100 FACTS AND 1 OPINION

The sanctions were working. Saddam didn't have WMD or active WMD programs. He wanted them, sure; criminals in jail want to do bad things as well. It doesn't mean incarceration isn't working.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

knnknn wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
When we have 12 years of sanctions on other dictators and they don't provide proof that the sanctions have worked then we might invade. Don't make it sound like the sanctions were new and we ignored them.

Wrong. The sanctions worked 100%. The purpose was that Saddam gets rid of WMDs. And guess what? No WMDs.

We didn't know at the time that he had rid himself of the weapons. Intelligence at the time stated that he still had WMD's we entered and didn't know. You are working off of hindsight. You were willing to take the word of Saddam?

I also have a couple of different things for you. Did you know that Saddam buried over 25 jets in the desert and we didn't know about it? Did you also know that the latest news about HMX and RDX disappearing happened before the US entered Iraq? With all of this, I'm sure Saddam had WMD's and was either able to move them or bury them in the desert. Call me what ever you want, but this is logical under the above-mentioned issues.

Baldimo wrote:
I guess bin Laden wasn't worth the price for Clark to go after. After all he was offered to the US and Clinton at least twice and he did nothing. Talk about a faliure.

1) Another falsehood. You are repeating Foxnews spins.
2) Has Bush with an extensive military force and 70+ member coalition captured Bin Laden? No.

1) Read this from the LA Times which is hardly in the tank for Bush or Fox News. You are blind and drinking the Clinton Kool-Aid.
2) No they haven't but after 9/11 he has become very difficult man to find. Given time, bin Laden will be found and either captured or best case killed.

0 Replies

Quote:

I also have a couple of different things for you.

Do you now.

Quote:

Did you know that Saddam buried over 25 jets in the desert and we didn't know about it?

Yes. Iraq is a big country, there's a lot of stuff buried there.

Quote:

Did you also know that the latest news about HMX and RDX disappearing happened before the US entered Iraq?

No, b/c that simply isn't true. Quit spreading around the lie....

For a nice wrap up, see the US, UN and Iraq thread.

Quote:

With all of this, I'm sure Saddam had WMD's and was either able to move them or bury them in the desert.

1. I'm sure you are sure.

2. Why not use them? If he was willing to use them, why not use them in the defense of Iraq? None were used.

Quote:

Call me what ever you want, but this is logical under the above-mentioned issues.

No, it isn't, Sally.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

What the heck Baldimo? You quote me? I never said this.

0 Replies

Quote:

We didn't know at the time that he had rid himself of the weapons.

Exactly that was the purpose of the weapons inspectors. To find out.

Quote:

Intelligence at the time stated that he still had WMD's we entered and didn't know.

Wrong. No intelligence stated it. CIA had not 1 spy on the ground in Iraq. They had just _assumptions_ and _refused_ to wait for the UN inspectors, based on an Iranian double-spy and another guy who is an alcoholic.

Quote:

You were willing to take the word of Saddam?

Excuse me, but Saddam TOLD the truth: No WMDs. It is Bush who deceived.

Quote:

Did you know that Saddam buried over 25 jets in the desert

So?

0 Replies

Cinnesthesia wrote:

I don't really get into discussing politics, but the thought of four more years under the "leadership" of that shithead is scary and disgusting.

My thoughts exactly and I don't even live in the US.

0 Replies

I suspect that he buried those jets because in 91' the jets we didn't shoot down or blow up he sent to Iran, which refused to give them back. He really thought he could win this one and it looks like he was trying to protect some of his "assets".

0 Replies

knnknn wrote:

What the heck Baldimo? You quote me? I never said this.

You did and I quoted you. It's called a quote button.

Quote:

Exactly that was the purpose of the weapons inspectors. To find out.

I sure hate rehashing the same old crap over and over again. Even Hans Blix said that Saddam was not in full cooperation at the time. We had to ask permission for U2 spy planes to fly over Iraq while inspectors were there. We had to call ahead of time and let them know that inspectors were coming. Saddam wouldn't let his scientists be interviewed alone and only with handlers around. I would call this not total cooperation and at the time was looking like he had something to hide. Hans Blix also said that Saddam kept the best paper trail out of any leader in the ME but he didn't have the paper work showing that he destroyed his WMD's. I think it was the amount of time that Saddam had before he let inspectors back in that allowed him to get rid of his WMD's and they will be found, someone like Saddam doesn't change his stripes.

Quote:

Wrong. No intelligence stated it. CIA had not 1 spy on the ground in Iraq.

Do you know why the CIA didn't have a single spy on the ground in Iraq? Clinton and the liberals in the govt killed funding for such people. They didn't think the govt should be doing business with criminal types. In the CIA they care called soft assets and we haven't had any since the end of the cold war.

Quote:

They were just assumptions, based on an Iranian double-spy and another guy who is an alcoholic.

I never head of this Iranian double-spy please provide proof. Who was the alcoholic you speak of? There were several intelligence agencies around the world that said he had them and they were all wrong, but we didn't know that until we went in.

Quote:

Excuse me, but Saddam TOLD the truth: No WMDs. It is Bush who deceived.

I still don't believe him and won't. He is the worst type of human being and nothing he says can be trusted. Bush didn't deceive, he had bad intelligence and a commission has stated that.

Quote:

So?

Well if jet planes can be buried in the sand and not found till they are stumbled upon, then how easy do you think it would be to bury 50-gallon drums in the desert? You really can't see past the nose on your face can you? I guess you don't know what deductive reasoning is do you? Try it some time, maybe you will get off of your hate the US govt horse.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

knnknn wrote:
What the heck Baldimo? You quote me? I never said this.

You did and I quoted you. It's called a quote button.

But you inserted YOUR OWN STUFF.

Quote:

I sure hate rehashing the same old crap over and over again. Even Hans Blix said that Saddam was not in full cooperation at the time.

Hans Blix is the last person you should misuse to make your point. Here is what he really said:

Quote:

Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said on Wednesday the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq had failed tragically in its aim of making the world a safer place and succeeded only in stimulating terrorism.

Quote:

Do you know why the CIA didn't have a single spy on the ground in Iraq? Clinton and the liberals in the govt killed funding for such people.

So? It proves my point. US went to war based on bogus information.

Quote:

They were just assumptions, based on an Iranian double-spy and another guy who is an alcoholic.

Quote:

I never head of this Iranian double-spy please provide proof. Who was the alcoholic you speak of?

Ahmed_Chalabi was later accused by the US to be a Iranian double spy
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Ahmed_Chalabi
He was the source by the way of "Troops will be greeted as liberators".
The alcoholic was Curveball.

But it doesn't matter. The intelligence was doubtful (whether Clinton's fault or not) AND Bush knew it YET POWELL chose to deceive the UN council. He LIED in front of the whole world that his information is reliable and not hypothetical.

Quote:

There were several intelligence agencies around the world that said he had them and they were all wrong, but we didn't know that until we went in.

In other words: US relies on foreign agencies to send its own troops to die. Gimme-a-break.

Quote:

Bush didn't deceive, he had bad intelligence and a commission has stated that.

You see, that's the hypnosis Bush is able to achieve. The point is that Bush KNEW EXACTLY that the intelligence was very weak. Yet he didn't mention it. THAT's deception.

It's like Dick Clarke said: "
Rumsfeld: Let's bomb Iraq
Clarke: It was Afghanistian, not Iraq
Rumsfeld: But there are no good targets in Afghanistan
"

Some idiotic reason like this is the reason for the war. Not Clinton or bad intelligence.

Quote:

Well if jet planes can be buried in the sand and not found till they are stumbled upon, then how easy do you think it would be to bury 50-gallon drums in the desert?

Exaclty. That's what inspectors are for.

Quote:

I guess you don't know what deductive reasoning is do you?

Interesting. You have no arguments left, yet you choose to follow a leader that made the US hated around the world. Who suppressed the 9/11 commission. Who abused the shock of 9/11.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The sanctions were working. Saddam didn't have WMD or active WMD programs. He wanted them, sure; criminals in jail want to do bad things as well. It doesn't mean incarceration isn't working.

Cycloptichorn

Saddam didn't hve WMD programs??

Seems to me a person with a mind to could do quite a lot of destruction with 400 tons (800,000 lbs) of the kinds of high explosives you use to make implosion devices and which CBS, the NY Times, and the Kerry campaign are now all accusing Bush of having allowed somebody to loot after the area was in US hands despite that having been resoundingly disproven, and then there's the question of whether anybody needs a hundred tons of anthrax or plague toxins to create havoc, and whether or not somebody could have hidden a hundred pound lifetime supply of that sort of crap in a country the size of Iraq.

Bioware stuff is a renewable resource by the way. Assuming you preserve one pound of it, converting that one pound to hundreds of tons isn't that terribly difficult at some later point. All of this of course is totally aside from the fact that major stores of that sort of thing were transfered to Syria prior to the US envasion thanks to the UN, the democrats, and all the piggies taking oil for food money from Iraq while they were supposed to be controlling Iraq. I mean, when you're taking money from a guy like Hussein, he's controlling you, and not the other way around.

So all the French, German, Russian, and thirdworld fatcats are sitting there gorging themselves on money intended to feed hungry children while poeple are being raped, brutalized, and tortured, and the only guy in the whole picture with no financial incentives and the iron will to do the right thing is George W. Bush, and, to read the mainstream media, he's the biggest asshole in the whole world for that. Pretty amazing.

http://img66.exs.cx/img66/6848/The_Jerk.jpg

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Saddam didn't hve WMD programs??

If you believe otherwise then back it up with a valueable link.

Quote:

all accusing Bush of having allowed somebody to loot after the area was in US hands despite that having been resoundingly disproven

Yeah, I know. 380 tons missing and it's Kerry's fault.

0 Replies

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/lithotripter.html

0 Replies

Instigate wrote:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/lithotripter.html

Some text from 1999. Give me a break. Bush supporters seem to be argument resistent. Living in an outdated world, where Bush was still trustable. No matter how unjustified a war is, no matter how much their president tries to cover up things... they will still love him.

0 Replies

Yes it is old. The question is if you really believe that a character such as Saddam just up and decided to stop his nuclear, biological, and chemical aspirations, something that he had been pursuing for decades. The Gulf War obviously didnt sway him, sanctions were useless, and weapons programs, especially Bio and Chemical, are not difficult to conceal.

.

0 Replies

knnknn wrote:

Instigate wrote:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/lithotripter.html

Some text from 1999. Give me a break. Bush supporters seem to be arument resistent. No matter how unjustified a war is, no matter how much their president tries to cover up things... they will still love him.

How you determined all of this about me from the link I posted I will never understand. Your avatar is appropriate.

0 Replies

Instigate wrote:

How you determined all of this about me from the link I posted I will never understand. Your avatar is appropriate.

Because you posted an outdated text.
Baldimo posted outdated statements of Hans Blix.

It's just another proof that Bush supporters live in their own world as pointed out by the new poll from pipa.org. The pipa director Steven Kull says

Quote:

"To support the president and to accept that he took the U.S. to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information."

and

Quote:

"The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information," according to Kull, "very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake.

It's like a Hitler fan posting some stuff from 1945 to prove their point that Nazis never had concentration camps.

Thus don't post stuff from September 12th that tells you that Saddam did it.

Wake up: No WMDs, unjustified war, nothing to do with 9/11, Bush failed, Bush attacked one of the weakest countries in the world.

0 Replies

Quote:

Yes it is old. The question is if you really believe that a character such as Saddam just up and decided to stop his nuclear, biological, and chemical aspirations, something that he had been pursuing for decades. The Gulf War obviously didnt sway him, sanctions were useless, and weapons programs, especially Bio and Chemical, are not difficult to conceal.

Are you a weapon inspector? The contrary is true: Biological weapons are very hard to hide. Atom weapons are hard to hide.

And let me repeat: The sanctions worked -> No WMDs.

Why didn't he use them against the invading US forces if he had them?

0 Replies

knnknn wrote:

Quote:
Yes it is old. The question is if you really believe that a character such as Saddam just up and decided to stop his nuclear, biological, and chemical aspirations, something that he had been pursuing for decades. The Gulf War obviously didnt sway him, sanctions were useless, and weapons programs, especially Bio and Chemical, are not difficult to conceal.

Are you a weapon inspector? The contrary is true: Biological weapons are very hard to hide. Atom weapons are hard to hide.

And let me repeat: The sanctions worked -> No WMDs.

Why didn't he use them against the invading US forces if he had them?

He was hoping that people like you would be on his side against the US. The poor mass murdering Saddam was picked on by the big bad bully known as the US. Well good job it worked, you were fooled by Saddam.

0 Replies

nah knnknn you know you got them stumped when they pick on your avatar ..lol....

0 Replies

Quote:

Why didn't he use them against the invading US forces if he had them?
Quote:
He was hoping that people like you would be on his side against the US. The poor mass murdering Saddam was picked on by the big bad bully known as the US. Well good job it worked, you were fooled by Saddam.

Yeah, sure. That's why he didn't use WMDs. Because I would post Bush's distortions in a forum...

http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater233.html

0 Replies

100 FACTS AND 1 OPINION

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know