Archived Messages Re: War in Iraq vs. Current Messages

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

comply with sanctions, would never dismantle his vast ba'athist police state, and would never have

THOSE ARE NOT not the stated reasons for attacking Iraq. WMDs!!!!! Imminent Threat!

Is any of this ringing a bell?

actually those are, in part, the stated reasons for invading iraq. the many reasons given all
dealt with the many ways saddam had built his rogue state and refused to meet the obligations
as written in a number of u.n. resolutions. the mere fact that you are fixated on one liberal
sound-byte as the penultimate justification for the campaign is reason enough for zombo.

if you read powell's february 2003 u.n. presentation, he will take you through a myriad of
reasons, from saddam's repeated failure to comply with u.n. resolutions to disarm, terrorist
activities, wmd, human rights violations, the superstructure of his police state, and a couple
of others i'm not recalling at the moment.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: arsbanned

comply with sanctions, would never dismantle his vast ba'athist police state, and would never have

THOSE ARE NOT not the stated reasons for attacking Iraq. WMDs!!!!! Imminent Threat!

Is any of this ringing a bell?

actually those are, in part, the stated reasons for invading iraq. the many reasons given all
dealt with the many ways saddam had built his rogue state and refused to meet the obligations
as written in a number of u.n. resolutions. the mere fact that you are fixated on one liberal
sound-byte as the penultimate justification for the campaign is reason enough for zombo.

if you read powell's february 2003 u.n. presentation, he will take you through a myriad of
reasons, from saddam's repeated failure to comply with u.n. resolutions to disarm, terrorist
activities, wmd, human rights violations, the superstructure of his police state, and a couple
of others i'm not recalling at the moment.

Do you mean this one?
Russert: Thank you very much, sir. In February of 2003, you put your enormous personal reputation on the line before the United Nations and said that you had solid sources for the case against Saddam Hussein. It now appears that an agent called Curveball had misled the CIA by suggesting that Saddam had trucks and trains that were delivering biological and chemical weapons. How concerned are you that some of the information you shared with the world is now inaccurate and discredited?

Powell: I'm very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed. But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.

Russert: Mr. Secretary, we thank you very much for joining us again and sharing your views with us today.

Powell: Thanks, Tim.


Edit: Apparently, Sec. Powell went back 1 year to what he said and concluded that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: arsbanned

comply with sanctions, would never dismantle his vast ba'athist police state, and would never have

THOSE ARE NOT not the stated reasons for attacking Iraq. WMDs!!!!! Imminent Threat!

Is any of this ringing a bell?

actually those are, in part, the stated reasons for invading iraq. the many reasons given all
dealt with the many ways saddam had built his rogue state and refused to meet the obligations
as written in a number of u.n. resolutions. the mere fact that you are fixated on one liberal
sound-byte as the penultimate justification for the campaign is reason enough for zombo.

if you read powell's february 2003 u.n. presentation, he will take you through a myriad of
reasons, from saddam's repeated failure to comply with u.n. resolutions to disarm, terrorist
activities, wmd, human rights violations, the superstructure of his police state, and a couple
of others i'm not recalling at the moment.

Q Ari, part of the reason for the war was WMD. Now, well into the war, WMD has not been found. The American public is going to the television every morning, listening to the radio every morning, trying to find out if, indeed, WMD was found. Does the administration feel there's some awkwardness right now with these statements of they're professionals at hiding, and we know it's there? I mean, is there some sort of awkwardness about the fact that this has not been found as of yet?

MR. FLEISCHER: No. We know Saddam Hussein is there, but we haven't found him yet, either. The fact of the matter is we are still in a war, and not everything about the war is yet known. But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

press conference - 4/10/03

 

[Genx87]

I remember every liberal screaming about this being about oil.

Here we are a year later with record gas prices. I guess that theory is blown!

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

"But Saddam hasn't disarmed !'
Oh yeah ? where are his vast quantities of military stockpiles ?
a stack of old rusty guns, a few burried abandoned airplanes, and a 25 year old arlillary
shell don't cut it.

his vast quanitities of military stockpiles are still there, being shared by the insurgents, unless
you believe these third world yahoos are master weapon machinists too, on top of all their other
enobling revolutionary qualities. there were over a hundred unguarded weapon sites scattered
throughout which i remember news reporters and military officers expressing their concern that
these toys could fall into the wrong hands (were they ever in the right ones ?).

what you meant to say was vast quantities of wmd stockpiles. fault the intelligence which, thanks
to the campaign, has been clarified. i mean, you didn't trust saddam was telling the truth, did you ?

'But Saddam didn't comply with the UN resolutions, thats why we had to go in !"
Well in retrospect hed had complied with the resolutions - the UN resolutions,
not Bush's interprotation of them (Bush dosen't/can't read) it was the UN's contract to enforce, not ours.

so he didn't comply, not with the 17th resolution, 16th, 15th, 14th . . . but perhaps he would have
done so with next one, 'cause i hear 18 is a very lucky number for liberals, french profiteers, and
german politicians in an election year.

'But Iraq was a threat to America !'
Maybe a threat to Bush's friends control of OIL PROFITS, but not to the security of our nation.
He wasn't even a threat to the Iraqis that lived in the Nothern section of Iraq, No-Fly Zones
kept his army away, there were too many 'Special Forces' operating there for the previous 12
years in working with the Kurds for Saddam to mount any military dominance there.

aah, yes, the black gold psychosis, still nourishing even at 2.00 a gallon. current oil production
has surpassed pre-liberation days and has generated nearly 2 billion dollars more revenue than
orginally projected in the last quarter of 2003, yet bush and friends will need to car pool if there
are going to save money.

the no-fly zones did nothing to ttler the reality of saddam's police state. in fact, it reinforced the
need for an effective (and final) resolution to the state of pervasive terror known as ba'ath iraq.
the no-fly zones were a symbol of the magnificent and persistent failure by the western agencies
to deal effectively with saddam, to instill a serious and debilitating pain from which he could not
recover and which would have forced him to beg for terms. saddam was making additional billlions
ripping off the fool u.n. and saving money on aircraft fuel while you were worshipping no-fly zones.
a very liberal pose.

and while the kurds may have benfited some from your no-fly zone panacea, ever turned your
wizened gaze to the shia in the south, esp. those in the marshlands. hmmm, you need glasses,
chuck.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: chowderhead


Powell: I'm very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed. But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.
[/b]

i responded to the charge that wmd was the sole reason for the campaign as it was expressed by
arsbanned . . . " THOSE ARE NOT not the stated reasons for attacking Iraq. WMDs!!!!! Imminent
Threat! "

the fact is there were others reasons stated by powell, bush, rice, rumsfeld, etc, and these reasons,
which are obvious, have been rehashed by numerous u.n. resolutions and discussion. your quote only
supports that. i wasn't addressing the faulty or suspect nature of any particular piece of evidence,
just that there was more than one cause. if we were to rank the causes, then wmd would be primary,
admittedly.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I remember every liberal screaming about this being about oil.

Here we are a year later with record gas prices. I guess that theory is blown!

Either you remember wrong, or you are lying.

 

[Genx87]

Either you remember wrong, or you are lying.

Everybody and their mother who was liberal said the war is about oil. You have had to been blind + deaf to not see or hear it.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Q Ari, part of the reason for the war was WMD. Now, well into the war, WMD has not been found. The American public is going to the television every morning, listening to the radio every morning, trying to find out if, indeed, WMD was found. Does the administration feel there's some awkwardness right now with these statements of they're professionals at hiding, and we know it's there? I mean, is there some sort of awkwardness about the fact that this has not been found as of yet?

MR. FLEISCHER: No. We know Saddam Hussein is there, but we haven't found him yet, either. The fact of the matter is we are still in a war, and not everything about the war is yet known. But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

press conference - 4/10/03

i understand the wmd issue was primary. i didn't comment on that. i simply stated in direct response
to a comment made above that there was more than one reason employed to explain the cause for
military intervention as detailed by powell in his u.n. address (fenruary 2003).

you have included a quote from ari to somehow erase (or re-write) the reams of other statements,
including powell's address, that formed the comprehensive justification for the conflict. one press
statement, or two, from a press secretary, is not all-defining, all-powerful, or all-anything. sorry.

edit: italics mayhem, neatness ! !

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I remember every liberal screaming about this being about oil.

Here we are a year later with record gas prices. I guess that theory is blown!

depends on your perspective:
the oil companies are showing record profits due to high oil costs and billions of dollars in contracts are being given to companies like Haliburton (DEBT our children and grandchildren have to repay) to rebuild a country the US spent billions and billlions blowing up.

let's also not forget
Cheney Energy Task Force Documents contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and ?Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: Gaard

Q Ari, part of the reason for the war was WMD. Now, well into the war, WMD has not been found. The American public is going to the television every morning, listening to the radio every morning, trying to find out if, indeed, WMD was found. Does the administration feel there's some awkwardness right now with these statements of they're professionals at hiding, and we know it's there? I mean, is there some sort of awkwardness about the fact that this has not been found as of yet?

MR. FLEISCHER: No. We know Saddam Hussein is there, but we haven't found him yet, either. The fact of the matter is we are still in a war, and not everything about the war is yet known. But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

press conference - 4/10/03

i understand the wmd issue was primary. i didn't comment on that. i simply stated in direct response
to a comment made above that there was more than one reason employed to explain the cause for
military intervention as detailed by powell in his u.n. address (fenruary 2003).

you have included a quote from ari to somehow erase (or re-write) the reams of other statements,
including powell's address, that formed the comprehensive justification for the conflict. one press
statement, or two, from a press secretary, is not all-defining, all-powerful, or all-anything. sorry.

edit: italics mayhem, neatness ! !

Sorry about that Ari quote. Is a quote by Bush better?

"And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

[*]Disarm Iraq of WMD - um, is there anything to be said here?

[*]End SH's support for terrorism - did those camps turn out to be anything? Other than that, anything else besides paying the suicide bombers? Surely, we didn't justify a war for paying suicide bombers.

[*]Free the Iraqis - That may have been part of the mission, but let's be honest here, would we have gone to war for their freedom alone? Would we give 2 cents for their well-being without a perceived threat to us or our interests?

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Sorry about that Ari quote. Is a quote by Bush better?

"And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

[*]Disarm Iraq of WMD - um, is there anything to be said here?

[*]End SH's support for terrorism - did those camps turn out to be anything? Other than that, anything else besides paying the suicide bombers? Surely, we didn't justify a war for paying suicide bombers.

[*]Free the Iraqis - That may have been part of the mission, but let's be honest here, would we have gone to war for their freedom alone? Would we give 2 cents for their well-being without a perceived threat to us or our interests?

you didn't understand the ari quote. i said the ari quote in itself does not serve as a comprehensive
explanation for the campaign. you then proceed to provide three reasons - as i said there was more
than one, obviously - and prove moi correct.

as for the specific reasons, dr. kay found enough evidence to prove saddam had never surrendered
his desire to re-equip his wmd arsenals in a future time when the appeasing powers would win the day.
saddam maintained clandestine projects, made efforts to acquire illegal weapons tech, maintained
work in chemical weapons including development of new strains, etc. so, yeah, there was more to
be said. you should look to dr. kay's precise words in later testimony. he stated simply and directly
there were no stockpiles, and he did not void the validity and truth the work his team accomplished
while there.

saddam did attempt to kill bush senior. that counts too. he also supported the pkk. his financial
and moral support for hamas is not small when taken in the context of his overall program to sow
dissension in the region by his outside interference. saddam has also monitored the activities of
iraqi students abroad to ensure their compliance with ba'ath ideology. there were attempts by
his diplomats abroad to plant bombs in foreign capitals but i can't be more specific because i
can't locate the links to back this up.