|
Post by BrainFade on Jun 10, 2003 18:27:10 GMT -5
LOL @ Sid!!!
Once again, a little piece of brilliance by Zapiro.
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on Jun 11, 2003 12:53:40 GMT -5
Bbcworldnews, wednesday:
Iraq had tried to get uranium from an African country (Niger):
Despite having no civilian nuclear programme. This claim was challenged by the UN's own nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It reported that the claim was based on forged documents.
Iraq had tried to import thousands of tubes which could be used in centrifuges to separate enriched uranium,
A claim made in the CIA file. The IAEA reported that the tubes could have been designed for manufacturing small rockets.
The 45-minute claim, made only in the British document. It turns out that this was based on reports from an Iraqi defector and was not supported by other sources. No evidence from the field has been found to support it.
Iraq had up to 20 Scud missiles of a range banned by UN sanctions. No such rockets have been found. Iraq was also accused of developing aircraft able to spray chemicals. One crude plane was found.
Iraq had mobile biological warfare laboratories. The US Secretary of State Colin Powell produced drawings of these, based on reports from a defector, in his presentation to the Security Council. Three vehicles have been found and provide the strongest evidence so far of illegal Iraqi weapons production. The CIA recently issued a report describing the vehicles, concluding that they were for biological weapons. However some experts say they could have been used to make hydrogen for artillery balloons.
Iraq "continued to produce chemical and biological agents" (British dossier). Iraq has "continued its weapons of mass destruction programmes" (CIA). The CIA also said that Iraq had begun producing agents which probably included "mustard, sarin, cyclosarin and VX". No such agents or factories making them have been found, though Iraq did have a capacity to make chemicals which might have dual use (that is, they could be used for both peaceful and sinister purposes).
The UN weapons inspectors reported that large amounts of material were unaccounted for following previous inspections, including anthrax, biological material and VX nerve gas. None has been found. Does it exist? Was it destroyed?
There were also claims from the United States that Iraq was harbouring known al-Qaeda agents. No clear link between Iraq and al-Qaeda has been established.
We all thought it was Bullshit...now we know.
s.
|
|
|
Post by RacerX on Jun 11, 2003 20:17:53 GMT -5
Wuff...I'm about to jump into the middle of this one. I read the first three posts & couldn't go any further...LOL.
Raptor22...you politely point out to Wyc, that he's justifying the killings of THOUSANDS of people...and then tell him there's no justying war. THEN in the very next breath you claim the whole world should declare war on the United States!
WTF?
So let me get this straight...there's no justifying war, unless it's against America & the American people who supposedly owe the world an apology?
Please...
...enough of that bullsh*t.
You know I love ya, but I call it bullsh*t!
Anyway, the mysterious WMD...LOL, all I can say to this is the following:
If you're calling Bush a liar about WMD, then in turn you have to call your very own UN liars, and the great one (brother Bill Clinton) a LIAR, and even Saddam himself a LIAR!
You see, ALL those poeple claimed Iraq has/had WMD.
Even the INSPECTORS claimed to have documented that Saddam had chemical agents, TONS of them...literally. There legitimate bitch w/ Saddam was "What have you done with them?" They couldn't see where these agents had been destroyed...
Here's a funny one for ya...
Since they haven't found any WMD yet, then you are all coming to the conclusion that there never were WMD...right?
Well then, I'd just like to add, that since they haven't found Saddam yet, then there NEVER was a Saddam!
LOL...Oh come on people, it's kind of funny, no? Go ahead, laugh....
Wuff, OK Rap...I pose the same question to you, as I do the few liberals I meet. You're condeming Bush's War on Iraq, and the removal of Saddam (whom we just proved earlier never really existed...LOL) becuase it killed THOUSANDS (to date, the figures I've read are around 4 thousand). THIS is a freaking JOKE.
(OK, the death of people is NEVER a joke, but follow me here...)
Bush is responsible for the deaths of 4 thousand Iraqis. Most of whom were MILITARY! Proven. Ask Srrh if you don't believe me.
On the flip side of that, you said political means "if followed" would have taken care of that. Well, I say then that you & people like you are responsible for the deaths of HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS then! By your own admission.
You see Raptor22, just WHAT has the UN & the World been doing with Saddam for the past 12 years? Yep, they've been doing it the pacifists way. They've been doing it the "political" way. In other words, they've been sitting on their collective arses, doing NOTHING but running their mouths, while HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of Iraqi's dies at the hands of Saddam.
NOT to mention the poor, innocent children whom were able to get medicine, or food, becuase Saddam took the Oil for Food program & spent the money on more important things...like his own greedy needs.
It's all a shame...but the man HAD TO GO. I think Hamas should be next, too. When you have a group of people who say: There will be NO peace until every Jew is killed! Then there's a serious WORLD problem. He wasn't talking about Sharon & the military & the govenrment of Isreal, he was talking about every Jew: women & children. You can NOT negotiate with these types of fanatics.
If they are wipped off the face of the earth, then I can only believe the earth will be a better place. PERSONALLY, I'd MUCH rather see them grow-up & learn to get along with other people. However, that's not looking too positive now, huh?
Wuff, rambling again, as usual...
Later, RacerX
P.S. This is not a personal attack on you, I just happened to see your post to Wyc from page one & then went on and on and on...
I really believe that the people here at SC would like nothing more than peace in the Middle East. I know I do. My problem is I see both sides of the reporting, and see alot of the fanatics wishing NO PEACE, but death. This frusterates the poop out of me, and then I come here & see BOTH sides & have to respond. I'm not venting at you, but at the news I've seen earlier. Since you're supporting the other side, I reply to you, but it's not ment to attack you. Is this making sense?
OK, and about this election stuff...(OK, OK, I'll save it for later...LOL)
See ya!
|
|
|
Post by RacerX on Jun 11, 2003 20:23:42 GMT -5
Srrh....
Hold on there fellow...
Uhm...the UN inspectors had ALREADY documented the chemical agents in Saddams possesion, waaay back after the end of the first gulf war. You know Saddam had them...
...how do we know this? Because he'd USED them previously on his own Iraqi people. OK, OK, they were Kurds & he didn't really claim them to be his very own people, but he gassed the living sh*t out of them: men, women & children alike.
Then again, since the US hasn't found any yet, it's obvious that it was all a lie. (sarcasm- with a BIG smiley face...LOL) ;D
...AND as I personally proved in a previous post, we all NOW know the real truth that not only did the WMD not exist, nor did Saddam...LOL!
You know I'm being crazy, so please: Stay being my brother, RacerX
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Jun 12, 2003 1:55:14 GMT -5
RacerX,
I see your point(s) exactly, and can agree to a certain extent.
I think the problem I have with the Bush regime is that they justified going to war against a country because they knew they had WMD and posed a clear and present danger to the people of the U.S. This is not the case. If their primary objective was to remove Sadam, then this is the argument they should have used. Instead the kept going on about how dangerous Iraq was to the US, how imminent the threat was, and they also managed to get a large number of people in the US to beleive that Iraq was very much involved/responsible for 9/11. Thus they gained popular support which gave them a sense of legitimacy to go to war. They lied in order to justify their war.
I'm not saying that their actual reasons to go to war were right or wrong, or that removing Sadam from power was not a good thing, but I very much disapprove of the way they justified the war and gained popular support. Had they been perfectly open about their objectives, perhaps the pupblic opinion would have been a bit different. Incidently they did not gain the approval of the UN security council to start their war...
Does it sound convincing to you to say that "we have some possible info that shows that Iraq has WMD, and are in the process of producing more. Most of this intelligence is at best dodgy, and some plain fake stuff, but we still beleive that there is a chance that some of it might be true."?
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on Jun 12, 2003 6:53:12 GMT -5
I think the problem I have with the Bush regime is that they justified going to war against a country because they knew they had WMD and posed a clear and present danger to the people of the U.S. I think it was more of a clear and present danger to the region not to the US.
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Jun 12, 2003 8:11:07 GMT -5
Yes but they presented it to the US public as being a clear and present danger to the US as well. They often stated that they had been attacked (which they indeed had, but not by Iraq) and it was necessary to take this action to ensure that no further attacks would take place.
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Jun 12, 2003 10:47:58 GMT -5
I kind of looked at Iraq as a country taht didn't live up to a conditional surrender. We gave them set guidelines, and the clearly broke them every step of the way.
Also, Clintonm parked a few aircraft carriers in the gulf becuase saddam didn't comply with the surrender. Saddam then said uncle claiming that he would comply. Then as soon as that aircraft carrier was gone, he went back to business.
|
|
|
Post by RacerX on Jun 12, 2003 20:41:32 GMT -5
Henrik,
True, so true...I think we've been misled about the WMD...however, I think Bush had about 9 points in his speech to the people, as to why Saddam had to go...WMD being one of the 9 points.
Sad thing is, he went, it's pretty much done, and no one's giving a damned about it except the Dems who're trying to prosecute the guy EVERY step he makes. It's OK, but it's making the Dems look a bit rediculous. About as idiotic as the Repubs looked when they tried to get Clinton impeached for banging Monica. Damned pathetic!
I think most of the people of this country are finally catching on, and it looks as though they're getting sick of this business as usual (attack the other guy) politics junk. The only problem I see is;
What other choice do we have? The Dems SUCK...the Repubs SUCK (though i think not quite as much as the Dems...LOL)...so who's left to save us? Are there any reasonable politicians left with some morals, values & good judgement that can lead us in the right direction?
The last time a 3rd party candidate had a legitimate chance, it gave us 8 years of brother Bill. I seriously doubt anyone will consider a challenger to the main two parties ever again. Who knows...
Wuff, in the mean time, we'll continue with pointing fingers at each party claiming "They're fault!"
Sh*t, it looks as though the Democratic party is literally putting their needs (regaining power) in front of the needs of the country. If that really is the case, then this country is heading for alot more trouble.
maybe I'm being a pesimist...(hope that's all it is)...but I seriously fear for my kids that are growing up. I wonder what kind of country they will inherit from this group of selfish (if it feels good do it) babyboomers. I hope my generation can turn it around some, before they (my kids) are grown.
Wuff...see ya around.
RacerX
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Jun 13, 2003 1:19:57 GMT -5
Hey RacerX,
You said:
But I thought YOU were running for POTUS! Please don't tell you have changed your mind. I thought there was still hope....
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Jun 25, 2003 23:29:33 GMT -5
The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned. The parts, with accompanying plans, were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel ERRR give me 10 years and i will be running for POTUS!!!!!!!!! My no BS style will make people say "OMG", and that boy says what everyone else wants to say, but doesn't have the balls to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Jun 26, 2003 1:48:16 GMT -5
Keep watching Fox news TC
|
|
|
Post by rick1776 on Jun 26, 2003 2:18:53 GMT -5
What was the name of that Movie in which the quote was: "Follow the money trail if you want to reveal the truth".
Well if we follow the money trail, what does it reveal?
We now have US controlled oil fields at a cost of say 2Billion. Pretty good investment of the money I would hazard to guess. The alternative would have been 2B in oil exploration with no guarantee of finding anything. On the other hand they new where certain deposits were, only trouble was that another country owned them. A small detail to some.
Saddam who? Is anyone in the US trying to find him? Just like Bin Laden, who? Is anyone looking for him? I suspect they both own condos in Florida. I could be wrong.
cheers rick1776
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Jun 26, 2003 4:41:25 GMT -5
Rick: you could be thinking of Donald Sutherland playing Mr. X. in Oliver Stone's JFK.
And if you want to "follow the money" check out this Kiwi site.
[ftp]http://www.frot.co.nz/sift/september11.htm[/ftp]
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Jun 26, 2003 6:31:58 GMT -5
Ahh i like Foxnews, but there are other news sources i look at. Actaully the only things i really watch on Fox is "the O'rielly factor" and "Hannity and Colmes". Now you could make a good argument for Mr O being rightwing, but i love his Clinton, and Jesse Jackson bashing. H and C is very balanced with both a very right and a very left wing host. What i dont like is the left and right wnig spinmiesters who talk thier party line becuase they are paid to do it, and do it no matter how screwed up teh message is.
10 years and I will be POTUS,
|
|