Man shot by police

[Naughty Nurse]

If you care, here's my thoughts...there were two of them...

As many as that?

1)Saddam was a prick with WMDs who should be removed...

2)Saddam was a prick without WMDs who should be removed...

Notice the two common denominators?

Are you writing GWB's foreign policy for him?

 

[cnredd]

As many as that?



Are you writing GWB's foreign policy for him?

Hey, remember that really intelligent comment you made back whe...

I'm sorry...that was someone else...

 

[akyron]

Then you haven't met many criminals. Papers are full of sadistis SOB's out there that just love to hurt people. My own expierence with polie seems to be the complete opposite. I have never been arrested, but I have had run in's with the police. I have never had a problem with them. Don't know why you seem to have such bad luck with them though

Maybe someone should post a poll.

If you dress like a freakazoid can you expect to call negative attention to yourself?

Im sure someone will clean that up to make it more sensitive to whatever.

 

[lamaror]

1)Bush is a prick with WMDs who should be removed...

2)Bush is a prick without WMDs who should be removed...

3)Bush is a prick who started a war for no reason but greed and averice, and is responsible for the deaths of many Americans and Iraqi's

Notice the three common denominators? :rofl

 

[Naughty Nurse]

1)Bush is a prick with WMDs who should be removed...

2)Bush is a prick without WMDs who should be removed...

3)Bush is a prick who started a war for no reason but greed and averice, and is responsible for the deaths of many Americans and Iraqi's

Notice the three common denominators? :rofl

Way to go! :lol:

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Durn me for encouraging this major hijack of this thread!!

Dulfer concluded that Saddam was actually more dangerous than we had anticipated before the war.

Pardon me just a minute here. In what world is fella wishing he had weapons more dangerous than a fella who has a stockpile of 'em?

 

[cnredd]

Durn me for encouraging this major hijack of this thread!!



Pardon me just a minute here. In what world is fella wishing he had weapons more dangerous than a fella who has a stockpile of 'em?

Don't kill the messenger...Call him up...

 

[cnredd]

1)Bush is a prick with WMDs who should be removed...

2)Bush is a prick without WMDs who should be removed...

3)Bush is a prick who started a war for no reason but greed and averice, and is responsible for the deaths of many Americans and Iraqi's

Notice the three common denominators? :rofl

One of these days you may understand that it is not an option of "war" or peace"...the options are "long, protracted war" or "endless war"

That's it...No Liberal bashing...no Conservative bashing...no trying to explain away inconsistencies of foreign policy...no blame game...no "what could have we done"....This is IT.

 

[Alastor]

Dulfer concluded that Saddam was actually more dangerous than we had anticipated before the war.

I'd be interested to see substantiation of this claim. If such exists that is. Perhaps you can find the quote of Duelfer saying that, or perhaps it's in his report?

I don't recall him saying such a thing. It's possible, though I'm skeptical. I'd like to know where you heard that though, and where this claim comes from.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I'd be interested to see substantiation of this claim. If such exists that is. Perhaps you can find the quote of Duelfer saying that, or perhaps it's in his report?

I don't recall him saying such a thing. It's possible, though I'm skeptical. I'd like to know where you heard that though, and where this claim comes from.

Umm.. yeah, that's what I was gonna say.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Originally Posted by cnredd

Dulfer concluded that Saddam was actually more dangerous than we had anticipated before the war.
​

I searched through the report again and didn't find the phrases you used.
I'm tempted to think that someone other than the authors of the ISG report came to this conclusion.
I'm curious as to what info this person or these persons used to reach their conclusion that "Saddam was actually more dangerous than we had anticipated before the war."
I would also like to know who exactly which "we" it was who did the pre-war anticipating that's referenced.

Here's a link to the report if it'll help: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

 

[Stinger]

That he wanted them is not in dispute. That he would likely have tried to get them again had we allowed him the chance (by lifting sanctions and returning Iraq to an autonomous entity) is not in dispute.

But that he had no WMD of any kind, not since the first Gulf War, is also not in dispute.

And any argument to the contrary, either implied or explicit, is shear folly.

Oh what he had most certainly is in dispute, just read what I posted. WMD did not just include ready to disperse chemical and biological either, as you said and as the administration stated it was the threat he posed. And as you pointed out as soon as the sanctions would have been lifted he would have been free to expand and ratched back up ALL of his WMD programs.

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
From the Dr. Kay's interim report
The only thing we didn't find were stockpiles of ready to go chemical and biological agents.

Oh, weapons. The only thing we didn't find were weapons. I see.

Which is not what I said is it. I've already cited the hugh quantities of organphosphates he was hiding as just one example. But I repeat what we didn't find are stockpiles of ready to go chemical and biologials weaponized. So what? That mitigates everything else we found?

 

[Stinger]

The thing I always hate about the WMD thing is that some people don't understand that we could not afford to have Saddam hang around; weapons or not...I recall the Dulfer Report saying that Saddam had everything BUT weapons stockpiles. He had the recipes, the scientists, the infrastructure, and the intent to build WMD once the sanctions were lifted. And thanks to his Oil-for-Food bribes, the sanctions were being eroded in the UN Security Council every year. Dulfer concluded that Saddam was actually more dangerous than we had anticipated before the war.

He had the precursors for chemicals and refrence strains for biologicals. As I have noted to others so what that he didn't have stockpiles (which could be the size of a bathtub). AND we really don't know what happened to all the agents Blix and the UN inspectors said he had do we.

 

[Alastor]

Oh what he had most certainly is in dispute, just read what I posted. WMD did not just include ready to disperse chemical and biological either, as you said and as the administration stated it was the threat he posed.

The threat he posed is not considered an WMD. You need to look that phrase up and see what it actually means. He did not have WMD, even according to more than three of the White House's own investigations after the fact.

And as you pointed out as soon as the sanctions would have been lifted he would have been free to expand and ratched back up ALL of his WMD programs.

But had we kept the sanctions in place, there wouldn't really have been a problem. Perhaps we could have tightened them a little, or what have you. The fact is that the sanctions WERE in place, and they WERE working.

We went to war on the basis of "Saddam has WMD" - and he did not.

 

[Stinger]

A lovely old chestnut.

Here's the link for those of you who are interested

Investigative Report
Saddam's WMD Have Been Found
Post April 26, 2004
By Kenneth R. Timmerman


From the vaults:


This craptacular piece again?

Ahhh when you can't rebut use inventives.

​

"Key assertions by the intelligence community that were widely judged in the media and by critics of President George W. Bush as having been false are turning out to have been true after all."
​

Most of these 'key assertions' weren't by members of the Intelligence Community, which is a specific set of organizations, but rather by politicans and their political appointees.

And others and were also confirmed by the Senate commission. But you attempt at "only my authorities will count" tactic is quite transparent.

​

"In virtually every case - chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles - the United States has found the weapons and the programs that the Iraqi dictator successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors"
​

No relevant chemical weapons have been found

One final time, let's all concede that no stockpiles were found.....so what? As noted above he was not in compliance and he was still a danger vis-a-vis WMD.

So no chemical weapons, no biological weapons, and no nuclear weapons- that leaves just the missiles.

No stockpiles but yes the reference strains, undeclared. The new research, undeclared.

​

"hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited"
​

Activities does not equal weapons. Therefore finding 'activities' does not equal finding weapons. I hope that's all the commentary necessary for this one.

Proscribed activities nonetheless. And in order to process WMD you must engage in the activities that produce them.

​

"But while the president's critics and the media might plausibly hide behind ambiguity and a lack of sensational looking finds for not reporting some discoveries, in the case of Saddam's ballistic-missile programs they have no excuse for their silence"
​

Actually the missiles were reported.

Actually he was engaged in proscribed activities and had done a good job of hiding them.

​

"violating United Nations resolutions"
​

Violating United Nations resolutions does not equal weapons.

So what? Did he comply with the resolutions concerning WMD? No.

Therefore finding violations does not equal finding weapons. I hope that's all the commentary necessary for this one too.

ROFL, I'm right therefore shut up? Finding violations is finding violations. Finding violations is finding non-compliance. Finding violations is finding exactly what I have already noted. If you want to take the position that everything that Kay and Duelfer and everyone else involved has found concerning Saddam and WMD was alright with you, that he should have been allowed such acitvities then say so.

​

New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever
​

Notice the use of the phrase "BW-applicable agents"? That's because these weren't research into BW weapons. Both of these are indigenous to Iraq and have to be dealt with by the health officals there.

Waiting for you evidence that this reseach was any such thing. These were hidden research projects. Why was his secret intelligence agency involved if it was merely "public health" reasearch? Why as Duelfer reported were they working on means to disperse such agents in fake perfume bottles? For the public health? Kay and Duelfer's authoritative statements by far out weights your assertion.

​

continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations
​

I don't know what is meant by 'work,'

It means exactly what they say, no further elaboration is needed.

​

A line of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, "not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit."
​

Again, these are not weapons.

They were proscribed items, undeclared.

Nor, according to the USAF, are they capable of being weapons delivery systems. They were for recon.

Post an official citiation for the USAF with source stating that this research could not at the time nor in the future be used as a weapons delivery system.

​

"huge warehouses and caches of 'commercial and agricultural'
​

From export.gov "Iraq has abundant resources of land and water, which makes agriculture one of the largest sectors of the country’s economy"

I do wish you would fully read what I posted. If they were for just agricultural purposes then why did he go to such great pains to hide them at ammo dumps along with shells capable of dispersing them. Buried in the ground, camoflaged so no one could see them?

I repeat from my citation

"That wasn't the only significant find by coalition
troops of probable CW stockpiles, Hanson believes. Near
the northern Iraqi town of Bai'ji, where Saddam had
built a chemical-weapons plant known to the United
States from nearly 12 years of inspections, elements of
the 4th Infantry Division found 55-gallon drums
containing a substance identified through mass
spectrometry analysis as cyclosarin - a nerve agent.
Nearby were surface-to-surface and surface-to-air
missiles, gas masks and a mobile laboratory that could
have been used to mix chemicals at the site. "Of course,
later tests by the experts revealed that these were only
the ubiquitous pesticides that everybody was turning
up," Hanson says. "It seems Iraqi soldiers were obsessed
with keeping ammo dumps insect-free, according to the
reading of the evidence now enshrined by the
conventional wisdom that 'no WMD stockpiles have been
discovered.'"

So you just believe Saddam had a phobia about roaches getting in his ammo?

As I go on I realize that the dearth of actual weapons mentioned in the article is sad and depressing.
Mr. Timmerman is either very confused as to what the word weapon means, or he's hoping that his readers are.

If you believe Saddam should have been allowed to proceed with everything cite then say so. We can disagree on that.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Which is not what I said is it. I've already cited the hugh quantities of organphosphates he was hiding as just one example.

Yeah, the pesticides. As noted in Mr. Timmerman's piece the experts of the ISG didn't see anything alarming about Iraq having pesticides.
We didn't go to war to keep Hussein from giving terrorists cans of Raid no matter how large the cans. Terrorist can already purchase these from any Sneed's Feed and Seed (formerly Chuck's) in the world.

Still straw to a drowning man and all.

But I repeat what we didn't find are stockpiles of ready to go chemical and biologials weaponized. So what? That mitigates everything else we found?

Who said anything about mitigate?

AND we really don't know what happened to all the agents Blix and the UN inspectors said he had do we.

I would genuinely love to see a cite for this part. I'd be much obliged. You know, whenever you're able to get a rounded tuit.

Until then:

From the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD:

Iraq's Chemical Warfare Program, Key Findings

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.
​

 

[Alastor]

Good answer, Simon.

And clearly Stinger's source for the article is a reliable and trustworthy one, since we've likely never heard of them (I hadn't) and they have a bit of a lean to them (that's an understatement). This becomes obvious when we look at their Home Page and see such profound statements as:

Bush delivers quality nominee in Roberts
Democrats and liberal groups across the nation were quick to challenge Roberts's experience, motivation, and politics. But to the liberals' surprise, Roberts is an impeccable candidate that has support on both sides of the aisle.

And...

The centrality of culture
At the heart of the challenge facing the conservative agenda lies one simple fact: while we focused our efforts on politics, our opponents on the left focused instead on culture.

Oh, wait, here's a winner for sure...

When even Borking might not work
If you've drawn an adversary who hasn't even inconvenienced an abortionist, the crime of crimes in the lexicon of the defeated left, you're entitled to fight dirty.

Yeah... that source is a clear winner.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Apparently the cops, ..er bobbies ****ed up.

Now that the cctv footage and police docs have started to leak out:

...early allegations that he was running away from police at the time of the shooting were untrue...
...[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]he was filmed on CCTV calmly entering the station and picking up a free newspaper before boarding the train.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]· was never properly identified because a police officer was relieving himself at the very moment he was leaving his home;[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]· was unaware he was being followed;[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]· was not wearing a heavy padded jacket or belt as reports at the time suggested;[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]· never ran from the police;[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]· and did not jump the ticket barrier.[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]"I heard shouting which included the word 'police' and turned to face the male in the denim jacket.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]"He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the CO19 [firearms squad] officers ... I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously sitting ... I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was dragged away on to the floor of the carriage." [from [/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]a member of the surveillance team]
[/FONT]​