63% of Republicans STILL Think Iraq Had WMDs

[nodoginnafight]

Quote:
His naked aggression of invading Kuwait


You do realize Kuwait was slant drilling Iraqi oil don't you? (Why do you think he set the wells on fire?)

If you know nothing of slant drilling, then you know nothing of the first gulf war - you should either learn about it or be very quiet when the topic comes up.

It never ceases to amaze me how the least informed person in the room always shouts "you idiot" the loudest.

 

[CausingPAIN]

Either you are woefully ignorant or a very poor liar.

You made the claim that we went to war over WMDs. Show us exactly which WMDs we went to war over. You have to show us exactly.

I will help you since it is your affirmation. Go research Powell's speech to the UN.

Please quote me where I said we went to war because of WMD?

WMD was one element.

Other elements were Hussein and:

His support for terrorism

Hussein supported terrorist activity against Iran and Turkey which were active enemies of Iraq. None of our business.


Hussein was secular. Al Qaeda is fanatical Islamist, a circumstance which posed a serious conflict. Hussein had no ties whatsoever with Al Qaeda.


There was no such attempt. Pentagon Report Shows No Iraq Plot To Assassinate Bush Sr.


None of our business. Not worth the life of one American soldier to interfere with.


That was up to the UN to deal with. We are not the cops of the world.


Unfounded theory.


Another unfounded theory -- which has cost thousands of American lives, the maiming of thousands more of our troops, and the waste of sufficient treasure to solve all of our financial problems.

And what made him extremely dangerous was the combination of all the above. That he would provide WMD to Al Qaida who would use it as a terrorist attack against the US.

Fabricated nonsense.

As Condi Rice stated we didn't want the proof to be a mushroom cloud in DC.

Condoleeza Rice, a token negro in the Administration, was George W. Bush's personal pickaninny. Her job, like her Uncle Tom counterpart, Colin Powell, was to obediently lie for her master -- which she did repeatedly.

Hmm.. This it? The best you can do? Did not need that much to know facts, Thanks for the recap..

 

[JakeStarkey]

MikeK's answers completely gutted the neo-con position.

No WMDs as described by the president, the SoS, etc., were ever found in Iraq. If they were, Bush would have told us immediately.

We had no international warrant to carry out UN resolutions. To do so can be construed as war crimes.

Why do you think so many of our senior Bushies do not travel to Canada and western Europe, or Oregon or Massachusetts?

 

[Liability]

MikeK's answers completely gutted the neo-con position.

No WMDs as described by the president, the SoS, etc., were ever found in Iraq. If they were, Bush would have told us immediately.

We had no international warrant to carry out UN resolutions. To do so can be construed as war crimes.

Why do you think so many of our senior Bushies do not travel to Canada and western Europe, or Oregon or Massachusetts?

Fakey's disdain for truth is really clouding his view of reality.

Anyway, why would any senior person from the Bush Administration not travel to Europe or Canada or Oregon or Massachusetts?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liability is missing the truth completely again, so his post is not anything but for grins and chuckles.

Fakey's disdain for truth is really clouding his view of reality.

MikeK's answers completely gutted the neo-con position.

No WMDs as described by the president, the SoS, etc., were ever found in Iraq. If they were, Bush would have told us immediately.

We had no international warrant to carry out UN resolutions. To do so can be construed as war crimes.

Why do you think so many of our senior Bushies do not travel to Canada and western Europe, or Oregon or Massachusetts?

 

[Liability]

Liability is missing the truth completely again, so his post is not anything but for grins and chuckles.

Fakey's disdain for truth is really clouding his view of reality.

MikeK's answers completely gutted the neo-con position.

No WMDs as described by the president, the SoS, etc., were ever found in Iraq. If they were, Bush would have told us immediately.

We had no international warrant to carry out UN resolutions. To do so can be construed as war crimes.

Why do you think so many of our senior Bushies do not travel to Canada and western Europe, or Oregon or Massachusetts?

Unlike you, Fakey, I speak the truth.

Unlike you, I don't pretend to be a member of the political Party I actually can't stand.

Unlike you, I don't say idiotic baseless bullshit things such as YOUR dishonest fable that Bush Administration officials can't travel to Oregon or Massachusetts.

 

[MisterBeale]

I agree with everything you said, except the last sentence. War should be used as a last resort, when there are no other options left.

There are only 2 ways a country can legally invade another, 1) if they are attacked themselves with a significant force (or the attack is imminant) or 2) they receive UNSC authorization in the form a resolution containing the words, "member states shall use all necessary means".

Anything else, it becomes a war of choice. And wars of choice, are wars of aggression.

There is a problem with your premise. Although I do not recognize the United States using the UN as a tool for it's imperialist policy, you either do not know your history, or have been mis-educated as to how history actually occurred. There was in actuality NO resolution that authorized "member states shall use all necessary means".

Security Council vote

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:
“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[2] ”

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:
“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[3] ”

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:
“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[4]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Perhaps you are confusing the UN resolution that authorized weapons inspections with the UN resolution that authorized the first gulf war?

The resolution text was drafted jointly by the United States and the United Kingdom, the result of eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations, particularly with Russia and France. France questioned the phrase "serious consequences" and stated repeatedly that any "material breach" found by the inspectors should not automatically lead to war; instead the UN should pass another resolution deciding on the course of action. In favour of this view is the fact that previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII used much stronger terms, like "...all necessary means…" in Resolution 678 in 1990 and that Resolution 1441 stated that the Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter."

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyways, I stand by what I originally said. The use of per-empitive force is always criminal, no matter what the excuse. We could have said in 1945 or any time before the Soviets acquired the atom bomb that invading them was a good idea because they posed a material threat. Would that have made us morally justified? Of course not. People of that generation had ethics and moral fiber. They knew right from wrong. At the point when they detected the Soviets first Atom Bomb test, they didn't demand that the Soviets quit testing and dismantle their nuclear program or we would go to war. THAT IS IMMORAL.

Make no mistake, the United States has lost all of it's political capital on the world stage. I am sure if it had any left it would have taken the Yemen issue, the Libya issue, and now it would have tried to get a Syrian resolution passed at the UN. On all of these issues it has acted unilaterally and now riots are breaking out across the world because the West has been acting like Nazi Germany, a bunch of bully fascist, imposing it's will and setting up puppet intellectual corporatist regimes. Russia and China are wise to the US. We can't use that (the UN) institution as an instrument of overt policy control anymore. In can only be used in concert with the West's control of the world markets and the world media. . . .

 

[JakeStarkey]

The neo-cons and bushie apologists are on the run.

 

[Caroljo]

"they violated UN resolutions."

LOL

i know that some athletes did or will donate their brains for scientific research, to help gaining info about head trauma and its repercussions, hehe.

i want to study partisan brains, how the fuck can they compartmentalize all this conflicting info without going insane,

ooops.

i guess i answered my question.

still, i want those brains. send them to l.k.eder, 90210 nontrollstadt, germany.

just put them into matchboxes, heirs.

thanks.

I hear the government wants to study liberal's brains....but it's going to take too long to do. They have to collect about 50 of them to get enough brain matter to study!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The CIA told Bush that Iraq was developing WMD's.

Please!

That was The DICK; Cheney's.....​

..... cherry-pickin's !!​

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The neo-cons and bushie apologists are on the run.

....For OBVIOUS reasons....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejph4LBdmmc]WMD LIES - Bush Cheney Rumsfeld etc. - THE ULTIMATE CLIP - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[CausingPAIN]

The CIA told Bush that Iraq was developing WMD's.

Please!

That was The DICK; Cheney's.....​

..... cherry-pickin's !!​

​

I don't like posters that, post the real facts. I want to live in my sanitized bubble of facts.. your mean

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The CIA told Bush that Iraq was developing WMD's.

Please!

That was The DICK; Cheney's.....​

..... cherry-pickin's !!​

​

I don't like posters that, post the real facts. I want to live in my sanitized bubble of facts.. your mean

My deepest apologies.

 

[Liability]

The neo-cons and bushie apologists are on the run.

Meanwhile, his dishonesty notwithstanding, the only one on the run is Fakey and his fellow liberal purveyors of fraud.

 

[MisterBeale]

Oh yeah, and to the point of whether they were WMD's were there or not?

Christ, wake up people.

Aftermath

In June 2006, the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), a US Department of Defense entity, released a report detailing the weapons of mass destruction that had been found in Iraq, including pre-1991 sarin gas and mustard agent. The report stated that, "While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal."[10]

The Bush administration commissioned the Iraq Survey Group to determine whether in fact any WMD existed in Iraq. After a year and half of meticulously combing through the country, the administration’s own inspectors reported[11]:
“ "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered." ”

The review was conducted by Charles Duelfer and the Iraq Survey Group. In October 2004, Bush said of Duelfer’s analysis[12]: "The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."

Factual questions about the Iraqi declaration still remain. To date the contents have still not been made public for independent scrutiny.[13] When the UK government was asked to state where in the Iraqi government's declaration there were false or inaccurate statements, the reply was that it was a confidential matter and that "huge quantities of documents remain to be translated."[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soohikNdbWs&feature=related]Bush says Iraq had no WMDs - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_tFKa2_YBQ]George W. Bush (alias Mr. Danger) - jokes about weapons of mass destruction (not found) - YouTube[/ame]

When even the President admits there were no WMD's, and you continue to beat the dead horse, you have been conditioned, brainwashed, etc.

 

[Liability]

Oh yeah. And to the pointless of whether the WMDs were found or not.

Christ. Wake up lib sheeple!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

On the run?

Hardly...there just isn't any point to arguing with those who can't seem to muster any common sense

 

[CMike]

The "ties to Al Qaida" argument is still floating around out there too.
Even though it's been totally debunked as well.

There are a lot of stupid people out there - how stupid do you have to be to follow them into war?

No one is on the high road here.

From the 911 commission report


In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Below is from the weekly stanard

It quotes from a DOD declassified memo that gives over 50 ties between Al Qaida and Hussein.

Case Closed | The Weekly Standard

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't you all know that 29 of the 19 plane bombers were Iraqis also?

 

[CMike]

Please quote me where I said we went to war because of WMD?

WMD was one element.

Other elements were Hussein and:

His support for terrorism

Hussein supported terrorist activity against Iran and Turkey which were active enemies of Iraq. None of our business.


Hussein was secular. Al Qaeda is fanatical Islamist, a circumstance which posed a serious conflict. Hussein had no ties whatsoever with Al Qaeda.


There was no such attempt. Pentagon Report Shows No Iraq Plot To Assassinate Bush Sr.


None of our business. Not worth the life of one American soldier to interfere with.


That was up to the UN to deal with. We are not the cops of the world.


Unfounded theory.


Another unfounded theory -- which has cost thousands of American lives, the maiming of thousands more of our troops, and the waste of sufficient treasure to solve all of our financial problems.


Fabricated nonsense.

As Condi Rice stated we didn't want the proof to be a mushroom cloud in DC.

Condoleeza Rice, a token negro in the Administration, was George W. Bush's personal pickaninny. Her job, like her Uncle Tom counterpart, Colin Powell, was to obediently lie for her master -- which she did repeatedly.

Hmm.. This it? The best you can do? Did not need that much to know facts, Thanks for the recap..

Hussein may have been secular, but both Hussein and Al Qaida hated the US.

Also Baghdad was the HQ for the Abu Nidal terrorist group.

And once again Al Qaida and Hussein had decade of ties.



The plot to assassinate Pres. Bush

From a DOJ document.

USDOJ/OIG FBI Labs Report

Introduction

In April 1993, former President George Bush visited Kuwait to commemorate the victory over Iraq in the Persian Gulf War. During Bush's visit, Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 people allegedly involved in a plot to kill Bush using a car bomb.

The United States sent various personnel to Kuwait to investigate the alleged assassination attempt. Based on interviews of the alleged coconspirators, forensic examinations of the explosive devices, and intelligence reports, the United States Government concluded that Iraq was behind the attempted car bombing. In response, on June 26, 1993, President Clinton ordered a cruise missile strike against an Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) building in Baghdad. A Kuwaiti court later convicted all but one of the defendants charged with crimes arising from the assassination attempt.

. Factual Background

Former President George Bush visited Kuwait between April 14 and April 16, 1993, to commemorate the allied victory in the Persian Gulf War. Accompanying Bush were his wife, two of his sons, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, former Chief of Staff John Sununu, and former Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady.

In late-April 1993, the United States learned that terrorists had attempted to assassinate Bush during his visit to Kuwait. The Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 persons suspected in the plot to kill Bush using explosives hidden in a Toyota Landcruiser. The Kuwaitis recovered the Landcruiser, which contained between 80 and 90 kilograms of plastic explosives connected to a detonator ( the Bush device or Bush explosive device ). The Kuwaitis also recovered ten cube-shaped plastic explosive devices with detonators (the cube-bombs ) from the Landcruiser. Some of the suspects reportedly confessed that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS ) was behind the assassination attempt.