Aren't human rights violations and genocidal practices enough?

[BaliBabyDoc]

If we cannot find them that still leaves the big question Saddam never answered, and the whole problem, WHERE ARE THEY?

Maybe we should hold Iraq to this standard.
Top Defense Department officials have conceded that, on a scale of 1 to 10, their accounting for the funds Congress gives it rates only a 3.

Granted, that was during Clinton years . . . I'm sure DOD does a much better job under Bush.

Remember he ADMITTED to them, they have to be SOMEWHERE.....

I thought Saddam was a liar. How can you tell when a liar is telling the truth or FOS?

I would love for ALL of them to be found and accounted for, not because it will prove anything, but just to be sure it wasn't passed on already, IMHO, some probably has been, it's not like he ever planned on giving them up and our attack was hardly a suprise.

Do you realize the rambling inconsistencies in your statement? EVERYBODY would love for it to be found and accounted for . . . even France would endorse that if only for the purpose of re-billing. Everytime FOX Not News Network broadcasts a "discovery" . . . someone plasters it onto AT with a big fat . . . SEE WE TOLD YOU SO.

You cannot simultaneously claim that Saddam had mucho WMD and could launch several missiles into Kuwait but couldn't muster a SINGLE chem/bio attack? Let's say he was saving it for use in Baghdad . . . we bombed the shyte out of Baghdad but if he was saving it for a big finale to cover his exit . . . where is it . . . and why didn't he use it to cover his exit? A simple explanation is that it doesn't exist. Another is that it does exist and US PsyOps convinced underlings not to use chem/bio. In that case, the underlings should be known to the US and they should have provided intel' to the US gov. There are many ways to explain our current situation but for some to contend the ONLY explanation is well hidden WMD and a devastating battle plan OR Saddam was innocent (of WMD) is BS.

 

[J Heartless Slick]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: Nitemare
re: all the Have we found weapons of mass destruction whines?...I mean't threads...

No, not when we told the world the basis for this invasion was Iraq's violation of resolution 1441, that is its possesion of WMD. If human rights violations and genocidal practices were enough, we should have gone after the regimes in Congo and Angola whose treatment of people makes Saddam look like a boy scout. Our credibility is at stake, WE HAVE TO FIND THE WMD.

Without finding weapons of mass destruction, the US will be another thug, like the old USSR, that invades smaller countries using the lame excuse of national security.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Without finding weapons of mass destruction, the US will be another thug, like the old USSR, that invades smaller countries using the lame excuse of national security.

Not quite . . . I mean Grenada, Panama . . . sure. But NOBODY questions that Saddam was POS. Few tears will be shed for him. Even what we call an ally (Syria) was an ally for cheap oil not bosom buddies . . . kinda like the US and Saudi Arabia. The Taliban was cornholio regime as well. Syria isn't great but most of the people holding pictures of Assad aren't worried he will have them killed for not cheering loud enough. The Ayatollah is not broadly beloved but Khatami is actually winning democratic elections . . . granted it's the equivalent of OJ running against John Bundy.

National Security was a legitimate excuse . . . we just have to explain how we could be so wrong . . . if we are shown to be wrong.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by:

his compliance would have stopped anything, he could have done that 10 years ago...

I can deal with your anti-Bush stance, it just makes your bias that much more obvious and explains your inability to accept anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions and agendas.

It hardly makes for a persuasive arguement and really only makes you look rather foolish, I'm not alone in thinking this either, and with good reason, deal with it...

Well I guess we are in the same boat then, because you expressed exactly how I perceive you and your pro-warhawk friends (except, substitute in "Pro" for "anti" in what you said above).

It's just like str8 people wonder how in the world someone could be gay; and gay people wonder how str8s are the way they are. You both think you are in the right, who could win?

Makes my opinions just as valid as yours; makes my opinions just as worthless as yours.

Unlike you I provide links, something the anti-war side never does, becasue the facts a=don't support yours or their opinion.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

If we cannot find them that still leaves the big question Saddam never answered, and the whole problem, WHERE ARE THEY?

Maybe we should hold Iraq to this standard.
Top Defense Department officials have conceded that, on a scale of 1 to 10, their accounting for the funds Congress gives it rates only a 3.

Granted, that was during Clinton years . . . I'm sure DOD does a much better job under Bush.

Remember he ADMITTED to them, they have to be SOMEWHERE.....

I thought Saddam was a liar. How can you tell when a liar is telling the truth or FOS?

I would love for ALL of them to be found and accounted for, not because it will prove anything, but just to be sure it wasn't passed on already, IMHO, some probably has been, it's not like he ever planned on giving them up and our attack was hardly a suprise.

Do you realize the rambling inconsistencies in your statement? EVERYBODY would love for it to be found and accounted for . . . even France would endorse that if only for the purpose of re-billing. Everytime FOX Not News Network broadcasts a "discovery" . . . someone plasters it onto AT with a big fat . . . SEE WE TOLD YOU SO.

You cannot simultaneously claim that Saddam had mucho WMD and could launch several missiles into Kuwait but couldn't muster a SINGLE chem/bio attack? Let's say he was saving it for use in Baghdad . . . we bombed the shyte out of Baghdad but if he was saving it for a big finale to cover his exit . . . where is it . . . and why didn't he use it to cover his exit? A simple explanation is that it doesn't exist. Another is that it does exist and US PsyOps convinced underlings not to use chem/bio. In that case, the underlings should be known to the US and they should have provided intel' to the US gov. There are many ways to explain our current situation but for some to contend the ONLY explanation is well hidden WMD and a devastating battle plan OR Saddam was innocent (of WMD) is BS.

Secret ops are not publicly funded, meaning there is no public accounting of where that money comes from or goes, DOD is a well known slush fund for our secret groups.

What part don't you understand? Saddam admits having them, they are not found by the UN, they are not found by the US, where are they?

They MUST be somewhere? You think Saddam just sprinkled som pixie dust on them and made them disappear? Maybe he launched the whole kit-n-caboodle into space?


You talk about rambling, your last paragraph is specualtive BS. Their existence is not, it is fact, their location is the only question in dispute. Where are they?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Lets be objective on one more point:

If Bush himself was asked to provide proof of existance of the U.S. Weapons, and document them do you think he could ?
Do you even think that the Pentagon knows what the other branches of the military has ? Do you think that the Pentagon
even lets Dubya, Cheney, and Rummy know what weapons are available.
Do any of you have a clue as to what we 'Really' have.

Someone in a past thread mentioned McNamera and running the Vietnam campaign - he spent his time lying to Johnson
about everything, and Johnson trusted his advisors. The BIG escalation of troops into 'Nam was over the Gulf of Tonkin
attack on a U.S. Ship, claimed McNamera - Never happened ! Fabricated by the Hawks to push their desire for a war.
Johnson declined to run for re-election as he felt he had been betrayed by his trusted officials, and could not mentaly
resolve how these lies had led to the loss of our men in Vietnam by their deceit.
McNamera admitted it on his deathbed to resolve his own sins.

I don't think Bush has a clue about the real world, just as Poppy didn't have a clue about Supermarket scanner/readers.
He's sheltered, feed what they want him to see and believe, and is essentialy a meat-puppet for a machine that dates
back to Nixon/Reagan. Read over the list of 'Advisers' and staff - they're all recycled names and functions.

 

[Alistar7]

"McNamera admitted it on his deathbed to resolve his own sins."

That was a little late in my opinion, and hardly enough to make up for his actions.

And you are 100% correct there is much information a President is not even cleared or allowed to see, it's existence is never known outside of career civil servants and scientists.

Much like civil servants administer the awarding of contracts for Iraq, not Bush's administration.