PDA

View Full Version : Look what I found.



Everose
10-09-2004, 12:33 AM
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

:shifty:

BigBank_Hank
10-09-2004, 12:35 AM
Iím glad thatís you and not me posting an article like that.

vidcc
10-09-2004, 12:49 AM
i don't think bush did lie. i believe he was totally convinced without a doubt about Iraq way before he was president.... but i do think he has done much to cover the truth as it has been revealed

ahctlucabbuS
10-09-2004, 12:50 AM
Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...


So how does quoting some prominent democrats prove the Bush administration didn't lie about WMD? :rolleyes:

Everose
10-09-2004, 12:53 AM
Well, I don't know, Vid. After reading these quotes, I don't think he is the only one good at covering up the truth, do you? ;)

Busyman
10-09-2004, 12:54 AM
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

:shifty:
Excellent site. ;)

It's amazing that they all (along with Bush) have been proven wrong.

It seems the sanctions were working but seemed to be weakening.

Ultimately strengthening the sanctions were the best route not war.

Everose
10-09-2004, 01:05 AM
Excellent site. ;)

It's amazing that they all (along with Bush) have been proven wrong.

It seems the sanctions were working but seemed to be weakening.

Ultimately strengthening the sanctions were the best route not war.

If we are examing issues, it is best to get a wide variety of viewpoints, don't you think, Busyman? ;)

I do not condone the war. There has got to be a better way. On the other hand, how long do you go with sanctions that were working, but weakening?

Lots of things to think about.

Everose
10-09-2004, 01:08 AM
So how does quoting some prominent democrats prove the Bush administration didn't lie about WMD? :rolleyes:



I am not even going to try to defend Bush here. But if he is to be thrown in the wastebasket, it sure looks to me like he ought to have a lot of company. ;)

Busyman
10-09-2004, 01:35 AM
If we are examing issues, it is best to get a wide variety of viewpoints, don't you think, Busyman? ;)

I do not condone the war. There has got to be a better way. On the other hand, how long do you go with sanctions that were working, but weakening?

Lots of things to think about.

Not really.

If the sanctions were working all this time and...(and they were)

we just recognized they were weakening then...

change the approach to the sanctions. :blink:

Sanctions began in '91 (I think). It's now 2004. Where was the missile strike from Iraq all this time?

If sanctions weaken on every country that is ..uh..sanctioned, do we then invade their country in a prolonged war?

btw What was your first question for? :huh:
Other viewpoints are nothing new on this forum but either way thanks for the site.

hobbes
10-09-2004, 01:44 AM
Not really.

If the sanctions were working all this time and...(and they were)

we just recognized they were weakening then...

change the approach to the sanctions. :blink:

Sanctions began in '91 (I think). It's now 2004. Where was the missile strike from Iraq all this time?

If sanctions weaken on every country that is ..uh..sanctioned, do we then invade their country in a prolonged war?

btw What was your first question for? :huh:

Saddam killed his own citizens as he pleased.

The sanctions only took resources from the Shia and common Iraqi citizens. These resources were focused on supporting Saddam's Sunni friends and his military.

As Rat pointed out, Iraqi's were dying left and right (100's of thousands) due to a lack of effort from Saddam to provide for his people, in combination with sanctions.

The war SAVED Iraqi lives.

I'm a bit baffled as to how Saddam, who was building palaces the entire time, was at all interested in these silly sanctions. They didn't effect him one iota.

The sanctions were imposed to induce revolution, it didn't work and wasn't going to.

Bottom line, we wanted him out, he is out.

As for missile strikes, China has never bombed us. Am I to assume they cannot? 9/11 taught us that a stitch in time saves nine. Saddam was a pretty easy stitch. China, that is another matter, but if we could disarm them, we damn sure would.

spinningfreemanny
10-09-2004, 02:28 AM
Saddam killed his own citizens as he pleased.

The sanctions only took resources from the Shia and common Iraqi citizens. These resources were focused on supporting Saddam's Sunni friends and his military.

As Rat pointed out, Iraqi's were dying left and right (100's of thousands) due to a lack of effort from Saddam to provide for his people, in combination with sanctions.

The war SAVED Iraqi lives.

I'm a bit baffled as to how Saddam, who was building palaces the entire time, was at all interested in these silly sanctions. They didn't effect him one iota.

The sanctions were imposed to induce revolution, it didn't work and wasn't going to.

Bottom line, we wanted him out, he is out.

As for missile strikes, China has never bombed us. Am I to assume they cannot? 9/11 taught us that a stitch in time saves nine. Saddam was a pretty easy stitch. China, that is another matter, but if we could disarm them, we damn sure would.

Well said

j2k4
10-09-2004, 03:24 AM
Edit: reposted

j2k4
10-09-2004, 03:48 AM
Excellent site. ;)

It seems the sanctions were working but seemed to be weakening.

Ultimately strengthening the sanctions were the best route not war.

If you are at all curious as to why the sanctions were "weakening", you need look no further than France and it's involvement in the "Oil-for-Food" scam.

Check it out:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1291280_1,00.html

"Strengthening" sanctions would not have worked; remember, you're talking about the U.N., the virtue/value/utility of which I have not heard adequately justified in the nearly two years I have been haunting the lot of you.

I suspect I propose the impossible task. ;)

Edit: A relevent addenda to my post; an excerpt from Oliver North's colunm of 9/24:

In March 2003, prior to the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I reported from Kuwait that "senior U.S. military officials were concerned that Saddam Hussein was using cash from the U.N. Oil for Food program to buy votes in the Security Council." The New York Times immediately trashed the charge -- and anonymous sources at the United Nations claimed the allegation was "preposterous" and "unfounded."

But we now know better. Since then, we have learned that cash from the Oil for Food program -- administered directly from Annan's office by one of his most trusted aides, Benon V. Sevan, was used by Saddam for everything but food. The Iraqi dictator used the U.N. provided funds to buy weapons, finance terror and enrich officials in the Communist Party of Slovakia, the Palestinian Liberation Organization and political figures in France, Libya, Syria, Indonesia and Russia. Despite the presence of U.N. administrators in Baghdad and "auditors" at the U.N. headquarters in New York, Saddam was able to offer "coupons" worth millions of barrels of Iraqi crude oil to "friendly officials," who were allowed to sell them on the market and pocket huge profits.

Busyman
10-09-2004, 04:02 AM
Saddam killed his own citizens as he pleased.

The sanctions only took resources from the Shia and common Iraqi citizens. These resources were focused on supporting Saddam's Sunni friends and his military.

As Rat pointed out, Iraqi's were dying left and right (100's of thousands) due to a lack of effort from Saddam to provide for his people, in combination with sanctions.

The war SAVED Iraqi lives.

I'm a bit baffled as to how Saddam, who was building palaces the entire time, was at all interested in these silly sanctions. They didn't effect him one iota.

The sanctions were imposed to induce revolution, it didn't work and wasn't going to.

Bottom line, we wanted him out, he is out.

As for missile strikes, China has never bombed us. Am I to assume they cannot? 9/11 taught us that a stitch in time saves nine. Saddam was a pretty easy stitch. China, that is another matter, but if we could disarm them, we damn sure would.
Ahh but the original point of this war was WMD's which were never found. I don't know what you are on about with China.
It seems something happened since his WMD "program" never got back off the ground whatever his intentions may have been.

As far as the war saving Iraqi lives, I can't even say that either.

Iraqi's are dying left and right still.

maskawaih
10-09-2004, 04:05 AM
Ahh but the original point of this war was WMD's which were never found. I don't know what you are on about with China.
It seems something happened since his WMD "program" never got back off the ground whatever his intentions may have been.

As far as the war saving Iraqi lives, I can't even say that either.

Iraqi's are dying left and right still.
I agree. I think racists wars are a lot more violent than before.

Busyman
10-09-2004, 04:12 AM
If you are at all curious as to why the sanctions were "weakening", you need look no further than France and it's involvement in the "Oil-for-Food" scam.

"Strengthening" sanctions would not have worked; remember, you're talking about the U.N., the virtue/value/utility of which I have not heard adequately justified in the nearly two years I have been haunting the lot of you.

I suspect I propose the impossible task. ;)
I already why the sanctions were weakening. It doesn't justify war.

It seems Saddam intention was to revive his WMD program.

Intention doesn't equal capability.

Bush tries really hard to change rationales for the war in hindsight.

I've heard

Al Qaeda
he's a bad man
we had to stop him from giving terrorists WMD's
he coulda, actually scratch that, he woulda :lol: :lol:

Only one of those is true. :dry:

maskawaih
10-09-2004, 04:16 AM
I already why the sanctions were weakening. It doesn't justify war.

It seems Saddam intention was to revive his WMD program.

Intention doesn't equal capability.

Bush tries really hard to change rationales for the war in hindsight.

I've heard

Al Qaeda
he's a bad man
we had to stop him from giving terrorists WMD's
he coulda, actually scratch that, he woulda :lol: :lol:

Only one of those is true. :dry:
:blink: Al-Qaeda is a man?

hobbes
10-09-2004, 04:20 AM
Ahh but the original point of this war was WMD's which were never found. I don't know what you are on about with China.
It seems something happened since his WMD "program" never got back off the ground whatever his intentions may have been.

As far as the war saving Iraqi lives, I can't even say that either.

Iraqi's are dying left and right still.

Are you joking? Iraqi's dying is a pittance . Nickel and dime stuff.

You made no mention of how the sanctions were working, which is the total point.

As for missiles, did you not ask where the missile strike were?

My point was, does one need an actual missile explosion from China to believe they have nuclear weapons? No.

Just as Democrats and Republicans alike thought he had them.

Even so, the US wanted him out of power as he was nothing but a thorn in our sides, with heir apparents in the wing. He is gone, they are dead.

WMD or not, the world is happy to see the back side of Saddam. He would have certainly made nuclear weapons if he could, that point is not in contention.

Intention is far more important than ability. It means that if you let your guard down, he will bite your ass. Not really just him, but his sons. How long do you let Iraqi's die and suffer under their own ruler, before you step to the plate and crush him?

Busyman
10-09-2004, 04:34 AM
Are you joking? Iraqi's dying is a pittance . Nickel and dime stuff.

You made no mention of how the sanctions were working, which is the total point.

As for missiles, did you not ask where the missile strike were?

My point was, does one need an actual missile explosion from China to believe they have nuclear weapons? No.

Just as Democrats and Republicans alike thought he had them.

Even so, the US wanted him out of power as he was nothing but a thorn in our sides, with heir apparents in the wing. He is gone, they are dead.

WMD or not, the world is happy to see the back side of Saddam. He would have certainly made nuclear weapons if he could, that point is not in contention.

Intention is far more important than ability. It means that if you let your guard down, he will bite your ass. Not really just him, but his sons. How long do you let Iraqi's die and suffer under their own ruler, before you step to the plate and crush him?
Ok then, next up

Iran

next up

North Korea

next up

Syria

next up

Palestine
---------------------
The point is intention is bullshit without ability.
The point is he didn't have ability.
The point is....how many folks out there have bad intentions against the U.S.
Shit when we first bombed Iraq he didn't have bad intentions against us.

What will we do next...invade every country that uses harsh language against the U.S.? :lol: :lol: :lol:

hobbes
10-09-2004, 04:37 AM
Ok then, next up

Iran

next up

North Korea

next up

Syria

next up

Palestine
---------------------
The point is intention is bullshit without ability.
The point is he didn't have ability.
The point is....how many folks out there have bad intentions against the U.S.
Shit when we first bombed Iraq he didn't have bad intentions against us.

What will we do next...invade every country that uses harsh language against the U.S.? :lol: :lol: :lol:

How were the sanctions working, again?

Also, I talked about why Saddam was targeted and not China, read the thread.

The last part isn't even coherent. How do you know he didn't have the ability. I missed your post before the war started.

When we first bombed Iraq? SAddam was anti-US before the first bomb dropped in Gulf War 1. WTF are you talking about?

Answer the question, don't change the subject.

Your posts seem more about being anti-Bush than proving how toughening sanctions was the right direction to take.

j2k4
10-09-2004, 04:44 AM
Ok then, next up

Iran

next up

North Korea

next up

Syria

next up

Palestine
---------------------
The point is intention is bullshit without ability.
The point is he didn't have ability.
The point is....how many folks out there have bad intentions against the U.S.
Shit when we first bombed Iraq he didn't have bad intentions against us.

What will we do next...invade every country that uses harsh language against the U.S.? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ironically, had we not lost the last month's posting, I could refer you to the precise reasonings (by yours truly) as to why Iraq was our first (and hopefully only) target, relative to the "Axis-of-Evil"; I will endeavor (I hope) to make time tomorrow to recreate them, just for you, B. ;)

Busyman
10-09-2004, 04:50 AM
Ironically, had we not lost the last month's posting, I could refer you to the precise reasonings (by yours truly) as to why Iraq was our first (and hopefully only) target, relative to the "Axis-of-Evil"; I will endeavor (I hope) to make time tomorrow to recreate them, just for you, B. ;)
I read it before. Thanks.