSC Resolution 1441 and the Mandate forming UNMOVIC there was never meant to be A SEARCH FOR WMD - Remember Iraq was supposed to have been co-operating fully and pro-actively. Hans Blix himself stated that UNMOVIC was not in Iraq to play "hide-and-seek" - the very words out of his own report.

Ahhhh, you're at it again, Teribus. Just once, for the record here, will you state plainly your opinion on the proposition:

Even if Saddam did not actually have any WoMD, his [alleged] non-cooperation and failure to follow to the letter all the UNSCR demands was sufficient casus belli for us to go in and invade with all the concomitants of such armed conflict (i.e.M, 2000+ U.S. servicemen's lives lost, many thousands of Iraqis, and the precedent of unilateral armed aggression as a solution to a perceived or alleged threat).

I just want to know if you indeed think that what (at least you think) Saddam did was sufficient reason for starting the disaster we're in. I think it would be right of you to also make such views known to the 2000 mothers that are grieving, the many thousands of wives whose husbands are broken.....

After that, we can get to the niggling practical points, such as whether there is any chance of any kind of "victory" in Iraq, and whether we've improved anything in starting that war, or rather, made things worse overall.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:41 PM

Ake,

"Bruce for goodness sake give up the ghost."

Not until I have seen some evidence that I am wrong. Keep working on it.

And where are all the anti-war demands prior to the war for Saddam to comply?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Peace
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:46 PM

"And where are all the anti-war demands prior to the war for Saddam to comply?"

In Geneva?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:47 PM

And Arne, for the record:

IMHO Saddam's non-complience with UNR 1441, his continued violations of the cease-fire accord, and his on-going efforts to obtain prohibited materials in violation of the letter and spirit of 14 years of UN resolutions was more than sufficient reason to go to war. IF those opposing action had spent half their effort in getting Saddam to comply, perhaps the war would not have been needed, BUT they chose not to.

Explain why YOU did not try to stop the war in the most direct manner- telling Saddam to comply.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,Digger
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:53 PM

Richard Miniter, quoted by GUEST,Geoduck above, is a Right Wing writer and commentator who appears frequently on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's radio program. The excerpt and statistics quoted above are also to be found on several other web sites, obviously cut and pasted all over the internet. One of these was "blogsforbush.com." Considering the source, and the lack of substantiation or reference data, well......'nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: kendall
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:54 PM

They showed it on the tv news...loads of money hauled out of Saddam's palaces being taken away in trucks. My rep to congress was a bit unclear on it, but he implied that Halliburton got it to help pay their expenses!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 02:02 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32195-2004Jul6?language=printer


Sorry, the SRS rule only applies when I say it does...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 02:04 PM

BB: I'm glad you feel that way LH. If that's the way you truly feel then why continue supporting the dregs that the Democratic party continue to offer? Afterall, the "incompetent politician" in office today just happened to defeat a sitting VP and then in the next go around, one of the most liberal senators in office.

The ol' "Everyone loves a winner" thinking, eh? My, that's deep, Bruce. But I wouldn't go about advertising what a bad judge of character you are, if I were you. I'd take either of the Democratic candidates, with their military service (and in Kerry's case, medals for valour), over the AWOL "champagne unit" draft dodger, in terms of competence and selflessness. As for competence, hard to set the bar lower than the only Texas oilman never to have found oil in Texas....

But FWIW, Dubya didn't win the 2000 elections (and barely sqeaked out a victory in 2004). Worse for you, every week brings more and more people who are beginning to rue the day they ever voted the Dry-Drunk-in-Chief into office. You're gong to very lonely very soon ... and not too popular at parties yourself.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 02:15 PM

Arne,

You have ( as usual) not read the post- I did not make it.

"From: Susu's Hubby - PM
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 04:44 PM

.....
I'm glad you feel that way LH. If that's the way you truly feel then why continue supporting the dregs that the Democratic party continue to offer? .....

Hubby "



You can't even get a direct quote on the same thread accredited to the correct poster.




"Dubya didn't win the 2000 elections "

A point that can be debated, NOT one you can ex cathedra make pronouncements on.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 02:59 PM

Kendall,

"My rep to congress was a bit unclear on it, but he implied that Halliburton got it to help pay their expenses! "


And I can quote him on this? ( the implication, not the unclear part...) Name and phone number of his office?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 03:56 PM

Well wait up a minute there Guest Arne.

Maybe you have, or have not, read the remit that the good Dr. Hans Blix and his troop of UNMOVIC Inspectors was given - I didn't write it, I have read it and it clearly states that they were not there to search for WMD. Now there happen to be one hell of a lot of people on this forum who believe that that was in fact their job - I am trying to point out that it wasn't, maybe I should refer them to Dr. Hans Blix - they might just believe him, but I doubt it.

FACT - UNMOVIC were not in Iraq to SEARCH for WMD

Now onto what I think:

Was the invasion of Iraq the right thing to do - YES, without any shadow of a doubt.

Were lies told to the House of Commons or to the British People - NO

Was the intelligence 'doctored' - NO, far too many people were involved, they may not have all agreed on the conclusions and rcommendations reached, but, on any given subject, no large body of experts ever will. A decision had to be made and that decision had to reflect worst case scenario.

Now just because you say that we are 'in a disaster' is no reason at all for everybody to rush about like headless chickens believing it.

Are you in a disaster Arne? - I certainly am not, nor are the bulk of the Iraqi population who are delighted that Saddam has been removed from power.

Having just voted for the adoption of a document that will form their constitution, in just over a month they will elect a new fully sovereign government of Iraq. Despite the threats and the bombings more Iraqi's have voted for their Government than UK citizens voted for theirs - that's a disaster Arne?

Iraq no longer sponsors international terrorists, or pays Palestinian children to blow themselves up - If you want to see the effect of that take a look at the dip in the incidents in Israel before and after March 2003 - probably just a coincidence, eh Arne?

Syria has finally ended it occupation of Lebanon and the people there are free to vote for who they wish - now that's a real mess isn't it Arne.

Libya has unilaterally renounced it WMD materials and programmes

You call Iraq a disaster, if you believed that everything would be all sweetness and light at the touch of a switch, then you are being particularly naive. At the end of the Second World War Greece was torn apart by civil war for a further four bloody years, Iraq is nowhere near that stage, no matter how you guys want to talk it up. This coming election is important, more so than the last one. Lets see what happens, I don't think that it's going to result in a disaster, quite the opposite.

In general the world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before, don't take my word for it, go read what OBL stated in 1996.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:00 PM

BB: You can't even get a direct quote on the same thread accredited to the correct poster.

OK, I made a mistake. My sincere apologies to you (although I suspect that you aren't too far from the same opinion ... but I'll let you speak for yourself if you'd care to chime in). See, that was easy. You oght to try it.

OBTW, that would be "credited", not "accredited". Always glad to help with accuracy around here, as long as we're being helpful.

Susu's Hubby: The fact that so many of you are trying to justify Clinton's PROVEN lying, just because "no one died", to a Grand Jury speaks volumes about your own ethical belief structure.

That you think that actions that result in the death of innocents are somehow in a category with all the rest speaks volumes about you ethical belief structure. But FWIW, there was no "PROVEN lying", and furthemore, there is a legal distinction between lying and perjury even if there were any lies shown in Clinton's testimony. There's two other legal requirements for perjury, namely, that the lie be under oath and that it be material. It's the third one here that really is at issue in the "When Clinton lied, no one died" phrase. It's legally permissible to aver falsely that the moon is made of blue cheese in a courtroom ... if this particular bit of information is of no moment to the proceedings. And it is there that Clinton's alleged lies fail the perjury test (and IMNSHO, why Ray settled for the admission he got instead of pursuing a perjury charge). While embarrassing, the fact of whether Clinton did or didn't have "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky had no bearing on Paula Jones's suit (and in fact Wright excluded the Lewinsky stuff from the case).   One of the rules of evidence says that things that are intended to embarrass or prejudice a case can be excluded even if relevant based on a balancing of interests. In addition, because of the inflammatory nature of such digging into sexual histiry, there's a set of rules (FRE412-415, IIRC) having to do with when such evidence can be considered (and when such should be left out), and the Lewinsky evidence did not meet any of the criteria for inclusion. This makes this line of testimony, while tittilating for panty-sniffers such as Starr, legally immaterial. As such, not only did Clinton's alleged lies not get anyone killed, they were legally permissible because they wre of a sort that is normally NOYB (and certainly none of the court's business). The consequences of Clinton's lies didn't matter at all, really, much less get someone killed. HTH.

Susu's Hubby again: I'm sure Vince Foster, Ron Brown and Paul Wellstone would be right there beside you saying the same thing.

If they were able.

Now you're off in La-La-Land. Even your Republicans (more than one) looked at Foster, and say there's no "there" there. Brown, same thing (a tragic aircraft accident). As for Wellstone, are you suggesting the Dubya maladministration did him in (in 2002, ya'know???   ;-)

BB: IF those opposing action had spent half their effort in getting Saddam to comply, perhaps the war would not have been needed,....

A lot of Democrats have said that they approved the Iraq resolution so that the U.N./U.S. would have a strong hand in asking for Saddam's co-operation to resolve the issue (and that they hoped that with this strong hand, Saddam would comply and that hostilities would not be necessary). In fact, this is what happened; Saddam gave us the documents (as best he could, which effort the U.S. pooh-poohed), he let the inspectors in, and they were doing heir jobs and reporting that in fact, the U.S. 'intelligence' was "garbage, garbage, and more garbage" and that in fact, Saddam's account of his weapons and programs was reasonably accurate. Strangely enough, the one person clearly mistaken about what happenes was Dubya:

"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."

This is clearly hallucinatory behaviour, or outright lying ("honest mistake" is eliminated as a possibility [even for a doofus like Dubya] by the fact that Dubya repeated this absurd assertion a second time in another speech).

Please feel free to "explain" this behaviour of Dubya any way you want, but I would like you to address it....

...

So in fact, the war was not needed, except to people who value human life as cheaply as you, that seem to think that Saddam refusing to kiss Dubya's rosy is sufficient insult to spend the lives of 2000+ U.S. servicement (and counting) on.

There were no WoMD, and the U.N. inspectors would have found that (and were finding that. We got Saddam to accept inspectors. There's even reports that Saddam had offered to step down (although I'm not clear under what terms and how honestly).

Those apologising for Dubya's mistakes often make the fallacy of bifurcation that there were only two choices: Armed invasion, or letting Saddam do whatever he wanted. Not true, and in fact, there was a perfectly reasonable alternative (the U.N. inspections) that seemed to be working out. But that was unacceptable to Dubya for reasons that are not often examined. I'd like you to explain why.

Bottom line here, Teribus and BB: Lots of people had no problem with asking Saddam to comply, but thought that war should have been the last resort, not the first resort that it seems it was with Dubya, and were indeed quite happy that the threat of "serious consequences" did in fact work. They were even more pleased when it was seeming more and more like the sanctions and previous inspections did in fact do the job (as turned out to be the case), and that Saddam was indeed disarmed and that no armed invasion would be necessary to disarm him.

BB: Explain why YOU did not try to stop the war in the most direct manner- telling Saddam to comply.

Where have I ever said that I did such a thing?

But Dubya seems to have had a problme with taking "yes: for an answer....

Teribus: I didn't write it, I have read it and it clearly states that they were not there to search for WMD.

That's pretty strange. Because they brought a lot of equipment and instrumentation in to do precisely that, and in fact that's what they were doing. What you're quoting is a bit of politicking, a bit of fluff that was intended to nudge Saddam into fuller co-operation and trotting out any WoMD (which he didn't have). But make no mistake, Blix wasn't as stoopid as you seem to be here, and wasn't going to settle for Saddam to come rolling the WoMD up to the Hotel Palestine for him to bless; he was going to check on his own to make sure that Saddam was being forthright. But Saddam's co-operation was hardly necessary for the success of Blix's actual mission ... they could have sent Bolton, Cheney, or one of the other numbnuts in the Dubya maladministration if all they wanted was some formal turnover ceremonies; instead they sent an actual inspector. It's curious you can't figure this out ... or are you jkust being intellectually dishonest here?

Teribus: A decision had to be made and that decision had to reflect worst case scenario.

No wonder you have all this time to post! Your problem solving skills have you reduced to an irrational ability to leave your own house for fear of errant cricket bats, falling meteors, and the ubiquitous lightning bolt ... not to mention the far more common lorry with shoddy brakes....   ;-) "worst case scenario"   LOL....

Teribus: Was the intelligence 'doctored' - NO, far too many people were involved, they may not have all agreed on the conclusions and rcommendations reached, but, on any given subject, no large body of experts ever will.

The best evidence was on the ground. Hell, that's why we pushed to get the inspectors in there. And their evaluation of the U.S. 'intelligence' was pithily put as "garbage, garbage, and more garbage". It was kind of a case of "Who're you gonna believe, Chalabi's drunken thugs and crooks, or your lyin' eyes." Time for a reassessment, I'd say, but such seems to be beyond the cognitive skills of the Dubya maladministration (although in this, they were clearly below the peak of the bell curve, with most Security Council members urging a more cautious and patient approach).

Teribus: Now just because you say that we are 'in a disaster' is no reason at all for everybody to rush about like headless chickens believing it.

Oh, quite true. But if you bother reading a newspaper....

Teribus: Having just voted for the adoption of a document that will form their constitution, ...

My, the U.S. woudl have had quite the constitution with Tories installed in power and a spate of recoats in every town....

But I'd note that the success of the constitution was remarkable ... with some Sunni areas reporting that 99% or so of eligible voters were in favour of it. Will miracles never cease?

Teribus: ... in just over a month they will elect a new fully sovereign government of Iraq.

Under the benevolent eye of a force of 140K foreign troops which are the only things keeping the polliticans and candidates (or at least a substantial portion of them) from a quick and gruesome death....

What does that have to do with WoMDs?

And I'd note the ultimate silliness of a constitution as the hallmark of legitimacy, human rights, or a stable and just state (see, e.g. "USSR"; as Stalin said, it's who counts the votes that's important).

Teribus: You call Iraq a disaster, if you believed that everything would be all sweetness and light at the touch of a switch, then you are being particularly naive.

More fallacy of bifurcation (as well as a bit of "straw man" fallacy). See if you can spot your error.

Teribus: In general the world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before, don't take my word for it,...

... just go read the latest State Department report on world terrorism.   ;-)

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:16 PM

It appears that there were no Biological or nuclear weapons in Iraq, but there were chemical weapons. The problem with finding them is that nobody was looking for them among coalition ordnance which was where they were.

"We only used white phosphorus as an illuminant or as a smoke screen", they said. Well it now seems that it lit up a number of Iraqis quite effectively, and they'd probably still be burning quite brightly if they hadn't then been blown out with HE.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:54 PM

Here we go Arne,

Just for you - THE BIRTH OF UNMOVIC - Otherwise known and loved as:

UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1284 (1999)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 4084th meeting,
on 17 December 1999

The Security Council,
A.

1. Decides to establish, as a subsidiary body of the Council, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) which replaces the Special Commission established pursuant to paragraph 9 (b) of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides also that UNMOVIC will undertake the responsibilities mandated to the Special Commission by the Council with regard to the verification of compliance by Iraq with its obligations under paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of resolution 687 (1991) and other related resolutions, that UNMOVIC will establish and operate, as was recommended by the panel on disarmament and current and future ongoing monitoring and verification issues, a reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification, which will implement the plan approved by the Council in resolution 715 (1991) and address unresolved disarmament issues, and that UNMOVIC will identify, as necessary in accordance with its mandate, additional sites in Iraq to be covered by the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification;

Now then Arne, where in the above text is UNMOVIC's instruction to search for proscribed weapons and materials - Remember the Iraqi's are required to co-operate fully.

Now then what were the other points you wanted to draw my attention to:

Oh yes a return to the searching for WMD thing.

Arne - "Because they brought a lot of equipment and instrumentation in to do precisely that, and in fact that's what they were doing."

Well now Arne having waded through the UN text bringing UNMOVIC into existence we now all know that they were not there to search for WMD. This was further reinforced in UNSC Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq's full co-operation. Now Arne IF UNMOVIC are getting IRAQ's full co-operation, they wouldn't have to search would they? But you state above that UNMOVIC were having to search - In which case Iraq by your observation is in Material Breach of UNSC Resolution 1441 knowing full well that such a breach would result in 'serious consequences'

Arne - "What you're quoting is a bit of politicking, a bit of fluff that was intended to nudge Saddam into fuller co-operation and trotting out any WoMD (which he didn't have)."

A bit of politicking? Clearly stated requirements outlined in a UNSC Resolution, 'a bit of politicking?' Iraq's full and pro-active co-operation was required by the UN from DAY ONE - without any nudging, Saddam sent the UN a nice letter agreeing to do that very thing - Didn't he Arne?

Arne - "But make no mistake, Blix wasn't as stoopid as you seem to be here, and wasn't going to settle for Saddam to come rolling the WoMD up to the Hotel Palestine for him to bless; he was going to check on his own to make sure that Saddam was being forthright."

By Christ Arne, I do believe you are beginning to get the gist of it. Saddam and his lads tell the good Dr. Blix what they've got then the good Dr. and his team go down there to check it out. That is more or less what "a reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification," does - still not having to search you see Arne - are you quite clear on that simple point - or do we have to go over it again.

Arne - "But Saddam's co-operation was hardly necessary for the success of Blix's actual mission"

Oddly enough Arne the UN Security Council unanimously decided that Saddam's co-operation was essential.

The 'Worst case Scenario' Thing

Arne - Well here Arne doesn't actually have any point to make at all. He just witters on about absolutely nothing, which I suppose is fairly reasonable because in doing so he is talking about something he knows alot about - Nothing.

Point being made Arne was as follows. The function of the Joint Intelligence Committee when tasked to make an evaluation is to address the subject matter, review the intelligence and make an assessment that outlines the situation viewed from the perspective of 'Worst' and 'Best' cases. It is then a Cabinet decision which to adopt in order to formulate Government Policy. In matters relating to security or defence it is normally prudent to adopt 'Worst' case - that way you tend not to get caught out.

Was the intelligence 'doctored'

Arne - "The best evidence was on the ground. Hell, that's why we pushed to get the inspectors in there."

"That's why WE pushed.." Who are the WE Arne? Only person I can remember pushing to get inspectors into Iraq in the summer of 2002 was George W Bush - everybody else seemed to be decidedly cool towards the idea.

Not all intelligence was garbage - The evaluation of Iraq's missile testing and development programme was 100% correct. The following are UNMOVIC's conclusions on a couple of points as of 7th March 2003

On Anthrax UNMOVIC concludes:
- About 10,000 additional liters of anthrax were not destroyed and may still exist.

On VX Nerve Agent UNMOVIC's concludes:
- Iraq provided false and misleading declarations in order to retain production equipment specifically modified to produce VX.
- Direct physical evidence contradicts Iraq's claim that it never weaponized VX.
- Iraq failed to provide any credible evidence to support its claims of unilateral destruction of VX and VX precursors.
- UN inspectors reported to the UN Security Council that "UNMOVIC has information that conflicts with [Iraq's] account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problems of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared."

THE DISASTER according to Arne Langsetmo:

Arne - Its a disaster "..if you bother reading a newspaper...."

Aw well there you go then, must be! The newspapers Arne reads never tells lies, never shows any bias and is always completely truthful - well at least to their certain knowledge. Arne what goes into to newspapers is what the editor thinks will sell them.

Iraq's Constitution:

Arne - "My, the U.S. woudl have had quite the constitution with Tories installed in power and a spate of recoats in every town...."

I dare say that they would Arne, there wouldn't be so many guns floating about as a right and fewer of the country's citizenry would be getting shot because of them. Apart from that your comment signifies what exactly? Are you implying that the presence of US troops influenced the vote? Have you got any proof of that? Or is it mere conjecture on your part - Just stirring the mud up Arne because you've run out of any facts to counter the points made.

Arne - "But I'd note that the success of the constitution was remarkable ... with some Sunni areas reporting that 99% or so of eligible voters were in favour of it. Will miracles never cease?"

If what you state above is an example of what you read in your newspapers Arne start listening to the news. The only reference I got to your Sunni 99% figure was this -

"In Falluja, where thousands of insurgents battled US troops a year ago, some 90 per cent of registered voters turned out, local election chief Saadullah al-Rawi said, and 99 per cent of them voted "No" to a constitution that Sunni leaders say may tear Iraq into powerful Shi'ite and Kurdish regions."

Eh? Arne, they voted NO to the constitution - that's them voting in favour of it?

The Forthcoming Elections on 15th December:

Arne's worried that these elections will take place - "Under the benevolent eye of a force of 140K foreign troops which are the only things keeping the polliticans and candidates (or at least a substantial portion of them) from a quick and gruesome death...."

Well as we've seen all those troops really influenced the results in the Sunni areas. By and large those 140K troops, their MNF partners and the Iraq forces are actually managing to keep the vast bulk of Iraq's 25.4 million people from quick gruesome deaths, or at least they were the last time I checked. I'd say that counted as being pretty benevolent.

Arne asks - out of the blue - "What does that have to do with WoMDs?"

To which I can only reply - ? But one thing is for certain Iraq doesn't have any WMD now, and has no plans to acquire them, that's a change for the better.

Arne - "And I'd note the ultimate silliness of a constitution as the hallmark of legitimacy, human rights, or a stable and just state"

Maybe so Arne - but having one gives a reasonable indication. Your example Arne, of Stalin in the USSR. Did the Communist Party of the Soviet Socialist Replublics have an opposition party to contend with? If my memory serves me correctly the USSR, like most Communist countries at the time was a One Party State - so it doesn't matter who counts the votes under that system you will end up with a Communist Government - Even if the votes remain uncounted - TRUE?

The world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before:

The advice of Arne the wise - "just go read the latest State Department report on world terrorism."

Oh latest State Department Report - now on that topic if they operate along the same lines as the JIC in the UK they will address the subject matter, review the intelligence and make an assessment that outlines the situation viewed from the perspective of 'Worst' and 'Best' cases. In matters relating to security or defence it is normally prudent to adopt 'Worst' case - that way you tend not to get caught out......;-)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 09:26 PM

I think you better give up Teribus, you've at last met someone who's prepared to play you at your own game...and beat you.

In your last post all you've done is bluster, patronise and name call.

Like Blair and Bush your time is up sonny...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 09:48 PM

Well, Ake... Seems that the once great T has been freduced to T-Bluster and T-Patronize so, yeah, I'd have to agree with you that Arne is chippin' away at T's stature...

I keep askin' the same question that T-Distration has never answered about offin' Saddam if he was Bush's big problem... But to date, Bush has off'ed tens upon thousands of innocent women and kids in Iraq and Saddam is quite comfy???

Hmmmmm? Talk about avoidin' one single questoion??? I've asked it now maybe 20 times and all I get from the Bush apologists is......ahhhhh, friggin' silence...

No, occasionally they will point out my bad spellin' whe I ask it but I will guraentee you, Ake, that T-Avoid will never answer it other than in a "War 'n Peace" lenght about international law, which he loves when it suits his purpose, but he'll ignore if his boy, Bush, is in conflict with....

Noraml, fir T-Distract... He want's to kepp the discuassion well in in ***his*** comfy zone... Proble is that the real world ain't got nuthin' to T-Distratc's comfy zone...

Oh yeah, he won't answer this question... I guarentee he won't even think about answering this questionj... What T-Shift will do is try to shift the question back on me... He'll make fun of my spellin' 'er typin' but he won't come right out and answer this question...

Why?

Because he can't... If he were to got there then he coul;d no longer hide behind his stone wall and have to actaully discuss ideas... You notice that T-Machine has no real ideas... Just endless. UN crap...

Like who cares about the UN??? Bush doesn't so why, all of a sudden, should we???

The UN didn't want Bush to invade Iraq. Busgh invaded Iraq. End of UN story...

Time to get some new material on the juke box...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 10:04 PM

Yes Bobert and with the latest revelations regarding torture and the use of "chemical weapons" against the people we were supposed to liberate, there will be many more questions for Teribus, Hubby and Bruce to avoid.

Its all gone horribly wrong for our "warriors", but we shouldn't feel too sorry for them, they're fortunate compared to the Iraqis.
Teribus's biggest nightmare is Arne.... not white phospherus

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 10:10 PM

Teribus:

... reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification; ...

and:

Now then Arne, where in the above text is UNMOVIC's instruction to search for proscribed weapons and materials...

I'm having no problems with the English. Are you perhaps not a native speaker?

I really am serious here, Teribus: Are you just daft, or do you really think that the job of the inspectors is to sit sipping tea at the Palestine Hotel while the Iraqis trundle the stuff in for approval? Or perhaps you're just being intellectually dishonest. Car eto explain why they needed U-2s, radiation monitors, earth-penetrating radar, helicopers and other vehicles, and a whole raft of other stuff? C'mon, fess up, you were just funning me there, right?

Arne - "Because they brought a lot of equipment and instrumentation in to do precisely that, and in fact that's what they were doing."

Well now Arne having waded through the UN text bringing UNMOVIC into existence we now all know that they were not there to search for WMD.

Ummm, maybe not. Which leave pretty much the earlier possibilities I mentioned. Clue us in, Teribus, which one is it? Daft, Dumb, or Dishonest, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis....

Now Arne IF UNMOVIC are getting IRAQ's full co-operation, they wouldn't have to search would they?

I'll play you some poker any day, Teribus. I have a royal flush. OK, now just push that money my way, and no, you can't see it. Why do you insist on repeating your stoopidity? Do you really think that Blix should have just took them at their word as longs as they were "co-operating full[y]"? I certainly don't and I doubt that Blix did either.

By Christ Arne, I do believe you are beginning to get the gist of it. Saddam and his lads tell the good Dr. Blix what they've got then the good Dr. and his team go down there to check it out.

You missed the part where Saddam didn't have the stuff. So he trots out the stuff he doesn't have and Blix doesn't destroy it. BTW, that's not too far from what happened; Saddam did say they'd destroyed a bunch of CW previously unaccounted for, but the good doctor, being a much wiser man than you, went anyway to the site in question, and they checked and indeed found residue consistent with the Iraqi claims. But that still leaves Blix to go check whereever else he wants to make sure that there's nothign squirreled away. That what's called "inspection".

Arne - "But Saddam's co-operation was hardly necessary for the success of Blix's actual mission"

Oddly enough Arne the UN Security Council unanimously decided that Saddam's co-operation was essential.

Whether "co-operation was essential" is a factual issue. Declarations (care to trot out a reference to such?) don't change facts.

"That's why WE pushed.." Who are the WE Arne? Only person I can remember pushing to get inspectors into Iraq in the summer of 2002 was George W Bush

I had no problem with putting inspectors in ... in fact I think it was a good idea. Dubya's first inclination was to invade ... and then public pressure made him go to the Security Council, and the reinstitution of inspections was deemed the best action. The entire Security COuncil agreed on this, and in fact, in March 2003, most nations thought that this was producing results, and was still the best course of action. Not so, Dubya, who needed a war for reasons best known to himself and the PNAC....

Not all intelligence was garbage - The evaluation of Iraq's missile testing and development programme was 100% correct....

And pretty much immaterial. The stated limit on missile range was 150 Km. Perhaps a couple of the Al Samoud missiles had exceeded that nominal range by a few Km (but the Iraqis claimed only with no actual warhead). But the 150 Km is a pretty arbitrary limit; those less that 150 Km were legal, but those over illegal, but there ain't a heack of a lot of difference with a few extra Km in terms of significance as "WoMD". Nonetheless, rather than give the Dubya gunslingers something to yell "Gotcha" for, the Iraqis agreed to destroy the Al Samoud missiles, and Blix was supervising this very effort when Dubya got his panties soiled and started screaming for a change.

But as to missile intelligence, it wasn't all that good, either, really. The U.S. had claimed that Saddam retained SCUDs, but the U.N. teams, checking the 'intelligence', found a load of chickens*** ... literally; at one site supposedly a secret SCUD site, they found a chicken farm. Dem's da facts, ma'am.

- About 10,000 additional liters of anthrax were not destroyed...

Actually, IIRC, it was growth media for said quantitites, and was unaccounted for, but not at all certain that it wasn't destroyed or decayed...

... and may still exist.

No. Do pay attention.

On VX Nerve Agent UNMOVIC's concludes:

Ummm, so where's the VX? Dubya been hiding it?

Aw well there you go then, must be! The newspapers Arne reads never tells lies, never shows any bias and is always completely truthful - well at least to their certain knowledge. Arne what goes into to newspapers is what the editor thinks will sell them.

I take everything I read with a grain of salt. But there's certain things that are pretty d*** certain, such as the attacks on troops, suicide bombings, slayings of high Iraqis, lack of power, water, etc., just the freaking' airport-Baghdad dash, the thousands of tonnes of explosives and weapons the U.S. allowed to be looted, the horrible and climbing toll of Iraqis dead, anonanonanonanon....

If what you state above is an example of what you read in your newspapers Arne start listening to the news. The only reference I got to your Sunni 99% figure was this - ....

Just a quick Google shows this and this.

Granted, I didn't find the explicit claims about the very high "Yes" votes in Sunni areas, but that may have been early reports; but these here indicate similar if not identical problems.

Well as we've seen all those troops really influenced the results in the Sunni areas. By and large those 140K troops, their MNF partners and the Iraq forces are actually managing to keep the vast bulk of Iraq's 25.4 million people from quick gruesome deaths, or at least they were the last time I checked. I'd say that counted as being pretty benevolent.

The number of deaths is vastly greater than under Saddam's regime. Maybe most people are not being killed, but methinks you set the bar a bit too low....

Arne asks - out of the blue - "What does that have to do with WoMDs?"


Well, this thread is about whether Dubya's invasion of Iraq was justified by the WoMD rationale he put forth, not whether a post facto nation-building excuse could be cobbled together to save his sorry ass...

To which I can only reply - ? But one thing is for certain Iraq doesn't have any WMD now, and has no plans to acquire them, that's a change for the better.

He didn't have them before. He doesn't have them now. And we have 2000+ dead U.S. soldiers and many more Iraqis. Not to mention a couple hundred billion down the drain killing people. Don't knwo where you side on that equation, but I know which side I think is the dead weight. . . .

Maybe so Arne - but having one [a constitution] gives a reasonable indication.

Balderdash. A constitution without a functioning civil government or even society is probably best used to replace the toilet paper that is impossible to find. I'd note that it was quite some time before the United States put together a constitution after the Revolutionary War ... and even then they deferred the Bill of Rights that some champions of all that is good and great in a constitution seem to think is the fundamental thing there. Not to mention, we're in the process of dismantling the Constitution here purportedly under the rationale that "being in a war changes things".... But we don't have rampant lawlessness, daily mortar attacks here, fighting in the streets on a daily basis, no jobs, no security, random slayings, food and power shortages (yet, it's still imperative that the Great Writ be suspended here, as well as our Fourth and Fifth Amendment privileges). But you think the constitution (which isn't all that great a harbinger of good things to come in Iraq even as written is a great thing? To me, it's smearing the lipstick pretty think on a pig.....

The world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before.

Here I'll agree with you, strangely enough. It never was in danger from terrorists. Terrorists don't win; they use terror because it is the weapon that they do have (one Palestinian, IIRC, had said something to the effect of "sure, give us the F-16s and Cobra gunships, and we'll forgo the suicide bombings", or somethig to that effect). Their fondest hope is to make you lose your cool. But you have the power over that; you can refuse to be cowed by the terrorist and you can refuse to over-react. If you do the moral thing, they may even lose their support from the vast majority of people that think that terrorism is intrinsically wrong, and they may give up or just dissipate. Or the may not. But in either case, you've at least kept your own morals ... but that is something that it seems is less and less a consideration for Republicans and their supporters that have little left to lose in this respect.

But AAMOF, terrorist attacks are on the rise. Thought you might want to know that.

In matters relating to security or defence it is normally prudent to adopt 'Worst' case - that way you tend not to get caught out......;-)

Nonsense. But it's easy to see you don't get out much.   ;-)

And with that, I have a sweetie to go home to. Ciao.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 10:50 PM

Ake,

No disrespect intended but T's worst enemy is T!!!

Yeah, he is incapable of discssing ideas... I have asked him on countless occasions about why Bush didn't have Saddam assinated...

No answer....

I have asked him why the US went to war when the majority of the UN was against it...

No answer....

I've asked why ther big hurry with the invasion when Hans Blix was sayin' the the Iraqia were cooperatin'...

No answer....

No, what I continuely get is being called a "fu*k" 'er given a "War'n Peace" length rebuttal with a lot of meaningless crap...

So, this evening I have challenged Terrible to a battle of bands... When he looses then he has to stop this blind allegence to George Bush...

Plain and simple challenge here...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:27 AM

Teribus, you say, "Iraq no longer sponsors international terrorists, or pays Palestinian children to blow themselves up - If you want to see the effect of that take a look at the dip in the incidents in Israel before and after March 2003 - probably just a coincidence, eh Arne?"

The incidents in Israel may or may not have decreased but the terror in Iraq is ongoing. Didn't the U.S. overthrow Saddam because he incarcerated without trial, he tortured and he killed his own people?
With the help of the U.S. government, it looks as if the new Iraqi govt. is guilty of the very same thing. They have recently discovered torture chamber in the interior ministry. The Wolf brigade and many other paramilitary groups are springing up everywhere.

Answer this question teribus, "Are the lives of Israelis more important than the lives of Iraqis?"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 07:52 AM

Ake,

In your reply to T: "In your last post all you've done is bluster, patronise and name call."

He brings out facts, and the UN report, and YOU "bluster, patronise and name call"

" the use of "chemical weapons" "

If you want to insist that any weapon with chemicals is a "chemical weapon", YOU have to concede that any weapon with atoms is an "atomic weapon"- THUS Saddam not only had them, but used them, and ALL of your comments are worthless. Think again, unless you want to make this concession and admit you are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 11:24 AM

I am assuming that GUEST 15 Nov 05 - 10:10 PM is Arne Langsetmo, if not I apologise Guest.

So Arne - with your outstanding command of the English Language you tell us that - To verify is to search - or at least you try to

Well Arne I have no trouble with the English language, and I have no trouble in the comprehension of it, as you appear to.

Source - Websters
Monitor:
1 a : a student appointed to assist a teacher b : one that warns or instructs c : one that monitors or is used in monitoring : as (1) : a cathode-ray tube used for display (as of television pictures or computer information) (2) : a device for observing a biological condition or function
2 : any of various large tropical Old World lizards (genus Varanus of the family Varanidae) closely related to the iguanas
3 [Monitor, first ship of the type] a : a heavily armored warship formerly used in coastal operations having a very low freeboard and one or more revolving gun turrets b : a small modern warship with shallow draft for coastal bombardment
4 : a raised central portion of a roof having low windows or louvers for providing light and air

Inspect:
1 : to view closely in critical appraisal : look over
2 : to examine officially (inspects the barracks every Friday)
intransitive senses : to make an inspection
synonym see SCRUTINIZE

Verify:
1 : to confirm or substantiate in law by oath
2 : to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of
synonym see CONFIRM

Any mention of the word search there Arne? I can't see it. Any time that you do want a lesson on English Comprehension just let me know.

Arne...."I really am serious here, Teribus: Are you just daft, or do you really think that the job of the inspectors is to sit sipping tea at the Palestine Hotel while the Iraqis trundle the stuff in for approval? Or perhaps you're just being intellectually dishonest. Care to explain why they needed U-2s, radiation monitors, earth-penetrating radar, helicopers and other vehicles, and a whole raft of other stuff? C'mon, fess up, you were just funning me there, right?"

These guys with all that stuff were who again Arne - UNMOVIC - any idea what that stands for? If you don't then your skills in relation to comprehension are even worse than I thought, but we'll go through your list of 'search' stuff shall we:
- U-2's (liked their music maybe, and Bono does give ones organisation a certain Je ne sais quios - naw only takin' the piss Arne) The infamous Gary Powers Spy Plane, very difficult to fly and with an appalling safety record - most that were built crashed. Now why did the good Dr. Blix need those and why did Saddam do his best to stop them. Well UNMOVIC stands for United Nations MOnitoring Verification Inspection Committee. Spy planes are very good at monitoring - it is what they built for - not so good at searching, which is why SAR organisations don't fly U-2's, they use other types of aircraft far better suited to the task.

Radiation Monitors - Inspection, verification and safety, or is that a little too prosaic for you Arne (Prosaic doesn't mean search either Arne - Relax)

Earth-penetrating radar - Used to verify the extent of sites inspected.

Helicopers and other vehicles - Eh? Transport maybe?

AND- "a whole raft of other stuff" - well you got me there Arne I suppose that includes St.Bernards Dogs, they're used to search for things. Is this really the best you can do Arne???? Pathetic!!!

So Arne you'd like to play poker would you, judging by your skills of reasoning you would play it just about as well as Saddam Hussein did - He lost and so are you, if this sort or tripe is the best arguement you can muster.

Now at what point did I say that "Blix should have just took them at their word as longs as they were "co-operating full[y]"? I certainly didn't and the good Doctor's organisation's procedures were pretty specific remember - Inspect, critically appraise, examine officially, scrutinize - Verify, confirm, substantiate, establish the truth, accuracy and reality of any given statement, situation or event.

Oh Arne, NOW, in the light of inspections subsequent to March 2003, I am perfectly prepared to believe that he didn't have the stuff. Nobody was prepared to believe that back in 2002, on the totally reliable evidence and reporting of the UN (AT THAT TIME)

On this following one Arne you are being rather selective:
"Saddam did say they'd destroyed a bunch of CW previously unaccounted for, but the good doctor, being a much wiser man than you, went anyway to the site in question, and they checked and indeed found residue consistent with the Iraqi claims. But that still leaves Blix to go check wherever else he wants to make sure that there's nothign squirreled away. That what's called "inspection".

Point 1. The unilateral and unauthorised destruction of WMD weapons, agents and materials was forbidden under UNSC Resolutions and by the agreement reached at Safwan. UNSCOM was supposed to supervise, authenticate and verify the destruction of ALL such material - So Saddam ended up getting shafted for jumping the gun, for having destroyed these items without the presence of UNSCOM to authenticate it he could not prove that he had done it - pity he thought it best to kill the poor beggars who had destroyed them as they could not be questioned by the good Dr. Blix. The good Dr, Blix and his merry men did check and indeed found residue consistent with the Iraqi claims - NOW COMPLETE WHAT DR: BLIX STATED IN HIS REPORT - but those results were inconclusive with regard to the amount destroyed. Sure they could say something had been destroyed there but no definitive what and no definitive quantity.

Arne - an easy sentence for you to comprehend the meaning of - The UN Security Council unanimously decided that Saddam's co-operation was essential to the success of UNMOVIC's mission in Iraq. FACT.



"That's why WE pushed.." Who are the WE Arne? Only person I can remember pushing to get inspectors into Iraq in the summer of 2002 was George W Bush

I had no problem with putting inspectors in ... in fact I think it was a good idea. Dubya's first inclination was to invade ... and then public pressure made him go to the Security Council, and the reinstitution of inspections was deemed the best action. The entire Security COuncil agreed on this, and in fact, in March 2003, most nations thought that this was producing results, and was still the best course of action. Not so, Dubya, who needed a war for reasons best known to himself and the PNAC....

Not all intelligence was garbage - The evaluation of Iraq's missile testing and development programme was 100% correct....

And pretty much immaterial. The stated limit on missile range was 150 Km. Perhaps a couple of the Al Samoud missiles had exceeded that nominal range by a few Km (but the Iraqis claimed only with no actual warhead). But the 150 Km is a pretty arbitrary limit; those less that 150 Km were legal, but those over illegal, but there ain't a heack of a lot of difference with a few extra Km in terms of significance as "WoMD". Nonetheless, rather than give the Dubya gunslingers something to yell "Gotcha" for, the Iraqis agreed to destroy the Al Samoud missiles, and Blix was supervising this very effort when Dubya got his panties soiled and started screaming for a change.

But as to missile intelligence, it wasn't all that good, either, really. The U.S. had claimed that Saddam retained SCUDs, but the U.N. teams, checking the 'intelligence', found a load of chickens*** ... literally; at one site supposedly a secret SCUD site, they found a chicken farm. Dem's da facts, ma'am.

- About 10,000 additional liters of anthrax were not destroyed...

Actually, IIRC, it was growth media for said quantitites, and was unaccounted for, but not at all certain that it wasn't destroyed or decayed...

... and may still exist.

No. Do pay attention.

On VX Nerve Agent UNMOVIC's concludes:

Ummm, so where's the VX? Dubya been hiding it?

Aw well there you go then, must be! The newspapers Arne reads never tells lies, never shows any bias and is always completely truthful - well at least to their certain knowledge. Arne what goes into to newspapers is what the editor thinks will sell them.

I take everything I read with a grain of salt. But there's certain things that are pretty d*** certain, such as the attacks on troops, suicide bombings, slayings of high Iraqis, lack of power, water, etc., just the freaking' airport-Baghdad dash, the thousands of tonnes of explosives and weapons the U.S. allowed to be looted, the horrible and climbing toll of Iraqis dead, anonanonanonanon....

If what you state above is an example of what you read in your newspapers Arne start listening to the news. The only reference I got to your Sunni 99% figure was this - ....

Just a quick Google shows this and this.

Granted, I didn't find the explicit claims about the very high "Yes" votes in Sunni areas, but that may have been early reports; but these here indicate similar if not identical problems.

Well as we've seen all those troops really influenced the results in the Sunni areas. By and large those 140K troops, their MNF partners and the Iraq forces are actually managing to keep the vast bulk of Iraq's 25.4 million people from quick gruesome deaths, or at least they were the last time I checked. I'd say that counted as being pretty benevolent.

The number of deaths is vastly greater than under Saddam's regime. Maybe most people are not being killed, but methinks you set the bar a bit too low....

Arne asks - out of the blue - "What does that have to do with WoMDs?"


Well, this thread is about whether Dubya's invasion of Iraq was justified by the WoMD rationale he put forth, not whether a post facto nation-building excuse could be cobbled together to save his sorry ass...

To which I can only reply - ? But one thing is for certain Iraq doesn't have any WMD now, and has no plans to acquire them, that's a change for the better.

He didn't have them before. He doesn't have them now. And we have 2000+ dead U.S. soldiers and many more Iraqis. Not to mention a couple hundred billion down the drain killing people. Don't knwo where you side on that equation, but I know which side I think is the dead weight. . . .

Maybe so Arne - but having one [a constitution] gives a reasonable indication.

Balderdash. A constitution without a functioning civil government or even society is probably best used to replace the toilet paper that is impossible to find. I'd note that it was quite some time before the United States put together a constitution after the Revolutionary War ... and even then they deferred the Bill of Rights that some champions of all that is good and great in a constitution seem to think is the fundamental thing there. Not to mention, we're in the process of dismantling the Constitution here purportedly under the rationale that "being in a war changes things".... But we don't have rampant lawlessness, daily mortar attacks here, fighting in the streets on a daily basis, no jobs, no security, random slayings, food and power shortages (yet, it's still imperative that the Great Writ be suspended here, as well as our Fourth and Fifth Amendment privileges). But you think the constitution (which isn't all that great a harbinger of good things to come in Iraq even as written is a great thing? To me, it's smearing the lipstick pretty think on a pig.....

The world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before.

Here I'll agree with you, strangely enough. It never was in danger from terrorists. Terrorists don't win; they use terror because it is the weapon that they do have (one Palestinian, IIRC, had said something to the effect of "sure, give us the F-16s and Cobra gunships, and we'll forgo the suicide bombings", or somethig to that effect). Their fondest hope is to make you lose your cool. But you have the power over that; you can refuse to be cowed by the terrorist and you can refuse to over-react. If you do the moral thing, they may even lose their support from the vast majority of people that think that terrorism is intrinsically wrong, and they may give up or just dissipate. Or the may not. But in either case, you've at least kept your own morals ... but that is something that it seems is less and less a consideration for Republicans and their supporters that have little left to lose in this respect.

But AAMOF, terrorist attacks are on the rise. Thought you might want to know that.

In matters relating to security or defence it is normally prudent to adopt 'Worst' case - that way you tend not to get caught out......;-)

Nonsense. But it's easy to see you don't get out much.   ;-)

And with that, I have a sweetie to go home to. Ciao.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,Just Curious
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:50 PM

Who is Teribus anyway, and how does he have so much time to devote to this? And what's his motivation?

I get the impression that he may very well be about five or six staff members working for a neo-conservative think-tank. Lots of what he posts appears to be cut-and-paste from a library of right-wing tracts.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 03:24 PM

Teribus:

Yep, it was me (don't always remember to fill in the "From" field...)

Any mention of the word search there Arne?

You weren't on Clinton's legal defence team, were you? Well, let me tell you, Scooter and ROve might be able to use your "talents" right now....

Oh Arne, NOW, in the light of inspections subsequent to March 2003,....

Ummmm, Saddam certainly wasn't "co-operating" with these "inspections".    Or perhaps you misspelled "searches".

Pretty d*** lame excuse-making here. And just a FYI, it wasn't me that wanted the U-2 overflights; it was Blix, so if you want to argue about the efficiency of such (as if that makes any difference to your evasions here), go argue it with him. But don't think you're making any useful points here with your "red herrings". Rather than try and tell me that Blix is an eedjit, try and figure out for yourself why he asked for all that stuff. He asked for this sutff and he got it, so plenty of pretty smart people thought it a useful thing to have....

Yes, Blix (and the U.N.) thought that a detailed and accurate report on the alleged disposition/destruction of any suspected WoMD or materials would help them to verify those cases where the weapons actually had been disposed of (and in fact, as I pointed out, this was used to verify to a reasonable degree that the stories matched the evidence). In cases where the stories matched what the inspectors found, the inspectors could at least provisionally cross off specific items of concern. But as everyone here (and elsewhere) but you seems to have figured out, that was only half the job (a half made easier by specific information about positive evidence that could be checked out). The other half, necessary (at least I'd think so to you, who seem overly concerned with the slightest possibility of a hint of the tiniest amonts of "weapons related program activities" so as to ward off your nightmares about muchroom clouds), was to check to make sure there weren't any other WoMD that might not have been suspected or known about, new programs, hidden facilities, oh, say, things like "mobile bioweapons labs" that the U.S. knew he had, but which he disclaimed any knowledge of. For that, you have to jus go search. It's not too hard to understadn, Teribus. You ought to at least make the effort....

Nobody was prepared to believe that [Saddam no longer had weapons] back in 2002, on the totally reliable evidence and reporting of the UN (AT THAT TIME).

Not true (and more so when you include the early months of 2003). Quite a number of people thought there was little chance he had any significant weapons, and a lot of people thought that the U.S. 'intelligence' to the contrary was in fact far more full'o'sh***.

If you want my take, I've been in business long enough to know a "dog and pony show" when I see one, and Powell's presentiation at the U.N. was just that. I criticised the U.K. dossier when it first came out (and then there were the subsequent revelations that the U.K dossier was largely plagiarized from a pre-GW1 grad stundent's paper, leading to even greater scepticism as to its value).

When these things start becoming apparent, you have to take a step back and say that your "worst case" analysis might be just that ... but in a quite unintended sense ... and that you might need to reconsider what a reasonable course of action is under the circumstances. OF course, this was never done, and this will become more and more apparent over time (as Dubya's honesty ratings go down the toilet).

Pretty sad, Teribus, but you'd do yourself a favour if you'd show the intellectual honesty and intelligence to jump the sinking ship before the patent dishonesty of your position becomes so obvious as to permanently stain your reputation. Lots of folks are doing it, certainly the Democrats who have seemingly evolved a backbone, and now even Republicans who are more and more worried that they personally will be taken down in the sucking whirlpool when the good ship Dubya slips under the waves....

Point 1. The unilateral and unauthorised destruction of WMD weapons, agents and materials was forbidden under UNSC Resolutions and by the agreement reached at Safwan.

They did it right after the war. Maybe a bad idea, but it's a hard thing to undo (and kind of pointless to try). You really gong to hold it against them that they destroyed stuff in an unauthorised manner?

NOW COMPLETE WHAT DR: BLIX STATED IN HIS REPORT - but those results were inconclusive with regard to the amount destroyed.

Indeed. Which is why Blix had no problems with searching elsewhere to make sure none had been squirreled away.

The UN Security Council unanimously decided that Saddam's co-operation was essential to the success of UNMOVIC's mission in Iraq. FACT.

Once again, simply declaring somethign doesn't make it so. Perhaps you think that Russia needs to invade Iraq now to make sure that there's no WoMD hidden there, seeing as we never got the "co-operation" of Saddam in doing our survey. Maybe they can go do it "right" and trot him along and do it the way you insist. Then we can finally sleep peacefully, eh?

You really do have a perverse idea of the way things work in the real world. Or you're just intentionally intellectually dishonest.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 03:30 PM

Arne,

Does it really matter whether there were wmd?

Firstly, the 'reason' of wmd wasn't the real reason we invaded Iraq.

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. Name one credible organization that did not believe that Iraq had wmd before the invasion?

So I ask, does it really matter whether there were wmd?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 03:34 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 04:57 PM

My apologies I hit the submit button by mistake in that last post of mine.

Arne was telling us that he didn't have any trouble putting inspectors in. 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 - we should have left it to Arne, who no doubt can provide some evidence of his "pushing" to get inspectors into Iraq. But Arne said "we" now he could not have meant the likes of Jacques (The Crook) Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, Vlad Putin, because with regard to inspectors returning to Iraq there was not a peep out of them between 1998 and summer 2002, not surprising they were making too much money out of Saddam. It was GWB that got them back in - The good Doctor acknowledged that to the UNSC and to the world's press.

Now I don't know what business or profession you are/were in Arne, considering your later mail possibly a vet, whatever, it seems to require a rather twisted brand of logic. You see Arne would have us believe that he, along with the UN and a whole bunch of allies go to war to drive an aggressor out of a UN member state that the aggressor has invaded and plundered. Having been expelled from that country the aggressor aggressor agrees to "Ceasefire" conditions formalised by The UN that requires in no uncertain terms that the aggressor does:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.

No sooner than the ink is dry on the page along comes Arne and tells the Aggressor not to worry, don't bother complying with B, D and F, as in the scale of things they could be considered immaterial.

Arne tells us that with regard to newspapers he takes everything he reads with agrain of salt. Not surprising when his font of all truth with regard to what is happening in Iraq is Aljazeere, that was one of two sites Arne linked to. 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 BBC News. Arne then must have read those links for he goes on to say - "Granted, I didn't find the explicit claims about the very high "Yes" votes in Sunni areas, but that may have been early reports; but these here indicate similar if not identical problems." - Well Arne in fact no they didn't, go back and read them, I know that you have problems with English Comprehension.

Arne....."The number of deaths is vastly greater than under Saddam's regime."

Well Arne Saddam was in power for a fair old time, depending on what figures you believe Saddam's 'average' per day in office amounted to somewhere between 154 and 282 of his own citizens. They of course are the ones who until recently inhabited over 300 Mass Grave Sites dotted around the countryside of Iraq.

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.

I am NOW quite prepared to accept that he didn't have them before. Nobody KNEW that AT THE TIME - but we do now, because the President of the United States of America made sure that he did not have them.

Yes the US Constitution took time to put together, what about The Declaration of Independence, upon which the Constitution is based, when did they go into print with that? It gave enough heart and hope for the people to fight and gain that independence.

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

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 05:39 PM

Well, I guess that I'll never get an answer from any Bush apologist about how many Iraqis Saddam was killing on a daily basis in the year leading up to the invasion... Seems all I get is an average which can be very misleading... It is entirely fiesable that he didn't kill anyone but like no one here know that fir sure... Alll they have is this average which is speread over how many years???

Okay, if we take the United States and want to do an average with the beginning time line being the day that Hiroshima was bombed and throw in Korea, Vietnem and now Iraq it might provide an interesting stat???

But lets firget stats fir now and go back to the summer before the invasion... Remember that dreaded August where Bush was beginning to try to sell the war to the American people and havin' to admit that it was a bad month to market a war??? I remember thinkin' that entire summer while arguin' with folks here, "Hey, even Bush ain't this dumb..." as probably most folks around the world were thinking as well...

Well come September when he got that big old war drum out it became apparent that the man was act5ually "mad" enough to do it and in that current of fear that he was gonna do it no matter, yeah, alot of countries came on board to support the inspections... Anything but a friggin' invasion!!!

And jsut as Hans Blix started making some positve progress and saying so publicly, Bush turned the amp up on the War Drum to 10 and drowned out all reasonable thought... He was gonna invade no matter... Yeah, he was gonna give his cheering section something to hoop and holler about... It was no longer about intellegence... But a testeserone and politically driven decision that had nuthin' to do with intellegence...

So, it's no wonder that evn today when I, or others, print the exact words of Hans Blix that folks don't remember it that way... Like, unless they were deaf and couldn't hear4 the incessant 24/7 pounding of the Wra Drum, hey, it was purdy hard to hear much of anything else...

But Blix said in his report to the UN, "the most important" aspect of this report is the Iraqi "cooperation"!!! Like what is so difficult with comprhending what the word "most" means here, folks... Most means exactly that.... MOST, fir gosh sakes...

And now the Bush apologists say that it is the anti-war folks who are trying to revise the story???? What a joke...

Bobert

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 09:55 AM

Amnesty International Report 2001 Iraq

Wolfgang

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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.

Ninevah and Diyala are each believed to have a slight Sunni Arab majority.

But results reported by provincial electoral officials indicated startlingly powerful yes votes of up to 70% in each.

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.

Saleh al-Mutlaq, a prominent Sunni Arab politician, alleged vote-rigging in Diyala, saying soldiers had removed ballot boxes and that there had been more votes cast than registered electors.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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,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 - 09:59 PM

Dear Geoduck. FUCK YOU!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 08:39 PM

Refresh... an' waitin'...

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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.