Grasping At Straws

Black Dog · September 25, 2003

So, word is that the Iraq Survey Group is set to publish an interim report stating that no WMD, or even evidence of WMD programs, in Iraq.

Well, I'm shocked. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, the Anglo-American invasion force is still backpeddling furiously away from there previous asssertions about WMD.

UK: War justified despite no WMD

Rwemember: Iraq was said to have presented a "clear and present" danger to the U.S. Not tomorrow, not 10 years down the way. That was the central reason for the war. It was a lie.

Whistler · September 25, 2003

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue3...e3/jv6n3a2.html

http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/fact...sheet-1984.html

Like it or not, the world, including yourself, is better for the US efforts to remove Saddam Hussein. If you think this technology was not for sale to organizations willing to terrorize the west you are kidding yourself.

Black Dog · September 25, 2003

You'll never catch me apologizing for the actions of Saddam Hussein's regime. I do, however, obect to public officials using distortions, half truths, and outright lies to foist a war of very questionable intent onto the populace.

As for the world being a better place without Saddam Hussein, that may be true at a fundamental level, but I fear the problems this war will cause and the precedent its conduct will set in global affairs will have serious negative repurcussions.

. If you think this technology was not for sale to organizations willing to terrorize the west you are kidding yourself.

And it still is.

Whistler · September 25, 2003

...I do, however, obect to public officials using distortions, half truths, and outright lies to foist a war of very questionable intent onto the populace.

You have not heard of this before?

As for the world being a better place without Saddam Hussein, that may be true at a fundamental level...

I’ll take the ‘fundamental level’ and take our chances with ‘serious negative repercussions’ possibly strengthening the UN.

. If you think this technology was not for sale to organizations willing to terrorize the west you are kidding yourself.
And it still is.

One less distributor.

nova_satori · September 25, 2003

They Lied. Period. If Yahoo! news is saying this....oh boy

One less distributor.

A hundred thousand more terrorists far more determined to bring down the US. Good job boys!

Black Dog · September 25, 2003

I’ll take the ‘fundamental level’ and take our chances with ‘serious negative repercussions’ possibly strengthening the UN.

I'd like to hear how undermining one of the fundamental principles of the UN and international law will, in the end, strengthen the organization.

Typiocally, when right-wingers talk of "strengthening the UN", they mean "making it even more of a rubber stamp US puppet than it already is".

One less distributor.

Of what, exactly?

Whistler · September 25, 2003

I'd like to hear how undermining one of the fundamental principles of the UN and international law will, in the end, strengthen the organization.
Typiocally, when right-wingers talk of "strengthening the UN", they mean "making it even more of a rubber stamp US puppet than it already is".

I’m impressed you know what ‘right-wingers typiocally (typically) mean’. Not being a ‘right-winger’ I’m sure your correct being the free thinker you appear to be. (reference to your Bush diction post that has mysteriously disappeared)

I was referring to the other thread I heard through out every speech addressed to the UN, and that is, without exception, they referenced that the UN needs reform.

QUOTE
One less distributor.

Of what, exactly?

Chemical / Biological weapons. (Please try to keep up)

Black Dog · September 25, 2003

I was referring to the other thread I heard through out every speech addressed to the UN, and that is, without exception, they referenced that the UN needs reform.

I'd agree that the UN needs reform. Starting by dismantling, or at least removing the power of veto from, the Security Council.

And I apologize if I mistakenly labeled you a right-winger.

Chemical / Biological weapons. (Please try to keep up)

How does one distribute something one does not have?

SirRiff · September 25, 2003

its pathetic that after months of claiming they had all this secret information about WMDs and how there were mountains of them just sitting around and defectors had given them specific information there is nothing to be found.

nobody can ever trust Bush again.

SirRiff

Whistler · September 25, 2003

Incase you missed it earlier:

http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/fact...sheet-1984.html

For some reason beyond me the second link does not work here. Please refer to my earlier post. :blink:

nova_satori · September 26, 2003

The Bush adminstration has lied so badly and screwed up so badly, the RUSSIANS are mocking us on our mockery.

Deck Of Cards: Bush is the Jack Of Hearts

Whistler · September 26, 2003

Ha Capitalism in Russia, Can I buy a pack?

nova_satori · September 26, 2003

lol. I find it disturbing that the russkies are laughing at our complete stupidity.

Whistler · September 26, 2003

They were disturbed when we laughed at them. I think it’s a fair jab. I like to see the Russian media showing a sense of humor. What an improvement.

theloniusfleabag · September 26, 2003

Dear Whistler,

Amen. However, it does make me think totalitarians, especially communist ones, have missed out on a great deal. Socialism is definitely the way to go. Profit motive, subsidized health care AND a sense of humour. Canada has it all.

SirRiff · September 26, 2003

it will be funny to watch Bush & Co. backtrack from thier numberous lies and propaganda.

linking saddam to 9/11

claiming they have undeniable proof of huge WMD stockpiles, defectors with exact locations, 45 minute launch time.

then you get ther and its a 3rd world nation

pathetic.

the world would sanction the US by letting them take care of this cost and let americans freak out after a few more months.

SirRiff

nova_satori · September 26, 2003

undeinable proof and nothing has found even remotely suggests solid evidence.

However, we shouldn't be suprised.

George-evidence-is-for-sissys-Bush lied so badly that the US has a sole ally left in this world, Israel.

Hugo · September 26, 2003

47 allies, actually. Do they teach math at this wonder school of yours?

Black Dog · September 26, 2003

47 allies, actually. Do they teach math at this wonder school of yours?

Lookout, Saddam: it's the Marshall Islands! How many of the coalition of the billing actually contributed men, materials or other resources?

Indeed, for all intents and purposes, the coalition's armed might boils down to the United States joined by Britain, supplying roughly 45,000 troops, Australia, with about 2,000, and Poland, with 200 troops and a logistics ship. The other coalition members are in other categories altogether.
"They may just be allowing access, overflight or other participation in that way, or they may just have decided they want to be publicly associated with the effort to disarm Iraq," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said.

Keep spinning.

Hugo · September 26, 2003

Lookout, Saddam: it's the Marshall Islands! How many of the coalition of the billing actually contributed men, materials or other resources?

I already gave that information here:

Previous thread

Craig Read · September 26, 2003

As opposed to the allies that Russia had in invading Chechyna, the Chinese in Tibet, the French in the Cote d'Ivroire, the Serbians in Bosnia, the Iraqi's in Kuwait, and the Ugandans in the Congo.

I am still awaiting with breathless concern the UN resolution sanctioning these actions.

I am sure the resounding soft power voice of Canada will be raised in objection to the maltreatment of minority groups, and those who suffer, along with street demonstrations by moronic 20 somethings and those with little brain power, to protest these thoughtless invasions.

I am sure the CBC will run accounts comparing the 1.000 civilians killed in Gulf War II with the .....er ...... 250.000 in Chechnya, the 2 million in Central Africa, the 500.000 in Tibet......

Then again thinking for B.Dog and his kind is not a natural occurence.

FastNed · September 27, 2003

Say, Black Dog, you started this thread with an allegation:

" Iraq was said to have presented a "clear and present" danger to the U.S. ... That was the central reason for the war. It was a lie."

But there is no cite attributing this quote to President Bush.

It clearly wasn't his speech to the UN in Sept 02, where he said:

"In cells, in camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale. In one place and one regime, we find all these dangers in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront."

....

"The history, the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein regime is a grave and gathering danger."

Rather a different statement than that alleged by media liars, isn't it? This political blather, attempting to gain some partisan advantage in the forthcoming elections is quite short sighted. Why not direct your intelligence to the valid question of exactly what has happened to this stuff? A very good scernario could be constructed around the possibility that some are hidden in Iraq while the balance are on their way to America. A coordinated attack might be thought by someone versed in the Arab style Command structure to be the basis for a defeat in depth of America. Fortunately for America, our military can not be hobbled by attacks at the top of the Command Tree! In fact, our military is far more dangerous when lead from the bottom up!

theloniusfleabag · September 27, 2003

Dear FastNed,

It appears as though the WMD's were indeed destroyed in accordance with previous UN resolutions. With Resolution 1441, while time indeed ran out for the inspectors, Iraq stated "We destroyed them as asked" and the US said "We don't believe you". Thus, the onus was at the time, placed on Iraq to prove 'non-existence' of WMD's. Timewise, an infinite task against those who say 'You're lying'.

The onus has shifted to the US, to prove that they were there at the time of invasion. Far more possible, yet it has not been done. Especially when the US says 'That doesn't matter now".

Hugo · September 27, 2003

It appears as though the WMD's were indeed destroyed in accordance with previous UN resolutions... Iraq stated "We destroyed them as asked" and the US said "We don't believe you".

Quite so, for they were "destroyed" without witnesses or proof. When the US and Russia were disarming, witnesses from many nations were invited to see the destruction of armaments so that the world would know that the claims of disarmament were true. This is international protocol.

Saddam is wholly evil. His word alone is worth absolutely nothing, so when he says "Yes, I destroyed them as asked" without any proof or witnesses that he did so, only the most gullible of idiots would believe him.

KrustyKidd · September 27, 2003

Exactly, where are the WMD? He had them in the nineties, even Ted Kennedy, Clinton and the rest of the Left said so. Where are they now? What hole in the ground, what country, what terrorist organisation has them? Every Leftie is so busy trying to misquote Bush that they forget the fact that they did exist and they don't have a clue where they went.