so they blatantly lie and you dont care - Page 19 - 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 01-22-2004, 12:14 PM   #271
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 02:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Pub Crawler,


So if someone were to accuse you of a violant assualt on their daughter or for that matter anything, what would your response be?

Would you say, what evidence do you have to support such a claim? Would you say innocent until proven guilty?

I mean, these are not answers right?

The entire US legal and justice system has "no answer" when people make unsubstantiated claims about them and what they do, right?

Sting, it is obvious that you are not understanding (or not listening to) the debate with respect to the deceit Bush used in his rhetoric as it pertains to his "making a case for war."

Quote:
Yep, take care buddy.
buddies
__________________

__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 12:40 PM   #272
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:13 AM
I'm reading everything that pertains to the war and the idea of deciet by Bush etc. There is know evidence yet that shows that Bush knowingly lied about anything. A lie is to make a statement that one knowingly knows is false. Bush has yet to do that.

I can give you clear examples of lies made by Saddam though.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-23-2004, 11:16 AM   #273
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 08:13 PM
A bit of semantics here STING, you believe it is up to Saddam to prove he has/had disarmed, but in terms of any potential lie/s on Bush's behalf, it is up to the accuser to prove?

I say semantics as I know you are referring back to the documents made by the UN in regard to the weapons and the opposers to Bush are basing theirs on verbal statements which have been deemed questionable etc so it is not technically the same thing....but it kinda is. For someone to look at Bush in this light, one must prove their accusations. Yet America and Bush do not? Naturally you will probably respond that Saddam has been requested repeatedly to prove he has disarmed, but what if he can't prove it? What if there is no evidence of the weapons being destroyed? He's not the most moral fellow and hardly plays by any generally agreeable fair rules of play. This places him though in potentially the same position as Bush.

My post here is by no means concrete and I can see the holes...but could you humour me for a bit?
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 01-23-2004, 09:23 PM   #274
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
A bit of semantics here STING, you believe it is up to Saddam to prove he has/had disarmed, but in terms of any potential lie/s on Bush's behalf, it is up to the accuser to prove?

I say semantics as I know you are referring back to the documents made by the UN in regard to the weapons and the opposers to Bush are basing theirs on verbal statements which have been deemed questionable etc so it is not technically the same thing....but it kinda is. For someone to look at Bush in this light, one must prove their accusations. Yet America and Bush do not? Naturally you will probably respond that Saddam has been requested repeatedly to prove he has disarmed, but what if he can't prove it? What if there is no evidence of the weapons being destroyed? He's not the most moral fellow and hardly plays by any generally agreeable fair rules of play. This places him though in potentially the same position as Bush.

My post here is by no means concrete and I can see the holes...but could you humour me for a bit?

In early March 1991, multiple US Armored and Mechanized divisions were only 1-2 hundred miles south of Baghdad. These divisions would of continued their advance toward Baghdad if Saddam had not signed the 1991 Ceacefire agreement. That Agreement required him to account for and verifiably disarm his entire WMD program.

Saddam was PROVEN guilty of the invasion and rape of Kuwait, using WMD more times than any other nation in history, and was proven to have large stocks of WMD. The international community required Saddam to verifiably disarm of all his WMD.

A difficult process followed where Saddam would comply and then block only to retreat again and comply. Large amounts of WMD stocks were destroyed in the years from 1991 to 1998 under the supervision of UN inspectors.

At the end of 1998, Saddam kicked the inspectors out. The inspectors report at the end of 1998 listed that Saddam still had thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of Mustard gas, and thousands of Bio/Chem Capable Artillery shells. Saddam himself had admitted to the stocks to many of these things prior to kicking the inspectors out.

From 1998-2002 there are no inspectors in Iraq. Then in late 2002 Saddam lets inspectors back in, but refuses to either show where the WMD from 1998 is, or show where the remains of the destruction are.

If Saddam destroyed the WMD, there would be significant remains of that destruction. It does not vanish into thin air. Obviously, if he did not destroy the WMD he was required to hand it over. There were only two possible choices for Saddam in regards to VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT and he did neither.

America and Bush do not have to prove anything because Saddam has already been proven guilty, as the 1991 Ceacefire agreement and inspections show. Saddam was never requested to verifiably disarm, he was required to Verifiably Disarm or face military action to insure he was disarmed.

WMD does not magically vanish into thin air. IF the WMD is still intact, show where it is or hand it over. IF it was destroyed, show where it was destroyed and the remains. The UN and member states of the UN cannot assume that Saddam just innocently lost his WMD. VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT is the standard laid down by the UN and it must be met by Saddam or otherwise he faces the consequences.

Saddam was already proven GUILTY and required to VERIFIABLY DISARM of those guilty items as well as a number of other things in regards to his invasion of Kuwait. Bush on the other hand has not been proven guilty of anything and is innocent until proven guilty.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-24-2004, 12:12 PM   #275
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: 10:13 AM
Interesting comments from Mr. Cook, former UK foreign secretary who resigned in protest at the prospect of war in Iraq:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3425529.stm

He added: "We have got to drop this very dangerous doctrine under which we went to war of the pre-emptive strike.

"If there was no threat from Iraq and we obviously had no right to carry out a pre-emptive strike to remove that threat. And we better drop that doctrine before somebody else in the world uses it in their own back yard."

The Liberal Democrats Foreign Affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said: "It is pretty extraordinary that first Hans Blix... David Kay and now David Kay's successor have all effectively said the same thing.

"There needs to be an inquiry to consider whether we went to war on a flawed prospectus."
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 01-24-2004, 01:04 PM   #276
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:13 AM
The case for war against Iraq was based on SADDAM's failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM! Can you name anyone that says Saddam had VERIFIABLY DISARMED of all WMD weapons and programs? David Kay by the way has found WMD programs in violation of multiple UN resolutions.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-25-2004, 06:28 AM   #277
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: 10:13 AM
"... Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep WMDs."

Did he talk about the 80ies there?

"Before September 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowly terrorist networks are not easily contained."

Was there a connection between 9/11 and Mr. Hussein? Or was it just to frighten the US citizens to get them "in line" for war?

And the justification why you went to war without a UN mandate was that the course of the US dosn't depend on the decision of others"

Dosn't sound for me like GWB cared too much about the UN (-> other nations).

If the presidents wants to make a war for the United Nations (because of UN resoluitions) i still don't understand why he didn't go through the Security Council and why Mr. Powell just spoke about old resolutions and about verifiably dissarmment instead of wrong (or faked?) proofs, no surpise that the other nations couldn't be convinced.

Instead of that the US spoke about self-defense - and we found out that this wasn't the truth.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 01-25-2004, 02:56 PM   #278
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:13 AM
Klaus,

" "... Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep WMDs.""

"Did he talk about the 80ies there?"

I suggest you look at Saddam's activities in the 1990s and the bullshit that inspectors had to deal with on a constant basis from Saddam.

""Before September 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowly terrorist networks are not easily contained.""

"Was there a connection between 9/11 and Mr. Hussein? Or was it just to frighten the US citizens to get them "in line" for war?"


Read the above quote again, he did not mention 9/11. The case for war is independent of 9/11. Saddam's failure to Verifiably Disarm and the existence of terrorists or cold hard facts.

It has been the policy of the United States to seek regime change in Iraq since 1998. A Majority of Americans supported the removal of Saddam prior to 9/11.

"And the justification why you went to war without a UN mandate was that the course of the US dosn't depend on the decision of others""

This is false. The UN has never given a bigger mandate for the use of force than for operation Iraqi Freedom that stared in March 2003.


"If the presidents wants to make a war for the United Nations (because of UN resoluitions) i still don't understand why he didn't go through the Security Council and why Mr. Powell just spoke about old resolutions and about verifiably dissarmment instead of wrong (or faked?) proofs, no surpise that the other nations couldn't be convinced."

Totally incorrect. In March 1991, Saddam signed a ceacefire agreement with the coalition that had a number of specific conditions and had resolution 678 re-affirmed in it that authorized the use of all means necessary if Saddam failed to comply with the conditions or any subsequent resolutions.

Pretending that such conditions and agreements become null and void with the passage of a few years is absurd. None of these resolutions was ever rescended in anyway and were still in effect all the way up to Saddam's removal.

Member states of the UN including the United States were not required to PROVE ANYTHING! That was Saddam's job. SADDAM was required to VERIFIABLY DISARM! He didn't! Failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM was a material breach of multiple UN resolutions and a violation of the 1991 Ceacefire agreement under which case member states were authorized by the UN to "use all means necessary" to bring about compliance.

The UN new in 1991 that Saddam could not be trusted to fully agree with the conditions which is why they put an ENFORCEMENT mechanism in place that involved the use of military force, should Saddam prevent peaceful verifiable disarmament which he did.

Powell did return to the UN despite having overwhelming UN backing for action from the prior resolutions and Ceacefire agreement. He even decided to give Saddam one last chance to Verifiably disarm. Powell returned to the UN and got 15-0 vote on Resolution 1441 which again authorized the use of force against Saddam if he failed to Verifiably disarm.


"Instead of that the US spoke about self-defense - and we found out that this wasn't the truth."

The USA and other member states of the UN defended the entire planet with their actions and enforced multiple UN resolutions against Saddam.

The TRUTH is that Saddam NEVER VERIFIABLY DISARMED!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-27-2004, 12:10 PM   #279
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 02:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

While the Bush Administration presented the public with the information they had about Al Quada and Saddam links, they never linked Saddam to 9/11.
In fact, Sting, they did.

Bush made the 9/11-Iraq connection in a deceptive, implicit manner, and he did it often. He continually invoked 9/11 in at least two separate speeches prior to the invasion in an effort to gain public support for said invasion.

It wasn't hard to read between the lines, Sting. People knew exactly the connection Bush was making, which is why so many folks were/are up in arms about it.

Take a look at his speeches at whitehouse.gov if you don't believe me.

For example, the following is directly quoted from the President's radio address of March 8, 2003:

"The attacks of September the 11, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terror states could do with weapons of mass destruction. We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030308-1.html

Brilliant on the President's part, really, the lovely way he transitions smoothly from "September 11" to "Saddam Hussein." He did it often and it worked. The American public bought it.

I am currently reading journalist and former White House strategist Kevin Phillips' book "American Dynasty" which, as you might guess, is critical of the President's "case for war." Phillips articulates Bush's methodical deceit nicely:

"By early 2003, as war approached, opinion polls showed that a large majority of Americans believed that Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction justified war. A poll taken by CBS News in early April even found a 53 percent majority calling Saddam Hussein "personally involved in the September 11 terror attacks," which almost no U.S. intelligence official believed. In mid-March, the Christian Science Monitor had reported a tactic as successful as it was deceptive: 'In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11. Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks.' So convinced, citizens were primed for another Iraq war, at least for one that succeeded and involved few U.S. casualties."

Sting, I cannot PROVE Bush lied in making his case for war, because it is not an issue of proof, but I KNOW precisely how the President executed his campaign of deceit.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 01-27-2004, 06:45 PM   #280
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:13 AM
pub crawler,

"The attacks of September the 11, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terror states could do with weapons of mass destruction. We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force."

I don't find anything wrong with that statement at all. When it comes to ALL area's of US National Security, what happened on September 11, 2001 should be on everyone's mind.


"Brilliant on the President's part, really, the lovely way he transitions smoothly from "September 11" to "Saddam Hussein." He did it often and it worked. The American public bought it."

The American public already supported regime change in Baghdad prior to 9/11.


"Sting, I cannot PROVE Bush lied in making his case for war, because it is not an issue of proof, but I KNOW precisely how the President executed his campaign of deceit."

The real issue here is how those that oppose the re-election of President Bush plan to convince/decieve the American public into believing that Bush lied to them.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-27-2004, 07:30 PM   #281
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 04:13 AM
Sting2,
I'm sorry but I think it is time for you to give it up.
Cripes - Powell said they were missinformed, Kay, even Cheney is backing out - sort of in his freakin wicked way.

Now the CIA and the White House are in a death struggle on who exaggerated and lied.

Our President and his administration exaggerated our need for war killing (?) 510 soldiers and wounding almost 2500. How can you still support him? Where is your love for your fellow soldiers not officers?
Sorry not trying to be crazy, but my dad adn uncle served as officers and had more love for their men than the top brass.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-27-2004, 07:56 PM   #282
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:13 AM
Actually, David Kay himself has indicated that the investigation needs to be into the providers of the "evidence" and not necessarily the White House. I would take that to mean that the people in the White House based their decisions on the evidence....and that the problem is....the evidence was bad.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-27-2004, 08:16 PM   #283
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 04:13 AM
That's what he said, bbut now the CIA is fighting back.
1 - demanding a real investigation into the Valerie Cia outing

2 - Bush admin pushed for info.

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1154185&l=16074
BUSH ADMITS MISLEADING ON WMD

Less than a year after declaring there was "no doubt the Iraqi regime
continues to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised," President Bush
and the White House began to openly "back away from its WMD assertions
today." The New York Times reported, "White House officials are no longer
asserting that stockpiles of banned weapons would eventually be found" after
their weapons inspector, David Kay said he "doesn't think [WMD] existed"
after the 1991 Gulf War.

The backtracking is reverberating throughout the Bush administration. While
Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations last year that "our
conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and
500 tons of chemical weapons agent," he said this weekend that it could
actually be "zero tons." Powell told the United Nations in 2003 that Iraq
"can produce anthrax," that it might "have produced 25,000 liters" and
showed a video of an Iraqi plane that dumping "2,000 liters of simulated
anthrax" as proof, but he now says they might have produced no anthrax at
all.

Similarly, Vice President Dick Cheney, said before the war, "there is no
doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction...to use
against our friends, against our allies, and against us," but now says the
war was about Iraq's "efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction." The
vice president also cited a classified report his own Administration has
labeled "inaccurate" as the "best source" of proof that Saddam Hussein and
Al Qaeda were linked.

In response, the Administration is beginning to blame the intelligence
community for the WMD fiasco, and planning an internal "review of prewar
intelligence." Administration ally Kay concurred, arguing "I think the
intelligence community owes the president [an apology] rather than the
president owing the American people." Despite Mr. Kay's assertions, experts
who knew the record of U.N. inspections knew that finding no WMD "was always
a strong possibility...but Bush administration officials never acknowledged it."

Earlier reporting found that senior Administration officials deliberately
"bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence,"
and the White House set up a separate intelligence apparatus, the "Office of
Special Plans," to "cherry-pick intelligence that supported its pre-existing
position and ignoring all the rest." For example, the president's well-known
declaration in last year's State of the Union, asserting that Iraq "sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa," remained despite CIA demands
to remove such allegations from his speech.

The US is now in the hands of a group of extremists

Fundamentalism has spawned an ideology of American supremacy

George Soros
Monday January 26, 2004
The Guardian

The invasion of Iraq was the first practical application of the pernicious Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military action, and it elicited an allergic reaction worldwide - not because anyone had a good word to say about Saddam Hussein, but because we insisted on invading Iraq unilaterally without any clear evidence that he had anything to do with September 11 or that he possessed weapons of mass destruction.
The gap in perceptions between America and the rest of the world has never been wider. Abroad, America is seen as abusing the dominant position it occupies; opinion at home has been led to believe that Saddam posed a clear and present danger to national security. Only in the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion are people becoming aware they have been misled.

Even today, many people believe that September 11 justifies behaviour that would be unacceptable in normal times. The ideologues of American supremacy and President Bush personally never cease to remind us that September 11 changed the world. It is only as the untoward consequences of the invasion of Iraq become apparent that people are beginning to realise something has gone woefully wrong.

We have fallen into a trap. The suicide bombers' motivation seemed incomprehensible at the time of the attack; now a light begins to dawn: they wanted us to react the way we did. Perhaps they understood us better than we understand ourselves.

And we have been deceived. When he stood for election in 2000, President Bush promised a humble foreign policy. I contend that the Bush administration has deliberately exploited September 11 to pursue policies that the American public would not have otherwise tolerated. The US can lose its dominance only as a result of its own mistakes. At present the country is in the process of committing such mistakes because it is in the hands of a group of extremists whose strong sense of mission is matched only by their false sense of certitude.

This distorted view postulates that because we are stronger than others, we must know better and we must have right on our side. That is where religious fundamentalism comes together with market fundamentalism to form the ideology of American supremacy.

We may have more difficulty in perceiving the absurdity of pursuing supremacy by military means, because we have learned to rely on military power and we particularly feel the need for it when our very existence is threatened. But the most powerful country on earth cannot afford to be consumed by fear. To make the war on terrorism the centrepiece of our national strategy is an abdication of our responsibility as the leading nation in the world. The US is the only country that can take the lead in addressing problems that require collective action: preserving peace and economic progress, protecting the environment and so on.

Whatever the justification for removing Saddam, there can be no doubt that we invaded Iraq on false pretenses. Wittingly or unwittingly, President Bush deceived the American public and Congress and rode roughshod over our allies' opinions.

The gap between the administration's expectations and the actual state of affairs could not be wider. We have put at risk not only our soldiers' lives but the combat readiness of our armed forces. We are overstretched and our ability to project our power has been compromised. Yet there are more places where we need to project our power than ever. North Korea is openly building nuclear weapons; Iran is doing so clandestinely. The Taliban is regrouping in the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan. The costs of occupation and the prospect of permanent war weigh on our economy, and we are failing to address festering problems both at home and globally. If we ever needed proof that the neo-cons' dream of American supremacy is misconceived, Iraq has provided it.

It is hard to imagine how the plans of the defence department could have gone more awry. We find ourselves in a quagmire that is in some ways reminiscent of Vietnam. Having invaded Iraq, we cannot extricate ourselves. Domestic pressure to withdraw is likely to build, as in the Vietnam war, but withdrawing would inflict irreparable damage on our standing in the world. In this respect, Iraq is worse than Vietnam because of our dependence on Middle East oil.

Nobody forced us into it; on the contrary, everyone warned us against it. Admittedly, Saddam was a heinous tyrant and it was a good thing to get rid of him. But at what cost? The occupying powers serve as a focal point for attracting terrorists and radicalising Islam. Our soldiers have to do police work in full combat gear.

And the cost of occupation is estimated at a staggering $160bn for the the fiscal years 2003-2004 - $73bn for 2003 and $87bn in a supplemental request for 2004 submitted at the last minute in September 2003. Of the $87bn, only $20bn is for reconstruction, but the total cost of reconstruction is estimated at $60bn. For comparison, our foreign aid budget for 2002 was $10bn.

There is no easy way out. The Bush administration is eager to get the United Nations more involved but is unwilling to make the necessary concessions. We have no alternative to sticking it out and paying the price for our mistake. Eventually a different president with a different attitude to international cooperation may be more successful in extricating us.

The US is not the only country at the centre of the global capitalist system, but it is the most powerful and it is the main driving force behind globalisation. The European Union may equal the US in population and gross national product, but it is far less united and far less comfortable with globalisation. In military terms, the EU does not even qualify as a power, because members make their own decisions.

Insofar as any nation is in charge of the world order, it is the US. That is not to suggest that other countries are exempt from having to concern themselves with the wellbeing of the world. Their attitudes are not without consequence, but it is the US that matters most.

If Bush is rejected in 2004, his policies can be written off as an aberration and America resume its rightful place in the world. But if he is re-elected, the electorate will have endorsed his policies and we will have to live with the consequences. But it isn't enough to defeat Bush at the polls. The US must examine its global role and adopt a more constructive vision. We cannot merely pursue narrow, national self-interest. Our dominant position imposes a unique responsibility.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-27-2004, 08:37 PM   #284
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:13 AM
Scarletwine,

"I'm sorry but I think it is time for you to give it up."

What the hell are you talking about?


"Cripes - Powell said they were missinformed, Kay, even Cheney is backing out - sort of in his freakin wicked way."

The only thing that has happened is that Kay and Powell believe it may not be possible to find WMD weapons.

THE fact that there is still unaccounted for WMD from the past 15 years remains.

Kay found WMD programs in total violation of resolution 1441 and the 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire Agreement. One of the Programs is designed for the development of Ricen.



#1 It was never incumbent upon the USA or any other member state of the United Nations to prove that Saddam had WMD, it was incumbent upon SADDAM to prove that he had disarmed. Those were the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire.

Whether WMD is found or not found in Iraq is irrelevent to the case for war. The Case for war against Saddam has always been his failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM OF ALL WMD weapons or related programs. Saddam never verifiably disarmed.


The President did not exagerate at all. The Case for war was built primarily on the results of the work of United Nations inspectors. Saddam failed to verifiably disarm. That fact alone was all the justification needed for war. Saddam was required to verifiably disarm in 1991 because the United Nations felt that if he was not, it would pose to big a threat for the world.



"Our President and his administration exaggerated our need for war killing (?) 510 soldiers and wounding almost 2500. How can you still support him? Where is your love for your fellow soldiers not officers?
Sorry not trying to be crazy, but my dad adn uncle served as officers and had more love for their men than the top brass."


How could you not support Saddam's removal and the enforcement of 17 UN resolutions? How could you support Saddam continueing to fail to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD, and there by continueing to pose massive threat to the worlds energy supply and economy? How could you support Saddam's continued rule which included 4 Billion dollars in business on the blackmarket every year? How could you support the continued rule of Saddam that had already led to the invasions and attacks on 4 different countries, the use of WMD on more occasions than any country in history, and the murder for 1.7 million people?

How could you not support the removal of Saddam without which hundreds of thousands of Iraqi"s would die as they had in the years preceding? How many violations of international law and human rights would Saddam have to engaged in before you would support his removal? Where is your love for Iraqi citizens and innocent citizens in neighboring countries all of them past present and future targets of Saddam Hussein?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-27-2004, 09:11 PM   #285
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 02:13 AM
STING2- Simple, naive question that's been on my mind for a while: How can one VERIFIABLY DISARM what might "possibly" be NOT THERE as first presumed?

Sidenote: Is it possible not every country (in this hypothetical, Iraq) keeps a meticuluous database tracking like the rest of the world? ... maybe WMD sunk in the sea, or blew up in a freak accident that was not officially recorded...

i know, sounds stupid and ridiculuous... but if an allegation is made by US, and our govt can't support it... where is the validity of the alleged claim made by our govt.?

I'm hoping for a simple logical answer for these questions above.
__________________

__________________
theSoulfulMofo 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 04:13 AM.


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