Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

Really?

Research why Donald Rumsfeld was there that day - he was there to tell Saddam for his actions all civilian aid is cut off.

OHHH BURN...

Get out of here please.

Quoted from the page of the first website listed in the post you have tried to discredit

At the time of the visit , Iraq had already been removed from the State Department's list of terrorist countries in 1982; and in the previous month, November, President Reagan had approved National Security Decision Directive 114, on expansion of U.S.-Iraq relations generally. But it was Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Baghdad which opened of the floodgates during 1985-90 for lucrative U.S. weapons exports--some $1.5 billion worth-- including chemical/biological and nuclear weapons equipment and technology, along with critical components for missile delivery systems for all of the above.

I think you owe the guy an apology. You clearly did not read the site.

Thank you for backing me up! I appreciate it.

Stratrf_Rus:

I win. Those that want freedom win. You can't argue truth. You can throw up lies, threatening questions, raise tempers... but at the end of the day there is one problem you face: Man is inherently good. Man doesn't stay suppressed. Man rebels. Man ISN'T an animal no matter how hard you (the baddies) try to convey him as. Man is a spirit. And last time I checked, the spirit is capable of infinity.

We win.





[edit on 4-1-2007 by jaguarmike]

Originally posted by Muaddib

The problem is that back then he wasn't planning on terrorist attacks against the U.S.

Tell me where you can link me to Saddam preparing to attack the US prior to the invasion. Show me the bombs he had prepare the terrorist groups of Iraqis getting ready to strike our nation.

Marg, making comments like that only shows your contempt towards the administration.

Excuse me Muaddib, but you knew that a long time ago, Is my constitutional right to criticize my Nations elected leaders when they deviate from their role as leaders to protect their private interest and going on a war path with a nation for profits for the private interest they serve.

Are you afraid of the government? because I am not.

Is very clear that Saddam was once considered a friend of the US when it was to the best interest of the government that rule our nation, they didn't care about what he was doing to his people but as long as he was a friend and did what US wanted he was OK.

Our nation's leaders and government has a record of supporting, despots, feudal monarchies and totalitarian governments as long as the nations they rule are friendly of the US.

Are you going to denied that?

I find it ironic that now we have arm chair generals making claims that "it could have been done better".....

Yes if our elected government wanted to take Iraq it should not have lie and should have come clean on the purpose of the invasion.

Because how many times it has to be told that Saddam didn't have MWDs, and he was not an Al-qaida member.

If our president was smart he would have made a good job of that invasion, but guess what, when you do things for the wrong reasons and thousands of death are the result of your stupidity and mistakes . . .

We pay in this life for what we do to others.

And bush will go into history as a failure as a war wagging president.

Even his father was smarter than him.

Pity.

Originally posted by jaguarmike
Just because someone is in a position of power that does not make them absolutely right in every action and decision they make in their career. Our country started by not putting up with tyranical rule by the English and we created the greatest country in the world

I actually wanted just to clarify what you implied by "un englishness" (is that a word?) , and to clarify I'm a writer because well I like stories, and I'm not english I'm scottish so not really any skin off my back. I dont know the reasons your countrymen left england but I'm sure they believed them , even if I dont, but hey thats the past.
About this new nazi germany, doubt it, theres no where near enough resentment needed to start a facist state which oppresses its own, the masses are merely too strong to do it openly. To do it covertly is rather simple, why keep a slave when you can have a willing servant?

Ok- no I don't think it is a real word could be wrong.

It is covert- it's gross. Look at all the venues and fecets of society they have infiltrated... education, religion, finances, food, drugs, government, science... the list goes on for a while.

I think you all should go to impeachbush.com and sign up.





[edit on 4-1-2007 by jaguarmike]

GT100FV:

I agree with you. I think the most sane outlook on the whole situation is that it is good Saddam is out of power; he was a horrible person.

A lot of the "bushbashers" on this thread would agree that the reason he was taken out of power was not sincere as we were told.

The main reason being for oil, power, and control of the area. Basically summed up into: New World Order.

Bush has done many crimes and no one in the government seems to be addressing it fully besides Mckinney. Once a government stops applying ethics and relies more on agreement from horrible people and perks- you're falling without a parachute. The parachute is the "glorious" idea of the NWO, and this is why I guarantee hardly anyone is trying to raise warcrime alligations towards Bush: The goal they want is above party lines. This is the main argument. However, the parachute isn't good enough: man is good, not evil- and no matter how hard you try the pendulum will always swing the other way. The New World Order SHOULD be about freedom and all striving to create a paradise on earth... but it's just "dealing" with the circumstance... not creating real change. Capping itself off for man's unique abilities. This is why I used to be a NWO supporter since I was a child until I turned 16- I learned why it wouldn't work.

What do you have to say so far to what i've just summed up?


[edit on 4-1-2007 by jaguarmike]

Originally posted by jaguarmike
Ok- no I don't think it is a real word could be wrong.

It is covert- it's gross. Look at all the venues and fecets of society they have infiltrated... education, religion, finances, food, drugs, government, science... the list goes on for a while.

I think you all should go to impeachbush.com and sign up.
[edit on 4-1-2007 by jaguarmike]

Sorry mate but I think most peopel dont care, the UK has no buisness inside yankeeland and well we have our own problems.

so far all i got out of this is that some people think george bush should be impeached for lying and getting military personel killed lets think about this has there ever been a president that never lied or got a military person killed i myself doubt it and secondly them military personel are not forced to join they join out of free will so if we have gwb impeached or worse hung lets go back to abe lincoln and have him impeached for killing more u.s. citizens in one war than all the presidents have in all the wars



SEMPER FI

devilwasp:

It is your problem eventually... it's not "New American Order".

lonewolf3872:

Bill Clinton lied about his personal life and got impeached. I don't like Democrats, and I especially don't like neo-cons. No one should be attacking our Military- they are doing their job for us. One should respect the Military, they are doing a very hard job and ensure we are free and protected. The negativity is towards the admin., which has made negative decisions contrary to that of our Constitution, lied, and presented false-data. I'm assuming you are a Marine, please hear me: First, thank you. I have never been a Military basher- I have friends over there right now and one that just got back. Second, don't let anyone get the best of your honor and integrity. The Military is not at fault, it is the Administration that should be brought to justice via congress and the supreme court.

Originally posted by GT100FV

That 655,000 is completely out of line with every other estimate out there, by a factor of 10 or more.

8 years of the sanctions were during Bill Clinton's administration, yet I haven't heard his name mentioned once in any of these threads. He supported the sanctions, the bombing(Desert Fox '98), believed Saddam was a threat and had WMD, etc... If you want credibility as more than a Bush basher, you need to be even handed with your criticism.

I suppose Saddam living high on the hog whilst keeping necessities from his people was Bush and Cheney's fault too?

Oh common !!! Open your eyes man...

Go read some history or something... You don't know what your talking about...
And what WMD's are you talking about.. They still haven't found any..

You know what is wrong in this world, that's people not understanding what's going on, and supporting the devil to do his job.

If bush would be able to go for a next election, you would probably vote for him, not?

And yes I will bash his ass till the end of my days

Originally posted by buddhaLight

Oh common !!! Open your eyes man...

Go read some history or something... You don't know what your talking about...
And what WMD's are you talking about.. They still haven't found any..

So I can quote you that no Democrats, including Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, etc...believed that Saddam had WMD? You may want to read some history yourself before making such assertions.

"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002


"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

Frankly I'm surprised that partisan supporters of the administration have the hubris to even bring up the subject of Iraq's WMDs. Any WMDs that Saddam ever had were provided by Bush I, Rumsfeld & Cheney and any evidence that Saddam still had WMDs prior to the current invasion of Iraq was fabricated to justify executing plans made by PNAC even before Bush II was elected.
.

Originally posted by df1
Frankly I'm surprised that partisan supporters of the administration have the hubris to even bring up the subject of Iraq's WMDs. Any WMDs that Saddam ever had were provided by Bush I, Rumsfeld & Cheney and any evidence that Saddam still had WMDs prior to the current invasion of Iraq was fabricated to justify executing plans made by PNAC even before Bush II was elected.
.

Can you show me major news sources that provide evidence that George Bush Sr. sold Iraq WMD?

Just out of curiosity, seeing as how all major media lies. Then I'm presented with other sources that of course don't lie. What is the measure by which one arrives at the conclusion that one source is honest vs. another? Seeing as how the vast majority of the major media swings to the left(or far left), I seriously doubt they'd miss out on an opportunity to get the scoop on a story of that magnitude. I will take a look at the links though.

It would appear that the book- Arming Iraq stated that dual use technologies were able to make their way to Iraq, not that the US and Britain governments sold chemical munitions of any type(arty/mortar/bomb/aeresol). I'll take a look at the other links and give my thoughts.