FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Urban Legends About the Iraq War





S3nd K3ys
...or:

"How the left is trying to re-write history".

Seems like every time I turn around, the left has come up with a new lie to try to accuse the administration of lying but have yet to provide ANY PROOF of said lies.

I'm waiting for the MSM to start carrying the story about how the attacks on 9/11 were carried out by the US government to start a panic.

From TheAmericanEnterprise web site.

TheAmericanEnterprise wrote:
Urban Legend: The Bush Administration in general, and the Vice President and his office in particular, pressured the Central Intelligence Agency to exaggerate evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.



Reality:
Here is the verdict of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s bipartisan Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq: “The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with administration policies on Iraq’s WMD programs, not a single analyst answered ‘yes.’”



Urban Legend:
The President and his administration intentionally misled the country into war with Iraq—and the “16 words” that appeared in the 2003 State of the Union are the best proof of it. In the words of Senator Ted Kennedy, “The gross abuse of intelligence was on full display in the President’s State of the Union…when he spoke the now infamous 16 words: ‘The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’… As we all now know, that allegation was false….”



Reality: On July 14, 2004—after a nearly half-year investigation—a special panel reported to the British Parliament that British intelligence had indeed concluded that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium from Africa. The Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by Lord Butler, summarized: “It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium…. The statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.”



In the U.S., the Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq revealed that the CIA considered it important that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.” The Select Committee on Intelligence also noted that the CIA reviewed and cleared the President’s State of the Union address....



Urban Legend: Helping democracy take root in Iraq was a postwar rationalization by the Bush administration; it was an argument that was not made prior to going to war. In the words of a November 13, 2003 New York Times editorial, “The White House recently began shifting its case for the Iraq war from the embarrassing unconventional weapons issue to the lofty vision of creating an exemplary democracy in Iraq.”



Reality: The President argued the importance of democracy taking root in Iraq before the war began. A February 27, 2003 New York Times editorial shatters the very myth the paper was perpetrating just nine months later: “President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [in an American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a ‘free and peaceful Iraq’ that would serve as a ‘dramatic and inspiring example’ to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East, and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time.” President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union made the same case….



Urban Legend: Saddam Hussein posed no threat. In the words of former Senator Max Cleland, “Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs, no ties to al-Qaeda. We now know that.”



Reality: Upon his return from Iraq, weapons inspector David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, said in Senate testimony: “I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein…. I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought…. After 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt…. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country.”

Dr. Kay’s report noted that, “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.” He concluded, “Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction…. Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to restart CW [chemical weapons] production.”



Urban Legend:
There were no links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.



Reality: The 9/11 Commission Report indicates that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan in late 1994 or early 1995 and that contacts continued after bin Laden relocated in Afghanistan. Iraq harbored senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda associate. CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (in a 10/7/02 letter), “We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade.” Senator Hillary Clinton stated on October 10, 2002 that Saddam “has given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.” The Clinton administration tied Iraq to al-Qaeda back in 1998, arguing that Saddam Hussein had provided technical assistance in the construction of an al-Qaeda chemical plant in Sudan….



Urban Legend: President Bush and his administration wrongly tried to link Iraq and Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks. “President Bush should apologize to the American people” for this “plainly dishonest” effort, insists a New York Times editorial.



Reality: Neither President Bush nor any member of his foreign policy team has ever said Iraq was linked to the attacks of September 11. On September 17, 2003, for example, in response to a question from a reporter, President Bush said: “No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11.”



Urban Legend: President Bush has shown an “arrogant disrespect” for the United Nations on Iraq, according to Senator Ted Kennedy.



Reality:
The administration devoted enormous time and energy to pass five separate U.N. Security Council Resolutions on Iraq, each by unanimous vote.... President Bush personally addressed the U.N. General Assembly in September 2002. The administration supported the work of Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. special envoy in Iraq, and a continued U.N. role in Iraq’s political transition.



Urban Legend: The President launched a “unilateral attack on Iraq,” to use the words of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.



Reality: The coalition that liberated Iraq ranks among the largest war coalitions ever assembled. President Bush in his 2004 State of the Union address: “Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq…. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.”



Urban Legend: Flights out of the country for members of the bin Laden family were allowed before national airspace reopened on September 13, 2001; there was political intervention to facilitate the departure of the bin Laden family from America; and the FBI did not properly screen them before their departure.



Reality: Here are excerpts from The 9/11 Commission Report: “First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.



Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals....



Third, we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights.... The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures. They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.”
TheNEC
Shocked
You don't think bush rolled in there because Hussein tried to assasinate his daddy??? Surely you jest....
S3nd K3ys
TheNEC wrote:
Shocked
You don't think bush rolled in there because Hussein tried to assasinate his daddy??? Surely you jest....


I'm not saying that had NOTHING to do with it. (If my job allowed me to get revenge while performing my duty, I'd be happy, too) But the idea to attack Iraq came before shrubbie's first election to President. Wink
Deji
S3nd K3ys wrote:
...or:

"How the left is trying to re-write history".

Seems like every time I turn around, the left has come up with a new lie to try to accuse the administration of lying but have yet to provide ANY PROOF of said lies.

I'm waiting for the MSM to start carrying the story about how the attacks on 9/11 were carried out by the US government to start a panic.

From TheAmericanEnterprise web site.

TheAmericanEnterprise wrote:
Urban Legend: The Bush Administration in general, and the Vice President and his office in particular, pressured the Central Intelligence Agency to exaggerate evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.



Reality:
Here is the verdict of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s bipartisan Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq: “The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with administration policies on Iraq’s WMD programs, not a single analyst answered ‘yes.’”



Urban Legend:
The President and his administration intentionally misled the country into war with Iraq—and the “16 words” that appeared in the 2003 State of the Union are the best proof of it. In the words of Senator Ted Kennedy, “The gross abuse of intelligence was on full display in the President’s State of the Union…when he spoke the now infamous 16 words: ‘The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’… As we all now know, that allegation was false….”



Reality: On July 14, 2004—after a nearly half-year investigation—a special panel reported to the British Parliament that British intelligence had indeed concluded that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium from Africa. The Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by Lord Butler, summarized: “It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium…. The statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.”



In the U.S., the Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq revealed that the CIA considered it important that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.” The Select Committee on Intelligence also noted that the CIA reviewed and cleared the President’s State of the Union address....



Urban Legend: Helping democracy take root in Iraq was a postwar rationalization by the Bush administration; it was an argument that was not made prior to going to war. In the words of a November 13, 2003 New York Times editorial, “The White House recently began shifting its case for the Iraq war from the embarrassing unconventional weapons issue to the lofty vision of creating an exemplary democracy in Iraq.”



Reality: The President argued the importance of democracy taking root in Iraq before the war began. A February 27, 2003 New York Times editorial shatters the very myth the paper was perpetrating just nine months later: “President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [in an American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a ‘free and peaceful Iraq’ that would serve as a ‘dramatic and inspiring example’ to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East, and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time.” President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union made the same case….



Urban Legend: Saddam Hussein posed no threat. In the words of former Senator Max Cleland, “Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs, no ties to al-Qaeda. We now know that.”



Reality: Upon his return from Iraq, weapons inspector David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, said in Senate testimony: “I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein…. I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought…. After 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt…. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country.”

Dr. Kay’s report noted that, “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.” He concluded, “Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction…. Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to restart CW [chemical weapons] production.”



Urban Legend:
There were no links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.



Reality: The 9/11 Commission Report indicates that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan in late 1994 or early 1995 and that contacts continued after bin Laden relocated in Afghanistan. Iraq harbored senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda associate. CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (in a 10/7/02 letter), “We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade.” Senator Hillary Clinton stated on October 10, 2002 that Saddam “has given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.” The Clinton administration tied Iraq to al-Qaeda back in 1998, arguing that Saddam Hussein had provided technical assistance in the construction of an al-Qaeda chemical plant in Sudan….



Urban Legend: President Bush and his administration wrongly tried to link Iraq and Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks. “President Bush should apologize to the American people” for this “plainly dishonest” effort, insists a New York Times editorial.



Reality: Neither President Bush nor any member of his foreign policy team has ever said Iraq was linked to the attacks of September 11. On September 17, 2003, for example, in response to a question from a reporter, President Bush said: “No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11.”



Urban Legend: President Bush has shown an “arrogant disrespect” for the United Nations on Iraq, according to Senator Ted Kennedy.



Reality:
The administration devoted enormous time and energy to pass five separate U.N. Security Council Resolutions on Iraq, each by unanimous vote.... President Bush personally addressed the U.N. General Assembly in September 2002. The administration supported the work of Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. special envoy in Iraq, and a continued U.N. role in Iraq’s political transition.



Urban Legend: The President launched a “unilateral attack on Iraq,” to use the words of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.



Reality: The coalition that liberated Iraq ranks among the largest war coalitions ever assembled. President Bush in his 2004 State of the Union address: “Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq…. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.”



Urban Legend: Flights out of the country for members of the bin Laden family were allowed before national airspace reopened on September 13, 2001; there was political intervention to facilitate the departure of the bin Laden family from America; and the FBI did not properly screen them before their departure.



Reality: Here are excerpts from The 9/11 Commission Report: “First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.



Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals....



Third, we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights.... The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures. They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.”


how is this news or discussion?


i think they where very careful not to lie outright to people, however they did miss lead the puplic about teh threat that Iraq posed.. they didnt have any actual weapons that where an immediate threat, and by the looks of things where quite a time away from even being able to develop weapons with any kind of range.


but its the past and we cant change whats happened however, the main thing i HATE is that this war hasnt actually changed anything for teh normal people of iraq there are still massive human rights abuses in the country and more of the infostructure has been damaged by the fighting.
S3nd K3ys
Deji wrote:



i think they where very careful not to lie outright to people, however they did miss lead the puplic about teh threat that Iraq posed......



I'm so tired of ignorants claiming Bush lied when they can't prove a ****** thing.

Post proof or STFU about it already. Rolling Eyes
SgtGarcia
There seems to be an endless discussion on this subject. You can say what you want about Bush, but you cannot ignore the fact that the US government mislead almost the whole world with presentations telling is how dangerous Iraq and Saddam Hussein were. They should have known better.
S3nd K3ys
SgtGarcia wrote:
... but you cannot ignore the fact that the US government mislead almost the whole world with presentations telling is how dangerous Iraq and Saddam Hussein were. They should have known better.


Rolling Eyes

Again, ignorants wander in claiming it's a FACT, yet fail to provide any proof.

If I'm wrong, show me and I'll shut up. Otherwise, well.. you know.

BTW, it's nice to see you so supportive of a person that murdered millions. Wink
52tease
S3nd K3ys,

Who are you and how much are you getting paid by the Bush administration to operate as propoganda minister?

Don't you ever get sick of spreading your lies, mistruths, and slanted arguments about Iraq on this board?

All I keep seeing, whenever there is a thread about the "lies on Iraq" or "offensive in Iraq successful", is your name.

It comes up way to often for me to believe that you do this solely for fun. If this were that much fun for you, why don't you have your own website where you can rant on this stuff all day long (as you seem to on these boards).

Better yet, create ONE THREAD on the same redundant, skewed, subject and stay there.

Go ahead. Tell me I'm avoiding the issues by not replying to your post. I don't care.

I have gotten so sick of reading your propogandist information straight from the GOP talking points I refuse your proposed, lopsided debate.
soilgrain
It doesnt matter how you try and spin it off... The war on Iraq was wrong. Not only that, Bush did declare that he was invading because of the threat of WoMD's. He lied to a nation. Possibly to the world... Don't try and make him seem innocent.

That being said... Saddam wasn't a nice bloke either..
S3nd K3ys
S3nd K3ys wrote:
..
Again, ignorants wander in claiming it's a FACT, yet fail to provide any proof.

If I'm wrong, show me and I'll shut up. Otherwise, well.. you know.
.


:crickets:

LeviticusMky
I'm going to lay this out:

1) Bush and Cheney, among others, bring the entire nation up to a boil with reports of Saddam's imminent threat to the United states, saying that he has biological and nuclear weapons programs, and that they KNEW, for a FACT, what where how and why these WMD programs that Saddam was promoting existed.

2) We invade Iraq pre-empitvely, without european support.

3) We Sweep through the nation of Iraq like a whirlwind, tossing the Iraqi military aside like a rag doll. Bush declares victory.

4) Months later, no major WMD programs have been found in Iraq. A few times, we are presented with what might have been weapons material, but the smoking gun is never presented.

5) The Bush administration backtracks. Fingers are pointed at the CIA for providing faulty information, Tenet gets canned. The right comes up with other explanations for the war in Iraq: "He was a bad man" "He was harboring terrorists" "We've liberated the populace"

6) Soldiers are still dying daily in Iraq.

The Iraq war is a mess. It matters not whether Bush himself lied, the fact of the matter is that we went to war because there were supposed to be WMDs there, and we found NOTHING concrete. Aluminum tubes and slightly radioactive material are NOT weapons programs.

Sure Saddam was a bad person, but he's a puppy compared to some of the african dictators and the problem in the east.
S3nd K3ys
LeviticusMky wrote:
I'm going to lay this out:

1) Bush and Cheney, among others, bring the entire nation up to a boil with reports of Saddam's imminent threat to the United states, saying that he has biological and nuclear weapons programs, and that they KNEW, for a FACT, what where how and why these WMD programs that Saddam was promoting existed.

2) We invade Iraq pre-empitvely, without european support.

3) We Sweep through the nation of Iraq like a whirlwind, tossing the Iraqi military aside like a rag doll. Bush declares victory.

4) Months later, no major WMD programs have been found in Iraq. A few times, we are presented with what might have been weapons material, but the smoking gun is never presented.

5) The Bush administration backtracks. Fingers are pointed at the CIA for providing faulty information, Tenet gets canned. The right comes up with other explanations for the war in Iraq: "He was a bad man" "He was harboring terrorists" "We've liberated the populace"

6) Soldiers are still dying daily in Iraq.

The Iraq war is a mess. It matters not whether Bush himself lied, the fact of the matter is that we went to war because there were supposed to be WMDs there, and we found NOTHING concrete. Aluminum tubes and slightly radioactive material are NOT weapons programs.



First of all...

Quote:
Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act
Iraq News, SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1998
By Laurie Mylroie


DOH! Shocked

In the course of locating seven weapons caches in a single block around a mosque in northeast Fallujah an Iraqi platoon found a suitcase full of vials labeled Sarin, a deadly nerve agent. While further analysis determined that the find was probably part of a Soviet test kit with samples, its discovery in a room with mortar shells appeared to indicate an intent to weaponize the material.

We have discovered dozens of WMD related program activities and equipment that Iraq concealed from the UN during inspection. Some of these concealments are: A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of biological warfare (BW) agents that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN. A systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, labs, and companies suspected of WMD work.

The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence are deliberate rather than random acts. For example on July 10 2003 an ISG team exploited the Revolutionary Command Council Headquarters in Baghdad. They found small piles of ash where individual documents were intentionally destroyed and computer hard drives also destroyed. Computers would have financial value to a random looter. Their destruction, rather than removal for resale or reuse, indicates a targeted effort to prevent Coalition forces from gaining access to their contents.

All IIS laboratories have been clearly sanitized, including the removal of much equipment and the shredding and burning of documents. In July 2003 a site exploitation team at Abu Ghurayb Prison found one pile of smoldering ashes from documents that was still warm to the touch. Because of endless delays initiated through the UN, Iraq had ample time to destroy or relocate their weapons of mass destruction.

We are finding increasing evidence that a WMD program existed that ranged from biological warfare to the manufacture of fuel for long range rockets which Iraq was not supposed to have in their possession.

Here are SOME of the stated reasons for going to war in Iraq:

Quote:

George W Bush speaking to the UN, 13 September 2002:

To suspend hostilities [in 1991], to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear to him and to all, and he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations...

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge, by his deceptions and by his cruelties, Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.


Quote:
United Nations Resolution 1441, 8 November:

Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions... in particular through Iraq's failure to co-operate with United Nations weapons inspectors and the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency].


Quote:
Mr Bush's State of the Union address, 29 January 2003:

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder...

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country...

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.


Quote:
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking on the BBC's Iraq: Britain Decides programme, 12 February:

Before we take the decision to go to war, the morality of that should weigh heavily on our conscience because innocent people, as well as the guilty, die in a war.

But the alternative is to carry on with a sanctions regime which, because of the way Saddam Hussein implements it, leads to thousands of people dying needlessly in Iraq every year.


Quote:
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, speaking to the press, 12 March:

The credibility of the UN is important to the world... The question before the United Nations is clear: Is Saddam Hussein taking this final opportunity that was offered by Resolution 1441 to disarm or not?

And the answer to the question, it strikes me, is increasingly obvious. He makes a show of destroying a handful of missiles; missiles which he claimed in his declaration did not violate UN restrictions, but now admits that they do violate UN restrictions.



Quote:
Azores statement by Mr Bush, Mr Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, 16 March:

Iraq's talented people, rich culture and tremendous potential have been hijacked by Saddam Hussein.

His brutal regime has reduced a country with a long and proud history to an international pariah that oppresses its citizens, started two wars of aggression against its neighbours, and still possesses a grave threat to the security of its region and the world.

Saddam's defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding the disarmament of his nuclear, chemical, biological, and long-range missile capacity has led to sanctions on Iraq and has undermined the authority of the UN.


Quote:
Mr Blair, speaking to the House of Commons, 18 March:

1441 is a very clear resolution. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has been for years in material breach of 17 separate UN resolutions.

It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate... Iraq has made some concessions to co-operation but no-one disputes it is not fully co-operating.

Iraq continues to deny that it has any WMD, though no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes them.


Quote:
Mr Bush's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, 18 March:

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament...

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological, or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfil their stated ambitions and kill thousands of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other...

Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorised to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction...

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power.


Quote:
Mr Rumsfeld, speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, 27 May:

It is also possible that [the Iraqis] decided they would destroy [their weapons of mass destruction] prior to a conflict.

xalophus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I'm so tired of ignorants claiming Bush lied when they can't prove a ******* thing.

There's enough proof, and you have seen it again and again.
Aren't you tired of your own denial ?


Quote:
Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and 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 just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. - Bush
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/wh/rem/17008.htm

He forgot to add one little detail, which his very intelligence agency reported -
Quote:
[Iraq’s WMD capability] was essentially destroyed in 1991
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
Tell me then, how could those 19 hijackers be armed by Saddam, when his WMD capabilities were essentially destroyed more than 10 years ago ?

He also forgot to add another little detail, which he accepted after the elections
Quote:
We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks - Bush

Tell me also then, why Saddam became "uncontainable" on or after 9/11 ?

One cannot fail to see through a lie for so long.
they can, however, still choose to blindly believe it's true.



S3nd K3ys wrote:
If I'm wrong, show me and I'll shut up. Otherwise, well.. you know..

:crickets:

lib
Ooooh, looky:
xalophus, posted on:
Quote:
Fri Dec 02, 2005

After xalophus, S3nd K3ys posted on...
Quote:

Wow, I guess you are a man of your word, S3nd,
S3nd K3ys wrote:
If I'm wrong, show me and I'll shut up. Otherwise, well.. you know..
S3nd K3ys
xalophus wrote:
...
Tell me then, how could those 19 hijackers be armed by Saddam, when his WMD capabilities were essentially destroyed more than 10 years ago ?


Against my better judgement, but I'll reply. Once again you skewed what was said and how.

Bush said:

Quote:
Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein.


Quote:
The Iraq Liberation Act

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998


Rolling Eyes

Still waiting for proof that he lied.
S3nd K3ys
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm

Quote:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998-Truth!
This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998-Truth!
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing.

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998-Truth!
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998-Truth!
This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.

"We 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."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-Truth!
According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998-Truth!
The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999-Truth!
This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies."

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine 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."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001Truth!
The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could find did not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it was signed nine other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman.
It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002-Truth!
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!
This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002-Truth!
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002-Truth!
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002-Truth!
Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Waxman's contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.

"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. 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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003-Truth!
In a speech to Georgetown University.
lib
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Bush said:
Quote:
Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein.

*Cough* propaganda *cough* spread fear *cough* make people imagine worst case scenarios... especially since these scenarios can only be imagined since Iraq's capability to construct WMDs was effectively destroyed in 1991
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Still waiting for proof that he lied.

Still waiting for you to realize that it's not likely that George Bush or anyone in his administration is likely to come out and say "Hey, you know what? We used the fear propaganda to win a second term... you're all suckers!!"
S3nd K3ys
lib wrote:
Ooooh, looky:
xalophus, posted on:
Quote:
Fri Dec 02, 2005

After xalophus, S3nd K3ys posted on...
Quote:

Wow, I guess you are a man of your word, S3nd,
S3nd K3ys wrote:
If I'm wrong, show me and I'll shut up. Otherwise, well.. you know..


BTW, I was at the desert this weekend. Sorry to disapoint.
xalophus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Against my better judgement, but I'll reply.

Trying to reason with Bush campaigners is always against my better judgement, but here I am at it again.


S3nd K3ys wrote:
Once again you skewed what was said and how.

S3nd K3ys DID NOT skew anything when he selectively highlighted three words and wrote:
Bush said:

Quote:
Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein.

Clever word play.
My turn ?

Bush lied -
Quote:
Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein.

Please keep in mind that he knew that Iraq did not have WMD capabilities anymore.
Also keep in mind that he did not (and still doesn't) have any proof that Saddam had anything to do with "those 19 hijackers" or Al Qaeda.

But I guess being a WorldNetDaily reader, paranoia is like a second nature to you.
And you are easily convinced if Bush tells you to imagine things.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Still waiting for proof that he lied.

Hoping againt hope that you'll ever open your eyes and atleast try to see it. Rolling Eyes
somnific
who armed saddam in the first place ?

who has given israel 3 billion dollars and more over the years to kill arabs ?
i_am_mine
I've been through several debates across multiple forums and I have seen that people arguing a point either tend to blatantly push forward there view point or distort and manipulate facts, you however, S3nd K3ys have a much more juvenile method.....you simply state that you cannot see the facts even when they are put forth for you.Much like a infant closing his eyes imagining himself to not be there.

Since you stronly distrust theories and facts put forth by the liberal media, I shall quote ONLY FROM CIA AND GOVERNMENTS SOURCES ONLY, NO LIBERAL MEDIA OR PRIVATE MEDIA SOURCES ARE QUOTED HEREIN.I hope typing all that in caps made it a little clearer

You may also download the following evidence/report from the Internet.The following is a copy (unaltered) stored on the servers of The University Of Michigan, a copy may also be obtained directly from the CIA Website ( Note:The CIA is not "Liberal Media" and since its formation has remained a Government Instt. whose members are not liberal pot smoking junkies, although I can't be sure about the pot ). Excuse me for my dry humor, but I couldn't contain myself.(Also: I thought the democrat donkey was nice, touche Smile )

Back To The Topic

Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD

# Volume 1 (52.5 MB)

* Transmittal, Acknowledgements, Scope Note (1.59 MB)
* Regime Strategic Intent (2.2 MB)
* Regime Strategic Intent Annexes (2.34 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 1-71 (11.6 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 72-141 (8 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement Annexes A (4.8 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement Annexes B-C (12.5 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement Annexes D-H (9.56 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement Annexes I-L (3.97 KB)

# Volume 2 (74.2 MB)

* Delivery Systems (14.1 MB)
* Delivery Systems Annexes (8.12 MB)
* Nuclear (12.6 MB)
* Nuclear Annexes A-B (7.32 MB)
* Nuclear Annexes C-D (3.87 MB)
* Nuclear Annex E (64 KB)
* Nuclear Annex F, p. 1-5 (12.4 MB)
* Nuclear Annex F, p. 6-10 (14.7 MB)
* Nuclear Annex G (2.2 MB)

# Volume 3 (71.6 MB)

* Chemical Weapons (8.7 mb)
* Chemical Weapons Annex A (7.95 MB)
* Chemical Weapons Annex B (8.8 MB)
* Chemical Weapons Annexex C-F (10.3 MB)
* Chemical Weapons Annex G (15.2 MB)
* Biological Weapons (10.5 MB)
* Biological Weapons Annexes (9.11 MB)
* Glossary (94 KB)

CIA Copy Here: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
Mich. State Univ Copy Here:http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html

The Above is Commonly known as The Duelfer October Report of 2004.The report, written by Charles Duelfer of the Iraq Survey Group and not liberal pot smoking junkie.

For the uninitiated the report states, by Intelligence Officers ( and not liberal pot smoking junkies ) the following points and their consequences:

1.Since the October report from Duelfer, which said Saddam intended to obtain WMD but had no banned weapons, senior administration leaders have largely stopped discussing whether the weapons were moved.

2.The U.S. intelligence community’s 2002 estimate on Iraq indicated there were sizable weapons programs and stockpiles. The officials said weapons experts have not found a production capability in Iraq that would back up the size of the prewar estimates.

3.Intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never “a piece,” — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.
(Please note man saying " a piece " was not liberal pot smoking junkie )


But then again Mister S3nd K3ys maybe the CIA are a bunch of liberal pot smoking junkies that aren't really trying to tell the truth ( now that they have to ) and this is all a conspiracy by the guys over there with the stupid grey donkeys that lost last time and are playing sore losers just because they couldn't get there own man on the President's seat ... right?

Oh and just to be fair the Duelfer report also highlighted the following fact about Mr.Saddam Hussein ( ! psst... he's in on this whole donkey people conspiracy against bush too, dontcha think? )

4.International pressure to lift the sanctions led to the establishment of the Oil for Food program, which Saddam immediately saw "could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange.

5.Saddam intended to obtain WMD but had no banned weapons.

Well there it is isn't it eh? He INTENDED. OMFG! He INTENDED !

Heres something, The DPRK - The Democratic Republic Of Korea ( a.k.a North Korea, another buncha lib pot smoking junkies, i betcha ) don't INTEND to have Nuclear Weapons....no Sir ! - They've already got 'em!They've got the Chinese on they're side too ! And lets not get started about those liberal Chinese shall we? I mean the Chinese THEY'RE SO liberal....they're COMMUNISTS ! But lets not bother the chinese, SO WHAT if they have the largest conventional army on the face of the planet...we wouldn't like to raise our voices against American Business interests would we? I mean that chopstick country is the largest American Investment destination.

Oh but wait, there's Pakistan too! Now thats a bunch of friendly people trying to help us out, specially that guy in the Army uniform...he must be from the army right? Whatsay? He's from the Army but he's taken over the country? Oh that's alright, he's helping you see, and we provide him billions of dollars to get out of extreme debt, they money which is actually used to provide support to terrorist organisations to fight with their "heathen" neighbours.Damn Libs ... Nuke 'em All I say !

And you said Bush went to Iraq not just because he THOUGHT WMD's existed in the country but also to get rid of the oppressive regime...what a nice guy!! I mean, nevermind the fact that Iraq's regime was nothing compared to that of Saudi Arabia, where Rape,Incest,Honor Killings,Murder is all good fun.Sounds like florida eh?But we don't want to liberate people THERE do we? No, no, the kings I nice guy ( oh I forgot to tell you, they only have a pseudo-democracy ), he helps us out with the oil, and he owns about let say 15% of our stock market (I smell lib conspiracy).

The Above hereby negates the following points you made previously in your section lifted from The American Enterprise:
Points Negated (Enquote):

1.
Quote:
Claimed Reality: On July 14, 2004—after a nearly half-year investigation—a special panel reported to the British Parliament that British intelligence had indeed concluded that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium from Africa. The Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by Lord Butler, summarized: “It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium…. The statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.”


Note:
The following Countries, by The Non-Proliferation Charter Of United Nations Are also guilty of seeking Enriched Nuclear fuels through inappropriate channels:
1.Pakistan [Status:Ally Smile ]
2.North Korea
3.Iran
4.DPRK
The following countries along the same lines can be found guilty for illegaly supplying Nuclear material to unauthorized countries/organisations.
Note:Supplier/Receiver format
1.China/Pakistan
2.Pakistan/Iran
3.Pakistan/Independent Orgs. [scary eh?imagine the YMCA getting weapons grade plutonium ]
4.China/DPRK

2.
Quote:
Urban Legend Proved To Be True: Helping democracy take root in Iraq was a postwar rationalization by the Bush administration; it was an argument that was not made prior to going to war. In the words of a November 13, 2003 New York Times editorial, “The White House recently began shifting its case for the Iraq war from the embarrassing unconventional weapons issue to the lofty vision of creating an exemplary democracy in Iraq.”


3.
Quote:
Urban Legend: Saddam Hussein posed no threat. In the words of former Senator Max Cleland, “Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs, no ties to al-Qaeda. We now know that.”


Hmm...kids...its on the blackboard...out loud now...CIA REPORT...gooood!Little Ben you get 3 stars...good reading !

4.

Quote:
Urban Legend: President Bush and his administration wrongly tried to link Iraq and Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks. “President Bush should apologize to the American people” for this “plainly dishonest” effort, insists a New York Times editorial.

Reality: Neither President Bush nor any member of his foreign policy team has ever said Iraq was linked to the attacks of September 11. On September 17, 2003, for example, in response to a question from a reporter, President Bush said: “No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11.”


You know you're right ( you might be ), he NEVER saiiiid anything, now come on why you treating the poor guy like that? He just went and killed a few thousand people right after September 11th, that doesn't look like a reaction to you does it?

5.

Quote:
Urban Legend: President Bush has shown an “arrogant disrespect” for the United Nations on Iraq, according to Senator Ted Kennedy.

Reality: The administration devoted enormous time and energy to pass five separate U.N. Security Council Resolutions on Iraq, each by unanimous vote.... President Bush personally addressed the U.N. General Assembly in September 2002. The administration supported the work of Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. special envoy in Iraq, and a continued U.N. role in Iraq’s political transition.


I say DAMN RIGHT! You passed those resolutions alright! WHO CARES if that most important one about going to war and killing poeple and destroying cities and releasing death showers....yeah THAT one, who cares if that never got passed!

Quote:
On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan the Secretary General of the United Nations called the invasion of Iraq illegal. He cited the lack of a Security Council resolution explicitly authorizing the war.


I say Kofi Annan's gone off his rocker an he's a lib pot smoking junkey whatsay S3nd k3ys ?

5.
Quote:
Urban Legend: The President launched a “unilateral attack on Iraq,” to use the words of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.
Reality: The coalition that liberated Iraq ranks among the largest war coalitions ever assembled. President Bush in his 2004 State of the Union address: “Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq…. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.”


Heh heh, you know that one's so funny, that I'm gonna give it to 'ya.Bulgaria,El Salvador....you got Siberia in there somewhere?Maybe the swiss with their pocket knives ( i gotta get me one of those ).What happened to the Security Council Members...you know the ones who've been given Veto power because they ACTUALLY have military power...you know like China with the biggest conventional army, or Russia with their nukes, or France with their legendary submarines, oh wait a minute they didn't join? oh so you mean out of of the 5 MAJOR POWERS only 1 came to your side? It must be a conspiracy I say, I mean it can't be that they actually saw that the war was illegal did they? That can't be.Damn lib conspiracy...damn donkey....


This post is getting too long.I'll cover the rest of your *ahem* legends in the next one.

Same place,
same time,
different weapons!

-Your loving Liberal Pot Smokin Junkie

P.S I think that donkey from Shrek...think maybe he's a Lib Democrat too?hmmm.....
i_am_mine
Got meself a donkey!


i_am_mine
I thought I was being a little unfair reducing those armies to dust with a careless stroke of my keyboard so I decided to let you know what kind of suppoer the United States of America got...

El Salvador

Military > Armed forces growth -60 [123rd of 135]
Military > Armed forces personnel 17,000 [96th of 173]
Military > Armed forces personnel (per capita) 2.53542 per 1,000 people

Japanese

Military > Air force personnel 45,600 [12th of 49]
Military > Armed forces growth -3 [77th of 135]
Military > Armed forces personnel 237,000 [20th of 173]
Military > Army personnel 151,800 [15th of 49]


Romania

Military > Armed forces growth 9 [61st of 135]
Military > Armed forces personnel 207,000 [24th of 173]

Hungary

Military > Armed forces growth -59 [122nd of 135]
Military > Armed forces personnel 44,000 [73rd of 173]

Poland

Military > Armed forces growth -32 [103rd of 135]
Military > Armed forces personnel 217,000 [22nd of 173]

Denmark

Military > Armed forces growth -26 [97th of 135]
Military > Armed forces personnel 22,000 [93rd of 173]

Bulgaria

Military > Armed forces growth -46 [115th of 135]
Military > Armed forces personnel 80,000 [45th of 173]

Norway
Military > Air force personnel 6,700 [35th of 49]
Military > Armed forces growth -28 [101st of 135]
Military > Armed forces personnel 27,000 [87th of 173]
Military > Army personnel 28,900 [36th of 49]

Netherlands
Military > Armed forces growth -51 [117th of 135]
Military > Armed forces personnel 52,000 [67th of 173]

XxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxUS Support List EndsxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxX

China
Military > Armed forces personnel 2,810,000 [1st of 173]
Military > Armed forces growth -28 [99th of 135]
Military > Conventional arms exports $3,100,000,000.00 [2nd of 68]
Military > Expenditures > Dollar figure $55,910,000,000.00 [2nd of 170]
Military > Expenditures > Dollar figure (per capita) $42.80 per person [79th of 169]
Military > Expenditures > Percent of GDP 4.3 [31st of 165]
Military > Tanks 11,000 tanks [3rd of 22]
Military > Weapon holdings 34,281,000 [2nd of 139]
Military > WMD > Nuclear

France
Military > Air force personnel 78,100 [4th of 49]
Military > Armed forces growth -37 [109th of 135]
Military > Armed forces personnel 294,000 [17th of 173]
Military > Army personnel 203,200 [12th of 49]
Military > Expenditures > Dollar figure $46,500,000,000.00 [3rd of 170]
Military > Expenditures > Dollar figure (per capita) $766.62 per person [9th of 169]
Military > Expenditures > Percent of GDP 2.57 [62nd of 165]
Military > Navy personnel 63,300 [5th of 49]
Military > Weapon holdings

Russia
Military > Armed forces personnel 1,520,000 [2nd of 173]
Military > Armed forces personnel (per capita) 10.5982 per 1,000 people [20th of 166]
Military > Exports to developing nations $19,940.00 million [4th of 7]
Military > Forces in Europe > Aircraft 2,358 [2nd of 25]
Military > Forces in Europe > Battle Tanks 4,982 [2nd of 25]
Military > Tanks 21,000 tanks [1st of 22]

Military > WMD > Nuclear


India

Military > Air force personnel 110,000 [2nd of 49]
Military > Armed forces growth 3 [67th of 135]
Military > Armed forces personnel 1,303,000 [4th of 173]
Military > Army personnel 980,000 [1st of 49]

Military > Expenditures > Dollar figure $11,520,000,000.00 [11th of 170]
Military > Expenditures > Dollar figure (per capita) $10.66 per person [119th of 169]
Military > Expenditures > Percent of GDP 2.3 [70th of 165]
Military > Navy personnel 55,000 [7th of 49]
Military > Weapon holdings 10,538,000 [7th of 139]

I got tired of highlighting everything.....
phew...
damj
Deji wrote:
i think they where very careful not to lie outright to people, however they did miss lead the puplic about teh threat that Iraq posed.. they didnt have any actual weapons that where an immediate threat, and by the looks of things where quite a time away from even being able to develop weapons with any kind of range.


but its the past and we cant change whats happened however, the main thing i HATE is that this war hasnt actually changed anything for teh normal people of iraq there are still massive human rights abuses in the country and more of the infostructure has been damaged by the fighting.


Hasn't 9/11 taught people anything?!?! Before 9/11, the conventional wisdom on aircraft hijacking was that the hijackers would land the plane and attempt to bargain. We didn't prepare for terrorists to use planes as a weapon.

We need to stop thinking in terms of conventional methods of delivery for WMD (ie; delivery via long range missle). Who is to say that a terrorist couldn't try to deliver a WMD via other means (ie; car/truck/subway).

It's so easy to downplay the threat of WMD's, but try standing in a mine field where nerve and blister agent mines had exploded. Then you will truly understand fear.
damj
lib wrote:
We used the fear propaganda to win a second term... you're all suckers!!"


Oh right ... because the democrats don't play the fear card either ... they just pick different scare tactics (medicaid, social security, environment, etc ...)
damj
52tease wrote:
I have gotten so sick of reading your propogandist information straight from the GOP talking points I refuse your proposed, lopsided debate.


Then stop reading it. Very Happy

I always get a kick out of how nothing bothers some people as much about free speech as someone who actually uses it. Laughing
damj
i_am_mine wrote:
I got tired of highlighting everything.....
phew...


Is there a point to all the statistics, or is it just a case of "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, blind them with bulls#@t" ?!?

The danger of WMD's is that they are UNCONVENTIONAL threats carried out by non-state entities. You don't need an entire army to detonate a small WMD in a crowded area. The weapon doesn't even need to be that powerful, a paniced stampede alone could kill/injure thousands.
lib
damj wrote:
Is there a point to all the statistics, or is it just a case of "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, blind them with bulls#@t" ?!?

On the one hand, we've got shouts for proof and statistics.
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Post proof or STFU about it already.

On the other hand, we've got people dismissing this as "bulls#@t". Make up your minds now.
Quote:
The weapon doesn't even need to be that powerful, a paniced stampede alone could kill/injure thousands.

Great. Let's label overcrowded malls as WMDs. I mean, all I gotta go is to shout "BOMB! BOMB!" in there, and watch people trample over each other, right?
I've quoted and re-quoted the CIA's and the government's definitions of WMDs all over these forums... please search... (Try Google, it's a nice search engine)
You can't tell me Bush thought "Right then, the Iraqis have got places where people can blow up a small bomb and kill thousands of others in the resulting panic0fuleed stampede. Let's attack them and take away these "WMDs""
S3nd K3ys
I agree. All the stats are pretty. But they don't prove squat about how Bush lied.

lied wrote:

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true.



The statements may have been false, but not deliberatly.

He had the same intel as the rest of the world community. He went off that intel. He didn't make it up; it was given to him. Just like it was given to Kerry, Clinton (1 and 2), Kennedy, and all the others that are NOW claiming he lied.

If you can prove otherwise, I will accept it. But you haven't. If it was deliberatly false, it was the intellegence community that made it up and presented it that way.

Yes. Google IS a nice search engine. Wink
damj
lib wrote:
On the other hand, we've got people dismissing this as "bulls#@t". Make up your minds now.

I applaud the use of facts in an argument, but please make them relavent. The point of my comments is that you cannot address the threat of WMD's in terms of conventional military forces. Terrorism, though sometimes state sponsored/sanctioned, is largely a threat from non-state actors, so you can spout all the meaningless statistics that you want about conventional military forces, but they did not apply in Vietnam in the 60s/70s, or in Afghanistan in the 80s, and they do not apply now.

lib wrote:
Great. Let's label overcrowded malls as WMDs. I mean, all I gotta go is to shout "BOMB! BOMB!" in there, and watch people trample over each other, right?

Oh come on ... now when the {bleep} did I say that we label overcrowded malls as an WMD ... your comment while slightly amusing (I guess) is absurd and sophmoric, and TOTALLY misses the point.

The point is, that for a WMD to be effective, it doesn't need to a 10-megaton ICBM. A small, suitcase sized nuclear or chemical weapon released in a crowded area may not be especially lethal, but the RESULTING panic could kill many more people.

The majority of people on 9/11 did not die in the plane crashes, but from the after effect of the buildings collapsing.

Do not under estimate the intelligence, resourcefullness, patience and resolve of the terrorists that we are now dealing with.
i_am_mine
Lets see here a minute, why did I put up the facts and figures? Did you actually care to read what it preceeded by? Perhaps if you did you would know what it meant?

IT DOESN'T TAKE ENTIRE ARMIES TO SET OFF A WMD...THE STATEMENT OF FACTS WAS FOR THE POINT THAT GEORGE BUSH JR RECEIVED MILITARY SUPPORT ( OF SOME 17 + COUNTRIES ) AFTER READING THE MILITARY CAPABILITY OF THE ABOVE COUNTRIES PERHAPS YOU'D LIKE TO ASK YOURSELF THE QUESTION...

....WHERE WERE FRANCE AND RUSSIA OUR ALLIES FROM WORLD WAR II

....AND WHY WERE WE NOT ABLE TO PASS A RESOLUTION IN THE UNITED NATION LEGALIZING AND LEGITIMISING THE WAR...

...WHY DID THE SECRETARY GENERAL DECLARE THE WAR ILLEGAL?


...WHY WERE WE ONLY ABLE TO CALL TOGETHER A COALITION OF MILITARY MINIONS SUCH AS BULGARIA,HUNGARY,NORWAY,THE NETHERLANDS,EL SALVADOR....(WHICH WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MILITARY STATISTICS )


?


DO YOU STILL THINK ALL THOSE STATISTICS AND FACTS AND FIGURES ARE JUST PUT FORTH FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLEXITY OR WILL YOU ALLOW YOURSELF TO THINK?
lib
damj wrote:
Oh right ... because the democrats don't play the fear card either ... they just pick different scare tactics (medicaid, social security, environment, etc ...)

Yet again, more use of the childish tactic of bitching about Democrats in the hope that I'll get incensed because my user id says "lib"... or maybe it's just something all Republicans do. Because there are a few professed "liberals" on this forum and they don't go aroud starting a new thread every second day about how the Republicans are so ignorant and all-accepting off all the BS being fed by the media/government. "Oh no, Bush said this, so it must be true"

damj wrote:
The point is, that for a WMD to be effective, it doesn't need to a 10-megaton ICBM. A small, suitcase sized nuclear or chemical weapon released in a crowded area may not be especially lethal, but the RESULTING panic could kill many more people.

My point, which apparently you failed to see, was that if you want to brand a small suitcase filled with C4 as a WMD, then just about every country in thsi world has got WMDs. You can't go attack them just because they have bombs in a suitcase.

PS: My comment was supposed to be exaggeratedly amusing. However, I thought you would still get my point. Well, whatever... I've made it clearer in this post, I hope.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
The statements may have been false, but not deliberatly.

Bottom line --> Bush made the statements, Bush took responsibility for the screw up in intelligence, Bush gets the blame.

And I really don't give a damn if that intelligence was given to everyone else. Bush was the one who acted on it. If he was going to start a war against a country, the least he can do is to check and re-check his intel a few times.

EDIT:
PS: I know you mentioned nuclear weapon in a suitcase, and I mentioned C4, but I'm posting from a "start a panic stampede" point of view. Any sort of semi-major explosion inside a crowded area would be enough to start a panic stampede, don't you think?
lib
Oh, by the way, I just realized...
Your posting this:
damj wrote:
Oh right ... because the democrats don't play the fear card either ... they just pick different scare tactics (medicaid, social security, environment, etc ...)

proves that you too believe that that's exactly what the Bush administration really did do. If you didn't, you'd probably try and prove that they didn't, instead of saying something as ineffectively un-defensive as "Well, the Dems do it too!"
Cheers.
S3nd K3ys
lib wrote:
...
Bottom line --> Bush made the statements, Bush took responsibility for the screw up in intelligence, Bush gets the blame.
...


Oh. The truth comes out, eh lib?

So regardless of fact that Bush did not know the intel was faulty, he still lied? Typical.
Rolling Eyes
Blame Bush just becasue you don't like him.

I didn't like Bush in his first term either. But I was able to see thru the multitude of bullshit put forth by the Dems to try to get him out of office by any means necessary, and it was sickening. So I voted for him the second term. (That's also when I opened my eyes about the Dems and left them for the Repubs.)

Perhaps if the Dems had at least some kind of idea or plan for Iraq and the war on Terror, instead of rhetoric and denial. And perhaps if they didn't have to resort to lies and constant bashing, they wouldn't have lost so much power. And they continue to lose power with every attempt to skew the truth. (Murtha, Dean, Kerry)
i_am_mine
Quote:

If I'm wrong, show me and I'll shut up. Otherwise, well.. you know.


I think its about time...

But then again...

... " you know . "
S3nd K3ys
i_am_mine wrote:
Quote:

If I'm wrong, show me and I'll shut up. Otherwise, well.. you know.


I think its about time...

But then again...

... " you know . "


Oh. Did you show me proof that Bush lied? Or just more rhetoric as usual? Wink

Speculation is a wonderful thing isn't it?
damj
lib wrote:
Oh, by the way, I just realized...
Your posting this:
damj wrote:
Oh right ... because the democrats don't play the fear card either ... they just pick different scare tactics (medicaid, social security, environment, etc ...)

proves that you too believe that that's exactly what the Bush administration really did do. If you didn't, you'd probably try and prove that they didn't, instead of saying something as ineffectively un-defensive as "Well, the Dems do it too!"
Cheers.

No, I'm not going to get into a position of having to defend Bush, I think that he's as dumb as a grapefruit and has surrounded himself with, and has given too much power to a bunch of neo-cons with their own agenda. However, the Democrats didn't offer any viable alternatives in the last 2 elections. I shudder to think how Gore would've handled 9/11.

I doubt that Gore would've been any stronger against terrorism than Clinton, who for 8 years tried to approach it as a law enforecement activity and failed to take it seriously.

As for the war in Iraq, I fought in the first Gulf War and would have signed up for this one if I didn't have a family to consider. Ironically though, while I wanted to go back, I was initially against the war, not seeing a clear rationale for it in the first place.

The war was not just about WMD's though it was a convienient rallying cry at the time. Too bad that we didn't find them though, because I wonder where and when they will turn up. Saddam had them and used them in the past, so there is no reason that he would abandom them, he was just very good at hiding them.

The war is about regime change and trying to alter the politics of the region. Will it ultimately be successful .. only time will tell, and did Bush make mistakes ... yes. However, the one positive that I take away from this war, is that unlike the 8 years where terrorism went unchecked under Clinton (except for the occassional cruise missles he would lob ineffectively every once in a while), we have finally sent a message that we will repond to this threat in the only way that they understand ... by force.
i_am_mine
Well, for your satisfaction, before I proceed, none of the following is from the liberal news media.

I hope you start acknowledging the truth when you see it.

Quote:
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.



The President's Daily Briefing is not a matter of Saturday morning cartoons and Cheerio's, this I hope we both agree on, infact the morning brief is one of the most heavily documented articles that pass through the corridors of the Government. The Brief Is An ACTUAL DOCUMENT AND HOLDS GOOD AS EVIDENCE...

Anyways getting back to what happened...



Quote:
The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.


Despite The Above Official ( I repeat and cannot impress upon you the importance of the word OFFICIAL ) Briefing, Bush MERELY 16 days LATER PROCEEDED, DESPITE KNOWING THE TRUTH TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ON NATIONAL RADIO:


Quote:
"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002)



President Bush was then, again communicated the fact that not only were links between Al Qaeda and Saddam non-existant, but that they were also embittered. ( Courtesy: CIA Memo To The President,Release 2004 )

Despite this the President, in no cryptic words lied to THE people...HIS people not once, but three times (some argue 6, but I'm willing to be generous ).

Enquote:



Quote:
"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002)


The next one borders on comical when compared to the advice he was given during his briefings...

Quote:
"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002)


And again...

Quote:

"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003)


Now will you acknowledge " PROOF " or will you conveniently dissappear until the next more comfortable post?

Bush lied.There's proof.Too bad.
i_am_mine
Oh and, speculation may be wonderful, but so is an unbiased mind
...I suggest you use it.
damj
i_am_mine wrote:
...WHERE WERE FRANCE AND RUSSIA OUR ALLIES FROM WORLD WAR II


Gee, ever consider that they had economic ties with Iraq?

i_am_mine wrote:
...AND WHY WERE WE NOT ABLE TO PASS A RESOLUTION IN THE UNITED NATION LEGALIZING AND LEGITIMISING THE WAR...

...WHY DID THE SECRETARY GENERAL DECLARE THE WAR ILLEGAL?


Oh yes, the UN, that credible institution ... the same UN that elected Libya to Chair the U.N. Human Rights Body ... what's next, is the UN is going to elect the fox to guard the henhouse?!?
i_am_mine
How convenient, The United Nations you say is no longer a body that you respect therefore you bypass it and go to war?

Hmmm...the United Nations may not have a perfect track record but does that mean you take matters into your own hands? If we argued along the lines of who's made mistake I'd say The United States Of America not only has a worse record then the UN but also one thats smeared in blood.

Why make any effort to go to the UN at ALL? Why put up a public and media display showing that you were going to the UN to sort out this conflict.This is exactly what America is being bad-mouthed for, for considering the rest of the world somehow incapable and inferior.Or was it that they KNEW that the other countries would not support an illegal and morover an inhuman war?

The UN had Libya.The United States on the other hand never had Vietnam, probably the worst handled war never to be won, it never had a Cuban standoff, it never had the South American continent up against it including one of its largest oil suppliers (Ven), it never had its own insurgents turning against it and then terrorizing other countries as the Taliban....(list goes on)

No no, the UN is just too pathetic for the US...they're above mistakes...or have they just made too many to care anymore and go Solo?

I believe the US is not at all like that, its only your point of arguement that's fundamentally flawed.
_________________
[ m ]
S3nd K3ys
i_am_mine wrote:
...

Bush lied.There's proof.Too bad.


Bush lied. There's speculation. Too bad.

Quote:
Clinton Administration

"Today I ordered our armed forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the imminent threat they presented to our national security. Our target was terror. Our mission was clear: to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the preeminate organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today. Bin Laden publicly vowed to wage a war against America, saying and I quote - We will not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians. They're all targets." - President Bill Clinton (20 Aug 1998)

"These strikes were intended to prevent and deter additional attacks by a clearly identified terrorist threat." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State defending the missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan (20 Aug 1998)

"As we made very clear this week, we will take unilateral action when we feel that our national interest had been threatened." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State (23 Aug 1998)

"Terrorism is escalating to the point that Americans may soon have to choose between civil liberties and more intrusive means for protection." - William Cohen, Secretary of Defense

"When the United States is attacked, when our people are taken out, we will stand out unilaterally we will stand out in self defense and really let the world know what we believe in." - William Cohen, Defense Secretary (20 Aug 1998)

"But most importantly, what we did was send a very strong signal that no nation should provide sanctuary or harbor terrorists." - President Bill Clinton responding to airstrikes in Sudan and Afghanistan (20 Aug 1998).

"With compelling evidence that the Bin Laden network of terrorist groups was planning to mount further attacks against Americans and other freedom loving people, I decided America must act." - William Cohen, Defense Secretary (23 Aug 1998)

"Our efforts against terrorism cannot and will not end with this strike. We should have realistic expectations about what a single action can achieve. And we must be prepared for a long battle. But, it's high time those who traffic in terror learn that they too are vulnerable." - William Cohen, Defense Secretary (21 Aug 1998)

"We are engaged in a long term struggle with terrorism. There are times when law enforcement and diplomatic tools are simply not enough." - Martin Indyk, Assistant Secretary Near East Affairs (21 Aug 1998)

Intelligence Officials

"There is not the slightest doubt that Osama bin Laden, his worldwide allies, and his sympathizers are planning further attacks against us. Despite progress against his networks, bin Laden's organization has contacts virtually worldwide, including in the United States. And he stated unequivocally that all Americans are targets." - George Tenet, CIA director giving testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee 2 Feb 1999

"It wasn't that I had a bad relationship with the President. It just didn't exist." - CIA director James Woolsey on his 2 meetings with Clinton over 2 years.

International Community

"Anyone who provides safe harbor for terrorists ought to take a look at what happened this time around...this is only Phase One of an operation that will continue." - Tony Blair responding to US strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998

Terrorist Leaders

"Our boys were shocked by the low moral of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled." - Osama bin Laden speaking on Somalia 1993

"We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians. They're all targets." - Osama Bin Laden

"I am angry because Osama is making anti-American statements from our soil and I stressed on him not to do so." - Mullah Omar, former Taliban ruler Afghanistan (1998)

"The Hamas movement is one of many patriotic movements." - Yassir Arafat, Chairman of Palestinian Authority (25 May 1997)

"We know only one word...jihad, jihad, jihad." - Yassir Arafat (22 Oct 1996)

"The struggle will continue until all of Palestine is liberated." - Yassir Arafat (11 Nov 1995)

Historical Terrorism Quotes

"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival." - Winston Churchill


Oh, snap!
i_am_mine
How are quotes from the Clinton administration proving that there was "speculation" that Bush lied? Do you live in a permanent state of denial?Do you refuse to see the truth/facts when they are put forth to you?

Winston Churchill likes you, heres another...

Quote:
It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations.
-Sir Winston Churchill


but he seems to have preferred those 10 soldiers didn't die, apparently...
Quote:

Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed.
-Sir Winston Churchill


And he was a bit more open minded too...free speech and truth is what they call it in these places...

Quote:
When I am abroad, I always make it a rule never to criticize or attack the government of my own country. I make up for lost time when I come home.
-Sir Winston Churchill


And how exactly do Clinton's quotes on Terrorism contruct upon this debate?I'd be happy to add more of Clintons view points on Terrorism...

Ending this post on a lighter note, here's a couple of Bill Clinton quotes:

Quote:
"Briefs."
—In response to a teenager's question on his underwear in 1994.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
—At the conclusion of a press conference in the White House (January 26, 1998)

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if the—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement."
—Grand Jury testimony (August 17, 1998)


Mr. Green
S3nd K3ys
i_am_mine wrote:
How are quotes from the Clinton administration proving that there was "speculation" that Bush lied? Do you live in a permanent state of denial?Do you refuse to see the truth/facts when they are put forth to you?


LoL! You must have ducked pretty low to miss that one!
i_am_mine
Lets just say if Bush ducked as low as he could he still wouldn't be able to dodge it off his groin.

Which way shall I repost Government Sourced Facts or Winston Churchill/Bill Clinton Quotes.

I don't mind, though it would get repetitive through the post.

FACTS.PROOF.

what more do you need?

dodge.dodge.

whoops.



SIDENOTE: The " International Community " does not consist of Tony Blair and " our ol' boys up there at Liverpool ", please take note that the planet does not consist of the nation (The US) and the international ( as the UK ), it would be wrong and erroneous to consider the 189 odd other nations as nothing.

It would be nice if the international community was supportive, but unfortunately the actual international community doesn't consist of Tony Blairs.
S3nd K3ys
"She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: ... she never wounds 'till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her."
i_am_mine
For the sake of debate, and to get the facts right...
1.The U.S has on more than one occassion taken first strike,id est, beginning the attack that begins the subsequent war.
2.The U.S also, as shown by history, attacks not just when attacked, but when its ideologies are threatened.

Before you begin the usual " you're with them, or us " ( or the usual " I do not want to listen to a terrorist why don't you go join them " )...

I approve of a nation fighting for an ideology, defending it.But there is a difference between defence and offence.First strike and counter-strike,Ideology and new world order, crusades and liberation.If your fight is just, no one will lift a finger against your cause, if not you will find your own people ( even a minority ) questioning it.

Also.
The U.S has lost quite a few battles, it is part of war.exempli gratia, Vietnam,Desert Storm (conveniently,an "operation")
S3nd K3ys
i_am_mine wrote:
For the sake of debate, and to get the facts right...
1.The U.S has on more than one occassion taken first strike,id est, beginning the attack that begins the subsequent war.


So you're saying the US has started wars for no reason? (Starting a war and taking first strike are different. Yes, we 'started' the war with Japan, but we didn't strike them first)

Name ONE. Just ONE.


Quote:

The U.S has lost quite a few battles, it is part of war.exempli gratia, Vietnam,Desert Storm (conveniently,an "operation")


Yes, the US has lost MANY battles. But the only wars they lost (that I'm aware of), are Vietnam, and they only lost because of, wait for it.... THE LIEBERALLY BIASED MEDIA!
i_am_mine
Heh, actually you never started " the war " with Japan.The war actually started in Europe...you know like, over there ,Normandy and all up there.Yup.

Vietnam never "struck first".Thats sort of funny just thinking about it, Vietnam strike first? The only thing Vietnam could send to the U.S was maybe mail, and it'd probably be a few months late.They're called ICBMs ( Inter continental ballistic missiles for the uninitiated) and Vietnam didn't have them, so that makes First Strike # 1 :the US in Vietnam

Although reasons for the commencement of Operation Desert storm were more than sufficient and moral and technically( the United States had no standing Defence Pact with Kuwait ) , however the war was perfectly legal, here I'd like to take the pleasure of rubbing in the fact the appropriate U.N Resolutions were passed :
Quote:
" One of the most important was Resolution 678, passed on November 29, giving Iraq a withdrawal deadline of January 15, 1991, and authorizing "all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660", a diplomatic formulation authorizing the use of force. "
Resolution 660 : "Within hours of the initial invasion, the Kuwaiti and United States of America delegations requested a meeting of the UN Security Council, which passed Resolution 660, condemning the invasion and demanding a withdrawal of Iraqi troops. "

And thus when the UN supports a war, the US believes it is a just and able body, but when it doesn't the UN is just a piece of trash ( oh but wait a minute, wasn't the US one of the founding members )
Anyways, the above may or may not qualify as First Strike #2

But then why don't I just get down to it. . .

Here is Pentagon Official Policy in quotes, and some of my dear Bush's as well...so get your facts/rhetoric/poetry right...
Quote:

Policy OKs First Strike to Protect US
Pentagon strategic plan codifies unilateral, preemptive attacks. The doctrine marks a shift from coalitions such as NATO, analysts say
by John Hendren


WASHINGTON - Two years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon has formally included in key strategic plans provisions for launching preemptive strikes against nations thought to pose a threat to the United States.

The doctrine also now stipulates that the U.S. will use "active deterrence" in concert with its allies "if we can" but could act unilaterally otherwise, Defense officials said.


So the policy not only ok's first strike but also tells us that you'd prefer to go it alone.hmmm wonder why.anyways,very nice touching lines/poem, too bad.

And if you need another nail in the coffin ( pun intended )
Quote:

Bush's text proclaims: "While the United States will constantly strive to enlist all support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right to self-defense by acting pre-emptively against such terrorists."


Oh wait a minute what'd you say there? We lost the war because of Liberally biased media? You know all these days people kept listing all the reasons, you know, not enough personnel,no legal standing of the war ( in Vietnam ),low troop morale,forced enlistment,harsh living condition in tropical environment, tropical diseases, high density canopy and vegetative growth for aerial strikes, inaccessibility,distance from homeland...etc.,etc.
And now you say it was the liberal media?muah,muah,muah.

Gee thanks, I mean all these years, none of that liberal media got ALL the attention for bringing an entire war to an end, I mean these guys are gonna go through the pearly gates for doin' such a good deed, and its so nice of you to give them the credit.

And by the way, just like that, you know, you might want to know that Vietnam's biggest trading partner as of today, this hour is the United States Of America, joining its bigger communist bro up there China.

And in store for you tomorrow, not just a reply to Liberal Media Bias, but also full length video clips, and point by point follow up for my dear friend, thats right folks, I'm not gonna reply with a pathetic " is that all you can do copy paste some links off an openly confessed right wing evangelist? " but instead I'm gonna be a good lil boy like my mommy told me to be and not start off an entirely seperate column without replying to whats just been talked/posted....

Who yo momma now?

heh.(couldn't help it)

Oh and also, there wasn't just Fox on that list...about in all, Rupert Murdoch own 3/4ths of Broadcasting system.hmmm...3/4 is 75%.i always sucked at maths.

Tune in tomorrow,
same time,
same place,
more denial !
S3nd K3ys
S3nd K3ys wrote:

So you're saying the US has started wars for no reason?


Reading and Comprehension are key.

And you quoted yourself...

Quote:
Bush's text proclaims: "... to exercise our right to self-defense .."






i_am_mine
Umm lets see, two things...again I repost because you go into denial whenever the facts are pushed into your face right infront of everyone, anyhow let me state AGAIN...

This is what YOU posted:

Quote:
"She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: ... she never wounds 'till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her."


This you believe is U.S philosophy/policy. Here is the PROOF that it is not:

(AGAIN)


Quote:
Policy OKs First Strike to Protect US
Pentagon strategic plan codifies unilateral, preemptive attacks. The doctrine marks a shift from coalitions such as NATO, analysts say
by John Hendren


WASHINGTON - Two years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon has formally included in key strategic plans provisions for launching preemptive strikes against nations thought to pose a threat to the United States.

The doctrine also now stipulates that the U.S. will use "active deterrence" in concert with its allies "if we can" but could act unilaterally otherwise, Defense officials said.


But ofcourse you read what Bush said, the thing is you didn't do too well in English back when you were in school did you?....
Quote:

Bush's text proclaims: "While the United States will constantly strive to enlist all support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right to self-defense by acting pre-emptively against such terrorists."


According to the English Dictionary ( I suggest you pick one up by a Conservative Publisher...or you MAY say its liberal media conspiracy heh )
pre-emptively is the equivalent of before anyone else,i.e,as the first strike.

waho...and you say I'm in denial? I put up facts,figures,arguments followed up by legal evidence...and all you do to reply to them is say..."that all you got" and Copy/Paste an entire frontpage from a confessed right wingers sorry little website? I mean, you could atleast tried to have taken the information from an unbiased website?

Anyway, I'll allow your excesses and also reply one by one to each and everyone of the points listed above...atleast to the point that I don't get tired.

Oh and this time let me quote you "READING AND COMPREHENSION ARE KEY " ..... stop missing out words you don't want to read or hear.Thats called denial. I just put up a PENTAGON PRESS RELEASE and you still deny that I'm right? Geez.

Anyway, you also failed to acknowledge first strike # 1 in Vietnam and instead posted a pic on Hanoi Jane.Quite interesting, how come you never admit when wrong?Doesn't come with the conservative tag?

CNN, NBC and all the other channels are biased because a headline didn't show up? Is that how flimsy your arguments can get?Here I am giving you statistics,figures,facts to back up my arguments because you demand that you be shown them ( that you go into denial when you see them is a different story ), and yet you attempt to put forth an alternative truth with no such evidence.Do something about it.

oh and one more thing:

posting in big huge letters isn't exactly the thing to do in a forum...if you find that nobodies listening to what you say...its probably because you've got nothing worthwhile said.Try to tone down the font size eh?
S3nd K3ys
i_am_mine wrote:


This is what YOU posted:

Quote:
"... 'till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her."



Yes. That's what I posted. I removed the parts that seemed to be confusing you, so please read it again.

This is what you posted... ( I took the liberty of highlighting the part that you seem to have missed...)

Quote:
WASHINGTON - Two years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon has formally included in key strategic plans provisions for launching preemptive strikes against nations thought to pose a threat to the United States.


Are you starting to understand now?

i_am_mine
Yes perhaps I am starting to understand, understanding the true meaning of denial,that is.
1.Proof exists that the US has used the first-strike option.
2.The Pentagon itself openly lays out this policy in its statement.
3.Yet ofcourse you deny this, and ofcourse you never asked for but one example of first strike.And ofcourse I gave you that example, but trivial things such as example,evidence and proof means nothing to you.
.
..
...




Understood?
S3nd K3ys
I added the parts in BOLD

i_am_mine wrote:
Yes perhaps I am starting to understand, understanding the true meaning of denial,that is.
1.Proof exists that the US has used the first-strike option. Not Without a Reason
2.The Pentagon itself openly lays out this policy in its statement. Not Without a Reason
3.Yet ofcourse you deny this, and ofcourse you never asked for but one example of first strike.And ofcourse I gave you that example, but trivial things such as example,evidence and proof means nothing to you. You STILL have a comprehension problem. You STILL have not provided me ONE example.


Understood? obviously NOT


Yes, grasshopper, the denial IS strong in this one.
lib
oh God, this is hilarious.
S3nd, you kinda lost your consistency here... I think you spent too much time looking for the "Don't tread on me picture" that you forgot to check your post for consistency:
S3ns K3ys wrote:
I added the parts in BOLD
i_am_mine wrote:
.....
1.Proof exists that the US has used the first-strike option. Not Without a Reason
.
.
.
3.Yet ofcourse you deny this, and ofcourse you never asked for but one example of first strike.....You STILL have a comprehension problem. You STILL have not provided me ONE example.

Did you intentionally mean to write that though you admit there's proof that the US has used the first-strike option, and that it has been posted in his thread, you still, at the same time, want to deny that he posted proof?
S3nd K3ys
lib wrote:
oh God, this is hilarious.
S3nd, you kinda lost your consistency here... I think you spent too much time looking for the "Don't tread on me picture" that you forgot to check your post for consistency:
S3ns K3ys wrote:
I added the parts in BOLD
i_am_mine wrote:
.....
1.Proof exists that the US has used the first-strike option. Not Without a Reason
.
.
.
3.Yet ofcourse you deny this, and ofcourse you never asked for but one example of first strike.....You STILL have a comprehension problem. You STILL have not provided me ONE example.

Did you intentionally mean to write that though you admit there's proof that the US has used the first-strike option, and that it has been posted in his thread, you still, at the same time, want to deny that he posted proof?


I'm not denying first strike. I'm denying that the US has EVER attacked another country without reason. I'm also denying that the policy allows for attacks (first strike included) without reason.

I really don't know what's so hard about that. Unless you just refuse to accept it.

Lets try it ONE MORE TIME. (Please note the part in RED...

S3nd K3ys wrote:

So you're saying the US has started wars for no reason?


A simple Yes or No should suffice, but if YES, please provide me with the war that was started for NO REASON.

mkaythks
i_am_mine


Heh heh, nice one lib...acknowledgement and denial of fact...all in the same post...man this condition is more complicated than i thought,like two opposing phobias at the same time.

Anyways, its sort of easy to tell you the answer to that one.Wars started without sufficient or no reason ( also without legality,without sufficient evidence, without international support, without...phew the list...)

Please note the part in RED HUGE ANNOYING FONT SIZE...


IRAQ
SunburnedCactus
Oh, come on. This is turning into a circular argument and you are ignoring the fact that the US did have a reason for going to war in Iraq. Whether it was a legitimate reason is a potential matter for debate but the fact is that reasons were clearly stated when the decision was made, and include:

WMDs, terrorists, Saddam Hussein, repressive regime, oil, 9/11, blah, blah, blah, blah etc.

And so on. The point is, like it or not those are all reasons. So quit the crazy spaced posting!
S3nd K3ys
SunburnedCactus wrote:
Oh, come on. This is turning into a circular argument and you are ignoring the fact that the US did have a reason for going to war in Iraq. Whether it was a legitimate reason is a potential matter for debate but the fact is that reasons were clearly stated when the decision was made, and include:

WMDs, terrorists, Saddam Hussein, repressive regime, oil, 9/11, blah, blah, blah, blah etc.

And so on. The point is, like it or not those are all reasons. So quit the crazy spaced posting!


There were reason's for EVERY WAR the US has EVER been involved in. Good or bad, right or wrong, there were (thought at the time) legitimate reasons for them ALL.

But the lieberals will deny it, spin it, or completely ignore it until the day they die. Yet another reason I switched sides years ago.
i_am_mine
Quote:
...Good or bad, right or wrong


Thats the whole reason why we " spin it " [ we all know who's spinning what, but if it makes you happy...].Its the whole matter of Good or bad, right or wrong.

"Reason?", do I have to show you all over again the complete lack of it? Do I have to again and again make you not the compelling evidence, the lack of legal authority or rather the fact the it was illegal, the absence of justification for military action ?

Oh wait, I just realised thats a complete rehash of the forum thread you previously abandoned.

But to summarise it all over again.
[note: this is not "new" post I am summarising previous posts, so if you're about to say " proof " please look at the previous threads which you abandoned ]
1.The US did not have sufficient reason to begin the war.Whatever reasons it did have were later found to be defunct [ note : " thought at the time " is not a mature reason to go to war, which is why we have the "innocent until proven guilty " clause, can't kill a man because you thought he was guilty and then say "whoops, maybe he wasn't " ] [refer to threads,evidence given ]
2.The US was one of the founding members of the United Nations - harped on about the greatness of this institution - had the legal authority to execute operation desert storm/desert fox but were unable to get legal sanctioning of the war by the body - the UN immediately became [ as you stated ] useless.
The War was illegal.
[refer to threads,evidence given ]
3.CIA Reports after the invasion of Iraq admit that no WMDs were found, and more importantly that there is no evidence of WMDs being disposed of or carried away so as to hide their existence.[refer to threads,evidence given ]
4.The invasion of Iraq was first advertised as a reaction to 9/11, then as the evidence ( better put: the lack of it ) materialised, the reason was redefined that to be for its liberation. [refer to threads,evidence given ]

When will you allow yourself to think? You seem to live in a paranoid world where you believe the democrats are out to get you....Repubs vs. Democs.Good guy vs. Bad guy. Being "liberal" doesn't mean you're affiliated to a political body.I rooted for George Bush Sr when he went up second time, and I'd do it again if the Republicans change their industry driven neocon agenda.Nobody's out to get you, everyone's out to get the truth and right now its all piled up against the conservatives and Bush.And piled up would be an understatement.

I suggest you apply thought.
S3nd K3ys
i_am_mine wrote:
...
1.The US did not have sufficient reason to begin the war.Whatever reasons it did have were later found to be defunct...


IF they were LATER found to be defunct, they still existed.

I really don't care if the reasons were wrong or not (in the context of this 'argument'), they still existed.

Geez you're single-minded and obtuse. Rolling Eyes

Again I ask you to provide me with a single war that we started for no reason. (And again you will fail to provide one)
earthchild
S3nd K3ys wrote:


Geez you're single-minded and obtuse. Rolling Eyes


I'm just curious S3nd... and this is a serious question - as in not at all meant to be rhetorical (so please feel free and safe to answer honestly- I'm not planning to insult you or anything.)

What is that you gain from calling people names?
S3nd K3ys
earthchild wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:


Geez you're single-minded and obtuse. Rolling Eyes


I'm just curious S3nd... and this is a serious question - as in not at all meant to be rhetorical (so please feel free and safe to answer honestly- I'm not planning to insult you or anything.)

What is that you gain from calling people names?


Nothing. I was simply making an observation as to his mental state and lack of cogent process and his inability to answer my question.

It probably wasn't a good idea, so I'll retract it and re-phrase it.

Geez, i_am_mine, you seem to be single-minded and obtuse.
Billy Hill
S3nd K3ys wrote:


Again I ask you to provide me with a single war that we started for no reason. (And again you will fail to provide one)


I'd like to hear an answer to this as well, because I can't think of any.

It really is saddening how some folks will talk all around the subject, taking jabs at every turn, and consistantly fail to provide a direct answer. (Although I kind of understand why they are not; because they cannot.)

It was very comical reading this thread and watching a couple of folks dodging and weaving in an attempt to side-step the question K3ys asked. Laughing
lib
S3nd K3ys wrote:
IF they were LATER found to be defunct, they still existed.

Oooh cool. So, if we use your logic, let's just make up some excuse to attack some more states, invade them, put up governments that are going to lick our ass, and later apologize for using defunct reasons. I mean, some reason or the other did exist at one point of time, didn't it?
Just using your theory... does anyone want to attack China because their population is too high, and at this rate they'll use up all the space on Earth?

S3nd K3ys wrote:
I really don't care if the reasons were wrong or not (in the context of this 'argument'), they still existed.

Oh, you don't care if the reasons were wrong or not. That makes sense. Once again.... Does anyone want to attack China because....?
By the way, the context here is war. You cannot use wrong reasons to declare war on a country!.

S3nd k3ys wrote:
Geez you're single-minded and obtuse.

In your own words... "crickets"... (The echo of your accusation applies to you. Primarily because you admit the US had defuntct and wrong reasons for attacking Iraq, and yet you're defending those reasons and are asking for proof of a war the US started without any reason whatsoever, which is pretty stupid.)

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Again I ask you to provide me with a single war that we started for no reason. (And again you will fail to provide one)

Like I wrote above, you're asking people to post proof of a war that the US started without any reason. The US is a superpower and has been for quite some time. It thinks of itself as the policeman of the world. Its foreign policy has been meddlesome and intrusive of other countries' internal policies, whether you like it or not. Having this much power and say in the state of the world, the US cannot possibly go to war without *ANY* reason. If you think this is a rollback and I am running away from this argument, you're mistaken. Use that logic of yours that you sometimes show in your posts and think. It's insanely immature (a childish argument tactic) to ask for proof of war started without *ANY* reason whatsoever. Instead, for the sake of logic, I suggest you ask for a war that started with the wrong reasons, or a war that started with reasons that later became defunct, and you will get loads of proof, but you already know of these wars.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Geez, i_am_mine, you seem to be single-minded and obtuse.

Proven null and void, as in the long paragraph above.

Billy Hill wrote:
It really is saddening how some folks will talk all around the subject, taking jabs at every turn, and consistantly fail to provide a direct answer.

You know what's more saddening?
How some folks have got no points to make in any argument, but come in to try and irritate and take personal little potshots at the people who are posting arguments.
Case in point:
Quote:
It was very comical reading this thread and watching a couple of folks dodging and weaving in an attempt to side-step the question K3ys asked.

And on that note... it's comical... nay, I'll be a little more straight-forward and frank and emotionally honest... it's actually very frustrating posting proof, posting with logic and have someone quash all over that logic, then claim that proof to be devoid of proof because of grammatical (and logical) restrictions of the question in hand, and then have someone else with absolutely no arguments come in and pat the back of the question-poser for side-stepping proof.
i_am_mine
Quote:


I'd like to hear an answer to this as well, because I can't think of any.

It really is saddening how some folks will talk all around the subject, taking jabs at every turn, and consistantly fail to provide a direct answer. (Although I kind of understand why they are not; because they cannot.)

It was very comical reading this thread and watching a couple of folks dodging and weaving in an attempt to side-step the question K3ys asked.



Dear earthchild, don't worry about the names, if you've noticed, I've never once used improper ( ****** ) language in my posts, but I don't mind it being used against me, and I don't respond to it unless it's particulary pathetic ( reference : picture posts ).Don't worry about it Smile , it's just sign of having a weak argument with nothing else to say.

Moving on...

Quote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:


Again I ask you to provide me with a single war that we started for no reason. (And again you will fail to provide one)


And again I provide you with one.You could at least acknowledge that I've put forth it to you again and again, either that or you could admit that you're in denial.why? Because I've answered this in the last TWO posts and you've failed to read it, I've even provided whole page evidence ( as I have provided again and again ):
Iraq ( remember the post with the big huge red letters ).And again you will ask for proof, and again I give you proof ( I'll post it ALL OVER AGAIN at the end of this post since you usually tend to skip as much reading as possible )

Billy Hill, if you need to give support/a pat on the back to your conservative friends I suggest you do it openly, but doing so won't hide your own ignorance.I HAVE supplied you with a DIRECT ANSWER for the PAST TWO POSTS.That you decide to ignore them shows that YOU DODGE AND WEAVE AWAY FROM A CLEAR ANSWER.Its saddening that you fail to see a direct answer ( although I can kind of understand why you do not; because you don't want to ).Maybe a one word answer will suit you? Here it is, one example of a war without reason: IRAQ.(maybe saying the whole "War In Iraq, or Iraqi War is too many words to process ).

Here is proof that the war was started with *NO* reason:
i_am_mine wrote:
I've been through several debates across multiple forums and I have seen that people arguing a point either tend to blatantly push forward there view point or distort and manipulate facts, you however, S3nd K3ys have a much more juvenile method.....you simply state that you cannot see the facts even when they are put forth for you.Much like a infant closing his eyes imagining himself to not be there.

Since you stronly distrust theories and facts put forth by the liberal media, I shall quote ONLY FROM CIA AND GOVERNMENTS SOURCES ONLY, NO LIBERAL MEDIA OR PRIVATE MEDIA SOURCES ARE QUOTED HEREIN.I hope typing all that in caps made it a little clearer

You may also download the following evidence/report from the Internet.The following is a copy (unaltered) stored on the servers of The University Of Michigan, a copy may also be obtained directly from the CIA Website ( Note:The CIA is not "Liberal Media" and since its formation has remained a Government Instt. whose members are not liberal pot smoking junkies, although I can't be sure about the pot ). Excuse me for my dry humor, but I couldn't contain myself.(Also: I thought the democrat donkey was nice, touche Smile )

Back To The Topic

Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD

# Volume 1 (52.5 MB)

* Transmittal, Acknowledgements, Scope Note (1.59 MB)
* Regime Strategic Intent (2.2 MB)
* Regime Strategic Intent Annexes (2.34 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 1-71 (11.6 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 72-141 (8 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement Annexes A (4.8 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement Annexes B-C (12.5 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement Annexes D-H (9.56 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement Annexes I-L (3.97 KB)

# Volume 2 (74.2 MB)

* Delivery Systems (14.1 MB)
* Delivery Systems Annexes (8.12 MB)
* Nuclear (12.6 MB)
* Nuclear Annexes A-B (7.32 MB)
* Nuclear Annexes C-D (3.87 MB)
* Nuclear Annex E (64 KB)
* Nuclear Annex F, p. 1-5 (12.4 MB)
* Nuclear Annex F, p. 6-10 (14.7 MB)
* Nuclear Annex G (2.2 MB)

# Volume 3 (71.6 MB)

* Chemical Weapons (8.7 mb)
* Chemical Weapons Annex A (7.95 MB)
* Chemical Weapons Annex B (8.8 MB)
* Chemical Weapons Annexex C-F (10.3 MB)
* Chemical Weapons Annex G (15.2 MB)
* Biological Weapons (10.5 MB)
* Biological Weapons Annexes (9.11 MB)
* Glossary (94 KB)

CIA Copy Here: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
Mich. State Univ Copy Here:http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html

The Above is Commonly known as The Duelfer October Report of 2004.The report, written by Charles Duelfer of the Iraq Survey Group and not liberal pot smoking junkie.

For the uninitiated the report states, by Intelligence Officers ( and not liberal pot smoking junkies ) the following points and their consequences:

1.Since the October report from Duelfer, which said Saddam intended to obtain WMD but had no banned weapons, senior administration leaders have largely stopped discussing whether the weapons were moved.

2.The U.S. intelligence community’s 2002 estimate on Iraq indicated there were sizable weapons programs and stockpiles. The officials said weapons experts have not found a production capability in Iraq that would back up the size of the prewar estimates.

3.Intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never “a piece,” — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.
(Please note man saying " a piece " was not liberal pot smoking junkie )


But then again Mister S3nd K3ys maybe the CIA are a bunch of liberal pot smoking junkies that aren't really trying to tell the truth ( now that they have to ) and this is all a conspiracy by the guys over there with the stupid grey donkeys that lost last time and are playing sore losers just because they couldn't get there own man on the President's seat ... right?

Oh and just to be fair the Duelfer report also highlighted the following fact about Mr.Saddam Hussein ( ! psst... he's in on this whole donkey people conspiracy against bush too, dontcha think? )

4.International pressure to lift the sanctions led to the establishment of the Oil for Food program, which Saddam immediately saw "could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange.

5.Saddam intended to obtain WMD but had no banned weapons.

Well there it is isn't it eh? He INTENDED. OMFG! He INTENDED !

Heres something, The DPRK - The Democratic Republic Of Korea ( a.k.a North Korea, another buncha lib pot smoking junkies, i betcha ) don't INTEND to have Nuclear Weapons....no Sir ! - They've already got 'em!They've got the Chinese on they're side too ! And lets not get started about those liberal Chinese shall we? I mean the Chinese THEY'RE SO liberal....they're COMMUNISTS ! But lets not bother the chinese, SO WHAT if they have the largest conventional army on the face of the planet...we wouldn't like to raise our voices against American Business interests would we? I mean that chopstick country is the largest American Investment destination.

Oh but wait, there's Pakistan too! Now thats a bunch of friendly people trying to help us out, specially that guy in the Army uniform...he must be from the army right? Whatsay? He's from the Army but he's taken over the country? Oh that's alright, he's helping you see, and we provide him billions of dollars to get out of extreme debt, they money which is actually used to provide support to terrorist organisations to fight with their "heathen" neighbours.Damn Libs ... Nuke 'em All I say !

And you said Bush went to Iraq not just because he THOUGHT WMD's existed in the country but also to get rid of the oppressive regime...what a nice guy!! I mean, nevermind the fact that Iraq's regime was nothing compared to that of Saudi Arabia, where Rape,Incest,Honor Killings,Murder is all good fun.Sounds like florida eh?But we don't want to liberate people THERE do we? No, no, the kings I nice guy ( oh I forgot to tell you, they only have a pseudo-democracy ), he helps us out with the oil, and he owns about let say 15% of our stock market (I smell lib conspiracy).

The Above hereby negates the following points you made previously in your section lifted from The American Enterprise:
Points Negated (Enquote):

1.
Quote:
Claimed Reality: On July 14, 2004—after a nearly half-year investigation—a special panel reported to the British Parliament that British intelligence had indeed concluded that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium from Africa. The Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by Lord Butler, summarized: “It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium…. The statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.”


Note:
The following Countries, by The Non-Proliferation Charter Of United Nations Are also guilty of seeking Enriched Nuclear fuels through inappropriate channels:
1.Pakistan [Status:Ally Smile ]
2.North Korea
3.Iran
4.DPRK
The following countries along the same lines can be found guilty for illegaly supplying Nuclear material to unauthorized countries/organisations.
Note:Supplier/Receiver format
1.China/Pakistan
2.Pakistan/Iran
3.Pakistan/Independent Orgs. [scary eh?imagine the YMCA getting weapons grade plutonium ]
4.China/DPRK

2.
Quote:
Urban Legend Proved To Be True: Helping democracy take root in Iraq was a postwar rationalization by the Bush administration; it was an argument that was not made prior to going to war. In the words of a November 13, 2003 New York Times editorial, “The White House recently began shifting its case for the Iraq war from the embarrassing unconventional weapons issue to the lofty vision of creating an exemplary democracy in Iraq.”


3.
Quote:
Urban Legend: Saddam Hussein posed no threat. In the words of former Senator Max Cleland, “Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs, no ties to al-Qaeda. We now know that.”


Hmm...kids...its on the blackboard...out loud now...CIA REPORT...gooood!Little Ben you get 3 stars...good reading !

4.

Quote:
Urban Legend: President Bush and his administration wrongly tried to link Iraq and Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks. “President Bush should apologize to the American people” for this “plainly dishonest” effort, insists a New York Times editorial.

Reality: Neither President Bush nor any member of his foreign policy team has ever said Iraq was linked to the attacks of September 11. On September 17, 2003, for example, in response to a question from a reporter, President Bush said: “No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11.”


You know you're right ( you might be ), he NEVER saiiiid anything, now come on why you treating the poor guy like that? He just went and killed a few thousand people right after September 11th, that doesn't look like a reaction to you does it?

5.

Quote:
Urban Legend: President Bush has shown an “arrogant disrespect” for the United Nations on Iraq, according to Senator Ted Kennedy.

Reality: The administration devoted enormous time and energy to pass five separate U.N. Security Council Resolutions on Iraq, each by unanimous vote.... President Bush personally addressed the U.N. General *** in September 2002. The administration supported the work of Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. special envoy in Iraq, and a continued U.N. role in Iraq’s political transition.


I say DAMN RIGHT! You passed those resolutions alright! WHO CARES if that most important one about going to war and killing poeple and destroying cities and releasing death showers....yeah THAT one, who cares if that never got passed!

Quote:
On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan the Secretary General of the United Nations called the invasion of Iraq illegal. He cited the lack of a Security Council resolution explicitly authorizing the war.


I say Kofi Annan's gone off his rocker an he's a lib pot smoking junkey whatsay S3nd k3ys ?

5.
Quote:
Urban Legend: The President launched a “unilateral attack on Iraq,” to use the words of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.
Reality: The coalition that liberated Iraq ranks among the largest war coalitions ever ***. President Bush in his 2004 State of the Union address: “Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq…. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.”


Heh heh, you know that one's so funny, that I'm gonna give it to 'ya.Bulgaria,El Salvador....you got Siberia in there somewhere?Maybe the swiss with their pocket knives ( i gotta get me one of those ).What happened to the Security Council Members...you know the ones who've been given Veto power because they ACTUALLY have military power...you know like China with the biggest conventional army, or Russia with their nukes, or France with their legendary submarines, oh wait a minute they didn't join? oh so you mean out of of the 5 MAJOR POWERS only 1 came to your side? It must be a conspiracy I say, I mean it can't be that they actually saw that the war was illegal did they? That can't be.Damn lib conspiracy...damn donkey....


This post is getting too long.I'll cover the rest of your *ahem* legends in the next one.

Same place,
same time,
different weapons!

-Your loving Liberal Pot Smokin Junkie

P.S I think that donkey from Shrek...think maybe he's a Lib Democrat too?hmmm.....


There's more proof ( ofcourse you need it ) that I've already posted, but then again, it'd make this one even longer, and you wouldn't care to read it anyway.If you so desire, I'll repost that too.And if you want even more *unposted* evidence, there's lots more where that came from, just ask, and I'll be good to you this Christmas.
i_am_mine
Quote:
I'm just curious S3nd... and this is a serious question - as in not at all meant to be rhetorical (so please feel free and safe to answer honestly- I'm not planning to insult you or anything.)

What is that you gain from calling people names?



Dear earthchild, don't worry about the names, if you've noticed, I've never once used improper ( ****** ) language in my posts, but I don't mind it being used against me, and I don't respond to it unless it's particulary pathetic ( reference : picture posts ).Don't worry about it Smile , it's just sign of having a weak argument with nothing else to say.

Moving on...

Quote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:


Again I ask you to provide me with a single war that we started for no reason. (And again you will fail to provide one)


And again I provide you with one.You could at least acknowledge that I've put forth it to you again and again, either that or you could admit that you're in denial.why? Because I've answered this in the last TWO posts and you've failed to read it, I've even provided whole page evidence ( as I have provided again and again ):
Iraq ( remember the post with the big huge red letters ).And again you will ask for proof, and again I give you proof ( I'll post it ALL OVER AGAIN at the end of this post since you usually tend to skip as much reading as possible )

Billy Hill, if you need to give support/a pat on the back to your conservative friends I suggest you do it openly, but doing so won't hide your own ignorance.I HAVE supplied you with a DIRECT ANSWER for the PAST TWO POSTS.That you decide to ignore them shows that YOU DODGE AND WEAVE AWAY FROM A CLEAR ANSWER.Its saddening that you fail to see a direct answer ( although I can kind of understand why you do not; because you don't want to ).Maybe a one word answer will suit you? Here it is, one example of a war without reason: IRAQ.(maybe saying the whole "War In Iraq, or Iraqi War is too many words to process ).

Here is proof that the war was started with *NO* reason:
i_am_mine wrote:
I've been through several debates across multiple forums and I have seen that people arguing a point either tend to blatantly push forward there view point or distort and manipulate facts, you however, S3nd K3ys have a much more juvenile method.....you simply state that you cannot see the facts even when they are put forth for you.Much like a infant closing his eyes imagining himself to not be there.

Since you stronly distrust theories and facts put forth by the liberal media, I shall quote ONLY FROM CIA AND GOVERNMENTS SOURCES ONLY, NO LIBERAL MEDIA OR PRIVATE MEDIA SOURCES ARE QUOTED HEREIN.I hope typing all that in caps made it a little clearer

You may also download the following evidence/report from the Internet.The following is a copy (unaltered) stored on the servers of The University Of Michigan, a copy may also be obtained directly from the CIA Website ( Note:The CIA is not "Liberal Media" and since its formation has remained a Government Instt. whose members are not liberal pot smoking junkies, although I can't be sure about the pot ). Excuse me for my dry humor, but I couldn't contain myself.(Also: I thought the democrat donkey was nice, touche Smile )

Back To The Topic

Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD

# Volume 1 (52.5 MB)

* Transmittal, Acknowledgements, Scope Note (1.59 MB)
* Regime Strategic Intent (2.2 MB)
* Regime Strategic Intent Annexes (2.34 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 1-71 (11.6 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 72-141 (8 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement Annexes A (4.8 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement Annexes B-C (12.5 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement Annexes D-H (9.56 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement Annexes I-L (3.97 KB)

# Volume 2 (74.2 MB)

* Delivery Systems (14.1 MB)
* Delivery Systems Annexes (8.12 MB)
* Nuclear (12.6 MB)
* Nuclear Annexes A-B (7.32 MB)
* Nuclear Annexes C-D (3.87 MB)
* Nuclear Annex E (64 KB)
* Nuclear Annex F, p. 1-5 (12.4 MB)
* Nuclear Annex F, p. 6-10 (14.7 MB)
* Nuclear Annex G (2.2 MB)

# Volume 3 (71.6 MB)

* Chemical Weapons (8.7 mb)
* Chemical Weapons Annex A (7.95 MB)
* Chemical Weapons Annex B (8.8 MB)
* Chemical Weapons Annexex C-F (10.3 MB)
* Chemical Weapons Annex G (15.2 MB)
* Biological Weapons (10.5 MB)
* Biological Weapons Annexes (9.11 MB)
* Glossary (94 KB)

CIA Copy Here: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
Mich. State Univ Copy Here:http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html

The Above is Commonly known as The Duelfer October Report of 2004.The report, written by Charles Duelfer of the Iraq Survey Group and not liberal pot smoking junkie.

For the uninitiated the report states, by Intelligence Officers ( and not liberal pot smoking junkies ) the following points and their consequences:

1.Since the October report from Duelfer, which said Saddam intended to obtain WMD but had no banned weapons, senior administration leaders have largely stopped discussing whether the weapons were moved.

2.The U.S. intelligence community’s 2002 estimate on Iraq indicated there were sizable weapons programs and stockpiles. The officials said weapons experts have not found a production capability in Iraq that would back up the size of the prewar estimates.

3.Intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never “a piece,” — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.
(Please note man saying " a piece " was not liberal pot smoking junkie )


But then again Mister S3nd K3ys maybe the CIA are a bunch of liberal pot smoking junkies that aren't really trying to tell the truth ( now that they have to ) and this is all a conspiracy by the guys over there with the stupid grey donkeys that lost last time and are playing sore losers just because they couldn't get there own man on the President's seat ... right?

Oh and just to be fair the Duelfer report also highlighted the following fact about Mr.Saddam Hussein ( ! psst... he's in on this whole donkey people conspiracy against bush too, dontcha think? )

4.International pressure to lift the sanctions led to the establishment of the Oil for Food program, which Saddam immediately saw "could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange.

5.Saddam intended to obtain WMD but had no banned weapons.

Well there it is isn't it eh? He INTENDED. OMFG! He INTENDED !

Heres something, The DPRK - The Democratic Republic Of Korea ( a.k.a North Korea, another buncha lib pot smoking junkies, i betcha ) don't INTEND to have Nuclear Weapons....no Sir ! - They've already got 'em!They've got the Chinese on they're side too ! And lets not get started about those liberal Chinese shall we? I mean the Chinese THEY'RE SO liberal....they're COMMUNISTS ! But lets not bother the chinese, SO WHAT if they have the largest conventional army on the face of the planet...we wouldn't like to raise our voices against American Business interests would we? I mean that chopstick country is the largest American Investment destination.

Oh but wait, there's Pakistan too! Now thats a bunch of friendly people trying to help us out, specially that guy in the Army uniform...he must be from the army right? Whatsay? He's from the Army but he's taken over the country? Oh that's alright, he's helping you see, and we provide him billions of dollars to get out of extreme debt, they money which is actually used to provide support to terrorist organisations to fight with their "heathen" neighbours.Damn Libs ... Nuke 'em All I say !

And you said Bush went to Iraq not just because he THOUGHT WMD's existed in the country but also to get rid of the oppressive regime...what a nice guy!! I mean, nevermind the fact that Iraq's regime was nothing compared to that of Saudi Arabia, where Rape,Incest,Honor Killings,Murder is all good fun.Sounds like florida eh?But we don't want to liberate people THERE do we? No, no, the kings I nice guy ( oh I forgot to tell you, they only have a pseudo-democracy ), he helps us out with the oil, and he owns about let say 15% of our stock market (I smell lib conspiracy).

The Above hereby negates the following points you made previously in your section lifted from The American Enterprise:
Points Negated (Enquote):

1.
Quote:
Claimed Reality: On July 14, 2004—after a nearly half-year investigation—a special panel reported to the British Parliament that British intelligence had indeed concluded that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium from Africa. The Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by Lord Butler, summarized: “It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium…. The statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.”


Note:
The following Countries, by The Non-Proliferation Charter Of United Nations Are also guilty of seeking Enriched Nuclear fuels through inappropriate channels:
1.Pakistan [Status:Ally Smile ]
2.North Korea
3.Iran
4.DPRK
The following countries along the same lines can be found guilty for illegaly supplying Nuclear material to unauthorized countries/organisations.
Note:Supplier/Receiver format
1.China/Pakistan
2.Pakistan/Iran
3.Pakistan/Independent Orgs. [scary eh?imagine the YMCA getting weapons grade plutonium ]
4.China/DPRK

2.
Quote:
Urban Legend Proved To Be True: Helping democracy take root in Iraq was a postwar rationalization by the Bush administration; it was an argument that was not made prior to going to war. In the words of a November 13, 2003 New York Times editorial, “The White House recently began shifting its case for the Iraq war from the embarrassing unconventional weapons issue to the lofty vision of creating an exemplary democracy in Iraq.”


3.
Quote:
Urban Legend: Saddam Hussein posed no threat. In the words of former Senator Max Cleland, “Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs, no ties to al-Qaeda. We now know that.”


Hmm...kids...its on the blackboard...out loud now...CIA REPORT...gooood!Little Ben you get 3 stars...good reading !

4.

Quote:
Urban Legend: President Bush and his administration wrongly tried to link Iraq and Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks. “President Bush should apologize to the American people” for this “plainly dishonest” effort, insists a New York Times editorial.

Reality: Neither President Bush nor any member of his foreign policy team has ever said Iraq was linked to the attacks of September 11. On September 17, 2003, for example, in response to a question from a reporter, President Bush said: “No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11.”


You know you're right ( you might be ), he NEVER saiiiid anything, now come on why you treating the poor guy like that? He just went and killed a few thousand people right after September 11th, that doesn't look like a reaction to you does it?

5.

Quote:
Urban Legend: President Bush has shown an “arrogant disrespect” for the United Nations on Iraq, according to Senator Ted Kennedy.

Reality: The administration devoted enormous time and energy to pass five separate U.N. Security Council Resolutions on Iraq, each by unanimous vote.... President Bush personally addressed the U.N. General *** in September 2002. The administration supported the work of Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. special envoy in Iraq, and a continued U.N. role in Iraq’s political transition.


I say DAMN RIGHT! You passed those resolutions alright! WHO CARES if that most important one about going to war and killing poeple and destroying cities and releasing death showers....yeah THAT one, who cares if that never got passed!

Quote:
On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan the Secretary General of the United Nations called the invasion of Iraq illegal. He cited the lack of a Security Council resolution explicitly authorizing the war.


I say Kofi Annan's gone off his rocker an he's a lib pot smoking junkey whatsay S3nd k3ys ?

5.
Quote:
Urban Legend: The President launched a “unilateral attack on Iraq,” to use the words of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.
Reality: The coalition that liberated Iraq ranks among the largest war coalitions ever ***. President Bush in his 2004 State of the Union address: “Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq…. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.”


Heh heh, you know that one's so funny, that I'm gonna give it to 'ya.Bulgaria,El Salvador....you got Siberia in there somewhere?Maybe the swiss with their pocket knives ( i gotta get me one of those ).What happened to the Security Council Members...you know the ones who've been given Veto power because they ACTUALLY have military power...you know like China with the biggest conventional army, or Russia with their nukes, or France with their legendary submarines, oh wait a minute they didn't join? oh so you mean out of of the 5 MAJOR POWERS only 1 came to your side? It must be a conspiracy I say, I mean it can't be that they actually saw that the war was illegal did they? That can't be.Damn lib conspiracy...damn donkey....


This post is getting too long.I'll cover the rest of your *ahem* legends in the next one.

Same place,
same time,
different weapons!


There's more proof ( ofcourse you need it ) that I've already posted, but then again, it'd make this one even longer, and you wouldn't care to read it anyway.If you so desire, I'll repost that too.And if you want even more *unposted* evidence, there's lots more where that came from, just ask, and I'll be good to you this Christmas.
jason11350
Who cares whether or not there were WMDs?? Saddam was a murderer who actively supported terrorsists and was a threat to his neighbors. He had to go. If you ask me, we didn't go in soon enough. The middle east - and the world in general - are safer places in the long run with him gone.
Billy Hill
I have (mostly) sat by quietly watching people like lib and mine try every tactic they can to make K3ys appear to be wrong. The fact is, you have done the opposite through your dismissal, denial and dodging. You sound like another member that posted in the same manner, but who is more quiet nowadays. You argue that the US has started wars for no reason. The only problem is, your definition of "no reason" is "no reason that I agree with".

WMD was not the only reason for going to war with Iraq.

The facts are, as K3ys stated, that the US has been (at least through the necessary channels of US policy), justified in just about every military action they've entered since the revolutionary war. Whether the world agreed with them or not. They've also given plenty of notice before hand, including to the enemy.

So how about you just stop trying to switch things around to fit your own twisted world and move on to a topic you can debate effectively while staying on topic and not 'fudging' the truth to fit your arguments.
i_am_mine
"Fudging" the facts? Bub, you better get it into your head, those facts are in un-altered form.Downloadable for your convenience.If you think just saying " hey who cares, it was the right thing to do no matter how much evidence exists " then you shouldn't be in a forum trying to "discuss " things.None of you understand the spirit of the word "discussion", you're here with a mindset that will not change no matter how much of the truth you see.You will see only that what you want to see.In that case, I suggest you stop coming to these forums ( ofcourse I am no one to say, in which case you can continue to do so and battle out your arguments with points such as " who cares ", " i think he was right " ). In that case I also suggest that you stop asking for evidence and proof, which is faithfully handed to you, since its a waste of our time. If you'd like to argue the more immature and uneducated way ( i.e., " you're eF'd up ", " I really don't care if the reasons were wrong or not ", etc etc ), well if you'd like to we'd love to stop wasting our time painstakingly gathering evidence ( from government sources as you request ) and instead just argue as you do, without credible facts,credible evidence,credible proof and credible sources.I mean it'd be so much easier for all of us, no more hours of typing, no more constraining ourselves not to react to your personal swipes and moving the facts across with the least emotion in an as professional way as possible.

If you'd like to bring this down to that, then we wouldn't mind.Again, if you'd like to debate on something when you come to a forum, we'd love to, but if you've come here with a closed mindset, determined not to acknowledge facts/figures/evidence, and lately not even acknowledging the one word answers of us fellow members(iraq,iraq,iraq), then there really wouldn't be any point to it ( although you'd still be welcome to do it, the internet is "democratic" as they say, or atleast this forum is ).

Another suggestion is a seperate thread, where you can invite all those that agree with you to post, so that you can all agree, since that is the one thing you want everyone to do."You are right, you cannot be wrong", seems to be your mindset.All people who do not agree are evil,on the side of the terrorists, and ofcourse they cannot be arguing for the truth, to uphold evidence and facts."They're just downright evil".

What I noticed in what of s3nd k3ys earlier posts was how he referred to the war as a war of god, in cases such as these there's nothing that can be argued.A person thinking a war is a war of God cannot be brought to think that it is wrong.Religious wars from the view point of an individual who believes in them can never be wrong (" I really don't care if the reasons were wrong or not " ).

Unfortunately some us believe that a War being " good or bad " makes all the difference, you speak of a war against evil - and yet you choose not to care of " good or bad " , " just and unjust ", that my friend " evil and good ".If you believe that people arguing on this basis are evil, then you need to think about it one more time with a clearer head and an even clearer conscience.

regards,
[m]
S3nd K3ys
i_am_mine wrote:
"Fudging" the facts? Bub, you better get it into your head, those facts are in un-altered form.


Perhaps he meant you're ignoring relevant points. (It's kind of the same thing) Like the point that you insist that the US starts wars with no reason or provocation. Repeatedly you ignore this point, yet claim you are not.

It's easy to prove me wrong if you can; just as an example, you could say:

Vietnam War

Then I'll post the 'reasons' for that war.


Quote:

...

What I noticed in what of s3nd k3ys earlier posts was how he referred to the war as a war of god, in cases such as these there's nothing that can be argued.A person thinking a war is a war of God cannot be brought to think that it is wrong.Religious wars from the view point of an individual who believes in them can never be wrong (" I really don't care if the reasons were wrong or not " ).

Unfortunately some us believe that a War being " good or bad " makes all the difference, you speak of a war against evil - and yet you choose not to care of " good or bad " , " just and unjust ", that my friend " evil and good ".If you believe that people arguing on this basis are evil, then you need to think about it one more time with a clearer head and an even clearer conscience.

regards,
[m]


If I made a reference to a war of God, it was probably a reference to Jihad. And if you think the US is the 'evil' one, instead of the terrorists, well... I'll leave it at that.

I never said I didn't care in the sense that you're implying, and I made that clear. (You even highlighted it) Yet you continue to try to use it against me by slanting it's context.

Lastly: When you said

Quote:
You will see only that what you want to see


You were correct, but applied it to the wrong person; you should have applied it to yourself. Wink

Now, again, please show me WHICH WAR(S) the US started for no reason and with no provocation. I don't need a 50,000 word essay about WMD (which were only a partial reason, but a reason none the less, no matter how flawed the intel the President and the rest of the world recieved on it) double posted either, just a simple country's name will do.
lib
Billy Hill wrote:
WMD was not the only reason for going to war with Iraq.

Funny, because that was definitely one of the biggest reasons the US went to war with Iraq. It was the most publicized reason... should I repost about "fear propaganda"? Are you too thick to acknowledge that propaganda?

Billy Hill wrote:
I have (mostly) sat by quietly watching people like lib and mine try every tactic they can to make K3ys appear to be wrong. The fact is, you have done the opposite through your dismissal, denial and dodging.

Funnier. Because you're the ones constantly in denial. A poster posts a thousand word reply and you come up with a measly one about tactis and picking on his words instead of arguing the points... either that, or measly posts patting each other on the back. Way to go!
By the way, the word "tactic" is highlighted because it really is amusing you're accusing me of using tactics when S3nd does that a lot more... like completely removing a user's post and putting "blah blah blah" in its place when it was quoted, or the play of words when he does use actual quotes, especially while highlighting or putting certain words in bold lettering, like 'some other member' has pointed out. By the way, are you so afraid of him posting that you won't even say his name now? Get it? Remember?

Billy Hill wrote:
So how about you just stop trying to switch things around to fit your own twisted world and move on to a topic you can debate effectively while staying on topic and not 'fudging' the truth to fit your arguments.

How about starting topics that you will bother replying to, when another member posts real proof? How about acknowledging the truth (even if you do it grudgingly) at least sometimes? How about acknowledging anything at all that you know is right, but which Bush hasn't yet admitted... how about once in your life acknowledging something that makes logical sense before your hero Bush acknowledges it (rest assured the president will only acknowledge stuff that's damaging to his credibility only if it's completely and necessarily required.)

Like I said in my previous post... and have been saying for a lot of posts -- the key word is logic

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Perhaps he meant you're ignoring relevant points.

Something I've noticed a lot of people do.

*EDIT:
Mods, please note I had to bypass the forum censor. It censored the word "assured" ... and converted it to ***.... I don't even know what it did with the "ured" part of the word Confused
xalophus
Billy Hill wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:


Again I ask you to provide me with a single war that we started for no reason. (And again you will fail to provide one)


I'd like to hear an answer to this as well, because I can't think of any.

No wonder you can't think of anything.
Your faith has blinded your senses.


Billy Hill wrote:
It really is saddening how some folks will talk all around the subject, taking jabs at every turn, and consistantly fail to provide a direct answer. (Although I kind of understand why they are not; because they cannot.)

It was very comical reading this thread and watching a couple of folks dodging and weaving in an attempt to side-step the question K3ys asked. Laughing

What are you doing then, Billy Hill ?
Are you talking on the subject ?
Providing a direct answer ? Even though, as you yourself said, you cannot ?
Are you saddened at what you've done ?
Laughing ?



Billy Hill wrote:
I have (mostly) sat by quietly watching people like lib and mine try every tactic they can to make K3ys appear to be wrong. The fact is, you have done the opposite through your dismissal, denial and dodging. You sound like another member that posted in the same manner, but who is more quiet nowadays.

Do you have anything to say related to the topic ?
If not, then why don't you sit by quietly, as you mostly do ?

Do you want an example of dismissal ?
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I really don't care if the reasons were wrong or not (in the context of this 'argument'), they still existed.

Do you want an example of denial ?
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Bush lied. There's speculation. Too bad.


Billy Hill wrote:
So how about you just stop trying to switch things around to fit your own twisted world and move on to a topic you can debate effectively while staying on topic and not 'fudging' the truth to fit your arguments.

Do you want an example of dodging and switching things around to fit your own twisted world ?
S3nd K3ys wrote:
"She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: ... she never wounds 'till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her."
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I'm not denying first strike. I'm denying that the US has EVER attacked another country without reason.



Billy Hill wrote:
You argue that the US has started wars for no reason. The only problem is, your definition of "no reason" is "no reason that I agree with".

WMDs was the main "reason", do you agree with this reason ?
xalophus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I really don't care if the reasons were wrong or not (in the context of this 'argument'), they still existed.
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Geez you're single-minded and obtuse. Rolling Eyes

Tripping all over yourself, S3nd K3ys. Rolling Eyes

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Again I ask you to provide me with a single war that we started for no reason. (And again you will fail to provide one)

the proof will not fail to come.
The acknowledgement probably will.

Quote:
PRETEXTS TO JUSTIFY US MILITARY INTERVENTION IN CUBA
(Note: The courses of action which follow are a preliminary submission suitable only for planning purposes. They are arranged neither chronologically nor in ascending order.Together with similar inputs from other agencies, they are intended to provide a point of departure for the development of a single, integrated, time-phased plan. Such a plan would permit the evaluation of individual projects within the context of cumulative, correlated actions designed to lead inexorably to the objective of adequate justification for US military intervention in Cuba).

1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba. a cover and deception plan to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban responses justifies.

2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.
a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronilogical order):
(1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on the base.
(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) sabateurs inside the base.
(4) Start riots near the entrance to the base (friendly Cubans). Appendix to Enclosure A 7
(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
(6) Burn aircraft on airbase (sabatage).
(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.
(8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea of vicinity of Guantanamo City.
(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.
(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- napthalene.
(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).
b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.
c. Commence large scale United States military operations.

3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmannded) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presense of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existant crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

4. We could develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Flordia cities and even in Washington.
The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful inprojecting the idea of an irresponsible government.

5. A "Cuban-based, Castro-supported" filibuster could be simulated against a neighboring Caribbean nation (in the vein of the 14th of June invasion of the Dominican Republic). We know that Castro is backing subversive efforts clandestinely against Haiti, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Nicaragua at present and possible others. These efforts can be magnified and additional ones contrived for exposure. For example, advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican Air Force to intrusions within their national air space. "Cuban" B-26 or C-46 type aircraft could make cane-burning raids at night. Soviet Bloc incidiaries could be found. This could be coupled with "Cuban" messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican Republic and "Cuban" shipments of arms which would be found, or intercepted, on the beach.

6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be purchased from US resources in about three months.

7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba. Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged.

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba.The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the inter- national distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.
a. Approximately 4 of 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.
b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.
c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots retuning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

Notice the word "Pretext" ?
A Pretext is not a justification, it's not a reason.

We now know this because this document is a part of the NSA, but you won't find much of today's government "plans" there.

Now we can all see what's going on here, US has made up it's mind about attacking Cuba, but (in their words), "it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis". (legitimate provocation is only desirable, not necessary)
They devise a detailed plan to carry out "unprovoked" incidents and "blame it on Cuba" and "sell the incident".
Now why would they do that if they had any valid excuse to attack Cuba ?
Why would they do this if they had any real reason, and were anything but desperate for war ?
I know, Cuba must have treaded all over America, just like Iraq did.

It's simple, the US thinktanks foresee that attacking a particular country could be beneficial, they next try to come up with a plausible "reason" for attacking this country, next they march into "war".
The pattern is striking. Replace Cuba with the country in question and everything falls into place.
i_am_mine
s3nd k3ys said:
Quote:
If I made a reference to a war of God, it was probably a reference to Jihad. And if you think the US is the 'evil' one, instead of the terrorists, well... I'll leave it at that.


Sometimes. I believe, s3nd, you don't even recollect or remember what you've just said.
That you promoted the war as a War of God, promoted by God? No? Well let me refresh your memory

Quote:
Looking back in history, the most beloved stories of all mankind have been those of the unselfish giving of one's self for another. In fact, when asked who among men was the greatest of all, He who has the final say in everything said: Greater love hath no man than this; that a man lay down his life for his friends. Pretty powerful statement. He didn't say, He who writes a self-condemning expose that twists the truth, or He who has the courage to lie to end a war that is a just cause. No. When confronted about the greatest of all mankind, Jesus Christ said that he who selflessly gave all he had for the sake of a brother was superior. By this definition, there is no more Christ-like person on earth than the American soldier. It is true, unabated, breath-taking glory.

Even our fiction stories that are cherished are rife with tales of good triumphing over evil. The best movies in history--fiction or not--have at their base that moment when a man must choose, and choose wisely. And every one of us cheers when he makes the unselfish choice. It inspires the soul with the hope that mankind indeed has Deity's DNA, and that every now and then, we get a glimpse of it.

The trouble is those in power do NOT believe this way. When they see a man do the right thing, they seethe with rage and disgust, and in a fury use their power to crush the truth under an avalanche of anti-war, anti-American, and anti-soldier propaganda. They saturate us with it, knowing full well that if they say it enough, it will eventually become the truth.

Now days, we have a weapon that we didn't have when Walter Cronkite was lying about Vietnam. We can look on the internet to find the truth from those who are actually living it. Trouble is, you have to search really, really hard to find anything under the tidal wave of leftist deception and MSM deviance. We can see that in spite of the MSM's fraud and the Democrat's whiny surrender flatulence, we are winning not just the war, but the people as well. They aren't just grateful; they are in love with the idea of America, and if the only thing this war accomplishes is to bring freedom to nations and people who have never known it, it was the right war, a just war...a Greater Love war. This war has Christ’s stamp of approval all over it, for it is purchasing the lives of our brethren with sacrifice and courage. Our soldiers know it, the Iraqis know it…the only ones who don’t are the ones with all the power.


Well if that's not saying its a religious war, then I don't know what is.

And I'm pretty sure thats not a reference to "Jihad" not unless Allah and The Prophet have been hangin' out with Jesus lately.

Well a reply in full perhaps in a little while, forgive me, for I must excuse myself from your infinitely looping conversation and begin packing, I have a trip in store for me.

And if you ever need help remembering
S3nd K3ys
xalophus wrote:
CUBA


How many cubans were killed when we went to war with cuba?? LoL, you're funny.

I'll play anyway.

Cuba was armed by communist Russia with the intetnt to threaten the US from a closer proximity.

Defense. That's enough reason in my book.

Quote:
Cold War: Cuban Missile Crisis

According to Nikita Khrushchev's memoirs, in May 1962 he conceived the idea of placing intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba as a means of countering an emerging lead of the United States in developing and deploying strategic missiles. He also presented the scheme as a means of protecting Cuba from another United States-sponsored invasion, such as the failed attempt at the Bay of Pigs in 1961.

After obtaining Fidel Castro's approval, the Soviet Union worked quickly and secretly to build missile installations in Cuba.


Quote:
Beyond these differences between the two cases, there is an enormous moral difference
between U.S. and Russian objectives ... To equate U.S. and Russian bases is in effect to
equate U.S. and Russian purposes ... The U.S. bases, such as those in Turkey, have helped
keep the peace since World War II, while the Russian bases in Cuba threatened to upset
the peace. The Russian bases were intended to further conquest and domination, while
U.S. bases were erected to preserve freedom. The difference should have been obvious to all.{2}


Next?
S3nd K3ys
i_am_mine wrote:
s3nd k3ys said:
Quote:
If I made a reference to a war of God, it was probably a reference to Jihad. And if you think the US is the 'evil' one, instead of the terrorists, well... I'll leave it at that.


Sometimes. I believe, s3nd, you don't even recollect or remember what you've just said.
That you promoted the war as a War of God, promoted by God? No? Well let me refresh your memory

Quote:
Looking back in history, the most beloved stories of all mankind have been those of the unselfish giving of one's self for another. In fact, when asked who among men was the greatest of all, He who has the final say in everything said: Greater love hath no man than this; that a man lay down his life for his friends. Pretty powerful statement. He didn't say, He who writes a self-condemning expose that twists the truth, or He who has the courage to lie to end a war that is a just cause. No. When confronted about the greatest of all mankind, Jesus Christ said that he who selflessly gave all he had for the sake of a brother was superior. By this definition, there is no more Christ-like person on earth than the American soldier. It is true, unabated, breath-taking glory.

Even our fiction stories that are cherished are rife with tales of good triumphing over evil. The best movies in history--fiction or not--have at their base that moment when a man must choose, and choose wisely. And every one of us cheers when he makes the unselfish choice. It inspires the soul with the hope that mankind indeed has Deity's DNA, and that every now and then, we get a glimpse of it.

The trouble is those in power do NOT believe this way. When they see a man do the right thing, they seethe with rage and disgust, and in a fury use their power to crush the truth under an avalanche of anti-war, anti-American, and anti-soldier propaganda. They saturate us with it, knowing full well that if they say it enough, it will eventually become the truth.

Now days, we have a weapon that we didn't have when Walter Cronkite was lying about Vietnam. We can look on the internet to find the truth from those who are actually living it. Trouble is, you have to search really, really hard to find anything under the tidal wave of leftist deception and MSM deviance. We can see that in spite of the MSM's fraud and the Democrat's whiny surrender flatulence, we are winning not just the war, but the people as well. They aren't just grateful; they are in love with the idea of America, and if the only thing this war accomplishes is to bring freedom to nations and people who have never known it, it was the right war, a just war...a Greater Love war. This war has Christ’s stamp of approval all over it, for it is purchasing the lives of our brethren with sacrifice and courage. Our soldiers know it, the Iraqis know it…the only ones who don’t are the ones with all the power.


Well if that's not saying its a religious war, then I don't know what is.

And I'm pretty sure thats not a reference to "Jihad" not unless Allah and The Prophet have been hangin' out with Jesus lately.

Well a reply in full perhaps in a little while, forgive me, for I must excuse myself from your infinitely looping conversation and begin packing, I have a trip in store for me.

And if you ever need help remembering


Oops. Took me a while to figure that out, but it was a typo on my part. I had not quoted the article in that thread. (Mods, feel free to ban me Shocked )

The article was taken from here, so those were not my words. Sorry to mislead/dissapoint, it was not intentional.

The thread has been altered to show such. Thanks for pointing it out.
LumberJack
The problem is that many individual americans had their reasons to support the war on Iraq (most Americans just jump when Bush says so anyways). However, the American government did not. They kept changing the reasons as they went along until someone in the white house finally whispered to the president "we are there to bring freedom and democracy".

The best urban legend about the Iraq war that I know of is that it was justified Very Happy
i_am_mine
You quote something from another source in your post, clearly showing that you subscribe to its point ( do you not ? ) and then say that it doesn't apply because you didn't write it?

Aaaalrighty then.
xalophus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
xalophus wrote:
CUBA


How many cubans were killed when we went to war with cuba?? LoL, you're funny.

So now you want to change from "war without reason" to "war without reason where a definite number of people of the other country were killed" ?
LoL, you're dodgy.

I'll still play anyway.


AND, I did not say just "Cuba".
I presented proof of immoral warmongering by American intelligence.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Cuba was armed by communist Russia with the intetnt to threaten the US from a closer proximity.

The reason why Russia setup missile bases in Cuba was that 5 months back, America had set up it's own missile bases in Turkey with an intent to threaten the USSR from a closer proximity.


S3nd K3ys wrote:
Defense. That's enough reason in my book.

What about pretenses ?

Atleast you make clear your single-mindedness when you use the term "my book".

And maybe your "defensive" nation wouldn't have to act in such "defense" if you weren't the first to set up missile bases close to your opponent.


S3nd K3ys wrote:
Cold War: Cuban Missile Crisis

According to Nikita Khrushchev's memoirs, in May 1962 he conceived the idea of placing intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba as a means of countering an emerging lead of the United States in developing and deploying strategic missiles. He also presented the scheme as a means of protecting Cuba from another United States-sponsored invasion, such as the failed attempt at the Bay of Pigs in 1961.

Note the part I've highlighted.
Or did you skip those using your advanced undesirable information filter ?


S3nd K3ys wrote:
Beyond these differences between the two cases, there is an enormous moral difference
between U.S. and Russian objectives ... To equate U.S. and Russian bases is in effect to
equate U.S. and Russian purposes ... The U.S. bases, such as those in Turkey, have helped
keep the peace since World War II, while the Russian bases in Cuba threatened to upset
the peace. The Russian bases were intended to further conquest and domination, while
U.S. bases were erected to preserve freedom
.

You think US is morally correct because you think it is ?
And that somehow proves the point ???

Can you hear yourself ?
Is that logic ?
Looks more like blind faith to me.

We are arguing morality of US wars, yet the only thing you present to "support" your shifty point is your own delusion ? your assumption ?

A corollary does not prove its parent proposition.
It derives its own proof from it.

Do you realize that you are only repeating your own opinion in the name of proof ?

S3nd K3ys wrote:
The difference should have been obvious to all.

That difference is the very point of debate here.

However, one thing is pretty obvious - your blind faith.
Related topics
Civilian Casualties in Iraq...
islam is...
Justification for War in Iraq
Muslims Should be Thanking US for Iraq Invasion
Why is the USA in Iraq?
Gallery of US Military Dead During Iraq War
Urban Legends
Is the war in Iraq a war on terrorism?
Iran...war looming ?
A rant on God, religion and morality
Suicide Bombings claim atleast 180 lives in Iraq
Iraq War costs 6 trillion $ in energy costs?
Iraq War Today
[Opinion] Iraq War
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.