• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What event caused AT's P&N forum to be created...?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dmcowen674 said:
Quote:
P&N continues to prove everyday how much Republicans hate America.
Click to expand...

No, that was George W. Bush and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals, the closest this nation ever came to the totalitarian dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.

And yes, I'm being literal with Karl Rove starring in the role of Josef Goebbels, master of "the Big Lie."

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. :thumbsdown:

~ Joseph Goebbels
Click to expand...
 
Alistar7 said:
That was never answered, please feel free to enlighten me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26671-2003Jun6?language=printer

Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." Cirincione concluded that "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin."

On the question of VX, Blix reported that his inspections team had information that conflicted with Iraqi accounts. The Iraqis claimed that they had produced VX only as part of a pilot program but that the quality was poor and the agent was never "weaponized." But according to Blix, the inspections team discovered Iraqi documents that showed the quality of the VX to be better than declared. The team also uncovered "indications that the agent" had been "weaponized." According to Cirincione's August 2002 report, "it is widely believed that significant quantities of chemical agents and precursors remain stored in secret depots" and that there were also "thousands of possible chemical munitions still unaccounted for." Blix reported there were 6,500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown. Blix's team calculated the amount of chemical agent in those bombs at 1,000 tons. As Blix reported to the Security Council, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."
Click to expand...
It was answered over and over again. You and the other Bush faithful simply refused to accept the answer.

The WMD stocks remaining after the first Gulf War were either destroyed by Clinton's 1998 bombing raids, destroyed by Iraq itself, or simply decomposed to the point they had become "worthless goo" in the words of UN inspector and WMD expert Scott Ritter. It is true Iraq could not document all of this, but sloppy paperwork is simply NOT a justification for invading another country and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

We had UN inspectors in Iraq, Iraq was generally cooperating with them, and as every day passed they were confirming Iraq's claims were true. BushCo's mad rush to attack was apparently due to just that, that their phony allegations about Iraq's "unique and urgent" WMD threat were being exposed and their excuses for war were decomposing faster than Iraq's biological agents had.

But you won't acknowledge these inconvenient facts this time any more than you did the last hundred times they were presented and documented. You have blind faith the invasion was just. That faith will not be shaken by reality.
 
Last edited:
Harvey said:
No, that was George W. Bush and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals, the closest this nation ever came to the totalitarian dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.

And yes, I'm being literal with Karl Rove starring in the role of Josef Goebbels, master of "the Big Lie."
Click to expand...

Harvey, every major intelligence agency worldwide was convinced Iraq still possessed WMD. Maybe you preferred Clinton's opinion:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26671-2003Jun6?language=printer

Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons." That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush.

Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe.

Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them."
 
Alistar7 said:
Harvey, every major intelligence agency worldwide was convinced Iraq still possessed WMD. Maybe you preferred Clinton's opinion:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26671-2003Jun6?language=printer

Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons." That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush.

Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe.

Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them."
Click to expand...
🙄

2003 called. It wants its propaganda back.

Why are you dredging up all this stupid shit again? You were wrong. Get over it and move on with your life.
 
Bowfinger said:
It was answered over and over again. You and the other Bush faithful simply refused to accept the answer.

The WMD stocks remaining after the first Gulf War were either destroyed by Clinton's 1998 bombing raids, destroyed by Iraq itself, or simply decomposed to the point they had become "worthless goo" in the words of UN inspector and WMD expert Scott Ritter. It is true Iraq could not document all of this, but sloppy paperwork is simply NOT a justification for invading another country and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

We had UN inspectors in Iraq, Iraq was generally cooperating with them, and as every day passed they were confirming Iraq's claims were true. BushCo's mad rush to attack was apparently due to just that, that their phony allegations about Iraq's "unique and urgent" WMD threat were being exposed and their excuses for war were decomposing faster than Iraq's biological agents had.

But you won't acknowledge these inconvenient facts this time any more than you did the last hundred times they were presented and documented. You have blind faith the invasion was just. That faith will not be shaken by reality.
Click to expand...

Ritter was before Blix, how could he know what happened after 1998? Blix was quite clear that Iraq was not cooperating fully as they were required, and agreed to unilaterally.

Ritter was an avid anti-war advocate, yet he still wrote this just one year after leaving Iraq:

"In 1999, Ritter wrote Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem - Once and For All in which he reiterated his claim that Iraq had obstructed the work of inspectors and attempted to hide and preserve essential elements for restarting WMD programs at a later date."

How about this in 2000:

There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution.

I am not a Bush faithful, I did not vote for him either term and other than liberating Iraq I did not agree with anything his administration 'accomplished'. If anyone is blinded by their devotion to a political side it would be you.
 
Bowfinger said:
🙄

2003 called. It wants its propaganda back.

Why are you dredging up all this stupid shit again? You were wrong. Get over it and move on with your life.
Click to expand...

I was wrong? I am just quoting others who were far more informed than either you or I. I'm sorry their findings don't agree with your revisionist history.
 
I wasn't around here back then, but it doesn't surprise me. Over at avsforum, people could not stop arguing about Iraq, so they had to create a political forum. Which they disbanded and deleted after several months, consigning my brilliant posts to digital oblivion. 🙁

- woklf
 
Alistar7 said:
Ritter was before Blix, how could he know what happened after 1998? Blix was quite clear that Iraq was not cooperating fully as they were required, and agreed to unilaterally.

Ritter was an avid anti-war advocate, yet he still wrote this just one year after leaving Iraq:

"In 1999, Ritter wrote Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem - Once and For All in which he reiterated his claim that Iraq had obstructed the work of inspectors and attempted to hide and preserve essential elements for restarting WMD programs at a later date."

How about this in 2000:

There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution.

I am not a Bush faithful, I did not vote for him either term and other than liberating Iraq I did not agree with anything his administration 'accomplished'. If anyone is blinded by their devotion to a political side it would be you.
Click to expand...
Blah, blah, blah. I'm not going to relive five years of P&N by refuting your misleading tripe point by point yet again. The unhappy (for you) FACT remains Ritter was right, I was right, Bush was wrong, you were wrong. Get over it.
 
Alistar7 said:
Harvey, every major intelligence agency worldwide was convinced Iraq still possessed WMD.
Click to expand...

See??? I told you it was all based on a BIG LIE, and obviously, you're still sucking the same stale KoolAid. 🙄
 
Last edited:
Alistar7 said:
I was wrong? I am just quoting others who were far more informed than either you or I. I'm sorry their findings don't agree with your revisionist history.
Click to expand...
Yes dear, you're just quoting others ... while ignoring context, timing, human error, conflicting facts and contrary opinion, and pretty much everything else necessary to construct an intelligent and well-founded argument. In short, you're just bleating the same tired talking points that were shot down years ago.

*plonk*
 
Bowfinger said:
Blah, blah, blah. I'm not going to relive five years of P&N by refuting your misleading tripe point by point yet again. The unhappy (for you) FACT remains Ritter was right, I was right, Bush was wrong, you were wrong. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Ritter reiterated his claim that Iraq had obstructed the work of inspectors and attempted to hide and preserve essential elements for restarting WMD programs at a later date.

If he was right, you were wrong. Clinging to Ritter when he was out of the picture in 1998 while ignoring Blix who followed his work and came to the SAME conclusion is rather telling.
 
Alistar7 said:
Ritter reiterated his claim that Iraq had obstructed the work of inspectors and attempted to hide and preserve essential elements for restarting WMD programs at a later date.

If he was right, you were wrong. Clinging to Ritter when he was out of the picture in 1998 while ignoring Blix who followed his work and came to the SAME conclusion is rather telling.
Click to expand...
One last thing you never learned: repeating the same lies over and over doesn't make them true.
 
Bowfinger said:
Yes dear, you're just quoting others ... while ignoring context, timing, human error, conflicting facts and contrary opinion, and pretty much everything else necessary to construct an intelligent and well-founded argument. In short, you're just bleating the same tired talking points that were shot down years ago.

*plonk*
Click to expand...

You're just ignoring the report the Blix made to the UN security council detailing Iraq's failure to comply & the WMD that were never accounted for in any way. You also ignore Ritter's determination that Iraq had obstructed inspectors & tried to retain the ability to quickly manufacture new stockpiles of WMD.

Let me guess "Bush lied, 50 million died" lol. I didn't know sheep could live on kool aid but it's kept you going all these years...
 
Last edited:
Oh P&N, you are both hilarious and depressing. The nutjobs are amazing, but then you realize it's not a joke. 🙁
 
Harvey said:
See??? I told you it was all based on a BIG LIE, and obviously, you're still sucking the same stale KoolAid. 🙄
Click to expand...

And your TRAITOR HERO Obama continues the wars based on LIES and you continue to support him. Its absolutely pathetic. Whats worse, starting a war based on lies or CONTINUING a war on lies when its been PROVEN that the war has been based on lies? :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: 😡 :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:
 
Fear No Evil said:
And your TRAITOR HERO Obama continues the wars based on LIES and you continue to support him. Its absolutely pathetic. Whats worse, starting a war based on lies or CONTINUING a war on lies when its been PROVEN that the war has been based on lies? :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: 😡 :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

I've posted the names and the specific acts, statements, names, dates and places that establish the crimes of which I've accused your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal, including treason, murder, torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and I've included specific statutory citations defining each of those crimes.

OTOH, YOU are either too incompetent, too much of a liar or just too chickenshit to manage any of that. You're calling Obama a traitor. If you can't establish proof of acts Obama has committed that conform to the elements of the crime of treason as defined by law to the same level I have done for the Bushwhackos' crimes, all you prove is that you're still the same lying loudmouth jackass you've always been.

---

Fear No Evil said:
ObamaBigAssMistakeAmerika
Click to expand...

Fear Evoking Absurd Reactionary Nonsense Obviously Entirely Void In Logic
 
The burden of proof was never on Bush, Saddam accepted that willingly. Saddam stated himself that he intentionally mislead UN Inspectors & intelligence agencies into believing he still had stockpiles of WMD. The intent was primarily as a deterrent to Iranian aggression. He also tried to maintain the ability to quickly restart production. He miscalculated the willingness of the US to remove him from power, he thought he would only be subject to air strikes.

Saddam was one of this century's most brutal dictators who orchestrated acts of genocide that are epic in proportion. I still would have supported the mission purely for humanitarian reasons, & my culturally ingrained beliefs that every person has certain inalienable rights. If the rest of the world would grow a pair we could remove some more oppressive regimes.

If you thought our Iraq policy was going to radically change due to a change in administration I am sorry for your naivete. Foreign policy is the area where a president has the least ability to make drastic changes. Iraq is well on it's way to peaceful, prosperous, self rule, & the end result was worth the sacrifice.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top