War in Iraq

[SlyHunter]

People said Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq for oil. If that were true we wouldn't of allowed them back into OPEC, but we didn't have a say in the matter. However I believe that those who opposed us for going to war in Iraq didn't oppose us for any other reason than their own pocket books. France Germany, China, and Russia had secret oil deal with Saddam that were ruined when we removed Saddam from power. France even had the gall to demand that we the US insure that Saddam honored the illegal agreements he made prior to his removal.

Their is a probe going on into this stuff and they are trying to block it to stop us from finding out the truth.


The Russians are blocking a proper Oil for Food probe.

Monday, April 19, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Meanwhile, back at the United Nations Oil for Food scandal, the news leaked Friday that Secretary-General Kofi Annan has picked Paul Volcker to lead a three-man panel to investigate what we now know was a Saddam Hussein skimming operation. What we'd also like to know is why it is taking so long for the Volcker appointment to be formally announced.

Mr. Annan first offered the job to Mr. Volcker, the former Federal Reserve Chairman, some two weeks ago. It shouldn't take this long to close the deal--unless some members of the U.N. Security Council really don't want a probe. Word is that Mr. Volcker, who is nobody's toady, doesn't want to lend his reputation to this exercise unless the Security Council passes a new resolution calling on members to cooperate with his team. Under pressure from the U.S. and Britain, Mr. Annan has agreed.

But, lo, the Russians are objecting to any resolution. "We don't mind for the Secretary-General to appoint the commission but we don't see the need to support his decision in the form of a resolution," says Russia's U.N. Ambassador Gennady Gatilov. In other words, he wants Mr. Volcker to serve as eyewash for the U.N. but without the political clout to expose what really happened. We don't suppose it is a coincidence, comrade, that Russians were among Saddam's best business partners. No word yet on where the French stand on a resolution, but we can guess.

The Oil for Food program was designed to let Iraq sell some oil to finance food and humanitarian aid for Iraqis hurt by sanctions against Saddam's regime. But we have learned that Saddam skimmed off as much as $10 billion to build his own palaces and pay off apologists for his regime around the world.

Only last week, Detroit businessman Shakir al-Khafaji admitted to the Financial Times that he received Oil for Food allocations. Mr. al-Khafaji had earlier denied receiving such allocations in an interview with our Robert Pollock, who recently reported that Mr. al-Khafaji had helped to finance a pro-Saddam documentary by former weapons inspector Scott Ritter and had donated to antiwar Congressional Democrats. Another hearing in Congress is scheduled this week into what is already the worst corruption scandal in U.N. history.

A new resolution would be especially helpful because Security Council nations and members of the U.N. Secretariat have been implicated in the scandal. If Mr. Volcker is going to conduct a credible probe, he'll need the political clout that a new resolution would provide. We trust he's also asking for an independent staff of his own choosing and ample funding. And while a public accounting is necessary, we hope Mr. Volcker will also conduct the probe with an eye to U.S. banking and other laws that may have been broken.

All of this relates not merely to a "look backwards," as Mr. Gatilov dismissively puts it, but directly to the U.N.'s current ambitions in Baghdad. Iraqis now know that the U.N. and some of its leading members conspired with their former dictator to fleece them of their national wealth. The very least Iraqis should expect is that the U.N. will come clean about its sins and punish those who profited at their expense. George Bush, John Kerry and others who now want to give the U.N. control in Baghdad should also settle for nothing less.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004976

[whocares]

Though the US didn't go in directly for the oil, the US is making loads of money rebuilding the oil infrastructure. Why do you think that Haliburton got all the contracts (at least almost all). **hint hint** Dick Cheeney ex-CEO of Haliburton **Hint Hint**. The way it works is that Iraq keeps its oil, but the money it makes/will make exporting the oil will largely go into US companies (service companies and operators). :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

As for France's 'illegal' contracts, I hope you not naive enough to believe that all oil agreements are made legally? :eek:

[radhak]

France and Russia were earning money from Saddam's regime, and the USA was left out. The US set out to put things right for itself, and did so relatively easily using its might, so now the equation is reversed.

If this had been just a business scenario, nobody would bother. But if you count the lives lost on all hands for what has turned out to be a purely commercial venture, history will view the past year as a tragic period in mankind's journey to civilized times.

Funny that all these countries have laws within their society against what they have done in Iraq : buying from or selling to a thief makes you an accomplice (even if inadvertant), and Saddam was nothing but a thief and murderer when dealing with France, Russia and even the USA (before the 1st Gulf war). Now, the US has forced 'rebuilding contracts' down the throat of Iraq when Iraq is in no position to make decisions for itself. [Pretty much like you being forced to sign for repairing your car even before you are extricated from the burning wreck or have any idea what's best for you!] Talk of mercenary :mad:

There never was any altruism in Iraq, make no mistake. But when I see how well the American people have been taken in, the movie 'Wag the Dog' seems so much more credible now!

[numediaman]

From the Seattle Times:

Caption: Flag-draped coffins are secured inside a cargo plane on April 7 at Kuwait International Airport. Military and civilian crews take great care with the remains of U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq. Soldiers form an honor guard and say a prayer as, almost nightly, coffins are loaded for the trip home.

[skunk]

Good post, Radhak :)

[SlyHunter]

Though the US didn't go in directly for the oil, the US is making loads of money rebuilding the oil infrastructure. Why do you think that Haliburton got all the contracts (at least almost all). **hint hint** Dick Cheeney ex-CEO of Haliburton **Hint Hint**. The way it works is that Iraq keeps its oil, but the money it makes/will make exporting the oil will largely go into US companies (service companies and operators). :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

As for France's 'illegal' contracts, I hope you not naive enough to believe that all oil agreements are made legally? :eek:
How about because they had so much experience cleaning up countries under previous presidents they could go in and get jump on the work much faster and cheaper than any other company who would have to go thru the learning curve all over again.

As for France and others, no, but it explains their veto.

[SlyHunter]

Denmark thought they had WMD's too.


In one report, Iraq was thought to have both chemical and biological weapons, as well as an active nuclear programme.

The extracts appear to contradict claims leaked to a newspaper that there was no evidence to back up the theory.

Former intelligence officer Major Frank Soeholm Grevil has been charged with breaching the official information act.

The major told reporters at the Berlingske Tidende newspaper he had sent 10 reports to the prime minister which concluded that the coalition was unlikely to find weapons of mass destruction.

Before the war, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen supported the US-led invasion and told parliament that he was convinced Iraq was in possession of such weapons.

Denmark sent a submarine and a warship to participate in the campaign.

Since the leaks - and the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction - the prime minister has come under increasing pressure from opposition parties to declassify the reports.

But Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS) chief Rear Admiral Joern Olesen said: "These reports that have been made public document that Iraq, according to the entire DDIS's evaluation, probably had biological and chemical weapons just before the war."

Mr Olesen said the documents were based on information gathered by the United Nations and Nato but the reports warned that "any evaluation is subject to uncertainties".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3639977.stm

Ok now I've provide a link to a new story from the UK :D

[numediaman]

You left out the most important paragraphs:

But AP news agency says a Danish intelligence report dated 7 March, 2003, concluded that there was no "certain information that Iraq has operative weapons of mass destruction". . .

"I don't think we get a complete picture of what the government knew," he said.

He called for more details following the release of the documents and for an independent investigation into whether Mr Fogh Rasmussen deliberately misled MPs. . .

[SlyHunter]

You left out the most important paragraphs:

But AP news agency says a Danish intelligence report dated 7 March, 2003, concluded that there was no "certain information that Iraq has operative weapons of mass destruction". . .

"I don't think we get a complete picture of what the government knew," he said.

He called for more details following the release of the documents and for an independent investigation into whether Mr Fogh Rasmussen deliberately misled MPs. . .
And no "certain information" will be obtained unless we caught them red handed which I believe is the criteria for calling it "certain information." And then they would just say that Bush planted the evidence.

[skunk]

And no "certain information" will be obtained unless we caught them red handed which I believe is the criteria for calling it "certain information." And then they would just say that Bush planted the evidence.
Wake me up when you're done....

[mactastic]

...certain information...[snipped for those who are ignoring Sly]

So the only convictions that stand are those of people caught red-handed? No wonder OJ got off! Thanks for explaining that for me.

[SlyHunter]

With their city surrounded by U.S. Marines, the city officials in Fallujah have agreed to persuade the insurgents to turn over their weapons. If they don't, the Coalition has threatened to storm the city. So ... what worked here? Power ... strength .. resolve. Show weakness and the terrorists crawl out from under their rocks. Show strength and they're ready to hand over their RPGs.

Fallujah has been mostly quiet the past few days. Small groups of armed, uniformed Iraqi police are back to patrolling the streets there, and residents are coming out of their homes. Why do you suppose that is? Because we won the battle, that's why. Despite what the Euro-weenies and the media think, there are some things worth fighting for.

And have you noticed how this is being covered? All the headlines say that the insurgents are "turning over," or "laying down" their arms. They're handing over their weapons...wouldn't you call that a surrender?


http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

[skunk]

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
Nobody has claimed they ARE handing over weapons yet.
If you call terrorising a city by killing hundreds of civilians a victory, I'm afraid I don't agree. Sending an AC130 to strafe a place full of civilians is not in accord with the "Rules of War". I suppose that doesn't matter to you because they're only A-rabs.

[numediaman]

Mubarkek was just in the U.S. but I don't remember him saying anything. From Bush's Texas ranch he flew to Paris to meet with Chirac. (I wonder what he liked better, Crawford or Paris?)

Here's what he said when he got to Paris:

'Unprecedented Hatred' for Americans in Arab World, Mubarak Says
The Associated Press
Published: Apr 20, 2004

PARIS (AP) - Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a major Arab ally of the United States, said in published remarks Tuesday that hatred of Americans in the Arab world was stronger now than ever because of the war in Iraq.

Mubarak also said Arab opinion of the United States had grown more negative because of Washington's continuing support for Israel.

"At the start, some believed that the Americans were helping them," Mubarak said in comments published Tuesday by French daily Le Monde. "There wasn't any hatred toward the Americans."

"After what has happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it," he added. "There exists today a hatred never equaled in the region."

Mubarak, whose country is among the biggest beneficiaries of U.S. foreign aid, said U.S. missteps in Iraq had made the situation worse.

"In Iraq, they said: 'We are not going to allow the creation of an Islamic state.' Result: people are attached even more to the idea of religion," Mubarak said.

Many Arabs feel a sense of "injustice" in the way the United States has offered strong backing for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Mubarak said.

"What's more - they see Sharon act as he wants, without the Americans saying anything," Mubarak said.

The Egyptian leader met with French President Jacques Chirac in Paris on Monday, on his way home from a trip to the United States to meet with President Bush at his Texas ranch. . .

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAUEHR5ATD.html

[whocares]

How about because they had so much experience cleaning up countries under previous presidents they could go in and get jump on the work much faster and cheaper than any other company who would have to go thru the learning curve all over again.

As for France and others, no, but it explains their veto.

Well Haliburton arn't the only company out there with suffiicient expertise to deal with the mess. For eg., the largest oilfield service provided (Schlumberger) has the necessary knowledge, but was left out of the deal because they were French. And I don't think Haliburton can be the cheapest because the contracts wern't awarded on a competitive basis.

You are howeverc ompletely right about France's veto, and Chirac clearvely used for political reasons.

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
How about because they had so much experience cleaning up countries under previous presidents they could go in and get jump on the work much faster and cheaper than any other company who would have to go thru the learning curve all over again.

As for France and others, no, but it explains their veto.

Well Haliburton arn't the only company out there with suffiicient expertise to deal with the mess. For eg., the largest oilfield service provided (Schlumberger) has the necessary knowledge, but was left out of the deal because they were French. And I don't think Haliburton can be the cheapest because the contracts wern't awarded on a competitive basis.

You are howeverc ompletely right about France's veto, and Chirac clearvely used for political reasons.
France was against the war. 87 Billion part of which is going to help rebuild the war should not go to those who actively was against us going in, in the first place. No whether the Iraq government thinks the same way about other money they receive from other sources is up to them but I hope they remember who helped them and who was prepared to leave them under Saddam.

[amnesiac1984]

France was against the war. 87 Billion part of which is going to help rebuild the war should not go to those who actively was against us going in, in the first place. No whether the Iraq government thinks the same way about other money they receive from other sources is up to them but I hope they remember who helped them and who was prepared to leave them under Saddam.

Or maybe, in ten years time, they will still be remembering who it was who killed their innocent loved ones.

[numediaman]

I think this is amazing. It is from Talking Points Memo. Joshua Marshall is probably the most thoughtful of the "liberal" bloggers, and has a very good reputation for accuracy.

Following up on our post of two weeks ago, Ahmed Chalabi's nephew Salem has now been appointed "general director" of the Iraqi war crimes tribunal which will try, among others, Saddam Hussein.

Salem, you'll remember, earlier went into the war contracting and lobbying business with the law partner of Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith, a prime architect of the war, and the Pentagon official in charge of the contracting process.

And, no, I'm not making any of this up.

From this article, it seems that the spokesman of Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, Entefadh Qanbar, is also acting as the spokesman for the Tribunal. Perhaps he already is the spokesman for it. It's just not clear.

In any case, the operation -- holding the malefactors of the old regime accountable for their acts -- does seem to be becoming a family affair.

Along similar lines, we should still be asking why the CPA, the sovereign authority in Iraq, allowed Chalabi to confiscate the files of the former regime's secret police to use to blackmail his political enemies. Given these most recent developments, perhaps it will be argued that this was part of some rather broadly construed discovery proceeding pursuant to the Chalabi family's prosecution of Saddam Hussein. But I would find that rationale less than convincing.

-- Josh Marshall

[SlyHunter]

I think this is amazing. It is from Talking Points Memo. Joshua Marshall is probably the most thoughtful of the "liberal" bloggers, and has a very good reputation for accuracy.

Following up on our post of two weeks ago, Ahmed Chalabi's nephew Salem has now been appointed "general director" of the Iraqi war crimes tribunal which will try, among others, Saddam Hussein.

Salem, you'll remember, earlier went into the war contracting and lobbying business with the law partner of Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith, a prime architect of the war, and the Pentagon official in charge of the contracting process.

And, no, I'm not making any of this up.

From this article, it seems that the spokesman of Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, Entefadh Qanbar, is also acting as the spokesman for the Tribunal. Perhaps he already is the spokesman for it. It's just not clear.

In any case, the operation -- holding the malefactors of the old regime accountable for their acts -- does seem to be becoming a family affair.

Along similar lines, we should still be asking why the CPA, the sovereign authority in Iraq, allowed Chalabi to confiscate the files of the former regime's secret police to use to blackmail his political enemies. Given these most recent developments, perhaps it will be argued that this was part of some rather broadly construed discovery proceeding pursuant to the Chalabi family's prosecution of Saddam Hussein. But I would find that rationale less than convincing.

-- Josh Marshall
I wonder a year after the trial if Saddam is found guilty how many of those judges will be left alive?

[whocares]

France was against the war. 87 Billion part of which is going to help rebuild the war should not go to those who actively was against us going in, in the first place. No whether the Iraq government thinks the same way about other money they receive from other sources is up to them but I hope they remember who helped them and who was prepared to leave them under Saddam.

Maybe, but you seem to be forgetting whose country it is. It's the Iraqi people's country, not yours (I'm supposing you're an American). It should be the Iraqi people who decide who rebuilds *their* country for *their* best interest, not the US who will rebuild it for their own best interest. Invading and country and interfering with their politics without being asked to, does NOT give you the right to decide on their future.

Though I'm very sad to see many US troops injured and killed in Iraq, I think the Iraqi response and reaction to US interference is interesting and well deserved. Saddam may have been ousted, but what makes you think that the Iraqi people wanted the US do deal with him? It's so blantly obvious that the US did not go into Iraq for the well-being of the Iraqi but for purely economical and political reasons.

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
France was against the war. 87 Billion part of which is going to help rebuild the war should not go to those who actively was against us going in, in the first place. No whether the Iraq government thinks the same way about other money they receive from other sources is up to them but I hope they remember who helped them and who was prepared to leave them under Saddam.

Maybe, but you seem to be forgetting whose country it is. It's the Iraqi people's country, not yours (I'm supposing you're an American). It should be the Iraqi people who decide who rebuilds *their* country for *their* best interest, not the US who will rebuild it for their own best interest. Invading and country and interfering with their politics without being asked to, does NOT give you the right to decide on their future.


With their money yes, with my money ie the money we were over taxed so our government could afford to give away to other countries no. We should have a say on who our money is spent on.

[skunk]

With their money yes, with my money ie the money we were over taxed so our government could afford to give away to other countries no. We should have a say on who our money is spent on.
What ARE you on about?

[SlyHunter]

What ARE you on about?
I edited the post 2 above this one so as to make it easier for you to read.

[mactastic]

With their money yes, with my money ie the money we were over taxed so our government could afford to give away to other countries no. We should have a say on who our money is spent on.

Hey, some of that is MY money! Should I get a say?

[numediaman]

Heads up. Don't be surprised if you start reading or hearing from a guy named John O'Neill. His story will be that John Kerry really isn't any kind of a war hero, and that he is in fact unfit to be president.

O'Neill, it turns out, never served with Kerry, but was in Kerry's unit after Kerry had left that unit. Richard Nixon used O'Neill to go after Kerry when Kerry was effectively testifiying to Congress back in the early 70's. He is about to come out of the closet again, this time on the payroll of the Bush administration. I've already seen one story about this turkey already this morning -- expect more.

[Neserk]

I wonder a year after the trial if Saddam is found guilty how many of those judges will be left alive?

The real question is when will BUSH go on trial for crimes against humanity?

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
I wonder a year after the trial if Saddam is found guilty how many of those judges will be left alive?

The real question is when will BUSH go on trial for crimes against humanity?
No the real question is how can Saddam get a fair trial if the judges will have to face the rest of their lives in hidding or not have any life due to deaths and thus have a huge incentive to find him innocent.

[numediaman]

So, while their boy was safely avoiding service in Vietnam, Kerry receives three Purpple Hearts. Now, conservatives are complaining that Kerry wasn't injured enough. Talk about hypocracy. I guess they wanted him to lose his legs like Max Clelland so that could call him a coward.

Kerry posts military records online

Some conservatives question seriousness of injuries

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 Posted: 10:51 AM EDT (1451 GMT)

. . . . During almost five months as the commander of a Navy swiftboat in the Mekong Delta, Kerry was awarded the Bronze Star for heroic achievement, the Silver Star for gallantry in action and three Purple Hearts for injuries that included shrapnel wounds to his arms, legs and buttocks.

Conservatives, talk radio hosts and some newspaper editorials have questioned the seriousness of his injuries and whether the Massachusetts senator was deserving of the three Purple Hearts, which resulted in his reassignment out of Vietnam. . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/kerry.records.ap/index.html

[zimv20]

Heads up. Don't be surprised if you start reading or hearing from a guy named John O'Neill.
damn, i can't keep all these o'neills straight. there's already another john! (died on 9/11) and we've still got paul (former treasury secretary)

[Neserk]

No the real question is ...


No, the real question is will BUSH be tried for his war crimes or will he get away with his evil because he is a so-called "elected" leader...

[Sayhey]

Here is the page with Kerry's records on them. Believe me there is more than you would every want to know.

Kerry's military records (http://www.johnkerry.com/about/military_records.html)

[Sayhey]

Heads up. Don't be surprised if you start reading or hearing from a guy named John O'Neill. His story will be that John Kerry really isn't any kind of a war hero, and that he is in fact unfit to be president.

O'Neill, it turns out, never served with Kerry, but was in Kerry's unit after Kerry had left that unit. Richard Nixon used O'Neill to go after Kerry when Kerry was effectively testifiying to Congress back in the early 70's. He is about to come out of the closet again, this time on the payroll of the Bush administration. I've already seen one story about this turkey already this morning -- expect more.

Is this the same guy who debated Kerry on the Cavett show way back in the '70s?

[numediaman]

Yep. Same guy. This all goes back to Kerry's accusation of war crimes being committed in Vietnam.

[SlyHunter]

No, the real question is will BUSH be tried for his war crimes or will he get away with his evil because he is a so-called "elected" leader...
He has to be guilty of committing a war crime before he can be jailed or punished for it.

Did you shout an holler when Kerry announce to the world he committed war crimes?
Did you shout an holler when Clinton committed perjury?

[numediaman]

He has to be guilty of committing a war crime before he can be jailed or punished for it.

Did you shout an holler when Kerry announce to the world he committed war crimes?
Did you shout an holler when Clinton committed perjury?

Exactly how old were you, SlyHunter, in 1971?

[Neserk]

He has to be guilty of committing a war crime before he can be jailed or punished for it.

He is. He is guilty of starting an illegal war. The blood of 11,000 people are on his hands


Did you shout an holler when Clinton committed perjury?

Give me a break. How many people do you know who had committed adultry wouldn't have lied about? :rolleyes:

Lets weigh the the two, shall we? One lie results in the death of (so far) about 11,000 human beings. One lie hurts approximately 4 people.

I love how you go screaming "Clinton lied about oral sex" when Bush is being exposed for the liar he is... it is humorous. You just refuse to recognize that your dictator is a liar and will do darn near anything to cover it up. tsk, tsk, tsk.

[SlyHunter]

He is. He is guilty of starting an illegal war. The blood of 11,000 people are on his hands



Give me a break. How many people do you know who had committed adultry wouldn't have lied about? :rolleyes:

Lets weigh the the two, shall we? One lie results in the death of (so far) about 11,000 human beings. One lie hurts approximately 4 people.

I love how you go screaming "Clinton lied about oral sex" when Bush is being exposed for the liar he is... it is humorous. You just refuse to recognize that your dictator is a liar and will do darn near anything to cover it up. tsk, tsk, tsk.
Problem is Bush hasn't been exposed as a liar. You saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

[wwworry]

Problem is Bush hasn't been exposed as a liar. You saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

you know, there is reams of statements and testimony about Bush lieing about a bunch of things. It is really quite clear. Just because that drug addict Limbaugh won't admit it doesn't mean it's not true.

There is no special prosecutor this time with an unlimited budget and an unlimited scope of investigation.

WHAT WAS THAT STATEMENT IN THE STATE OF THE UNION? The niger uranium claim was a lie.

When he said the majority of the tax cuts go to middle class people he lied.

etc. etc. etc.

What is wierd is people so enamored with the GOP that they can't conceed what is right in front of them. I thought Clinton was a bit weak kneed but I thought he had the best interests of the country at heart. HE lied about an affair and it was stupid because of the ammunition it gave to hypocritical dope heads like Limbaugh and that gambler dope (I forget his name.). I was perfectly willing to admit that Clinton lied but that it had no bearing on anything other than his relationship with his wife.

Bush's lies affect me directly and are wrong.

[Sayhey]

Yep. Same guy. This all goes back to Kerry's accusation of war crimes being committed in Vietnam.

You know, I posted a excerpt of what Kerry said in that debate about war crimes in another thread, but it seems some of our friends here are still shouting about it. He said the tactics used by the US in Vietnam (free fire zones, destroying civilians homes, etc.) were war crimes and he had, along with everyone else involved in such fire fights, participated in such tactics. He never said he committed atrocities. In fact he says he never saw such things occur. Now the echo chamber of Rush, Hannity, and the rest of Rove's flacks have tried to turn these statements of criticism of the US tactics into an admission of guilt concerning a new My Lai or some such bull. These folks will sink below pond scum in order to smear Kerry's service. Why? Simple enough, I think the comparison with a "fortunate son" President is not something they want to happen.

[amnesiac1984]

you know, there is reams of statements and testimony about Bush lieing about a bunch of things. It is really quite clear. Just because that drug addict Limbaugh won't admit it doesn't mean it's not true.


I wish people would stop using drug use/abuse or addiction as a judgement of character. Some of our greatest minds have been fuelled by drugs and anyone who says different has just bought into the anti drug US propaganda. Ever seen a documentary called Grass?

[numediaman]

Policy easing to bring Baathists into new Iraq

From John King
CNN Washington Bureau
Thursday, April 22, 2004 Posted: 4:24 PM EDT (2024 GMT)

(CNN) -- The White House confirmed Thursday that the administration is moving to change a postwar policy that blocked members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from Iraqi government and military positions.

The sweeping ban was put in place by civilian administrator Paul Bremer, but he now wants to change the policy as part of an effort to convince Sunnis, who dominate the party, that they are welcome members of the postwar political transition in Iraq.

What do they call this? Oh yeah, flipflopping.

[Dale Sorel]

The real question is when will BUSH go on trial for crimes against humanity?

Yea... Bush = Hitler

Buy a clue would you :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

Policy easing to bring Baathists into new Iraq

From John King
CNN Washington Bureau
Thursday, April 22, 2004 Posted: 4:24 PM EDT (2024 GMT)

(CNN) -- The White House confirmed Thursday that the administration is moving to change a postwar policy that blocked members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from Iraqi government and military positions.

The sweeping ban was put in place by civilian administrator Paul Bremer, but he now wants to change the policy as part of an effort to convince Sunnis, who dominate the party, that they are welcome members of the postwar political transition in Iraq.

What do they call this? Oh yeah, flipflopping.

Yeah Kerry's the flip-floper huh? Let's add this to the ever-expanding list of GWB flip-flops.

[wwworry]

I wish people would stop using drug use/abuse or addiction as a judgement of character. Some of our greatest minds have been fuelled by drugs and anyone who says different has just bought into the anti drug US propaganda. Ever seen a documentary called Grass?


If Limbag wasn't such a hypocrite I would never call him an oxy-contin freak again. If he had not spouted such "throw all the drug users in jail" vitriol I would not wonder publicly how a drug addict like him could get so fat. If he did not send his maid to buy drugs for him I would not call him a coward either.

But he is a hypocrite. Dante reseves the second to lowest circle of hell for people like him.

[Neserk]

Yea... Bush = Hitler


I didn't say that. You did :p

[amnesiac1984]

If Limbag wasn't such a hypocrite I would never call him an oxy-contin freak again. If he had not spouted such "throw all the drug users in jail" vitriol I would not wonder publicly how a drug addict like him could get so fat. If he did not send his maid to buy drugs for him I would not call him a coward either.

But he is a hypocrite. Dante reseves the second to lowest circle of hell for people like him.

Fair enough, I did not know his views as I have never listened to him. I know taking drugs isn't the most respectable of behaviours but surely stuff we put into our bodies is our responsibility and nobodies business (although it depends what comes out the other end and goes into the sewage system). :rolleyes:

[SlyHunter]

SEN. KERRY: Wrong. I supported the notion that we must as a country hold Saddam Hussein accountable for what he was doing. I supported it under President Clinton. In 1998, I suggested that President Clinton should go to the United Nations and raise the issue of Saddam Hussein’s non-compliance in the international arena. It would have been inconsistent for me, with President Bush, not to suggest that the security issue of 1998, after we knew we had been finding weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological, after we knew we had been destroying them, after we knew he still had more and we left the country without inspectors for four years, it would have been irresponsible not to stand up and say, “We need to hold him accountable.”

SEN. KERRY: Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself.

In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.

According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.

In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater, a nuclear weapon?

SEN. KERRY: No, we weren’t—I don’t know whether we were lied to, I don’t know whether they had the most colossal intelligence failure in history, I don’t know if the politics of the White House drove them to exaggerate. The bottom line is that we voted on the basis of information that was given to us, that has since then been proven to be incorrect. The bottom line is also, Tim, the president had an obligation to put the United States in the strongest position possible.

MR. RUSSERT: By voting in October the way you did, contrary to what your colleague Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts voted, who said it was in effect giving the president too much authority, yielding our constitutional authority to the Senate to declare war. Robert Byrd, a Democrat, said it was giving the president a blank check. Do you regret giving the president authority way back in October of 2002?

SEN. KERRY: Tim, I have enormous respect for both Senator Kennedy, my friend and my colleague, who I’m proud is supporting me in this race, and Robert Byrd, who’s one of the most eloquent, capable people in the Senate. But let me tell you this. I disagree with them on that. The president of the United States had the inherent authority of the presidency. And if he wanted to go, he would have gone and could have gone anyway merely to protect and defend the interests of the United States. And the fact is

in the resolution that we passed we did not empower the president to do regime change, we empowered him only with respect to the relevant resolutions of the United Nations.

Now, the president, as we saw with Bill Clinton, had the power—President Clinton went to Kosovo without any authority from Congress. President Clinton went to Haiti without any authority from Congress. The president has the inherent authority, he had the authority anyway, and I believed, as Joe Biden believed, as Hillary Clinton believed, as Tom Harkin believed, and many thoughtful people, that by voting the way we did, we were getting the United Nations and the inspections in place and we could—and the president made his word to us that they would build that coalition and do it properly. The president, in my judgment, broke his word to us and to the American people and we have a difficult situation on our hands.


Kerry doesn't think Bush lied.

[Neserk]

Kerry doesn't think Bush lied.


And your point would be? What? That Kerry won't say he knows Bush is liar because he is running for president and it wouldn't be PC to say that :rolleyes:

[SlyHunter]

And your point would be? What? That Kerry won't say he knows Bush is liar because he is running for president and it wouldn't be PC to say that :rolleyes:
Kerry also thinks

SEN. KERRY: Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself.

In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.

According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.

[SlyHunter]

And your point would be? What? That Kerry won't say he knows Bush is liar because he is running for president and it wouldn't be PC to say that :rolleyes:
Oh and also you are wrong he stated recently that he thought Bush lied to the public about Saddam having WMD's etc. Just another thing he flip flopped on. So um PC had nothing to do with it. :p http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/newsandfacts/snapshots/article/0,13285,559705,00.html

[Neserk]

Oh and also you are wrong he stated recently that he thought Bush lied to the public about Saddam having WMD's etc. Just another thing he flip flopped on. So um PC had nothing to do with it. :p


<yAWn>

[mactastic]

Oh and also you are wrong he stated recently that he thought Bush lied to the public about Saddam having WMD's etc. Just another thing he flip flopped on. So um PC had nothing to do with it. :p http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/newsandfacts/snapshots/article/0,13285,559705,00.html

Ummm... is this proof Kerry said Bush lied?
Teen Caught in Bear Trap
by John B. Snow

Cops free him after three hours.

When it comes to rural hijinks, cow tipping is hard to beat. But give credit to one apparently restive 17-year-old from the town of Canmore, Alberta, who decided to give bear-trap vandalism a try. To his chagrin, however, he learned that the culvert bear traps that he and a second underage pal allegedly were attempting to vandalize work just as well on bored youth as they do on nuisance grizzlies.

In the wee hours of a Monday morning last summer the boy triggered the trap and was unable to get free. He spent three hours ensnared before police were called to the scene to spring him from the makeshift holding pen, according to the Edmonton Sun.

'Cause that's where your link leads :D

[SlyHunter]

Ummm... is this proof Kerry said Bush lied?


'Cause that's where your link leads :D
Actually I figured everyone already knew about it.
this aint proof either

2004-03-03) -- John Forbes Kerry, the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee, today said President George Bush lied about the presence of water on Mars.
http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001628.html

But this is and I shouldn't need it because it should already of been common knowledge

"He misled every one of us," Kerry said. "That"s one reason why I"m running to be president of the United States."

Kerry said Bush made his case for war based on at least two pieces of U.S. intelligence that now appear to be wrong that Iraq sought nuclear material from Africa and that Saddam"s regime had aerial weapons capable of attacking the United States with biological material.

Still, Kerry said it is too early to conclude whether or not war with Iraq was justified. There needs to be a congressional investigation into U.S. intelligence on Iraq, he said.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/061903A.shtml


And this link is really interesting

Senator Kerry and his supporters have also tried to justify his October 2002 vote by claiming that it was not because he believed that the United States should actually take over that oil-rich nation by military force, but because he felt it was necessary to force Saddam Hussein into allowing the United Nations inspectors back into Iraq.

This rationale is also false: Senator Kerry's vote to authorize military force against Iraq was cast on October 11. Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had agreed to allow UN inspectors to return without conditions on September 16, nearly four weeks earlier.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0301-01.htm

Senator Kerry and his supporters claim that he was fooled by exaggerated reports about Iraq’s military prowess from the administration. However, there were other senators who had access to the same information as Kerry who voted against going to war. Furthermore, former chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter personally briefed Senator Kerry prior to his vote on how Iraq did not have any dangerous WMD capability; he also personally gave the senator – at his request – an article from the respected journal Arms Control Today making the case that Iraq had been qualitatively disarmed. Members of Senator Kerry’s staff have acknowledged that the senator had access to a number of credible reports challenging the administration’s tall tales regarding the alleged Iraqi threat.

[mactastic]

Sly, both of those links lead to places where Kerry says Bush 'misled' us. The other one says 'if he lied'. Neither of those are Kerry calling Bush a liar as you have claimed.

[SlyHunter]

Sly, both of those links lead to places where Kerry says Bush 'misled' us. The other one says 'if he lied'. Neither of those are Kerry calling Bush a liar as you have claimed.

Kerry attacks Bush team as "crooked" and liars
Earlier Wednesday in Chicago, Kerry toughened his comments about his GOP critics after a supporter urged him to take on Bush. "Let me tell you, we've just begun to fight," Kerry said. "We're going to keep pounding. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary."
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi?__mode=view&entry_id=733

That one was with a live mic.


During the 2000 election when Bush said some bad things to an open mic, CNN was on him like white on rice, but when a Democrat does the same thing, CNN shows it's complete lack of journalistic objectivity or integrity. No wonder people have tagged them the Communist News Network. http://www.allthink.com/cgi/read-comment.cgi?&&040&&50&&1&&ip

http://www.patriotsforbush.com/archives/000156.html

some reason this story got deleted

This is the pot calling the kettle black. Kerry claims that Bush is a liar when he has consistently lied to the American people.

http://story.news.yahoo.com


makes it hard to get a neutral news site quote when they delete these things.

I've seen Kerry on TV with a microphone in front of his face saying that Bush lied about WMD's.

[SlyHunter]

Aha, stupid me why didn't I think of just going to Kerry's own web site.


“He misled the American people in his own State of the Union Address about Saddam’s nuclear program and WMD’s, and refused – and continues to refuse – to level with the American people about the cost of the war. Simply put, this President didn't tell the truth about the war from the beginning. And our country is paying the price.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0319.html

[mactastic]

Lol, this isn't the first time you've made the claim that 'you saw this on live TV' but you can't find it in print. And you keep saying Kerry said Bush lied, yet the best you can come up with (once I check your links) is that Kerry, on an open mic that he didn't know was on, saying "These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen." These guys isn't President Bush and you should know the difference. I'm not saying Kerry HASN'T called Bush a liar, but nothing you've put forth to 'prove' your point has contained a statement from Kerry calling Bush a liar. You gotta do better than that around here...

[SlyHunter]

Lol, this isn't the first time you've made the claim that 'you saw this on live TV' but you can't find it in print. And you keep saying Kerry said Bush lied, yet the best you can come up with (once I check your links) is that Kerry, on an open mic that he didn't know was on, saying "These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen." These guys isn't President Bush and you should know the difference. I'm not saying Kerry HASN'T called Bush a liar, but nothing you've put forth to 'prove' your point has contained a statement from Kerry calling Bush a liar. You gotta do better than that around here...
2 post up Kerry's own web site.

[mactastic]

Aha, stupid me why didn't I think of just going to Kerry's own web site.

There ya go! And the link doesn't even lead to a random sportsmans journal!

[mactastic]

2 post up Kerry's own web site.

1 post up. I saw it.

[SlyHunter]

I can't find the last post I posted on this topic but I'm sure its somewhere and its related to Iraq.

During the 1990s, it was always the U.S. government that took the blame, even though it was Saddam who should have. The purported reason was that we refused to let up on the U.N. sanctions against Iraq, which were imposed because Saddam failed to open up his weapons of mass destruction programs to international inspections and demonstrably disarm — as he had agreed in the Gulf War ceasefire resolution.

For instance, a UNICEF report from 1997 stated, "32 percent of Children under the age of five — a total of 960,000 — are undernourished." By some reports, 5,000 Iraqi children died every month due to sanctions. More than 1 million Iraqis were said to have died from disease and malnutrition during the 1990s.

Now, it was this suffering that the U.N. Oil for Food program was meant to assuage when the program came on line in 1995, but it did not. Since the fall of Saddam and the end of the Oil for Food program on Nov. 21, the staggering failings of the program, now better known as the Oil for Palaces program, have been revealed.

"Suddenly, Oil-for-Food is with us again, this time splashed all over the news as the subject of scandal at the U.N.: bribes, kickbacks, fraud, smuggling, stories of graft involving tens of billions of dollars and countless barrels of oil, and implicating big business and high officials in dozens of countries; allegations that the head of the program himself was on the take."

• Between 1997 and 2002, Oil for Food generated $67 billion in revenues for the Iraqi regime. There was little or no oversight from the United Nations of how this money was spent.

• In addition, Saddam is estimated to have generated $10.1 billion in illegal revenues by exploiting the Oil for Food program, through smuggling through Syria and through illicit surcharges on oil contracts.

• Saddam used Oil for Food to stay in power through a global network of companies, politicians and other individuals who benefited from the program. The list reaches into Western governments, into the United Nations itself and includes 46 Russian and 11 French names.

• Between 1996 and 2003, Russian companies received $7.3 billion in business through Oil for Food; French firms earned $3.7 billion.

• The United Nations itself had a vested interest in the program, overseeing a flow of funds averaging at least $15 billion a year. It was administered by 10 U.N. agencies, employing over 1,000 staff, and the United Nations collected 2.2 percent commission on every barrel of oil.

There are a couple of lessons in this.

One is that these revelations do not inspire confidence that the United Nations is capable of running anything in Iraq — exactly at the moment when the Bush administration is hanging its hopes for a June 30 transition in Iraq on U.N. guidance. Any role for the United Nations must be limited.

Second, it is critical to remember that Iraqi children are so much better off today than they used to be under Saddam's dictatorship and his corrupt dealings with the United Nations. Despite all the attacks on Bush administration policy, we are giving Iraqis a future. Through USAID, 3 million Iraqi children have been vaccinated. Almost a quarter-million children and pregnant women have been given high-protein foods. More than 2,500 schools have been renovated, and 2.5 million children have been given school kits, and on and on.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/helledale/HD20040422.shtml

The point? As bad as things seem to have gone now with the coalition of the willing they wouldn't be any better with a force of the UN. In fact I doubt very much the disposition or the content of the forces used would be all that much difference. Irregardless the UN has already been proven to be too irresponsible and too untrustworthy to be placed in charge and as more of this information comes out were enablers in keeping Saddam in power.

[numediaman]

The point? As bad as things seem to have gone now with the coalition of the willing they wouldn't be any better with a force of the UN. In fact I doubt very much the disposition or the content of the forces used would be all that much difference. Irregardless the UN has already been proven to be too irresponsible and too untrustworthy to be placed in charge and as more of this information comes out were enablers in keeping Saddam in power.

Sly, you don't get it, do you? Without Bush, we wouldn't have this in Iraq:

[SlyHunter]

Sly, you don't get it, do you? Without Bush, we wouldn't have this in Iraq:
Your right we wouldn't have all them coffins, Saddam didn't believe in wasting money on coffins and simply dumped them in mass graves. Yup we wouldn't have all them coffins thats for sure.


And when were done hopefully we'll also be able to so that without Bush Iraqi's wouldn't have the freedom we here in the US has taken for granted for so long. Freedom paid with the lives of our ancestors. Freedom in France paid for by lives of Americans. Freedom in many countries partly paid for by the lives of Americans and Iraq hopefully will be added to the free. You don't get freedom by trying to appease those who which to enslave you.

[numediaman]

You don't get freedom by trying to appease those who which to enslave you.

Saddam was trying to enslave us? Are you stretching a little here?

[mactastic]

You don't get freedom by trying to appease those who which to enslave you.

I'm a little confused here. Are you basing your argument on the premise that Saddam was trying to enslave us?

[skunk]

Your right we wouldn't have all them coffins, Saddam didn't believe in wasting money on coffins and simply dumped them in mass graves. Yup we wouldn't have all them coffins thats for sure.

And when were done hopefully we'll also be able to so that without Bush Iraqi's wouldn't have the freedom we here in the US has taken for granted for so long. Freedom paid with the lives of our ancestors. Freedom in France paid for by lives of Americans. Freedom in many countries partly paid for by the lives of Americans and Iraq hopefully will be added to the free. You don't get freedom by trying to appease those who which to enslave you.
The US army refuses even to keep a tally of the Iraqis they kill.
And were you aware that the French Revolution happened as a direct result of the vast expenditure by the French monarchy in both military and financial terms in support of your ancestors in the War of Independence? Freedom in America paid for by the lives of Frenchmen, in other words.
No, I thought not. If you read anything useful instead of those rabid diatribes you keep linking to, you might (MIGHT) get a more balanced view.
But I'm not holding my breath...

[numediaman]

OK, calm down. We'll survive this.

How about we change the subject: I just received the new Ozu DVD -- Floating Weeds . . . great packaging . . . boy those folks at Criterion Collection do a great job --- oops, wrong forum. :D

[mactastic]

...

No personal attacks please. :mad:

[skunk]

No personal attacks please. :mad:
Sorry, guys, just lost it for a minute there....

[wwidgirl]

I don't think Bush committed "crimes against humanity". Saddam, however, tried to commit genocide (Kurds). He was the first person EVER to use chemical weapons on his own people. I have a hard time comparing Bush to Saddam because obviously Saddam was an evil son of a bitch and Bush, we'll he's just an ass.

[mactastic]

I don't think Bush committed "crimes against humanity". Saddam, however, tried to commit genocide (Kurds). He was the first person EVER to use chemical weapons on his own people. I have a hard time comparing Bush to Saddam because obviously Saddam was an evil son of a bitch and Bush, we'll he's just an ass.

Ok, first off there is some debate about whether Iran or Iraq was responsible for the gassing of civilians in the incident at Halabja, which is what I'm assuming you are refering to when you say he used chemical weapons on his own people. Second, he is far from the first person to use chemical weapons on his own people. Have you ever heard of Zyklon B?

I don't think Bush could be tried for 'crimes against humanity' either, btw.

[Sayhey]

I don't think Bush committed "crimes against humanity". Saddam, however, tried to commit genocide (Kurds). He was the first person EVER to use chemical weapons on his own people. I have a hard time comparing Bush to Saddam because obviously Saddam was an evil son of a bitch and Bush, we'll he's just an ass.

While I agree with you that comparing Bush's deeds to Saddam or Hitler (as some unfortunately do) is neither accurate or useful, I would not agree that he is not guilty of war crimes. I think this war is illegal and he may well have done illegal things, not to mention morally reprehensible, to promote his war. Does this rise to "crimes against humanity" - I don't know, but he is much more than "just an ass."

[wwidgirl]

I honestly believe that Bush is a misguided fool. Stress on the "misguided".
I'm pretty sure that Bush's crimes do not constitute "crimes against humanity".

"crime against humanity" means murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, persecution or any other inhumane act or omission that is committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a crime against humanity according to customary international law or conventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-45.9/41109.html

Warcrimes however........

While I agree with you that comparing Bush's deeds to Saddam or Hitler (as some unfortunately do) is neither accurate or useful, I would not agree that he is not guilty of war crimes. I think this war is illegal and he may well have done illegal things, not to mention morally reprehensible, to promote his war. Does this rise to "crimes against humanity" - I don't know, but he is much more than "just an ass."

[Sayhey]

I honestly believe that Bush is a misguided fool. Stress on the "misguided".
I'm pretty sure that Bush's crimes do not constitute "crimes against humanity".


http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-45.9/41109.html

Warcrimes however........

Thanks for the link. I won't argue about "crimes against humanity," but his decision to launch an illegal war in Iraq has resulted in the death of thousands. That qualifies as a crime to me. Is he just a "misguided fool" who is a tool of others? I don't think Bush can be reduced to that. It is easy to listen to him talk and assume he is just a fool, but he is, in reality, a savvy politician who knows how to manipulated his image to accomplish his goals. Remember, Karl Rove is not the only one who was trained by Lee Atwater in how to smear and destroy his opponents, Dubya was there as well.

[takao]

Freedom paid with the lives of our ancestors. Freedom in France paid for by lives of Americans. Freedom in many countries partly paid for by the lives of Americans and Iraq hopefully will be added to the free. You don't get freedom by trying to appease those who which to enslave you.

actually where was america when chez republic wanted to keep their freedom in 1938
or poland in 1939
or norway,denmark,netherlands,belgium,france,luxemburg during 1940
or russia,england during 1941...
(sorry for those which i have forgotten)

actually germany declared war on the USA after the japanese attack on pearl harbour ...
it was far from "the US Cavalry coming to the rescue just in time" ...they were actually very late...

and now 60 years later the US Army is attacking other countries without formal declaration of war :rolleyes:

sorry no offence but i am so annoyed about this "cheese eating surrendering french" like comments... i know what the americans have done for europe in ww2 but this "we saved the day" attitude is just wrong... without the red army fighting in the east under big losses there wouldn't be a world like nowadays...
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm
compare the numbers of soviets flags vs american ones please ....

[mactastic]

sorry no offence but i am so annoyed about this "cheese eating surrendering french" like comments...

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "cheese eating surrender monkeys". But it has to be said with a Scottish accent. :p

[Sayhey]

actually where was america when chez republic wanted to keep their freedom in 1938
or poland in 1939
or norway,denmark,netherlands,belgium,france,luxemburg during 1940
or russia,england during 1941...
(sorry for those which i have forgotten)

actually germany declared war on the USA after the japanese attack on pearl harbour ...
it was far from "the US Cavalry coming to the rescue just in time" ...they were actually very late...

and now 60 years later the US Army is attacking other countries without formal declaration of war :rolleyes:

sorry no offence but i am so annoyed about this "cheese eating surrendering french" like comments... i know what the americans have done for europe in ww2 but this "we saved the day" attitude is just wrong... without the red army fighting in the east under big losses there wouldn't be a world like nowadays...
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm
compare the numbers of soviets flags vs american ones please ....

It is what happens when we rely on John Wayne movies for the history of World War II. The US has much to be proud of in the war against fascism, but to denigrate the tremendous contribution of others is just more "ugly american" jingoism.

[IJ Reilly]

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "cheese eating surrender monkeys". But it has to be said with a Scottish accent. :p

Okay, I'm familiar with this line, but I don't know who said it first. Care to fill me in?

[mactastic]

Okay, I'm familiar with this line, but I don't know who said it first. Care to fill me in?

It's from the Simpsons. Groundskeeper Willy is forced to teach French due to budget cuts IIRC, so he walks into the class of students and in his Scottish burr says, "Bonjour.... you cheese eating surrender monkeys!"

[IJ Reilly]

It's from the Simpsons. Groundskeeper Willy is forced to teach French due to budget cuts IIRC, so he walks into the class of students and in his Scottish burr says, "Bonjour.... you cheese eating surrender monkeys!"

Thanks. Clearly, my cultural literacy is severely lacking.

[mactastic]

Here, this might help. :D

[IJ Reilly]

Methinks somebody has too much time on their hands. ;)

I will admit to watching The Simpsons, but I won't admit to recalling this particular episode.

[skunk]

I will admit to watching The Simpsons
So will I, but I really resent having to support Rupert Effing Murdoch by doing so.

[Dale Sorel]

Yea... Bush = Hitler

Buy a clue would you :rolleyes:

I didn't say that. You did :p

Yea, but you said:


The real question is when will BUSH go on trial for crimes against humanity?

Crimes against humanity... give me a break :rolleyes:

[skunk]

Yea, but you said:
Crimes against humanity... give me a break :rolleyes:
He's getting there as fast as he can. :mad:

[SlyHunter]

actually where was america when chez republic wanted to keep their freedom in 1938
or poland in 1939
or norway,denmark,netherlands,belgium,france,luxemburg during 1940
or russia,england during 1941...
(sorry for those which i have forgotten)

I don't know and I'm sure there are many more examples like the Kurds in Turkey, a situations where Africans from one nation were being eaten by Pygmies in another nation (and no I'm not making this up), and a multitude of other examples.
1. Who was in charge of our country. Problem I have with having elections every 4 years is it gives our country a multiple personality disorder. Every 4 years we have to redefine who we are based on who won the election. No I'm not saying we should stretch that term out any or anything like that but nothing is perfect and that is a problem I see with our system.
2. We can't save the world. The way I see it Saddam begged us to attack. There are so many reasons to have attacked that country, freeing their people are just one. And it looked to me like Saddam went out of his way to piss us off and make him number one in our enemy list. So yeah WMD's might have been an excuss to cover a multitude of other reasons for attacking him. But I don't see where anyone lied about it.

actually germany declared war on the USA after the japanese attack on pearl harbour ...
it was far from "the US Cavalry coming to the rescue just in time" ...they were actually very late...

Yeah allot of people in our country did not want us to get involved in Germany. Democrats and Libertarians both. What would of happened with the Jews had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor? In fact what would of happened with the French had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor? There is an important lesson to learn from that.

and now 60 years later the US Army is attacking other countries without formal declaration of war :rolleyes:

like Kosovo, Bosnia, etc.

sorry no offence but i am so annoyed about this "cheese eating surrendering french" like comments... i know what the americans have done for europe in ww2 but this "we saved the day" attitude is just wrong... without the red army fighting in the east under big losses there wouldn't be a world like nowadays...
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm
compare the numbers of soviets flags vs american ones please ....
Well them having riots and dessecrating the graves of the Americans who died helping to save their country makes it really easy to do. Add to that their activism in trying to garner support against us in the UN.

[numediaman]

Crimes against humanity... give me a break :rolleyes:

You're right, Neserk, is way off base. Bush probably can't be be charged with crimes against humanity. But Bush should be sent to the International Court of Justice at the Hague, nevertheless.

Using three different standards, George W. Bush could be convicted of "Crimes against peace".

1) This charge was successfully leveled at Nuremburg: "Article VI of the Nuremburg Charter defines "Crimes Against Peace" as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties . . . or participation in a common plan or conspiracy . . . to wage an aggressive war."

2) This charge also was leveled against the Japanese leadership. "The Potsdam declaration of July 1945 had called for trials and purges of those who had "deceived and misled" the Japanese people into war." This led to the hanging of a group of Japanese leaders in 1948.

3) And finally, the U.N.:

CRIMES AGAINST THE PEACE AND SECURITY OF MANKIND
Article 16
Crime of aggression

An individual who, as leader or organizer, actively participates in or orders the planning, preparation, initiation or waging of aggression committed by a State shall be responsible for a crime of aggression.

George W. Bush has said that because of 9/11, preemptive war is justified. Many people do not understand the incredible change in U.S. foreign policy this is -- and how it is in direct violation of international law.

[SlyHunter]

I've read and seen reports about individual GI's who hate the war in Iraq. Believe it or not I do read a news paper now and then but they are going out with the dinosaur. 90% of the time everything in the news paper that I care about hearing about I already heard on the radio, tv, or the internet. And with the internet and using sites like Drudge and Road Runner I can custom the news to send me the topics I want to see irregardless as to who wrote the story or which paper wrote the story.



FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. (AP) - Despite the shrapnel wounds Staff Sgt. William Pinkley suffered during his tour in Iraq, the 26-year-old is joining other soldiers who are re-enlisting at rates that exceed the retention goals set by the Pentagon.

As of March 31 - halfway through the Army's fiscal year - 28,406 soldiers had signed on for another tour of duty, topping the six-month goal of 28,377. The Army's goal is to re-enlist 56,100 soldiers by the end of September.

Pinkley re-enlisted for three more years, citing the camaraderie and the challenge of a new assignment.

"To come out and work with you guys every day, it's a good feeling," Pinkley, 26, told his 101st Airborne Division buddies during the ceremony earlier this month. His wife, Kimberly, watched with a smile, their toddler in her arms.

"It's a very positive retention picture at this point," said Lt. Col. Franklin Childress, an Army public affairs officer. The Army had nearly a half-million active-duty soldiers.

However, Childress cautioned that factors such as an improved economy and the Pentagon's decision to keep about 20,000 troops in Iraq for longer than a year to help quell the violence could change the picture.

Some contend a poor job market and re-enlistment bonuses worth thousands of dollars are keeping soldiers in the Army. Col. Joseph Anderson, commander of the 101st's 2nd Brigade, said it is more about camaraderie, patriotism and duty.

"They've had a personally rewarding and professionally developing experience," Anderson said. "I think they've formed some bonds that are going to last a lifetime. It tends to make them want to stay."

The only Army division to not meet its goal in the six-month period was the 82nd Airborne Division, whose members have been sent to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq since the Sept. 11 attacks. The division wanted to re-enlist 1,221 soldiers, but got only 1,136.

At Fort Campbell, soldiers from the 101st spent seven months in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks. The entire division of about 20,000 soldiers was sent to Iraq last year for major combat, and the last planeload returned home in March. A grueling year in Iraq claimed the lives of 61 Fort Campbell soldiers, and hundreds more were wounded.

In the six-month period ending March 31, the 101st topped its goal of re-enlisting 1,591. It got 1,737 to sign up for another tour of duty.

Fort Campbell leaders said their numbers debunk the theory that yearlong combat-zone assignments - not typically used since Vietnam - and the casualties in Iraq would discourage soldiers from re-enlisting.

Shelley MacDermid, co-director of the Military Family Research Institute at Purdue University, said it is too early to know what effect the war in Iraq will have long-term on recruitment and retention.

"If the war were to end tomorrow, the impact on re-enlistments likely would be very different than three years from now," MacDermid said.

Some soldiers, of course, are getting out, for themselves or for their families. ("There's a saying in the Army - 'You enlist a soldier, but you re-enlist a family' - and that's true," said Command Sgt. Maj. James Plemons, who oversees retention for the 101st.)

Staff Sgt. Bobby Miller, 31, has spent more than 10 years in the Army said he is getting out when his term ends in less than a year. The 101st soldier has served in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq and said he has barely seen his wife and two children in the past few years.

"It's not that we don't want to deploy; I'd like a little more stabilization," Miller said.

Pinkley was riding in a Humvee the day after Thanksgiving when it was rocked by a bomb. He suffered internal injuries and is still healing from the shrapnel wounds. He said he and his wife discussed for more than a year whether he should re-enlist.

In the end, despite his pain and his wife's fear for his life, they decided it was best for both of them, she said. His next position will be as a drill sergeant at Fort Benning, Ga.

"I'm excited about it," his wife said. "It's something he wanted to do. We told him we'd be supportive of him whatever he wanted." As for the possibility of her husband being sent off to a combat zone again, she said: "We would definitely do it again if we had to."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040423/D824LUNO3.html

I liked my tour in Germany because I did a real job there providing communications for the border guards at the three point border however state side duty didn't sit well with me.

When I was in the Army I hated the life and allot of the people with me did too. I got tired of higher ups telling us we were wasted slugs etc because we weren't doing "real jobs" and we were just training as such we may as well pick up cigarette butts as to train on our equipment. Saddam has given our people in the armed forces a chance to prove they are not a complete waste of money. Soldiers on the inside look at things differently than folks standing on the outside.

[skunk]

I don't know and I'm sure there are many more examples like the Kurds in Turkey, a situations where Africans from one nation were being eaten by Pygmies in another nation (and no I'm not making this up), and a multitude of other examples.
Take cover! He's off on one again.

1. Who was in charge of our country. Problem I have with having elections every 4 years is it gives our country a multiple personality disorder.
Yeah, democracy sucks, don't it?

2. We can't save the world.
Umm, I don't remember anyone ASKING you to.

The way I see it Saddam begged us to attack.
And you fell for it, and just look what a mess you're in now. Old Sadman must be having quite a chuckle.

Yeah allot of people in our country did not want us to get involved in Germany. Democrats and Libertarians both.
Not to mention Prescott Bush and his mates.

What would of happened with the Jews had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor? In fact what would of happened with the French had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor? There is an important lesson to learn from that.
Huh? I think I can see your line of thought, but I don't want to believe it.

Well them having riots and dessecrating the graves of the Americans who died helping to save their country makes it really easy to do. Add to that their activism in trying to garner support against us in the UN.
We don't judge all Americans by the activities of the NRA/KKK: why judge the French by the activities of their own right-wing lunatics?

[skunk]

Saddam has given our people in the armed forces a chance to prove they are not a complete waste of money. Soldiers on the inside look at things differently than folks standing on the outside.
Oh, I see! We should be GRATEFUL to Saddam for the training opportunity. Like Hitler was grateful to Franco for letting him practise his dive-bombing techniques at Guernica in 1937. I like your thinking.

[IJ Reilly]

So will I, but I really resent having to support Rupert Effing Murdoch by doing so.

The popularity of The Simpsons in Britain is kind of baffling. You guys must be missing about 70% of the satire.

[skunk]

The popularity of The Simpsons in Britain is kind of baffling. You guys must be missing about 70% of the satire.
Believe me we're not. We probably see 150% of the satire from where we are! :D

[mactastic]

"If you cut every corner you'll have more time for play. It's the American way!" -Sherry Bobbins

:D

(I'll admit it, I watch way too much Simpsons. That's what happens when you get a DVR for your TV!)

[IJ Reilly]

Believe me we're not. We probably see 150% of the satire from where we are! :D

I was afraid you were going to say something like that. Translation: The program confirms some of Britain's ugliest prejudices about Americans.

[skunk]

I was afraid you were going to say something like that. Translation: The program confirms some of Britain's ugliest prejudices about Americans.
Not just Americans, the whole human race. Some of my best friends, etc, etc.

[IJ Reilly]

Not just Americans, the whole human race. Some of my best friends, etc, etc.

Hmm, well when I was in the UK when and Dallas and Dynasty were are the rage about 20 years ago, I encountered more than a few Britons who seemed to think these shows at some level accurately portrayed of life in the US.

[skunk]

Hmm, well when I was in the UK when and Dallas and Dynasty were are the rage about 20 years ago, I encountered more than a few Britons who seemed to think these shows at some level accurately portrayed of life in the US.
You must have been mixing with the wrong crowd ;)

[takao]

I don't know and I'm sure there are many more examples like the Kurds in Turkey, a situations where Africans from one nation were being eaten by Pygmies in another nation (and no I'm not making this up), and a multitude of other examples..

Kurds in turkey is different story i hope this thing being solved this will take a lot of time......i know a lot of people with turkish parents and all of them hope that the kurds will be treated better because they don't like how this completly destroys not only peace but also the reputation of their country (which most only see during holidays)

well most problems in africa relate back to the imperialism from european countries (yes british,french,dutch,spain,italian,german.... i looking at you) i hope this "selling old weapons to africa thing" stops.


1. Who was in charge of our country. Problem I have with having elections every 4 years is it gives our country a multiple personality disorder. Every 4 years we have to redefine who we are based on who won the election. No I'm not saying we should stretch that term out any or anything like that but nothing is perfect and that is a problem I see with our system.
2. We can't save the world. The way I see it Saddam begged us to attack. There are so many reasons to have attacked that country, freeing their people are just one. And it looked to me like Saddam went out of his way to piss us off and make him number one in our enemy list. So yeah WMD's might have been an excuss to cover a multitude of other reasons for attacking him. But I don't see where anyone lied about it.

actually the american doktrin of helping democracy in the world came up thankfully after the war because if they would have reacted faster..the warcould have been stopped earlier. i don't think it has to with goverment i think it had more to do with the "i don't care about other countries at war on the other side of the earth" way of thinking which is still wide spread over the world


Yeah allot of people in our country did not want us to get involved in Germany. Democrats and Libertarians both. What would of happened with the Jews had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor? In fact what would of happened with the French had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor? There is an important lesson to learn from that.

i don't know about the democratic,liberatians etc. political situation of the USA in this year but i guess the situation was complicated because germany wasn't a enemy like iraq,or afghanistan nowadays...they had thousands of superior airplanes, tanks and highly trained infantry and all with 2,5 years of war experiences and all without any real lost battle...thats a complete different situation ...i guess it's absolutly clear that any politician would have doubt to start a war with such a country and i understand that completly


like Kosovo, Bosnia, etc.

wasn't there Support from the UN in this cases ? i might be wrong but i think the UN was for the action against the serbians back then


Well them having riots and dessecrating the graves of the Americans who died helping to save their country makes it really easy to do. Add to that their activism in trying to garner support against us in the UN.

for this statment you have to show me a proof ...where are riots which are dessecrating graves ?...last time i saw something about american soldiers dieing in france in tv it was about the meeting of chirac with members of US and UK goverment at the landing ground at omaha beach and they were shaking hands and for next year for this traditional meeting even the germans are invited for this meeting for the first time ...and the french even said it was a mistake in the past not to invite them
and of course every year there is the traditional meeting of the german chancellor and the french president at the "grave of the unknown soldier" (under the arc de triomph) which died in the first world war

and the french working against the US ? at the moment there are french soldiers in afgahnistan...chirac was pro-afgahnistan.... just like there are german soldiers there....(and very few austrian ones)
in kosovo and bosnia the same ..german/french soldiers fighting together with other UN forces

germany and france weren't against the iraq-war-thing because they don't like the USA .. it was because they thought it will not help in the war against terror and they didn't believed the WMD threat...and soem even thought that this war will cause more terrorism

[SlyHunter]

Slogans reading "Death to Yankees" and "Rosbeefs (Brits) go home" were painted on the central memorial in Etaples, near the Channel port of Boulogne in northern France.

The slogans also called for UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W Bush to be sent to the international criminal court in The Hague.

"Saddam Hussein will win and spill your blood", one slogan read.

Another claimed the graves were "contaminating" French soil.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2907701.stm


this one comes with sound
Dig up your rubbish. It’s fouling our soil”
“Roast-beefs go home”
“Saddam will win and spill your blood.”
"Death to the Yankees"
"Bush and Blair to be sent to the International Criminal Court in The Hague"
http://members.aol.com/neddybarney/france.html

French President Jacques Chirac, who has described Saddam Hussein as a "personal friend," wrote to Queen Elizabeth to apologize for the desecration of British tombs in France. At the same time, in France, British and American flags were being burnt and chants shouted in support of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. In the streets of Paris, French Jews were being assaulted. According to The Wall Street Journal of April 11, 2003, Noam Levy, a Jew, was beaten with an iron bar.



Ugly Anti-Americanism In France And Germany – Where Will It Lead?

By Garner Ted Armstrong
Everyone knows there is a huge amount of anti-American sentiment in France. Most should know that sentiment is also keenly felt in Germany, and, for that matter, elsewhere in Europe.
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/gtanews96.htm


Problem is this is actually old news so all the reports I read don't seem to be listed anymore but still Google is full of this stuff.

Now why did I need to provide proof if you could've done your own homework if you actually cared enough to bother. Why is it ok to condemn me for not knowing about nuclear enhanced tank ammo and not showing a link providing me the information I didn't have at the time but its also my fault because you don't know the information that is readily at hand that you didn't bother to research? This is what I mean by being lopsided.

And yes I know Takao isn't Skunk but you know what I mean by the above paragraph.

[takao]

Problem is this is actually old news so all the reports I read don't seem to be listed anymore but still Google is full of this stuff.

Now why did I need to provide proof if you could've done your own homework if you actually cared enough to bother. Why is it ok to condemn me for not knowing about nuclear enhanced tank ammo and not showing a link providing me the information I didn't have at the time but its also my fault because you don't know the information that is readily at hand that you didn't bother to research? This is what I mean by being lopsided.

And yes I know Takao isn't Skunk but you know what I mean by the above paragraph.

people are angry because somebody goes to war...a terrible wrong way to show it because it doesn't help the situation....
but it also shows how the actual US goverment completly lost support for there action in _US friendly_ nations... after 9/11 the US had support from everybody and afgahnistan was also welcomed ...but with this "show" about iraq (everybody knew that they would attack even if they don't get UN support) they completly lost the support from the _people_ here
and the other things like "freedom fries" and "old europe" didn't help the situation either

i was pro-iraq war ,but not executed in this way without UN support ...

the US goverment (not the people) completly lost their good reputation in a few months and now they have to earn it back slowly....

iam completly against such action because they are really bad but you have to think about "why this happend"

and the reputation-damage is huge: under young students support for the USA actions are now nearly non-existent, i've seen students burning american flags over here, i know personaly students who really _hate_ the american government
i even have the feeling that stupid and wrong prejudices are coming back like never before(as example "americans are dumb,lazy and only thinking about themselves" which is completly wrong but common prejudice) and the US goverment is doing their best to add fuel to the flame
if you are pro-USA here you have a hard day justifing yourself all the time (which i can say from my own experience)

[wwidgirl]

Sorry, What i meant was that "In May 1987 Iraq became the first country ever to attack its own citizens with checmical weapons" (Samantha Power, "A problem from hell:American and the age of genocide", page 146).

Hussein dropped mustard gas on around two dozen Kurdish villages along the Iranian-Iraqi border. This is considered historical fact.

Ok, first off there is some debate about whether Iran or Iraq was responsible for the gassing of civilians in the incident at Halabja, which is what I'm assuming you are refering to when you say he used chemical weapons on his own people. Second, he is far from the first person to use chemical weapons on his own people. Have you ever heard of Zyklon B?

I don't think Bush could be tried for 'crimes against humanity' either, btw.

[zimv20]

Hussein dropped mustard gas on around two dozen Kurdish villages along the Iranian-Iraqi border. This is considered historical fact.
not by everyone:

EDITORIAL DESK | January 31, 2003, Friday
A War Crime Or an Act of War?

By Stephen C. Pelletiere (NYT) 1128 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 29 , Column 1

ABSTRACT - Op-Ed article by Stephen C Pelletiere, senior CIA political analyst on Iraq during Iran-Iraq war, lays out facts in allegation that Saddam Hussein gassed Iraqi Kurds in Halabja in March 1988; says all that is known for certain is that Kurds were hit with poison gas that day, during battle with Iranians; explains that US Defense Intelligence Agency's report found both sides used gas during battle, and blamed Iranians for Kurdish deaths; notes Kurds died of cyanide-based gas that Iran, but not Iraq, had at time; explains that Iran sought control of key dam near Halabja, part of impressive Iraqi waterway system that is most extensive in Mideast; adds that Bush administration owes Americans full facts before going to war (M)


from this (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60816FC3D5C0C728FDDA80894DB404482) NYT story brief

[numediaman]

Too bad Bush (jr.) can't read:

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state . . .

. . . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

– by George Bush [Sr.] Time (March 1998)

[wwidgirl]

seems like we're talking about two different things. Hussein dropped chemicals on the kurds. You seem to be talking about one day (?) and one incident, I'm not.

not by everyone:


from this (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60816FC3D5C0C728FDDA80894DB404482) NYT story brief

[skunk]

not by everyone:

from this (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60816FC3D5C0C728FDDA80894DB404482) NYT story brief
I know I've posted this link myself on a couple of occasions, but I also found a convincing rebuttal at http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-8-92-1049.jsp, so I'm less sure that Pelletiere's account is that reliable.

[zimv20]

seems like we're talking about two different things. Hussein dropped chemicals on the kurds. You seem to be talking about one day (?) and one incident, I'm not.
skunk's link makes mention of mustard gas attacks:
I know I've posted this link myself on a couple of occasions, but I also found a convincing rebuttal at http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-8-92-1049.jsp, so I'm less sure that Pelletiere's account is that reliable.
...but i've not seen any reliable reports that it ever happened. i welcome them, if anyone can find them.

[blackfox]

Too bad Bush (jr.) can't read:

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state . . .

. . . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

– by George Bush [Sr.] Time (March 1998)
Although paraphrased, that is an amazing quote to read...I never liked GBush Sr., but at least he has some smarts...thanks Numedia...

[skunk]

Although paraphrased, that is an amazing quote to read...I never liked GBush Sr., but at least he has some smarts...thanks Numedia...
Pity it didn't rub off on Junior...

[SlyHunter]

First I admit this report is dubious and unless and until validated by other sources I myself won't consider 100% fact either. But there is hope.

New evidence out of Iraq suggests the U.S. effort to track down Saddam Hussein's missing weapons of mass destruction is having better success than is being reported.

The Iraq Survey Group, ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official tells Insight.

"There is a long list of charges made by the U.S. that have been confirmed, but none of this seems to mean anything because the weapons that were unaccounted for by the United Nations remain unaccounted for."

Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner.

The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects."

They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

But while the president's critics and the media might plausibly hide behind ambiguity and a lack of sensational-looking finds for not reporting some discoveries, in the case of Saddam's ballistic-missile programs they have no excuse for their silence.

"Where were the missiles? We found them," another senior administration official told Insight.

Among Kay's revelations, which officials tell Insight have been amplified in subsequent inspections in recent weeks:


A prison laboratory complex that may have been used for human testing of BW agents and "that Iraqi officials working to prepare the U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N." Why was Saddam interested in testing biological-warfare agents on humans if he didn't have a biological-weapons program?

"Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'"

New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.

A line of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or drones, "not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit."

"Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N."

"Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 kilometers [621 miles] -- well beyond the 150-kilometer-range limit [93 miles] imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1,000-kilometer range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara [Turkey], Cairo [Egypt] and Abu Dhabi [United Arab Emirates]."
In addition, through interviews with Iraqi scientists, seized documents and other evidence, the ISG learned the Iraqi government had made "clandestine attempts between late 1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300-kilometer-range [807 miles] ballistic missiles -- probably the No Dong -- 300-kilometer-range [186 miles] antiship cruise missiles and other prohibited military equipment," Kay reported.


thats a few paragraphs of the first half of the story.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213


The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad, which International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky acknowledged to Insight had been intended for "a clandestine nuclear-weapons program."

[SlyHunter]

What happened to Saddams WMD's? ???

The Jordanian government yesterday confirmed earlier news on that it was able to foil a huge attack by chemical weapons against the headquarters if the Jordanian intelligence in Amman. It said that the attack would have led to the killing of 80,000 persons in what seems to be the biggest aggression on the history of the Kingdom.

The Jordanian state run TV showed confessions of 6 Jordanians and two Syrians, whose leader is said to be the presumed member in al-Qaida organization, the Jordanian born Abu Mus'ab al-Zirqawi, who is sentenced to death in Jordan, recruited him to carry out attacks in the Kingdom including the American embassy by using " chemicals."

The TV broadcast pictures stressed it is " chemicals, terrorists from al-Qaida organization are working to convert into explosives," as well as the trucks which will be driven by suicide terrorists to the general intelligence circle, loaded with some 30 tons of chemical explosives." The Jordanian TV added in its report that it is the biggest attempt in the history of the Kingdom in regard to its volume and number of its victims and will lead to killing 80,000.

Maybe?

And Iraq's links to Al-Qaeda and/or terrorism?

The Jordanian TV added that " terrorist Ahmad Fadeel al-Khalaeylah, known as Mus'ab al-Zirqawi, one of al-Qaida main leaderships, was the one who planned for these operations, set its objectives and recruited its members.. and decided that the general intelligence to be the first target of the group and employed persons to launch the attack." The " commander of the terrorist network" was introduced as "Azmi al-Jayousi, which the sources said that al-Zarqawi recruited him in Iraq. One Jordanian official said al-Jayousi started planning for the operation in Iraq to which he came from Afghanistan, adding that al-Jayousi was working at a direct instruction of his leader Abu Musab al-Zirqawi, for whom al-Jayousi vowed total loyalty since they had met in al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan. The Jordanian TV broascast pictures for al-Jayousi who said in his confessions that he was trained in Hurrat, Afghanistan ( for Abu Musab), where he had said he received "explosives and poisoning session." He added that He met with al-Zarqai for the second time in Iraq and also another follower for al-Zarqawi said his name is Muwaffaq Edwan. Edwan was killed in clashes with the Jordanian security forces on April 20th.

Anas al-Sheikh Ameen, a Syrian (18 year old) said in his confession he was trained in Afghanistan and was asked to go to Afghanistan to work under al-Jayusi order. Another suspect in the case called Ahmad sameer said he was trained in Iraq at the hands of one assistant for al-Zarqawi and he worked in explosives manufacturing for two months in a factory in al-Ramtha city near the Jordanian- Syrian borders.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/040427/2004042714.html

Possible.

[skunk]

What happened to Saddams WMD's? ???

Maybe?

And Iraq's links to Al-Qaeda and/or terrorism?


Possible.
It's also possible that the chaos to which the US invasion/occupation has led provides a more fertile recruiting and training ground now than Afghanistan. There is no evidence here of Saddam's involvement.
And as for the chemicals, until we know what they are, ammonium nitrate fertilizer, as found in the UK recently, is commonly and routinely available to be converted into explosives. You'll have to do better than pure conjecture.

[Taft]

What happened to Saddams WMD's? ???

Maybe?


Yes, maybe this confirms what many on the left worried about: Saddam, sensing his doom was imminent, might have turned over to terrorists any weapons he successfully hid from inspectors. I always thought it was a long shot that he had any usable WMDs, but thought that if he did have them, he would probably use them if cornered. This could be evidence of that...or, more likely, this event is completely unrelated to Iraq and Saddam.

And Iraq's links to Al-Qaeda and/or terrorism?

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/040427/2004042714.html

Possible.

That's laughable. So because the terrorists were in Iraq at some point in time, that means that Saddam helped them out? Where does this come from? How do you invent these facts?

I have no doubt that terrorist cells exist in Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. Maybe even in the US. But how can you possibly say that the existance of terrorists in a country is proof of that country's ties to terror?

The Sept. 11th hijackers lived in the US and might have even planned part of the attack here. Does that mean that the US government is aiding and abetting terrorists? How about Saudi Arabia? I mean, there is credible evidence that Saudi leadership has aided or at the very least ignored terrorist activity. Why aren't they a prime US target?

You are drawing connections were none exist. The article you are quoting doesn't even go so far as to draw a connection to Saddam (and they are a notoriously right-wing site!).

Taft

[IJ Reilly]

You are drawing connections were none exist.

When you can't connect the dots, you can try to connect the dits.

[numediaman]

So Karen Hughes, the president's advisor, says there are no WMDs -- David Kay says there are no WMDs, but you think otherwise. Are you calling the president a liar? Where is your loyalty to the president?

[numediaman]

Well, for the Japanese hostages, the war in Iraq has a price tag:

Freed Japanese hostages billed $21,000
3 released in Iraq returned home to storm of criticism
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:03 a.m.*ET April* 27, 2004

TOKYO - Three Japanese who were held hostage for a week in Iraq were billed about $7,000 each to cover their plane tickets home and other miscellaneous expenses, an official said Monday.

[SlyHunter]

New evidence about a meeting in Prague between September 11 plot leader Mohamed Atta and Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani has been uncovered, reports Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.

Investigative journalist Edward J. Epstein has uncovered Czech government visa records indicating al-Ani was posted to the Iraqi embassy in Prague between March 1999 and April 21, 2001, and was involved in handling Iraqi agents.

A search of the Iraq Embassy in Prague after the fall of Baghdad to coalition forces revealed al-Ani had scheduled a meeting for April 8, 2001, with a Hamburg student, according to an appointment calendar obtained by Czech intelligence.

Al-Ani then was placed under surveillance as he met with a young Arab-speaking man in Prague April 8.

After seeing Atta's photograph after Sept. 11, the Czech counterintelligence watcher identified the man he had seen meeting al-Ani as Atta. Al-Ani was expelled from Prague within two weeks.

According to Epstein, al-Ani denied he met Atta and repeated the denial after being detained by U.S. forces in July.

The CIA has been unable to confirm the Prague meeting between al-Ani and Atta. If confirmed, the meeting would indicate a role by Saddam Hussein's intelligence service in some level of support for the Sept.11 plot.

The current official U.S. intelligence conclusion is that Saddam's regime was not involved in supporting the Sept. 11 attacks.

According to Epstein, Spanish intelligence has uncovered information indicating Algerians Khaled Madani and Moussa Laouar supplied Atta and another al-Qaida member, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, with false passports.

Epstein's information supports other journalists who have uncovered a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida, including Jayna Davis, author of "The Third Terrorist: The Middle Eastern Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing."

In her book, Davis suggests the September 11 attacks possibly could have been prevented if evidence of an Iraqi and al-Qaida link to the OKC bombing had been pursued.

Davis writes that in November 1997, Hussain Hashem Al-Hussaini – a former Iraqi Republican Guardsman whom multiple eyewitnesses identified as McVeigh's elusive accomplice, John Doe 2 – confided to his psychiatrist that he was anxious about his airport job because "if something were to happen there, I (Al-Hussaini) would be a suspect." At the time, Al-Hussaini was employed at Boston Logan International Airport, where two of the four 9-11 suicide hijackings originated.

She also reveals court records that suggest one of bombers Timothy McVeigh's and Terry Nichols's accused Middle Eastern handlers had foreknowledge of the 9-11 plot.

In addition, Davis discusses information she first uncovered eight years ago – that Nichols learned the macabre genius of terrorist bomb making under the training of Philippines-based al-Qaida explosives expert Ramzi Yousef, the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38372

Related story:
Could OKC 'silver bullet' have prevented 9-11?
New book connects the dots from Saddam to 1995 attack

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38059

[SlyHunter]

American armed forces arrested radical Shiite leader Muqtada Al-Sadr, reported the leader's close assistant Hasem Al-Araadge, Chief of Baghdad bureau "Mahdi army". Al-Arradge was also arrested by the Americans. Both are currently held in the "Palestine" hotel in Baghdad.

http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/21/93/375/12491_Alsadr.html

One problem I can't find alternative sources for this info. I would not be surprised if it wasn't true. But it sounds like an official news story maybe the others are slow to write it up because its the weekend :confused:

[numediaman]

http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/21/93/375/12491_Alsadr.html

One problem I can't find alternative sources for this info. I would not be surprised if it wasn't true. But it sounds like an official news story maybe the others are slow to write it up because its the weekend :confused:

Why should this bother you? Just because the news is untrue is no reason for you to stop believing it, right? Maybe the fact that the story is dated April 13th might have given you a clue to its legitimacy.

[SlyHunter]

Why should this bother you? Just because the news is untrue is no reason for you to stop believing it, right? Maybe the fact that the story is dated April 13th might have given you a clue to its legitimacy.
you apparently have an invalid opinion of me. If I had noticed the date I wouldn't of posted it. You do have a bad habit of putting words in my mouth or I should say meanings. Then again you have no problem with starving children in the streets.

[Voltron]

Where are the WMD's?

Just heard a report terrorist used Sarin gas in Baghdad. Maybe some of it is there?

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A small amount of the nerve agent sarin was found in a shell that exploded in Iraq (news - web sites), the U.S. army said Monday in the first announcement of discovery of any of the weapons on which Washington made its case for war.
The Iraq Survey Group has confirmed today that a 155 (mm) artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found. The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) that was discovered by a U.S. force convoy," he said.

"A detonation occurred before the IED be could be rendered inoperable," Kimmitt said, adding that two members of an explosives team had been treated for exposure to the substance.

Kimmitt said the round, designed to mix the sarin in flight, belonged to a class of ordnance that the ousted government of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) claimed to have destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war.

"It is a weapon that we believe was stocked from the ex-regime time, and it had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell set up to explode like an ordinary IED... when it exploded it indicated that it actually had some sarin in it," he said.

IEDs are bombs usually planted at the side of the road to explode as coalition vehicles pass.

The United States launched its invasion of Iraq last year, accusing then-president Saddam Hussein of developing chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. Failure to find such weapons has stirred criticism in the United States and Britain, Washington's closest ally in the war.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&u=/nm/20040517/ts_nm/iraq_sarin_dc_3&printer=1

Guess we now have proof that Saddam didn't destroy all of it like he said he did. :eek:

[takao]

Where are the WMD's?

Just heard a report terrorist used Sarin gas in Baghdad. Maybe some of it is there?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&u=/nm/20040517/ts_nm/iraq_sarin_dc_3&printer=1

Guess we now have proof that Saddam didn't destroy all of it like he said he did. :eek:


155m grenade... standard NATO artillery caliber.....
i wonder from where they got those from ;-)
(i thought iraq army used the russian 152 artillery round.. but i might be wrong..it would be quit surprising that they used 152 _and_ 155)

but this is only 1 grenade.... austria has still 34 WMD grenades from WW1... (and the germans still have thousands of sarin/soman/tabun grenades from ww2...)
if you invade a country because of _one_ grenade (it isn't even sure where she came from) you have to invade a few others too

[billyboy]

Sorry, What i meant was that "In May 1987 Iraq became the first country ever to attack its own citizens with checmical weapons" (Samantha Power, "A problem from hell:American and the age of genocide", page 146).

Hussein dropped mustard gas on around two dozen Kurdish villages along the Iranian-Iraqi border. This is considered historical fact.

Assuming soldiers are citizens, the US dropped agent orange on its own citizens. Iraqi dictators dont have a monopoly on horrific behaviour

[IJ Reilly]

I heard the grenade was engraved with the message, "Property of Saddam. Do Not Remove from Iraq!"

Proof positive!

[kgarner]

This article on BBC sums up pretty well how I read this situation.

But looked at more broadly, is this the first sign, as the US and British governments claimed, that Iraq really did have chemical weapons?

One shell clearly does not make a chemical arsenal.

But if Iraqi insurgents knew where to find this one, there is the disturbing possibility for the US-led coalition that other similar munitions may have fallen into their hands.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722855.stm)

[Voltron]

155m grenade... standard NATO artillery caliber.....
i wonder from where they got those from ;-)
(i thought iraq army used the russian 152 artillery round.. but i might be wrong..it would be quit surprising that they used 152 _and_ 155)

but this is only 1 grenade.... austria has still 34 WMD grenades from WW1... (and the germans still have thousands of sarin/soman/tabun grenades from ww2...)
if you invade a country because of _one_ grenade (it isn't even sure where she came from) you have to invade a few others too
2 shells and one blew up.

Question that should be worrying people is where are the rest. I read a report that said odds are those who left the bombs didn't even know Sarin was in there. Odds are those in control of these Sarin bombs didn't hide them where they have them stashed in the first place and thought it was the mother load.


Kimmitt said he believed that insurgents who planted the explosive didn't know it contained the nerve agent.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&u=/ap/20040517/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_sarin_10&printer=1

Yes this story also has quotes from Blix and others saying the same thing you did. Doesn't make it true.

[mactastic]

But does this prove production capability during the 1990s as Bush alleged?

[Voltron]

But does this prove production capability during the 1990s as Bush alleged?
I don't care if it does or not.
Saddam played games at pretending to abide by the surrender agreement. Whether he played games in an attempt to hide WMD's or to convince his neighbors he still had them is immaterial to me. He was in violation of the surrender agreement period.

My only reason for wanting them to find WMD's in Iraq and/or for bringing up the fact that they did do so is for those who keep spouting "where is the WMD's" every other page in these forums.

[skunk]

I don't care if it does or not.
Saddam played games at pretending to abide by the surrender agreement. Whether he played games in an attempt to hide WMD's or to convince his neighbors he still had them is immaterial to me. He was in violation of the surrender agreement period.

My only reason for wanting them to find WMD's in Iraq and/or for bringing up the fact that they did do so is for those who keep spouting "where is the WMD's" every other page in these forums.
Problem is, V, that artillery shells are NOT weapons of mass destruction. They are battlefield weapons, probably out of date, and probably supplied by your lot in the 80s. If one did not explode, why haven't they shown it to us? I expect they don't want people to see the "Made in USA" label :rolleyes:

[Voltron]

Problem is, V, that artillery shells are NOT weapons of mass destruction. They are battlefield weapons, probably out of date, and probably supplied by your lot in the 80s. If one did not explode, why haven't they shown it to us? I expect they don't want people to see the "Made in USA" label :rolleyes:
One exploded, one is intact and Sarin is a WMD. The way the bombs were placed was not the optimal way of spreading Sarin gas they said they would've been more effective had they been shot our of a mortar. However there seems to be evidence that the ones who placed the bombs didn't know they contained Sarin gas. I'm thinking that its a powder and when rocket is fired two different powders mix during its flight so that it becomes a more lethal airbourn gas instead of a powder. I'm just guessing tho.

[IJ Reilly]

Problem is, V, that artillery shells are NOT weapons of mass destruction. They are battlefield weapons, probably out of date, and probably supplied by your lot in the 80s. If one did not explode, why haven't they shown it to us? I expect they don't want people to see the "Made in USA" label :rolleyes:

If they're loaded with Sarin they're WMD alright. If had to guess, which is all any of us can do at the moment, I'd guess that this shell is a left-over from Saddam's old WMD program. Was it functional and potent? Apparently not.

[Voltron]

This news report talks about how we are no longer allowed to interrogate prisoners in Iraq at all. We are being handcuffed so we can't win this war against terror.
It also says at the end of the report

But it is a feature of the leftist outlook to never look back and never take responsibility for anything. Jimmy Carter (backed by Kerry and Kennedy) pulled the plug on the modernizing and feminist Shah of Iran. This betrayal gave Islamic terrorists their first big victory -- control of a large and wealthy Middle Eastern state. The Iranian revolution, which was praised by the world left at the time, directly inspired Osama bin Laden and all the other Islamic radicals from Palestine to Afghanistan to begin their jihad against the West. In this case, as in others, the left is oblivious to its misdeeds. Instead it blames America for the creation of Osama bin Laden because he was one of the mujahideen we trained to repel the Soviet invasion. But what else could America have done since a Democratic Congress made sure that we could not send American troops to do the job?

On Saturday I watched General Myers try to rally our forces in Iraq in the face of a divided home front and a world full of critics of America and appeasers of Islamic terror. He told them we will win in Iraq because of their unflagging spirit and because of "the basic goodness of America" which inspires them. It occurred to me that this is really what our political battles at home are all about. They are about those among us who believe in the basic goodness of America (and therefore don't need to have a national flagellation over an incident like Abu Ghraib). And those among us who don't have this fundamental belief, and who therefore in their heart of hearts really want us to lose.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13398

[blackfox]

This news report talks about how we are no longer allowed to interrogate prisoners in Iraq at all. We are being handcuffed so we can't win this war against terror.
It also says at the end of the report

Assign blame where it is due...We handcuffed ourselves. It is only fair that we take responsibility for this, and work out a solution. This solution does not involve whining like a little child...if we want to be a beacon for the world, we better act like one.

[mactastic]

I don't care if it does or not.


I don't care what you don't care about. Does a single shell prove Saddam was manufacturing banned weapons during the 1990s?

[numediaman]

Isn't all this a little crazy. The administration itself has admitted that its intelligence was inaccurate, and that the administration deliberately and intentionally misled the American people:

Meet the Press

MR. RUSSERT: Thank you very much, sir.

In February of 2003, you put your enormous personal reputation on the line before the United Nations and said that you had solid sources for the case against Saddam Hussein. It now appears that an agent called "Curve Ball" had misled the CIA by suggesting that Saddam had trucks and trains that were delivering biological chemical weapons.

How concerned are you that some of the information you shared with the world is now inaccurate and discredited?

SECRETARY POWELL: I'm very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully. We looked at the sourcing and the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate, and so I'm deeply disappointed.

But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment, of the intelligence community, but it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that I'm disappointed, and I regret it.

So, what is the argument about? Why can't the Secretary of State be believed? Or, do those on the right claim that Colin Powell is a left-wing plant?

[skunk]

To be fair, NM, this:Isn't all this a little crazy. The administration itself has admitted that its intelligence was inaccurate, and that the administration deliberately and intentionally misled the American people:
is NOT a fair translation of this:
But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment, of the intelligence community, but it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that I'm disappointed, and I regret it.
The "sourcing" was misleading and deliberately so, but all Powell is admitting to is believing the information provided.

[radhak]

Instead it [the left] blames America for the creation of Osama bin Laden because he was one of the mujahideen we trained to repel the Soviet invasion. But what else could America have done since a Democratic Congress made sure that we could not send American troops to do the job?


hmmm, how about creating/supporting a democratic setup so that it does not come back to bite you? And if that proves to be too big an endeavour, how about sitting back and not doing anything? When it suited the USA it has done that (not getting involved) quite a bit, so why not make that a habit?

If Congress voted for not sending troops, the spirit behind it was 'let well alone', not 'try some other (covert) way'. Don't do something so stupid as create a monster like Osama and then hand-wring, "ooh, what else could America have done..." :cool:

[numediaman]

To be fair, NM, this:
is NOT a fair translation of this:

The "sourcing" was misleading and deliberately so, but all Powell is admitting to is believing the information provided.

Since the intelligence agencies report to the WH, and they were assigned their tasks from the same, I would interpret this to mean that both worked in collusion.

If, however, you interpret this to mean that the WH and the State Department was duped into all of this, I suppose that point can be argued. I guess I tend to come down on the side that the WH was leading the charge, not following.

[skunk]

Since the intelligence agencies report to the WH, and they were assigned their tasks from the same, I would interpret this to mean that both worked in collusion.

If, however, you interpret this to mean that the WH and the State Department was duped into all of this, I suppose that point can be argued. I guess I tend to come down on the side that the WH was leading the charge, not following.
I agree. It's either collusion or negligence, irrespective of Powell's weasel words. I was just pointing out that he was careful enough not to admit to the collusion.

[Voltron]

According to Neal Boortz Web site http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html Last week they found Mustard Gas. If this is true why wasn't it reported on the news?

[Voltron]

Though it gets little attention, the Iraq Survey Group that is searching for WMD has also found warehouses full of commercial and agricultural chemicals. Mixed and packaged properly, those could quickly become chemical weapons, and Saddam had no legitimate need for so much pesticide.
Survey Group head Charles Duelfer has testified to Congress that Saddam had built new facilities and stockpiled the raw materials that would have allowed him to produce such weapons on a moment's notice once the international pressure was off. Insight magazine also reported this month that, in Karbala in central Iraq, U.S. forces found 55-gallon drums of pesticide, some of which were stored in a "camouflaged bunker complex." The alleged agricultural site just happened to be located alongside a military ammunition dump.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005096

[skunk]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005096
Hey, let's invade Canada/France/England/Spain/Mexico/Germany: they've got warehouses full of fertilizer and drums of pesticide too. My God! You're surrounded by WMD!

[Voltron]

Hey, let's invade Canada/France/England/Spain/Mexico/Germany: they've got warehouses full of fertilizer and drums of pesticide too. My God! You're surrounded by WMD!
I don't recall them invading Kuwaitt and then signing a peace treaty stating they they agree as terms of peace to not have WMD's?

Ok lets give Iraq nukes after all it isn't fair that everyone else has em.

[skunk]

I don't recall them invading Kuwaitt and then signing a peace treaty stating they they agree as terms of peace to not have WMD's?

Ok lets give Iraq nukes after all it isn't fair that everyone else has em.
You cannot use possession of fertilizer as a pretext for invasion.

[Ugg]

You cannot use possession of fertilizer as a pretext for invasion.

Ah, but the pretext for the invasion consisted of organic fertilizer. There's a lesson in this somewhere.....

It's pretty amazing that we are are supposed to make this quantum leap from pesticides being stored near an arms dump to proof of intent to make WMD. What kind of pesticides were they? Chlorine bleach is a pesticide, as is ant poison, nicotine, copper sulfate, etc. Come on, let's hear what these pesticides are before we jump to conclusions. Oh, that's right, this is an administration that always puts the cart before the horse and it won't be until six months from now that we hear that the warehouse was full of Clorox and fly strips.

Aren't you embarrassed Sh to be led so gullibly by these rumor mills?

[Neserk]

You cannot use possession of fertilizer as a pretext for invasion.

Why not? We used fake WMD as a pretext for invasion...