Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SPG, Jan 14, 2004.
So really then, where are the WMD's?
Hehe, you should have seen FAUX's website the other day. Banner headline screaming "Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq Mortar Shells". Announcers saying things like "Have critics of the war been proven wrong?" "Is this the smoking gun?". Looks like another false alarm.
I've never really believed Saddam ever had nuclear go-bangs, although it's a matter of record that he was trying to acquire the technology.
Bugs and chemicals are relatively easy. Production equipment for nerve gas, for instance, is quite similar to that for bug spray. Anthrax and suchlike do not require large scale facilities.
The question I've yet to see answered is that of proven disposal of what was known to be possessed at the time of the Gulf War. I may have missed something, somewhere, but I recall reading of tons of chemical weapons material. And, I believe there were inventories of disease-organisms, although I'm not positive about that.
Anyhow, wha' hoppen to it?
My guess is that any WMD sort of stuff Saddam possessed in the late 1990s is tucked away somewhere in Syria, although that's just speculation on my part...
we were snowed, i was snowed im sorry to anyone who has lost a son or daughter. i really thought he had the chemical and biologicals. I have become very disappointed by this President whom i voted for. Democracy is the way but not like this. Im glad a murdering selfish dictator has been removed but again not at the cost of our sons and daughters. a single bullet would have done the job. where are those weapons and where is Bin Laden?
Isn't the largest cache of WMDs under the U.S. in the Pacific northwest somewhere near Mount Hood?
cnn.com had a similar headline for two days (i.e. main story). i've yet to see the retraction or any mention anywhere on their site of the negative test.
fwiw, the iraqis claim their stocks were destroyed shortly after the gulf war.
what if (gasp!) they were telling the truth?
But Bush told us Saddam was a liar and that he shouldn't be trusted. Plus he said there were WMD everywhere. Who do you trust, a murdering thug like Saddam or an honest, truthful Texas oilman?
yea, the media's preoccupation with using misleading headlines such as
"WMD Found in Iraq!" when the actual story admits that the details are unsubstantiated really chaps my pooper.
when the retractions are printed they're usually buried somewhere.
kinda like fox "news" going on for days about how the outgoing clinton administration had stripped air force one of silverware, ashtrays...you name it. when the story was proven false they talked about it for maybe 20 seconds total. nice bull**** to fact ratio...
Can I pick door number 3, monty?
I see that the story says that more tests are to be done over the next few days to reach a conclusive judgment on the Danish discovered shells. I think whatever the outcome of the tests it is clear these are shells from over a decade ago, that don't fit Bush's reports of chemical warheads ready for use. These could be used on no one, regardless of their contents.
For me, the most depressing aspect to this whole business is, no matter how much evidence is uncovered implicating Bush and Blair in (at the very least) manipulating information to give a false impression of the threat of Iraq, the public don't appear too concerned.
A Channel 4 poll in the UK last night showed that a majority of people, though thinking Blair regularly lies, support him as PM and will vote for him again.
As I understand it, Bush is similarly unaffected by revelations of manipulation of intelligence and possible hidden agendas regarding his foreign policy.
What does this tell us about people's attitude towards their leaders? It would seem to suggest that, no matter what lies are told, as long as the domestic economy is doing OK, foreign adventurism will be tolerated.
Personally speaking, I can think of few worse accusations to be made against a leader than that he intentionally deceived his country and government in order to justify a pre-emptive war in which thousands of people died.
But few seems to care - oh well, what the hell!
You are making a big leap in assuming everyone is willing to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt while throwing Bush and Blair to the wolfs.
Saddam had WMD and everyone in the US and UN said so for over 12 years. Lets just take a deep breath and stop salavating everytime a report showing that WMD have not been found comes up.
Not long ago many believed he had WMD but the UN was doing a good job in containing him and destroying his stockpiles. Now those same people get excited with each day that those WMD are now found ( or info given to the press). Don't get too excited because this and many other forums will simply become support groups for the left.
WTF???? So what if they did? Are you so averse to liberalism that you would deny any truth so long as the left believed it?
What if we found out that Saddam had destroyed all of his weapons shortly after the first Gulf War? Its a hypothetical, but certainly within the realm of possibility. That would mean that many (but not all) on the left had been right all along. Would you still deny the points that they had been making?
At what point does it stop being about hurting your political enemies and become an issue of what is best for the country and world?
He was saying his problem is that most people are giving Bush and Blair the benefit of the doubt and throwing Saddam to the wolves.
Maybe everyone was wrong. Maybe Saddam was a paper tiger who's arsenal only existed on paper and in his mind. And you should be the last one to accuse people of salivating with some of the comments you've made.
Is this a left leaning forum? Well I suppose it is if you believe the media is left wing also. But then everything is a left-wing conspiracy to you.
And you don't see a problem with giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt?
I have no problem with admitting that I get excited with good economic news, and it appears you have no problem getting excited when Saddam is found not guilty by the press.
Please take a good look and count how many posts there are from the left. There are topics that are only touched by a certain group and they sound like pitty parties or pep rallies.
But that is water under the bridge. Glad to see you are welcoming me back with open arms
I HATE THIS TACTIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ann Coulter and a lot of ***hole conservatives have been selling this line ever since 9/11. The unspoken message is: you disagree with what the president is doing, so you must support the enemy.
Saddam is guilty of a lot of really bad things. Anyone on this forum who says otherwise is seriously deluded. But that fact alone was never a good reason to go to war, IMO. So I believe that Saddam is a bad man and did bad things but I also believe that going to war was a bad idea.
What I am most interested in is the truth. I want to know if Saddam had WMDs. If he didn't, then that would refute a lot of what the Bush administration has said since 9/11. And if statements that the Bush administration made were deliberately false, the public should know and his administration should be held accountable.
The press is not finding Saddam not guilty. They are just reporting on the fact that there are apparently no WMDs in Iraq. That casts serious doubts on this administration's character and intentions. What it does not do is paint Saddam in a favorable light or give him a free pass.
Saddam will be tried. Everyone on the left that I know thinks that is the right thing to do.
Once again your tactics are disingenuous and sleazy.
Sorry you feel that way. Starting threads only with news that make the Adminstration look guilty can also be characterized as sleazy and disingenuous.
All of you support democratic candidates. Most of those candidates have stated that Bush has lied. Not one of you took them to task for such statements.
So please spare me the story that you are open minded and willing to wait for all the evidence to be presented.
Your back-up plan if WMD were found was that inspections were working. Now that Saddam managed to hide them really really well, you all hope you were right and he never had WMD in the first place.
I know it is very frustrated to believe so much in a cause and yet see it falter and not get anywhere. In other words everyone should believe you since it makes perfect sense and yet everyone does not and decides to believe the Adminstration instead.
Oh and I don't believe for one second any of you like and want Saddam back. It is just that your hatred for Bush has clouded your judgment so much that very few people take you seriously when you support all the trash that is thrown at Bush.
A radical is one who upon seeing that he has failed redoubles his efforts.
I was referring to a specific tactic of equating Bush detractors as anti-American or pro-Terrorism/Saddam. And you did use that tactic in your last post.
Selective reporting to support a bias is most certainly a sleazy tactic. However, you would be hard pressed to find evidence of me doing that. That last anti-Bush thread I started was a satire of your posts, in case you missed it.
I don't take them to task because I agree with them. Do you remember when Colon Powell presented asministration evidence to the U.N.? It was a freakin' joke. At the time, even if you believed Powell, they weren't positive about the veracity of any of the evidence they presented. Subsequently, we found out that most of it was bunk. The "terrorist training camps" Saddam was supposedly running were actually in Kurdish territories outside the control of Saddam.
The reason I don't take them to tasks is because I too think the administration has been less than completely truthful in the runup to war.
As far as exaggerated rhetoric is concerned, I'll take on any politician who is sleazy enough to spin facts to their own agenda. SpinSanity.com takes both parties to task, and I very much enjoy hearing about the spin from both sides. It makes me that much more aware how the majority of politicians are cynical creeps.
You are sitting here painting liberals as Saddam lovers and you have the balls to say you know my inner thoughts and intentions? Provide basis for your assertion or shut up.
As for the rest of your post: I am not a radical. I have seen a pattern of lies, exaggerations and clever and cynical marketing streaming out of this administration. Just because the "Average American" doesn't see it, doesn't mean it isn't real. The "Average American" also believes that Saddam was personally involved in 9/11 and that we have found WMDs in Iraq. Why the heck should we assume that anything the average American has to say is at all relevent.
To some people, our country is run on the concept of a popularity contest. Many people equate popular opinion with the right opinion and you are one of them. Popular opinion is only one factor in this country's founding principles. To use it as justification in a debate is ludicrous.
[mod. edit - Keep it clean, please.]
You are contradicting yourself compared to what you posted earlier, but since you don't see that I can not persuade you either.
I am not doing anything, it is your actions that make many see it as simply angry radical left wingers. Look how quickly Dean if falling apart.
I just point this out just to make sure you understand why so many do not agree with your partisan attacks. Don't assume that repeating the same old lines will eventually persuade people. WMD may not be found for years. This does not mean Bush lied.
Can you imagine how stupid it would be for Bush to start a war in order to be re-elected knowing that there were not WMD the whole time. That is what all the democrats are saying. I refer you to Kennedy from yesterday. That would not be a very smart move from Carl Rove. It makes no sense, but the democrats see it as crystal clear.
Show me. I am not above admitting I was wrong, but you have given me no evidence of contradiction. If you can point it out to me, I'll gladly own up to it.
The amount of assumptions and stereotypes you can pack into a post is amazing. And that wasn't a compliment.
"Can you imagine how stupid it would be for Bush to start a war in order to be re-elected..."
Assuming that all liberals think that's why Bush started the war is just crazy. I personally don't think Bush started the war as a popularity ploy. In fact, I have trouble seeing why Bush was so bent on starting the war. His motivations are a mystery to me. However, I do see that he had a desire to go to war, for whatever reason.
You constantly strive to paint liberalism in broad strokes. I am sick of it. I am not a cookie cutter copy of every Democrat and liberal out there. In fact, my ideals are very different than the ideals of the Democratic party and almost all politicians. It is a tactic designed to attack a person's credibility and individuality and it sucks.
Also, to the mods: sorry 'bout the language. Just got a little worked up.
Since you'll never escape the ad hominem, I suggest you accept it for what it is: clear evidence of a bankrupt argument; eg, an act of desperation. That might help your blood pressure, at least.
Historically, my refusal to drop arguments has been the source of some of my biggest troubles. I know its not worth it, but I can rarely pull away.
I know, it can be like eating salted peanuts, or worse. I find that the judicious use of the ignore list really helps. I don't mind having a lively debate with people who have something interesting to say, and can maintain a civil tone generally -- but those who don't and can't, for me fall under the heading "life is too short."
Show me where I said I give Saddam the benefit of the doubt! I double-dog-dare you.
I want to see him AND Bush held accountable for their decisions. And therein lies the difference between you and I.
Now this is truly hilarious. Saddam has been found not guilty of what? And by whom? All the press has been reporting (outside of the occasional "WMD FOUND IN IRAQ" claim) is that the assertions made by Bush in the run-up to the war are thus-far unproven. Please stop with your constant "anyone against the war is for Saddam" rhetoric, it's crap and you know it.
Have you seen the NRA Madness thread lately? Would you like to count the posts from the right and the left there? And all your evidence points to an edge for conservatives country-wide. Should I start whining that the whole country is a pity party or a pep rally for conservatives? Or should I simply engage in debate and try to convince people with the merits of my arguments?
Welcome back. Didn't realize you were in need of love.
Given Saddam's history which does not need to be repeated, the truth even in the UN was that he had WMD and did not account for them. The UN destroyed some but not all.
Now if you are willing to believe that the Adminstration lied and agree with those who make the same statments, why would you still be interested in the truth. The truth for you is that Bush lied.
You can not state you want the truth in the same breath you are accusing the same people of lying and agreeing with those who have already decided that the Adminstration was lying.