Weapons search team leaving ? - Tell me this isn't a joke.

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Here's a question. Before the war who, besides Iraq and Scott Ritter, was saying that Iraq did not have WMD?


Czar if you want to be a mod go talk to them about it otherwise shut up.

Oh let's see... just the little thing called the UN, Hans Blix, every other nation perhaps? Russia, Germany, China, France all said we'll find nothing. They were right.

Bullsh!t. Not one of those countries official positions was that Iraq did not have WMD. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Of course their official positions were otherwise, they have some sense of diplomacy unlike our dolt in the office.

And why stop the US from making a idiot of themselves in the international stage?

I'm sorry the president made you and I look like morons for supporting this war because of "WMDs", but deal with it.

More bullsh!t.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Here's a question. Before the war who, besides Iraq and Scott Ritter, was saying that Iraq did not have WMD?


Czar if you want to be a mod go talk to them about it otherwise shut up.

Oh let's see... just the little thing called the UN, Hans Blix, every other nation perhaps? Russia, Germany, China, France all said we'll find nothing. They were right.

Bullsh!t. Not one of those countries official positions was that Iraq did not have WMD. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Of course their official positions were otherwise, they have some sense of diplomacy unlike our dolt in the office.

And why stop the US from making a idiot of themselves in the international stage?

I'm sorry the president made you and I look like morons for supporting this war because of "WMDs", but deal with it.

More bullsh!t.

Like going to war for WMDs right?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Here's a question. Before the war who, besides Iraq and Scott Ritter, was saying that Iraq did not have WMD?


Czar if you want to be a mod go talk to them about it otherwise shut up.

Oh let's see... just the little thing called the UN, Hans Blix, every other nation perhaps? Russia, Germany, China, France all said we'll find nothing. They were right.

Bullsh!t. Not one of those countries official positions was that Iraq did not have WMD. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Of course their official positions were otherwise, they have some sense of diplomacy unlike our dolt in the office.

And why stop the US from making a idiot of themselves in the international stage?

I'm sorry the president made you and I look like morons for supporting this war because of "WMDs", but deal with it.

More bullsh!t.

Like going to war for WMDs right?

Changing the subject doesn't make you any less wrong or your posts any less bullshit.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Here's a question. Before the war who, besides Iraq and Scott Ritter, was saying that Iraq did not have WMD?


Czar if you want to be a mod go talk to them about it otherwise shut up.

Oh let's see... just the little thing called the UN, Hans Blix, every other nation perhaps? Russia, Germany, China, France all said we'll find nothing. They were right.

Bullsh!t. Not one of those countries official positions was that Iraq did not have WMD. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Of course their official positions were otherwise, they have some sense of diplomacy unlike our dolt in the office.

And why stop the US from making a idiot of themselves in the international stage?

I'm sorry the president made you and I look like morons for supporting this war because of "WMDs", but deal with it.

More bullsh!t.

Like going to war for WMDs right?

Changing the subject doesn't make you any less wrong or your posts any less bullshit.

LOL That the rest of the world didnt buy our "bullsh!t" and we did? What is so hard to believe?

If you want proof, fine. Prove it to yourself, goto any international forum. ( only www.sogamed.com comes to my mind )
ask them what they think we invaded Iraq for.

 

[Martin]

The 75th Exploitation Task Force may be done with its job, but I can guarantee you the Spin Department is working overtime

 

[UltraQuiet]

LOL That the rest of the world didnt buy our "bullsh!t" and we did? What is so hard to believe?

If you want proof, fine. Prove it to yourself, goto any international forum. ( only www.sogamed.com comes to my mind )
ask them what they think we invaded Iraq for.

Just keep changing the subject, you'll eventually get something right. Even a busted watch is right twice a day.

The question was, "What countries official position is that Iraq didn't have WMD before the war started." After trying to name some countries and then getting that answer shoved up your ass, you promptly change the subject.

Yes, one of the stated reasons for invading Iraq was/is WMD. No, we haven't found any. Yet. You're powers of observation are amazing.

And once again I will remind you that not even the most vocal of anti-war people/countries were saying that Iraq did not have WMD. The main contention was the method of disarmament.

Everyone thought Iraq had WMD. I still think they do and we will find them.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

LOL That the rest of the world didnt buy our "bullsh!t" and we did? What is so hard to believe?

If you want proof, fine. Prove it to yourself, goto any international forum. ( only www.sogamed.com comes to my mind )
ask them what they think we invaded Iraq for.

Just keep changing the subject, you'll eventually get something right. Even a busted watch is right twice a day.

The question was, "What countries official position is that Iraq didn't have WMD before the war started." After trying to name some countries and then getting that answer shoved up your ass, you promptly change the subject.

Yes, one of the stated reasons for invading Iraq was/is WMD. No, we haven't found any. Yet. You're powers of observation are amazing.

And once again I will remind you that not even the most vocal of anti-war people/countries were saying that Iraq did not have WMD. The main contention was the method of disarmament.

Everyone thought Iraq had WMD. I still think they do and we will find them.

Many people around the world thought that it was possible the Iraq didn't have any WMD. They weren't sure, but they had no way of either way. Why invade Iraq when we don't know for sure that they have WMD? Why jump to conclusions? But those voices were not heard, and the Bush admin just assumed that Iraq had WMD based only on pentagon intelligence. And not all countries had an official policy that stated that Iraq had WMD. They couldn't definatly state that they had/did not have WMD.
And no, WMD's weren't one of the stated reasons for invading Iraq, it was the ONLY reason for invading Iraq. The whole UN thing, all the 1441 BS was all about WMD. The legal justification used by the US and UK was based on WMD's and disarming Saddam. All this BS about liberating the people was dumped on us as the war began.

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
And no, WMD's weren't one of the stated reasons for invading Iraq, it was the ONLY reason for invading Iraq. The whole UN thing, all the 1441 BS was all about WMD. The legal justification used by the US and UK was based on WMD's and disarming Saddam. All this BS about liberating the people was dumped on us as the war began.

you are EXACTLY right man... all this other BS is just circumventing the issue and covering their asses for when/if the WMD search didn't pan out. And now they are tryin' to brush the WMD justification aside, conveniently. Well they WILL be held responsible and accountable for that, there's no sweeping it aside. Trying to cover up will make it a center issue.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Many people around the world thought that it was possible the Iraq didn't have any WMD. They weren't sure, but they had no way of either way. Why invade Iraq when we don't know for sure that they have WMD? Why jump to conclusions? But those voices were not heard, and the Bush admin just assumed that Iraq had WMD based only on pentagon intelligence.

Who? What people weren't sure? What goverments? There was a lot more than just Pentagon intelligence. Four countries invaded you know.

And no, WMD's weren't one of the stated reasons for invading Iraq, it was the ONLY reason for invading Iraq. The whole UN thing, all the 1441 BS was all about WMD. The legal justification used by the US and UK was based on WMD's and disarming Saddam. All this BS about liberating the people was dumped on us as the war began

One of the biggest criticisms of the admin. was that the reason for the war kept changing. WMD was hardly the one and only stated reason.

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: Ultra QuietOne of the biggest criticisms of the admin. was that the reason for the war kept changing. WMD was hardly the one and only stated reason.

You are right, but only for the week or two leading up to the war. By the time it was irreverable.

 

[Fencer128]

One of the biggest criticisms of the admin. was that the reason for the war kept changing. WMD was hardly the one and only stated reason.

So far as with reagrd to the British people and the UN - the danger of WMD was the only valid reason given for invasion (as opposed to continuing with the UN/weapon inspectors route). Anything else was secondary.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Who? What people weren't sure? What goverments? There was a lot more than just Pentagon intelligence. Four countries invaded you know.

France, Germany, Mexico, Chile, Angola, Turkey, Russia, China. Their offical position did not state Iraq had WMD nor did it state that Iraq had no WMD.

One of the biggest criticisms of the admin. was that the reason for the war kept changing. WMD was hardly the one and only stated reason.

Wrong. The justification used by Bush to get authorization from Congress as well as the legal pretext he used to start the war was all about WMD and the threat Iraq posed to the security of the US. The same goes for the UK.
Here's Bush's first public speech about going after Iraq. See anything other than WMD for justification? Didn't think so.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Who? What people weren't sure? What goverments? There was a lot more than just Pentagon intelligence. Four countries invaded you know.

France, Germany, Mexico, Chile, Angola, Turkey, Russia, China. Their offical position did not state Iraq had WMD nor did it state that Iraq had no WMD.

One of the biggest criticisms of the admin. was that the reason for the war kept changing. WMD was hardly the one and only stated reason.

Wrong. The justification used by Bush to get authorization from Congress as well as the legal pretext he used to start the war was all about WMD and the threat Iraq posed to the security of the US. The same goes for the UK.
Here's Bush's first public speech about going after Iraq. See anything other than WMD for justification? Didn't think so.

So it is your contention that this administration never made mention of Saddam being a cruel dictator, his links to terrorism, never mentioned Iraq in the same sentence as 9/11, never stated he was threat to his neighbors, etc, etc. as being further or additional reasons to remove Saddam from power?
Is your memory really that bad or is it something more serious?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Who? What people weren't sure? What goverments? There was a lot more than just Pentagon intelligence. Four countries invaded you know.

France, Germany, Mexico, Chile, Angola, Turkey, Russia, China. Their offical position did not state Iraq had WMD nor did it state that Iraq had no WMD.

One of the biggest criticisms of the admin. was that the reason for the war kept changing. WMD was hardly the one and only stated reason.

Wrong. The justification used by Bush to get authorization from Congress as well as the legal pretext he used to start the war was all about WMD and the threat Iraq posed to the security of the US. The same goes for the UK.
Here's Bush's first public speech about going after Iraq. See anything other than WMD for justification? Didn't think so.

So it is your contention that this administration never made mention of Saddam being a cruel dictator, his links to terrorism, never mentioned Iraq in the same sentence as 9/11, never stated he was threat to his neighbors, etc, etc. as being further or additional reasons to remove Saddam from power?
Is your memory really that bad or is it something more serious?

Could the US convince the public and the world that an attack on Iraq is legit based on Saddam being a dictator or some shady links to terrorism? No. Bush needed some legal justification for this attack.
Yes, the admin did mention Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence, but the two had nothing to do with each other.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What it comes down to is that Bush wanted to get rid of Saddam, and any justification would do. First regieme change, then WMD's, then liberation. Fact is there was no justification for a war, unless you buy that justification includes removing governments the US administration does not like because it can. Bush got support by stirring up the Coalation of the Bloodthirsty (many of which can be found here) and attacked simply because he could. Bush never gave a rats behind about oppressed people before, and will again only if it furthers his agenda.

 

[Phokus]

Hey, i heard a secret Bush report that Uganda has WMD's. Lets all be dumb redneck motherf*ckers and invade them!

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
ARMS TEAM TO LEAVE IRAQ - UNABLE TO FIND WEAPONS

So we are now prepared to just walk away and say that anything that hasn't been found is of no consequence.
That's like a bad dumb joke. (not just dumb, but bad too)
For four days the hype was to keep the Winnegago Meth Lab legend alive - Found Dual Purpose Mobile Biological Lab !
It had vats and tanks and dryers - oh my, it had Lions and Tigers and Bears!
Then it was clean.
Then they said "Take it apart !"
And all this time they don't need no Steenkin' UN Inspectors.
But are willing to walk away now ?

Why did we buy the Hype ?

Edit your title. It's very misleading, as have been pointed out here before.

 

[phillyTIM]

as misleading as "bio weapons lab found"??????? lol

we know that one wasn't true, but i think the title to this thread is true-as reported by the washington post

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
as misleading as "bio weapons lab found"??????? lol

we know that one wasn't true, but i think the title to this thread is true-as reported by the washington post

Aren't you the same person that called the invasion of iraq, the "rape" of a nation? I think the people of iraq would disagree with you. Perhaps you should take your apologetic lies and apply for a job at the New York Times, Al-Jazeera, or KCNA.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Well when I posted the original this morning that's what their banner stated, copy clicked it.
They haven't really changed the story line, but now they've added FRUSTRATED to it.

 

[phillyTIM]

strong words coming from someone that simply doesn't share any anti viewpoint

opinions are like a##es--everyone's got one and they all spout S##T

 

[CaptnKirk]

I hate it when people can't share their Anti-Vilont viewpoints.
Makes me want to beat them senseless.

 

[phillyTIM]

and yeah: the Bush Regime's act of aggression against Iraq is nothing less than a RAPE

i stand by that assessment

can't wait to see George forced out of his illegitimate Presidence and behind LEGITIMATE bars for his crimes - including allowing 9/11 to happen

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
strong words coming from someone that simply doesn't share any anti viewpoint

opinions are like a##es--everyone's got one and they all spout S##T

Speak for yourself.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
and yeah: the Bush Regime's act of aggression against Iraq is nothing less than a RAPE

i stand by that assessment

can't wait to see George forced out of his illegitimate Presidence and behind LEGITIMATE bars for his crimes - including allowing 9/11 to happen

Before you go about using the word "rape" liberally (coincidence?), I think you should read up on its definition.

EDIT: It's OFFICIAL. You are the JESTER of this FORUM.