The WMD Cult

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2003 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Jesus Tyriffic I don't know how many times I have to keep repeating myself on this board but I'll do just one more time and hopefully you'll get me this time. Ready...

I am not anti-Republican, I am not anti-democrat, I am not anti-liberal...You with me so far? Ok...

I AM ANTI-CORRUPTION. Every #ing government is corrupt and are lying murdering scumbags. ALL OF THEM!!! I couldn't give a # which party is in office, if they did the # that Bush Admin. is doing right now I would be kicking off just as much. Why do Republicans like you take everything that someone like me says as a personal attack on your party? I couldn't give a #.

I'm of the opinion that all government structures should be ripped down, and we hang all these bastards up by there balls for treason (well, the big two parties anyway).

How could I have a go at the Democrat party now? They're not even in office for Christ's sake!!! What would be the point of that? The only difference between the parties is that the Democrats say "Don't worry, we're not gonna # you" with a big smile whilst they do so behind your back, and the Republicans go "We are gonna # you, bend over and take it 'cause you haven't got a choice".

Here in the UK the Labour party are in office, a left-wing party, and I #ing hate them. So how could I be anti-conservative? Please don't pretend that you know anything about my political opinions. Fair enough?




posted on Oct, 4 2003 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada
Jesus Tyriffic I don't know how many times I have to keep repeating myself on this board but I'll do just one more time and hopefully you'll get me this time. Ready...

I am not anti-Republican, I am not anti-democrat, I am not anti-liberal...You with me so far? Ok...

I AM ANTI-CORRUPTION. Every #ing government is corrupt and are lying murdering scumbags. ALL OF THEM!!! I couldn't give a # which party is in office, if they did the # that Bush Admin. is doing right now I would be kicking off just as much. Why do Republicans like you take everything that someone like me says as a personal attack on your party? I couldn't give a #.

I'm of the opinion that all government structures should be ripped down, and we hang all these bastards up by there balls for treason (well, the big two parties anyway).

How could I have a go at the Democrat party now? They're not even in office for Christ's sake!!! What would be the point of that? The only difference between the parties is that the Democrats say "Don't worry, we're not gonna # you" with a big smile whilst they do so behind your back, and the Republicans go "We are gonna # you, bend over and take it 'cause you haven't got a choice".

Here in the UK the Labour party are in office, a left-wing party, and I #ing hate them. So how could I be anti-conservative? Please don't pretend that you know anything about my political opinions. Fair enough?


I did not call or assume YOU were of any party- I did not even know where you were until now JN. I made a minor point on the hypocricy we have here in our two party system and the passes given...

I assume you want anarchy. Let's rip down all government and let- oops!! No one to govern!! Chaos rules huh?
I got your point through all of the redirected shyte regardless and found it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. You offer no solution or alternative after you get done ripping down and hanging by the balls and such.

I am an American first and my party affiliation is actually Independent(registered) at this time- I am conservative in some respects and left leaning in a small number ofsocial areas. You can't pigeon hole me. I don't see throwing up my arms and saying" They're all corrupt!! Hang 'em!! We are powerless! Oh noooooooooo!!" This to me is true gutlessness. I can give a rat's intercourse about whining, sniveling complainers who assume a little knowledge goes a long way.
I can also see the corruption more so than you give me credit for- you have know idea how well- but I have made choices over the years and stand on ONE side of the fence: I don't lean on it and I don't STRADDLE it either.

War is hell. Death is no good. I stand by what I said: you bring those two things to my door, expect the same in return.



posted on Oct, 4 2003 @ 01:57 PM
link   
To all who have contributed, I say again, the FACTS are the FACTS. You are the judges.

I, along with Tyriffic, am an Independent politically, my entire post was based on facts that seem to destroy the theories raised on the back of Bush Bashing.

When you whole argument is so transparently "anti current administration" you become irrelevent to me.

I don't care about which party is in power, I don't care if YOU think they are corrupt or if YOU think they are saints.

I DO care about the facts, this country, and the people I love that have to live here.

It has been screamed for months on this forum that Bush LIED about WMDs. The FACTS have come out that in FACT there were WMD systems and facilities in Iraq.

Thanks to the UN Saddam had THREE MONTHS to clean up and hide, MA speculates that it would be impossible to do this, WHAT?! What the hell is that?! In three months, with enough staff and equipment he could have done it TWICE.

To think that there were no WMDs in Iraq flies in the face of reality.

I could NOT care less if they find "Ready to use" WMDs in Iraq. That's not the point. THe regime had them, stashed, and or destroyed them and cleaned up the facilities utilized to make them.

I also could NOT care less if Bush is vindicated or he isn't it's a moot point.

Those who continue to cry "Criminal Aministration" and offer no REALISTIC alternative remind me of chicken little ("the sky is falling"). To assume that this admisitration is anymore or less corrupt than anyother on the FLIMSY specualtive near science fiction level of evidence I have seen produced here is folly, IMHO.

Absolute Power corrupts absolutely, fact of life. Saddam Hussein had absolute power. Now he does not.

Looking at the cast of characters that comprises the Presidential candidates for the '04 election I am not impressed. I am certainly fearful of a couple of them geting into office.

Bottom line on Iraq is WE'LL NEVER KNOW for sure, NONE of US was there those last 3 months. Each and everyone of us present a hypothesis NOT a factual history of events. The hypothesis I present is based on my reading of the fcats of discovery as they have been reported.

PEACE...
m...



posted on Oct, 4 2003 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tyriffic

I did not call or assume YOU were of any party- I did not even know where you were until now JN. I made a minor point on the hypocricy we have here in our two party system and the passes given...

I assume you want anarchy. Let's rip down all government and let- oops!! No one to govern!! Chaos rules huh?


Well here's a contradiction in terms.


You do not make any assumptions of what my political agenda is and then "assume" I'm an anarchist!


Seriously though from the tone of your post I got the feeling you thought I was being aggressive towards you and so you were doing the same back. I'm sorry about that, I'm just a bit tired and pissed off of constantly explaining myself when I've done it on so many other threads so I apologise.

You say that I offer no solution to the chaos, well I didn't know that's what this thread was about so I will now.
My opinion is NO government that is created by the people can remain in power for a significant amount of time. No matter how good it may seem when it's constructed, after a number of years it will ALWAYS become corrupt. As the years go by they will tell a little why lie, and when they get away with that they try to see how much more they can get away with, and the more people let them the more corrupt it becomes.
It is my belief that no government should be allowed to stand indefinately. After a certain amount of time (say a century) that corrupt government must be torn down and a fresh government with fresh ideas from those times must be put in it's place.

That is the only way in my opinion that a government can truly represent it's people and move foward, if it is built by the people and rid of corruption.



posted on Oct, 4 2003 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada

You do not make any assumptions of what my political agenda is and then "assume" I'm an anarchist!


I'm sorry about that, I'm just a bit tired and pissed off of constantly explaining myself when I've done it on so many other threads so I apologise.

You say that I offer no solution to the chaos, well I didn't know that's what this thread was about so I will now.
My opinion is NO government that is created by the people can remain in power for a significant amount of time. No matter how good it may seem when it's constructed, after a number of years it will ALWAYS become corrupt. As the years go by they will tell a little why lie, and when they get away with that they try to see how much more they can get away with, and the more people let them the more corrupt it becomes.
It is my belief that no government should be allowed to stand indefinately. After a certain amount of time (say a century) that corrupt government must be torn down and a fresh government with fresh ideas from those times must be put in it's place.

That is the only way in my opinion that a government can truly represent it's people and move foward, if it is built by the people and rid of corruption.


John:

I am NOT attacking you personally, just your theory, I actually respect the passion you have for these matters if more people gave a # we might actually get some progress...

What you gave as an alternative would become ANARCHY without a doubt. You're NOT serious right? It's a joke right?

How in the HELL would you possibly maintain any security, social programs, armed forces, street construction, revenue collection, criminal prosecution, etc... If you had a revolution every 4, 10 or 15 years (100 years would be worthless corruption takes about two weeks to kick in)?!

The CLOSEST mankind is ever going to get to your theory is what we have right now, re-election of the C.E.O. every 4 years with a 2 term maximum.

The reality of HUMAN BEINGS is we are ALL corruptable. Some MUCH more than others but NONE of us escape corruption, sin or whatever you want to call it.

That being said there is no, nor will there ever be, "perfect solution". The MOST logical solution, IMHO is the liberatarian perspective, but I think it would fail because we have too many weak people in our society and that system tends to make it every man for himself leaving those in need behind which i don't think is right.

PEACE...
m...

[Edited on 10-4-2003 by Springer]



posted on Oct, 4 2003 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I wonder if the people that want to believe that there are no WMD in Iraq belong to a cult?

I wonder if the people that are in giddy glee at any little stumble that the US encounters belong to some cult?

I wonder if the people that attack others that at any time for even the smallest reason defend any action that the US takes belong to a cult?

I wonder if socialism is a cult?

I wonder if there are cults within ATS?

I wonder...,



posted on Oct, 4 2003 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Wonder no more! Join the cult of the "Linguistic Cannon Fodder" you know, those that wax on vainglorious about the whole crooked scheme...



PEACE...
m...



posted on Oct, 4 2003 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Being that this thread is 'for' those who still believe in Iraq having WMD....and being considered a cult in their mentality, etc.......why isn't there a thread started for those who fervently believe the oppposite....and being considered a the same....a cult?

Iraq WMD was only one of various pre-texts for war. I believe it was over-emphasized and was used wrongly by the administration. I will not go into details again and again, as I have one many myrids of other threads dealing with the issue of those WMD.

Here's how I see this whole thing...an analogy of sorts:
Let's say I accused you of grilling hamburgers.
You DENY it. I 'bust' in to your home and search and find the following:

instructions on cooking hamburgers...
ketchup
mayonaise
mustard
lettuce
tomatoes
pickles
hamburger buns
charcoal
a grill
used charcoal in the grill
a refrigerator

And on top of this, I have all your friends and neighbors telling me that you make hamburgers at your home, and that they have seen you do this. Does the fact that I have not found an actual cooked hamburger mean that you don't cook hamburgers? This is almost how conspiracy theories, in general, operate but we won't and don't look at it that way.....
It's "Hey! You didn't find the cooked hamburgers, thus your conclusions are bogus, based off the circumstantial evidences that you have....that weak...no proof!!" ........

In the matters of discussions concerning this, there is a "left-wing" view and a "right-wing" view...or however one may want to classify it. The matter is that information presented for or against Iraq having or not having WMD falls into these opposite camps.

What I find strange is how many are bashing this particular administration when in the past administration's, the evidences were documented, and documented from and by many various reputable sources. Its like everyone turns a blind eye to this and only has eyes on this current administration...Bush. Baffles me....and then the reputable sources, prior to this war, were just that: reputable....but since the war, etc., those same "reputable" sources are now considered BS or in colloberation with this current administration.....doubly baffling.


Example: Clinton....
"Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq"
Link:
www.cnn.com...

Excerpt:
"In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.


Further on:

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution."


And.......

"Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?...........If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors............Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors............If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era. That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the future I ask our allies to imagine.

If we look at the past and imagine that future, we will act as one together. And we still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren."



As to sources.....sources are presented either left or right....for or against....etc...
Example of this is with the New York Times:

"GEORGE W. BUSH'S JUST WAR
-- What The NY Times Doesn't Want You To Know!...."

Link:
www.iconoclast.ca.../newPage1.asp

Excerpt's:
"Case in point, the New York Times' headline blurb on arms-expert David Kay's preliminary report to the U.S. Congress, on his investigation of Saddam's WMD program: NO ILLICIT ARMS FOUND IN IRAQ, U.S. INSPECTOR TELLS CONGRESS.

Excuse me! No illicit arms found in Iraq? What about the following observation by David Kay in his report:

"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG [Iraq Survey Group] has discovered that should have been declared to the UN."
And just what kind of efforts at concealment of "non-existent illicit arms" (as the Times would likely refer to them) did Saddam and his cohorts engage in? According to Mr. Kay, they included the following:

1. A clandestine network of unmonitored laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment suitable for continuing CBW research.

2. A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials, who were working to prepare for UN inspections, were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

3. Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

4. New research on BW-applicable agents Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin, were not declared to the UN.

5. Documents and equipment were hidden in scientists' homes that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

6. Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

7. Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km -- well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. These missiles, with a 1000 km range, would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

8. Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain, from North Korea, technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles, 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
But wait, Mr Kay wasn't quite finished: "In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts," he continued, "we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence -- hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use -- are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts."

Of course, this preliminary evidence is probably the tip of the iceberg. Certainly, many intelligence sources (including the Israelis and British) believe that a year of pre-invasion haggling in the UN (as well an initial lack of vigilance by invading Allied forces) gave Saddam and his minions plenty of time to ship any particularly visible WMD materiel to Syria and other destinations. And others believe that Saddam's main intent, all along, was just simply to retain a scientific and informational infrastructure sufficient to renew his quest to finalize various weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear and biochemical -- just as soon as international pressure abated (with perhaps the election of another Democratic president).

And now, as yet another rebuttal to the wishful-thinking liberal fantasy that the Bush administration simply lied about the existence of biological and other WMDs in Iraq, take note of the following AP news report from the Hindustan Times on October 2, 2003:

KUWAIT CITY -- Kuwaiti security authorities have foiled an attempt to smuggle $60 million worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to an unnamed European country, a Kuwaiti newspaper said on Wednesday.

The pro-Government Al-Siyassah, quoting an unnamed security source, said the suspects had been watched by security since they arrived in Kuwait and were arrested "in due time." It did not say when or how the smugglers entered Kuwait or when they were arrested.
Chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq? Must have been planted there by the CIA. Or perhaps an example of spontaneous local Iraqi entrepreneurial initiative, now discouraged by the mean Kuwaitis and Americans. But a product of the pre-war regime of Saddam Hussein? Impossible! Anyone who reads the New York Times, Newsweek or The Nation knows that Saddam Hussein was a good-natured, peace-loving dictator who hated war and just wanted to be left alone to use the oil money he stole to build more opulent palaces, prisons and torture chambers for his personal enjoyment.

The moral of this entire story, then? Contrary to what the New York Times and liberal Democrats would have you believe, the Bush administration's war against Saddam was a just one. It was based on the assumption that Saddam had breached several UN resolutions against his creating WMDs that potentially could threaten Iraq's many neighbors, or end up in the hands of terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda (which would use them to strike at American cities). And it hinged on a realistic policy that assumed that unless Saddam himself were overthrown, this megalomaniacal dictator would inevitably return to the task of creating various biological and nuclear weapons (no doubt with the assistance of German and French commercial interests) once the United Nations, followed by the U.S., was put off the scent."


And as to those who supported this administration and the assertion that Iraq had WMD:

""One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
So now the Democrats say President George W Bush lied, that there never were any WMDs, and Bush alone took America to war for his oil buddies?"



But hey!......since those actual WMD haven't turned up labeled with warning label's saying or indicating "These boxes have WMD inside"......Iraq had no WMD...and thus....those who continue to believe that Saddam and Iraq had them.....its becuase of the "cult mentality and belief"....


I posted this on another thread last night:

""Kay revealed a scientist has come forward with a report of the WMD being shipped out of Iraq into Syria......Iran.....and Jordan before the war started."

Best I can say here is that sure it did!
"Therefore, any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.--PNAC letter to President Bush 9/20/01
Link:
www.newamericancentury.org...

Geez, those WMD sure do move around alot, don't they? Interestingly, it coincides with where ever the PNAC thinks this nation of states should be involved next. Be assurd they (WMD) won't be found in Saudi Arabia, I mean *cough, cough*...they are an "ally."

You have the UN, who not once, but 14 times claimed he had WMDs.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 4-10-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 4 2003 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Please read my post on page ONE about the same thing... It;s good to see great minds still think alike.


PEACE...
m...



posted on Oct, 4 2003 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

And on top of this, I have all your friends and neighbors telling me that you make hamburgers at your home, and that they have seen you do this.



Not only that, but there is actual proof that you forced your neighbours to eat some of those hamburgers and they went to an independant doctor who diagnosed their food poisoning.

Good post Seekerof.

See it doesn't matter to the doubters that Saddam DEFINITELY had WoMD. It doesn't matter to them that he DEFINITELY tried to cover up the fact for years and years, breaking over a dozen UN Resolutions in the process. It doesn't matter that he DEFINITELY used them against his own population AND against Iran. It doesn't matter to them that he DEFINITELY, actively pursued the means to make them. It doesn't matter to them that it has DEFINITELY been proven beyond all doubt that he had a WoMD program.
DEFINITES are pushed aside for MAYBEs.

All they want to see is what they want to see.

They're as bad as the very people whom they claim are ignorant.

And then to cap it all, they have this weird idea that WoMD were the only reason for going to war when they were told time and time again that there were more reasons. They cling to the fact that nothing has been found as if that justifies their whole argument.
The twisted facts are used by them more to collect domestic political points than put to any other use.

Cults are founded on beliefs. Not facts.
All of the facts prove that Saddam had WoMD. Whether or not they have been found doesn't matter. The FACT is that he did have them and nobody was able to tell otherwise.
The people who say that he didn't have WoMD base their theory on a BELIEF.

Definition of a cult: A usually nonscientific method or belief.

I would say the cult tag goes to the people who deny that there was anything there just because it hasn't been found. They BELIEVE without a basis in FACT.



But that's a moot point. As stated before: WoMD were not the only reason nor were they the major reason for invading Iraq. But tell that to the doubters and they won't listen - they'll tell you on one hand that they were and then in the next breath tell you that it was all about oil.

Logic flies out of the window in the rush for political point scoring.



posted on Oct, 4 2003 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Leveller,

great post, you said it better than I could have pal!



posted on Oct, 4 2003 @ 09:03 PM
link   

1. A clandestine network of unmonitored laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment suitable for continuing CBW research.
Once again as in past reports, equipment. Nothing more. Just like all the other finds.


2. A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials, who were working to prepare for UN inspections, were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
POSSIBLY. Please read the wording of these findings.


3. Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
Reference strains in a scientist's home. Not a anything regarding production. I'm trying to see this as a clear threat and I don't.

4. New research on BW-applicable agents Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin, were not declared to the UN.
RESEARCH. Again, read the wording.


5. Documents and equipment were hidden in scientists' homes that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
Like all previously found equipment. It was not in use and stuck away somewhere. Worthless.


6. Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
CAPABILITY. Concealing this fact isn't a cause for war.


7. Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km -- well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. These missiles, with a 1000 km range, would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
PLANS AND ADVANCED DESIGN WORK. Once more, please read the allegations. Worthless.


8. Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain, from North Korea, technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles, 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
CLANDESTINE ATTEMPTS. Not successful ventures.


If this is just the tip of the iceberg, what they found has proven to be nothing suggesting or warranting invasion and loss of life. If a prosecuting attorney did what was done Iraq in regards to a murder case, they would be in some seriously deep crap right about now.

This is not about partisan politics. This about doing what is just. There were already inspectors in there stating that there was nothing regarding WMD. Instead of the U.S. performing its own inspections first, they went in there guns blazing. Now there is one bloody hell of a mess and bill for the U.S. citizenry to pick up and a mound of dead that have illegal action to thank for their loss of life.

[Edited on 4-10-2003 by heelstone]



posted on Oct, 4 2003 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone


This is not about partisan politics. This about doing what is just. There were already inspectors in there stating that there was nothing regarding WMD.




Well, I don't know which news reports you were watching but every night before the run up to the war I saw Blix or Ritter stating that they believed that there were WoMD and that the Iraqis were hampering almost every move to find them.
Even when it was plainly clear that there was going to be an invasion and Blix was asking for more time he was still stating that Saddam wasn't co-operating.
Your statement that the inspectors were stating that there was nothing regarding WoMD is untrue. They stated that they hadn't found them because their efforts were being blocked.

As for being an unjust war? It's only unjust if you believe that WoMD were the ONLY reason for the invasion but as time and time again that has proven to be a false assumption this statement is also untrue.



posted on Oct, 4 2003 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
Well, I don't know which news reports you were watching but every night before the run up to the war I saw Blix or Ritter stating that they believed that there were WoMD and that the Iraqis were hampering almost every move to find them.
Even when it was plainly clear that there was going to be an invasion and Blix was asking for more time he was still stating that Saddam wasn't co-operating.
Your statement that the inspectors were stating that there was nothing regarding WoMD is untrue. They stated that they hadn't found them because their efforts were being blocked.
And blocking inspections is an act of war? Honestly. The Iraqis HATE the U.S. and U.N. because of what has taken place over the past 13 years. I'm still trying to put this into a cause for war.


As for being an unjust war? It's only unjust if you believe that WoMD were the ONLY reason for the invasion but as time and time again that has proven to be a false assumption this statement is also untrue.
And the other reasons being terrorist allegations? I've read through them all. None of the allegations have panned out. Completely stupid to go to invade a country without ANY proof of cause.

[Edited on 4-10-2003 by heelstone]



posted on Oct, 4 2003 @ 09:45 PM
link   
"Colin Powell to the UN, February 5, 2003:

The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world. Let me now turn to those deadly weapons programs and describe why they are real and present dangers to the region and to the world.
First, biological weapons. We have talked frequently here about biological weapons. By way of introduction and history, I think there are just three quick points I need to make. First, you will recall that it took UNSCOM four long and frustrating years to pry, to pry an admission out of Iraq that it had biological weapons. Second, when Iraq finally admitted having these weapons in 1995, the quantities were vast. Less than a teaspoon of dry anthrax, a little bit -- about this amount. This is just about the amount of a teaspoon. Less than a teaspoonful of dry anthrax in an envelope shut down the United States Senate in the fall of 2001.

This forced several hundred people to undergo emergency medical treatment and killed two postal workers just from an amount, just about this quantity that was inside of an envelope.

Iraq declared 8500 liters of anthrax. But UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. If concentrated into this dry form, this amount would be enough to fill tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of teaspoons. And Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoonful of this deadly material. And that is my third point. And it is key. The Iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had and we know they had."



regards
seekerof



posted on Oct, 4 2003 @ 09:56 PM
link   
What I have discovered in reading the contributions here of late is that some people have stretched the definition of 'facts'. At the very least most of us here are trying to use 'facts' selectively to justify our own positions, and not listen with reason to the other's position.

These are the most important facts (to me) in this case:

* Before 9/11, key officials in the Bush administration declared that Saddam had no WMDs

* the evidence used to justify the invasion of Iraq was readily deployable WMDs, an immmediate threat to the US - a complete contradiction, and with no evidence to rebut the admin's previously expressed position of less than 15 months before, except what was designed and fabricated through the OSP (ie selective intelligence and lies)

* statements since the invasion have attempted to water the warmongering talk down to weapons 'programs' and 'we had to be rid of Saddam anyway'.

The fact remains that after all UN inspections, and the eviction of the UN inspectors and repeated inspections by the occupying forces, there is nothing that matches what was suggested - the readily deployable WMDs. And remember there were none anyway, according to Powell and Rice.

No, springer, you bring no facts to the argument whatsoever.

No, Tyriffic, the end does not justify the means, at all.

And no, I am in no cult. I am an objective observer of the whole sordid affair, and remain so.



posted on Oct, 4 2003 @ 10:16 PM
link   
"Not one drum of chemicals."
Link:
www.fas.org...

"A man with a foot in multiple worlds"
Link:
stacks.msnbc.com...

Well known and respected Global Securities...
"Chemical Weapons Programs"
Link:
www.globalsecurity.org...

"UNSCOM and Iraqi Chemical Weapons"
Link:
www.globalsecurity.org...

"Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraqs proscribed weapons programmes UNMOVIC 06 Mar 2003" [PDF 1.42 Mb]
Link:
www.globalsecurity.org...
(NOTE: Will have to downlaod)

The whole kit and kabuddle.....
"Iraq Special Weapons Guide"
Link:
www.globalsecurity.org...

""Why We Know Iraq Is Lying"
Link:
www.globalsecurity.org...

Another very reputable site and information source:

"Dusty Agents and the Iraqi Chemical Weapons Arsenal"
Link:
www.nti.org...

"Iraq Special Collection: UNSCOM Photos "
Link:
cns.miis.edu...

"EUPHRATES 'POISONED'"
Link:
www.sky.com...

Here are some tidbit facts...circumstantial or not:
They had the weapons.
They were obliged to tell us what they did with them.
They lied in their debrief and were in non-compliance.
The US intelligence community pointed out where they had them played audio of officers of the Iraqi military discussing them.
Finds of arm caches so far have implicated France, German, and Russian complicity in having broken the sanctions imposed by the UN during the past 12 years.



regards
seekerof



posted on Oct, 4 2003 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I didn't seee your post prior to my last one MA...sorry...



regards
seekerof



posted on Oct, 4 2003 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone
And blocking inspections is an act of war? Honestly.



Um. Hate to rain on your parade but yes.
Or did you never actually look at any of those UN Resolutions? They specified that Iraq had to comply or face consequences.
Oh wait. We could have sanctioned them couldn't we? But we already did that didn't we? Wasn't that why the Iraqis hated the US?

UN inspectors saying that there were no WoMD? Then what the hell were they doing there if there were none? Why send people to look for something that you don't believe exists? (They were UN inspectors by the way, not US).

So let's look at your argument. We knew that Saddam was actively pursuing WoMD and that he may have been in possession of them yet we shouldn't have taken ANY action (including sanctions). Who cares though? As I previously stated WoMD weren't the major reason for invading.

Terrorist allegations? Well it has been proven that some groups in Iraq were terrorist organisations. Hehe. The US even backed one or two of these itself so there is no denying that fact. Who cares about what these organisations (and not just the ones in Iraq) have done in the past though? What is of more concern is what they COULD do AND what they are likely to do.

The US went to war on the simple fact that if it didn't act now, it would get screwed in the future. You could say that it is ONLY possible that this could happen but hell!!! Would you want to take the risk? 9/11 anyone? So Saddam wasn't directly responsible? No? Then who bred the people who flew those planes? Who gave them the hatred that fuelled their actions? We're not talking money or arms or even open support. We're talking about countries in the region which create a climate where people who take these actions are brainwashed from birth into believing that this is the course of action that they must take.

See, the problem with your view comes when you take the line that this was a personal war against Saddam or Iraq. It wasn't. It was a message to all of those nasty, horrible little Arab dictatorships that the US and UK are prepared to act pre-emptively to safeguard their interests.
When you have people flying aeroplanes into your skyscrapers because they have been bred on government doctrines of hatred, this is the correct thing to do. You have no choice but to educate the #ers or next thing you know you're going to have them walking into your backyard with portable nukes. Technology has advanced so far that this will be entirely plausible within the next couple of years.

Why do they hate you? Do you think the Iraqis hated you because of the sanctions? You make the mistake of taking the Iraqis as one group of people. It's not just the Iraqis who hate you. A large proportion of the Arab population hate you. Why? They're bred to. It takes their mind away from the miserable lives they have to lead. It focuses the blame elsewhere.
If they can't hate you for having troops in Saudi Arabia they will hate you for Israel. If not Israel they will hate you for involvement elsewhere - BUT THEY HAVE TO HATE YOU AND THEY WILL ALWAYS HAVE AN EXCUSE TO DO SO. It's the only way that their governments can survive and retain power. A government can take drastic measures against it's own populations if it is fighting an enemy outside it's borders can't it? Enough US posters here use the Patriot's Act as a reverse example of this ploy. If the Arab people ever wake up to the fact that it is their own governments who are keeping them down they will turn against them. Blame the infidels though, it's the easy way out and oh so convenient. Politics or religion - it doesn't matter. The attention has to be diverted elsewhere.


You overlook that fact that this invasion was made to send a message to the majority of the Arab population who are under the heel of dictatorships who use hatred of the US, the West and the Israelis (in fact anyone will do as an enemy, even each other at times) as a daily diet to keep their populations from turning on themselves.
The invasion of Iraq was undertaken to free a people from an oppressive, murdering government which thrived on instability in the region by the promotion of hatred. Whilst dictators like Saddam were in power there could never be any progress towards any kind of peace anywhere in the Middle East. Leaders like him always have to have an enemy and though he might not be able to directly hurt his enemies, he bred a climate where others could and did.

Changing that regime will hopefully either have a domino effect and lead the Arab people to freer societies which won't breed the hatred that threatens the US and it's Western allies or sends out the message to the other tyrants in the region that pre-emptive strikes will be undertaken if they don't get thier houses in order.

Sure, the US could have sat back and done nothing. Sanctions weren't working, the UN inspections were a waste of time and the hatred of a section of the Arab people (fuelled by some of their governments, radical churches and societies) had already resulted in the destruction of the WTC. I would have said that the POSSIBILITIES were endless. But none of them looked rosy for the West did they? Without action the consequences could actually result in something far, far worse than we saw in New York on September 11th.
The War on Terror isn't a war against terrorist organisations. It is a war on societies which breed people whose desire is to destroy as a byproduct of swallowing their government's excuses for staying in power.

A just war? Who cares about just? When you're talking about survival, justice is a luxury.



posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 10:42 AM
link   
It would appear that you are a member of the Cult of Truth and REALITY.

*does secret handshake with Leveller*

Well, my brother, I have to say that you rather nicely summed up the experience that is growing up in an Arab dictatorship.

Somebody posted a story about a 4 year old kid that we were helping who was spewing "Amerihate(c)" at FOUR YEARS OLD! While we were HELPING HIM... There is VERY LITTLE, if ANY, hope left for that region and its regimes of evil. I see many more parasite eradications coming down the pike.

To those who would wait to be blown up BEFORE doing anything about it I say, Go to Israel and get educated. What rational mind can possibly think this way?!

Once you are dead it's a little too late to save your family and loved ones. The whole "let's give them a chance operation" FAILED MISERASBLY for 11 YEARS and culminated in what we see now, 9/11, suicide murderers, building bombers, INNOCENT LIVES being snuffed out by DERANGED, WORTHLESS, NON PRODUCTIVE, NON CONTRIBUTORY human waste. What a shame.

To those who say this war was unjust I say, Go to New York City anmd spend some time with a Fireman who lost a friend/partner or a family who lost a loved one and ask them if we should give these types "a chance"...

The crybabies need to go to the bathroom and hide while we CLEAN HOUSE. We MUST eliminate the terrorist threat or Humanity will never get beyond our current level of intellectualism, technological status or anything else. How can we advance when we constantly looking over our sholder and expending resources (that should go into advancement) to protect ourselves from random apparently meaningless attacks?

I have a close friend who is the CTO of a major telecom hardware company, this guy is a certified GENIUS, guess what his awesome brainpower is focussed on? HOMELAND SECURITY... WHAT a WASTE... An absolutely necessary waste now a days because of these scumbags who would kill our children and our wives in the most cowardly way possible.

P...
m...






top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join