Yes, Virginia, There Are No Wmds...

Printable View

06-20-2003, 09:30 PM
angellynn26

Quote:

Originally posted by Infested Cats@13 June 2003 - 06:33
The underlying buzz for the past week seems to be drawing a bead on the Bush administration for misleading us as to the existence of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Not that this is a huge surprise to me. Many have been saying all along that the WMDs were all hype. But now everyone seems to be getting in on the act.

Let's face it. George W. is a lying sack of shit. Clinton may have been impeached by the House of Representatives for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice, but Dubya seems pretty determined to go down the way Nixon did for Abuse of Power. Lying about getting a blowjob from someone who's not your wife is chump change compared to lying to an entire nation (and the world) in order to start a war.

IC -

I can totally agree with what you are saying, as I've said the same many, many times myself.

I believe some people have issues with accepting Bush's crimes as fact because they have to justify why they voted for him and have supported him through his BS term in office. They cannot afford to lose face now, so they simply hide behind 9/11 as their reasoning for undying support of a criminal.
06-20-2003, 09:44 PM
Rat Faced

Quote:

Originally posted by j2k4+16 June 2003 - 01:10--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 16 June 2003 - 01:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

Originally posted by myfiles3000@15 June 2003 - 18:11
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4

Quote:

@15 June 2003 - 20:36
The coalition that arose from the U.N.'s indecisiveness was indeed constituted as you claim, but before that, I feel it is safe to say that 1441 was unanimously agreed to by the entire Security Council in form, content, and definition.

the unanimity was based on SH's violation of law. Not military action. with respect, you're not doing yourself many favours by citing the 'coalition' -- its formation was not America's finest hour. by a long shot.

I'm not sure I get your meaning, myfiles-

1) The resolution was a document born of unanimity, the signatories all being members of the U.N. Security Council.

2) The resolution provided for the use of force (undefined?) if it's dictates were violated/ignored by Saddam and Iraq.

What does "the unanimity was based on SH's violation of the law" mean? That countries sponsoring the resolution could opt out if Saddam violated the treaty? That continued violation of the treaty would result in.....more "forceful" sanctions?

Something else:

Having signed the resolution, each member of the Council firmly stated it's certainty Saddam had WMD; this cannot be avoided via the clever (or clumsy) use of semantics. It would seem, in light of this FACT, the U.S. should bear no burden of proof where WMD are concerned, as their existence was a foregone conclusion per 1441. The fact of the U.S.'s "unilateral" action cannot logically be used to resurrect the question of whether or not Saddam had WMD; in fact, the U.N. leaves itself open to charges of dereliction as to the timely and effective removal of WMD from Iraq; the time lag resulting from it's lackadaisical treatment of 1441 gave Saddam all the time he needed to hide/secrete his goodies.

But, hey, we'll keep looking, y'know?

Of course, the delay did have the benefit of affording France the opportunity to rehabilitate it's tarnished dignity by bullying Camaroon, so it wasn't a total wash.... [/b][/quote]
Nowhere in resolution 1441 was the use of the words "military action", because that is the only way it could be passed at all.

The US and the UK are the ONLY countries, on the Permanent Security Council, to interpret it as a use of military action.

As 3 out of the 5 permanent members and most of the none permanent members refused to agree to force, then that cannot be quoted as "Intent", as it was not the intent of any BUT the US/UK.
07-03-2003, 01:44 PM
echidna
i just had to share this gag B)
1. Go to google
 [i've tyred, http://www.google.com.sg/ and http://www.google.com.au/]
1. Type in: :nuke: weapons of mass destruction :nuke:
 [without the :nuke: 's]
2. Then press the "I'm feeling lucky" button and read very carefully...
 [really, read the page & remember to hit "I'm feeling lucky" button]


i hope you are suitably amused :lol:

(how many other googles go here [no clicking here first and cheating, 'cause it's heaps better getting there through google as outlined above])
07-03-2003, 08:58 PM
Rat Faced
Quote:
Originally posted by echidna@3 July 2003 - 13:44
i just had to share this gag B)

Go to google
[i've tyred, http://www.google.com.sg/ and http://www.google.com.au/]

Type in: :nuke: weapons of mass destruction :nuke:
[without the :nuke: 's]

Then press the "I'm feeling lucky" button and read very carefully...
[really, read the page & remember to hit "I'm feeling lucky" button]


i hope you are suitably amused :lol:

(how many other googles go here [no clicking here first and cheating, 'cause it's heaps better getting there through google as outlined above])
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I am suitably amused. ;)
07-03-2003, 11:56 PM
MagicNakor

Indeed. ;)

:ninja:
07-04-2003, 12:41 PM
j2k4

Quote:

Originally posted by Rat Faced@20 June 2003 - 16:44
Nowhere in resolution 1441 was the use of the words "military action", because that is the only way it could be passed at all.

The US and the UK are the ONLY countries, on the Permanent Security Council, to interpret it as a use of military action.

As 3 out of the 5 permanent members and most of the none permanent members refused to agree to force, then that cannot be quoted as "Intent", as it was not the intent of any BUT the US/UK.

This bump comes only in aid of clarity, which has become my new favorite fetish on the board:

The coalition, constituted as it was, did not claim 1441 dictated a military option; they did, however, use the lack of a forceful U.N. alternative as a justification for the invasion.

That is to say, the prevailing credo of the invading forces did not include the phrase "We come in the name of the United Nations under the authority vested in us by Resolution 1441 and all the members of the U.N. Security Council."

I do not claim auspices extended beyond the U.S. and U.K. governments.

No U.N. sanction was expressed or intended.

I hope this will suffice to clarify my earlier posting.