The WMD Cult

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Only YOU could say "Springer you bring no facts to this argument"...

Your rose colored, Elton John style, sunglasses have fogged over Old Boy.



You also claim to be an "Objective Observer of the whole sordid affair" BWAAAA!

OBJECTIVE? Your ONLY objective is to continually shout that there is a conspiracy in the Bush adminstration and some flight of fancy known a PNAC. To what end? To get a Liberal Democrat in office PERIOD.

What confounds me is you claim no nation, thereby releiving yourself of ANY RESPONSIBILITY or DEDICATION, very convenient for you. Must be nice being able to criticize and complain when you don't have to worry about being involved in the WORK that is the solution.

You ARE most definately a CULT MEMBER. The cult of rumor and innuendo, rabble rousing and bushwhacking. You must whack every bush (plant NOT the Pres.) you pass with a stick to make sure there isn't a PNAC spy watching you!
(j/k)

At any rate, I don't care if you think I bring relevent facts to this or not YOU simply are irrelevent in the US political field. You carry no currency here. You have no sway. I may only have one vote but it's one more than most of the America Bashers on the board have. I also carry influence with a couple hundred employees who are totally FREE to vote however they like with no reprocussions from me BUT do get the "other side" of the story from me.

In closing I woiuld like to thank the Bilderberg Society for my recent endowment which has allowed me to flourish.



[Edited on 10-5-2003 by Springer]




posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 11:34 AM
link   
"Saddam’s weapons: Claims that Bush misled are misleading"(October 5, 2003 | Editorial)
Link:
www.theunionleader.com...
(NOTE: will need to register)

Excerpt:
"DAVID KAY, the man the United States has charged with finding Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, issued his preliminary report on Thursday. In it, he said his team has been unable to find any biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. What does this mean? To begin, it means that the Bush administration is being honest with the American people about the outcome of the hunt for Saddam’s weapons. There was no obfuscation. Kay truthfully told Congress what he had and had not found.

The Bush administration’s truthfulness being very much the issue here, it has been informative to watch Democrats claim that Bush “misled” the American public about the threat Saddam posed to this country. On Thursday and Friday Democrats were falling all over themselves to proclaim that Kay’sreport shows that Bush was wrong when he judged Saddam to be an “imminent threat.” Those words echoed in Democratic soundbites from coast to coast.

Though the administration’s intelligence, or the application of it, may well have been faulty, the charge that the administration deliberately exaggerated Saddam’s threat is far from proven. And the charge that Bush wrongly determined Saddam to be an “imminent threat” is purely false. Bush never said that of Saddam. In fact, he took pains to make clear that the term did not apply.

Even the big media (surprise, surprise) have repeated the spurious accusation against Bush. New York Times reporter David Sanger wrote on Thursday, “nothing found so far backs up administration claims that Mr. Hussein posed an imminent threat to the world.”

It is ironic that the allegations of Bush’s inaccuracies are themselves inaccurate. In his State of the Union address in January, the President highlighted the intelligence assessment regarding Saddam’s illegal weapons programs — particularly noting facts that were verified by the United Nations. These included Saddam’s possession of “materials sufficient to produce 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin” and “biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax.”

There is no question whatsoever that Saddam possessed these horrible materials. Their existence was confirmed by the United Nations. The question is, what did he do with them?

Bush argued that Hussein was hiding them and that his past behavior was enough to conclude that he may give them to terrorists.

“Before September the 11th, the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained,” Bush said. “But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans — this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that day never comes.

“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would cometoo late.”

The President unmistakably asserted that Hussein was not an imminent threat — that his threat had not “fully” emerged — but that the United States must remove him from power anyway. The opposition party and its friends in the media know this, yet they continue to mischaracterize the President’s position.

Were President Bush’s dishonesty as sizable as his opponents claim it is, it would amount to but a fraction of their own."



Regards
seekerof



posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 11:42 AM
link   
It seems that we are all looking at a blackened forrest, as far as the eye can see, void of vegetation, trees smouldering. Some of us amidst the stench of a smoking deer carcas, are saying "there was a forest fire here." Others are saying, "you must be a member of the forest fire cult." "There is no evidence of a forest fire. Everything here has another explanation. Maybe there was a fire in the past. Look! THERE IS NO FIRE NOW!"

I think that we should continue digging up the roots. It may take a while, but, that fire may still be smouldering.



posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 12:27 PM
link   
"Chief weapons hunter says there are clues about anthrax and missiles still in Iraq"
Link:
www.nj.com.../newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?a0460_BC_US-Iraq-Weapons&&news&iraq

Excerpt:
"10/5/03 11:46 AM


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Weapons hunters in Iraq are following leads that point to the presence of anthrax research and Scud missiles still hidden in the country, the chief U.S. weapons searcher said Sunday.

David Kay told Congress last week that his survey team has not found weapons of mass destruction. But he argued against drawing conclusions, saying he can provide a full picture on Iraq's weapons programs in six months to nine months....."



regards
seekerof



posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 12:36 PM
link   
No WMD huh?....

Vials: A total of 97 vials-including those with labels consistent with the al Hakam cover stories of single-cell protein and biopesticides, as well as strains that could be used to produce BW agents-were recovered from a scientist's residence.


Still haven't found those "hamburgers" yet.......



regards
seekerof



posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Very good point. You are a research monster! I am glad to see not everyone is looking at this through "Rose Colored Glasses"...



PEACE...
m...

[Edited on 10-5-2003 by Springer]



posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 04:41 PM
link   
To the member who sent me this U2U:

"C'mon masked you were man of the hour a while back and you know the actual demonstrative properties of open policy propaganda, no? The only cult there is a possible group of idiots living somewhere we don't that still think spam has nutritional value and hiding under a desk will save your child from fallout at school. N. Korea is openly broadcasting their own program which remains ignored (possibly to avert the mass paranoia of a true threat) meanwhile, Iraq is decimated economically, politically and socially by all means implemented and not a damn sign? It was obvious to the world forthright that it was pursuit of oil and gain, war-machine establishment a la, 'coalition,' forces and yet, in the face of all these chaotic world changing events, until the day that people may face where one
truly must fight for survival, most people of the modern world have eyes bigger than the world, dig? Peace!"

Good thoughts, now public and still anonymous.

Yes, I agree, open policy propaganda is a far more apt description than 'cult'. The June article linking the dogma to the mindlessness of cult worship was a useful analogy, but not a reality.

Springer, yes, it remains correct that you have no capability to bring facts to this discussion at all. You can only attempt to reward others with plaudits who bring old material and disinformation to the fore in support of their own 'facts', while yourself, all you can provide is coloring crayons to color my avatar! What an idiot! It looks cool, by the way, but I don't need the rose colored glasses.

I am now convinced that you have no idea what a fact is at all. There is much spurious nonsense appearing on this thread - but I withdraw any notion that the members clinging to the "there are WMDs in Iraq" nonsense are part of a cult.

They are just hypocrites prepared to support lies and corruption because of their errant political beliefs.



posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Open policy propaganda?
Only if you believe everything that you are told or you deny it all, MA. The trick is to read in between the lines. That doesn't mean to say that you can believe everything that you are told by the coalition governments just as you can't deny all of the information that they provide.

I would agree with part of the U2U that you were sent - this is a fight for survival. But there are those here that would bury their heads in the sand and never take any action. The fact is that sometimes things have to be done that don't seem morally agreeable, but without action our societies in the West will eventually be too weak to defend themselves. It will be too late.

Sure, it looks like the WoMD threat in Iraq was nowhere near as large as most people originally believed but you have to remember that the issue was taken by the media and once embedded in the psychology of the masses made the major issue. To blame the coalition for creating a conspiracy is naive. The conspiracy was a creation of the people - not the governements of the West.

You call views such as mine "disinformation" and accuse me and others of being hypocrites, but where is YOUR proof. I don't see anything other than theories coming from you. You can take written agendas and twist them to say whatever you want them to, just as the supporters of the war can do likewise with the same information. Yet the facts are on the pro-war supporters side. Whichever way you look at it, your arguments don't have a basis in that fact. I'm not saying that you are completely wrong and it's obvious that your words are well thought out but I believe that you come from a postion where it is difficult for you to see what you don't want to.

If I were uneducated on the subject of the Middle East, unaware of their cultural, social, religious and political systems, I would find it difficult to argue with you. But I have spent many years looking in depth at the region. I have watched it and studied it. Not just current events but events dating back to the tribal systems from which the Arab societies have sprung. The fact is that something had to be done. Without taking action now, we would soon become so weak that whatever the threat we would never have the courage to deal with it.
War is never nice but we in the West now expect bloodless battles. If we even kill one of our enemy, no matter what he has or may do to us, we lose the will to fight him because we have been bought up in the West to regard every life as precious. We would continually turn the other cheek until we were fatelly injured. Our enemy does not think in the same way that we do. He will destroy us unless we act now whilst we still have time.

Now you may say that I am pushing the party line but I'm not American and neither do I support any political party in my home country. I swallow no propaganda, I believe that I possess enough facts to make up my own mind. My ambition is merely to survive. I have watched the Middle East region for the last 20 years on a daily basis and viewed a coming storm - something that we should have dealt with long ago. You may worry about corruption and lies but to tell the truth, that's what you should have come to expect from our governments long ago. But underlying these failiures there is a goal that still needs to be accomplished and whatever the distastefulness and deviousness of the politicians, that goal is more important than anything else. Left undealt with the consequences could have effects that mean that eventually we will be fighting for our lives individually just as your U2U stated.



posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Leveller

The proof I have submitted in this thread is the only proof that I need. The proof is in exactly what the Bush admin officials have said, when they have said it, what they brought to the table in terms of their own selective and fabricated evidence afterwards, and when they contradicted themselves on the basis of what they already rebutted.

That is just plain hypocrisy and lies. I don't even need a single weapons inspection to prove it, it is very coherently a set of lies within the admin's own arguments.



posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 07:44 PM
link   
For some reason you remain stuck on the WoMD issue when this was blatantly not the reason for going to war. The media and your own society told you that this was the reason, but I repeat yet again that this was never fully pushed by the US admin.

They went to war over 1441. Remember? Not WoMD.

Even so, one or two of your statements are aimed at the wrong people.

The 45 minute claim came from the UK government NOT the Bush administration.
The basis of this claim was founded on MI6 intelligence from a mole within the Iraq military.

Wether or not Rice believed there were no WoMD is a moot point. Explain the logic behind the UN inspections? Why were they there if they did not believe that there was a weapons programme? It leaves a gaping hole in your theory.
You don't send inspectors to look for weapons if you don't believe that they are there. And these were United Nations inspectors NOT US inspectors.

But why argue? You may call it watering down but as I've stated before, time and time again, WoMD were never the reason for war. They went to war over a breach of UN Resolution 1441 and the fact that the situation had to be dealt with because of the bigger picture.



posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Leveller

I am on the WMD issue because that's the topic.

If the reasons for taking a unilateral stand against Hussein/Iraq were other than the imminent danger of readily deployable WMDs (capable of being launched against an enemy in 40 minutes or less, and located at known places) then both Bush and Blair (and by corollary, any other idiots who bought into the effort on the basis of the same intelligence) have totally and deliberately misled their Congress or Parliament, and then their media and their populaces.

That is straight out criminality of the worst order.

Yes, I have posted many many times about the layers of onion that need to be peeled off to reveal the true cause of this war. In my opinion they are not being discussed on this thread, and nor did I anticipate they would be. Try "onion" in search and see what comes up, it's an analogy I started using a couple of months back.

I have no struggle understanding that the purpose of the war has nothing to do with WMDs.

That supports my point entirely.



posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
If the reasons for taking a unilateral stand against Hussein/Iraq were other than the imminent danger of readily deployable WMDs (capable of being launched against an enemy in 40 minutes or less, and located at known places) then both Bush and Blair (and by corollary, any other idiots who bought into the effort on the basis of the same intelligence) have totally and deliberately misled their Congress or Parliament, and then their media and their populaces.




The reason for war was the breaking of United Nations Resolution 1441. You were told of no other reason because they didn't need one. Everything else was just icing on the cake but the fact remains - Resolution 1441.
Even the UN reported that it was not being adhered to.

You took the WoMD issue and ran with it. The fact that it is the topic here only goes to show that you blew it out of all proportion.

And by the way, the Intelligence on the 45 minute claim came from a trusted Iraqi military source as I have already stated. This wasn't the first time this source had been used and it was trusted to be reliable at the time.
The fact that the intelligence may have been wrong doesn't mean that a criminal act was commited.



posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 08:24 PM
link   
As the US is not the UN, and the so-called Coalition of the Willing is not the UN, I don't think that 1441 is anything that resembles the 'cake' that the WMDs could be iced on top of, either.

But as Bush had no bread to speak of, let them eat whatever cake they can find, even non-existent yellowcake.

The war is criminal by international law. But then we might get into arguments about all wars being criminal anyway. I'll stick to my point that the lies, hypocrisy and selective and fabricated intelligence about WMDs were all both deliberately misleading and criminal in intent.



posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
As the US is not the UN, and the so-called Coalition of the Willing is not the UN, I don't think that 1441 is anything that resembles the 'cake' that the WMDs could be iced on top of, either.



All that proved was that the UN never had the balls to back up it's resolutions just as it never did with the other dozen or so others that Saddam flagrantly breached.
As members of the Security Council, the coalition enforced rules laid down by International Law and your comment that the war was illegal cannot be justified. In fact, the Attorney General of the UK stated that, in his view, the war was legal.
An opposite view has yet to find a basis in international law.

But I guess that you and I are gonna have to agree to disagree on this subject or we're gonna both end up pissing in circles for ever.



posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I'm still pissing in a straight line on this.

And at least you're able to piss, unlike some who having overcome their constipation but now have blocked urinary tracts and extremely painful passage.

There is no test of the appropriateness of a US occupation of Iraq that would be satisfactory to all.

But the grounds for that occupation were inevitably going to result in tremendous divisiveness as they are simply and extension of the criminal and corrup PNAC agenda being carried out by the neo-cons of this idiot administration in the US.

As was pointed out by Pilger, those in charge from the political end of the strategic plan for the current war effort were the same men affectionately regarded during the single term of Bush Sr as 'the crazies' - those whom the Republicans needed to keep at bay, but who have now surfaced as the idiot power brokers.

Temporarily, thankfully, but still doing immeasurable damage to their domestic economy and to middle eastern solutions.



posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Some unbridled 'foreign' (English) commentary on the animal that is David Kay.

Both the reports from David Kay, and this statement about him, must be taken with a grain of salt but it is always worthwhile to know the background and the angle of the person you might at any time quote as a provider of 'facts':


Survey Group head's link to arms industry
By Glen Rangwala
05 October 2003

For at least 10 years David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, has staked his professional and business reputation on the case that Iraq was a serious threat.

He was a frequent pundit on US television shows, making the case for regime change in blunt language.

He called the attempt by Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, to broker an effective inspections process in 1998 "worse than useless"; claimed in 2002 that Iraq was pursuing its weapons of mass destruction in order to bring about the elimination of the state of Israel; and said before entering Iraq that the Coalition would find not just a "smoking gun", but a "smoking arsenal".

Until October last year, Mr Kay was the vice-president of a major San Diego-based defence contractor, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), co-ordinating its homeland security and counter-terrorism initiatives. It was while he held this role that he claimed that Iraq could launch terrorist attacks on the US mainland.

SAIC was in the headlines earlier this year when it was revealed that the US government had given it a contract three years ago to produce mobile biological vans for training purposes. Until February SAIC's corporate vice-president was Christopher Ryan Henry, now a senior policy official at the Pentagon.

SAIC's spokesman acknowledged earlier this year that the company is deeply involved in the current war in Iraq, including its role in leading a $650m contract for services and support for the US army. Among other activities, the company runs the US-funded radio station in Umm Qasr, "Voice of the New Iraq", and helps to provide senior advisers to the US occupation authorities in Baghdad. It is not known if Mr Kay retains financial interests in SAIC.


(We've had threads on SAIC before obviously, because they smell bad.)



posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Here's another gripe I have; "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

WWD's are nuclear weapons, not all special weapons. While nuclear weapons are special weapons, not all special weapons are weapons of mass destruction.

I just had to get that off my chest. Having spent alot of time with special weapons, all this "WMD" B.S. finally got under my skin.

WMD's are glorious inventions, chem/bio weapons are not.



posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 09:15 PM
link   
TC

I believe you are absolutely right.

WMD was a term selected to conjure up menace and fear and paranoia as part of the Bush/PNAC warmongering & marketing campaign. It means something quite different to the person on the street (if it means much at all, other than a reason to be suspicious and hateful) to what it means to an individual with military training.

WMD is a good marketing brand.



posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Seeker of:
Umm wasn't resolution 1441 about disarming Saddam of WMD's? For the public at least this war was clearly made out to be about WMD's.



posted by Tassadar
The means did justify the ends. Get over it.


The ends cannot justify the means for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced.

Aldous Huxley




Some people here really need to get a sense of perspective concerning Iraq.
Iraq has, was and is made out to be the international bogeyman concerning terrorism. I can tell you that if you look at countries like Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and reports on those countries you will find extremely easily accessible chemical and biological weapons than were even alluded to in Iraq. Some recent reports I’ve read from investigative journalists found many biological weapons from botulism to anthrax stored in nothing more than a common kitchen fridge in many sites across Uzbekistan. The report by the weapons commission in Iraq said that they have found one vial. I repeat, one vialof a banned biological substance in the home of a scientist. As for the program to create missiles 100km or so over the U.N remit, don't make me laugh. That would have been a threat to the west? There is no doubt that Iraq once possessed forms of WMD, but there is little evidence to suggest there existence in any large numbers since 1991. (*sticks on old record*) Yes Saddam was evil etc etc, but that is precisely the point. They knew that the public’s perception of Iraq was unequivocally of an evil regime, something that tells them that resistance to an Iraq invasion would be low. We have 9/11, which in itself creates a feeling and need for revenge amongst Americans which needs to be sated. We have a Government only too willing to please and appease. We have a motion written up ten years ago by the top members of the current admin advocating invasion and regime change in Iraq, where WMD's is not given as a major consideration. (We also have regime change being against international law as a reason for war, one of the main reasons why the invasion is being so staunchly defended) We have senior members of the Admin outside of those who penned this motion who state that the policy of containment was working in Iraq and that there WMD's and threat to anyone outside Iraq was negligible.
We also have this from Paul Wolfowitz:

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason."

The main reason was the OPEC Issue, appeasement of American hurt and the Psychological base need for revenge.

We had the run up to war where we were told that Iraq possessed the capability to be a direct threat to the west. We were told that Iraq had huge stockpiles of WMDs and were prepared to use them. It was also alluded to, (and taken up by no less than 70% of the American public), that Iraq had a major part to play in 9/11. We were told that a major reason for the wars importance was to prevent WMD's falling into terrorists hands; Such an important reason was this that after occupation the known toxic and nuclear storage sites of Iraq were left with absolutely no guard and no protection. Looting of these sites soon commenced. It is now far easier for toxic or nuclear materials to fall into terrorist’s hands than it ever was under Saddam. The U.S states that it does not have enough manpower to protect these sites.

We had lots of presentations with lots of lovely graphs and images of the exact sites of Saddams alleged toys. Anyone remember those? Donald Rumsfeld does:

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and east, west, south and north somewhat."


We had a country with unreliable oil reserves for the next half century or so, and therefore a threat to national security. We had an admin made up of millionaires, mostly with large ties to oil companies and big business with much to gain from the 'stabilisation' and reconstruction of Iraq.

We had a son with reason to complete his father's unfinished business.

We had the U.N that would have been prepared to sanction forceful action against Iraq if Hans Blix's weapons inspections had been allowed to complete, no least in light of the changed political climate after 9/11 despite all the '12 year' guff.. We had the U.S refuting this for reasons of pure logistics, too much of the ball had already been started rolling, and the temperature would have too great if they'd waited any longer. Not the mention the fact that it had absolutely nothing to do with wither Saddam possessed WMD's or not.

We had the international community refuting America's reasons for war, and a three country poodle squad 'coalition' created.

We had reports of weapons. Then we had reports of Programs. Now we have reports of capability to create a program to create weapons. What country doesn't?

We now have a mess.

And now we have, by anyone’s standards, a pathetic WMD report on Iraq's weapons capability. You may think that is an over simplification given Iraq's history, but take a look at the lawless dictatorial countries in the region and their biological and chemical capabilities in a totally insecure environment and then tell me this war had the slightest thing to do with WMD's.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war... That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Hermann Goering



posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 09:26 PM
link   
This is FUNNY.. YOU have provided ZERO, ZILCH, NADA BUT your own pntification of sheer and UTTER bull# that you have gleened from freaked out conspiracy loons and you have the audacity to tell ME I don't have any facts.

You have just become totally IRRELEVENT. Swim in it, bathe in it for all I care YOU, sir are a PUNDIT of caca.

PEACE...
m...

P.S. Glad you liked the avatar, I can't stop LAUGHING at it mydamnself...





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join