So is the Truth Finally Out on WMDs? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-03-2003, 11:44 AM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:13 AM
Good post, pub. I happen to agree with just about everything you said. Like I said I did *not* like that pro-war rally at Ground Zero. I felt like that desecrated the place. I wish they would keep the damn politics away from Ground Zero. It belongs to all of us. I don't like terrorists any more than the next person. I don't like Saddam, either. Some people claimed that people opposed to the war were pro-terrorist. I found this insulting. It's not true.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 12:15 PM   #17
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 633
Local Time: 12:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler


I take issue with the President almost solely because of the spurious campaign -- the so-called "case" -- he made to go to war with Iraq. He deceitfully implicated Iraq in the events of September 11, a connection he will never be able to prove. But he doesn't need to prove it. He made the connection and it became truth.
Didn't an Iraqi agent meet with Mohamad Atta in Prague? Didn't we find a terrorist training camp in Iraq?

Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler
Furthermore, his "case" to go to war with Iraq was almost entirely based on the presumption that Iraq was producing and maintaining an arsenal of WMD's, and that Iraq posed an IMMINENT threat to the free world...
As Powell pointed out, it only takes a very small vial sized amount of Anthrax to kill thousands. In Saddam, we're talking about a mad murder (you can't argue against that) who has used WMD on his own people possibly hiding Anthrax in someone's cupboard somewhere. Are you going to bet thousands of innocent lives that Saddam won't somehow get those chemicals to America or some other 'enemy' country? I would rather error on the side of action.

Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler
At this point, they decided it was about saving the poor, oppressed, tortured Iraqi people.
That was always one of the reasons for the war.

Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler
After the events of 9/11, President Bush's administration set up the Office of Homeland Security, which served well in inducing fear in Americans with the ridiculous Orange and Red Alerts and so forth...
Ridiculous? There have been no major terror attacks in the US since this system has been implemented. We're in uncharted waters here. We have a group of rag-tag clan members attacking a superpower, and doing a good job of it. If a clunky color-coded system encourages people to be a little more aware and mayors to put more cops at bridges and tunnels, then I'm all for it.

Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler
...which in turn meant more support for President Bush and his advisors going to war with Iraq, the nation he deceitfully implicated as being connected to the events of 9/11. ...
Please.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pub crawler
[B]...call the implication "deceitful" because it is impossible to prove, short of one of the 19 terrorist hijacker's friends or relatives coming forth with a paper trail showing a clear connection between Baghdad and the 19 hijackers.[QUOTE][i]


Again, didn't an Iraqi agent meet with Mohamad Atta in Prague? Didn't we find a terrorist training camp in Iraq?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pub crawler
[B]The frustratingly tragic and predictable irony here is that, because of our invasion of Iraq, the U.S. now probably has a legitimate need for increased security measures at home. In other words, the once ridiculous Orange Alerts will now probably be worth paying attention to. Bush's mad joke has become reality.)
Quote:
[i]

And you would prefer inaction? Clinton showed us all how well that worked. (1993 World Trade Center bombing, killed six and injured 1,000, 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, killed five U.S.
military personnel, 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel, 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, killed 224, injured 5,000, 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, killed 17 and injured 3 U.S. sailors, 9/11 killed 2,800 and injured thousands. Total number of deaths due to Clinton's inaction=3,069! It should be noted that after each attack Clinton vowed to bring the criminals to justice. Right. He obviously had his hands full with other things in the Oval Office.)

QUOTE]Originally posted by pub crawler
Getting back to the original question of whether or not I believe any found WMD's would have to have been planted, my answer is this: It doesn't matter. President Bush is the captain of the boat. We're his passengers. He has taken us down a river of lies to get us to where we are. I am disgusted and disheartened.
See above note about Clinton. Oh, you can add a nuclear powered North Korea to that list as well.

All I can say is that we live in very scary times and there are threats that need to be dealt with. I'm glad we have someone in office who is willing to get the job done.
__________________

__________________
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 12:17 PM   #18
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 633
Local Time: 12:13 AM
I messed up with this part of the post and included it in pubcrawler's quote.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pub crawler
[B]The frustratingly tragic and predictable irony here is that, because of our invasion of Iraq, the U.S. now probably has a legitimate need for increased security measures at home. In other words, the once ridiculous Orange Alerts will now probably be worth paying attention to. Bush's mad joke has become reality.)[QUOTE]

And you would prefer inaction? Clinton showed us all how well that worked. (1993 World Trade Center bombing, killed six and injured 1,000, 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, killed five U.S.
military personnel, 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel, 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, killed 224, injured 5,000, 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, killed 17 and injured 3 U.S. sailors, 9/11 killed 2,800 and injured thousands. Total number of deaths due to Clinton's inaction=[B]3,069! It should be noted that after each attack Clinton vowed to bring the criminals to justice. Right. He obviously had his hands full with other things in the Oval Office.)
__________________
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 12:47 PM   #19
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 05:13 PM
wolfwill, I'm not talking about Clinton....lol. I'm talking about President Bush. We can compare presidents for days on end, and it will add nothing to this debate. Please, stick to the topic at hand.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 01:09 PM   #20
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 01:13 AM
wolfwill23: please don't step down to this level (Clinton had no time because..)

If we compare the number of americans killed by terrorist attacks under the Clinton- and under the Bush-administration, Bush dosn't win, because: 9/11 didn't hapen while Mr. Clinton was still president.

Clinton did lots of mistakes during his period, Mr. Bush does lots of mistakes. Do you really want to excuse every mistake of the President with the note that a former president in history wasn't perfect either?

I don't see that Mr. Bush for example did anything helpful yet in the North Korea case - i seriousely hope that he dosn't wait until bombing is the last option.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 01:19 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus


Right, we even helped him to produce and develop them

When you say we you are indeed referring to Germany, France, and the UNited States right. All three were quite important in the development of these weapons in Iraq.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 01:35 PM   #22
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 633
Local Time: 12:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler
wolfwill, I'm not talking about Clinton....lol. I'm talking about President Bush. We can compare presidents for days on end, and it will add nothing to this debate. Please, stick to the topic at hand.
We kind of are talking about Clinton because we are talking about different policies. On one side you have action and the other inaction. So I think it's very reasonable for me to bring up the terror attacks that took place on Clinton's watch because I am arguing that these attacks would not go unchecked with Bush. I also feel that Iraq falls into the threat of terror attacks.
__________________
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 01:38 PM   #23
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 633
Local Time: 12:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
wolfwill23: please don't step down to this level (Clinton had no time because..)

If we compare the number of americans killed by terrorist attacks under the Clinton- and under the Bush-administration, Bush dosn't win, because: 9/11 didn't hapen while Mr. Clinton was still president.


Klaus
How long was Bush in office when the 9/11 attacks took place? All of the planning took place during Clinton's watch and in the safety of Afganistan because Clinton didn't have the guts to do anything but lob a couple of Tomahawks over there. He was too scared to put boots on the ground and root out the Taliban. I hold Clinton responsible for not DOING MORE to get Bin Laden when we had the chance. Bush is DOING MORE to root out, capture or kill terrorists and I believe that is exactly what the worlds needs right now.
__________________
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 01:43 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:13 PM
President Clinton most definitely deserves some of the credit for where we are today. It is not a debate over who is at fault but the failed strategy of sending missles into Afghanistan to hopefully hit Al-Qaeda leadership was obviously not the answer. There was clearly not an aggressive enough policy in going after Al-Aqeda. This is also President Bush's fault because he very clearly did not take the threat seriously, nor did Ms. Rice who clearly lied when they claimed they never immagined planes being used.

Under Clinton however, there was a change in the FBI and the CIA in which there were cuts in on the ground intelligence gathering. Many veteran intelligence people were passed over jobs because people were being promoted not based on the jobs that they did, but because of the race and gender. This caused many valuable people to LEAVE our intelligence agencies for the private sector. The loss of these people coupled with a move towards more electronic intelligence and less human on the ground intelligence left us open. This is detailed in Bob Gertz's bokk Breakdown and he makes and excellent case about the failures of the Clinton administration in this area over eight years.


Now as to the WMD. This administration did make its case that there was an immediate threat. There very clearly was not, unless the WMD's have been shipped to another country. The readings that I have done on this topic indicate that the United States has been operating BLIND in regards to Iraq since 1988 when the inspectors were last there. The inspectors were basically our on the ground intelligence. Yes we had intercepts, but without the on the ground intelligence, we went to war based on 1988's last inspections by the UN.

Like it or not, 5 year old intelligence was our best intelligence. There is no published link between September 11 and Saddam. The terrorist camp that we raided in Iraq was linked to Al-Qaeda, however, they were not an Al-Qaeda camp. They were a group of Iraqi's that were funded by Al-Qaeda and their main goal was to overthrow Saddam. See, Saddam and Al-Qaeda were not friends with each other because Saddam's regime show religious tolorance towards Christians.

September 11 is linked to Al-Qaeda because we have had troops in Saudi Arabia protecting our oil interests there. That is the link. IF we were not there it is doubtful that 9/11 and all of the incidents that Wolfwill listed would have happened. These events over the last twelve years fall on the heads of both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. There should have been more pressure to have dealt with Saddam earlier rather than 12 years later. The fact is, President Bush should have finished the job in the Gulf War. Instead he stopped the war for his own political gain. Iran was not going to invade a UN controlled Iraq.

TO say that the administration made a case on a humanitarian level is somewhat true. They did mention that he was a bad man. They did not make it the central theme to their case for war. They did not stand in front of the UN and have Collin Powell speak about the fact that Iraq's administering of the Food For Oil program was killing more Iraqi's a year than the entire 1st Gulf War. They FAILED to make this the central part of their case.

The central part of the case was that the UN was not enforcing its own resolutions. The central part of the case was that we were in a different world after 9/11 and that there was an immediate threat to the United States and its interests. The people of the UNited States were led to believe that we had WMD. Very clearly Saddam wanted us and the world to believe it for some reason. Maybe for the security of his regime. I do believe that the US Generals thought there would be a chemical attack on the troops.

So where are they? If he did not have it, it made a great deterrence. If he did have them and moved them where are they?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 01:47 PM   #25
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Well if you take over a company, it's your responsibility as soon as you get paid for the job, also it wasn't mr. bushs fault - the reason for this, and the faults who have bin made, date back much longer.

Mr. Bush is trying to capture and kill terorists. Capturing is a good thing, judging them after they were captured (I'm not talking about show-cases) would be excelent, to show the rest of the world that we believe in justice, not in revenge.
I am afraid that Mr. Bush increases the danger for the US citizens with some of the things he did - the goals are good, the way he tries to solve the problem should be reconsidered.
Don't think that almost all nations, except the US and GB love teorrorists. They do not - lots of these nations have even more experience with terrorists, and because of that they were verry sceptical about the "texas style" of solving problems.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 02:33 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:13 AM
I think the administration screwed up by making the war more of a WMD thing than a humanitarian thing against Saddam. Saddam was in a league with Slobodan Milosevic at the very least but it seems to me the administration actually downplayed this in favor of the more nebular WMD argument. OK, Saddam had anthrax in 1998. The guy was a madman. But the Niger/uranium controversy overshadowed all of this stuff. That was a screw-up involving lies. The administration probably could have made a case good enough for the U.N, and avoided alot of problems if they hadn't done some of this stuff. The U.S. public doesn't like lies.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 08-04-2003, 02:03 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Where was the terror trainings camp ? in the North of Iraq ?
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 08-04-2003, 02:17 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 08:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by wolfwill23
Here's the deal.

Fact: Saddam used WMD on his own people at one time.

Fact: Not one Iraqi will be killed by Quassi and not more woman raped by Uday ever again.
As if Bush gives a shit.

If he did, the US would foreign policy wouldn't be as inconsistent and ultimately selfish as it is.
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 08-04-2003, 04:13 PM   #29
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 07:13 PM
I think Powell's decision announced today about not seeking a second term as Sec. of State speaks volumes about the WMD's in Iraq.
While he says it's to keep a promise to his wife, I think he can't stomach anymore undermining by Rumsfeld & Cheney crap.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 08-04-2003, 06:54 PM   #30
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 633
Local Time: 12:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm


As if Bush gives a shit.

If he did, the US would foreign policy wouldn't be as inconsistent and ultimately selfish as it is.
'

It's your opinion and you know what they say about opinions...
__________________

__________________
wolfwill23 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com