Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Posted: 1/12/2005 7:53:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2005 7:55:24 AM EDT by DzlBenz]
BBC Story



US gives up search for Iraq WMD
Breaking news graphic
Intelligence officials have confirmed the US has stopped searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

They say the chief US investigator, Charles Duelfer, is not planning to return to the country.

Mr Duelfer reported last year that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons at the time of the US-led invasion nearly two years ago.

The existence of WMD had been the stated reason in Washington and London for going to war with Iraq.

Mr Duelfer said when he released his interim report in October that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had still had the desire to restart WMD programmes, when he could.

He will make a few adjustments to his report, but when the final version is published in a few weeks, he will close the book on the hunt, says the BBC's Nick Childs in Washington.

Officials are still sifting through a mountain of documents and if they produce any leads, they say, they will be followed, but there is no expectation that the hunt will be revived.

The Iraq Survey Group, which was responsible for the search, goes on, but its focus now is trying to help counter the Iraqi insurgency.



ETA: Multiple edits to cut-n-paste link and story.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 7:57:20 AM EDT
My personal opinion is that the Iraqi Army and Saddam's henchmen were the real weapons of terror in Iraq, and until the insurgency is quelled, will continue to be.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 7:57:57 AM EDT
Next we need to search in Syria.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 7:58:04 AM EDT
should have quit looking a year ago. hard to search & find something that wasn't there.


wag the dog.............................

Chris
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 7:59:30 AM EDT
IBFCITYS

In Before Cyanide's -------------- "I Told You So"
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 7:59:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By virginia22:
hard to search & find something that wasn't there.

Well, the only way to know that they aren't there is to look for them and not find them. Beats the hell out of taking a despot's word for it.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:00:01 AM EDT
Start checking Syria, Belgium, Iran, Germany, and maybe Russia. Eye France as well.

Lots of nations have dirty hands in this one.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:00:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:
My personal opinion is that the Iraqi Army and Saddam's henchmen were the real weapons of terror in Iraq, and until the insurgency is quelled, will continue to be.



Were not the Iraqi Army and Saddam defeated in the invasion ? so why are foreign forces still there ?
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:02:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
Were not the Iraqi Army and Saddam defeated in the invasion ? so why are foreign forces still there ?

The standing army was handed its ass, and Saddam was found cowering in a (literal) shithole. However, large numbers of terrorists loyal to his dictatorship remain very active in Iraq, and stand in the way of peace in the country. The insurgency must be put down.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:05:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By virginia22:
hard to search & find something that wasn't there.

Well, the only way to know that they aren't there is to look for them and not find them. Beats the hell out of taking a despot's word for it.



the search was going fine before we jumped the gun.

anyway, at least the WMD (doom doom doom, soon soon soon) has been shown for what it was.

using our fears against us to get what the admin wanted reguardless or truth or actual evidence.

you break it, you own it.<< I believe was powells quote.

what else have we been told that isn't actually true?

Chris
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:07:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:
The standing army was handed its ass, and Saddam was found cowering in a (literal) shithole. However, large numbers of terrorists loyal to his dictatorship remain very active in Iraq, and stand in the way of peace in the country. The insurgency must be put down.


Insurgency is an internal matter, if anarchists/ insurgents started attacking target in the U.S. should China's armed forces come in and put down the insurgency ?
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:09:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:
Start checking Syria, Belgium, Iran, Germany, and maybe Russia. Eye France as well.

Lots of nations have dirty hands in this one.



never forget to look at home too Macman. whos companies do you think are in the redacted parts of the oil for food scandle or the "no bid" contracts. the good ole US of A.
we used to be "the good guys" not sure what to concider us now .

Chris
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:13:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By virginia22:
the search was going fine before we jumped the gun.


Really? I'm sure the UN weapons inspectors who were repeatedly delayed and stymied at every facility they tried to enter would be very interested to learn that.


anyway, at least the WMD (doom doom doom, soon soon soon) has been shown for what it was.
I agree. It has been shown that Iraq was actively seeking to acquire technology, materials and expertise to develop and deploy various types of weapons of terror.


using our fears against us to get what the admin wanted reguardless or truth or actual evidence.
So, then, you would have preferred to just wait it out until Iraq actually struck US interests in the region? Do you not believe in the validity of a pre-emptive strike?


you break it, you own it.<< I believe was powells quote.
I have no idea whatsoever what point you're trying to make with this. I've heard the line before in department stores, too. What does that have to do with anything?

[quote\what else have we been told that isn't actually true? Elvis lives. JFK was waxed by Joe DiMaggio. live among us. Whatever you want to believe, Chris.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:13:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
IBFCITYS

In Before Cyanide's -------------- "I Told You So"


Does anyone---- besides him give a shit about what he says--------
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:17:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
Insurgency is an internal matter, if anarchists/ insurgents started attacking target in the U.S. should China's armed forces come in and put down the insurgency ?

Well, if China were an ally of the peace-seeking government of the US, and the US standing army was vanquished and therefore unable to quell the insurgency, then, sure. It's a really obscure stretch, though, so it's a pretty useless analogy. Make a good military thriller novel, though. Dibs!
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:22:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By virginia22:

Originally Posted By macman37:
Start checking Syria, Belgium, Iran, Germany, and maybe Russia. Eye France as well.

Lots of nations have dirty hands in this one.



never forget to look at home too Macman. whos companies do you think are in the redacted parts of the oil for food scandle or the "no bid" contracts. the good ole US of A.
we used to be "the good guys" not sure what to concider us now .

Chris



You just changed the target as it were. I was talking about WMDs- some of which have cropped up (the machinery for which, anyway) in Belgium.

The Oil for Food thing... I don't know much about the US's role in that. My understanding is that the UN's role was huge, and some people got very rich off of it. If they were companies from the US, don't you think everybody would be screaming "Treason" by now?

jim
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:28:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By virginia22:
the search was going fine before we jumped the gun.


Really? I'm sure the UN weapons inspectors who were repeatedly delayed and stymied at every facility they tried to enter would be very interested to learn that.

nothing was found. period by the Un inspectors or our own. what's that tell you? there were none.also Saddam was too busy playing games with the UN to be any sort of threat. plenty of time for him later. same outcome would have been IMHO


anyway, at least the WMD (doom doom doom, soon soon soon) has been shown for what it was.
I agree. It has been shown that Iraq was actively seeking to acquire technology, materials and expertise to develop and deploy various types of weapons of terror.

cake uranium and aluminum tubes, right?


using our fears against us to get what the admin wanted reguardless or truth or actual evidence.
So, then, you would have preferred to just wait it out until Iraq actually struck US interests in the region? Do you not believe in the validity of a pre-emptive strike?

no I don't, nor do I think it was in any interest at that point other than ching ching.


you break it, you own it.<< I believe was powells quote.
I have no idea whatsoever what point you're trying to make with this. I've heard the line before in department stores, too. What does that have to do with anything?

if you fuck this up, it's your baby is the point I got from powells remarks on Iraq. and lo and behold. where's the glue.

[quote\what else have we been told that isn't actually true? Elvis lives. JFK was waxed by Joe DiMaggio. live among us. Whatever you want to believe, Chris.



LMAO, we have a coalition of the willing (paid in full out of our pockets for support)
we're here to find the WMDs, no it's liberation , wait now it's, etc etcetc etc ad nausium.
my my what short memory.

for the record, since GB started his WMD in Iraq scare tactics I've said . they'll find nothing and this is wagging the dog to push for profits without questions from "we the people".
WW lo and behold.nothing was found and lots of the "friends" of the pres get $$billions$$
hurray!

what did we the people get? oh yeah, just then bills to pay off on our kids backs.



can we get Bush on the stand under oath and see how he fairs? I sure would like to see it.

be one of the first times we might actually get "the truth" out of him, not "the truth" wink wink nudge nudge.
Chris
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:31:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2005 8:36:09 AM EDT by virginia22]

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By virginia22:

Originally Posted By macman37:
Start checking Syria, Belgium, Iran, Germany, and maybe Russia. Eye France as well.

Lots of nations have dirty hands in this one.



never forget to look at home too Macman. whos companies do you think are in the redacted parts of the oil for food scandle or the "no bid" contracts. the good ole US of A.
we used to be "the good guys" not sure what to concider us now .

Chris



You just changed the target as it were. I was talking about WMDs- some of which have cropped up (the machinery for which, anyway) in Belgium.

The Oil for Food thing... I don't know much about the US's role in that. My understanding is that the UN's role was huge, and some people got very rich off of it. If they were companies from the US, don't you think everybody would be screaming "Treason" by now?

jim



hard to do when it's protected by the fed and redacted to keep it hidden.(why would they do that? who are they protecting?)
it'll come out I'm sure, of course it'll be many years from now when the heat dies down and most are dead or pardoned by someone.

Chris

Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:34:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By virginia22:

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By virginia22:
hard to search & find something that wasn't there.

Well, the only way to know that they aren't there is to look for them and not find them. Beats the hell out of taking a despot's word for it.



the search was going fine before we jumped the gun.

anyway, at least the WMD (doom doom doom, soon soon soon) has been shown for what it was.

using our fears against us to get what the admin wanted reguardless or truth or actual evidence.

you break it, you own it.<< I believe was powells quote.

what else have we been told that isn't actually true?

Chris



Virginia,

Why did all of Saddam's units have gas masks and protective suits? Were they afraid of our soldiers aftershave? Why did we find large cache's of suits, and components of binary chemical weapons? Why was one area full of drums of radioactive material? What about the mobile biological weapon lab we uncovered? What about the satellite photos of convoys of Russian trucks leaving weapons facilities headed for Syria, shortly before the invasion?

Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:36:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By virginia22:
should have quit looking a year ago. hard to search & find something that wasn't there.


wag the dog.............................

Chris



Now we just need cyanide and cinncinatus here and we can have our normal Bush/anti-Bush discussion...
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:40:54 AM EDT
Chris, just a note... Don't let the media's "there aren't any there now so there never were any" remarks color your thinking.

They had at VERY LEAST, the machines necessary to make WMDs and were actively seeking a nuclear program (or at least a nuke). This is documented yet strangely ignored. Some (like the machines) he even had up to and after the invasion in 03... But the media has chosen to selectively report that "Saddam never had WMDs" when in truth, Saddam had the machinery (at least) to make WMDs, and they were trucked out before the war. Much of America has bought it hook, line and sinker.

BTW if the stuff is so heavily redacted how do you know it was US companies that are under the ink? I have a sneaking suspicion that the US has gone out of its way to prevent a lot of damning evidence against countries we try to refer to as "Friendly" that helped Iraq with weapons and such. It is a hunch but with real evidence that France, Russia and Germany all had advisors and products in Iraq helping Saddam out... Well that would put a kink in international relations, now wouldn't it?
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:44:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By virginia22:

we used to be "the good guys" not sure what to concider us now .

Chris


Let us know when you do.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:45:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By virginia22:

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By virginia22:
hard to search & find something that wasn't there.

Well, the only way to know that they aren't there is to look for them and not find them. Beats the hell out of taking a despot's word for it.



the search was going fine before we jumped the gun.

anyway, at least the WMD (doom doom doom, soon soon soon) has been shown for what it was.

using our fears against us to get what the admin wanted reguardless or truth or actual evidence.

you break it, you own it.<< I believe was powells quote.

what else have we been told that isn't actually true?

Chris



Virginia,

Why did all of Saddam's units have gas masks and protective suits?

prepared in case we used them. can't say I ever saw one donned by the iraqis? why were ours not wearing theirs 2 weeks after invading? sounds like we were very worried about WMDs released huh?
Were they afraid of our soldiers aftershave?

no, our own WMD stockpile that could be used.

Why did we find large cache's of suits, and components of binary chemical weapons?

)suits)show me a country that doesn't have equipment stocked up in case of need?
Bionary chemical agents?? Show me.


Why was one area full of drums of radioactive material? you mean around the reactor that the israelis destroyed and we didn't protect even knowing it was there and it being documented before the invasion?? HMMMMMMM

What about the mobile biological weapon lab we uncovered?

you mean the ones with nothing in them? not even a trace of WMDs? interesting. What about the satellite photos of convoys of Russian trucks leaving weapons facilities headed for Syria, shortly before the invasion?
were shown to be BS, show me different.




Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:48:16 AM EDT
Yes.
So, Iraq was the ONLY dictatorship in the region who was NOT pursuing Nuclear and Chemical weapons programs.


Saddam would never do such a thing.
Never did it in the past.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:53:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By virginia22:

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By virginia22:
hard to search & find something that wasn't there.

Well, the only way to know that they aren't there is to look for them and not find them. Beats the hell out of taking a despot's word for it.



the search was going fine before we jumped the gun.

anyway, at least the WMD (doom doom doom, soon soon soon) has been shown for what it was.

using our fears against us to get what the admin wanted reguardless or truth or actual evidence.

you break it, you own it.<< I believe was powells quote.

what else have we been told that isn't actually true?

Chris



running low on wattage?

txl
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:56:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2005 8:58:08 AM EDT by virginia22]

Originally Posted By macman37:
Chris, just a note... Don't let the media's "there aren't any there now so there never were any" remarks color your thinking.

They had at VERY LEAST, the machines necessary to make WMDs and were actively seeking a nuclear program (or at least a nuke). This is documented yet strangely ignored. Some (like the machines) he even had up to and after the invasion in 03... But the media has chosen to selectively report that "Saddam never had WMDs" when in truth, Saddam had the machinery (at least) to make WMDs, and they were trucked out before the war. Much of America has bought it hook, line and sinker.

BTW if the stuff is so heavily redacted how do you know it was US companies that are under the ink? I have a sneaking suspicion that the US has gone out of its way to prevent a lot of damning evidence against countries we try to refer to as "Friendly" that helped Iraq with weapons and such. It is a hunch but with real evidence that France, Russia and Germany all had advisors and products in Iraq helping Saddam out... Well that would put a kink in international relations, now wouldn't it?



My opinion on it has nothing to do with the media. been saying it since Bush first mentioned Iraqs WMDs and started pushing the doom doom doom soon soon soon., I called BS then and at this point it's been shown to be exactly that.

as to the redacted portions, we won't know. they refuse to release it and I can see why.
so IYO we're protecting those from being named we bought off( our friends, some friends huh?), but those we couldn't buy off get front page coverage? pretty fucked up IMHO either they're guilty or not, funny how it is picked over to only name those we have a problem with at this moment (them fukin french, the damn germans,etc) not a full list of all the guilty parties. Why not?what do they have to hide if the war was on the up and up?

that coalition of the willing gets thinner and thinner by the moment. more like protection of those who accepted our payoffs.



Chris


Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:58:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2005 9:06:58 AM EDT by WildBoar]

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:
The standing army was handed its ass, and Saddam was found cowering in a (literal) shithole. However, large numbers of terrorists loyal to his dictatorship remain very active in Iraq, and stand in the way of peace in the country. The insurgency must be put down.



That just isnt going to happen IMHO. The Iraqi people are like most other Muslims. Lazy and silent when it comes to trouble. The insurgency will NEVER go away as long as the Iraqi people keep acting like the French. The Left wing braindead libs like a few we have here are some big reasons there is no progress.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 8:59:06 AM EDT
About time they stopped this wild goose chase……

All the gear went to Syria before the invasion.


ANdy
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 9:04:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By virginia22:


for the record, since GB started his WMD in Iraq scare tactics I've said . they'll find nothing and this is wagging the dog to push for profits without questions from "we the people".
WW lo and behold.nothing was found and lots of the "friends" of the pres get $$billions$$
hurray!

what did we the people get? oh yeah, just then bills to pay off on our kids backs.



can we get Bush on the stand under oath and see how he fairs? I sure would like to see it.

be one of the first times we might actually get "the truth" out of him, not "the truth" wink wink nudge nudge.
Chris



You Left Wing whack jobs are something else. You forget most of the Dimocrats idiots that you love so well are instigators in this as well. All or most of them agreed Saddam had WMD. They cried like chicken little to W about it and he took action. Almost looks like a making for a Left wing conspiracy. "Heh, lets freak out W into thinking there are WMD and their use is immentn. Lets vote for him to use force and then the moment he does. We back pedal in good old Democrat fashion to the brainless will eat it up and use it against him"
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 9:08:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By virginia22:
should have quit looking a year ago. hard to search & find something that wasn't there.


wag the dog.............................

Chris



They were there, and everybody agrees they were there (even Clinton and the UN). The question is simply, "where are they now?"
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 9:09:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By virginia22:

Originally Posted By macman37:
Chris, just a note... Don't let the media's "there aren't any there now so there never were any" remarks color your thinking.

They had at VERY LEAST, the machines necessary to make WMDs and were actively seeking a nuclear program (or at least a nuke). This is documented yet strangely ignored. Some (like the machines) he even had up to and after the invasion in 03... But the media has chosen to selectively report that "Saddam never had WMDs" when in truth, Saddam had the machinery (at least) to make WMDs, and they were trucked out before the war. Much of America has bought it hook, line and sinker.

BTW if the stuff is so heavily redacted how do you know it was US companies that are under the ink? I have a sneaking suspicion that the US has gone out of its way to prevent a lot of damning evidence against countries we try to refer to as "Friendly" that helped Iraq with weapons and such. It is a hunch but with real evidence that France, Russia and Germany all had advisors and products in Iraq helping Saddam out... Well that would put a kink in international relations, now wouldn't it?



My opinion on it has nothing to do with the media. been saying it since Bush first mentioned Iraqs WMDs and started pushing the doom doom doom soon soon soon., I called BS then and at this point it's been shown to be exactly that.

as to the redacted portions, we won't know. they refuse to release it and I can see why.
so IYO we're protecting those from being named we bought off( our friends, some friends huh?), but those we couldn't buy off get front page coverage? pretty fucked up IMHO either they're guilty or not, funny how it is picked over to only name those we have a problem with at this moment (them fukin french, the damn germans,etc) not a full list of all the guilty parties. Why not?what do they have to hide if the war was on the up and up?

that coalition of the willing gets thinner and thinner by the moment. more like protection of those who accepted our payoffs.



Chris





I don't follow. As Bush was doing what you call "Doom doom doom soon soon soon", the Iraqis were busily packing up their WMD machines (note I am not talking the WMDs themselves. I believe they had them but I have no proof of it) and sending them off to Syria, or who-knows-where. There is no disconnect there. CNN even reported it!!! I guess there is a disconnect if you do in fact buy in to the general media perception (and esp. liberal perception) that since we went in and haven't found anything that Iraq was ALWAYS WMD free- which is a very unfortunate trap to fall into. It's like going into an empty house and saying "There was never furniture here" just because there isn't any when you walk in to it.

The rest, meh. I don't have the time today to get into reasons for the war any further and the oil thing. I admit I don't have my facts in order on that one because my understanding of it is that the UN was mostly involved with it. Proving my disdain for the UN.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 9:15:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WildBoar:

Originally Posted By virginia22:


for the record, since GB started his WMD in Iraq scare tactics I've said . they'll find nothing and this is wagging the dog to push for profits without questions from "we the people".
WW lo and behold.nothing was found and lots of the "friends" of the pres get $$billions$$
hurray!

what did we the people get? oh yeah, just then bills to pay off on our kids backs.



can we get Bush on the stand under oath and see how he fairs? I sure would like to see it.

be one of the first times we might actually get "the truth" out of him, not "the truth" wink wink nudge nudge.
Chris



You Left Wing whack jobs are something else. You forget most of the Dimocrats idiots that you love so well are instigators in this as well. All or most of them agreed Saddam had WMD.I never did, even for a second. They cried like chicken little to W about it and he took action. Almost looks like a making for a Left wing conspiracy. "Heh, lets freak out W into thinking there are WMD and their use is immentn. Lets vote for him to use force and then the moment he does. We back pedal in good old Democrat fashion to the brainless will eat it up and use it against him"



seems you give he left quite a bit of credit unlike most right wing fanatical mulahs you coagulate with.

do you honestly believe the dems that smart?

were I one of these follow the party line no matter what types such as yourself, I may actually be convinced. problem is, I'm not. I don't believe a word either of them say.

Chris



chris
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 9:19:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By virginia22:

Originally Posted By macman37:
Chris, just a note... Don't let the media's "there aren't any there now so there never were any" remarks color your thinking.

They had at VERY LEAST, the machines necessary to make WMDs and were actively seeking a nuclear program (or at least a nuke). This is documented yet strangely ignored. Some (like the machines) he even had up to and after the invasion in 03... But the media has chosen to selectively report that "Saddam never had WMDs" when in truth, Saddam had the machinery (at least) to make WMDs, and they were trucked out before the war. Much of America has bought it hook, line and sinker.

BTW if the stuff is so heavily redacted how do you know it was US companies that are under the ink? I have a sneaking suspicion that the US has gone out of its way to prevent a lot of damning evidence against countries we try to refer to as "Friendly" that helped Iraq with weapons and such. It is a hunch but with real evidence that France, Russia and Germany all had advisors and products in Iraq helping Saddam out... Well that would put a kink in international relations, now wouldn't it?



My opinion on it has nothing to do with the media. been saying it since Bush first mentioned Iraqs WMDs and started pushing the doom doom doom soon soon soon., I called BS then and at this point it's been shown to be exactly that.

as to the redacted portions, we won't know. they refuse to release it and I can see why.
so IYO we're protecting those from being named we bought off( our friends, some friends huh?), but those we couldn't buy off get front page coverage? pretty fucked up IMHO either they're guilty or not, funny how it is picked over to only name those we have a problem with at this moment (them fukin french, the damn germans,etc) not a full list of all the guilty parties. Why not?what do they have to hide if the war was on the up and up?

that coalition of the willing gets thinner and thinner by the moment. more like protection of those who accepted our payoffs.



Chris





I don't follow. As Bush was doing what you call "Doom doom doom soon soon soon", the Iraqis were busily packing up their WMD machines (note I am not talking the WMDs themselves. I believe they had them but I have no proof of it) and sending them off to Syria, or who-knows-where.again, no proof there either. There is no disconnect there. CNN even reported it!!! I guess there is a disconnect if you do in fact buy in to the general media perception (and esp. liberal perception) that since we went in and haven't found anything that Iraq was ALWAYS WMD free- which is a very unfortunate trap to fall into.unlike claiming "we know where they are"<< George Bush It's like going into an empty house and saying "There was never furniture here" just because there isn't any when you walk in to it.
Were I to claim there was furniture there and know exactly where it was then it not be there I'd be a __________?

The rest, meh. I don't have the time today to get into reasons for the war any further and the oil thing. I admit I don't have my facts in order on that one because my understanding of it is that the UN was mostly involved with it. Proving my disdain for the UN.



just remember the same kind of thieves and liars they have in the UN , are working in the nations capital for the president. they're no different
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 9:21:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By virginia22:

Originally Posted By WildBoar:

Originally Posted By virginia22:


for the record, since GB started his WMD in Iraq scare tactics I've said . they'll find nothing and this is wagging the dog to push for profits without questions from "we the people".
WW lo and behold.nothing was found and lots of the "friends" of the pres get $$billions$$
hurray!

what did we the people get? oh yeah, just then bills to pay off on our kids backs.



can we get Bush on the stand under oath and see how he fairs? I sure would like to see it.

be one of the first times we might actually get "the truth" out of him, not "the truth" wink wink nudge nudge.
Chris



You Left Wing whack jobs are something else. You forget most of the Dimocrats idiots that you love so well are instigators in this as well. All or most of them agreed Saddam had WMD.I never did, even for a second. They cried like chicken little to W about it and he took action. Almost looks like a making for a Left wing conspiracy. "Heh, lets freak out W into thinking there are WMD and their use is immentn. Lets vote for him to use force and then the moment he does. We back pedal in good old Democrat fashion to the brainless will eat it up and use it against him"



seems you give he left quite a bit of credit unlike most right wing fanatical mulahs you coagulate with.

do you honestly believe the dems that smart?

were I one of these follow the party line no matter what types such as yourself, I may actually be convinced. problem is, I'm not. I don't believe a word either of them say.

Chris



chris



Well I agree that for an independent I agree with much of the Repubs policies. What gets me is that those who are against some of the policies or actions of The Repubs of W himself forget that they are describing problems not unique to them. Its always Bush fault or its the evil Republican party fault. Seems to be a common thing.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 9:24:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2005 9:26:56 AM EDT by Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted By virginia22:

Originally Posted By WildBoar:
You forget most of the Dimocrats idiots that you love so well are instigators in this as well. All or most of them agreed Saddam had WMD.

I never did, even for a second. .

How convenient.

So you knew all along that Saddam had no weapons.
Even when the democrats, the UN, the intel services of dozens of nations thought there were...


...you knew that they did not.

Even in 1998, when Clinton, Kerry, etc. ALL were convinced that Saddam had these weapons...

...you knew that he did not.


Pardon me, but I don't believe you.
I don't think that you held such an opinion at that time.
I think that you are simply saying so NOW, to make yourself feel smart.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 9:26:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2005 9:26:50 AM EDT by Cincinnatus]
.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 9:28:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
How convenient.

So you knew all along that Saddam had no weapons.
Even when the democrats, the UN, the intel services of dozens of nations thought there were...


...you knew that they did not.

Even in 1998, when Clinton, Kerry, etc. ALL were convinced that Saddam had these weapons...

...you knew that he did not.


Pardon me, but I don't believe you.
I don't think that you held such an opinion at that time.
I think that you are simply saying so NOW, to make yourself feel smart.



My knowing was my opinion from day one Cin, believe it or not, doesn't really matter to me.

you think I really care about impressing anyone or jumping on the coattails/bandwagon? you'd be 100% wrong.


Chris
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 9:30:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By virginia22:

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By virginia22:

Originally Posted By macman37:
Chris, just a note... Don't let the media's "there aren't any there now so there never were any" remarks color your thinking.

They had at VERY LEAST, the machines necessary to make WMDs and were actively seeking a nuclear program (or at least a nuke). This is documented yet strangely ignored. Some (like the machines) he even had up to and after the invasion in 03... But the media has chosen to selectively report that "Saddam never had WMDs" when in truth, Saddam had the machinery (at least) to make WMDs, and they were trucked out before the war. Much of America has bought it hook, line and sinker.

BTW if the stuff is so heavily redacted how do you know it was US companies that are under the ink? I have a sneaking suspicion that the US has gone out of its way to prevent a lot of damning evidence against countries we try to refer to as "Friendly" that helped Iraq with weapons and such. It is a hunch but with real evidence that France, Russia and Germany all had advisors and products in Iraq helping Saddam out... Well that would put a kink in international relations, now wouldn't it?



My opinion on it has nothing to do with the media. been saying it since Bush first mentioned Iraqs WMDs and started pushing the doom doom doom soon soon soon., I called BS then and at this point it's been shown to be exactly that.

as to the redacted portions, we won't know. they refuse to release it and I can see why.
so IYO we're protecting those from being named we bought off( our friends, some friends huh?), but those we couldn't buy off get front page coverage? pretty fucked up IMHO either they're guilty or not, funny how it is picked over to only name those we have a problem with at this moment (them fukin french, the damn germans,etc) not a full list of all the guilty parties. Why not?what do they have to hide if the war was on the up and up?

that coalition of the willing gets thinner and thinner by the moment. more like protection of those who accepted our payoffs.



Chris





I don't follow. As Bush was doing what you call "Doom doom doom soon soon soon", the Iraqis were busily packing up their WMD machines (note I am not talking the WMDs themselves. I believe they had them but I have no proof of it) and sending them off to Syria, or who-knows-where.again, no proof there either. There is no disconnect there. CNN even reported it!!! I guess there is a disconnect if you do in fact buy in to the general media perception (and esp. liberal perception) that since we went in and haven't found anything that Iraq was ALWAYS WMD free- which is a very unfortunate trap to fall into.unlike claiming "we know where they are"<< George Bush It's like going into an empty house and saying "There was never furniture here" just because there isn't any when you walk in to it.
Were I to claim there was furniture there and know exactly where it was then it not be there I'd be a __________?

The rest, meh. I don't have the time today to get into reasons for the war any further and the oil thing. I admit I don't have my facts in order on that one because my understanding of it is that the UN was mostly involved with it. Proving my disdain for the UN.



just remember the same kind of thieves and liars they have in the UN , are working in the nations capital for the president. they're no different



OK we'll do the semantic thing.

1: There IS proof the WMD stuff was moved- again the media reported it but then didn't "pump" it. Some of the machinery went to Belgium. There IS proof of this.

2: I recall Bush saying something along those lines... Of course he wasn't reporting specifics. He might have meant "we know they're in Iraq"- then, of course, when they got moved out... they weren't there.

3: If you went into a house that had obviously been lived in, saw the outlines on the carpet from where the couch was and the pictures on the wall were, and THEN said "There was never furniture here" like you and the liberals are doing... There's a problem with that. The stuff was there. The machinery was there. I personally believe that Saddam had WMDs but moved them out (hmm, if the oil-for-food thing went on, do you think that he might have received a little counseling from the UN? They're corrupt enough to do it. Again, speculation on my part) to alter public perceptions of him. Here's the deal V22: Even if Saddam didn't have any WMDs - which I am convinced that he did- Iraq wasn't all roses and chocolates and kittens and puppies before we went in there. Saddam was the Butcher of Baghdad. Rape camps and all that. Never forget that.

4: The US doesn't have the market cornered on crooks, I freely admit that. However, for you to just assume that the redacted portions are all US companies??? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 9:33:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2005 9:39:15 AM EDT by Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted By virginia22:

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
How convenient.

So you knew all along that Saddam had no weapons.
Even when the democrats, the UN, the intel services of dozens of nations thought there were...


...you knew that they did not.

Even in 1998, when Clinton, Kerry, etc. ALL were convinced that Saddam had these weapons...

...you knew that he did not.


Pardon me, but I don't believe you.
I don't think that you held such an opinion at that time.
I think that you are simply saying so NOW, to make yourself feel smart.



My knowing was my opinion from day one Cin, believe it or not, doesn't really matter to me.

you think I really care about impressing anyone or jumping on the coattails/bandwagon? you'd be 100% wrong.


Chris



In 1998, what did you base this opinion on?

Were you a member of a super-secret international intelligence gathering team?

Did your super-sources have proof that the WMD destroyed by Clinton during the 1998 raids did not actually exist?

Was/is Clinton lying about his BDA of having destroyed WMD?

The logical conclusion is therefore this:

For your contention to be true, we must assume that during the 1990's, the UN inspectors destroyed ALL, yes ALL of the WMD that Saddam had (the DID find alot, and destroy alot).
You have to believe then, that they FOUND and DESTROYED it ALL.

You have to believe that when they left in 1998, they had found it all.
Even though they thought there was more.

Link Posted: 1/12/2005 9:38:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By virginia22:

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By virginia22:

Originally Posted By macman37:
Chris, just a note... Don't let the media's "there aren't any there now so there never were any" remarks color your thinking.

They had at VERY LEAST, the machines necessary to make WMDs and were actively seeking a nuclear program (or at least a nuke). This is documented yet strangely ignored. Some (like the machines) he even had up to and after the invasion in 03... But the media has chosen to selectively report that "Saddam never had WMDs" when in truth, Saddam had the machinery (at least) to make WMDs, and they were trucked out before the war. Much of America has bought it hook, line and sinker.

BTW if the stuff is so heavily redacted how do you know it was US companies that are under the ink? I have a sneaking suspicion that the US has gone out of its way to prevent a lot of damning evidence against countries we try to refer to as "Friendly" that helped Iraq with weapons and such. It is a hunch but with real evidence that France, Russia and Germany all had advisors and products in Iraq helping Saddam out... Well that would put a kink in international relations, now wouldn't it?



My opinion on it has nothing to do with the media. been saying it since Bush first mentioned Iraqs WMDs and started pushing the doom doom doom soon soon soon., I called BS then and at this point it's been shown to be exactly that.

as to the redacted portions, we won't know. they refuse to release it and I can see why.
so IYO we're protecting those from being named we bought off( our friends, some friends huh?), but those we couldn't buy off get front page coverage? pretty fucked up IMHO either they're guilty or not, funny how it is picked over to only name those we have a problem with at this moment (them fukin french, the damn germans,etc) not a full list of all the guilty parties. Why not?what do they have to hide if the war was on the up and up?

that coalition of the willing gets thinner and thinner by the moment. more like protection of those who accepted our payoffs.



Chris





I don't follow. As Bush was doing what you call "Doom doom doom soon soon soon", the Iraqis were busily packing up their WMD machines (note I am not talking the WMDs themselves. I believe they had them but I have no proof of it) and sending them off to Syria, or who-knows-where.again, no proof there either. There is no disconnect there. CNN even reported it!!! I guess there is a disconnect if you do in fact buy in to the general media perception (and esp. liberal perception) that since we went in and haven't found anything that Iraq was ALWAYS WMD free- which is a very unfortunate trap to fall into.unlike claiming "we know where they are"<< George Bush It's like going into an empty house and saying "There was never furniture here" just because there isn't any when you walk in to it.
Were I to claim there was furniture there and know exactly where it was then it not be there I'd be a __________?

The rest, meh. I don't have the time today to get into reasons for the war any further and the oil thing. I admit I don't have my facts in order on that one because my understanding of it is that the UN was mostly involved with it. Proving my disdain for the UN.



just remember the same kind of thieves and liars they have in the UN , are working in the nations capital for the president. they're no different



OK we'll do the semantic thing.

1: There IS proof the WMD stuff was moved- again the media reported it but then didn't "pump" it. Some of the machinery went to Belgium. There IS proof of this.


1) OK, there's proof? Show me.


2: I recall Bush saying something along those lines... Of course he wasn't reporting specifics. He might have meant "we know they're in Iraq"- then, of course, when they got moved out... they weren't there.

2) we know saddam has weapons of mass destruction, we know where they are" might have meant my ass.

3: If you went into a house that had obviously been lived in, saw the outlines on the carpet from where the couch was and the pictures on the wall were, and THEN said "There was never furniture here" like you and the liberals are doing... There's a problem with that. The stuff was there. The machinery was there. I personally believe that Saddam had WMDs but moved them out (hmm, if the oil-for-food thing went on, do you think that he might have received a little counseling from the UN? They're corrupt enough to do it. Again, speculation on my part) to alter public perceptions of him. Here's the deal V22: Even if Saddam didn't have any WMDs - which I am convinced that he did- Iraq wasn't all roses and chocolates and kittens and puppies before we went in there. Saddam was the Butcher of Baghdad. Rape camps and all that. Never forget that.

3) ahhhh, of course us "saving" the people of iraq was what, the 3rd or 4th reason when the others didn't pan out? NO SALE


4: The US doesn't have the market cornered on crooks, I freely admit that. However, for you to just assume that the redacted portions are all US companies??? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

4) who else would we protect in such a way? let's see all the connections if they are/aren't there. let's get rid of the redactions and see for ourselves. of course that will NEVER happen. it would destroy the anti Un sentiment of them being the only corrupt agency and point the finger right at our own IMHO.

Link Posted: 1/12/2005 9:57:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:

Originally Posted By virginia22:

Originally Posted By WildBoar:
You forget most of the Dimocrats idiots that you love so well are instigators in this as well. All or most of them agreed Saddam had WMD.

I never did, even for a second. .

How convenient.

So you knew all along that Saddam had no weapons.
Even when the democrats, the UN, the intel services of dozens of nations thought there were...


...you knew that they did not.

Even in 1998, when Clinton, Kerry, etc. ALL were convinced that Saddam had these weapons...

...you knew that he did not.


Pardon me, but I don't believe you.
I don't think that you held such an opinion at that time.
I think that you are simply saying so NOW, to make yourself feel smart.



Two words.
Scott Ritter
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 10:01:01 AM EDT
Isn't Scott Ritter the man who said in 1998, when leaving Iraq, that Saddam still had WMD?

Didn't he take money from Saddam, to make a documentary saying that Saddam had no weapons?
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 10:03:04 AM EDT
My duty is not to educate you, V22. You should look at information that challenges your assumptions.

Here are some links.

One

Two

I think this will do it for my participation in this thread. I'm at work after all.
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 10:06:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2005 10:15:53 AM EDT by virginia22]

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Isn't Scott Ritter the man who said in 1998, when leaving Iraq, that Saddam still had WMD?

wasn't this during the same time he was getting indicted for nailing little kids too?

Didn't he take money from Saddam, to make a documentary saying that Saddam had no weapons?dunno, got any proof of that?

Link Posted: 1/12/2005 10:06:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2005 10:09:39 AM EDT by cyanide]

Originally Posted By osprey21:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
IBFCITYS

In Before Cyanide's -------------- "I Told You So"


Does anyone---- besides him give a shit about what he says--------

Just another thing I was proved right on
I told you guys


Need some more thinkers and less followers around here !
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 10:15:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2005 10:16:50 AM EDT by virginia22]

Originally Posted By macman37:
My duty is not to educate you, V22. You should look at information that challenges your assumptions.

Here are some links.

One

probably not a good idea to trust the word of someone on the payroll and with opportunity to make money from a favorable report.

Two

He has served on several national
commissions,
most recently the Rumsfeld Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, and is currently a member of the Defense Policy Board and the board of directors of the Academy of Political Science. yeah, the fox watching the chickens.

I think this will do it for my participation in this thread. I'm at work after all.



Ya bastard stealing company time
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 10:16:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cyanide:

Originally Posted By osprey21:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
IBFCITYS

In Before Cyanide's -------------- "I Told You So"


Does anyone---- besides him give a shit about what he says--------

Just another thing I was proved right on
I told you guys


Need some more thinkers and less followers around here !



for some, it's easier to just go limp.

Chris
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 10:20:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By virginia22:

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Isn't Scott Ritter the man who said in 1998, when leaving Iraq, that Saddam still had WMD?

wasn't this during the same time he was getting indicted for nailing little kids too?

Didn't he take money from Saddam, to make a documentary saying that Saddam had no weapons?dunno, got any proof of that?


He said so himself.

Where were you in 2003?

Here's a huge list of sources that tell of his documentary:

www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22scott+ritter%22+documentary+iraqi+funded&btnG=Search

Didn't your super-secret intel group know of this?
I thought they knew ALL about Iraq
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 10:26:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:

Originally Posted By virginia22:

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Isn't Scott Ritter the man who said in 1998, when leaving Iraq, that Saddam still had WMD?

wasn't this during the same time he was getting indicted for nailing little kids too?

Didn't he take money from Saddam, to make a documentary saying that Saddam had no weapons?dunno, got any proof of that?


He said so himself.

Where were you in 2003?

Here's a huge list of sources that tell of his documentary:

www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22scott+ritter%22+documentary+iraqi+funded&btnG=Search

Didn't your super-secret intel group know of this?
I thought they knew ALL about Iraq



show where I claimed to know ALL about Iraq?

I'll wait.

last I heard of scott ritter he was fighting charges of nailing kids , didn't hear about him after that.

gleaning through your links none of them seem very reputible. one even claims "fair and balanced accuracy in reporting" as does fox, but it isn't so either.
I'll look around some more later on and get a real impression, but first look it doesn't look good.
Chris
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 10:30:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cyanide:

Originally Posted By osprey21:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
IBFCITYS

In Before Cyanide's -------------- "I Told You So"


Does anyone---- besides him give a shit about what he says--------

Just another thing I was proved right on
I told you guys


Need some more thinkers and less followers around here !



There he is...

I knew if there was a topic that was remotely anti-Bush, cyanide would show up eventually...
Link Posted: 1/12/2005 11:23:09 AM EDT
Where is the ETH ----- I still hear his words ringing in my ears --

"just wait fellows , they will find them"

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Top Top