The real tragedy behind Iraq war...

POSTED BY: lynchaj
UPDATED: Sunday, June 19, 2005 05:17
VIEWED: 4115
PAGE 2 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:54 PM

Just watched Escape From New York last night, and seeing the movie convinced me of one thing. If we had become the facist police state in the ninties as depicted in the film, the World Trade Center would still be standing, and we would already run most of the Middle East.
Funny what you get out of a film, huh?

Just a thought Chrisisall

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 17, 2005 4:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
....So answer me this: If President Bush lied about WMD in the Iraq war in 2003, did President Clinton also lie about WMD prior to Desert Fox in 1998?

The scenarios and intelligence are nearly the same except for the US administration and 5 years.

The answer is yes. Are you trying to say that Bush is no better than Clinton?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Friday, June 17, 2005 8:57 AM

Well?

The article refers to an opinion piece that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had a long-standing working relationship. That idea has since been disproven- even Bush admits to that. Your other references also point to disproven or contradictory evidence. It can't all be true and meaningful all at the same time. That's why I keep asking you to synthesize your evidence and come up with one single plausible scenario of what you think Saddam was doing, instead of pointing to contradictory evidence to bolster your VARIOUS self-contradictory suspicions: He had huge stockpiles of old weapons that he refused to get rid of! No- he had huge stockpiles of current, non-degraded WMD! Well, at least he had plans of having huge stockpiles some day! "Something" was going on!

I've asked you the same thing about a half-dozen times in three or four threads. You just point to yet another piece of disproven opinion or something that contradicts what you have already referenced. You have yet to answer the question. But I really don't think its too much to ask you to be coherent, do you?

So I will ask you yet again- What do you think Saddam was actually doing, and what evidence do you have to support it? I'll bet you don't answer this one either.

HKCAVALIER

Friday, June 17, 2005 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well?

The article refers to an opinion piece that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had a long-standing working relationship. That idea has since been disproven- even Bush admits to that. Your other references also point to disproven or contradictory evidence. It can't all be true and meaningful all at the same time.

Hey Signy, I'm sometimes in awe of your thoroughness and shear sticktoitiveness (love that word) with these threads. When I clicked on AJ's link and found the Saddam/Osama canard, I stared for a moment in disbelief, shook my head and went back to checking my email. You'd think a guy who's sole purpose is to discredit, defame and dismiss living controversies wouldn't support his own contentions with long discarded right-wing fantasies in search of the facts.

Again and again, what I see here is a very frightened man trying to justify his terror after the fact. His fear tells him that one of these fantasies about Saddam's power must be true. If not this one than another, but he's sure it's there! How could it not? He wins by a preponderance of fallacy; if Saddam were not a threat, there would not be so much suspicion that he was!

But it's pure scapegoating. The truth is, there is no war for him to win, no end to his terror, no way to be safe. That's why the human race needs to find a way to get along and coexist on this tiny planet, before we eff it up for good and all.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 17, 2005 7:39 PM

RE: Clinton/ Desert Fox v. Bush/ OIF

Quote:
The scenarios and intelligence are nearly the same except for the US administration and 5 years

I'm prolly being compulsive about this, but I just can't let this go w/o comment. Bush's intelligence had the benefit, or SHOULD have had the benefit, of the UNMOVIC inpsections which represented real, intrusive, on-the-ground information-gathering by covert CIA officers as well as technical experts. And the response differs by 170,000 people; 7,500 casulties and 12,000 disabling injuries. God, I'm getting so tired of confronting spurious comparisons and "evidence" that AJ just pulls out of his *ss. It's either a serious case of PTSD/ anxiety or blatant lying. I imagine the first case more likely.

HK- Just call me bulldog.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 17, 2005 11:29 PM

You're diverting the discussion from my main contentions. What about UNMOVIC? What about the dead and mained soldiers? Are you trying to say that doesn't make a difference?

And yes, I am saying Feith was lying. He wrote the memo. He and Wolfowitz relied on allegations from an informer that the DIA and CIA had already determined was unreliable. As far as I can tell, the CIA staffers and technical experts did an honest job. But reports were corrupted further up the chain by people directly appointed by Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld. I keep saying the same thing, and each time you appraoch it, it's like a new revelation. You REALLY don't get it, do you?

SIGNYM

Friday, June 17, 2005 11:50 PM

Quote:
...nexus of rogue regimes like Saddam Hussein, WMD, and terrorists

I already looked into it for another dicussion. They were a combination of readily-available common industrial and pool-adjusting chemicals (sulfuric acid, chlorine, peroxides etc.) and available explosives to spread the chemicals, not WMD. Note the article says "poison gas", not chemical weapons... big difference. Oh, and the militants supposedly came through Syria, not Iraq. Hmmm... terrorists, yes. But no WMD and no Saddam in sight. Your boat is full of holes and sinking fast. I advise you to jump ship.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 17, 2005 11:59 PM

Quote:
Did he ever? If Saddam never did have unreported WMD, then why did the UN inspectors keep coming back over asking to see the WMD or proof of its destruction?

Did the UN lie as well?

At what point in time did Saddam obviously go from someone who possessed WMD to someone who obviously did not possess WMD?

Saddam "had" WMD in the 1980s and early '90s. As the joke goes... "We know, we have the receipts." What was not destroyed in the Gulf War was destroyed (but not inventoried) by 1996. What was lost (like those infamous ancient warheads) also lost potency by that time. Saddam went from having WMD to NOT having WMD by 1996. That fact was about to be certified in 2003 by UNMOVIC.

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 18, 2005 12:10 AM

Quote:
CIA Questions Saddam's Ties to Al Qaeda, Bush Administration Claims That Zarqawi Sought Safe Haven in Iraq Put in Doubt

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=144396&page=1

Quote:
8. ...UNMOVIC did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items... Hans Blix, final report to the UN Security Council

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/unmovic-s-2003-
580_n0337692.pdf

Quote:
the chemical weapons which Iraq has been known to possess – nerve agents like sarin and tabun – have a shelf life of five years, VX just a bit longer. Saddam's major bio weapons are hardly any better; botulinum toxin is potent for about three years, and liquid anthrax about the same (under the right conditions)....The U.S. Defense Department’s “Militarily Critical Technologies List” (MCTL) is “a detailed compendium of technologies" that the department advocates as “critical to maintaining superior US military capabilities. It applies to all mission areas, especially counter-proliferation.” Written in 1998, it was recently re-published with updates for 2002. So what is the MCTL’s opinion of Iraq's chemical weapons program? In making its chemical nerve agents, “The Iraqis . . . produce(d) a . . . mixture which was inherently unstable,” says the report. “When the Iraqis produced chemical munitions they appeared to adhere to a ‘make and use’ regimen. Judging by the information Iraq gave the United Nations, later verified by on-site inspections, Iraq had poor product quality for their nerve agents. This low quality was likely due to a lack of purification. They had to get the agent to the front promptly or have it degrade in the munition.” Furthermore, says this Defense Department report, “The chemical munitions found in Iraq after the [first] Gulf War contained badly deteriorated agents and a significant proportion were visibly leaking.” The shelf life of these poorly made agents were said to be a few weeks at best – hardly the stuff of vast chemical weapons stores. There was some talk shortly before the first Gulf War that the Iraqis had been creating binary chemical weapons, in which the relatively non-toxic ingredients of the agent remain unmixed until just before the weapon is used; this allows the user to bypass any worry about shelf life or toxicity. But according to the MCTL, “The Iraqis had a small number of bastardized binary munitions in which some unfortunate individual was to pour one ingredient into the other from a Jerry can prior to use” – an action few soldiers were willing to perform.

www.bluebus.org/archives/000175.php

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 18, 2005 2:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
...Why has not President Bush been impeached? Why was he re-elected if he committed arguable one of the biggest crimes in history?

That's the question alright. The answers aren't pretty.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE