Ok Boys!

[Shortfuse]

LET THE SPIN BEGIN!!!!

U.S. Report Finds No Evidence of Iraq WMD


WASHINGTON Oct. 6, 2004 — Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. The report also says Saddam Hussein's weapons capability weakened during a dozen years of U.N. sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year.

Contrary to prewar statements by President Bush and top administration officials, Saddam did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, according to the report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.


http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World...1006_1241.html

[Shortfuse]

Awww, come on. I know you Bush backers are reading it. There's been a few visits to this thread already.


Oh I see, just hiding and hoping it'll go away.

But you see there's something about TRUTH.


It never leaves, it stares u right in the face 24/7. With cold, watching eyes.

[Kevin]

Just to be fair...

Remember that the commission also stated that Saddamm kept the money and intellectual resources stockpiled and planned to restart the programs ASAP.

So, even if they weren't in full effect when we invaded, they would have been at a later point. So, which is worse, invading once it had started or invading before they started?

I say the later.

[Shortfuse]

Originally posted by ktsnake
Just to be fair...

Remember that the commission also stated that Saddamm kept the money and intellectual resources stockpiled and planned to restart the programs ASAP.

So, even if they weren't in full effect when we invaded, they would have been at a later point. So, which is worse, invading once it had started or invading before they started?

I say the later.

If that was the case I take it we should be bombing Iran and N.Korea now.

Yes I am being fair, raging a war based on what you "think could" happen isn't a justifiable excuse. It just isn't and there is no way a person can say it is. Dude even if Iraq had these WMDs, how do you expect him to get it here? Iraq was NEVER a threat to US security.

As I said once and I'll say it again, the last few attacks on American soil or against American soldiers during peacetime did not come from Iraqis. Saddam was just blowing hot air up our azzez. It's like punching a 90 year old woman in the face because she threaten the kick your azz.

[AXEAM]

Well Shortfuse you know how I feel about this, I've said it the whole time Iraq never had any WMDs and Bush knew it. It's such a shame that over 1,000 American have died b/c of Bush's pride it was in his plans to attack Iraq when he took office.

[Shortfuse]

Originally posted by AXEAM
Well Shortfuse you know how I feel about this, I've said it the whole time Iraq never had any WMDs and Bush knew it. It's such a shame that over 1,000 American have died b/c of Bush's pride it was in his plans to attack Iraq when he took office.

It's sad indeed. But I'm wondering why this thread is so empty?




TRUTH

IT KEEPS KNUCKLEHEADS AWAY!

[AXEAM]

Every damn time.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by AXEAM
Well Shortfuse you know how I feel about this, I've said it the whole time Iraq never had any WMDs and Bush knew it. It's such a shame that over 1,000 American have died b/c of Bush's pride it was in his plans to attack Iraq when he took office.

please answer in order:

1) who is the last human being to use WMD?


2) is the terrorist culture confined to any one nation, region, or government? -or- rather, is it spread across the entire region?


3) is iraq better off (long-term) without a brutal, dehumanizing dictatorship?


4) are there deeper ramifications to invading N. Korea than those w/ Iraq?


5) would US citizens, and citizens of the world, live safer lives with a stablized Middle East?



Simply put, the danger of what 'could happen' is an overwhelmingly good 'excuse' for attempting to stablize the second most dangerous region in the world - and make no mistakes, an unstable middle east presents a far more immediate threat to American citizens than North Korea, which is the far more dangerous long-term threat.

I do agree, coincidently, with your assessment of the dangers of North Korea - but there is this little issue of say China, just to start . . . there's no way to enter North Korea. Clinton knew this, by the way, which is how we get to today.

Now, no one likes death of american soldiers - and you are right that the al-Qaeda members that attacked were not Iraqi. But this is a step toward stablizing a region that is infested with bullshit - and this is the ONLY step that could come first. What, you think we could just waltz into Iran or Saudi arabia? While we do that, why not just send 4 or 5 guys to pop North Korea too, oh and on the way they can form an alliance with China and eliminate Chechan rebels.

Now who's living in a fantasy world? Look, Bush didn't do things perfectly, but stop acting like there's nothing positive here, and stop making emotional arguments about death a part of rational discussion. It makes you look like a fool.

And while you guys are harping on FACTS!!!!11!1 you might want to find some facts to support your assertions and stop using immaterial shit like 'pride' and 'knew since he got in office' that are impossible to support.

[decadence]

Here you go Shortfuse, here's an interesting thread you might wanna read!

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...threadid=31270

[Shortfuse]

Originally posted by KSig RC
please answer in order:

1) who is the last human being to use WMD?


2) is the terrorist culture confined to any one nation, region, or government? -or- rather, is it spread across the entire region?


3) is iraq better off (long-term) without a brutal, dehumanizing dictatorship?


4) are there deeper ramifications to invading N. Korea than those w/ Iraq?


5) would US citizens, and citizens of the world, live safer lives with a stablized Middle East?



Simply put, the danger of what 'could happen' is an overwhelmingly good 'excuse' for attempting to stablize the second most dangerous region in the world - and make no mistakes, an unstable middle east presents a far more immediate threat to American citizens than North Korea, which is the far more dangerous long-term threat.

I do agree, coincidently, with your assessment of the dangers of North Korea - but there is this little issue of say China, just to start . . . there's no way to enter North Korea. Clinton knew this, by the way, which is how we get to today.

Now, no one likes death of american soldiers - and you are right that the al-Qaeda members that attacked were not Iraqi. But this is a step toward stablizing a region that is infested with bullshit - and this is the ONLY step that could come first. What, you think we could just waltz into Iran or Saudi arabia? While we do that, why not just send 4 or 5 guys to pop North Korea too, oh and on the way they can form an alliance with China and eliminate Chechan rebels.

Now who's living in a fantasy world? Look, Bush didn't do things perfectly, but stop acting like there's nothing positive here, and stop making emotional arguments about death a part of rational discussion. It makes you look like a fool.

And while you guys are harping on FACTS!!!!11!1 you might want to find some facts to support your assertions and stop using immaterial shit like 'pride' and 'knew since he got in office' that are impossible to support.

Ummmm, I just posted a article, where do you see assertions? Please find a way to dispute the article.

The United States didn't go to war because Saddam is a brutal dictator.

We went to War because of WMD (THE MAIN REASON) which what was fed to most of Congress (sidenote, that is why I can excuse Senator Kerry for voting for the war). People WE knew what Saddam had.


KSig, where's the positive for the AMERICAN people. Saddam was just a mini-midget dictator who was only a danger to his own people. Sure I'm happy for the folks in Iraq but trust they would've gotten this man when they got ready. It wasn't our job to meddle in others affair. But since we're on that tip, how come US soldiers aren't in the Sudan kicking azz? (insert spin here)


But since sicne you went there, our problem didn't make residence in Iraq. None of the terrorist who hit us on 9/11 or onboard of the US Cole were Iraqis. It's like fighting a Alpha because a Sigma slapped you in the face.


AND THE SPIN CONTINUES


Fellas just find a way to dispute the article, no need for attacks. Admit it, Bush was wrong and let us move on.


CHECK THE SIG

[Shortfuse]

Originally posted by decadence
Here you go Shortfuse, here's an interesting thread you might wanna read!

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...threadid=31270

I read some of it. Only needed to read a page to understand the tone of that thread.


IT TURNS MY STOMACH to hear some people talk about WE are at war and how we should stay the course. Most of these people (Dubya and Cheney) included have never seen a man get his brains blown out or heard 18-19 year old boys scream out in pain. Most have never had to rush in the room to save a uncle who re-lived the HORROR of the Vietnam war because he can't get it out of his head.


Heck to all these patroits in here. Why don't you sign up? The enlistment people are taking EVERYBODY, trust me.


But I guess it's cool to be patriotic when you don't have to look at the buisness end of a AK-47

[Kevin]

Short,

Did you hear the whole point that the panel made? Or just the part played on Headline News? Many networks conveniently left out the fact that Saddam was stockpiling money from the oil for food program, scientists and materials so that he could get the WMD program back up to speed just as soon as restrictions were lessened.

And remember, pre-9/11, the French, etc. were pushing for exactly that.

We went into Iraq based on faulty intelligence. Your candidate supported it as much as Bush does so anything he says should totally lack credibility unless you're sipping on the donkey-kool-aide.

What would you propose we do? Just leave and leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves? You want to absolutely GUARANTEE that we'll have WMD coming out of there? Go right ahead.

Iraq is still an important victory in the war on terrorism. A friendly arab democracy will go a long way to bringing down the religious despots of the region and pushing governments towards Democracy. Are you against that?

What exactly are you against besides what's already done?

[Shortfuse]

Originally posted by ktsnake
Short,

Did you hear the whole point that the panel made? Or just the part played on Headline News? Many networks conveniently left out the fact that Saddam was stockpiling money from the oil for food program, scientists and materials so that he could get the WMD program back up to speed just as soon as restrictions were lessened.

And remember, pre-9/11, the French, etc. were pushing for exactly that.

We went into Iraq based on faulty intelligence. Your candidate supported it as much as Bush does so anything he says should totally lack credibility unless you're sipping on the donkey-kool-aide.

What would you propose we do? Just leave and leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves? You want to absolutely GUARANTEE that we'll have WMD coming out of there? Go right ahead.

Iraq is still an important victory in the war on terrorism. A friendly arab democracy will go a long way to bringing down the religious despots of the region and pushing governments towards Democracy. Are you against that?

What exactly are you against besides what's already done?

That's all based on "what if" he does use it for WMDs. But if you tell me he has WMD, then he damn sure better have them.

Yes I'm against us going over and making governments the way we want them. Don't get me wrong, thats some GANGSTA stuff to do, but it's not right. Our form of government (which basically translates into Capitalism) doesn't work for everybody. Our model isn't perfect.


How can Iraq be an important victory in the War on Terriorism? First, we HAVEN'T WON A VICTORY THERE YET!

Second, where was the terrorist threat? Please tell me. Saddam (which I will repeat) was just a mini-midget dictator who only controlled what was in his backyard. He's Mussolini without Japan or Germany to back him up.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Shortfuse
That's all based on "what if" he does use it for WMDs. But if you tell me he has WMD, then he damn sure better have them.

Yes I'm against us going over and making governments the way we want them. Don't get me wrong, thats some GANGSTA stuff to do, but it's not right. Our form of government (which basically translates into Capitalism) doesn't work for everybody. Our model isn't perfect.


How can Iraq be an important victory in the War on Terriorism? First, we HAVEN'T WON A VICTORY THERE YET!

Second, where was the terrorist threat? Please tell me. Saddam (which I will repeat) was just a mini-midget dictator who only controlled what was in his backyard. He's Mussolini without Japan or Germany to back him up.

Dude, I know I was long-winded, but you really have to read the entirety of my post.

I get what you're saying about WMD, and the point of the article - I'll cede that it does suck that the intelligence was bad, and I don't like what that says about the current state of the CIA etc.

HOWEVER - the entire region is unstable. Stabilizing the Middle East, ridding it of the dictatorships and theocracies that turn a blind eye to terrorism while pandering to the so-called 'legit' wings of these organizations (as well as FUNDING them), IS EXACTLY WHAT THE WAR ON TERROR IS.

Again - answer the questions, interpolate. Your focus on WMD is seeing the trees, but not the forest. It's OK to hate Bush - feel free. But the entirety of the war is fairly sound - it's the only way to attack terrorism. Again - we can't just march into the house of Saud, unfortunately, or Tehran - baby steps, for the greater good (which includes Americans).

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Shortfuse
That's all based on "what if" he does use it for WMDs. But if you tell me he has WMD, then he damn sure better have them.

Yes I'm against us going over and making governments the way we want them. Don't get me wrong, thats some GANGSTA stuff to do, but it's not right. Our form of government (which basically translates into Capitalism) doesn't work for everybody. Our model isn't perfect.


How can Iraq be an important victory in the War on Terriorism? First, we HAVEN'T WON A VICTORY THERE YET!

Second, where was the terrorist threat? Please tell me. Saddam (which I will repeat) was just a mini-midget dictator who only controlled what was in his backyard. He's Mussolini without Japan or Germany to back him up.

Bud, take the blinders off. Al Quaeda members used Saddam for medical treatment, they met with him, etc. There absolutely was a credible terrorist threat when WMD's came into being.

So our form of representative government doesn't work for everyone? You're saying that the Iraqi people are predisposed to wanting to live under bullying dictators? What makes you think this? Their current system isn't a hell of a lot different than what we had in Europe 200-300 years ago -- a monarch with a LOT of church interferance. Would you have said that Europeans are also not predisposed to having individual liberties? That's an ignorant statement you made and borderline racist.

How can it be an important victory? It destabilizes governments that support and shelter terrorists -- Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. will all have a neighbor that is NOT a theocracy/dictatorship. Their people will suddenly be "have-nots" when it comes to rights. That's the best way to move a region towards democracy. Once the war in Iraq is won (and it'll be won), the region will follow in time. At least that's the theory.

As for your comment that Saddam is only dangerous to his own countrymen... How the hell did you come up with that? We are talking about Saddam Hussein, right? You know, the fella that's invaded or tried to invade most of the countries that border him? The guy that gassed his own people as well as his adversaries in Iran? Yeah, he's just a threat to his own country. You're totally right!

You never answered me, besides past misteps and miscalculations, what exactly about our current policy there do you oppose? Do you think we should just pack up and leave them to civil war? All I'm hearing you complain about are things that cannot be changed. Please be specific on what you disagree with that CAN be changed.