Why do you think this is not possible? He clearly has hid the weapons, it's like a needle in a hay stack. They find buried ammo all the time, whats the likely hood of at least finding some WMD that wasn't even INTENTIONALLY hidden in the ground by the gov't but instead some joe nobody? If you can find ammo from anybody, I think your more then likely to see that they buried or hid the weapons so the U.N guys wouldn't find it. Hussein knew what he was doing and that is that, you guys are pathedic.
Why do you think this is not possible? He clearly has hid the weapons, it's like a needle in a hay stack. They find buried ammo all the time, whats the likely hood of at least finding some WMD that wasn't even INTENTIONALLY hidden in the ground by the gov't but instead some joe nobody? If you can find ammo from anybody, I think your more then likely to see that they buried or hid the weapons so the U.N guys wouldn't find it. Hussein knew what he was doing and that is that, you guys are pathedic.
OMG
I'm not going through the trouble of posting the link again. You obviously haven't read it and won't read it no matter what.
There is NO EVIDENCE after 22 months of searching of any WMD in Iraq and NO EVIDENCE that it was moved. The U.S. government admits this freely now. Why don't you?
Conservative??? Ahem! Umm... The new word for you guys is "Regressives". Conservative is not at all fitting. You are constantly trying to regress humanity back to the Bad Old Days which you blissfully think were the Good Old Days. And you don't believe in conserving anything except perhaps for hateful bigotries, ignorance, and destructive policies.
We are the Progressives.
You are the Regressives.
Spread the word.
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
I guess, Bob, when you post a link it might be helpful to read and understand all of the words.
You see, Bob, Kerry and Edwards tried the talking points that you post and they LOST.
With so many souls at stake (yours included) "Almost all wrong" was a WIN.
It is a conservative thing, Bob, thus your lack of understanding.
Your misdirection and intellectual dishonesty has been duly noted, though.
Nice spin and projection , there, Bearcat14, with the usual accusations of hatred, and the usual accusations of Saddam-love...
We've come a long way from "We know where they are!" to "Coulda, woulda, if we'da let him!" now haven't we?
Of course we have. And that's not to defend the Iraqi regime in any way, but rather to condemn the conduct of our own leadership.
And the representation of inevitability wrt dealing with Iraq somewhere down the road is pure projection, and not part of the rationale prior to the invasion, either. "Nascent" means "emerging", and nowhere in the Duelfer report is there any indication that any programs were actually emerging, or that even any planning had taken place...
We struck pre-emptively, to remove an urgent threat to american security, remember? When it turns out that there was no urgency, then other "reasons" need to be found, other rationale articulated, if for no reason other than to obfuscate the truth. Which is precisely what your post and the Admin are desperately seeking...
Hopefully, as the impact of 9/11 fades in our collective memory, the ability to exploit feelings of hurt and rage, fear and loathing will deteriorate, and the electorate will realize just how badly they've been manipulated by the Bush Admin. Until that time comes, unfortunately, their agitprop will find fertile ground in the feelings and imaginations of many people like yourself, who apparently believe that they're actually thinking in a rational fashion, rather than reacting on a gut level to what is easily the most effective appeal to our cultural mythos ever developed...
We've come a long way from "We know where they are!" to "Coulda, woulda, if we'da let him!" now haven't we?
Of course we have. And that's not to defend the Iraqi regime in any way, but rather to condemn the conduct of our own leadership.
And the representation of inevitability wrt dealing with Iraq somewhere down the road is pure projection, and not part of the rationale prior to the invasion, either. "Nascent" means "emerging", and nowhere in the Duelfer report is there any indication that any programs were actually emerging, or that even any planning had taken place...
We struck pre-emptively, to remove an urgent threat to american security, remember? When it turns out that there was no urgency, then other "reasons" need to be found, other rationale articulated, if for no reason other than to obfuscate the truth. Which is precisely what your post and the Admin are desperately seeking...
Hopefully, as the impact of 9/11 fades in our collective memory, the ability to exploit feelings of hurt and rage, fear and loathing will deteriorate, and the electorate will realize just how badly they've been manipulated by the Bush Admin. Until that time comes, unfortunately, their agitprop will find fertile ground in the feelings and imaginations of many people like yourself, who apparently believe that they're actually thinking in a rational fashion, rather than reacting on a gut level to what is easily the most effective appeal to our cultural mythos ever developed...
Whether or not they admit this "freely" doesn't mean there AREN'T any WMD in iraq. Quite possibly they had to ditch thier plan because the public was too lazy to wait and see. There is at least SOME WMD in iraq whether or not it was hidden from the gov't may be a mystery. It's not that difficult to just bury the weapons, once we find these maybe it will make stupid liberals shut up for once.
Phillipine Mango, I think you've vividly illustrated that there is, indeed, something buried in the sand, figuratively speaking, anyway...
And also that blind faith is one of the most dangerous facets of human nature.
As for your last remark, Ozoned, I think you're right that Bush did, indeed, give many people what they wanted, although he was the one who convinced them to believe they wanted it in the first place... the trademark and stock in trade of charlatans and conmen throughout human history.
And also that blind faith is one of the most dangerous facets of human nature.
As for your last remark, Ozoned, I think you're right that Bush did, indeed, give many people what they wanted, although he was the one who convinced them to believe they wanted it in the first place... the trademark and stock in trade of charlatans and conmen throughout human history.
How wonderful that in a time of war so many Americans trash our President. War is serious, although many of you may not truly understand that as George Bush is succeeding at keeping the war outside of our borders. And winning a war is difficult, even more so when we have to fight amongst our own people who are doing everything possible to take away from the cause.
Insinuating that Saddam was, or is more ethical or trustworthy than George W. Bush speaks volumes as to whose side you are on.
It a good thing our servicemen and women are not as weak as the Democratic party and their diplomatic approaches in dealing with the terrorists of the world.
Insinuating that Saddam was, or is more ethical or trustworthy than George W. Bush speaks volumes as to whose side you are on.
It a good thing our servicemen and women are not as weak as the Democratic party and their diplomatic approaches in dealing with the terrorists of the world.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
1. You know jack and sh!t about the military. It's not a Democratic choice. They are called up and they go. End of story. Being in the military is like being under a tyrant sort of speak. That's just the way it is.
2. Can you possibly be any more hypocritical talking about Democracy and preaching how not to create descent in the same post.
Yllus:
I've looked through this thread, and the facts to be found in it are few and far between. Let's take a moment to look at the most popular reasons for the rationale for war in Iraq.
- Iraq's non-compliance with UN resolutions. Warnings had not deterred Iraq from overtly hostile actions that threatened the United States and its interests.
- Iraq's history of using WMD demonstrated the likelihood that it would use them in the future.
- The possiblity of the synergy created when hostile states and non-state agents conspire could not be ignored.
- Iraq's aggression externally in the Middle East, and internally using Stalinist methods.
All causes for alarm, and with which more than one president agreed with. This, in contrast with Saddam Hussein's 1990 aims to overrun the Kuwaiti state and with such a measure become the hegemon of the Middle East. Your judgement call on whether or not the U.S. was justified in 2003 simply doesn't hold up.
GrGr:
"Fact" number one. You argue that because Iraq was breaking international law the US must break international law. This is a non-sequitur. The US cannot unilaterally uphold international law by breaking international law (and US law).
"Fact" number two. How can Iraq use WMD it doesn't have?
"Fact" number three. "The possibility of synergy" - well there seems to be more "synergy" created by the day in Iraq. Speculation about "Possibilites" simply is not good enough.
Your "facts" only underscore the illegality of the invasion.
I've looked through this thread, and the facts to be found in it are few and far between. Let's take a moment to look at the most popular reasons for the rationale for war in Iraq.
- Iraq's non-compliance with UN resolutions. Warnings had not deterred Iraq from overtly hostile actions that threatened the United States and its interests.
- Iraq's history of using WMD demonstrated the likelihood that it would use them in the future.
- The possiblity of the synergy created when hostile states and non-state agents conspire could not be ignored.
- Iraq's aggression externally in the Middle East, and internally using Stalinist methods.
All causes for alarm, and with which more than one president agreed with. This, in contrast with Saddam Hussein's 1990 aims to overrun the Kuwaiti state and with such a measure become the hegemon of the Middle East. Your judgement call on whether or not the U.S. was justified in 2003 simply doesn't hold up.
GrGr:
"Fact" number one. You argue that because Iraq was breaking international law the US must break international law. This is a non-sequitur. The US cannot unilaterally uphold international law by breaking international law (and US law).
"Fact" number two. How can Iraq use WMD it doesn't have?
"Fact" number three. "The possibility of synergy" - well there seems to be more "synergy" created by the day in Iraq. Speculation about "Possibilites" simply is not good enough.
Your "facts" only underscore the illegality of the invasion.
This is where you get fundamentalist nut jobs from. They can't think a) for themselves, and b) beyond the concept of black and white. (Despite that there is absolutely no 100% black or 100% white in all of the universe).
Retards? Indeed. Indeed.
There is good hatred. There is good intolerance. There is good bigotry. There is good repression. And it is what liberals/progressives practice.
Hatred of the hateful.... Good.
Intolerance of the intolerant..... Good.
Bigotry toward the biggotted.... Good.
Repression of the Repressive.... Good.
Regressives (formerly known as conservatives) are... Hateful. Intolerant. Biggotted. Repressive.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
On what basis was the war against international laws? Just because a number of member nations might denounce the move for their own mostly monetary reasons?
- Hussein's regime did not prove itself to be in compliance with the terms of his surrender when the time came to lay it all out. Simple.
- Under intl' law, the U.S. had a right to preemptory self-defense. While it may be comfortable for us peons to say, "Oh Iraq, they would never lend a hand to terrorists or dare strike against us," the president has to take these matters a bit more seriously. There is vast documentation of Saddam's subtle and not-so-subtle urging of aggression against the West:
May I also remind you that under int'l law, only the U.S. may decide what constitutes a threat to itself.
Exactly which of us knew that prior to war, considering that even the most vehement opposers of war in Iraq did not trouble themselves to dispute their existence?
Your own basis for declaring the war as illegal is based on opinion, not the intelligence that was available. International actions are not deemed legal or illegal via a majority of the world agreeing with the action or not.
Don't say I don't know jack about the military. Especially from an unpatriotic f>*k like yourself.
It not they are called up and go...end of story. That is the problem, you don't realize they are fighting for their lives, our safety, and everybody's freedom. For you it is out of sight out of mind.
The fact is we are at war. Period. Our enemies know they cannot defeat our milatary, so they try to break our will, and just wait for the american people to start crying.
3 words for you. YOU ARE SOFT!
Because only if under immediate threat may a nation defend itself with military might. Moreover regime change is forbidden under international law. The US was not under immediate threat by Iraq, and regime change was the goal of the invasion.
Irrelevant. That is not for the US alone to decide.
Since when is rhetoric enough reason to invade another nation? Saddam talked "dirty" Ooooo Saddam had nasty thoughts eeeee Let's invade... Sorry but since when is paranoia enough reason for military aggression?
There are stipulations in international law that clearly establishes the level of threat need for a military answer. Sorry but paranoid fantasy are not it.
The vast majority of the world knew that Saddam did not pose a direct threat. That is the crux of the matter. Iraq was not a direct threat even had it had small amounts of WMD like artillery shells with various gases etc. US geopolitical goals dictated the invasion. Not a hyped threat that everybody sensible knew was bogus.
"With our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations."
By former US President, Jimmy Carter. March 9, 2003
Yeah I'm a real unpatriotic fvck. Hear that RabidMongoose? Take note bud it seems you been proven wrong. I'm not a patriot or nationalist at all.
note: I'm ex military
Fact is being at war does not give you the right to act as you see fit. That whole idea pisses away everything previous generations who fought and died for and who are right now in the same belief fighting and dying for. Your suggestion about shutting people up who "cry" about their nation's actions is similar to some previous administrations. Namely some like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia but don't feel so lonely. Joseph McCarthy preached the same thing you are preaching right now in the late 50s in the US.
3 words for you. You are sheep.
Pohemi
Lifer
- Oct 2, 2004
- 10,877
- 16,960
- 146
"With our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations."
By former US President, Jimmy Carter. March 9, 2003
By former US President, Jimmy Carter. March 9, 2003
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter