Quote :

"but i think the biggest issue, at least for me, is the fact that these weapons were supposed to pose some sort of imminent threat to us, when we all know THAT is total bullshit"

I thought the quote Bush used before the war started regarding WMDs was something to the effect of "Hussein has WMDs that are an iminent threat to the US and its allies" meaning Israel perhaps

course i wouldnt usually think a 747 posed imminent threat to the world trade towers either

5/26/2006 1:31:26 PM

Quote :

"WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS FUCKING DESTRUCTION, and people blame Bush for the lack of WMDs found, I remind them that Bush is not the only person who thought Iraq had WMDs"

People don't blame Bush for not finding WMDs. People blame Bush for using WMDs as the justification for war.

5/26/2006 3:29:05 PM

people blame Bush for everything

5/26/2006 3:51:14 PM

Where did jwb9984 go?

5/26/2006 6:58:34 PM

Quote :

"TREETWISTA: but when the thread is asking WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS FUCKING DESTRUCTION, and people blame Bush for the lack of WMDs found, I remind them that Bush is not the only person who thought Iraq had WMDs"

Bush was the goddamn REASON people, including Kerry, thought Iraq had WMDs. Because we wanted to believe he knew what the fuck he was talking about. And more importantly, we believed Colin Powell.

But now we've found out that Bush and Cheney politically pressured the CIA to skew the available intelligence to support their foregone conclusion.

And ol' Colin Powell spent every bit of his credibility presenting the flawed intelligence to the world. I don't know what BushCo has on Powell, but apparently it's big.

5/26/2006 6:59:51 PM

Quote :

"But now we've found out that Bush and Cheney politically pressured the CIA to skew the available intelligence to support their foregone conclusion."

evidence please.

5/26/2006 7:05:22 PM

^^

Did you skip my post on the previous page? Even a tiny bit of research provides a reasonably compelling case that Saddam had weapons and was willing to use them for ignoble purposes.

5/26/2006 7:14:52 PM

^ no i read your post. its the same old shit i see from war supporters everywhere. now the fact is, he had no weapons, no trace of weapons.

and at the time, we couldnt FIND any weapons, or trace of weapons. we even went to Africa looking for yellowcake, we tried to make up stories about aluminum tubes. but it was nada, zip, nothing.

but yet, we "just knew" he had to have some... somewhere.

so we got our Posterboards and Crayola Markers, drew some cartoons, and took them to the UN as our "evidence".

and now we're mired in basically a war of attrition, with 50,000+ civilians dead, 2500 US troops dead and counting, their country's infrastructure is broken, 10 out of 13 provinces are "unstable and lawless", we're barely holding the last bits from falling into all out secular civil war, and we're running our budget deficit and national debt to ridiculous amounts never seen due to this $200 billion / year war

all because "we saw you had weapons before, and we saw you use them once back in 1982."

yeah, okay. go ahead and keep defending it. you're obviously compelled to cling on til the very end.

5/26/2006 7:40:37 PM

I'm not compelled to cling to it, and I haven't exactly agreed with how the war has been run up until this point.

I'm not a Bush supporter, either.

Your trite rhetoric bounces off of my argument -- it's very easy to see how everybody would come to the rational conclusion that something was up. Your conclusion can only come from the combination of hindsight and a politically charged agenda.

Quote :

""we saw you had weapons before, and we saw you use them once back in 1982.""

This is flat out wrong. Attacks on the Kurds occured through the 90s with nerve agents including mustard and sarin. Saddam paid out 35 million to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers as incentive for the suicide bombings between September, 2000 and when he lost control of Iraq.

We see a guy who has had nerve agents, has used them in violent acts both in conventional warfare and flat-out acts of genocide, and who has funded and encouraged terrorism by exploiting peoples' poverty. This guy has also already been in one war with us, and is extremely hostile towards us. Then, on top of it, he refuses weapons inspectors the ability to conduct their business, in violation of the cease-fire from the first gulf war.

What else do you need for a compelling case to go to war? An actual attack on American soil? He already funded direct attacks on our ally (Israel).

[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 7:47 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2006 7:42:23 PM

Quote :

"Attacks on the Kurds occured through the 90s with nerve agents including mustard and sarin. Saddam paid out 35 million to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers as incentive for the suicide bombings between September, 2000 and when he lost control of Iraq."

o rly? source pls.



[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 7:50 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2006 7:47:24 PM

^ since Saddam had no WMD's as you say, why did he refuse time and time again to allow UN's weapons inspectors to enter Iraq pre-war? and when he did, the Iraqi army had to escort them to Saddam approved sites only (meaning they were on a tight leash).

[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 7:50 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2006 7:49:52 PM

Quote :

"o rly? source pls."

You said you read my previous post. Why did you fail to see my source in it? You need to learn to read.

I'll even do the work for you, all over again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm -- Palestinians get Saddam's funding
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html -- chemical weapons attacks on the Kurds in northern Iraq, through the 90s. NOBODY EVEN FUCKING DISPUTES THIS ANYMORE.

How can you be this willfully ignorant? I oppose Bush too. There are plenty of rational, actual reasons to dislike the President's performance thus far. Please use those, not this ridiculous bullshit reason you've adopted wholesale from some leftist feel-tank.

5/26/2006 7:54:44 PM

^^ he stalled them, delayed them, fucked around, sure. but let them in eventually, anyhow. yeah, Saddam was a big blustery buffoon, who had to puff up his chest to the US Imperialists. He had to show his people he was a tough guy.

Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector, prior to the war, said that Iraq most likely had no weapons, although he admitted he would need some more time, before coming to a final conclusion.

so thats when we attacked. fuck Blix. hes a terrorist lover anyhow, right?

the point is, we found no weapons, and no trace of weapons. ever. all of saddams delay tactics notwithstanding, we couldnt even MANUFACTURE any evidence against him. the best we could come up with was CARTOONS. if it wasnt for Colin Powell's international respect, we would have been laughed out of the UN.





[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 7:57 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2006 7:56:56 PM

There was a pretty long period where nobody could get into the labs.

Even if there were no weapons there at all, why would he cast suspicion on himself in the precarious position he was in? He forced the rational conclusion that something was up.

Oh, and...


YEAH HOW YOU FUCKIN' LIKE THAT, HANS BRIX?

5/26/2006 8:01:07 PM

Quote :

"he stalled them, delayed them, fucked around, sure. but let them in eventually"

so do u think that the stall and delay tactics were done to ensure time for the stockpiles to be hidden/moved/sold? or do u deny that? i just dont see how someone can argue he didnt have anythin when he clearly had used stuff against the Kurds and was acting like he had somethin to hide. i mean, think logically about this: if u were Saddam and had ur entire country, regime, way of life about to be fucked up wouldnt u want to cooperate in every way possible? i know i would!

5/26/2006 8:08:06 PM

Quote :

"How can you be this willfully ignorant?"

how can you be this willfully disingenuous?

the forensic analysis in your PHR link was done in 1992, to prove a nerve gas attack in 1988.

1988.

ok, so i said 1982. i was mistaken. it was 1988.

(around 1982 was the year Donald Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand after he sold him the nerve agent.)



so thats like, 15 year ago. How does an attack on Kurds, 15 years ago, constitute a clear and present danger today? yea, so hes a bad man. killed some of his people.

Well Guess Fucking What?? we got about a dozen or more countries with "bad men" who kill their own citizens. we better goddamn get busy.

and furthermore, those payouts to Palastinians, were a one-time event done in 2003, just prior to the war. SADDAM was trying to BUY SOME FRIENDS. He payed money to FAMILY MEMBERS of palastinians who died in conflict against the Israelis.

this included ONE, count it: ONE (1) suicide bomber.

One.

the rest were killed in direct conflict. the family members used the money to "rebuild homes destroyed by Israel and bring up orphaned children." (from the BBC article you linked). Even in christianity Paul exhorts the churches to "give money and food to the widows of the martyrs". thats hardly a capital crime.

by the way, did you know, there are TWO SIDES to the Israeli/Palastinian conflict? yea, for real. theres these people, they're callled Palastinians, who claim a different side of the story than the one Israel promotes.

so take your "trite rhetoric" and go feel superior because you're such a reknowned rhetoritician. because all your skills doesnt change the fact that you have to use half-truths and selective incidents out of context to make your point.





[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 8:26 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2006 8:11:59 PM

Quote :

"i mean, think logically about this: if u were Saddam and had ur entire country, regime, way of life about to be fucked up wouldnt u want to cooperate in every way possible? i know i would!"

brianj, your "arguments" are no longer worth replying to.

5/26/2006 8:16:00 PM

I'm really confused. You need to read my posts and the articles I cited. I don't even know how to respond to you, you obviously either do not read what I'm offering or you do not comprehend it.

I'm not being intellectually dishonest. It was pretty easy to see how Saddam not only violated the cease-fire, but also feigned as if he had weapons. Whether he had them or not is highly irrelevant in the accusation that he fostered doubt and suspicion. It's not hard to build a case for military action based on what happened.

5/26/2006 8:18:24 PM

resorting to salisbury tactics now? lol..that is the best arguement yet.

and u missed everythin previous to that statement:

Quote :

"so do u think that the stall and delay tactics were done to ensure time for the stockpiles to be hidden/moved/sold? or do u deny that? i just dont see how someone can argue he didnt have anythin when he clearly had used stuff against the Kurds and was acting like he had somethin to hide."

[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 8:20 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2006 8:19:21 PM

Eh it's not worth it. I'm a complete idiot for even trying to change somebody's opinion about this.

I'm going to withdraw, not going to get into a 500 page black hole over this. My position isn't being listened to anyway, just getting my ass straw-manned.

5/26/2006 8:22:23 PM

Quote :

"I'm really confused. "

obviously

Quote :

"You need to read my posts and the articles I cited. "

I did. from the Articles you posted, directly.

PHR: in 1992, forensic pathologists proved that saddam killed Kurds with nerve gas in 1988.

BBC: saddam paid money in early 2003, prior to the war, to one (1) suicide bomber's family.

maybe you should actually read them yourself, instead of formulating arguments based on headlines.

5/26/2006 8:30:40 PM

Quote :

"Bush was the goddamn REASON people, including Kerry, thought Iraq had WMDs. Because we wanted to believe he knew what the fuck he was talking about"

well then it looks like Bush is smarter than you give him credit for being if he fooled everybody

5/26/2006 9:44:00 PM

well, his handlers are

5/26/2006 9:45:36 PM

Quote :

"Bush was the goddamn REASON people, including Kerry, thought Iraq had WMDs. Because we wanted to believe he knew what the fuck he was talking about. And more importantly, we believed Colin Powell."

Was Bush the goddamn REASON that Clinton seemed to think that Saddam was developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? Was he manipulating CIA information and manufacturing evidence back then?

C'mon joe_schmoe, even you can't be that dumb. Just admit when you're full of shit.

The fact is that it was simply a case of people believing something is true because so many people repeated it. The CIA was using very questionable sources of information from German and British intelligence, and they were under intense pressure to produce something solid. These whole conspiracy theories about Bush lying to everybody and ordering the CIA to fabricate evidence are lame and stupid.

Quote :

"CLINTON: Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish. Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire. The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. "

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html



[Edited on May 26, 2006 at 10:17 PM. Reason : 2]

5/26/2006 10:10:49 PM

The "BUT CLINTON DID IT!" argument never fails.

5/26/2006 10:42:10 PM

i was always told bush jr went in to finish the job his father started

5/26/2006 10:59:09 PM

We were promised stockpiles.

I want my stockpiles, damnit!

5/27/2006 3:13:11 AM

i want some motherfucking 50 cent gas

5/27/2006 3:51:12 AM

haha yea i love that reason ^. we went to war with Iraq for da 0il!!!11!1!

5/27/2006 8:11:59 AM

Quote :

"we went to war with Iraq for da 0il"

you'd be a stupid fucknob if you think we didn't.

5/27/2006 10:51:35 PM

Quote :

"you'd be a stupid fucknob if you think we didn't."

5/28/2006 12:29:49 PM

Quote :

"^ since Saddam had no WMD's as you say, why did he refuse time and time again to allow UN's weapons inspectors to enter Iraq pre-war? and when he did, the Iraqi army had to escort them to Saddam approved sites only (meaning they were on a tight leash).v"

Because he was scared of Iran. As long as he made it seem like he had WMD, he thought he was safe from Iran.

5/28/2006 12:36:40 PM

this is interesting. according to this, US imports of oil from Iraq in 2005 total 3.5%...seems low to me, would expect it to be higher.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/NationalSecurity/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=95835

[Edited on May 28, 2006 at 12:41 PM. Reason : .]

5/28/2006 12:41:12 PM

theres a war going on and you'd expect it to be higher?

thats wishful thinking if you ask me

5/28/2006 1:35:19 PM

^^its not about oil from iraq.

if you don't know why we're there, you're in need of some serious education.

5/28/2006 1:49:36 PM

Quote :

"Where did jwb9984 go? "

i left for the beach about 10 minutes after my last post

5/29/2006 11:39:06 AM

come on you fucks, i want 20+ pages just like the last one

5/31/2006 10:20:10 PM

^ wont happen. everyone finally understands that there never were any WMDs.

even the 29% who are still bush supporters have to pretend there is some other larger, more noble goal for all the deaths, rather than the original lie.

6/1/2006 11:59:46 AM

Quote :

"everyone finally understands that there never were any WMDs."

THE KURDS UNDERSTAND THERE WERE NEVER ANY WMD'S

6/1/2006 12:00:34 PM

^ oh yeah. lets not forget. in 1988, there were some WMDs.

brilliant.

6/1/2006 4:03:15 PM

Mustard gas, under any circumstances, can NOT be stored more that 15 years.

...

...


....







..........

6/1/2006 4:05:17 PM

and thank goodness for that

or ww2 would NOT have gone as smoothly

6/1/2006 4:21:21 PM

Quote :

"10 out of 13 provinces are "unstable and lawless", "

I thought it was more like "3 out of 13"
Where's your source. Admittedly, I don't have one so can you help me out?

6/1/2006 4:56:30 PM

Quote :

"wont happen. everyone finally understands that there never were any WMDs."

Quote :

"oh yeah. lets not forget. in 1988, there were some WMDs. brilliant."

never = 1988? brilliant

6/1/2006 5:11:53 PM

the russians dumped them in the gulf

6/1/2006 7:49:00 PM

Quote :

"never = 1988? brilliant "

okay you grammar ninja fucking pedant. hows this then:


"Saddam has Nukular Weapons pointed at your grandma's bedroom window"

"so lets kill him and destroy his country."

"whoops. oh wait. no, i guess he never did. whatever. Al-Qaeda. 9/11. Making America Safe. Regime Change. War on Terruh. Mission Accomplished. Made some mistakes. Al-Qaeda. 9/11. Making America Safe ... ... ..."

6/2/2006 12:43:33 AM

I think the wmd's are with M. Ozturk on centennial campus. It seems like he has some kind of a plan for us.

6/2/2006 3:02:13 AM

^^just curious...did you vote for Kerry? cause Kerry thought there were WMDs too..............

Quote :

"okay you grammar ninja fucking pedant. hows this then:"

btw your grammar wasnt your problem...its the outright lie that "iraq never had wmds"...even the biggest bush haters and democrat dickriders know iraq USED wmds in our lifetime

6/2/2006 11:45:54 AM

Quote :

"^^just curious...did you vote for Kerry? cause Kerry thought there were WMDs too.............."

when are you going to realize that that doesn't fucking matter one fucking bit.

it has absolutely no fucking relevance to anything in this thread, AT ALL

so LEAVE IT ALONE. you just look dumb.

6/2/2006 12:02:11 PM

What I've taken from this whole debacle is that our elected officials, when push comes to shove, are incapable of resisting the pressure of group think.

Some of them had to have thought the evidence leading to the war was weak, yet they yielded to popular opinion.

6/2/2006 12:16:01 PM