NEWS: U.S. Officals were told before the war that WMD's would not be found.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I tire of this. All I am looking for is the proof of the claims you and others like you make.

Give me a break. The left wants people to think Bush is an evil death dealer with no consideration for anything and lies his ass off all the time.

The right thinks he's a fantastic cowboy who sticks to his guns and does what's right in the face of opposition.

I think both are bull# and mainly based on conjecture. Thanks for not proving anything yet again.




posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:19 AM
link   
The onus of proof lies on the poeple making the claims that Saddam did in fact have WMD. Which was our republican executive administration that sanctioned this military action.

Those of us that believe otherwise are validated by the simple fact that the reasons for the invasion have not panned out in the least. Theres our evidence right there.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:22 AM
link   
No you got it wrong this is how it is:

The left want the UN to take over the world so that the US can go back to being dictated too like it was in most of its history, oh and they can continue the internal destruction of America by the introduction of socialism.

The right want the US to remain strong or become stronger so it can avoid what the lefty socialists want.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone
The onus of proof lies on the poeple making the claims that Saddam did in fact have WMD. Which was our republican executive administration that sanctioned this military action.

Those of us that believe otherwise are validated by the simple fact that the reasons for the invasion have not panned out in the least. Theres our evidence right there.


I totally agree that there are no WMD, as of yet, in Iraq, and I am becoming wary that we will not find them.

The proof I ask for, is what makes it proven that "lies" occured. Is it not possible that out of all the Intellegence, which you and I are not privy to, the most reasonable conclusion would be in favor of Iraq having them pre-war? Of course it is.

WMD is not the only reason for the war, but rather a selling point, which of course is used for any war or military action. It's the politics of running a country with hundreds of millions of people to rally.

Again, seeker posted about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 signed by Bill Clinton.

Read Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 here

Although it states in section 8 that this act does not prescribe military action, it was pre-9/11 which marked a drastic shift in U.S. tolerance for nations of potential threat.

Being wrong does not mean telling a lie.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Being wrong does not mean telling a lie.



Fabricating intelligence, using fraudulent intelligence, selecting only supporting intelligence and screening out intelligence that finds against any case you want to support, is telling lies. Big lies.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Oh you mean like the media everywhere in the world does every single day all day long? Or the same thing I see going on all over the internet everyday too?

yeah that is a major crime and I think everyone should be made to pay!



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I tire of this. All I am looking for is the proof of the claims you and others like you make.

Give me a break. The left wants people to think Bush is an evil death dealer with no consideration for anything and lies his ass off all the time.

The right thinks he's a fantastic cowboy who sticks to his guns and does what's right in the face of opposition.

I think both are bull# and mainly based on conjecture. Thanks for not proving anything yet again.


What have you "proved"? You have spent most of this thread trying to show that I can't "prove" anything, yet you haven't done so yourself. What a joke.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by heelstone
The onus of proof lies on the poeple making the claims that Saddam did in fact have WMD. Which was our republican executive administration that sanctioned this military action.

Those of us that believe otherwise are validated by the simple fact that the reasons for the invasion have not panned out in the least. Theres our evidence right there.


I totally agree that there are no WMD, as of yet, in Iraq, and I am becoming wary that we will not find them.

The proof I ask for, is what makes it proven that "lies" occured. Is it not possible that out of all the Intellegence, which you and I are not privy to, the most reasonable conclusion would be in favor of Iraq having them pre-war? Of course it is.

WMD is not the only reason for the war, but rather a selling point, which of course is used for any war or military action. It's the politics of running a country with hundreds of millions of people to rally.

Again, seeker posted about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 signed by Bill Clinton.

Read Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 here

Although it states in section 8 that this act does not prescribe military action, it was pre-9/11 which marked a drastic shift in U.S. tolerance for nations of potential threat.

Being wrong does not mean telling a lie.


You believe that WMD will most likely not be found. Yet you don't believe that the government are liars. I could understand where you are coming from if this didn't generate some of the biggest protests BEFORE the war began.
Millions said before the war this evidence was crap, and that no WMD were out there. They said the government were liars. The government said this weren't true, and that they had the evidence and went to war anyway.
Now that it's too late we know that the evidence was suspect, and everyones pointing fingers at everyone else. Do you think all the millions who protested before the start were somehow psychic?
If the government were so sure all these millions of people were wrong don't you think they would've made sure the evidence was concrete first?
This isn't like something were everyone supported it and then afterwards the government realised they'd made a mistake. Most people knew it was BS, yet the government stone-walled them and did their dirty deeds anyway. They didn't even try to prove to the millions that it was a just war, because they knew it wasn't.
How can this not look like anything else but lies?



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   
What you say about the millions in protest before the war is true enough, but for the most part I can say that they were numbskulls hopping on the bandwagon.

There were legitimate protesters out there, but I am saying a large percentage were self-servers.

Here's the lineage of the Anti-War lemming.

-Vote for Gore.

-Get pissed after election is decided against you.

-Ignore possibility (note possibility) that Bush did NOT rig election and develop an inescapable hatred of Bush seeking to demonize everything he does (this is the big one)
-Bush makes policy to invade Iraq on "selling point" of the WMD.
-Protest the war, not because people think there are no WMD, but because "It's all about the Oil" or some other oversimplified catch-phrase. Thank communists for throwing another great rally for "peace"
-WMD info may be wrong. Automatically assume it is all a bunch of lies. Ignore any information from the Clinton era or from other Intelligence sources.
-Think that since another point to the war would be economic security, that it must be so the fat cats can line their pockets. Not that that will not happen, but come on, when has it not. It's basically a moot point.

I have no problem with honest dissention, but I loath these cookie cutter anti-war "protesters" who mimic every ultra-liberal who spews the unsubstantial arguments they take as fact.

Don't worry though, we have plenty of sycophants on out side too and they make me sick.

Here are some idiot lines from Conservatives that show the speaker is an utter moron (in the effort of fairness).

-You are Un-American - This is about as bogus as it gets. A true ignoramus uses this line.
-Saddam was a WMD - I am truly about to barf. Even if he was, it's just so trite and stupid to say that it boarders on retarded.
-You should support the president - Spoken like a true idiot. No one SHOULD support the president. It's a choice lined out in the Bill of Rights, and by the way, the founding fathers were fond of dissent. Those damn traitors.

There's more to be sure, but to continue would make my head hurt.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
What you say about the millions in protest before the war is true enough, but for the most part I can say that they were numbskulls hopping on the bandwagon.

There were legitimate protesters out there, but I am saying a large percentage were self-servers.

Here's the lineage of the Anti-War lemming.

-Vote for Gore.

-Get pissed after election is decided against you.

-Ignore possibility (note possibility) that Bush did NOT rig election and develop an inescapable hatred of Bush seeking to demonize everything he does (this is the big one)
-Bush makes policy to invade Iraq on "selling point" of the WMD.
-Protest the war, not because people think there are no WMD, but because "It's all about the Oil" or some other oversimplified catch-phrase. Thank communists for throwing another great rally for "peace"
-WMD info may be wrong. Automatically assume it is all a bunch of lies. Ignore any information from the Clinton era or from other Intelligence sources.
-Think that since another point to the war would be economic security, that it must be so the fat cats can line their pockets. Not that that will not happen, but come on, when has it not. It's basically a moot point.

I have no problem with honest dissention, but I loath these cookie cutter anti-war "protesters" who mimic every ultra-liberal who spews the unsubstantial arguments they take as fact.

Don't worry though, we have plenty of sycophants on out side too and they make me sick.

Here are some idiot lines from Conservatives that show the speaker is an utter moron (in the effort of fairness).

-You are Un-American - This is about as bogus as it gets. A true ignoramus uses this line.
-Saddam was a WMD - I am truly about to barf. Even if he was, it's just so trite and stupid to say that it boarders on retarded.
-You should support the president - Spoken like a true idiot. No one SHOULD support the president. It's a choice lined out in the Bill of Rights, and by the way, the founding fathers were fond of dissent. Those damn traitors.

There's more to be sure, but to continue would make my head hurt.


In the interest of fairness I have to show respect for you showing both sides of the coin here, you haven't flocked along with the rest of the sheep and actually thought about it.
I can't argue with someone who is aware of the facts on both sides and then makes his decision, that is all I ask of anyone, rather than people who just blindly follow something because they have been raised to do that, or are just plain ignorant.
By opening up both sides of the argument you have shown respect for me, and as a result I will show respect for you by voting you for the TWATS award.
Thanks.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I'm not sure what TWATS is, although I hope it's not the slang usage.

Yes, I hate the insubstancial bull# that goes on in my camp MORE than anything else.

Makes us seem like a bunch of lemming idiotic cowboy types who have zero compassion, respect, or information.

People in general just make me mad sometimes



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I'm not sure what TWATS is, although I hope it's not the slang usage.

Yes, I hate the insubstancial bull# that goes on in my camp MORE than anything else.

Makes us seem like a bunch of lemming idiotic cowboy types who have zero compassion, respect, or information.

People in general just make me mad sometimes


TWATS (The Way Above Top Secret Award)



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Ah, first time I saw the whole title, let alone the acronym



posted on Feb, 15 2004 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Why do you guys make things so complicated? Anyone with a brain knows the war in Iraq is about oil. WMD's was the cover for gaining support. The Bully exploits the weakling. End of story.



posted on Feb, 15 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Hahahahaha, Doll (aka house boy), do you know anything?

Or are you going to come in here and take on us all with pitiful and totally ungrounded vomit?

I think the latter is more likely. You can not help being distroyed by BOTH sides for lack of knowledge and insight, but at least try to put up a respectable fight before you leave crying.



posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Is anyone surprised?
I sure as hell am not. That's what I knew happened anyway. My momma didn't raise no fools.



posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 10:32 AM
link   
KrazyJethro: "What you say about the millions in protest before the war is true enough, but for the most part I can say that they were numbskulls hopping on the bandwagon.

There were legitimate protesters out there, but I am saying a large percentage were self-servers."


You say this because you were there?

I was at 3 Montreal anti-war protests before the Invasion of Iraq. The first one had 150,000 marching through downtown Montreal in -15 weather, carrying signs like "No War For Oil", "War is an Act of Terrorism", "Not Without UN Mandate", "Bush and Saddam, Brothers in Arms".

Self-serving? I really don't understand that. How exactly is it self-serving to get out on the streets and yell that you're mad and you're not gonna take it anymore. How is it self-serving to voice your opinion in your own democratic country to let your politicians know that THIS is what you want.

MILLIONS of people protested worldwide. Maybe a small amount of those were doing it for there own purposes (as in, to get some time of work), but the majority were there because they BELIEVED what they were protesting about. You don't march 3 miles to be "self-serving".


As for the WMD fiasco:

The US public was lied to. Told that "YES WE KNOW HE HAS WMDs". Powell went before the United Nations to state the case ("based on strong intelligence" haha) before the rest of the world.

Of course, the rest of the world didn't buy it. They still voted down the resolution to invade Iraq (1441 never sanctioned military invasion).

How do you PROVE that Saddam had no WMD? Simple.

You look around, and if you don't find any, chances are high that he didn't have them. You can't hide complicated biological and chemical weapons in an A-Team lunchbox. You need sophisticated machinery and electronics just to make sure nothing leaks or goes bad.

But after nearly a YEAR of searching, they have not found one iota of evidence.

Let me give an example.

The cops bust down your door one night. "WE'RE SURE YOU HAVE GUNS IN THIS HOUSE, WE HAVE INFO THAT YOU DO."

So they arrest you, rough up some of your family and arrest some of them too. They take over your house and act like it's theirs.

Meanwhile, they find no guns. But they continue to look. And WHILE they continue to look, you're still in jail, your house is still under their control, and your family is in danger.

They tell you "Well we're sure there WERE guns in here, but now that we're here, we realize you're a bad person and had it coming anyway. So we're staying."


Obviously not totally spot-on as an analogy (you would have to have a few mass graves in your basement, and the cops would have to have sold you some guns), but it's similar. Trying to prove a negative is a tough sell.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Hahahahaha, Doll (aka house boy), do you know anything?

Or are you going to come in here and take on us all with pitiful and totally ungrounded vomit?

I think the latter is more likely. You can not help being distroyed by BOTH sides for lack of knowledge and insight, but at least try to put up a respectable fight before you leave crying.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I live in DC buddy, I know all about protests, and the ones going on here.

I am not saying selfservers as in selfish, I mean that a good portion are there because they believe it to serve their own agendas.

There are a good deal of folks out there who do not read both sides, learn, keep an open mind, etc.

They are mad because Bush won rather than Gore. Therefore all Bush does is evil.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   
KrazyJethro,
I'm not a boy, but I believe you are. Why else would you be so quick to pick a fight?
By the way. you don't have to be a genius to have an opinon. Truth is a matter of perception. So go ahead and battle it out with the other boys. Give them everything you've got. In the end, nobody wins. Why waste your energy being hateful?





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join