The Vindication of President Bush

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
So yeah Saddam was developing Nuclear weapons and the war was completely justified as he was a mad man.


So in your view, any country who develops nuclear weapons should be invaded? Why hasn't the US invaded Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, North Korea, Russia, or China?

Should the USA be invaded by another country? The USA has by far the most weapons of mass destruction of any country in the world. So according to your logic, the USA should be invaded, and if millions of Americans die, it is justified because Bush is a madman and was developing nuclear weapons.

People like you make me sick. These are human beings we are talking about. Taking someone's life, no matter how delusional your justification, is wrong.




posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 



Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.



see that?

this stuff is from the 80's.

Its like us digging up ol Mustard Gas from the water graves near europe and blaming Germany for a new round of chemical warfare.

This stuff was safe guarded and stored.

your attempt at 'vindicating' bush is as worthy as the vindication he deserves.

pathetically short!



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 



Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.



see that?

this stuff is from the 80's.

Its like us digging up ol Mustard Gas from the water graves near europe and blaming Germany for a new round of chemical warfare.

This stuff was safe guarded and stored.

your attempt at 'vindicating' bush is as worthy as the vindication he deserves.

pathetically short!


So what you're saying is Bush shouldn't NEED vindication at all because you just proved it was common knowledge among the Military, and UN inspectors that they DID in fact have this after all and had YOU read the msnbc full report, you'd know this stuff is so toxic it is going to take some years for expert technicians to clean the area where it was stored from now and into the future.

I'd say we owe Bush an apology afterall since you just proved again that he wasn't lying.

THANK YOU FOR PROVING WHAMMYS POINT EVEN BETTER THAN BEFORE!



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by freakyty

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
So yeah Saddam was developing Nuclear weapons and the war was completely justified as he was a mad man.


So in your view, any country who develops nuclear weapons should be invaded? Why hasn't the US invaded Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, North Korea, Russia, or China?

Should the USA be invaded by another country? The USA has by far the most weapons of mass destruction of any country in the world. So according to your logic, the USA should be invaded, and if millions of Americans die, it is justified because Bush is a madman and was developing nuclear weapons.

People like you make me sick. These are human beings we are talking about. Taking someone's life, no matter how delusional your justification, is wrong.


Their seems to be this goofy Idea that we should let all the people who want a nuke to have one. Having said that and using the law of averages knowing the probability for another new possesor of such a weapon and using it against us or anyone else INCREASES EXPONENTIALLY especially when they are people Screaming at the throngs of islamist extremists as soon as they get it they are going to glass this country or that one.

So yeah if ya got one now and no one has been whacked by it yet we are all lucky but BETTER LUCK NEXT TIME is that how you think!

Get clue, it's stupid to allow anyone we know we can't trust to have one if they havn't one already. ESPECIALLY when they are those we CAN stop regardless of the ones we can't the likelyhood is diminished nevertheless, or do you need help with the math with that one?



[edit on 22-10-2008 by MAINTAL]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf


As for the topic at hand, Bushes policies have wreaked economic and social devastation in more than three countries and he and his party should be held accountable.

By the By, Canada may not be perfect, but at least we aren't evicting our citizens at record rates.


Who is evicting our citizens guy? You mean the ones here illegally costing us more each month than the Iraq war and the war in afghanistan combined?? Those Citizens?

For your information, Bush didn't warn the Country and Congress once but 17 times to tighten up Freddie mac and Fannie Mae if anyone is responsible it is people like Bill Clinton Barney Frank and Barack Obama. Barack Obama and the democrats have crushed the economy in Illinois just like they will the country to establish once and for all Obama's worldview for a Socialist America. You can't blame the republicans on what happened in illinois because theoir aren't any in charge of anything

Its all the liberals, the President isn't the one that spends the money that way, it is the house and senate and so far the democrats have done even worse then the republicans did for the past few years they havn't done a damn thing but blame bush for everything. Wow real courage, real resolve

REAL PATHETIC


[edit on 22-10-2008 by MAINTAL]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


We went in because he was 'MAKING' and 'STOCKPILING' dangerous weapons.
Because he was in cahoots with Alqaeda.

Him having UN inspected and sealed yellow cake from the 80's doesnt fit either of those.

And like I said, If we declared war on Germany, accusing them of making Chemical weapons, and used old weapons from the 40's as proof, are you saying thats justified?

We also found mustard gas mortars in Iraq you know, a dozen or so, from the 80's.. why arent you mentioning those?

Why didnt Bush USE this yellowcake as evidence before the war?
Instead he lied about Iraq 'buying' yellowcake from nigeria.

This proves nothing, accept that idiots still infect this planet.
Your using Yellowcake from the 80's, that UN knew of, sealed and monitored as PROOF for all of Georges claims that Iraq was PRODUCING in 2002 chemical/biological agents.

Are you that blind you cant see the difference here?

[edit on 22-10-2008 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by InSpiteOf
 


Bushes policies wreaked havoc in three countries? What three?



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAINTAL
So what you're saying is Bush shouldn't NEED vindication at all because you just proved it was common knowledge among the Military, and UN inspectors that they DID in fact have this after all and had YOU read the msnbc full report, you'd know this stuff is so toxic it is going to take some years for expert technicians to clean the area where it was stored from now and into the future.

I'd say we owe Bush an apology afterall since you just proved again that he wasn't lying.


Yellowcake isn't a weapon of mass destruction. If it was a weapon of mass destruction then it wouldn't have been shipped to Canada to power their electricity. If what little we have dug up or found in Iraq was what we were looking for why did the Bush administration use faulty intelligence as the foundation? Why didn't they just say "We're looking for yellowcake from the 80s and old nerve gas we sold them"?



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by davion

Originally posted by MAINTAL
So what you're saying is Bush shouldn't NEED vindication at all because you just proved it was common knowledge among the Military, and UN inspectors that they DID in fact have this after all and had YOU read the msnbc full report, you'd know this stuff is so toxic it is going to take some years for expert technicians to clean the area where it was stored from now and into the future.

I'd say we owe Bush an apology afterall since you just proved again that he wasn't lying.


Yellowcake isn't a weapon of mass destruction. If it was a weapon of mass destruction then it wouldn't have been shipped to Canada to power their electricity. If what little we have dug up or found in Iraq was what we were looking for why did the Bush administration use faulty intelligence as the foundation? Why didn't they just say "We're looking for yellowcake from the 80s and old nerve gas we sold them"?


Canada has no interest in enriching uranium but IRAQ DID
and as for the rest of your post and the one above yours talking about what we did in the 80's has NOTHING to do with what they found in 2003! Both of you NEED TO READ THE REPORT!



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Him having UN inspected and sealed yellow cake from the 80's doesnt fit either of those.


This is inconsistent with the report guy. READ IT ! This 2003 where US soldiers found it 550 metric tons of it so if the UN inspectors knew where it was then WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST SAY SO!



We also found mustard gas mortars in Iraq you know, a dozen or so, from the 80's.. why arent you mentioning those?

Why didnt Bush USE this yellowcake as evidence before the war?
Instead he lied about Iraq 'buying' yellowcake from 'n-word'ia.


Because the mustard gas and the rest we knew about for one and for two, THAT AIN'T WHAT THE REPORT IS TALKING ABOUT IS IT!

NO it isn't! so why wouldn't I talk about the rusty rifles they found or anything else ! Because it wasn't what the article whammy has posted is talking about! Why don't I just talk about all kinds of OTHER bunk you would like me to derail the thread with so you can pull the alert on that?

Because I have seen this tactic used before by people like you

You want to talk about Bush saying he lied when OBVIOUSLY HE WASN'T!

If this is something they knew about in the 80's YOU say passed inspections then how could it have passed inspection when it was leaking!

this is not the same thing then is it!

Welcome to your infection


[edit on 23-10-2008 by MAINTAL]



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   
I dont quite think you understand


Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.


on the article posted by the OP, it clearly states that the yellow cake was known about and safeguarded by the UN.
It was PRE 1991.

That says, saddam didnt use, have access or create any more.

This is in no way, substance for the lies Bush told.
Bush said, quite clearly, Saddam was BUILDING and STOCKPILING WMD's

This isnt a WMD
He had NO production ability
He had NO weapons
This stuff was SEALED and SAFEGUARDED by the UN

im at a loss at how you can honestly believe America removing yellow cake, known yellowcake from the 80's morphes into WMD's created in 2002.

clearly your far past infection!

so, when Bush said in 2003 that saddam was building WMD's, he was lying.

Because:

A. This stuff is from the 80's
B. There has been 0, read it 0 evidence discovered in our almost 6 yrs of occupation
C. There were, are and is no production ability
D. The exiles who told us this, have since told us they lied.
E. Bush himself came out and said there was nothing
F. Chalabi has since told us he lied

I dont expect you to understand... your kind never does!
Im amazed though, its been a while since I saw someone posting on ATS
that saddam had WMD's and bush was right.!



[edit on 23-10-2008 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Iraq, Afghanistan and America!

... true aint it?



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


maintal seriously your way off here

read the posts above mine that i was replying too

youll notice a lot of sarcasm its a natural reaction when im told

a) it takes only 3 steps to make a nuclear bomb (none of those 3 steps even came close to being a bomb or anything other then what it already is a pile of redioactive material with no purposeful use)

b)apparently neuclear weapon plans are easy to find on the interent apparently and can be assembled by anyone aged 10+

look its old old stuff, he had no way to enrich it to make it worthwhile for anything, no warhead that can trigger it to make a nuclear explosion and no delivery method

yes he could have made a bomb with it after he brought smuggled in and used a few thousand crentrafuges to enrich it

had a team of weapon experts and scientists working for a year or so maybe, more to create a warhead capable of triggering a nucelear explosion (not as simple as strapping a block of c4 to the front

then creating a delivery system to deploy said explosive device

simply put he was bieng monitored to closeley to gain access to the ability to make this anything other then it was a pile of low grade nuclear material

yes good its been removed from the world at large but its a far far far cry from the weapons ready to go in 40 minutes and the silo's full of anthrax

at best this weapons ready to go in 2-3 years and we knew it was there the U.N. inspectors knew about it

and as for breaking U.N. sanctions israels in breach of almost as many and yes there are a lot of other countries in a similar position

its simply to little and way to late to even come close to bieng vindicating

if you went in search of Eldorado would it count as found if you found a gold coin on a cobbled street

**the dirty bomb forget it the only people who tell you thats anything worth anything is the media even the U.S army say its a useless weapon. its a bomb the only differance this bomb has is when the explosive goes bang it spreads a bit of fallout around that isnt strung enough to do any damage

in fact only 1 study said it was a viable weapon .... but when looked at more closley they assumed everyone stayed exactly where they were for over a year and that noone bothered to clear upo the fall out which also means no rain or wind

the size of crater it made is simply the size of crater the explosives make do it again with just the explosives and the same happens**



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by MAINTAL


Their seems to be this goofy Idea that we should let all the people who want a nuke to have one. Having said that and using the law of averages knowing the probability for another new possesor of such a weapon and using it against us or anyone else INCREASES EXPONENTIALLY especially when they are people Screaming at the throngs of islamist extremists as soon as they get it they are going to glass this country or that one.


It's so goofy, that it seems to be America thats decides who should have nucs and who shouldn't. When America is in every war there is.

Your been utterly pathetic.




So yeah if ya got one now and no one has been whacked by it yet we are all lucky but BETTER LUCK NEXT TIME is that how you think!
What age are you, 6?




Get clue, it's stupid to allow anyone we know we can't trust to have one if they havn't one already. ESPECIALLY when they are those we CAN stop regardless of the ones we can't the likelyhood is diminished nevertheless, or do you need help with the math with that one?
Who decides who trust's who.

Why America allowed to have nucs, when the American people were blown up by its own government on 9/11



Give me a break...............



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
After GBJr.'s infamous quote "mission accomplished", this is where we stand in Iraq:

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS (IRAQ): 4186
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED (IRAQ): 30723
IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS: 151000
'EXCESS' IRAQI DEATHS: 655000

I'm not the greatest at math, and I don't claim to be a huge humanitarian but....

We're still there, and the mission was supposedly accomplished in 2003? maybe there was a huge "Return to sender" stamp on the cake


Maybe he just wanted to have his cake, and eat it too


Putz is putting it entirely too nicely!



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by davion
As the article said the factory in Tuwaitha had old nuclear waste, reactors, and left over fuel from Operation Opera and the Gulf War. It had yellowcake that was under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that was, at the latest, dated 1991. Saddam had a French-made reactor in Tuwaitha in the 80s and people thought he was going to make weapons so we bombed the crap out of it along with Iran and Israel. How does that vindicate Bush when we stumble onto dated yellowcake that isn't even recent?

Wasn't the reason we went into the current war because we thought he was making weapons NOW? So stumbling on an old factory that had been bombed years ago isn't exactly "finding WMDs" unless of course you were grasping at straws.

[edit on 22-10-2008 by davion]


If I recall correctly, Bush attacked because US Intel claimed that Saddam could strike within 45 minutes. That whole story was such rubbish, it's honestly pathetic. See here: www.independent.co.uk...
and here: www.democracycellproject.net...
and there are lots more sources for the same all over the Net still. Nab it quick before the NSA rubs it out like they do all people, places and things that might interfere with US hegemony.

Doesn't anyone remember David Kelly? Think, people. Remember. Maybe this will help: www.guardian.co.uk...

As for the yellowcake or anything else they find at this point, I don't and won't believe it is a genuine find. I would sooner believe the US gov't planted it there. Any shred of trust I had in them is long gone.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mind is the universe
It's so goofy, that it seems to be America thats decides who should have nucs and who shouldn't. When America is in every war there is.

Your been utterly pathetic.


So you think we should let Iran build one? and then after they do what do you think Israel is going to do after they get bombed by one? Yeah perhaps we should just start selling them to other Governments that would like to have them too? I mean after all it's only fair right?

NOW THAT WOULD BE PATHETIC



What age are you, 6?



Oh you can tell I'm older than that because even a damn 6 year old is smart enough to know why we shouldn't let everyone have a nuke!



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop


im at a loss at how you can honestly believe America removing yellow cake, known yellowcake from the 80's morphes into WMD's created in 2002.


I never said anything about wmd's but if you think sadam didn't have intentions of making them, then you should read the transcripts of his last interview.


so, when Bush said in 2003 that saddam was building WMD's, he was lying.


A. This stuff is from the 80's


so what


There has been 0, read it 0 evidence discovered in our almost 6 yrs of occupation


the OP explains why that would be



There were, are and is no production ability


How do you know?



The exiles who told us this, have since told us they lied.


explained in the OP



Bush himself came out and said there was nothing


Explained why in the OP



Im amazed though, its been a while since I saw someone posting on ATS
that saddam had WMD's and bush was right.!


I never said anything about WMD's only that it could be used to make them



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by MAINTAL




There has been 0, read it 0 evidence discovered in our almost 6 yrs of occupation


the OP explains why that would be


no the op explains about how known material wasnt advertised until it was removed from harms way




There were, are and is no production ability


How do you know?

we blew them up they were never rebuilt and if we found them it would be safe to aknowledge them the ability to make without the resources to make are not a security risk and a bit of explosives stop them ever becoming one



Im amazed though, its been a while since I saw someone posting on ATS
that saddam had WMD's and bush was right.!


I never said anything about WMD's only that it could be used to make them


but the sale of the war was he had them not could have built them not had some of the parts to make them he had them built ready and armed and dangerous

we havnt found anything, remeber you cant find what wasnt lost or we didnt already know about

we havnt found a single thing the only thing the op explains is we picked up some stuff we knew was there and kept quiet about it till it was in a safe area

nothing new has been found or transported out of there why? shouldnt this known pile of old yellow cake on a ship been followed by ships containing the actually working nuclear weapons and the piles of anthrax and another ship for the anthrax delivery mechanisms and another ship with the uranium enrichment centrafuges and another ship with the component nuclear warhead parts

infact the only thing found has been a bunch of chemical delivery artilery warheads which were so badly corroded and damaged they couldnt have been used to deliver a chemical payload even if we had found some chemical warfare materia to put in them

this is the equivalent of invading germany during the second world war becasue the nazi's were taking over vast tracts of europe africa and the middle east and massacering millions of russians poles and jews in concentration camps and when we got there it turned out that the german amy had never left its borders had never built concentration camps or infact called anyone so much as a nasty name but pointing to a pile of wood and barbwire and saying look we found the proof they could have made concentration camps and exterminated millions

[edit on 24/10/08 by noobfun] - stupid quote within quote stacking im not in the mood to fix it sorry

[edit on 24/10/08 by noobfun]



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


Bushes policies wreaked economic and social devastation in three countries? Iraq, Afghanistan, and the US?

Friend, the Afghani's wouldn't know economic devastation if it smacked them in the butt. It's been an ongoing ****hole for decades. These folks are so economically backward, that there is no way possible to make their economy any worse! What they can do now in many areas is send children, including girls, to school for the first time in decades.

Iraq had it so good before the US pushed across the border. Things were so much better. Hundreds of thousands murdered by Saddam and his boys. Girls snatched off the street often never to be seen again. Mass graves all over the country. WMD's wiping out villages. Yep, I can see where your insight enabled you to come to this conclusion. And that's why I don't pay any attention to the rest of your posts.

And the US? Our Democrats in Congress began implementing affirmative action in housing. Now folks that can't make a car payment are in nice homes they can't pay for either. This is the same as housing welfare. Bush warned again and again that this should be changed, but that goober-smoocher Barney Frank continued this foolishness. And one other thing since you seem to have little grasp of how things work - Congress hold the purse strings. Not the President. Congress regulates. Not the President. The last two years we've had a Democrat Congress and a Democrat Senate, and all they've done is make things even worse.

Yeah. When historians look back at George Bush, it will be a favorable verdict.

I don't recall responding to you, but since you jumped in, my response. You might want to hit the books. Your opinions on the facts appear somewhat limited.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix is on-air in 4 minutes.
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP6

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def