Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 83
  1.    #1  
    Is it significant if the president of the US uses information known to be false for almost one year in a State of the Union address in order to show things in the light he wants? http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html

    Is that just the normal amount of incompetence that has to be expected in an organasation such as the CIA or the Bush administration, or is there more behind it?
  2. #2  
    I found the part about him having to "endure" all those cups of mint tea while he tirelessly strove to find out the truth humorous. What he didn't mention after he said he was a "forceful advocate" of Saddam's removal from Kuwait (who wasn't?) was that he was even more adamant about the US not finishing the job of removing Saddam from power as it might "destabilize the region." Since his business is now using his contacts in the Mideast to put money into his own pockets I can see how a war in the region might not suit him.

    Were not the forged documents mentioned in the articles the ones France forged (to embarass/descredit the USA)?

    What I find interesting is the line of reasoning that would even question whether the WMD Programs existed at all. The UN said they did, Iraq said they did (and used them), yet there is a continued call for "WMDs" (which I assume to be working nukes, chemical or biological warheads).

    Mobile weapons labs and hidden centrifuges aren't WMDs, but they are evidence of WMD programs. Yet I don't hear anything at all from the opposition about them. Is this a case of ignoring evidence because it doesn't reflect the "truth" they support?

    example; Slate, July 7th

    I thought the war was about WMD programs, terrorist ties (harboring and funding), and a rogue nation intent on killing not only those it hated outside it's border (attacking Kuwait, Iran and continued threats to destroy Israel), but those within (the Kurds, who also are being persecuted by the Turkish).

    Here is Pres. Bush himself on why we went in.

    The real question isn't where are the WMDs, but if there weren't any why didn't Saddam let the UN free access to clear him? Why play chicken with Bush and the US?
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  3. #3  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    [...] The real question isn't where are the WMDs, but if there weren't any why didn't Saddam let the UN free access to clear him? Why play chicken with Bush and the US?
    See my sig, and the article from which it came.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. #4  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    The real question isn't where are the WMDs, but if there weren't any why didn't Saddam let the UN free access to clear him? Why play chicken with Bush and the US?
    Playing devils advocate:
    Say N-Korea said the US would have some new kind of superweapon and they want unlimited access to search for them.
    What would bush reaction be?
    multiply that with some macho-ism and religious/cultural fanatism and you get Sadams response...

    I'm not saying he did the right thing, just that his reaction does not surprise me..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  5.    #5  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    The real question isn't where are the WMDs, but if there weren't any why didn't Saddam let the UN free access to clear him? Why play chicken with Bush and the US?
    The answer to that question is obvious, I am surprised you don't see it. It is called bluffing: By giving the impression of being in possession of deadly weapons, he hoped to be safe from an attack. The bluff did not work, fair enough. Maybe somebody knew he was bluffing?

    Having had WMD does not mean being in possession of, please note the difference.

    The Bush administration has been caught lying. Maybe Bush himself did not know the Niger story had been debunked long ago - what does he know anyway? Certainly some people in his entourage knew it was false... Bad boys, thou shalt not lie!
  6. #6  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT
    Playing devils advocate:
    Say N-Korea said the US would have some new kind of superweapon [...]
    Like what?
    [...] and they want unlimited access to search for them.
    To carry the analogy, wouldn't it require them to convince the UN that such a thing existed, and have the UN search in vain for 12 years because of obstacles thrown in their way? Oops...that wouldn't work, because at most, the Bushies only get 5.5 more years in office.
    What would bush reaction be?
    Probably the laughter that such a hypothetical deserves.
    multiply that with some macho-ism and religious/cultural fanatism and you get Sadams response...
    Except that there is documented evidence that Saddam had and used chemical weapons, and had access to at least some of the tools of other types.
    I'm not saying he did the right thing, just that his reaction does not surprise me..
    Read my sig, then read the article it came from, and then read the Rolf Ekeus piece which inspired it. Asking where the WMD are is a valid question in and of itself. Asking where they are with the implication they never existed is outright foolishness.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. #7  
    Originally posted by clulup
    The answer to that question is obvious, I am surprised you don't see it. It is called bluffing: [...]
    Yes, tell that to the Iranians, the Kurds, etc. 'Sorry, you couldn't have had people killed. Saddam was just bluffing. He wouldn't have continued to refine the processes of creating chemicals to kill you. He was just bluffing.'
    [...] By giving the impression of being in possession of deadly weapons, he hoped to be safe from an attack.
    An attack from whom?
    The bluff did not work, fair enough. Maybe somebody knew he was bluffing? [...]
    Yes, we had good enough intelligence to know he was bluffing, but we can't find/kill him and Osama. I guess the CIA must be intelligence savants.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #8  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Like what?
    I was going to say nukes, bio or chemical weapons... but everybody knows the US allready has those... :/

    Originally posted by Toby
    Probably the laughter that such a hypothetical deserves.
    But how about they had 'proof' just like Bush had? Bush allready started backpeddling on his claims...

    Originally posted by Toby
    Except that there is documented evidence that Saddam had and used chemical weapons, and had access to at least some of the tools of other types.
    Sadam had those (given by the US btw) in the late 80's early 90's and these things have a lifespan of a couple of years...

    Originally posted by Toby
    Asking where the WMD are is a valid question in and of itself. Asking where they are with the implication they never existed is outright foolishness.
    It sure is a valid question, so is telling on what info you base those claims. However a pre-emptive strike is not a valid action IMHO...
    Nobody said they never existed, just that it is unlikely they are still there... and that it is the UN's job not the US'...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  9. #9  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    Playing devils advocate:
    Say N-Korea said the US would have some new kind of superweapon and they want unlimited access to search for them.
    What would bush reaction be?
    multiply that with some macho-ism and religious/cultural fanatism and you get Sadams response...

    I'm not saying he did the right thing, just that his reaction does not surprise me..
    ??? What country/countries would be big/strong enough to enforce that on the US?
    Use another country, say the Netherlands and it might make sense to compare.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  10. #10  
    Originally posted by clulup

    The answer to that question is obvious, I am surprised you don't see it. It is called bluffing: By giving the impression of being in possession of deadly weapons, he hoped to be safe from an attack. The bluff did not work, fair enough. Maybe somebody knew he was bluffing?

    Having had WMD does not mean being in possession of, please note the difference.

    The Bush administration has been caught lying. Maybe Bush himself did not know the Niger story had been debunked long ago - what does he know anyway? Certainly some people in his entourage knew it was false... Bad boys, thou shalt not lie!
    Your premise is that he got rid of weapons that he had and then bluffed about it? For what end? That's ludicrous and inane. I expected better of you. What happened to your logic?
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  11. #11  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    It sure is a valid question, so is telling on what info you base those claims. However a pre-emptive strike is not a valid action IMHO...
    Nobody said they never existed, just that it is unlikely they are still there... and that it is the UN's job not the US'...
    Who made it the UNs job? The UN? And when they fail, who picks up the pieces? The UN handling the job allowed Saddam to massacre the Kurds with those outdated chemical weapons (or were they the ones he had made?)

    I find it interesting that the US is bad for doing something about this and it seems also to blame for Saddam being capable of evil. I guess Iraqs WMD research was actually just a figment, regardless of the proof the uN found and Iraq admitted to.

    And yes some are saying that they didn't exist (except for the ones they "got" from the US - how come the opposition always mentions weapons Iraq got from the US, but don't mention France, Germany, Russia, and China? Not to mention North Korea who sells weapons to anyone who will pony up the cash?).
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  12. #12  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    ??? What country/countries would be big/strong enough to enforce that on the US?
    Use another country, say the Netherlands and it might make sense to compare.
    Don't take it too literally, I used the US as example because Toby can relate to that.. it was purely hypothetical...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  13. #13  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    Who made it the UNs job? The UN? And when they fail, who picks up the pieces?
    The united countries (including the US) in the UN made it the UN's job.
    If you dont like the system work on it, dont go acting on your own...
    If you dont like the way the lawinforcement handles your case do you go out and kill the person you think is guilty?

    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    The UN handling the job allowed Saddam to massacre the Kurds with those outdated chemical weapons (or were they the ones he had made?)
    I totally agree that the UN failed on the Kurd massacre, but in this discussion that is irrelevant. Bush used WMD as the reason to attack Iraq, now it appears they dont exist...
    If Bush went to Iraq for other reasons I'm sure a lot less people would have objected... but in that case he would have created a precedent and he would have to liberate countries where he had less interests in...

    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    I find it interesting that the US is bad for doing something about this and it seems also to blame for Saddam being capable of evil. I guess Iraqs WMD research was actually just a figment, regardless of the proof the uN found and Iraq admitted to.
    Its not black and white.. its millions of tones of gray...
    You can do the wrong thing for the right reasons and vice versa...

    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    And yes some are saying that they didn't exist (except for the ones they "got" from the US - how come the opposition always mentions weapons Iraq got from the US, but don't mention France, Germany, Russia, and China? Not to mention North Korea who sells weapons to anyone who will pony up the cash?).
    It is general knowledge that the CIA provided Iraq with chemical weapons and learned them how to use them when Iraq was still an ally...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  14. #14  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT
    I was going to say nukes, bio or chemical weapons... but everybody knows the US allready has those... :/
    Yep, we've got nukes. We've also supposedly been working with Russia to reduce the amount we've had for quite some time now. Who was Saddam working with? ...that's right. He was working against the UN. Bio and chemical? Got any proof? Have we used them against anyone recently?
    But how about they had 'proof' just like Bush had? Bush allready started backpeddling on his claims...
    First of all, it's backpedaling. Second of all, I'd be interested in their proof and how people like yourself viewed it. I get the distinct impression you'd not question it nearly as diligently as you do Bush's.
    Sadam had those (given by the US btw)
    Proof?
    in the late 80's early 90's and these things have a lifespan of a couple of years...
    Did you read the Ekeus article? Do you question his information and reasoning? Don't be so foolish to assume I'm some sort of Bushie apologist.
    It sure is a valid question, so is telling on what info you base those claims.
    I've provided links on the kind of information I'm believing in. All you've offered in return are FUD and red herrings on a single piece of Bushie's foundation.
    However a pre-emptive strike is not a valid action IMHO...
    That's fine. I don't particularly care for it myself, however, I'm much less inclined to criticize it under the particular circumstances in this case.
    Nobody said they never existed, just that it is unlikely they are still there... and that it is the UN's job not the US'...
    Then perhaps the question should be "Where has the UN been?" If all of this is the UN's job, why haven't they been _doing_ something. Seems to me they're just being 'Whiners of Mass Distraction' as well.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #15  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT
    Don't take it too literally, I used the US as example because Toby can relate to that.. it was purely hypothetical...
    You weren't replying to me, and your example would have to be analogous and realistic for me to be able to relate to it.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16. #16  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT
    The united countries (including the US) in the UN made it the UN's job.
    If you dont like the system work on it, dont go acting on your own...
    If you dont like the way the lawinforcement handles your case do you go out and kill the person you think is guilty?
    That depends on what they were guilty of, and how law enforcement handled it. If someone raped and killed your wife, and you knew who it was, and law enforcement refused to take any action on it, what would you do? Seriously.
    I totally agree that the UN failed on the Kurd massacre, but in this discussion that is irrelevant.
    Sorry, but it's not. It speaks to the heart of the issue. Read the Ekeus article. Ignore the Bushie propaganda.
    Bush used WMD as the reason to attack Iraq, now it appears they dont exist...
    What makes you think they don't exist? Because they haven't been found yet? Have someone bury a gold ring in your back yard, but not tell you where it is. Wait five years, then try to find it without a metal detector while the person who knows where it is tries to mislead you from finding it.
    If Bush went to Iraq for other reasons I'm sure a lot less people would have objected... but in that case he would have created a precedent and he would have to liberate countries where he had less interests in...
    Depends on the reason he picked.
    Its not black and white.. its millions of tones of gray...
    You can do the wrong thing for the right reasons and vice versa...
    So, which do you think this was? Seriously. Let's get beyond all the devil's advocate nonsense and speak plainly.
    It is general knowledge that the CIA provided Iraq with chemical weapons and learned them how to use them when Iraq was still an ally...
    "1500 years ago, everybody 'knew' that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody 'knew' that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you 'knew' that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll 'know' tomorrow."
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. #17  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT
    I totally agree that the UN failed on the Kurd massacre, but in this discussion that is irrelevant.
    I don't think you can ignore past history. The fact that WMD's were used makes it relevant.


    Bush used WMD as the reason to attack Iraq
    It was one of the reasons, albeit a major one.


    now it appears they dont exist...
    If you believe what Ekeus says in his article (I personally find it plausible), finding actual weapons (shells, warheads, etc)may never happen. Finding the ability to produce them in short order is another matter altogether. How many more centrifuges (and other hardware, software, documents, etc) are buried in the gardens of Iraq?


    You can do the wrong thing for the right reasons and vice versa...
    Are you saying the coalition did the wrong thing? Or, was it the right thing (maybe the wrong reasons)?
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  18.    #18  
    Originally posted by Toby
    [B]Yes, tell that to the Iranians, the Kurds, etc. 'Sorry, you couldn't have had people killed. Saddam was just bluffing. He wouldn't have continued to refine the processes of creating chemicals to kill you. He was just bluffing.'An attack from whom
    Sorry Toby, but you are throwing strawmen at me (learned the expression from BobbyMike, hope I got it right). Your counter-argument is silly because no one has ever doubted Saddam had used chemical weapons against the Kurds. The difference of of having been in possession of WMD and being in possession of WMD was emphasised in my posting, it was the one sentence you "forgot" to quote...

    Trying to bluff away an attack by whom? The US, obviously, a UN coalition force, Iran, you name it. Does not take a lot of imagination.
  19.    #19  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    Your premise is that he got rid of weapons that he had and then bluffed about it? For what end? That's ludicrous and inane. I expected better of you. What happened to your logic?
    Don't worry about my logic, I'll try to explain again :Saddam obviously had WMD, we know it because he used them. Suppose he ran out of stock and had difficulties producing new stuff due to the embargo and the UN inspectors searching for production facilities etc. - a perfectly plausible assumption. Under these conditions, it would be perfectly rational for him to make the public believe he had WMD even if this was not true, because it makes sense to assume that potential enemies would be deterred by such weapons, at least to a certain extent.

    Exaggerating the true number or force of weapons is a well known and frequent strategy, specially for someone facing a superior force. Even animals use it when they try to look larger than they are. So were specifically is the flaw in that logic?

    Since no one objected, I assume we agree that Bush (or at least his administration as a whole) has been lying about the Niger story . The British have admitted they have copied some of their information and argumentation directly from the essay of some student. Also not convincing, if you ask me. Makes you think they didn't have anything better, just like Bush with his bogus Uranium claim.

    Sorry if I will not be able to correct all the misunderstandings and errors that will follow my posting right away, I will spend a week in the wonderful Swiss mountains , starting tomorrow.
  20. #20  
    Originally posted by clulup
    Sorry Toby, but you are throwing strawmen at me (learned the expression from BobbyMike, hope I got it right).
    The correct term, yes, but not the correct usage.
    Your counter-argument is silly because no one has ever doubted Saddam had used chemical weapons against the Kurds.
    You missed a crucial part there.
    The difference of of having been in possession of WMD and being in possession of WMD was emphasised in my posting, it was the one sentence you "forgot" to quote...
    I didn't forget to quote it, it was irrelevant. Read the Ekeus article. Possession is irrelevant to the equation. The ability to produce in short order is what I was referring to when I said "...continue to refine...".
    Trying to bluff away an attack by whom? The US, obviously, a UN coalition force, Iran, you name it. Does not take a lot of imagination.
    Perhaps not, but it takes a great deal of imagination to think that Saddam suddenly stopped his pursuit. Saddam doesn't seem to have made a habit of bluffing. He has made a habit of killing.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions