No WOMD found in Iraq even still....

[Wolfdog]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/18/sprj.irq.chemicals/index.html

The shells that were found several weeks ago have been found not to contain any chemical or biological weapons.

 

[Gaard]

Who cares? Saddam was a brutal dictator.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, because none of us pays any attention to the news at all.

:roll:

Jason

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Thank you for bringing this to our attention, because none of us pays any attention to the news at all.

:roll:

Jason

 

[heartsurgeon]

good..keep bring this up over and over....
if WMD are found, all those who brayed about "No WMD" will looks like rubes....
if no WMD are found, after 1 more year of hearing "No WMD" over and over again, NO ONE WILL CARE ANYMORE!!!!

ha! this will be a non-issue come election time..no one will care anymore...old news...that's human nature.

 

[chess9]

WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND.

Mark my words, oh ye of little faith.

The Great Nebbish will bring forth the vigorish on November 1, 2004, and the heathen will fall down and prostrate themselves before the Elephant Gods and the sun will shine and there will be eternal peace and happiness among those earning over $500,000 a year.

"Vengence is mine sayeth the Rum Tum Tiger!"



-Robert

 

[Piano Man]

Originally posted by: Wolfdog
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/18/sprj.irq.chemicals/index.html

The shells that were found several weeks ago have been found not to contain any chemical or biological weapons.

Dude, didn't you get the memo? This war was is now about helping the oppressed people of Iraq!!!!

 

[kylebisme]

helping about 10,000 of them to their graves.

 

[chess9]

The Snowman:

Yes, but they're just Muslims. That's why we invaded their country. You don't think we'd invade a Christian nation, eh? Not only that, they are savages and not even noble savages at that. They all should die and come back as 8080's and start Moore's Law at the beginning, or pretty close. Maybe they'll get past the 286 stage next time.....

Really, you don't think they are real human beings? Think chips, er, or pawns.

j/k

-Robert

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
good..keep bring this up over and over....
if WMD are found, all those who brayed about "No WMD" will looks like rubes....
if no WMD are found, after 1 more year of hearing "No WMD" over and over again, NO ONE WILL CARE ANYMORE!!!!

ha! this will be a non-issue come election time..no one will care anymore...old news...that's human nature.

As opposed to now, where those who bleated about massive stockpiles of WMDs look like tools?

 

[Dman877]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Who cares? Saddam was a brutal dictator.

Saddam has been a brutal dictator for decades. The reason our government gave us for attacking now was WMD. If your argument holds water, then why aren't we going after the rest of the brutal dictators and governments still in existance? No oil?

 

[chess9]

Dman:

Gaard had his tongue firmly planted in his cheek. And not his butt cheek.

-Robert

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
good..keep bring this up over and over....
if WMD are found, all those who brayed about "No WMD" will looks like rubes....
if no WMD are found, after 1 more year of hearing "No WMD" over and over again, NO ONE WILL CARE ANYMORE!!!!

ha! this will be a non-issue come election time..no one will care anymore...old news...that's human nature.

You're absolutely right about this, and isn't that appalling? Does it make you sick to your stomach that a President can mislead a nation into pre-emptively invading a country not related to the War on Terror with lies (the yellow cake inclusion in State of Union address was a proven lie), deception (Iraq did not pose a threat) and nifty photoshop illustrations of mobile bio-weapons labs- then a few years later people just don't care anymore whether any of this held any water or not? It makes me want to spew partially ingested projectiles from my mouth.

 

[Moonbeam]

He was only there during Thanksgiving.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: Dman877

Originally posted by: Gaard
Who cares? Saddam was a brutal dictator.

Saddam has been a brutal dictator for decades. The reason our government gave us for attacking now was WMD. If your argument holds water, then why aren't we going after the rest of the brutal dictators and governments still in existance? No oil?

Since you seem to be new to this section of the AnandTech forum, I would advice you to adjust your sarcams detector. If you don't, you'll become mighty confused later on. Take the time to read some of the older posts and you might start to get a clearer picture of what people here actuly mean.

 

[replicator]

Yep... "the people forget", is a rule that the politicians haven't forgot.

Even during the first Gulf war, there was some outrageous propaganda, involving a young kuwaiti girl who testified that Iraqi soldiers had gone into a hospital and killed babies. Remember that? Well 2 years after the war, it was exposed that the girl was actually the daughter of the ambassador from kuwait or something of that sort, and it was all a lie. It is said that this testimony is what turned the tide of public opinion to support US going to war.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: replicator
Yep... "the people forget", is a rule that the politicians haven't forgot.

Even during the first Gulf war, there was some outrageous propaganda, involving a young kuwaiti girl who testified that Iraqi soldiers had gone into a hospital and killed babies. Remember that? Well 2 years after the war, it was exposed that the girl was actually the daughter of the ambassador from kuwait or something of that sort, and it was all a lie. It is said that this testimony is what turned the tide of public opinion to support US going to war.

Yeah, people have really short attension spans. Just tell them something is "over" or "doesn't matter anymore" and soon they'll forget what actuly happened.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: chess9
The Snowman:

Yes, but they're just Muslims. That's why we invaded their country. You don't think we'd invade a Christian nation, eh? Not only that, they are savages and not even noble savages at that. They all should die and come back as 8080's and start Moore's Law at the beginning, or pretty close. Maybe they'll get past the 286 stage next time.....

Really, you don't think they are real human beings? Think chips, er, or pawns.

j/k

-Robert

The people who don't think that the Iraqi's are real human beings are the ones who want to abandon them to the religious zealots who want to rule their country and force their vision of the Invisible Man in the Sky down everyone's throat.

Jason

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
good..keep bring this up over and over....
if WMD are found, all those who brayed about "No WMD" will looks like rubes....
if no WMD are found, after 1 more year of hearing "No WMD" over and over again, NO ONE WILL CARE ANYMORE!!!!

ha! this will be a non-issue come election time..no one will care anymore...old news...that's human nature.

Yeah by then we will have become accustomed to the Bush Administration lying to us!

 

[sandorski]

Those so critical over a President lying about a Private affair, yet so supportive of a lie meant to send their children off to die. Black has become White, Wrong is Right.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Those so critical over a President lying about a Private affair, yet so supportive of a lie meant to send their children off to die. Black has become White, Wrong is Right.

You have zero proof that Bush lied to anyone about anything regarding Iraq. All you have proof of is that he made statements based on current intelligence that turned out to be less than accurate. How else do you go into war though? Was he supposed to say we think or we know? Fact is, he based his speeches and the like on proof that the intel agencies gave him. Not saying he isn't liable or that the buck shouldn't stop with him, but you cannot post a single shred of evidence that proves he lied which contrasts with the evidence that Clinton did in fact lie under oath. Don't even start the with the color dichotomy, it is pretty obvious you can't see the difference between a lie and making a statement based on good-faith evidence.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: sandorski
Those so critical over a President lying about a Private affair, yet so supportive of a lie meant to send their children off to die. Black has become White, Wrong is Right.

You have zero proof that Bush lied (BAA) to anyone(BAA) about anything (BAA) regarding Iraq (BAA). All you have proof of is that he made statements based on current intelligence (BAA) that turned out to be less than accurate (BAA). How else do you go into war though? (BAA) (BAA) (BAA) Was he supposed to say we think or we know? (BAA) Fact is, he based his speeches and the like on proof (BAA) that the intel agencies gave him (BAA) (BAA) (BAA). Not saying he isn't liable or that the buck shouldn't stop with him (BAA), but you cannot post a single shred of evidence (BAA) that proves he lied (BAA) which contrasts with the evidence that Clinton did in fact lie under oath. Don't even start the with the color dichotomy (BAA), it is pretty obvious you can't see the difference between a lie (BAA) and making a statement based on good-faith evidence (BAA) (BAA) (BAA).

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over their own eyes since 1980.

Bush lied. Bush lied. Bush lied. Liar, liar, pants on fire. I am not a crook. Pinocchio on the Potomac. Lied. Lied. Lied. Bush lied.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: sandorski
Those so critical over a President lying about a Private affair, yet so supportive of a lie meant to send their children off to die. Black has become White, Wrong is Right.

You have zero proof that Bush lied (BAA) to anyone(BAA) about anything (BAA) regarding Iraq (BAA). All you have proof of is that he made statements based on current intelligence (BAA) that turned out to be less than accurate (BAA). How else do you go into war though? (BAA) (BAA) (BAA) Was he supposed to say we think or we know? (BAA) Fact is, he based his speeches and the like on proof (BAA) that the intel agencies gave him (BAA) (BAA) (BAA). Not saying he isn't liable or that the buck shouldn't stop with him (BAA), but you cannot post a single shred of evidence (BAA) that proves he lied (BAA) which contrasts with the evidence that Clinton did in fact lie under oath. Don't even start the with the color dichotomy (BAA), it is pretty obvious you can't see the difference between a lie (BAA) and making a statement based on good-faith evidence (BAA) (BAA) (BAA).

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over their own eyes since 1980.

Bush lied. Bush lied. Bush lied. Liar, liar, pants on fire. I am not a crook. Pinocchio on the Potomac. Lied. Lied. Lied. Bush lied.

Post proof then. I don't even like Bush, but I hate people who don't understand the simple definition of a word even more.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: sandorski
Those so critical over a President lying about a Private affair, yet so supportive of a lie meant to send their children off to die. Black has become White, Wrong is Right.

You have zero proof that Bush lied to anyone about anything regarding Iraq. All you have proof of is that he made statements based on current intelligence that turned out to be less than accurate. How else do you go into war though? Was he supposed to say we think or we know? Fact is, he based his speeches and the like on proof that the intel agencies gave him. Not saying he isn't liable or that the buck shouldn't stop with him, but you cannot post a single shred of evidence that proves he lied which contrasts with the evidence that Clinton did in fact lie under oath. Don't even start the with the color dichotomy, it is pretty obvious you can't see the difference between a lie and making a statement based on good-faith evidence.

Defence exhibit #1 ^^^

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: sandorski
Those so critical over a President lying about a Private affair, yet so supportive of a lie meant to send their children off to die. Black has become White, Wrong is Right.

You have zero proof that Bush lied (BAA) to anyone(BAA) about anything (BAA) regarding Iraq (BAA). All you have proof of is that he made statements based on current intelligence (BAA) that turned out to be less than accurate (BAA). How else do you go into war though? (BAA) (BAA) (BAA) Was he supposed to say we think or we know? (BAA) Fact is, he based his speeches and the like on proof (BAA) that the intel agencies gave him (BAA) (BAA) (BAA). Not saying he isn't liable or that the buck shouldn't stop with him (BAA), but you cannot post a single shred of evidence (BAA) that proves he lied (BAA) which contrasts with the evidence that Clinton did in fact lie under oath. Don't even start the with the color dichotomy (BAA), it is pretty obvious you can't see the difference between a lie (BAA) and making a statement based on good-faith evidence (BAA) (BAA) (BAA).

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over their own eyes since 1980.

Bush lied. Bush lied. Bush lied. Liar, liar, pants on fire. I am not a crook. Pinocchio on the Potomac. Lied. Lied. Lied. Bush lied.

Post proof then. I don't even like Bush, but I hate people who don't understand the simple definition of a word (BAA) even more.

It has been done a hundred times. You Bush apologists stay in denial. No evidence is strong enough for you. You pick away at bits and pieces and ignore the preponderance of the evidence. You twist the meaning of lie to avoid the truth. You do not want the truth.


---------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980