It could very well be the Nessie And Bigfoot were in on the deal too.Repub05 said:Two:
"But Bush said he went to war to find WMD's. But there were none."
OK, lets think about that for a moment. This could very well be what happened:
I guess you feel justified in belittling the job these people do and have done by saying that they failed to find these weapons even though they're there. I don't appreciate you badmouthing the US Armed Forces like this. You're welcome to your opinion that they're incompetent and incapable of finding these things; but, I don't have to appreciate it. I respect the views of our fine men and women in the services, military and intelligence. If the ISG says there were no weapons and there's no evidence that anything was shipped out, then I'm not the one to second guess them from my armchair.Repub05 said:And if you think these are stupid then I challenge you and 89,999 of your liberal friends to search a hot desert country ... and see how easy it is while in the meantime insurgents ambush you. Have fun!
By way of an explanation, allow me to debunk the myth of sheeple and introduce you to The Greatest Threat To Our Republic- rational ignorance- all in one fell swoop.Repub05 said:Three:
"This war is not in the interests of the majority of Americans"
OK- explain to me then why Bush lost the pop. vote in 2000, only winning by electoral votes, then four years later, won the pop. vote when, if the war wasn't in the best interest of Americans, we could have just easily voted for the Kerry Fairy and gone home.
It looks like Simon W Moon offered a bunch of evidence proving your point wrong. Care you share your evidence to the contrary?Repub05 said:Hell I might be wrong, but I look at the evidence that is there and I'm showing the other side.
Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988. Three years prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and subsequent mandate to rid Iraq of WMDs. In the twelve years between 1991 and 2003, Iraq apparently followed the UN mandate and got rid of the WMDs. To dispute the timeline is ridiculous as well.countmered33 said:-First of all Repub05 had an excellent point in saying that the mass graves of the Kurds offer plenty of evidence to attest to the fact that Saddam had WMD's. It is common knowledge that Saddam killed the Kurds using chemical weaponry, and to dispute that fact is ludicrous.
The United States-led group that scoured Iraq for weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) has found no evidence Iraq hid such weapons in Syria before the US invasion in March 2003, a final report on the investigation says.-Secondly there have been areal photographs taken of convoys leaving Iraq into Syria and other countries in the two weeks preceding the invasion of Iraq. Now you could argue that there is no proof that WMD's were contained in these convoys, but unless Saddam was moving his most prised camels out of the country, I'm pretty sure there are few other reasons why huge groups of vehicles were hauling ass out of the country right before our boys moved in.
shuamort said:The 1700-member Iraq Survey Team also said it found no Iraqi officials with direct knowledge of a transfer of WMDs developed by former President Saddam Hussein.
source
shuamort said:The 1700-member Iraq Survey Team also said it found no Iraqi officials with direct knowledge of a transfer of WMDs developed by former President Saddam Hussein.
source
The search has ended. The ISG has quit and gone home. To say that these weapons are really there when the ISG et al have said that they aren't seems an odd way of defending them.Repub05 said:First off- I'm not badmouthing the armed forces, I'm saying its probably not easy to find WMD's (I'm defending them) , and making sure liberals know that.
If there were such a transfer that would mean that there were people who drove the forklifts, filed the disposition papers, issued the orders for such things to take place, drove the trucks etc. I wouldn't've been the actions of Hussein alone. There're many ways that there would've been an evidence trail. I'm sure that the men and women we selected to conduct the search for evidence looked at quite a number of possibilities.Repub05 said:Of course there's no evidence that they shipped the WMD's out. how could there be?
You have my earnest and sincere sympathy. As one gets older, the true value of a good chair, particularly for contemplative pursuits, impinges on your consciousness more and more. Take my advice and splurge a little. Even if you can only go to a second hand store, the money will be well spent.Repub05 said:And it's not an armchair its a crappy metal one.
The entirety of your rebuttal depends on the Gallup organization not knowing how to conduct accurate polls and surveys. It's easy for this rebuttal to be misinterpreted as a drowning man's clutch at a straw. I'm open to persuasion. What evidence would you like to present that the Gallup organization doesn't know how to conduct accurate polls and surveys?Repub05 said:Now, your turn to explain, (if you're up to it):
what exactly are the benefits to the US;
why do 57% of Americans say the invasion of Iraq was not worth it;
why do 50% of Americans say that Team Bush deliberately mislead the electorate[#18]?
These polls are taken by liberal people, so chances are they target liberal people and do not acount for every US citizen that votes.
Depends on where you live. Many of our fellow Americans waited for hours in lines that snaked through high school parking lots. Myself, I had to vote absentee as I was out of pocket come election season.Repub05 said:My opinion? If you don't vote - you can't complain. What does it take anyway? 1/2 hour of your day?
I find the affair horrific, yet I find no guilt in myself over the affair. So, I can't say that I feel remorse per se.Repub05 said:"Lest the question be lost, let me reiterate the question, "What exactly are we getting out the deal, and why is it worth it?"
Evidence? How about mass graves containing thousands of dead Iraqis? Doesn't that kind of make you feel a little remorse for the Iraqi people?
Sure, but why should help come in the form of a full scale invasion with the associated costs of hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of dead and wounded? Why should we put our men and women at risk (to quote Mr. Wolfowitz) "on the scale we did"?Repub05 said:Don't you think we should help them? <snip> We're the richest we're the most powerful, don't you think we should help others?
How about you debate me? No more debating this "you liberals" crap. First off, I'm not a liberal. Second, liberals are no more homogenous a group than conservatives. It's generally meaningless to assign responsibility to one person for the actions of others in the manner in which this technique attempts to do.Repub05 said:But you liberals...
Ah yes, liberals like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, Pat Buchanan and James Baker.Repub05 said:But you liberals never want to think about helping others in other countries you just want to think about your own country...
We're expending the lives of soldiers so we can have a warm, fuzzy feeling? Warm, fuzzy feelings are not compelling national interests.Repub05 said:Thats what we get out of the war.
If you care to note, these atrocities occurred before Hussein was disarmed. At issue for this most recent invasion of Iraq was the ostensible threat from weapons that were in his possession just prior to and at the time of the invasion, not those that were in his possession during the Reagan Admin more than a decade earlier.Repub05 said:And don't you think that Saddam needed to have WMDs to kill thousands of kurds?
This stretching and blurring of definition beyond recognition may be all well and good for you in your metal chair, but it's empty rhetoric.Repub05 said:I said it once and I'll say it again- even if there was no WMDs, Saddam's killing of thousands of people in its self makes him and his regime's power over the nation a weapon of mass destruction.
I'm unclear as to which 'what' you are referring.Repub05 said:It could very well be the Nessie And Bigfoot were in on the deal too.
The real question is "What do we have evidence of?"
The American Intelligence Community has found no reason to believe that there were banned weapons shipped out before the war. Have you got a more reliable source than this?
OK, lets say that at the begining of the war, US armed forces go in and find WMD's right away, you don't think that we wouldn't be doing what were doing right now anyway?
I'm not accusing you, I'm asking you if you have any evidence. Our brave men and women who were charged with the task of finding these banned weapons have stopped looking and said, "There ain't none." You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that a search is still ongoing, but it's not. It's over.Repub05 said:You're accusing me of not having evidence when in reality, nobody really knows yet, not you or me, even though we have mass graves as evidence, and just because we haven't found them yet because their probably not even in the country anymore.
I've been a registered Republican for twenty years now, however, I'd like to address some of this. First off, that the Democrats did it too is a very poor way to gauge the appropriateness of one's actions. Second, when it comes to the threat presented to the US by Iraq the best intelligence information available at that time said that Iraq was unlikely to initiate and attack on the US either directly or by proxy for the foreseeable future. There's no way to reconcile the definition of pre-emptive war with an attack on a country that's unlikely to attack. I go into the issue in more detail here, Team Bush and "Best Info Available @ the Time" if you feel up to debating it. Please note that 'threat' is related to, but identical with 'WMD'.countmered33 said:Now you democrats argue that there were never any WMD's in Iraq and that Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., when just a few short years a go that was your key reason for not invading the country.
countmered33 said:However if you liberals insist on sticking to your new notion that there were never any WMD's in Iraq, and that Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., then i will help out Repub05 and offer some information.
AFAICT, this fact was only disputed by the Reagan Whitehouse which issued reports that the Iranians may have done it. In any case it's irrelevant to the issue at hand for this most recent invasion of Iraq which revolved around the banned weapons that Iraq was said to have since it was disarmed after the Gulf War. At issue were the weapons that Iraq was supposed to've had just prior to and at the time of the invasion, not those that were in his possession during the Reagan Admin more than a decade earlier.countmered33 said:-First of all Repub05 had an excellent point in saying that the mass graves of the Kurds offer plenty of evidence to attest to the fact that Saddam had WMD's. It is common knowledge that Saddam killed the Kurds using chemical weaponry, and to dispute that fact is ludicrous.
Is your contention that the CIA, ISG et al don't know about these photos? Or that they are incapable of properly analyzing and evaluating these photos as well as you can? Or what?countmered33 said:-Secondly there have been areal photographs taken of convoys leaving Iraq into Syria and other countries in the two weeks preceding the invasion of Iraq. Now you could argue that there is no proof that WMD's were contained in these convoys, but unless Saddam was moving his most prised camels out of the country, I'm pretty sure there are few other reasons why huge groups of vehicles were hauling ass out of the country right before our boys moved in.
Please share the source of this information. I'd like to look at the same source that you did.countmered33 said:-We have also found mobile chemical weapon factories that were recently active in Iraq since we've entered the country.
It bears noting that the American Intelligence community shared this pov as well.countmered33 said:Well liberals still insist that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to the U.S. ...
Are you sure that this was a widely held belief? Perhaps you're conflating this with the idea that Hussein had no meaningful ties to al Qaeda.countmered33 said:...Democrats still argue that Saddam had no ties to terrorist groups.
There were more than a decade's worth of failed attempts to broker a mutually acceptable deal.countmered33 said:There is documented evidence proving that Saddam reached out to Osama Bin Laden in the 1990's in order to attempt to create a "friendship". Saddam called on Bin Laden to visit Iraq and to meet with him.
I'd like to see your source for this assertion that UbL himself met with Hussein. Will you share?countmered33 said:Bin Laden did so...
It may be the case for Iraqis that it's more of a question what the Iraqi people are getting out of it, but as for me, I'm an American- I want to know what the Us is getting out of our huge expense and commitment.countmered33 said:In the case of operation Iraqi freedom it is more of a question of what are the Iraqi people getting out of it.
No, it's not.countmered33 said:To say that this war in Iraq is uncalled for is to cay that the liberation of the Jews in WWII was uncalled for. It is to say that our effort to stop the killing fields in Cambodia were uncalled for. It is to say that our humanitarian efforts in Somalia and kosovo were uncalled for. It is to that any Humanitarian effort that the United States has ever embarked on was not worth it.
Based on what intelligence? The best information available at the time showed that Hussein was not going to attack the US- largely because he feared what Dr. Rice called "national obliteration", what Baker referred to as as "resounding silence" in the Iraqi desert.countmered33 said:Saddam posed a threat to the free world and he needed to be taken out of power. Now as i have already mentioned the threat that he posed to the United States is clear, at least clear to me and other sane conservatives, but Saddam also posed a threat to the rest of the world.
If one is very liberal with the definition of "in cahoots" then this statement could be construed as truthful. However, for those of us who choose to use the more traditional and conservative definition of "in cahoots" this is not true.countmered33 said:Saddam had long range ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel, and since i already mentioned that he and the fundamentalist muslin terrorist Osama Bin Laden (who HATES Israel) were in cahoots...
I went to school in Arkansas where the educational system's 49th out of 50 and I don't think that they covered the part where the US created Israel or where we pledged to defend Israel even if it were to cost us all of our men. So, I'd be much obliged if you could please point me to the historical references for these assertions.countmered33 said:... we created Israel and we pledged to defend it to our last man...
I'm not sure which 'we' you're talking about who knows this. If you attempting to include me into this we then I'll have to call BS on this assertion. For the life of me I don't understand why Clinton has to drug out as some sort of example every time there's criticism of GWB. I was sick of Clinton's crap before most any of you ever even heard of him.countmered33 said:...because we all know that if Bill Clinton had decided to into Iraq everyone would have cheered his name and hailed him as a great Humanitarian and a defender of the free world.
Based on what intelligence? The best information available at the time showed that Hussein was not going to attack the US- largely because he feared what Dr. Rice called "national obliteration", what Baker referred to as as "resounding silence" in the Iraqi desert.countmered33 said:Saddam posed a threat to the free world and he needed to be taken out of power. Now as i have already mentioned the threat that he posed to the United States is clear, at least clear to me and other sane conservatives, but Saddam also posed a threat to the rest of the world.
If one is very liberal with the definition of "in cahoots" then this statement could be construed as truthful. However, for those of us who choose to use the more traditional and conservative definition of "in cahoots" this is not true.countmered33 said:Saddam had long range ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel, and since i already mentioned that he and the fundamentalist muslin terrorist Osama Bin Laden (who HATES Israel) were in cahoots...
I went to school in Arkansas where the educational system's 49th out of 50 and I don't think that they covered the part where the US created Israel or where we pledged to defend Israel even if it were to cost us all of our men. So, I'd be much obliged if you could please point me to the historical references for these assertions.countmered33 said:... we created Israel and we pledged to defend it to our last man...
I'm not sure which 'we' you're talking about who knows this. If you attempting to include me into this we then I'll have to call BS on this assertion. For the life of me I don't understand why Clinton has to drug out as some sort of example every time there's criticism of GWB. I was sick of Clinton's crap before most any of you ever even heard of him.countmered33 said:...because we all know that if Bill Clinton had decided to into Iraq everyone would have cheered his name and hailed him as a great Humanitarian and a defender of the free world.
Much information re these defectors was stripped of context and the US Intel Community's analysis before it was passed along to us in the electorate. Not all of what was reported by these folks was accurate. There were defectors like Curveball who General Powel described as "inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading."countmered33 said:Yes but prior to the invasion multiple Iraqi defectors came forward exposing Saddam's unwillingness to submit to U.N. sanctions.
While it may be seen to justify a strike it, by definition, it would not be a pre-emptive one if these were the sole justifications. Pre-emptive refers to a quick-draw type of situation where an opponent is about to launch an attack. Pre-emptive war has been seen as a legitimate and just war for centuries. As an aside according to UN charter, pre-emptive wars don't require any consultation with the UN, let alone approval.countmered33 said:...completely justifies any pre-emptive strike.
What? You're unfamiliar with the report? Yet you're still willing debate it's findings. How very...um...brave of you.countmered33 said:I don't know when that final report was made, but there was evidence discovered in Oct. of 03 that disputes that claim that there was no evidence that Saddam transfered WMD's into Syria.
No, actually it doesn't dispute it at all.countmered33 said:If you read this article there is a large amount of information disputing the claim that there was no evidence suggesting that Saddam moved his WMD's into Syria.
I'd genuinely love to know where this knowledge comes from. Would you please share?countmered33 said:-We have also found mobile chemical weapon factories that were recently active in Iraq since we've entered the country.
countmered33 said:Sorry i don't have a lot of time to post any replies as i am quite busy between school and lacrosse. Here is a site about the Weapons laboratories maybe i will write a longer response later.
Biological Weapons Stations
countmered33 said:Sorry i don't have a lot of time to post any replies as i am quite busy between school and lacrosse. Here is a site about the Weapons laboratories maybe i will write a longer response later.
Biological Weapons Stations
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?