• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

New Documents - Saddam hid WMD

KCConservative said:
Hi aps. It's almost Friday. Remember we have a date! ;)

Yes yes, KC. We have a date. You have been lusting after me all week. ;) (Don't worry, this is the story of my life. lol)

I keep my promises.
 
kal-el said:
Dude, didn't we go over this **** before. Ya know in the support the troops, bring them home ,and impeach bush threads? I've repeated myself so many ****ing times tonight, I don't feel like repeating it again.

I take it its the WMD thingy but that wasnt the only reason why we went remember. Thats the reason we gave to the liberals so they could jump on board. Also in that document it shows they were there and they were most likely extracted to another country. Now which country we dont know for sure yet but I can assure you we will find out.

However, this shouldn't even be a discussion because sadaam himself is a terrorist to his own people. Last time I checked this was a war on terror is it not? And isnt this war on terror apply to all terrorism? Now we invaded a country because a group of terrorists killed approximately 3000 people on 9/11. Well you mean to tell me its ok if we invade a country when 9/11 happens, but its not ok to invade a country who we already know with infallable proof that sadaam has killed, maimed, and tortured over 1million of his own people? Kinda fishy isnt it? Whatever reasons bush gave or not is irrelevant he is right on when it comes to this war on terror. Now if he invaded a place like the Vatican City I can understand people being a little pi$$ed. But sadaam fits every definition of what a terrorist is. If someone is going to terrorize over 1million of his own people then that person will suffer the wrath of the US. Any questions?
 
SKILMATIC said:
I take it its the WMD thingy but that wasnt the only reason why we went remember. Thats the reason we gave to the liberals so they could jump on board. Also in that document it shows they were there and they were most likely extracted to another country. Now which country we dont know for sure yet but I can assure you we will find out.

However, this shouldn't even be a discussion because sadaam himself is a terrorist to his own people. Last time I checked this was a war on terror is it not? And isnt this war on terror apply to all terrorism? Now we invaded a country because a group of terrorists killed approximately 3000 people on 9/11. Well you mean to tell me its ok if we invade a country when 9/11 happens, but its not ok to invade a country who we already know with infallable proof that sadaam has killed, maimed, and tortured over 1million of his own people? Kinda fishy isnt it? Whatever reasons bush gave or not is irrelevant he is right on when it comes to this war on terror. Now if he invaded a place like the Vatican City I can understand people being a little pi$$ed. But sadaam fits every definition of what a terrorist is. If someone is going to terrorize over 1million of his own people then that person will suffer the wrath of the US. Any questions?

well, excpet for the fact that most governments, when they right terrorism laws, exclude governments from being terrorists. Even evil men like Saddam, are not terrorists or international terrorists, because governments can't be terrorists. Governments can only be the target of terrorists, at least according to the laws.
 
LK,

Yep, but states be 'sponsors' of terrorism. Remember the term "state sponsored terrorism"? As in Saddam's rewarding of Palestinian suicide bombers families, Qhaddafi's funding of various terrorist organizations, and Hamas and Hezbollah receiving funding from, IIRC, both Iran, Syria and Iraq?
 
oldreliable67 said:
LK,

Yep, but states be 'sponsors' of terrorism. Remember the term "state sponsored terrorism"? As in Saddam's rewarding of Palestinian suicide bombers families, Qhaddafi's funding of various terrorist organizations, and Hamas and Hezbollah receiving funding from, IIRC, both Iran, Syria and Iraq?

That's not what the poster wrote, therefor that's not what I responded to. The poster claimed Saddam was terrorizing his own people, which no law says such. State leaders have exempted all state leaders from "terrorizing" their populations. Otherwise, without the expection, all states would be terror states, under the definitions.

Such as "use fear or violence to compell a civilian population for political purposes." Like, make people pay taxes (violence) to fun political boondoggles.
 
libertarian_knight said:
well, excpet for the fact that most governments, when they right terrorism laws, exclude governments from being terrorists. Even evil men like Saddam, are not terrorists or international terrorists, because governments can't be terrorists. Governments can only be the target of terrorists, at least according to the laws.

What!!!!???? This is total utter BS. So let me ask you this libertarian. When someone kills someone is it murder? Now how about when a gov kills someone is it still considered murder? You are trying to differentiate the same thing by taking it out of its context which is infallably wrong.

So your saying just becasue a gov commits terrorist acts it makes it ok? Thats probably got to be the best argument I have heard yet. :rofl

Gees where has liberalism taken us?
 
SKILMATIC said:
What!!!!???? This is total utter BS. So let me ask you this libertarian. When someone kills someone is it murder? Now how about when a gov kills someone is it still considered murder? You are trying to differentiate the same thing by taking it out of its context which is infallably wrong.

So your saying just becasue a gov commits terrorist acts it makes it ok? Thats probably got to be the best argument I have heard yet. :rofl

Gees where has liberalism taken us?

Are you simple? If you are I can excuse your ignorance.

If your not, here is some clarity.

First, learn the difference between positive and normative statements. one describes WHAT IS, the other WHAT SHOULD BE. My Statements Described WHAT IS. What governments DO is what I described. Can you find any word that showed my approval of such a thing? NO BECUASE I DO NOT APPROVE OF SUCH A THING.

When governments Murder, they call it legal execution, war, or justifiable in some other way.

When governments steal, they call it taxing.

When Governments Kidnap, they call it arrest.

When governments committ terror on their populations, they call it governing.

The four above statements have inklings of my stance, can you figure it out?
 
libertarian_knight said:
Are you simple? If you are I can excuse your ignorance.

If your not, here is some clarity.

First, learn the difference between positive and normative statements. one describes WHAT IS, the other WHAT SHOULD BE. My Statements Described WHAT IS. What governments DO is what I described. Can you find any word that showed my approval of such a thing? NO BECUASE I DO NOT APPROVE OF SUCH A THING.

When governments Murder, they call it legal execution, war, or justifiable in some other way.

When governments steal, they call it taxing.

When Governments Kidnap, they call it arrest.

When governments committ terror on their populations, they call it governing.

The four above statements have inklings of my stance, can you figure it out?

No you are doing both. You are stating what is to hopefully get me to conceed to what is should be.

Well you approve of it by not fighting terrorism adequately. I wonder when our gov gased a million of its own people?

Well it is simple, in your own argument you just debacled yourself. Thank you. I love debating with you. We should do this more often. :2wave:
 
SKILMATIC said:
No you are doing both. You are stating what is to hopefully get me to conceed to what is should be.

Well you approve of it by not fighting terrorism adequately. I wonder when our gov gased a million of its own people?

Well it is simple, in your own argument you just debacled yourself. Thank you. I love debating with you. We should do this more often. :2wave:

Read the USC, UN, and other various law codes. You will see the always exempt governments from being "terrorists." The government may be a terrorist sponsor, but not a terrorist.

In fact, Simpmatic, I agree Saddam was a terrorist, as are most state-leaders. Some worse than others. State-leaders write laws in such a way, as to exclude them from being common crimminals, such as terrorists, counterfeiters, thieves and the like. I don't approve of such double standards, I was simply pointing out, that by the means through which the US government, in prosecution of the War on Scary, defines terrorism, Saddam would not be a terrorist.
 
Read the USC, UN, and other various law codes. You will see the always exempt governments from being "terrorists." The government may be a terrorist sponsor, but not a terrorist.

No it doesnt. What it does do is grant it amnesty. However, that was post WW2. We are in a new era and I wouldnt be suprised if they revisioned the UN resolutons and the G code.

However, it still doesnt make that gov right to do what they do. Just because you are a government doesnt grant you to be God so to say.


In fact, Simpmatic,

Actually it would sound better if you said simplomatic. However, thats just my opinion. :lol:

State-leaders write laws in such a way, as to exclude them from being common crimminals, such as terroists, counterfeiters, thieves and the like. I don't approve of such double standards,

I agree. A matter of fact I dont aprove 90% of the things gov does. I am not an anarchist but I think gov could be better.

I was simply pointing out, that by the means through which the US government, in prosecution of the War on Scary, defines terroism, Saddam would not be a terroist.


I guess this is true to a point. However, anytime you bring in politics to any war field it neutralizes any objective you have. What the gov needs to do is let the military do its dam job. We need to ban all reporting and ban all media and ban all influence of gov and let them do their job. The only influence they should have is to give them their objectives and let them carry them out how they want. War is war that is why it is so brutal. It is meant to be brutal. If our objective is to wipe out all terroism them let them do it. However, no one in their mind can grant known terroists amnesty just becasue they are a government. This is wrong. And you know this. So if you know this then why do you still not condone the war on terror? I dont follow. It seems to me we actually agree.
 
SKILMATIC said:
isnt this war on terror apply to all terrorism?

If that's the case, Iran is on top of the list for rogue states sponsering terrorism. What about Pakistan? The most likely place where Bin Laden is and the world headquarters of al-Qeada. All of Bush's arguments for war also applys to a handful of other countries.
 
If that's the case, Iran is on top of the list for rogue states sponsering terrorism.

I totally agree with you.
What about Pakistan?
yep them too.

The most likely place where Bin Laden is and the world headquarters of al-Qeada. All of Bush's arguments for war also applys to a handful of other countries.

Now your getting it. We are on the right track. This war on terror will never succeed by having a bunch of whine baby liberals that dont want to fight for our lives. War is war for a reason. It is very bad. However, we cant let these people prevail or esle a even more evil will occur. So we must press on and keep going. In ww2 the only reason why we were so successful was because we didnt care about if we accidentally bombed civilians. The military had its objective and it got done decisively and expediately no matter what it took. However, in Iraq becasue we are so nit picky IMO total victory will never occur. I think if we start blowing the smitherines out of the arab world and knock them back into reality they will wake up and smell the roses and start being apart of the solution instead of being part of the problem. Lets look at this perspectively. In WW2 we were fighting the axis powers in several fronts and from 39-44 the whole WW2 was over. That means we covered several continents of area and fought several different stronger countries than Iraq and got totally done in 5 years. We today are struggling with just Iraq and its already been 3yrs. If I was in charge this job would be done in a few hours. Boom bam done. Any questions?
 
O btw kal-el clear your inbox so i can send you another message. I tried sending one and it wouldnt let me.
 
SKILMATIC said:
War is war for a reason.

Yes, it is, I'm still waiting to find out this one.:lol:

It is very bad. However, we cant let these people prevail or esle a even more evil will occur. So we must press on and keep going. In ww2 the only reason why we were so successful was because we didnt care about if we accidentally bombed civilians. The military had its objective and it got done decisively and expediately no matter what it took. However, in Iraq becasue we are so nit picky IMO total victory will never occur. I think if we start blowing the smitherines out of the arab world and knock them back into reality they will wake up and smell the roses and start being apart of the solution instead of being part of the problem. Lets look at this perspectively. In WW2 we were fighting the axis powers in several fronts and from 39-44 the whole WW2 was over. That means we covered several continents of area and fought several different stronger countries than Iraq and got totally done in 5 years. We today are struggling with just Iraq and its already been 3yrs. If I was in charge this job would be done in a few hours. Boom bam done. Any questions?

I kinda shifted my stance on Iraq after having a lenghty discussion at work. I think we must get out ASAP. If we stay, sure eventually, they'll make a democracy, but they never had one, they don't know what's going on. So does it matter if we stay the course? IMO if we just stay the course, it's inevitable, they'll be more US and Iraqi casulties, non-needed BTW. The minute we leave Iraq, they'll go back to their primitive nature, since they don't know democracy, they'll probably eat themselves. Look what those people did to Nick Berg, and such. I think it's irrelevant and pointless to stay the course, the savages will just eat themselves anyway, so why create more death then needed? Let's get the hell out!

Another thing that bugs me, Somalia. Those savages could barely talk. They ran to the srteets with stick in hand ready to eat. I think that was one of Clinton's biggest blunders. If you do a job, do it right. He should have either nuked the place, or sent in like 200,000 soliders with orders to shoot to kill or something. It would have lessend the number of US casulties.:lol:

O btw kal-el clear your inbox so i can send you another message. I tried sending one and it wouldnt let me.

Done
 
I think it's irrelevant and pointless to stay the course, the savages will just eat themselves anyway, so why create more death then needed? Let's get the hell out!

Or why dont we just nuke them since they are going to eat themselves anyway?


Another thing that bugs me, Somalia. Those savages could barely talk. They ran to the srteets with stick in hand ready to eat. I think that was one of Clinton's biggest blunders. If you do a job, do it right. He should have either nuked the place, or sent in like 200,000 soliders with orders to shoot to kill or something. It would have lessend the number of US casulties.

I love you. :2wave:
 
SKILMATIC said:
Or why dont we just nuke them since they are going to eat themselves anyway?

Yea, excuse my language. I just downed 4 bush pounders (16oz.). I'm suprised im still conscience, let alone can spelll.



I love you. :2wave:

Ok, I'll take thats in a complete heterosexual way.:2razz:
 
That reminds me of somalya, if we leve iraq, iMo we should hit somyala on the way back, to enact revenge!
 
kal-el said:
Yea, excuse my language. I just downed 4 bush pounders (16oz.). I'm suprised im still conscience, let alone can spelll.





Ok, I'll take thats in a complete heterosexual way.:2razz:

O bush pounders huh? Hey I got a trivia question for you. What was kennedys favorite beer?

And yes I am not gay. :lol:
 
SKILMATIC said:
O bush pounders huh? Hey I got a trivia question for you. What was kennedys favorite beer?

And yes I am not gay. :lol:

I dont know. Ok
 
kal-el said:
Yea, excuse my language. I just downed 4 bush pounders (16oz.). I'm suprised im still conscience, let alone can spelll.





Ok, I'll take thats in a complete heterosexual way.:2razz:
4 bush pounders?????....FOUR?!?!?!?

Geez...I do that before my first bathroom break...:cool:
 
cnredd said:
4 bush pounders?????....FOUR?!?!?!?

Geez...I do that before my first bathroom break...:cool:

Yea, I usually only drink socially nowadays; but once in a while I indulge myself. So, my tolerance is pretty low, opposed to when I got my D.U.I.'s.
 
Me? said:
That reminds me of somalya, if we leve iraq, iMo we should hit somyala on the way back, to enact revenge!

I don't know where this asinine comment spewed from? :lol:
 
Okay, KC. This is what I could come up with on limited time. Battery has been changed and I was able to run my errands. Now I need to do stuff around the house.

I posted this website before, but here goes again. It is not common for a VP to be going to CIA headquarters as frequently as Cheney did.

There are articles which indicate that some CIA analysts described feeling pressured by the VP, Libby, and Wolfowitz. I know that the Intelligence Committee determined that Cheney and his cohorts did not pressure analysts, but nevertheless some analysts felt pressure.

Some Iraq Analysts Felt Pressure From Cheney Visits
by Walter Pincus and Dana Priest

Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives, according to senior intelligence officials. . . .

While visits to CIA headquarters by a vice president are not unprecedented, they are unusual, according to intelligence officials. The exact number of trips by Cheney to the CIA could not be learned, but one agency official described them as "multiple." They were taken in addition to Cheney's regular attendance at President Bush's morning intelligence briefings and the special briefings the vice president receives when he is at an undisclosed location for security reasons.

Article is here: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0605-01.htm


Here's another article written in October 2002:

CIA Feels Heat on Iraq Data
By GREG MILLER and BOB DROGIN
TIMES STAFF WRITERS

October 11 2002

WASHINGTON -- Senior Bush administration officials are pressuring CIA analysts to tailor their assessments of the Iraqi threat to help build a case against Saddam Hussein, intelligence and congressional sources said.

In what sources described as an escalating "war," top officials at the Pentagon and elsewhere have bombarded CIA analysts with criticism and calls for revisions on such key questions as whether Iraq has ties to the Al Qaeda terrorist network, sources said.

The sources stressed that CIA analysts—who are supposed to be impartial—are fighting to resist the pressure. But they said analysts are increasingly resentful of what they perceive as efforts to contaminate the intelligence process.

"Analysts feel more politicized and more pushed than many of them can ever remember," said an intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"The guys at the Pentagon shriek on issues such as the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There has been a lot of pressure to write on this constantly, and to not let it drop."

http://www.howardlabs.com/analysis/Miller.htm


What I had mentioned previously was that I had watched a movie that addressed the prewar intelligence. It was called "Uncovered: The War on Iraq." Here's a description of the movie:

In his documentary feature, UNCOVERED: The War on Iraq, filmmaker Robert Greenwald chronicles the Bush Administration's determined quest to invade Iraq following the events of September 11, 2001. The film deconstructs the administration's case for war through interviews with U.S intelligence and defense officials, foreign service experts, and U.N. weapons inspectors -- including a former CIA director, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and even President Bush's Secretary of the Army. Their analyses and conclusions are sobering, and often disturbing, regardless of one's political affiliations.

http://www.truthuncovered.com/


Here is the list of the people he interviewed, which is 27. And dont' tell me that they are all Bush-haters. Some of them have been with the CIA for over 20 years. See website below.

http://www.truthuncovered.com/interviews.php#davidalbright


This brings you to a preview of the documentary. Please watch it. It is not long.

http://www.truthuncovered.com/trailer_high.php


Next is part of an article written by Seymour Hirsch addressing conflicts between the Bush Adminstration and intelligence officials. Here are two paragraphs:

A few months after George Bush took office, Greg Thielmann, an expert on disarmament with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, or INR, was assigned to be the daily intelligence liaison to John Bolton, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control, who is a prominent conservative. Thielmann understood that his posting had been mandated by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who thought that every important State Department bureau should be assigned a daily intelligence officer. “Bolton was the guy with whom I had to do business,” Thielmann said. “We were going to provide him with all the information he was entitled to see. That’s what being a professional intelligence officer is all about.”

But, Thielmann told me, “Bolton seemed to be troubled because INR was not telling him what he wanted to hear.” Thielmann soon found himself shut out of Bolton’s early-morning staff meetings. “I was intercepted at the door of his office and told, ‘The Under-Secretary doesn’t need you to attend this meeting anymore.’ ” When Thielmann protested that he was there to provide intelligence input, the aide said, “The Under-Secretary wants to keep this in the family.”

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

We can discuss this more later. This is only part of the evidence that leads me to believe that the intelligence was created in a way to support what Bush wanted. I know that there is evidence against this as well, but I choose to believe the evidence that supports it. That's what my gut tells me.

I have someone coming to do work in my house in the next 15 minutes. I am not sure if I'll have time to check back here later today. :)
 
aps said:
truthuncovered.com

Let's see what else we can find from your links.

truthuncovered.com is the brainchild of tabloid film director Robert Greenwald. If you follow the money trail backwards from your link, you can find Mr. Greenwald's bio and resume.

Robert Greenwald is the director/producer of Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004), a documentary exposing the right-wing bias of Fox News. The film was initially distributed via internet DVD sales, but strong viewer demand led to an unusual post-DVD theatrical release in the summer of 2004. The Bergen International Film Festival (BIFF) presented "Outfoxed" with the Youth Documentary Award. The five-year old BIFF is one of the most prestigious festivals in Norway.

Greenwald is also the executive producer of a trilogy of "Un" documentaries: Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election (2002), directed by Richard Ray Perez and Joan Sekler; Uncovered: The Iraq War (2003), directed by Greeenwald; and Unconstitutional (2004), directed by Nonny de la Pena, about the post 9/11 erosion of American civil liberties.


Greenwald makes these films with buddy Richard Jacobs who was named California Democratic Party Deputy Chair in March of 2005, as well as Chair of Campaign for California's Future. He chaired the presidential campaign of Howard Dean in California, coordinated Al Gore's endorsement of Dean, and serves as Senior Advisor to Democracy for America.

There's a terrific article about Greenwald and his company known as Brave New World Films. You can see it here. http://www.robertgreenwald.org/press_nyt.php
In a nutshell, though:

"How to Make a Guerrilla Documentary"
By Robert S. Boynton | New York Times Magazine | 7/11/2004

The offices of Robert Greenwald Productions occupy a slightly rundown, horseshoe-shaped building in Los Angeles, just down the street from Culver Studios, the legendary movie facility where "Gone With the Wind" and "Citizen Kane" were filmed. Back in the day, the R.G.P. building, then a motel, was used by studio executives for liaisons with starlets and mistresses. Though no longer a Hollywood love nest, it still has a whiff of the illicit about it -- and still operates in the shadow of several corporate studios.

Greenwald is looking for a few good liberal volunteers, aps. Give this some thought.

At Brave New Films, we're in the early stages of creating a network
of volunteer field producers. People willing to lend their skills to the Brave New Family. Field producers do a variety of things -- host screenings, shoot video, email friends, hand out flyers, distribute DVDs, watch Fox News, whatever it takes. Together, we're creating our own media, outside corporate control, and beholden to no one but ourselves.


Gee, I wonder is Greenwald, Brave New World Films and truthuncovered.com have any certain agenda?
 
Last edited:
kal-el said:
I dont know. Ok

Well just look at the demographics for a sec. Think to yourself. What do rich preppy white boys usually drink? Heineken.

4 bush pounders?????....FOUR?!?!?!?

Geez...I do that before my first bathroom break...

And thats why you are still single. :rofl

Ok ok ok I was just kidding please dont ban me. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom