Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 06:48 pm
@92b16vx,
92b16vx;19112 wrote:
Yea, trying to get them out of a farce of a war is such injustice.
What else if not demeaning injustice to there service are you using as a ploy to get them out? That ain't patriotism in my book. You demean yours and there effort.
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 06:50 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;19114 wrote:
It was a farse of a war that you were baught and paid for.


So what? I was already in the military before 9/11, I was carrying out orders from my superiors, that's how it works, that doesn't make it any less of a farce. You can try to paint some demeaning picture of my involvement, but it doesn't make me appear as anything but the model soldier I was.
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 06:51 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;19115 wrote:
What else if not demeaning injustice to there service are you using as a ploy to get them out? That ain't patriotism in my book. You demean yours and there effort.


I demean nobody, you on the other hand do it any chance you get, real big of you. Being against the war doesn't in anyway demean the troops. They are doing what soldiers do, something you can never understand. Using the military as your personal foreign policy police force is a travesty to the institution.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 06:55 pm
@sam2007,
Yes you got that right, they are doing what they are paid to do, trouble is you think it's to steal oil, i think it's to set up a new democracy. Who do you think all your old and new vets would say is closer to reality? My story or yours? I bet less then one percent would say you? If it was that bad why didn't you desert? Claim conscience objector? Refuse pay?
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 07:01 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;19120 wrote:
Yes you got that right, they are doing what they are paid to do, trouble is you think it's to steal oil, i think it's to set up a new democracy. Who do you think all your old and new vets would say is closer to reality? My story or yours? I bet less then one percent would say you? If it was that bad why didn't you desert? Claim conscience objector? Refuse pay?


You are such a dumbass. For one thing, I never said it was to steal oil, I said it is primarily because of oil interest in the area, you have said this, stop trying to put words in my mouth, in an attempt to give your self some credibility.

And what, now we invaded Iraq to set up a democracy? False. We went in under false pretense and outright lies, establishing a democracy came after the original lies were uncovered.

Chemical weapons: Satellite photos of buildings, bunkers, and trucks
Powell: Satellite photos of industrial buildings, bunkers, and trucks were interpreted as showing covert movement to hide missiles and chemical/biological weapons. He reported that trucks at two sites were "decontamination vehicles" for use with chemical weapons.
Fact: These sites had been inspected about 500 times by U.N. inspectors in months prior to Powell's address. Hans Blix reported that his inspectors were well-equipped and had found neither contraband nor evidence that contraband had been evacuated. Since that time there have been no reports of anything being found.

Chemical weapons: Satellite photos of "decontamination vehicles"
Powell: Satellite photos were asserted to show trucks which were used "decontamination vehicles" for use with chemical weapons.
Fact: Norwegian U.N. inspector Jorn Siljeholm told AP that they had followed up on similar intelligence forwarded by the U.S. They found that the vehicles in question were ordinary fire trucks and water trucks.

Chemical weapons: Audio tapes
Powell: Satellite photos were asserted to show trucks which were used "decontamination vehicles" for use with chemical weapons.
Fact: Two tapes could possibly have represented the assertions, but this could not be concluded without additional context information. It was not apparent whether the "modified vehicle" was banned, and the reference to "nerve agents" was unclear, it could only be interpreted by speculation. The third tape issued an order to inspect dump and scrap areas for "forbidden" ammo and reportedly to clear it out. The Iraqis did in fact tell U.N. inspectors that they would do such a search for years-old materials, and they turned over four old chemical warheads to inspectors. The actual translation from Arabic of the end of the third tape gave only an order to inspect dump areas, not to clear them out.

Chemical weapons: VX
Powell: Iraq produced 4 tons of VX, a nerve agent. Powell emphasized that a single drop on the skin is fatal within minutes.
Fact: Most of the 4 tons of VX was destroyed in the 1990s under U.N. supervision.Iraq tried to prove shortly before the war began that the rest had been destroyed by chemically analyzing soil samples at the VX dump site.British experts indicated that pre-1991 VX probably would have degraded to a safe compound by now, and there has been no post-war report that VX has been found.

Chemical weapons: "500 tons" of chemical agent
Powell: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent." A CIA report from October, 2002 made a similar statement without specific evid
Fact: A CIA report from October, 2002 made a similar statement without specific evidence to support it but suggesting that Iraq "probably" concealed precursor chemicals. A DIA report from September, 2002 said that there "is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons."

Chemical weapons: Deployed for use
Powell: "Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons. ... And we have sources who tell us that he recently has authorized his field commanders to use them."
Fact: No such weapons were used and none have been reported to have been found.

Chemical weapons: Embedded production capability
Powell: Powell said, "We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry."
Fact: No such capability as been reported to have been found. A confidential DIA report in September, 2002, indicated that there was "no reliable information" on where Iraq has, or might establish, chemical agent production.

Chemical weapons: Shells and warheads
Powell: U.N. inspections found 11 unused 122-mm shells designed to carry chemical agents. Powell said these might be the "tip of the iceberg".
Fact: No reports indicate that additional shells or warheads have been found. Those found through U.N. inspections were from the 1980s and were empty, still crated and never used.

Biological weapons: Rockets and warheads in western desert (directly quoting AP)
Powell: '...Unidentified sources said that the Iraqis dispersed rocket launchers and warheads holding biological weapons to the western desert, hiding them in palm groves and moving them every one to four weeks.'
Fact: 'Nothing has been reported found, after months of searching by U.S. and Australian troops in the near-empty desert. Iraqi presidential science adviser Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi suggested the story of palm groves and weekly-to-monthly movement was lifted whole from an Iraqi general's written account of hiding missiles in the 1991 war.'

Biological weapons: Anthrax
Powell: Iraq declared that it produced 8,500 liters of anthrax before 1991. U.N. inspectors estimated it could have made up to 25,000 liters. Powell said that none has been "verifiably accounted for".
Fact: No anthrax has been found. A confidential DIA report from September, 2002, said that the agency believed Iraq had biological weapons but had no information on types, quantities, or readiness for use. 3 weeks before the war began Iraq reported that soil samples confirmed its contention that a particular site had been used to dispose of anthrax stocks, and it supplied a list of witnesses to verify quantities. The war began before these witnesses could be interviewed.

Biological weapons: Trailers
Powell: Defectors reportedly described mobile "biological weapons factories" using trucks and train cars. Powell displayed an artist's conception of one.
Fact: After the war two semitrailers were found which the Bush administration says were such labs. The Iraqis say they were used to manufacture hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. Various U.S. and British intelligence teams disagree with identification of these as the suggested mobile labs. One of the most credible reports came from a Defense Intelligence Agency engineering team, which concluded that the trailers were in fact small-scale hydrogen factories. Records in England showed that British Marconi sold the type of equipment in the trailers to Iraq in 1987 for production of hydrogen.

Aircraft for chemical/biological weapons delivery
Powell: Powell showed a video of an Iraqi Mirage F-1 simlating delivery of anthrax by spraying from a belly tank. He said that four tanks were unaccounted for and that Iraq was building small unmanned aircraft (drones) for delivery of chemical and biological weapons.
Fact: U.N. inspectors reported that the Mirage video predated the 1991 war, the Mirage was destroyed in that war, and 3 of the 4 spray tanks were destroyed in the 1990s. No drones have been found with capability to deliver chem/bio weapons.The known Iraqi drones are small, with an 8-meter wingspan. Iraq declared their range as 34 miles, but said that two had been modified to fly 62 miles. U.N. inspectors did not have time to verify their range before the war started.

Nuclear weapons: Hidden documents (directly quoting the AP article)
Powell: 'Powell said "classified" documents found at a nuclear scientist's Baghdad home were "dramatic confirmation" of intelligence saying prohibited items were concealed this way.'
Fact: 'U.N. nuclear inspectors later said the documents were old and "irrelevant" -- some administrative material, some from a failed and well-known uranium enrichment program of the 1980s.'

Nuclear weapons: Revived nuclear program
Powell: "We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program."
Fact: Mohammed ElBaradei reported to the United Nations Security Council that the International Atomic Energy Agency had "to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq." Since then no additional evidence has been reported to support a current or recent nuclear program. One centrifuge for uranium enrichment was unearthed, after having been buried in 1991. Former Iraqi nuclear scientist Imad Khadduri reported that Iraq's nuclear program was shut down in 1991.

Nuclear weapons: Attempts to acquire uranium from Africa
This item was not part of Powell's presentation to the U.N., its best known presentation was by George Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address. It is included here for convenience in producing a single reference for the most important points of the Bush administration's WMD assertions.
Bush: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Fact: This claim was based on forged documents portraying an attempt by Iraq to buy uranium from Niger. The documents were easily identified as a forgery, the IAEI reached this conclusion only hours after it was granted access to the documents. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson went to Niger at the request of Vice President Cheney's office and the CIA in February, 2002 -- a year earlier -- to investigate the validity of this source. He reported that U.S. ambassador Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick felt that she had already refuted these claims in reports to Washington based on her factual knowledge.

Nuclear weapons: Aluminum tubes
Powell: Aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were for use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment, for nuclear weapons.
Fact: IAEA inspectors, Energy Department experts, and the State Department's intelligence bureau did not believe this was likely. Substantial modification would be needed to adapt the tubes to centrifuge use, but their specifications precisely match those used in for the Italian Medusa 81 artillery rocket. Identically matched characteristics include alloy, length, diameter, wall thickness, and anodized coating. IAEA inspectors observed a factory in Iraq which was using these tubes to manufacture artillery rockets.

Nuclear weapons: Magnets
Powell: Multiple intelligence sources indacted that Iraq was trying to buy magnets for use in uranium-enrichment centrifuges.
Fact: IAEA inspectors traced about a dozen types of imported magnets to their end users. Neither the inspectors nor post-war investigators have found magnets for use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment.

Nuclear weapons: Scuds and new missiles
Powell: Intelligence sources say Iraq has a secret force of up to a few dozen prohibited Scud-type missiles, a program to build newer missiles with 600-mile range, and had put a roof over a rocket test stand to block view from spy satellites.
Fact: No Scud-type missiles have been found. In the 1990s U.N. inspectors accounted for all except two Scuds formerly possessed by Iraq. No program to build new, longer-range missiles has been found. The Iraqis reported that the roofed test stand had been converted from vertical firing to horizontal firing and was roofed for the obvious reason: Things get very hot in the sun. (This site's author found a photo on the web at that time showing what appears to be this particular test stand being used in a horizontal-firing rocket motor test.)

Inspections: U-2 reconnaissance
Powell: Iraq was violating a U.N. resolution by rejecting U-2 reconnaissance flights.
Fact: Iraq did object to U-2 overflights at the time of Powell's presentation. However, it authorized U-2 overflights 5 days later, on February 10, 2003. U-2 reconnaissance flights began on February 17, about a month before the war started.

Inspections: Interviews with scientists
Powell: Iraq was violating a U.N. resolution by rejecting private interviews with scientists by U.N. inspectors. Powell suggested that scientists withheld information on weapons of mass destruction due to fear of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Fact: When interviews with scientists began news reports typically indicated that the scientists themselves had requested presence of Iraqi "minders". Fear of the regime probably was involved, but by early March 12 scientists had been interviewed privately. Since Saddam Hussein was deposed all known reports indicate that scientists have continued to insist that no WMD programs had been active for a minimum of several years, with most shut down in 1991.One former Iraqi nuclear scientist who defected to Canada in 1998, Imad Khadduri, has always insisted that the nuclear program never recovered from the 1991 war, and was stopped at that time.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 07:43 pm
@92b16vx,
92b16vx;19116 wrote:
So what? I was already in the military before 9/11, I was carrying out orders from my superiors, that's how it works, that doesn't make it any less of a farce. You can try to paint some demeaning picture of my involvement, but it doesn't make me appear as anything but the model soldier I was.
Your the one thinking our invasion was illegal. If its true then what you did was illegal as well. I don't understand why you don't see the ramifications of that?
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 07:46 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;19130 wrote:
Your the one thinking our invasion was illegal. If its true then what you did was illegal as well. I don't understand why you don't see the ramifications of that?


Duh, I do, and hence why I think I removal of our forces is paramount to maintaining the integrity as a nation that we claim to have. The integrity that makes us strong, we need to admit that we were wrong, and FIX the situation without furthered aggression. Save the aggression for a nation that actually attacked us.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 07:53 pm
@sam2007,
We are not wrong in what we did! Retreat is not an option, ain't gonna happen. It's our baby, one which you and i helped get where it's at. We got plenty of agression saved up for any enemy who chooses to make a stand. Just ask yourself.
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 08:21 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;19134 wrote:
We are not wrong in what we did! Retreat is not an option, ain't gonna happen.


Yes, we are. And it isn't surrender, or retreat, a smart soldier knows when to engage and when not to, Bush is not a smart soldier. But a Smart soldier also knows when it's time to go.

Of course by your own rational, if we removed our bases out of Korea, or Europe, we would be surrendering. And how exactly can we surrender, when we are the aggressors? If you start a fight, win lose or draw, at some point it is over, and you leave. Bush said "mission accomplished" how long ago? Now we are dwelling around there for moral support of the Iraqi people? Leaving now is not surrender, we won. Saddam is gone, Iraq has it's own government, sorry, but your empty bravado means absolutely nothing.

Also, were the guys in Somalia cowards? They retreated from the city. How about any number of military leaders pulling there troops out of bad combat situations? Were they cowards.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 09:58 pm
@92b16vx,
92b16vx;19137 wrote:
Yes, we are. And it isn't surrender, or retreat, a smart soldier knows when to engage and when not to, Bush is not a smart soldier. But a Smart soldier also knows when it's time to go.

Of course by your own rational, if we removed our bases out of Korea, or Europe, we would be surrendering. And how exactly can we surrender, when we are the aggressors? If you start a fight, win lose or draw, at some point it is over, and you leave. Bush said "mission accomplished" how long ago? Now we are dwelling around there for moral support of the Iraqi people? Leaving now is not surrender, we won. Saddam is gone, Iraq has it's own government, sorry, but your empty bravado means absolutely nothing.

Also, were the guys in Somalia cowards? They retreated from the city. How about any number of military leaders pulling there troops out of bad combat situations? Were they cowards.
Quote:
Yes, we are. And it isn't surrender, or retreat, a smart soldier knows when to engage and when not to, Bush is not a smart soldier. But a Smart soldier also knows when it's time to go.
Smart soldier might, to bad it not up to him.
Quote:
Of course by your own rational, if we removed our bases out of Korea, or Europe, we would be surrendering.
No. We are not at war with them any longer. Yet we still have bases?
Quote:
And how exactly can we surrender, when we are the aggressors?
Easy leave a fragile democracy to the hand of terrorists. Watch what happens next.
Quote:
If you start a fight, win lose or draw, at some point it is over, and you leave.
It ain't know where near over. The only thing to change will be the location.
Quote:
Bush said "mission accomplished" how long ago?
How long did it take you guys to destroy Saddam's army again?
Quote:
Now we are dwelling around there for moral support of the Iraqi people?
No we're dwelling till they can defend themselves. and even then will will probably maintain a base or two there.
Quote:
Leaving now is not surrender, we won.
The win will be when Iraq can protect itself and not before. If it does not come then 3500 plus will of died for not, what kind of patriot would let that happen?
Quote:
Saddam is gone, Iraq has it's own government, sorry, but your empty bravado means absolutely nothing.
How long do you think the government would last without us there? One, two days?
Quote:
Also, were the guys in Somalia cowards? They retreated from the city. How about any number of military leaders pulling there troops out of bad combat situations? Were they cowards.
It's not the military trying to pull you guys out now, it's congress who by the way does not command our military, that job belongs to the commander and chief. Those that voted for and now favor against are the one i would call cowardly. They lack spine in there word, but then again they are not known for there word.
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 10:01 pm
@Drnaline,
Our job is not to be world police. It is not to make sure that puppet governments succeed. Our job is not to spread democracy through war.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 10:09 pm
@sam2007,
World police, Biden is against Iraq now, he voted for it now he wants us out. In the debate yesterday he was in favor of being world police in Darfur, would this be a different type of policing? Is one ok and the other not?
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 11:50 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;19165 wrote:
World police, Biden is against Iraq now, he voted for it now he wants us out. In the debate yesterday he was in favor of being world police in Darfur, would this be a different type of policing? Is one ok and the other not?


I couldn't careless what Biden is for or against. I couldn't careless about Africa, or what goes on there. I want America to fix America, then we can move on to fixing the world.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 07:40 am
@sam2007,
Would you care if Biden got his way and troops were commited to Darfur, would you fight then to have them pulled out because we know being world police gets our troops killed. And also Darfur didn't attack us. Neither did somalia/bosnia which ever one it was? Yet we policed there, one must think it must be foriegn policy of the US to do such things. Like i said elsewhere, the dems feel it ok to police for humanitarian reasons but not left interest. What, if not self interest is Biden reacting too?
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 07:53 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;19190 wrote:
Would you care if Biden got his way and troops were commited to Darfur, would you fight then to have them pulled out because we know being world police gets our troops killed. And also Darfur didn't attack us. Neither did somalia/bosnia which ever one it was? Yet we policed there, one must think it must be foriegn policy of the US to do such things. Like i said elsewhere, the dems feel it ok to police for humanitarian reasons but not left interest. What, if not self interest is Biden reacting too?


See, this is why you are not good at this kind of thing. Did you even read what I posted? I do not care about Darfur, I do not think we should even bother. Do you want me to snaillmail you a memo so you can reference it?
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 08:02 am
@sam2007,
I read it, i don't believe it though. By the sound of it you don't care about Iraq either other then withdrawing from the field. That's one wish your not getting anytime soon.
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 08:05 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;19197 wrote:
I read it, i don't believe it though. By the sound of it you don't care about Iraq either other then withdrawing from the field. That's one wish your not getting anytime soon.


Nope, I do not give a flying **** about Iraq, or any Iraqi. I love America, and Americans, and want our country to be prosperous, then maybe we can work on the worlds problems, but till we can feed and house our own, than we need to be working on that. Unfortunately politicians like votes, and even liberal slugs like foreign countries more than their own, scrubs the lot of them.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 08:14 am
@sam2007,
Quote:
Nope, I do not give a flying **** about Iraq, or any Iraqi. I love America, and Americans, and want our country to be prosperous,
Haven't you read about our oil profits, were the richest country in the world, that is not properous enough for you? We are the greatest country in the history of the world, bar none.
Quote:
then maybe we can work on the worlds problems,
So stating so i feel confident we are doing just that "work on the worlds problems" some times because we are asked, sometime we don't ask anything. That comes from who we are and where we have been. This adminisration got all the permission it needed, IMO it didn't need any.
Quote:
but till we can feed and house our own, than we need to be working on that.
WE can and do, they are not feed and housed because of there choosing. IMO
Quote:
Unfortunately politicians like votes, and even liberal slugs like foreign countries more than their own, scrubs the lot of them.
I'm with you on that one.
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 08:57 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;19202 wrote:
Haven't you read about our oil profits, were the richest country in the world, that is not properous enough for you?


Nope, money is not the end all of existance.

Quote:
We are the greatest country in the history of the world, bar none.


While that is true, it doesn't mean that America is in great shape, or can take care of her people properly.

Quote:
So stating so i feel confident we are doing just that "work on the worlds problems" some times because we are asked, sometime we don't ask anything. That comes from who we are and where we have been.


Our foreign policy is driven be greed. Every other "humanitarian" military mission in Africa has proven this. Somalia is a great example. We had the best of the best there, and were told to stand down, had we had financial interest, the warlords would have been wiped off the planet.

Quote:
This adminisration got all the permission it needed, IMO it didn't need any.


Ok, look, you can't site UN resolutions, and congressional descision based on them, and then say the UN is garbage like you did in the other thread. It's one, or the other. Either the UN is garbage and their descisions, and those that come from them are null and void, or they are an essential organization that should be listened to, pick one for christ sake, consistancy people, consistancy.

Quote:
WE can and do, they are not feed and housed because of there choosing. IMO.


Your opinion doesn't change facts, and that's that approximately 13% of Americans live below the poverty level, that's about 39,000,000 people. I seriously doubt that 39 million people are choosing to live in poverty.
0 Replies
 
-V-
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Aug, 2007 06:24 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;18323 wrote:
Quite a few have stated that Paul is Libertarian. Yet he is trying to get the repug nomination, you do not find this strainge? His first act was to decieve the general public into believing he is republican. Why do you think all these lefty's are for him? Because he's the only supposed repug that says we should leave Iraq and we brought it upon ourselves. You probably think the same, i do not. I can prove through historical documentation the war with Iraq started in 91 and continues up till today, they on the other hand can provide nothing but hearsay?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Ron Paul 2008
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 10:23:42