IRAQ: no WMD's - nothing, zero, nada, zip, f#ck-all

Rafick wrote:

Well done Israel - you are right on track...

...The United States is sticking to the Israeli written script. It is the only major country not to have condemned the Israeli assasins.

There are two really big mysteries inherent in Judaeism near as I can tell:

1. Why would any Jew ever vote for a democrat?

2. Why does Israel tolerate the "palestinians"? I mean, nobody else would and that's a fact.

0 Replies

As American intelligence has been proven to be extremely specious in both facts and substance, how is it that Brandon9000 can tell us what was known, especially when the sanctions have now been proven to have worked?

Where are the WMDs? Rumsfeld KNEW exactly where they were. It was without dispute.

Brandon9000 refers to events that happened without a proper timeframe. How could the U.S. go from absolute certainty of the depth and breath of Saddam's biological and nuclear programs, to being utterly wrong on every aspect in presenting their argument to invade Iraq?

0 Replies

All i can say is the Jews have done a damn good job, brainwashing the American public (like you brandon2000) into believing that crap.

0 Replies

Quote:

1. Why would any Jew ever vote for a democrat?

2. Why does Israel tolerate the "palestinians"? I mean, nobody else would and that's a fact.

It is a black and white world for the neocon existence.

Very sad indeed...

0 Replies

Mossad Exposed In Phony 'Palestinian Al Qaeda' Caper

The United States government has been provided with concrete evidence that the Israeli Mossad and other Israeli intelligence services have been involved in a 13-month effort to "recruit" an Israeli-run, phony "al Qaeda cell" among Palestinians, so that Israel could achieve a frontline position in the U.S. war against terrorism and get a green light for a worldwide "revenge without borders" policy. The question: Does the United States have the moral fiber to investigate?

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=5156

0 Replies

George Bush's puppet masters

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that, I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

- Ariel Sharon (Prime Minister of israel) p Israeli Hebrew radio, Col Yisrael, 3 october 2001.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

As American intelligence has been proven to be extremely specious in both facts and substance, how is it that Brandon9000 can tell us what was known, especially when the sanctions have now been proven to have worked?

Certain facts, such as the fact the Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurdish town of Halabja in the 1988, are simply matters of public record and require no special genius to be aware of. There are actually many photos of the grizzly results of the attack, and first hand accounts of survivors. Not many people doubt that this happened. Be specific. Which particular assertion of fact on my part do you challenge?

Dookiestix wrote:

Where are the WMDs? Rumsfeld KNEW exactly where they were. It was without dispute.

You are not paying attention. Regardless of what anyone in the administration said or didn't say, the significant uncertainty any intelligent person would have had about whether Hussein retained his WMD after 12 years, the almost unimaginable scale on which these weapons kill, and the ease with which these weapons can be smuggled through our borders combined to make it necessary to invade to be sure that they were gone.

Dookiestix wrote:

Brandon9000 refers to events that happened without a proper timeframe. How could the U.S. go from absolute certainty of the depth and breath of Saddam's biological and nuclear programs, to being utterly wrong on every aspect in presenting their argument to invade Iraq?

Invasion was absolutely the right thing to do. See my answer directly above.

0 Replies

Brandon9000

there is a disconnect in your logic. what possible motive could saddam have for attacking us. he was getting fat on the oil for food program. he was under sanctions which were having little effect on him. he was essentially under house arrest by us which was as good as blanket protection. he was our whipping boy and no one else would dare try to usurp our position.

we were also getting his oil.

he didn't have wmd. the un inspectors didn't find any. the pentagon knew with 100% certainty where they were. so why didn't they insist that the un inspectors go to those locations.

this war was the result of a need of the bush admin to prove that w wasn't the coward and quitter that he was accused of being during nam. he was going to be our julius caesar. a great war leader. what he forgot is that to be a great leader takes discipline knowledge and the reason why generals are greyheaded: experience in fighting wars.

frankly this president is an example of amateur hour to the nth degree.

0 Replies

cavolina wrote:

we were also getting his oil.

Hold on .... I thought the prevailing theory on the left was we went to war because we wanted their oil. What do you mean "we were also getting his oil"? Are you saying that the theory that the US went to war because of the oil is full of beans?

Instead, your theory is Bush took us to war against Iraq, not for oil, but for the simple reason that Bush wanted to prove he wasn't a coward?

Shocked

And seriously think it's Brandon9000 who has a disconnect in his logic?

Do you also think Bush flew the planes into the Twin Towers like some of your colleagues do ..... you know ... to prove he wasn't a coward and all? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Actually, I think for about a year before the invasion he had stopped selling his oil to protest the US support for Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I had forgotten about that and I should go look that up to make sure.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Actually, I think for about a year before the invasion he had stopped selling his oil to protest the US support for Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I had forgotten about that and I should go look that up to make sure.

Well, please work that out with cavolina, would you? I'd hate for your guys' theories to conflict.

0 Replies

Oh no, Tico, I don't have any theories. I'm totally against going to Iraq because I think it was a stupid idea, a waste of money, and that it played into the hands of terrorists. Not to mention that it was/is a waste of human life. I don't pretend to know the 'real' reason we went there, unless it's as simple as the plans on the PNAC website -- extending military domination as far into the future as possible.

0 Replies

Yes, Freeduck was quite content with the status quo that was Iraq. When the Shia's and Kurds were at risk of being annhilated, where rape rooms never lacked for customers and Saddam starved his people of food, energy and relief supplies. Where the UN Oil for Food program lined the pockets of those who supported Saddam's regime.

Freeduck was content to have our airplanes fired at while trying to maintain yet another failed UN resolution, and terrorists found safe harbor in the streets Baghdad.

0 Replies

Freeduck knows that every problem cannot be solved in ways that do not involve dropping more bombs per square mile than at any time in human history, and invading and occupying a humongous country of diverse peoples that we have very little understanding of. Freeduck understood that Saddam's Iraq was not the only place where human oppression occurred, and indeed not even the place where the worst of it occurred. Freeduck doesn't believe that Iraqi's prefer US rape rooms and torture rooms to Saddam's. Freeduck knew and knows that there were no international terrorists in Baghdad, and did not feel threatened by one old, feeble, retired palestinian terrorist.

Freeduck had a hunch that this war wasn't about UN resolutions or weapons of mass destruction. Freeduck knew and knows that the US has absolutely no credibilty with the Arab/Muslim world -- especially when it comes to human rights. Freeduck knew and knows that the invasion of Iraq would be seen as the ultimate US insult to the entire Arab world, and would be used as a rallying cry, turning moderates to extremists. And that the invasion would be seen as an extension of our support for Israel.

0 Replies

If you guys get to use Jose Padilla, we get to use Abu Nidal. A well known international terrorist roaming the streets of Baghdad.

12 years of trying to solve the problem of Saddam had failed. How many more years and Iraqi lives had to be wasted before it would be worth it?

0 Replies

cavolina wrote:

Brandon9000

there is a disconnect in your logic. what possible motive could saddam have for attacking us. he was getting fat on the oil for food program. he was under sanctions which were having little effect on him. he was essentially under house arrest by us which was as good as blanket protection. he was our whipping boy and no one else would dare try to usurp our position.

we were also getting his oil.

he didn't have wmd. the un inspectors didn't find any. the pentagon knew with 100% certainty where they were. so why didn't they insist that the un inspectors go to those locations.

this war was the result of a need of the bush admin to prove that w wasn't the coward and quitter that he was accused of being during nam. he was going to be our julius caesar. a great war leader. what he forgot is that to be a great leader takes discipline knowledge and the reason why generals are greyheaded: experience in fighting wars.

frankly this president is an example of amateur hour to the nth degree.

The point is not to try to predict Saddam's every move should he acquire WMD. The point is that awful dictators who also appear explansionistic, and have at least a friendly relationship with terrorists, must not be allowed to possess such weapons, because you know that something bad is going to happen, even if not exactly what. Then add to that the fact that a SINGLE one of these weapons can easily be smuggled into any country and used to kill as many as a million people, and you have an unacceptable risk. Hussein might do many things with such weapons. He might re-annex Kuwait and dare us to try and stop him with the threat of destroying Kuwait if not allowed to annex it. We cannot allow people at the extreme far end of the evil dictator spectrum to achieve this near invulnerability. Since Hussein had possessed the weapons and programs to create more, and since he had been very uncooperative and deceptive with the UN inspectors, there was simply an unacceptable risk that he might be hiding the weapons and waiting for the situation to cool off, or even continuing development in secret. We had to go in and resolve the situation. Far better to do that than to wake up one morning a few years down the road and find out that Americans are dying of some plague.

0 Replies

Brandon9000, so what you are suggesting is that the US has an obligation to kill first and ask questions later. I don't really see that as an American ethic (but then I am a liberal)

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

If you guys get to use Jose Padilla, we get to use Abu Nidal. A well known international terrorist roaming the streets of Baghdad.

12 years of trying to solve the problem of Saddam had failed. How many more years and Iraqi lives had to be wasted before it would be worth it?

In what sense do you believe that they failed?

Abu Nidal was dead before we invaded Iraq.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Brandon9000, so what you are suggesting is that the US has an obligation to kill first and ask questions later. I don't really see that as an American ethic (but then I am a liberal)

I am saying that if confronted with a 10% chance that an evil, murderous friend to terrorists has not truly abandoned the creation of weapons so awful that just one could wipe out one of your major cities, and if your long attempts to get him to disarm peacefully have been met with deception and a failure to disarm verifiably, it is better to invade the dicatorship than to risk waking up some morning to find your own people lying dead in the streets by the million. Even a modest probability of a doomsday scenario is a very serious thing.

Oh, yes, and by the way, it seems to me that we asked quite a few questions before we invaded, so what are you even talking about?

0 Replies

Let me just see if I have this right: it's okay with the USA if in the very near future, let's say, two years, there is no US presence in Iraq. (Assuming a Sistani backed government asked us to leave.) That means no US military bases, no US ships docking for maintenance at Iraqi ports, no US fly zones over any portion of the country.

In place is a Shi'a majority government with strong relations with Iran, Syria and Yemen, but no clear connection to radical groups, al Qeada or otherwise.

As other nations, European, Asian and even African, enjoy new opportunities for influence in the Middle East, America remains on the outside looking in, the result of hard feelings about the length and level of violence of the effort to make the country free.

That's not exactly what we wanted but would it be an acceptable result?

Joe(thinking about unintended consequences) Nation

0 Replies

IRAQ: no WMD's - nothing, zero, nada, zip, f#ck-all

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know