PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues City of Baghdad demands apology, $1 Billion from US


Taco John
02-17-2011, 09:16 AM
Baghdad: U.S. Apology, $1 Billion Owed For Blast Walls

(Reuters) - Iraq's capital wants the United States to apologize and pay $1 billion for the damage done to the city not by bombs but by blast walls and Humvees since the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

The city's government issued its demands in a statement on Wednesday that said Baghdad's infrastructure and aesthetics have been seriously damaged by the American military.

"The U.S. forces changed this beautiful city to a camp in an ugly and destructive way, which reflected deliberate ignorance and carelessness about the simplest forms of public taste," the statement said.

"Due to the huge damage, leading to a loss the Baghdad municipality cannot afford...we demand the American side apologize to Baghdad's people and pay back these expenses."

The statement made no mention of damage caused by bombing.

Baghdad's neighborhoods have been sealed off by miles of concrete blast walls, transforming the city into a tangled maze that contributes to massive traffic jams. Despite a sharp reduction in overall violence in recent years only 5 percent of the walls have been removed, officials said.

The heavy blast walls have damaged sewer and water systems, pavement and parks, said Hakeem Abdul Zahra, the city spokesman.

U.S. military Humvees, driven on street medians and through gardens, have also caused major damage, he said.

"The city of Baghdad feels these violations, which have taken place for years, have caused economic and moral damage," he said.

U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq's cities in June 2009 before formally ending combat operations last August. Around 50,000 remain in Iraq but they are scheduled to withdraw by year end.

Baghdad is badly in need of a facelift. Electricity and trash collection are sporadic, streets are potholed and sewage treatment plants and pipes have not been renovated for years.

Iraq has seen growing protests in recent weeks over poor government services.

Zahra said the city's statement issued on Wednesday would be the start of its measures to get the United States to pay for damages but he did not say what other steps might be taken.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/17/baghdad-us-apology-1-billion_n_824450.html

Taco John
02-17-2011, 09:16 AM
Too bad we just couldn't collect from the morons who supported this pointless war.

LaDairis
02-17-2011, 09:19 AM
AH... Shia dominated "demockeracy" installed at the point of a gun...

LOCOChief
02-17-2011, 09:22 AM
**ck em. they don't get nothin and they'll like it if they know what's good for em.

Brock
02-17-2011, 09:30 AM
**ck em. they don't get nothin and they'll like it if they know what's good for em.

Pfft. What's another billion?

WV
02-17-2011, 09:30 AM
Deliver it on another bomb.

blaise
02-17-2011, 09:31 AM
We should build them a really cool high speed train.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-17-2011, 09:55 AM
I suspect they hate us for our freedoms, they want to oppress the US.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2011, 10:05 AM
We should build them a really cool high speed train.

LMAO

BucEyedPea
02-17-2011, 10:06 AM
Wow! The surge really worked they're like everyone else we liberate—ungrateful.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-17-2011, 10:09 AM
Wow! The surge really worked they're like everyone else we liberate—ungrateful.

I hope everyone here would be thankful if another country bombed and invaded us. The world would see us as unappreciative.

ClevelandBronco
02-17-2011, 10:11 AM
I'll apologize to them.

Hey Baghdad. Sorry. We don't have a billion dollars.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-17-2011, 10:12 AM
I'll apologize to them.

Hey Baghdad. Sorry. We don't have a billion dollars.

We can't lie, we print therefore we have.

patteeu
02-17-2011, 10:17 AM
This is the kind of thing that happens when people find out that your President is a pushover.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-17-2011, 10:19 AM
This is the kind of thing that happens when people find out that your President is a pushover.

Every president has a soft spot for his/her cronies.

Jaric
02-17-2011, 10:20 AM
This is the kind of thing that happens when people find out that your President is a pushover.

I'll bet you all my casino cash we send them a check.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-17-2011, 10:23 AM
I'll bet you all my casino cash we send them a check.

No need just hit the autogive and 1 bil buttons on the keyboard.

patteeu
02-17-2011, 10:23 AM
I'll bet you all my casino cash we send them a check.

I'm not taking that bet.

Jaric
02-17-2011, 10:30 AM
I'm not taking that bet.

Sissy. I only have like 2k. You can spare it.

patteeu
02-17-2011, 10:34 AM
Sissy. I only have like 2k. You can spare it.

I'm frugal.

alpha_omega
02-17-2011, 11:54 AM
I am pretty sure we have paid enough already.

plbrdude
02-17-2011, 12:00 PM
why not just send them a check. the first bank of china will surely cover it if it comes back nsf

Pants
02-17-2011, 12:04 PM
What a pointless fucking war that was. Another waste of American lives, Iraqi civilians and money. Have fun recuperating from your liberation, Iraq.

/sigh

patteeu
02-17-2011, 02:06 PM
Rep. Smith: Iraq 'highly likely' to ask U.S. troops to remain (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/144767-rep-smith-iraqi-officials-highly-likely-to-request-some-us-troops-stay)
By John T. Bennett - 02/17/11 10:37 AM ET
Iraqi officials likely will request thousands of U.S. troops remain in that country into next year to provide security and train indigenous forces, a senior lawmaker said Thursday.

House Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said he expects most House Democrats to be “amenable” to such an arrangement, which would require a revised U.S.-Iraqi security pact.

“I think they will make the ask,” Smith told reporters during a breakfast meeting sponsored by the Center for Media and Security. He called such a request “highly likely.”

Under the current agreement between Baghdad and Washington, virtually all American military forces are set to leave Iraq by the end of 2011.

more... (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/144767-rep-smith-iraqi-officials-highly-likely-to-request-some-us-troops-stay)

BucEyedPea
02-17-2011, 02:09 PM
Well, I know the Sunnis don't want us to leave. They know they're going to be slaughtered by the new Shia's in control. It's been payback time and more would be coming. Prolly why the Shia's want training for. And the beat goes on.....

Bowser
02-17-2011, 02:14 PM
Hindsight being what it is, and all....

Iraq was a terrible, terrible idea. Maybe when it was drawn up in various warrooms, it made sense, and even sounded like a great idea, had it all unfolded as the ones who planned it suspected it would. But it didn't.

LaDairis
02-17-2011, 02:17 PM
"Iraq was a terrible, terrible idea."


It was also treason against the US,

1. waging war on the US by lying to involve the US in a war the US had no national interest
2. giving aid and comfort to the enemy by liberating the greatest ever Al Qaeda recruiting class from the Iraqi Sunnis

BucEyedPea
02-17-2011, 02:17 PM
Hindsight being what it is, and all....

Iraq was a terrible, terrible idea. Maybe when it was drawn up in various warrooms, it made sense, and even sounded like a great idea, had it all unfolded as the ones who planned it suspected it would. But it didn't.

It sure was. And doing Iran would be a bigger mess and problem....but those who drew up Iraq will repeat the same mistake.

Iowanian
02-17-2011, 02:26 PM
I do hope someone will shit in the box and return it as a reply?


We should send them a $10Trillion dollar "liberation fee" invoice while we're at it.

Taco John
02-17-2011, 02:29 PM
I do hope someone will shit in the box and return it as a reply?


We should send them a $10Trillion dollar "liberation fee" invoice while we're at it.


The argument I heard was "we broke it, we bought it." Now the same people who advanced this argument want to charge the victims a "liberation fee." As though they were liberated.

It's like burglarizing someone's house and then suing them when you trip on the dog in the dark.

patteeu
02-17-2011, 02:33 PM
Hindsight being what it is, and all....

Iraq was a terrible, terrible idea. Maybe when it was drawn up in various warrooms, it made sense, and even sounded like a great idea, had it all unfolded as the ones who planned it suspected it would. But it didn't.

Why? What would it have taken for you to consider it a success?

Iowanian
02-17-2011, 02:34 PM
We've already pumped a plethora of money into fixing their infrastructure. they had shitty electricity, sparse water, and raw sewage in their shitty broken streets before our guys rolled into town.

Jaric
02-17-2011, 02:34 PM
Why? What would it have taken for you to consider it a success?

The Iraq war was kind of like fucking your sister.

Yeah it might have felt good at the time, but there is no possible way it will end well.

Taco John
02-17-2011, 02:40 PM
Why? What would it have taken for you to consider it a success?


SUCCESS! (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/13/us-iraq-violence-toll-idUSTRE71C0I020110213) We should be charging money for bringing peace and liberation like this!

Bowser
02-17-2011, 02:42 PM
Why? What would it have taken for you to consider it a success?

We invaded the wrong place, pat. If we were truly serious about wiping out al-Qaeda, we would have gone into places like Syria, Pakistan, or even Saudi Arabia. But you know that.

In the long run, what do you see as a benefit of us tearing down Iraq?

Mr. Kotter
02-17-2011, 02:45 PM
:spock:



LMAO

patteeu
02-17-2011, 02:51 PM
We invaded the wrong place, pat. If we were truly serious about wiping out al-Qaeda, we would have gone into places like Syria, Pakistan, or even Saudi Arabia. But you know that.

In the long run, what do you see as a benefit of us tearing down Iraq?

The invasion of Iraq was about changing the regime in Iraq and chipping away at the broader network of radical islamists and their rogue nation sponsors. It wasn't about narrowly focusing on the handful of nutjobs who were intimately connected to the 9/11 plot. The regime was successfully changed and so far, at least, the radical islamist network has had difficulty landing another serious blow on us. Intelligence capabilities are presumably much greater today than before the GWoT began and the capabilities of the groups that were once running terrorist training camps unmolested across the middle east and southern Asia from Sudan to Afghanistan are now seriously degraded.

There's a lot of work yet to be done, and sometimes I don't think the people of our country are up to the task, but this isn't a war of choice so we're in it whether we participate actively or not.

And if a free Iraq leads others in the middle east to rise up against their dictators and adopt governments that are more responsive to their people while remaining on good terms with the west then it's so much the better.

Bowser
02-17-2011, 03:03 PM
The invasion of Iraq was about changing the regime in Iraq and chipping away at the broader network of radical islamists and their rogue nation sponsors. It wasn't about narrowly focusing on the handful of nutjobs who were intimately connected to the 9/11 plot. The regime was successfully changed and so far, at least, the radical islamist network has had difficulty landing another serious blow on us. Intelligence capabilities are presumably much greater today than before the GWoT began and the capabilities of the groups that were once running terrorist training camps unmolested across the middle east and southern Asia from Sudan to Afghanistan are now seriously degraded.

There's a lot of work yet to be done, and sometimes I don't think the people of our country are up to the task, but this isn't a war of choice so we're in it whether we participate actively or not.

And if a free Iraq leads others in the middle east to rise up against their dictators and adopt governments that are more responsive to their people while remaining on good terms with the west then it's so much the better.

Maybe 50 years from now, we'll look back and realize that establishing a firm presence in hte middle of the shithole that is the Middle East was the best thing ever in terms of promoting stability and peace throughout the world. But as of today, right now, what we've gotten back from Iraq hasn't been worth the price in either manpower or hard dollars. It's been a sinkhole in regards to pulling the US into major debt and fostering worldwide animosity towards us.

I won't deny or try to argue that Saddam and his ilk needed to go, but you can say that about almost literally every country in the region. Like I said, only time will tell if this was a truly visionary move, or just a complete agenda driven clusterfuck. Too early to say either way right now....

patteeu
02-17-2011, 03:10 PM
Maybe 50 years from now, we'll look back and realize that establishing a firm presence in hte middle of the shithole that is the Middle East was the best thing ever in terms of promoting stability and peace throughout the world. But as of today, right now, what we've gotten back from Iraq hasn't been worth the price in either manpower or hard dollars. It's been a sinkhole in regards to pulling the US into major debt and fostering worldwide animosity towards us.

I won't deny or try to argue that Saddam and his ilk needed to go, but you can say that about almost literally every country in the region. Like I said, only time will tell if this was a truly visionary move, or just a complete agenda driven cluster****. Too early to say either way right now....

I'll agree with the last part. I don't agree that Iraq has pulled us into major debt though, and we were already chin deep in worldwide animosity toward us before we invaded. That's the price of being the last remaining superpower, I guess. It's the global version of eat-the-rich populism. (It sure hasn't helped to have so many high profile Americans acting like they don't like their own country though).

loochy
02-17-2011, 03:12 PM
"Iraq was a terrible, terrible idea."


It was also treason against the US,

1. waging war on the US by lying to involve the US in a war the US had no national interest
2. giving aid and comfort to the enemy by liberating the greatest ever Al Qaeda recruiting class from the Iraqi Sunnis

The US had plenty of national interest. It's called oil in the region.

Taco John
02-17-2011, 06:29 PM
The invasion of Iraq was about changing the regime in Iraq and chipping away at the broader network of radical islamists and their rogue nation sponsors.

Except that there was never any evidence, and none has ever surfaced that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein ever had any connection, and in fact the evidence shows the opposite - that they were enemies.

It's embarassing that you even parrot this line still when all the evidence points to this war being pushed well before 9/11 ever happened, and that the event was merely a smoke screen so that Bush Admin and the military industrial complex that managed to get him elected could go get their money.

Taco John
02-17-2011, 06:31 PM
"a free Iraq"


What a joke. They consider their war torn country occupied. Ask a soldier who has been there. I have.

LaDairis
02-17-2011, 07:17 PM
Why? What would it have taken for you to consider it a success?


How about JUST ONE of the "reasons" given for it by W, Rove, Cheney, and Tenet to be something other than documented DELIBERATE FALSEHOODS.

HonestChieffan
02-17-2011, 07:19 PM
Dear Baghdad,

FU.

LaDairis
02-17-2011, 07:20 PM
"It's embarassing that you even parrot"


There is that "detachment from reality" of the "Paulies..."


Pat is not a parrot. Pat knows what Pat supports.

For some of the folks here who agree with Pat, and who aren't from Pat's demographic, "parrot" is way too kind a word to use to describe them...

patteeu
02-17-2011, 07:37 PM
How about JUST ONE of the "reasons" given for it by W, Rove, Cheney, and Tenet to be something other than documented DELIBERATE FALSEHOODS.

Ok, regime change. Check.

LaDairis
02-17-2011, 07:44 PM
Ok, regime change. Check.



ummmmm....


W replaced toothless Saddam and Rafsanjani with


TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Sunday tried to allay Iranian fears over a planned U.S.-Iraq security pact, saying his government would not allow Iraq to become a launching pad for an attack on its neighbor.
art.tehran.afp.gi.jpg

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, left, greets Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Sunday.
Click to view previous image
1 of 2
Click to view next image

"Iraq today doesn't present any threat as it used to be in the times of the former regime," al-Maliki told Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during a Sunday meeting between two leaders, according to a statement from the prime minister's office.

"Today's Iraq is a constitutional state based on the rule of law, and it seeks to develop its relations with the regional countries based on cooperation and mutual respect," al-Maliki said.

Earlier, Iran's state-run news agency IRNA quoted the Iraqi leader as saying that "Baghdad would not allow its soil to be used as a base to damage the security of the neighboring countries, including Iran."

LaDairis
02-17-2011, 07:44 PM
and while the Iraqi Kurds and Shias are better off, the planet and the United States are not...

Taco John
02-17-2011, 09:08 PM
"It's embarassing that you even parrot"


There is that "detachment from reality" of the "Paulies..."


Pat is not a parrot. Pat knows what Pat supports.

For some of the folks here who agree with Pat, and who aren't from Pat's demographic, "parrot" is way too kind a word to use to describe them...

Who is this guy anyway? Welcome to the forum dude, whoever you are.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-17-2011, 11:06 PM
Who is this guy anyway? Welcome to the forum dude, whoever you are.

He's an Anti-(Bible Thumping Socialist), and quite a change from most here be it good or bad.

kcfanXIII
02-17-2011, 11:49 PM
I see pat is keeping up the neo con's tradition of back peddling when it comes to why we invaded Iraq. Also, I enjoyed the part where he gives credit to a US invasion, when talking about the mid east riots. Most of the dictators they are rebelling against are US allies...

J Diddy
02-18-2011, 05:45 AM
Dear Baghdad,

Fuck you.


Sincerely,
The United States of America

blaise
02-18-2011, 05:46 AM
Maybe Sean Penn can donate his salary from his next film.

patteeu
02-18-2011, 08:46 AM
Except that there was never any evidence, and none has ever surfaced that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein ever had any connection, and in fact the evidence shows the opposite - that they were enemies.

It's embarassing that you even parrot this line still when all the evidence points to this war being pushed well before 9/11 ever happened, and that the event was merely a smoke screen so that Bush Admin and the military industrial complex that managed to get him elected could go get their money.

Wrong. There was plenty of evidence that al Qaeda and Saddam's regime had connections although that's somewhat beside the point I was making.

1. The "broader network of radical islamists and their rogue nation sponsors" that I was talking about was not limited to al Qaeda and it's sponsors. It's well established that Saddam had a history of working with terrorist groups, both islamist and secular, in the middle east. His was one of the main terror sponsoring rogue states in the region.

2. The evidence shows that there were multiple overtures made between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda going both ways even though none of those overtures ever led to collaboration. They certainly weren't enemies. They were just separate entities, each with their own interests that sometimes coincided and sometimes didn't.

3. Recovered Iraqi intelligence documents confirm that Saddam's regime had collaborative relationships with, among others, Ayman al Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad in the early 1990s (after Zawahiri started collaborating with bin Laden but before his organization and al Qaeda were formally merged).

Talk about embarrassing. Can it really be true that you were unaware of this?

LaDairis
02-18-2011, 08:48 AM
"There was plenty of evidence that al Qaeda and Saddam's regime had connections"


If you count the lies of Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, and Dick Cheney as "evidence..."

vailpass
02-18-2011, 08:49 AM
Sure we'll pay you the $1 billion but we're a little short on cash. Instead we'll give you $1 billion worth of Daisy Cutters, we'll be dropping them off to you soon.

patteeu
02-18-2011, 11:27 AM
Who is this guy anyway? Welcome to the forum dude, whoever you are.

The poster previously known as TFG (aka Tin Foil Guy).

LaDairis
02-18-2011, 11:33 AM
He ended up blocking TFG for not worshipping Paul's ability to get a single digit in the NH primary...

patteeu
02-18-2011, 11:34 AM
I see pat is keeping up the neo con's tradition of back peddling when it comes to why we invaded Iraq. Also, I enjoyed the part where he gives credit to a US invasion, when talking about the mid east riots. Most of the dictators they are rebelling against are US allies...

What does it matter whose allies they were/are? The pro-democracy neocons claimed that one of their goals in Iraq was to demonstrate democracy to the entire region, not just to those countries with uncooperative dictators. Check this 2003 Washington Post article out:

For Wolfowitz, a Vision May Be Realized (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43339-2003Apr6?language=printer)
Deputy Defense Secretary's Views on Free Iraq Considered Radical in Ways Good and Bad

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 7, 2003; Page A17
Four days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz made a forceful case to President Bush for expanding the war on terrorism to include the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

At the time, many people in Washington, including some senior members of the Bush administration, thought that Wolfowitz was way out on a limb. A year and a half later, Wolfowitz's long-held dream of ridding the world of a leader he regards as one of the cruelest of modern-day despots and a direct threat to the security of the United States seems on the point of being realized.

But getting rid of Hussein was only part of the Wolfowitz vision. With U.S. forces poised on the outskirts of Baghdad, an even bigger, and in some ways more controversial, challenge now awaits: creating a free, stable and democratic Iraq that will serve as an inspiration to its neighbors.

Wolfowitz's fervent belief in what he calls "the power of the democratic idea" -- and its applicability to a part of the world better known for authoritarian regimes, many of them closely allied to Washington -- has won him both admirers and detractors.

cont... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43339-2003Apr6?language=printer)

Seriously, the wave of purportedly democratic unrest is quite a coincidence if it has nothing to do with Wolfowitz's vision of how Iraq's liberation might affect the region. I'd be the first to admit that I wasn't one of the people holding my breath for Wolfowitz's vision to materialize and I'm still quite skeptical, but it's striking nonetheless.

Oh, and how am I backpedalling?

LaDairis
02-18-2011, 11:36 AM
Wolfowitz, is he a....???


and a Clintonite???


YES on BOTH....

BucEyedPea
02-18-2011, 11:37 AM
Wolfowitz? OMG he is a wolf. • vomits •

patteeu
02-18-2011, 11:39 AM
"There was plenty of evidence that al Qaeda and Saddam's regime had connections"


If you count the lies of Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, and Dick Cheney as "evidence..."

Or if you count the authoritative reports produced after our invasion and the collection of Iraqi intelligence documents.

patteeu
02-18-2011, 11:41 AM
Wolfowitz, is he a....???


and a Clintonite???


YES on BOTH....

Wolfowitz? OMG he is a wolf. • vomits •

The issue was what were the neocons predicting about Iraq and it's impacts on the region. We can all agree that Wolfowitz is a neocon, right? It doesn't matter whether you like him or whether he had anything to do with Clinton.

LaDairis
02-18-2011, 01:13 PM
Another "conservative" for Clinton...

LaDairis
02-18-2011, 01:15 PM
Face it, Pat, the big smoke that "installing demockeracy" in Iraq, as justification for Iraq, is and always was FRAUD.

Every "expert" on the subject questioned whether or not a "demockeracy" in Iraq would just end up as a tribal bean counting exercise, with the Shias always winning, creating Greater Iran...

see Ahmad-Al handshake in Tehran, which, even you, as an Israeli, aren't too pleased about...

'cuz W had promised you and your lobby that he would invade Iran too... way before 2003...

and then someone explained to him what would happen to IRAQ if W did that... in 2004 at the EARLIEST.

patteeu
02-18-2011, 01:24 PM
I never called Wolfowitz a conservative. And afaics, nothing in your last post is grounded in reality.

VAChief
02-18-2011, 01:27 PM
Too bad we just couldn't collect from the morons who supported this pointless war.

That's like a nickel to compared to what Halliburton raked in bid free (freaking socialist Cheney!). :) Although I must admit seeing the OP I could hear the Dr. Evil line in my head. Bwa Ha Ha Ha!

BucEyedPea
02-18-2011, 01:30 PM
That's like a nickel to compared to what Halliburton raked in bid free (freaking socialist Cheney!). :) Although I must admit seeing the OP I could hear the Dr. Evil line in my head. Bwa Ha Ha Ha!

Well, Cheney's Halliburton should pay then. That'll make 'em think twice they can profit off a war we don't need.

bevischief
02-18-2011, 02:07 PM
Why don't they just print their own stimulus bill.

kcfanXIII
02-18-2011, 02:43 PM
What does it matter whose allies they were/are? The pro-democracy neocons claimed that one of their goals in Iraq was to demonstrate democracy to the entire region, not just to those countries with uncooperative dictators. Check this 2003 Washington Post article out:

For Wolfowitz, a Vision May Be Realized (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43339-2003Apr6?language=printer)
Deputy Defense Secretary's Views on Free Iraq Considered Radical in Ways Good and Bad

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 7, 2003; Page A17
Four days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz made a forceful case to President Bush for expanding the war on terrorism to include the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

At the time, many people in Washington, including some senior members of the Bush administration, thought that Wolfowitz was way out on a limb. A year and a half later, Wolfowitz's long-held dream of ridding the world of a leader he regards as one of the cruelest of modern-day despots and a direct threat to the security of the United States seems on the point of being realized.

But getting rid of Hussein was only part of the Wolfowitz vision. With U.S. forces poised on the outskirts of Baghdad, an even bigger, and in some ways more controversial, challenge now awaits: creating a free, stable and democratic Iraq that will serve as an inspiration to its neighbors.

Wolfowitz's fervent belief in what he calls "the power of the democratic idea" -- and its applicability to a part of the world better known for authoritarian regimes, many of them closely allied to Washington -- has won him both admirers and detractors.

cont... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43339-2003Apr6?language=printer)

Seriously, the wave of purportedly democratic unrest is quite a coincidence if it has nothing to do with Wolfowitz's vision of how Iraq's liberation might affect the region. I'd be the first to admit that I wasn't one of the people holding my breath for Wolfowitz's vision to materialize and I'm still quite skeptical, but it's striking nonetheless.

Oh, and how am I backpedalling?

The young people of the mid east have wanted to be more like the west for some time now. I don't see how an invasion and 8 years of occupation can motivate folks to over throw their government.

And as for backpeddling, the w supporters have been doing it since there were no WMDs found. For a refresher lets list the reasons we have been given. Forgive me if i leave something out...

1. Iraq has WMD. This was such a popular argument we got an acronym for weapons of mass destruction out of it. When that proved false...

2. Saddam had ties to al quieda. With a little research this becomes highly unlikely, if not outright false. The terrorist groups who are the enemy of the US were also enemies of Saddam. Iraq was not a theocracy and wasn't real big on religious freedoms. Something that is a deal breaker for Muslim fundamentalists.

3. And when all else proved false it became about liberating the people.

We may never know if the invasion of Iraq sparked the riots in the rest of the mid east but don't claim credit likes its fact. Especially when your party has been as wrong as they have in the recent past.

BucEyedPea
02-18-2011, 02:48 PM
The young people of the mid east have wanted to be more like the west for some time now. I don't see how an invasion and 8 years of occupation can motivate folks to over throw their government.
Especially when it was certain people who wanted the Hussein regime overthrown—not the Sunnis who had the power.


We may never know if the invasion of Iraq sparked the riots in the rest of the mid east but don't claim credit likes its fact. Especially when your party has been as wrong as they have in the recent past.

It's not a fact. It's taking credit where NONE is due to get egg off their face. If it were then SA, our ally, would be taken down. Plus I don't think Israel was happy with what happened in Egypt, which has signs that the same people are in charge as they are buy time to do what gets done here: allow certain people to run.

Jaric
02-18-2011, 02:51 PM
To be fair, Iraq had WMD. We know, because we still have the receipt.

Bowser
02-18-2011, 02:53 PM
To be fair, Iraq had WMD. We know, because we still have the receipt.

Heh.

kcfanXIII
02-18-2011, 03:02 PM
To be fair, Iraq had WMD. We know, because we still have the receipt.

and no means to deliver to US soil. Imminent threat my ass...

Jaric
02-18-2011, 03:06 PM
and no means to deliver to US soil. Imminent threat my ass...Well, I never said that. Only that we knew that at one point, they did actually have them.

BucEyedPea
02-18-2011, 03:07 PM
and no means to deliver to US soil. Imminent threat my ass...

That's right. They had no army to speak of, no navy and a dilapidated infrastructure. Plus they never put anything on those biologicial weapons on those scuds into Israel during PGWI either. Remember, it was said to be a "cakewalk" which means those who were in the know musta' known all along there was nuthin' there to fight with.

patteeu
02-18-2011, 04:23 PM
And as for backpeddling, the w supporters have been doing it since there were no WMDs found. For a refresher lets list the reasons we have been given. Forgive me if i leave something out...

1. Iraq has WMD. This was such a popular argument we got an acronym for weapons of mass destruction out of it. When that proved false...

2. Saddam had ties to al quieda. With a little research this becomes highly unlikely, if not outright false. The terrorist groups who are the enemy of the US were also enemies of Saddam. Iraq was not a theocracy and wasn't real big on religious freedoms. Something that is a deal breaker for Muslim fundamentalists.

3. And when all else proved false it became about liberating the people.

We may never know if the invasion of Iraq sparked the riots in the rest of the mid east but don't claim credit likes its fact. Especially when your party has been as wrong as they have in the recent past.

Just about everything you say above is wrong.

1. Good grief. The WMD acronym predated the argument about invading Iraq. People have been talking about weapons of mass destruction for decades. While it's true that the WMD argument was the most publicized argument at the time of the Iraq debate, it's completely false that it was the only one.

2. It's a complete myth that Saddam was unwilling to work with Islamists and that Saddam's apostasy was a deal breaker for them. From the DoD's report on captured Iraqi documents entitled "Iraqi Perspectives Project -
Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents":

When attacking Western interests, the competitive terror cartel came into play, particularly in the late 1990s. Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda-as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long- term vision. - p34

and

Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-Iraqi non-state actors was spread across a wide variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. For years, Saddam maintained training camps for foreign "fighters" drawn from these diverse groups. In some cases, particularly for Pales- tinians, Saddam was also a strong financial supporter. Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives. - p42

and from the abstract:

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

The bottom line is that while there aren't any direct, collaborative links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, there are plenty of links between Saddam's government and radical Islamists who were affiliated with bin Laden's al Qaeda (and from the outside would be hard to distinguish from bin Laden's core group itself, given the nebulous nature of the organization). The most obvious example of this is Saddam's collaborative relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) in the early 1990s. EIJ is the group headed by Ayman al Zawahiri which formally merged with al Qaeda in the late 90s. Zawahiri became al Qaeda #2 and several Egyptians became a part of the top level cadre of OBL's terror group at that time, but Zawahiri had been associating with bin Laden for a decade by then.

3. Liberating the Iraqi people and planting the seed of democracy in the heart of the ME were two of the multifaceted bundle of rationales for invasion offered from the very beginning. If you were only aware of the WMD argument, that's on you.

I don't know what you're talking about when you say, "Especially when [my] party has been as wrong as they have in the recent past," but "my" party doesn't have anything on you when it comes to getting things wrong.

patteeu
02-18-2011, 04:26 PM
It's not a fact. It's taking credit where NONE is due to get egg off their face. If it were then SA, our ally, would be taken down. Plus I don't think Israel was happy with what happened in Egypt, which has signs that the same people are in charge as they are buy time to do what gets done here: allow certain people to run.

I love the fact that you can't stand the thought of Wolfowitz being right. But there it is in the Washington Post article I quoted. Wolfowitz called his shot. It's time to give credit where credit is due.

patteeu
02-18-2011, 04:30 PM
and no means to deliver to US soil. Imminent threat my ass...

You've got to be pulling my leg now. Did you take a vow of inaccuracy? It's hard to be as consistently wrong as you've been in this thread. The Bush administration never claimed that the Iraqi threat was imminent. The one time they came close out of all the zillions of man-hours they spent talking about Iraq was when a reporter used the word "imminent" in a question for Ari Fleischer and Fleischer's made the mistake of not correcting that word before answering. One time out of all the comments made by Bush administration principals. The fact is that they went out of their way to avoid using the word "imminent".

kcfanXIII
02-18-2011, 05:00 PM
You've got to be pulling my leg now. Did you take a vow of inaccuracy? It's hard to be as consistently wrong as you've been in this thread. The Bush administration never claimed that the Iraqi threat was imminent. The one time they came close out of all the zillions of man-hours they spent talking about Iraq was when a reporter used the word "imminent" in a question for Ari Fleischer and Fleischer's made the mistake of not correcting that word before answering. One time out of all the comments made by Bush administration principals. The fact is that they went out of their way to avoid using the word "imminent".

And i can get around calling you gay by saying you like anal penetration (NTTAWWT.). Im sure you can remember the argument that preemptive strike should only be used against an imminent threat. We were (deliberately misled IMO) led to believe they posed a direct threat to America. The revisionist history you choose to believe is just not how it happened.

And as for your reports linking SH and AQ, this is the first I've heard of them.

Once again you have no proof Iraq has influenced the rest of the mid east. You only assume.

Taco John
02-18-2011, 06:09 PM
Wrong. There was plenty of evidence that al Qaeda and Saddam's regime had connections although that's somewhat beside the point I was making.

1. The "broader network of radical islamists and their rogue nation sponsors" that I was talking about was not limited to al Qaeda and it's sponsors. It's well established that Saddam had a history of working with terrorist groups, both islamist and secular, in the middle east. His was one of the main terror sponsoring rogue states in the region.

2. The evidence shows that there were multiple overtures made between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda going both ways even though none of those overtures ever led to collaboration. They certainly weren't enemies. They were just separate entities, each with their own interests that sometimes coincided and sometimes didn't.

3. Recovered Iraqi intelligence documents confirm that Saddam's regime had collaborative relationships with, among others, Ayman al Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad in the early 1990s (after Zawahiri started collaborating with bin Laden but before his organization and al Qaeda were formally merged).

Talk about embarrassing. Can it really be true that you were unaware of this?

Tenuous. At best. No, I'm not embarassed. I'm one of the good guys who doens't push war for no good reason. I'm all for national defense. I'm NOT for war for the sake of profit.

patteeu
02-18-2011, 06:58 PM
And i can get around calling you gay by saying you like anal penetration (NTTAWWT.). Im sure you can remember the argument that preemptive strike should only be used against an imminent threat.

I don't remember any particular instance of that argument, but I've heard it before and reject it as inadequate in the modern world. In any event, you were wrong about them characterizing the threat from Iraq as imminent.

We were (deliberately misled IMO) led to believe they posed a direct threat to America. The revisionist history you choose to believe is just not how it happened.

You may have been misled, but I was never given the impression that Iraq was an imminent threat to the mainland USA. Its not revisionist when you don't have to revise it. It may seem revisionist to you because you were wrong to begin with and apparently weren't following along closely enough to know what was really going on at the time.

And as for your reports linking SH and AQ, this is the first I've heard of them.

That report came out quite a while after the invasion (after the documents were collected and and translated). A long time after many people had already grown committed to their favorite "Bush lied people died" narrative.

Once again you have no proof Iraq has influenced the rest of the mid east. You only assume.

True, but it's quite a coincidence that after decades of relative stability, Wolfowitz says make Iraq a democracy and the other despots of the region will fall like dominos and then they actually start falling, don't you think?

RNR
02-19-2011, 07:32 AM
I hope they will take a check...we are fresh out of cash~

LiveSteam
02-19-2011, 09:21 AM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HGrG4nEKoik" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

kcfanXIII
02-19-2011, 11:07 AM
I don't remember any particular instance of that argument, but I've heard it before and reject it as inadequate in the modern world. In any event, you were wrong about them characterizing the threat from Iraq as imminent.



You may have been misled, but I was never given the impression that Iraq was an imminent threat to the mainland USA. Its not revisionist when you don't have to revise it. It may seem revisionist to you because you were wrong to begin with and apparently weren't following along closely enough to know what was really going on at the time.



That report came out quite a while after the invasion (after the documents were collected and and translated). A long time after many people had already grown committed to their favorite "Bush lied people died" narrative.



True, but it's quite a coincidence that after decades of relative stability, Wolfowitz says make Iraq a democracy and the other despots of the region will fall like dominos and then they actually start falling, don't you think?

You don't recall the "Iraq is gonna give nuke, or bio weapons to AQ then they are gonna kill everyone" argument? That was their loudest drum from Nov 02 to march 03. I don't recall the exact wording but the MSM definitely wanted America afraid of that boogieman. Also once again the words imminent threat didn't have to be used to mislead the public into thinking that Iraq posed a real danger. "Fight the over there so we don't have to fight them here." Just one example.

"Bush lied, people died."
This is in fact true. The Bush admin went to great lengths to prove WMD existed in Iraq. Where are they? Oh they weren't there, that's right. This is where you neo cons come in and spout the AQ link. Which is a sketchy connection at best, and (probably more likely) an outright lie at worst. Either way it isn't the original reason we invaded.

You are choosing to remember in a way that lets you save face and not look like the bunch of incompetent fools the neo cons actually are. You can "misremeber" the reasons given. You can "not recall" the load of propaganda that was thrown our way. You can even choose to believe Bush wasn't just making a whole shitload of money for his friends. But that will just make you wrong.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-19-2011, 11:16 AM
You don't recall the "Iraq is gonna give nuke, or bio weapons to AQ then they are gonna kill everyone" argument? That was their loudest drum from Nov 02 to march 03. I don't recall the exact wording but the MSM definitely wanted America afraid of that boogieman. Also once again the words imminent threat didn't have to be used to mislead the public into thinking that Iraq posed a real danger. "Fight the over there so we don't have to fight them here." Just one example.

"Bush lied, people died."
This is in fact true. The Bush admin went to great lengths to prove WMD existed in Iraq. Where are they? Oh they weren't there, that's right. This is where you neo cons come in and spout the AQ link. Which is a sketchy connection at best, and (probably more likely) an outright lie at worst. Either way it isn't the original reason we invaded.

You are choosing to remember in a way that lets you save face and not look like the bunch of incompetent fools the neo cons actually are. You can "misremeber" the reasons given. You can "not recall" the load of propaganda that was thrown our way. You can even choose to believe Bush wasn't just making a whole shitload of money for his friends. But that will just make you wrong.

The WMD links all come down to one individual whose confession was extracted under torture. Weak is a major overstatement here, nonexistant would be a better term.

kcfanXIII
02-19-2011, 11:22 AM
The WMD links all come down to one individual whose confession was extracted under torture. Weak is a major overstatement here, nonexistant would be a better term.

honestly I'm shocked he hasn't gone full revisionist and stated WMD had nothing to do with the invasion.

stevieray
02-19-2011, 11:25 AM
You don't recall the "Iraq is gonna give nuke, or bio weapons to AQ then they are gonna kill everyone" argument? That was their loudest drum from Nov 02 to march 03. I don't recall the exact wording but the MSM definitely wanted America afraid of that boogieman. Also once again the words imminent threat didn't have to be used to mislead the public into thinking that Iraq posed a real danger. "Fight the over there so we don't have to fight them here." Just one example.

"Bush lied, people died."
This is in fact true. The Bush admin went to great lengths to prove WMD existed in Iraq. Where are they? Oh they weren't there, that's right. This is where you neo cons come in and spout the AQ link. Which is a sketchy connection at best, and (probably more likely) an outright lie at worst. Either way it isn't the original reason we invaded.

You are choosing to remember in a way that lets you save face and not look like the bunch of incompetent fools the neo cons actually are. You can "misremeber" the reasons given. You can "not recall" the load of propaganda that was thrown our way. You can even choose to believe Bush wasn't just making a whole shitload of money for his friends. But that will just make you wrong.

...dude. almost EVERYONE on both sides of the aisle in Washington claimed Iraq had WMD.

kcfanXIII
02-19-2011, 11:31 AM
...dude. almost EVERYONE on both sides of the aisle in Washington claimed Iraq had WMD.


True, both sides were given the same false intelligence.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 11:32 AM
You don't recall the "Iraq is gonna give nuke, or bio weapons to AQ then they are gonna kill everyone" argument? That was their loudest drum from Nov 02 to march 03. I don't recall the exact wording but the MSM definitely wanted America afraid of that boogieman. Also once again the words imminent threat didn't have to be used to mislead the public into thinking that Iraq posed a real danger. "Fight the over there so we don't have to fight them here." Just one example.

Of course I remember that argument. It wasn't an imminent threat argument. It was a "we don't know how far along Saddam's WMD programs are and rather than wait and be sorry we think we should nip this thing in the bud" argument. No one suggested that nukes were on the way to Manhattan. The point was that our intelligence isn't good enough and can't ever be good enough to wait until that kind of threat is actually imminent. You just apparently misunderstood it.

"Bush lied, people died."
This is in fact true. The Bush admin went to great lengths to prove WMD existed in Iraq. Where are they? Oh they weren't there, that's right. This is where you neo cons come in and spout the AQ link. Which is a sketchy connection at best, and (probably more likely) an outright lie at worst. Either way it isn't the original reason we invaded.

It was among the large number of original reasons we invaded. And it wasn't a lie, it was a belief held in good faith based on intelligence accepted by Republicans and democrats and by all of our allies.

You are choosing to remember in a way that lets you save face and not look like the bunch of incompetent fools the neo cons actually are. You can "misremeber" the reasons given. You can "not recall" the load of propaganda that was thrown our way. You can even choose to believe Bush wasn't just making a whole shitload of money for his friends. But that will just make you wrong.

You are choosing to remember in a way that defies reality and makes you look like you didn't really pay attention to anything but the propaganda that people opposed to the war have been feeding you.

If the neocons were incompetent, how come Wolfowitz's prediction about the difficulties ME dictators would face in the aftermath of Iraqi regime change seem to be coming true?

patteeu
02-19-2011, 11:34 AM
The WMD links all come down to one individual whose confession was extracted under torture. Weak is a major overstatement here, nonexistant would be a better term.

Do you guys just make these things up? The most notorious of the intel sources for Saddam's supposed active WMD programs was a guy whose code name was Curveball. His testimony was untruthful, but he gave it willingly because he wanted Saddam to be deposed. There was no torture involved at all.

And Curveball was only one of many sources for the intel about Saddam's WMD.

You guys are hilarious with your bizarre counter-factual beliefs.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 11:35 AM
honestly I'm shocked he hasn't gone full revisionist and stated WMD had nothing to do with the invasion.

I've been singing virtually the same tune since the beginning. No revisions have been necessary.

kcfanXIII
02-19-2011, 11:36 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVldccu5RmQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

interesting how the admin seemed desperate to put WMD in Iraq.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 11:45 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVldccu5RmQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

interesting how the admin seemed desperate to put WMD in Iraq.

Use your head, man. If the Bush administration was willing to knowingly lie about WMD in Iraq, why didn't they just plan to plant some when we invaded?

Jaric
02-19-2011, 11:52 AM
Just a thought, but there is a difference between lying and being wrong. And based on what I've heard come out regarding the intelligence capabilities I'm going to withhold immediately going to accusations of nefarious deeds.

Now, simply being wrong is not an excuse because when you're making decisions about when to send our servicemen and women into harms way you need to be damn sure of what you're doing.

kcfanXIII
02-19-2011, 11:57 AM
Just a thought, but there is a difference between lying and being wrong. And based on what I've heard come out regarding the intelligence capabilities I'm going to withhold immediately going to accusations of nefarious deeds.

Now, simply being wrong is not an excuse because when you're making decisions about when to send our servicemen and women into harms way you need to be damn sure of what you're doing.

Right. I don't think pat is lying to me. He is just wrong. He just misremembers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnLERW7snUQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Just like Rummy. Once again i say, you don't have to use the words immediate threat, but the message was the same.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 12:11 PM
Right. I don't think pat is lying to me. He is just wrong. He just misremembers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnLERW7snUQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Just like Rummy. Once again i say, you don't have to use the words immediate threat, but the message was the same.

The words aren't the same. The Iraq threat was immediate. Iraq had been a threat for years already. As it turns out, it wasn't as much of a WMD threat as we feared, but it was shooting at our aircraft on a regular basis and it continued to sponsor the mischief of terror groups up until the invasion. But it wasn't an imminent threat. In the world of international relations, "imminent" means something like moving forces into position for an attack. That's why the Bush administration carefully avoided using that word. The message is not the same.

kcfanXIII
02-19-2011, 12:29 PM
The words aren't the same. The Iraq threat was immediate. Iraq had been a threat for years already. As it turns out, it wasn't as much of a WMD threat as we feared, but it was shooting at our aircraft on a regular basis and it continued to sponsor the mischief of terror groups up until the invasion. But it wasn't an imminent threat. In the world of international relations, "imminent" means something like moving forces into position for an attack. That's why the Bush administration carefully avoided using that word. The message is not the same.

You are really gonna split hairs when it comes to our service men? They weren't speaking to diplomats. They were speaking to the press and therefore the people. They made it very clear, leaving SH in power was a danger to the United States. By shooting at our planes, doesn't that fit the description of "mobilized forces"?

Another thing, the international community frowns on preemptive invasions unless its an imminent threat. Which would give reason to the admin to mislead people, then back pedal with tricky word play.

The message was clear. Fear was mongered. And thousands of soldiers are dead because of it. THAT blood is on your hands sir.

kcfanXIII
02-19-2011, 12:46 PM
im·mi·nent- adjective 1.* about to happen-

im·me·di·ate- adjective 1.* occurring without delay 2.* nearest, with nothing in between 3.* of the present time-


Thesaurus listings for imminent

Parts of Speech:* adjective
Definition:* at hand, on the way
Synonyms:* about to happen, approaching, brewing, close, coming, expectant, fast-approaching, following, forthcoming, gathering, handwriting-on-the-wall, immediate, impending, in store, in the air, in the cards, in the offing, in the wind, in view, ineluctable, inescapable, cards nevasible, inevitable, likely, looming, menacing, near, nearing, next, nigh, on its way, on the horizon, on the verge, overhanging, possible, probable

its the same word dude...

patteeu
02-19-2011, 12:59 PM
You are really gonna split hairs when it comes to our service men? They weren't speaking to diplomats. They were speaking to the press and therefore the people. They made it very clear, leaving SH in power was a danger to the United States. By shooting at our planes, doesn't that fit the description of "mobilized forces"?

Another thing, the international community frowns on preemptive invasions unless its an imminent threat. Which would give reason to the admin to mislead people, then back pedal with tricky word play.

The message was clear. Fear was mongered. And thousands of soldiers are dead because of it. THAT blood is on your hands sir.

It's not splitting hairs. It's accuracy and understanding what's going on. The threat was ongoing. You can't get any more immediate than that.

Were you afraid? Can you honestly say that you believed a nuke was about to land on American soil?

patteeu
02-19-2011, 01:00 PM
im·mi·nent- adjective 1.* about to happen-

im·me·di·ate- adjective 1.* occurring without delay 2.* nearest, with nothing in between 3.* of the present time-


Thesaurus listings for imminent

Parts of Speech:* adjective
Definition:* at hand, on the way
Synonyms:* about to happen, approaching, brewing, close, coming, expectant, fast-approaching, following, forthcoming, gathering, handwriting-on-the-wall, immediate, impending, in store, in the air, in the cards, in the offing, in the wind, in view, ineluctable, inescapable, cards nevasible, inevitable, likely, looming, menacing, near, nearing, next, nigh, on its way, on the horizon, on the verge, overhanging, possible, probable

its the same word dude...

I understand your confusion, but it's just that.

kcfanXIII
02-19-2011, 01:55 PM
It's not splitting hairs. It's accuracy and understanding what's going on. The threat was ongoing. You can't get any more immediate than that.

Were you afraid? Can you honestly say that you believed a nuke was about to land on American soil?

I had a clear understanding of the situation from day one. Iraq's level of threat was inflated from day one. We were being misled and lied too. War is extremely profitable for a select few.

and if someone paying attention can be confused by the message sent, don't you think they should have cleared it up when the media ran with it? Yet the worst offending member of the media, fox, had an employee promoted to press secretary. Confusion was their goal. They succeeded, and now they throw their hands up like a dback who is guilty of pass interference, and say "i never said imminent, I said immediate." lol, the words have near identical definitions. They are synonyms that mean the same thing. I don't know how you use that language and not EXPECT confusion if politicos really do have secret definitions for the two words that are completely different. You tow the party line well though. Too bad you look as foolish as the rest of the neo conservative movement who still believe that if you tell a lie enough it will make it true. What you dip shits are to detached to realize is everyone can see through the Bullshit except a few douchetards.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 03:32 PM
On the one hand you accuse the Bush administration of tricking us into going to war, but on the other hand you claim to have had a "clear understanding" from the get go. Pretty humorous.

Of course, the truth is you are wrong on both counts. You're still confused about what happened, but it's not the Bush administration's fault. The fault lies directly on your shoulders for failing to keep yourself informed or, alternatively, on the news outlets that you rely on to digest your current events for you. You've fallen for some lies alright. It's just that they weren't Bush administration lies.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2011, 04:17 PM
I had a clear understanding of the situation from day one. Iraq's level of threat was inflated from day one. We were being misled and lied too. War is extremely profitable for a select few.

and if someone paying attention can be confused by the message sent, don't you think they should have cleared it up when the media ran with it? Yet the worst offending member of the media, fox, had an employee promoted to press secretary. Confusion was their goal. They succeeded, and now they throw their hands up like a dback who is guilty of pass interference, and say "i never said imminent, I said immediate." lol, the words have near identical definitions. They are synonyms that mean the same thing. I don't know how you use that language and not EXPECT confusion if politicos really do have secret definitions for the two words that are completely different. You tow the party line well though. Too bad you look as foolish as the rest of the neo conservative movement who still believe that if you tell a lie enough it will make it true. What you dip shits are to detached to realize is everyone can see through the Bullshit except a few douchetards.

You should bring up "Curveball" who the neocons sold. There were others who warned about him but Bush/Chene/Rummy believed this con-man.

Even worse is that this con-man defector admits to telling lies about WMD in Iraq.


The defector who convinced the White House that Iraq had a secret biological weapons programme has admitted for the first time that he lied about his story, then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war.

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed Curveball by German and American intelligence officials who dealt with his claims, has told the Guardian that he fabricated tales of mobile bioweapons trucks and clandestine factories in an attempt to bring down the Saddam Hussein regime, from which he had fled in 1995.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war

kcfanXIII
02-19-2011, 04:49 PM
On the one hand you accuse the Bush administration of tricking us into going to war, but on the other hand you claim to have had a "clear understanding" from the get go. Pretty humorous.

Of course, the truth is you are wrong on both counts. You're still confused about what happened, but it's not the Bush administration's fault. The fault lies directly on your shoulders for failing to keep yourself informed or, alternatively, on the news outlets that you rely on to digest your current events for you. You've fallen for some lies alright. It's just that they weren't Bush administration lies.

The country as a whole was lied too. Try to keep up. I, and I'm not alone, saw what was happening. I tried to point out inconsistencies to the massive support that W had at the time, and it fell on def ears. The mass media is where most receive their info, and in January 03 the media was on the war wagon. Gov insiders and politicians going on the news, were there to mislead people. Im not one of those that fell for it then, but Alot of people did. As for whose right or wrong, well, produce at least a trace of nerve gas or nuclear material and you will be right. Until then all you can do is back pedal and lie, the neocon way.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 04:56 PM
You should bring up "Curveball" who the neocons sold. There were others who warned about him but Bush/Chene/Rummy believed this con-man.

Even worse is that this con-man defector admits to telling lies about WMD in Iraq.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war

He told them willingly. They weren't tortured out of him. Just like I said.

patteeu
02-19-2011, 04:58 PM
The country as a whole was lied too. Try to keep up. I, and I'm not alone, saw what was happening. I tried to point out inconsistencies to the massive support that W had at the time, and it fell on def ears. The mass media is where most receive their info, and in January 03 the media was on the war wagon. Gov insiders and politicians going on the news, were there to mislead people. Im not one of those that fell for it then, but Alot of people did. As for whose right or wrong, well, produce at least a trace of nerve gas or nuclear material and you will be right. Until then all you can do is back pedal and lie, the neocon way.

That story sounds nice, but it doesn't explain how you can remain wrong to this day about so many of the details.

And as soon as I produce at least a trace of nerve gas or nuclear material, you'll move the goalposts. Been there, done that.

kcfanXIII
02-19-2011, 08:00 PM
That story sounds nice, but it doesn't explain how you can remain wrong to this day about so many of the details.

And as soon as I produce at least a trace of nerve gas or nuclear material, you'll move the goalposts. Been there, done that.

So there was WMD? Iraq was going to attack American soil? We were greeted as liberaters? What am i wrong about? I just don't get it. Every reason has been proven false.

And a link to where your kind has produced any solid evidence to prove any neo conservative claims of WMD. You have provided no evidence for me. So keep back peddling in your up is down universe, IT STILL DOESN'T MAKE THE LIES TRUE. Im tired of going round circles with you. Either you don't get my point or you intentionally live with wool over your eyes. Either way you aren't worth my time. Thanks for the trillions of dollars of debt, and thousands of young Americans who are no longer with us because too many people believe the neo conservative lies.

patteeu
02-20-2011, 08:21 AM
So there was WMD?

Yes, we found WMD that Saddam had claimed to have destroyed. His failure to account for that destruction, was one of the arguments used to justify the war.

Furthermore, our post-invasion investigations revealed that Saddam was intent on reconstituting his WMD capability as soon as he could get out from under the crumbling sanctions regime.

Iraq was going to attack American soil?

A big part of Saddam's foreign policy focus was aimed at attacking American interests. If he could have attacked us here, he would have. As I mentioned earlier, the Bush administration never said any such attack was imminent. They merely warned of the possibility that it could happen in the future and that allowing a state sponsor to combine efforts with a terrorist group like al Qaeda would bring that possibility closer to reality. Knowing everything we've learned to date (i.e. that Saddam was dedicated to attacking American interests and that he was willing to work with Islamist terror organizations when their interests coincided) I don't think anyone can say they were wrong about any of that.

We were greeted as liberaters?

By some, sure. There's no doubt that the aftermath of our invasion didn't go as smoothly as we'd hoped. I'm more than willing to say that the people who supported the invasion were wrong about this one. The invasion itself was a cakewalk though.


What am i wrong about? I just don't get it. Every reason has been proven false.

To begin with, you're wrong about the bolded part. Beyond that, you're wrong about all the things I've mentioned already in this thread. And given that track record, I'd venture to say that you're probably wrong about many of the other beliefs you may hold but haven't yet mentioned about the Iraq invasion.

And a link to where your kind has produced any solid evidence to prove any neo conservative claims of WMD. You have provided no evidence for me. So keep back peddling in your up is down universe, IT STILL DOESN'T MAKE THE LIES TRUE.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

Im tired of going round circles with you. Either you don't get my point or you intentionally live with wool over your eyes. Either way you aren't worth my time. Thanks for the trillions of dollars of debt, and thousands of young Americans who are no longer with us because too many people believe the neo conservative lies.

:rolleyes:

LaDairis
02-20-2011, 08:24 AM
"we found WMD"


Translation = we found a few spent pre Gulf War sarin shells, more than a decade old...

LaDairis
02-20-2011, 08:25 AM
"our post-invasion investigations revealed that Saddam"


was lying about nuke because he was afraid of an Iranian invasion...




"was intent on reconstituting his WMD capability as soon as he could get out from under the crumbling sanctions regime."

because what Stormin Norman and the rest did in 1991 was STILL CONTAINING HIM 100% from a US NATIONAL INTEREST PERSPECTIVE...

if not a Joshua perspective...

LaDairis
02-20-2011, 08:26 AM
"A big part of Saddam's foreign policy focus was aimed at attacking American interests"


"American" interests = ISRAEL and just ISRAEL...

LaDairis
02-20-2011, 08:27 AM
"The invasion itself was a cakewalk though."


BECAUSE SADDAM was still TOOTHLESS because of DESERT STORM and the UN

kcfanXIII
02-20-2011, 04:08 PM
Thanks LD.

and pat... Keep telling those lies, they still won't be true.

patteeu
02-20-2011, 04:41 PM
Thanks LD.

and pat... Keep telling those lies, they still won't be true.

When you've got LaDairis making your arguments for you, you know you're in rough shape.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-20-2011, 06:59 PM
First off is Tony Blair's "Dodgy Dossier", a document released by the Prime Minister that made many of the claims used to support the push for war. The dossier soon collapsed when it was revealed that much of it had been plagiarized from a student thesis paper that was 12 years old!

The contents of the dossier, however much they seemed to create a good case for invasion, were obsolete and outdated.

This use of material that could not possibly be relevant at the time is clear proof of a deliberate attempt to deceive.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/dodgydoss.gif

Then there was the claim about the "Mobile biological weapons laboratories". Proffered in the absence of any real laboratories in the wake of the invasion, photos of these trailers were shown on all the US Mainstream Media, with the claim they while seeming to lack anything suggesting biological processing, these were part of a much larger assembly of multiple trailers that churned out biological weapons of mass destruction.
The chief proponent of this hoax was Colin Powell, who presented illustrations such as this one to the United Nations on February 5th, 2003.

This claim fell apart when it was revealed that these trailers were nothing more than hydrogen gas generators used to inflate weather balloons. This fact was already known to both the US and UK, as a British company manufactured the units and sold them to Iraq.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/21-350h.jpg

Colin Powell's speech to the UN was itself one misstatement after another. Powell claimed that Iraq had purchased special aluminum tubes whose only possible use was in uranium enrichment centrifuges. Both CIA and Powell's own State Department confirmed that the tubes were parts for missiles Saddam was legally allowed to have. Following the invasion, no centrifuges, aluminum or otherwise were found.

Powell also claimed to the United Nations that the photo on the left showed "Decontamination Vehicles". But when United Nations inspectors visited the site after the invasion, they located the vehicles and discovered they were just firefighting equipment.

Powell claimed the Iraqis had illegal rockets and launchers hidden in the palm trees of Western Iraq. None were ever found.

Powell claimed that the Iraqis had 8,500 liters (2245 gallons) of Anthrax. None was ever found.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/13-350h.jpg

Powell claimed that Iraq had four tons of VX nerve gas. The UN had already confirmed that it was destroyed. The only VX ever found were samples the US had left as "standards" for testing. When the UN suspected that the US samples had been used to contaminate Iraqi warheads, the US moved quickly to destroy the samples before comparison tests could be carried out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/404896.stm

Powell claimed that Iraq was building long-range remote drones specifically designed to carry biological weapons. The only drones found were short-range reconnaissance drones.

Powell claimed that Iraq had an aggregate of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical and biological warfare agents. Powell gave no basis for that claim at all, and a DIA report issued the same time directly contradicted the claim. No biological or chemical weapons were found in Iraq following the invasion.

Powell claimed that "unnamed sources" confirmed that Saddam had authorized his field commanders to use biological weapons. No such weapons were ever used by the Iraqis to defend against the invasion and, of course, none were ever found in Iraq.

Powell claimed that 122mm warheads found by the UN inspectors were chemical weapons. The warheads were empty, and showed no signs of ever having contained chemical weapons.

Powell claimed that Iraq had a secret force of illegal long-range Scud missiles. None were ever found.

Powell claimed to have an audio tape proving that Saddam was supporting Osama Bin Laden. But independent translation of the tape revealed Osama's wish for Saddam's death.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/yt-misleading.htm

Colin Powell's UN debacle also included spy photos taken from high flying aircraft and spacecraft. On the photos were circles and arrows and labels pointing to various fuzzy white blobs and identifying them as laboratories and storage areas for Saddam's massive weapons of mass destruction program. Nothing in the photos actually suggested what the blobby shapes were and during inspections which followed the invasion, all of them turned out to be rather benign.

In at least one case, the satellite Powell claimed had taken one of the pictures had actually been out of operation at the time. And many questioned why Powell was showing black and white photos when the satellites in use at the time over Iraq took color images.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/taji_sites_shrunk.jpg

http://www.thinkandask.com/news/colinpowell.html

http://www.spacetoday.org/Satellites/YugoWarSats.html

Another piece of evidence consists of documents which President Bush referenced as in his 2003 State of the Union Speech. According to Bush, these documents proved that Iraq was buying tons of uranium oxide, called "Yellow Cake" from Niger.

Since Israel had bombed Iraq's nuclear power plant years before, it was claimed that the only reason Saddam would have for buying uranium oxide was to build bombs.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/nigerforge.gif

Osama bin Laden's "Mountain Fortress", shown to the US public by the corporate media, and like Saddam's nuclear weapons, never actually existed.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/originalfortress-hoopa.jpg

KILLER_CLOWN
02-20-2011, 07:05 PM
This hoax fell apart fast when it was pointed out that Iraq has a great deal of uranium ore inside their own borders and no need to import any from Niger or anywhere else. The I.A.E.A. then blew the cover off the fraud by announcing that the documents Bush had used were not only forgeries, but too obvious to believe that anyone in the Bush administration did not know they were forgeries! The forged documents were reported as being "discovered" in Italy by SISMI, the Italian Security Service. Shortly before the "discovery" the head of SISMI had been paid a visit by Michael Ledeen, Manucher Ghorbanifar, and two officials from OSP, one of whom was Larry Franklin, the Israeli spy operating inside the OSP.

In July, 2005, the Italian Parliament concluded their own investigation and named four men as suspects in the creation of the forged documents. Michael Ledeen, Dewey Clarridge, Ahmed Chalabi and Francis Brookes. This report has been included in Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame, and Paul McNulty, the prosecutor of the AIPAC spy case.

A recently declassified memo proves that the State Department reported the fact that the NIger documents were forgeries to the CIA 11 days before President Bush made the claim about the Niger uranium based on those documents.

In the end, the real proof that we were lied to about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. That means that every single piece of paper that purported to prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was by default a fraud, a hoax, and a lie. There could be no evidence that supported the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. In a way, the existence of any faked documents about Iraq's WMDs is actually an admission of guilt. If one is taking the time to create fake documents, the implication is that the faker is already aware that there are no genuine documents.

What the US Government had, ALL that they had, were copied student papers, forged "Yellow Cake" documents, balloon inflators posing as bioweapons labs, and photos with misleading labels on them. And somewhere along the line, someone decided to put those misleading labels on those photos, to pretend that balloon inflators are portable bioweapons labs, and to pass off stolen student papers as contemporary analysis.

And THAT shows an intention to deceive.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.elbaradei/

Lawyers call this "Mens Rea", which means "Guilty Mind". TV lawyer shows call it "Malice aforethought". This means that not only did the Bush Administration lie to the people and to the US Congress, but knew they were doing something illegal at the time that they did it.

All the talk about "Intelligence failure" is just another lie. There was no failure. Indeed the Army agents who erroneously claimed that missile tubes were parts for a uranium centrifuge received bonuses, while the Pentagon smeared Hans Blix, and John Bolton orchestrated the firing of Jose Bustani, the director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, because Bustani was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad.

http://perspectives.com/forums/forum71/44107.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2980332.stm

http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/index.php?p=966

kcfanXIII
02-20-2011, 11:50 PM
And now killer clown is making them for me. Nice post man.

kcfanXIII
02-21-2011, 12:03 AM
"the munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added."

from your link. Doesnt seem immediate or imminent...
it also mentions they were produced in the 1980s. You know, back when Saddam was an ally.

patteeu
02-21-2011, 01:27 AM
First off ...

Powell's testimony about the mobile labs was based on the lies told to our intelligence agencies by Curveball. He's admitted lying. It wasn't an intent to deceive, but instead a mistake. It doesn't even make sense that they would make these things up knowing that their lies would be discovered. Use your head, K_C.

The aluminum tubes were assessed by multiple groups. The DoE (I believe it was) thought the tubes were for centrifuges.

None of the "lies" you've listed were lies. You conveniently ignore the intelligence they were based on or pretend that one opinion opposed to the conclusions drawn by the administration was the one they should have accepted just because you know it turned out to be the right one in hindsight.

patteeu
02-21-2011, 01:29 AM
"the munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added."

from your link. Doesnt seem immediate or imminent...
it also mentions they were produced in the 1980s. You know, back when Saddam was an ally.

So what? Are you moving the goal posts on me as I predicted you would? These were WMD that he wasn't supposed to have.

One of the problems you have here is that you're still clinging to the mistaken belief that WMD was the only argument made for the war and that someone said that WMD was about to be used against us. Neither of those things is true.

patteeu
02-21-2011, 01:32 AM
This hoax fell apart fast when it was pointed out that Iraq has a great deal of uranium ore inside their own borders and no need to import any from Niger or anywhere else. The I.A.E.A. then blew the cover off the fraud by announcing that the documents Bush had used were not only forgeries, but too obvious to believe that anyone in the Bush administration did not know they were forgeries! The forged documents were reported as being "discovered" in Italy by SISMI, the Italian Security Service. Shortly before the "discovery" the head of SISMI had been paid a visit by Michael Ledeen, Manucher Ghorbanifar, and two officials from OSP, one of whom was Larry Franklin, the Israeli spy operating inside the OSP.

In July, 2005, the Italian Parliament concluded their own investigation and named four men as suspects in the creation of the forged documents. Michael Ledeen, Dewey Clarridge, Ahmed Chalabi and Francis Brookes. This report has been included in Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame, and Paul McNulty, the prosecutor of the AIPAC spy case.

A recently declassified memo proves that the State Department reported the fact that the NIger documents were forgeries to the CIA 11 days before President Bush made the claim about the Niger uranium based on those documents.

In the end, the real proof that we were lied to about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. That means that every single piece of paper that purported to prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was by default a fraud, a hoax, and a lie. There could be no evidence that supported the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. In a way, the existence of any faked documents about Iraq's WMDs is actually an admission of guilt. If one is taking the time to create fake documents, the implication is that the faker is already aware that there are no genuine documents.

What the US Government had, ALL that they had, were copied student papers, forged "Yellow Cake" documents, balloon inflators posing as bioweapons labs, and photos with misleading labels on them. And somewhere along the line, someone decided to put those misleading labels on those photos, to pretend that balloon inflators are portable bioweapons labs, and to pass off stolen student papers as contemporary analysis.

And THAT shows an intention to deceive.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.elbaradei/

Lawyers call this "Mens Rea", which means "Guilty Mind". TV lawyer shows call it "Malice aforethought". This means that not only did the Bush Administration lie to the people and to the US Congress, but knew they were doing something illegal at the time that they did it.

All the talk about "Intelligence failure" is just another lie. There was no failure. Indeed the Army agents who erroneously claimed that missile tubes were parts for a uranium centrifuge received bonuses, while the Pentagon smeared Hans Blix, and John Bolton orchestrated the firing of Jose Bustani, the director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, because Bustani was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad.

http://perspectives.com/forums/forum71/44107.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2980332.stm

http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/index.php?p=966

The British government, in its Butler report, concluded that Bush's SOTU statement was "well founded" even though they were aware of forgery. They insisted that the conclusion was based on multiple intelligence sources rather than the forgery.

Jaric
02-21-2011, 06:47 AM
Am I the only one who thinks it would be beyond awesome to have a secret mountain fortress?

Then I could be like Dick Cheney.

patteeu
02-21-2011, 07:22 AM
Am I the only one who thinks it would be beyond awesome to have a secret mountain fortress?

Then I could be like Dick Cheney.

That would definitely be awesome. I'd want elevators in mine though. That picture has too many stairs.

Jaric
02-21-2011, 07:26 AM
That would definitely be awesome. I'd want elevators in mine though. That picture has too many stairs.

This is why Americans are fat you know? We insist on elevators in our secret underground lairs.

patteeu
02-21-2011, 07:56 AM
This is why Americans are fat you know? We insist on elevators in our secret underground lairs.

Good point.

kcfanXIII
02-21-2011, 09:59 AM
Good point.

So what? Are you moving the goal posts on me as I predicted you would? These were WMD that he wasn't supposed to have.

One of the problems you have here is that you're still clinging to the mistaken belief that WMD was the only argument made for the war and that someone said that WMD was about to be used against us. Neither of those things is true.
If he wasn't supposed to have them, why'd we sell it to them?
A few hundred warheads with 25 year old chemicals, that are not in working order was hardly worth the American loss of life. Don't think of it as moving the goal posts, its more like you split the uprights on a kick off. Its really pointless. And here we go with another lie you have told so much you believe it. You are wrong about the pre war propaganda.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-21-2011, 10:42 AM
Am I the only one who thinks it would be beyond awesome to have a secret mountain fortress?

Then I could be like Dick Cheney.

Sure if you're 11 years old, but were supposed to be a little more mature than that.

LiveSteam
02-21-2011, 10:57 AM
Shame on America for killing an innocent man named Saddam Hussein ROFL

Every American wanted to kill towel heads after 9/11
ANYONE THAT SAYS THEY DIDN'T. IS A FULL OF SHIT!!!
No one cared where it started. BE IT. Iran,Iraq,Jordon,Afghan ect.
Didnt need no fucking weapons of mass destruction to start this war either. Mass destruction laid in streets of NY. Or do you fucking libs forget that part?
OH WAIT / You libs blame the US & say that the US brought down the Towers.
Dont ya? Ya,YA,YA/It was Bush & the CIA that ordered 9/11 :doh!:
PS Take your weapons of mass destruction theory & SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS

Jaric
02-21-2011, 10:59 AM
Sure if you're 11 years old, but were supposed to be a little more mature than that.

You must not be familiar with my posts :D

patteeu
02-21-2011, 11:14 AM
If he wasn't supposed to have them, why'd we sell it to them?

We didn't sell them to him. This is apparently a pretty confusing subject for you. We sold him dual use materials that he subsequently used in the production of chemical munitions like the ones found after our invasion. He wasn't supposed to have them because after Gulf War I, part of our cease fire arrangement required Saddam to destroy all WMD stockpiles and provide an accounting. As with so many other efforts to monitor his WMD capabilities, Saddam failed to fully comply.

A few hundred warheads with 25 year old chemicals, that are not in working order was hardly worth the American loss of life. Don't think of it as moving the goal posts, its more like you split the uprights on a kick off. Its really pointless. And here we go with another lie you have told so much you believe it. You are wrong about the pre war propaganda.

So we agree that you were wrong when you said he didn't have WMD. You've been consistently wrong about pretty much everything on this topic. But instead of simply admitting it, you dismiss the reality as unimportant and accuse me of some unspecified lie. Funny stuff.

go bowe
02-21-2011, 03:28 PM
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918



:rolleyes:pffft... that's just a propaganda rag... nobody believes those guys... :shake: :shake: :shake:

go bowe
02-21-2011, 03:31 PM
So what? Are you moving the goal posts on me as I predicted you would? These were WMD that he wasn't supposed to have.

One of the problems you have here is that you're still clinging to the mistaken belief that WMD was the only argument made for the war and that someone said that WMD was about to be used against us. Neither of those things is true.mushroom clouds...

go bowe
02-21-2011, 03:38 PM
We didn't sell them to him. This is apparently a pretty confusing subject for you. We sold him dual use materials that he subsequently used in the production of chemical munitions like the ones found after our invasion. He wasn't supposed to have them because after Gulf War I, part of our cease fire arrangement required Saddam to destroy all WMD stockpiles and provide an accounting. As with so many other efforts to monitor his WMD capabilities, Saddam failed to fully comply.



So we agree that you were wrong when you said he didn't have WMD. You've been consistently wrong about pretty much everything on this topic. But instead of simply admitting it, you dismiss the reality as unimportant and accuse me of some unspecified lie. Funny stuff.would you be happier with a specified lie?

patteeu
02-21-2011, 04:15 PM
would you be happier with a specified lie?

It would give me more to work with.