Hussein Was Right & Bush Was Wrong

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Genx87

Well, easing sanctions is a step towards lifting them. You ease ease ease until they are gone.

Maybe but it isnt lifting them. To lift them Iraq was required to provide full disclosure and allow access to any facility the UN inspections teams ask for.

Kicking out the UN in 1998 and submitting unfinished documentation does not show a sign of cooperation at all.

Inspectors had access to all facilities in 2002, ...

If that was true (It's not.) then why did the UN feel the need to draft further resolutions against Iraq concening inspections?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Oh please, that was the whole RRR FLL base before the Election as reason to support the Fearless Liar, now after the Election you're going to try a claim you FLL's never said that, come on, sick.

I dare you to show me once where the Bush administration said they had solid proof of Iraqi connections to 9-11.

We have gone over this before, but lets see if you can find anything this time.

What would be proof enough? An audio clip?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Well, easing sanctions is a step towards lifting them. You ease ease ease until they are gone.

Maybe but it isnt lifting them. To lift them Iraq was required to provide full disclosure and allow access to any facility the UN inspections teams ask for.

Kicking out the UN in 1998 and submitting unfinished documentation does not show a sign of cooperation at all.

Didn't you read the OP link?

The US submitted unfinished documentation when they took 8,000 pages from the report. Hans Blix said the report, with the 8,000 pages, was the most comprehensive documentation of Iraq's weapons in existence.

What is Bush hiding? Something about Reagan, his father, and Saddam???

Is that also why Bush used a presidential order to keep all the records of Reagan/Bush/Clinton plus his own records as governor of Texas secret as well?

 

[Genx87]

US and UK would block any UN resolution that would find Iraq in compliance. So there was no way for Iraq to be in compliance, even if they allowed inspectors to do an anal probe on Saddam.

Sure there was, if Iraq provided discolosure of weapons, where disposed weapons went, and allowed access.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

US and UK would block any UN resolution that would find Iraq in compliance. So there was no way for Iraq to be in compliance, even if they allowed inspectors to do an anal probe on Saddam.

Sure there was, if Iraq provided discolosure of weapons, where disposed weapons went, and allowed access.

Iraq provided that. The U.S. redacted 8,000 pages. Must have been something in there they didn't want out.

Bush decided on invading Iraq before he took office. As soon as he "won" it was a done deal. Period. No matter what Saddam or anyone else did or didn't do.

 

[Genx87]

What would be proof enough? An audio clip?

Transcript would be nice as audio clips are easily duped.

I have cheney on Sept 8th of 2002 telling meet the press there is no proof of Iraqi connections to 9-11.
I find it hard to believe that close to the war and that close to the vote on 1441 he would say such a thing if the administrations line was there is a connection.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Genx87

And how many Americans died in those terrorist attacks in those 8 years.

Does a bodycount determine our response? If for instance a terrorist blows up a school bus and kills 15 kids should we only throw 2 cruise missiles at their training camp? If it is 100 people killed in a mall attack then we throw 6?

The point is there were 5 of them and we didnt do much of anything about it. There was a pattern growing upto 9-11 that we would get hit and do nothing about it. Of course they are going to hit us harder and harder every time.

You will note however since 9-11 we have not had any attacks outside of the warzone. Knocking on wood of course but it is an improvement.

Yes, body count does determine our response. You concentrate the biggest resources on the biggest threat, and terrorism was not a big threat in the 90s. But again, what does Saddam have to do with 9/11?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Inspectors had access to all facilities in 2002, and all that got Iraqis was an invasion. So there goes that theory.

Now why did they get access?

Ever heard of the phrase "Too little, too late"?

So it wasn't about access? It was about weakening Iraq to make it a soft target. And oh boy did that one backfire.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Genx87

Well, easing sanctions is a step towards lifting them. You ease ease ease until they are gone.

Maybe but it isnt lifting them. To lift them Iraq was required to provide full disclosure and allow access to any facility the UN inspections teams ask for.

Kicking out the UN in 1998 and submitting unfinished documentation does not show a sign of cooperation at all.

Inspectors had access to all facilities in 2002, ...

If that was true (It's not.) then why did the UN feel the need to draft further resolutions against Iraq concening inspections?

Because US and UK made it clear that that was the only way to prevent an invasion.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

What would be proof enough? An audio clip?

Transcript would be nice as audio clips are easily duped.

I have cheney on Sept 8th of 2002 telling meet the press there is no proof of Iraqi connections to 9-11.
I find it hard to believe that close to the war and that close to the vote on 1441 he would say such a thing if the administrations line was there is a connection.

You ingore transcripts, audio, video, articles, opinions...if someone presents you with another one you'll just ignore that too.

It's like half this nation has suffered some sort of mass hysteria that won't allow them to recognize the facts.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

"You will note however since 9-11 we have not had any attacks outside of the warzone. Knocking on wood of course but it is an improvement."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why (inherently) does a war half way across the planet prevent people striking the US or anywhere else?

There is no reason that a number of people could not create mayhem in any number of places. It doesn't take many.

Here is an unsettling fact. The US will always be vulnerable. Unless we revoke the Constitution and give the State complete control over all facets of our being, it will always be so. Even then, the most oppressive govts still will have a hole that can be exploited.

Want to know what I think? I think Al Queda is using Iraq as a diversion, and is trying to acquire a black market nuke. If course I have no info that this is happening, but Al Q leaders are not stupid. If I were trying for the maximum effect, that would be it.

 

[Genx87]

Didn't you read the OP link?

The US submitted unfinished documentation when they took 8,000 pages from the report. Hans Blix said the report, with the 8,000 pages, was the most comprehensive documentation of Iraq's weapons in existence.

And it has been debunked by people in this thread already.

What is Bush hiding? Something about Reagan, his father, and Saddam???

Is that also why Bush used a presidential order to keep all the records of Reagan/Bush/Clinton plus his own records as governor of Texas secret as well?

Hello this is earth, have we met?

Iraq provided that. The U.S. redacted 8,000 pages. Must have been something in there they didn't want out.

You cant be this simple minded. Every single iraqi disclosure from 1992 through 1998 was considered unfinished and worthless by the UN. You think suddenly Iraq submitted documentation that was full? btw I find it hard to believe the U.S. would be allowed to handle the Iraqi papers without the ability of any on the security council to get the full discolsoure if they wanted.

Bush decided on invading Iraq before he took office. As soon as he "won" it was a done deal. Period. No matter what Saddam or anyone else did or didn't do.

You really should read the 9-11 commish report. They talk about the days after 9-11 and Bush wanted to know if Saddam was behind it. After a few days Saddam was determined not to be a person of interest in this and Bush, yes Bush directed them to concentrate on Bin Laden and Afghanistan.

 

[SuperTool]

Maybe we should invade Egypt next cus neocons are already in De Nile

 

[Genx87]

Yes, body count does determine our response. You concentrate the biggest resources on the biggest threat, and terrorism was not a big threat in the 90s. But again, what does Saddam have to do with 9/11?

Well looking back on the 1990s it should have been considered our biggest threat.
And for the 2nd time Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Yes, body count does determine our response. You concentrate the biggest resources on the biggest threat, and terrorism was not a big threat in the 90s. But again, what does Saddam have to do with 9/11?

Well looking back on the 1990s it should have been considered our biggest threat.
And for the 2nd time Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

So why are you bringing it up?
And no, it's not our biggest threat even in the 90s. The casualties are not even on the radar in terms of leading causes of death.

 

[Genx87]

You ingore transcripts, audio, video, articles, opinions...if someone presents you with another one you'll just ignore that too.

It's like half this nation has suffered some sort of mass hysteria that won't allow them to recognize the facts.

Are you going to take your toys home with you as well?

You havent provided much of anything except conjecture and a half baked story. I ask for proof and all you can do is come back with nothing but another article to another story that has no facts in it.

What do you want me to do, take you on your word?

Why (inherently) does a war half way across the planet prevent people striking the US or anywhere else?

I dont believe in this war it does. But certainly it has seemed to slow its progress.

Here is an unsettling fact. The US will always be vulnerable. Unless we revoke the Constitution and give the State complete control over all facets of our being, it will always be so. Even then, the most oppressive govts still will have a hole that can be exploited.

This is true, however we can make ourselves a safer nation by actively going after those who wish to bring us harm. Democracys in general are more suspectible to this kind of war due to their open societies and personal freedoms.

 

[Genx87]

So why are you bringing it up?

because you asked me a question?

hello mcfly!

And no, it's not our biggest threat even in the 90s. The casualties are not even on the radar in terms of leading causes of death.

Ok so we should be attacking Cancer then? Or how about old age?
What a silly thing to say. If death tolls are all that matter than we should have stayed out of WWII. More people probably died of small pox in 1941 than died at Pearl Harbor.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Inspectors had access to all facilities in 2002, and all that got Iraqis was an invasion. So there goes that theory.

Have you read the UNMOVIC reports? Didn't think so, but that won't stop you from trying to put out information you think you know as fact.

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, body count does determine our response. You concentrate the biggest resources on the biggest threat, and terrorism was not a big threat in the 90s. But again, what does Saddam have to do with 9/11?

Who was the biggest threat in the 90's then?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Genx87

So why are you bringing it up?

because you asked me a question?

hello mcfly!

And no, it's not our biggest threat even in the 90s. The casualties are not even on the radar in terms of leading causes of death.

Ok so we should be attacking Cancer then? Or how about old age?
What a silly thing to say. If death tolls are all that matter than we should have stayed out of WWII. More people probably died of small pox in 1941 than died at Pearl Harbor.

How about the millions of uninsured who die because they don't get treatment in time to save them?
If you could spend 200Billion to prevent 1 Million Americans from dying from disease or to prevent 1000 Americans from dying from Terrorism, how would you spend it?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Inspectors had access to all facilities in 2002, and all that got Iraqis was an invasion. So there goes that theory.

Have you read the UNMOVIC reports? Didn't think so, but that won't stop you from trying to put out information you think you know as fact.

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, body count does determine our response. You concentrate the biggest resources on the biggest threat, and terrorism was not a big threat in the 90s. But again, what does Saddam have to do with 9/11?

Who was the biggest threat in the 90's then?

obesity

 

[Genx87]

How about the millions of uninsured who die because they don't get treatment in time to save them?
If you could spend 200Billion to prevent 1 Million Americans from dying from disease or to prevent 1000 Americans from dying from Terrorism, how would you spend it?

As soon as those millions start flying aircraft into skyscrapers and declare a holy war on the United States. I am sure we will oblige to declare war on them.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Yes, body count does determine our response. You concentrate the biggest resources on the biggest threat, and terrorism was not a big threat in the 90s. But again, what does Saddam have to do with 9/11?

Well looking back on the 1990s it should have been considered our biggest threat.
And for the 2nd time Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq

Just a start. You can get more info on Bush's Saddam infatuation in Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror or Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack.

But you won't becuase you obviously didn't even read the Frontline links I posted.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

What would be proof enough? An audio clip?

Transcript would be nice as audio clips are easily duped.

I have cheney on Sept 8th of 2002 telling meet the press there is no proof of Iraqi connections to 9-11.
I find it hard to believe that close to the war and that close to the vote on 1441 he would say such a thing if the administrations line was there is a connection.

You ingore transcripts, audio, video, articles, opinions...if someone presents you with another one you'll just ignore that too.

It's like half this nation has suffered some sort of mass hysteria that won't allow them to recognize the facts.

That's true. Now they are trying to revise history as well, just like the article in the OP.

The fact is that Bush never said there was any proof of a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Never. He stated specifically on one occassion that there was no proof of a connection.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/se...ify/2003/0918proof.htm

Feel free to prove otherwise though. Merely claiming that someone is ignoring transcripts, etc. is not proving a thing however.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Genx87

How about the millions of uninsured who die because they don't get treatment in time to save them?

If you could spend 200Billion to prevent 1 Million Americans from dying from disease or to prevent 1000 Americans from dying from Terrorism, how would you spend it?

As soon as those millions start flying aircraft into skyscrapers and declare a holy war on the United States. I am sure we will oblige to declare war on them.

Can't answer a simple question, now can you?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
How about the millions of uninsured who die because they don't get treatment in time to save them?
If you could spend 200Billion to prevent 1 Million Americans from dying from disease or to prevent 1000 Americans from dying from Terrorism, how would you spend it?

Unfortunately, there's a complete discontinuity in your ideas. Money that doesn't get spent on Iraq will simply not get spent at all, it would simply come out of the deficit. You could argue that this would allow backing of a government healthcare bill, but I don't want government healthcare. I don't want it NOT due to financial reasons but because of the inherent problems with socialized medicine.

Originally posted by: SuperTool
obesity

OK, I'll call my boys at the Pentagon and have them draw up a battle plan against McDonalds.