kallend 2,027 #26 December 13, 2005 QuoteWhat makes any of you think that abc news paints an accurate picture of how things are in Iraq anyway? What makes you think Bush does, given his long record of telling falsehoods?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #27 December 13, 2005 Quote You'd better ask Gravitymaster - he posted the link I quoted from. Asked and answered. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeiber 0 #28 December 13, 2005 QuoteAsk Bush - it was his statement I quoted. Don't like it, try complaints@whitehouse.gov One again, making assumptions and jumping to conclusions.... I'm sure the count is technically pretty correct, I'm not disputing it; I'm disputing your negative spin on the article. Speaking of negative spins... Webster's dictionary (www.webster.com): admit - to concede as true or valid acknowledge - to disclose knowledge of or agreement with I think your suggestive wording speaks for itself... What I continue to find ironic about your posts is that 1) you accuse Bush of being misleading - again, isn't this the pot calling the kettle, 'black'? 2) why do you always quote a source (Bush) that you claim to 'know' to be inaccurate? JeffShhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #29 December 13, 2005 Quote 2) why do you always quote a source (Bush) that you claim to 'know' to be inaccurate? Jeff " We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.". G.W. Bush, May 29, 2003, the Library of the White House. Now, what do YOU know about the accuracy of that statement?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #30 December 13, 2005 This is just a set-up for another shameless BUSH LIED rant Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #31 December 13, 2005 No, your last statement turned out to be false........"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #32 December 13, 2005 QuoteNo, your last statement turned out to be false........ How much of the justification in the 2003 SOTU was true, then? 1%, 5%?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #33 December 13, 2005 QuoteThis is just a set-up for another shameless BUSH LIED rant Don't like to answer the question, do you. You have a harder time lying than our fearless leader... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #34 December 14, 2005 How come they tried to impeach clinton for lying about a blow job. but not bush for lying about a war that has killed 30,000 people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #35 December 14, 2005 QuoteHow come they tried to impeach clinton for lying about a blow job. but not bush for lying about a war that has killed 30,000 people? Is it fun in your world? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #36 December 14, 2005 QuoteQuoteHow come they tried to impeach clinton for lying about a blow job. but not bush for lying about a war that has killed 30,000 people? Is it fun in your world? I like building sand castles and then knocking them down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #37 December 14, 2005 yeah - but it would be even more fun without Bush in it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Calle 0 #38 December 14, 2005 "How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal?" -Harold Pinter http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #39 December 14, 2005 another effect of the Iraq war shoudl be considered form this letter from a Special forces Commander in Afghanistan reporoduced in the book "will they ever trust us Again?: "what began to bother me about the conflict started when "our george" began denying us the divisional support that was requested. this simply means that we were asking for very large numbers of troops so that we could cordon off the areas needing to be closed , so that we could assure the capture or killing of higher ranking taliban leaders ie Osama bin Laden I strongly believe tht the US could have cptured or killed Osama in a months time had this support been given. And i only now understand why the Oval Office did not approve a full scale attack ...It was becuase old geogie boy wanted to attack Iraq, and he was saving the military divsions to complete that task. " So not only have 30,00 lives been lost for bogus reason, But as a reuslt of the Iraq escapade the Al queda leadership got away. Moreover they now have more recruits bbecause of the grossly unjust nature of the Iraq war. we in the west are now more at risk from terrorism and for what end? becuase of a war that has taken 30,000 lives all based on george Bushs lies. Bush lie 1; That Saddam had WMds Bush lie 2 That Saddam posed a threat to the world Bush lie 3 that Saddm had links to Al Queda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #40 December 14, 2005 He had WMD's He was a treat to the world He had links to al queda You think Bush lied I think you are lying. We know he had WMD's and provided no proof they had been destroyed. There is evidence that he was working to end the sanctions and rebuild his delayed WMD program..... Therefore he was a threat to the world And there are reports (more and more of them) not by the main stream support the lie that Bush lied, media, showing that SH was/is tied to al queda. aahhhhhh...........emotion over fact.........."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #41 December 14, 2005 QuoteHe had WMD's He was a treat to the world He had links to al queda You think Bush lied I think you are lying. We know he had WMD's and provided no proof they had been destroyed. There is evidence that he was working to end the sanctions and rebuild his delayed WMD program..... Therefore he was a threat to the world And there are reports (more and more of them) not by the main stream support the lie that Bush lied, media, showing that SH was/is tied to al queda. aahhhhhh...........emotion over fact.......... You are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land and grasping at straws.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #42 December 14, 2005 Saddam had WMD's? This is what Hans Blix had to say after Saddams capture: "I doubt that he will reveal any WMD, because I think both we U.N. inspectors and the American inspectors have been looking around and come to the conclusion that there aren't any," Blix said. "He might be able to reveal when they were done away with. I am inclined to think it was early in 1991 or 1992 ." this is what the Iraq surbey group said: (SG has found only)"small numbers of degraded chemical weapons," which " were likely abandoned, forgotten and lost during the Iran-Iraq war" and "do not pose a militarily significant threat...because the agent and munitions are degraded." Moreover, "ISG has not found evidence to indicate that Iraq did not destroy its BW weapons or bulk agents." Also "Saddam Hussayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program." "ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. " "ISG thoroughly examined two trailers captured in 2003, suspected of being mobile BW agent production units, and investigated the associated evidence. ISG judges that its Iraqi makers almost certainly designed and built the equipment exclusively for the generation of hydrogen. It is impractical to use the equipment for the production and weaponization of BW agent ISG judges that it cannot therefore be part of any BW program." "The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam." this is what the CIA said to Mr Bush in Feb 2001 "We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs, " So I stick to my conclusion that Saddm at the time of the 2nd gulf war had no WMD's unless you think the Iraq Survey group are a bunch of liars? Saddam a threat? saddam was contained after Gulf War 1 but dont just take my word for it: here is what Colin powell said 15 may 2001: "The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. " this is what Condy Rice said on tv 29 july 2001: "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt. " Link to Al queda? Where is the evidence for this? here is what donal Rumsfeld said in Oct 2004 on Saddam and Al Queda. "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," This is what former counter terrorism chief Richard Clarke said : "he(Paul Wolfowitz) chaired a meeting the next day (just after Sept 11th) to develop an offocial position on the relationship between Iraq and Al Queda . All agencies and all departments agreed, there was no cooperation between the two." the SEpt 11tth commision said AQ had explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" . the result of contacts according to the commision ?"they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #43 December 14, 2005 QuoteHe had WMD's Ehm... no. QuoteHe was a treat to the world A treat? Even if you meant threat, I'd still say hardly. QuoteHe had links to al queda Those "links" are pretty far fetched, so if you mean "provided substantial support", I'd have to say no again. Quoteaahhhhhh...........emotion over fact.......... I applaud you for admitting it. HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #44 December 14, 2005 From the Duefler Report. QuoteKey Findings Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted. Saddam totally dominated the Regime’s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq’s strategic policy. Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring. The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development. By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999. Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities. And what would you call the world you are living in? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #45 December 14, 2005 Are you able to grasp the difference in concept between "having" and "wanting to have"? I'd like to have Nicole Kidman. Are you able to understand "Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991"(Duelfer report)? Apparently not. Now, about the Al Qaeda lie....... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #46 December 14, 2005 Quote Are you able to grasp the difference in concept between "having" and "wanting to have"? I'd like to have Nicole Kidman. Are you able to understand "Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991"(Duelfer report)? Apparently not. Now, about the Al Qaeda lie.... Can you not grasp the concept that as soon as the UN sanctions were lifted, that SH planned on reconstitutiong his nuclear/chemical/ and bio-weapons programs. Are you incapable of seeing that at sometime in the future we would have been forced to deal with him again? But perhaps the next time he would have had his WMD program intact and it could have meant the loss of tens of thousands of American troops? Are you so completely incapacitated by your hatred for GWB that you are incapable of understanding that SH had a longer term plans for Iraq's military and viewed the sanctons imposed by the UN as something temporary to be endured and that over the long term, just a bump in the road towards his ultimate goals? How many times and by how many sources do you need to grasp this? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #47 December 14, 2005 QuoteQuote How many times and by how many sources do you need to grasp this? I grasp very well the different between present tense and future conditional. You don't. What he wanted and what he had were VERY different. As I said, I want Nicole Kidman. Continuing sanctions for 30 more years would have cost far less in lives, both Iraqi and US, and taxpayer $$$ than Bush's ill-conceived adventure. Did you see that the Pentagon today requested another $100 Million?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #48 December 14, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote How many times and by how many sources do you need to grasp this? I grasp very well the different between present tense and future conditional. You don't. What he wanted and what he had were VERY different. As I said, I want Nicole Kidman. Continuing sanctions for 30 more years would have cost far less in lives, both Iraqi and US, and taxpayer $$$ than Bush's ill-conceived adventure. Did you see that the Pentagon today requested another $100 Million? I am constantly astounded by your naivity. The fact is most countries like Russia, France, Germany and others were positioning to remove the sanctions. Had the US continued to impose sanctions without cooperation, they would have been mostly ineffective. There is absolutely no doubt that Saddam was playing a waiting game and most assuredly would have reconstituted his WMD and Nuclear programs. I'm glad we dealt with him while he was still weak from years of sanctions and his defeat after Gulf War 1. I suppose you think letting Tookie Williams out of jail with an ankle bracelet would have been a good idea too? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #49 December 14, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote How many times and by how many sources do you need to grasp this? I grasp very well the different between present tense and future conditional. You don't. What he wanted and what he had were VERY different. As I said, I want Nicole Kidman. Continuing sanctions for 30 more years would have cost far less in lives, both Iraqi and US, and taxpayer $$$ than Bush's ill-conceived adventure. Did you see that the Pentagon today requested another $100 Million? I am constantly astounded by your naivity. I am constantly amazed by your apologies for a president who took us to war under false pretenses, resulting in 30,000 plus civilian deaths and 2100+ US deaths and at a likely cost now of $300,000,000. The justification given to the people to take us to war was UNTRUE, FALSE, INCORRECT in almost every respect. www.startribune.com/stories/587/5781041.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #50 December 14, 2005 Its not millions kallend but billions.$266 billion is the current cost of the war. Imagine what we could have achieved with that money spent elsewhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 2 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Gravitymaster 0 #48 December 14, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote How many times and by how many sources do you need to grasp this? I grasp very well the different between present tense and future conditional. You don't. What he wanted and what he had were VERY different. As I said, I want Nicole Kidman. Continuing sanctions for 30 more years would have cost far less in lives, both Iraqi and US, and taxpayer $$$ than Bush's ill-conceived adventure. Did you see that the Pentagon today requested another $100 Million? I am constantly astounded by your naivity. The fact is most countries like Russia, France, Germany and others were positioning to remove the sanctions. Had the US continued to impose sanctions without cooperation, they would have been mostly ineffective. There is absolutely no doubt that Saddam was playing a waiting game and most assuredly would have reconstituted his WMD and Nuclear programs. I'm glad we dealt with him while he was still weak from years of sanctions and his defeat after Gulf War 1. I suppose you think letting Tookie Williams out of jail with an ankle bracelet would have been a good idea too? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #49 December 14, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote How many times and by how many sources do you need to grasp this? I grasp very well the different between present tense and future conditional. You don't. What he wanted and what he had were VERY different. As I said, I want Nicole Kidman. Continuing sanctions for 30 more years would have cost far less in lives, both Iraqi and US, and taxpayer $$$ than Bush's ill-conceived adventure. Did you see that the Pentagon today requested another $100 Million? I am constantly astounded by your naivity. I am constantly amazed by your apologies for a president who took us to war under false pretenses, resulting in 30,000 plus civilian deaths and 2100+ US deaths and at a likely cost now of $300,000,000. The justification given to the people to take us to war was UNTRUE, FALSE, INCORRECT in almost every respect. www.startribune.com/stories/587/5781041.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #50 December 14, 2005 Its not millions kallend but billions.$266 billion is the current cost of the war. Imagine what we could have achieved with that money spent elsewhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 2 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,027 #49 December 14, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote How many times and by how many sources do you need to grasp this? I grasp very well the different between present tense and future conditional. You don't. What he wanted and what he had were VERY different. As I said, I want Nicole Kidman. Continuing sanctions for 30 more years would have cost far less in lives, both Iraqi and US, and taxpayer $$$ than Bush's ill-conceived adventure. Did you see that the Pentagon today requested another $100 Million? I am constantly astounded by your naivity. I am constantly amazed by your apologies for a president who took us to war under false pretenses, resulting in 30,000 plus civilian deaths and 2100+ US deaths and at a likely cost now of $300,000,000. The justification given to the people to take us to war was UNTRUE, FALSE, INCORRECT in almost every respect. www.startribune.com/stories/587/5781041.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #50 December 14, 2005 Its not millions kallend but billions.$266 billion is the current cost of the war. Imagine what we could have achieved with that money spent elsewhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 2 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
philh 0 #50 December 14, 2005 Its not millions kallend but billions.$266 billion is the current cost of the war. Imagine what we could have achieved with that money spent elsewhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
