NO WMD's? Guess again,,,,

[LuvRPgrl]

One of Saddams top generals is right now, 5:10 Pm PST, is being interviewed on the radio and he is adamantly stating that they sent their WMD's to syria before the liberation of Iraq.

 

[-Cp]

One of Saddams top generals is right now, 5:10 Pm PST, is being interviewed on the radio and he is adamantly stating that they sent their WMD's to syria before the liberation of Iraq.

Yeah, saw him on Hannity & Colmes last week - he wrote a book about it too..

 

[theHawk]

Do you honestly think that anti-war, Bush-hating libs are going to care? They think they've "won" that arguement, and it is their main "justification" that the war was wrong. They will never accept this as the truth.

Dems ====>

 

[Mariner]

since "outing" Syria to us would bring major repercussions for an already troubled regime.

Just as with the supposed "intelligence" from the Iraqi Shi'ite expatriates before the war, we should be very careful to assess the possible motives of people providing us information.

The only way this would make sense is if the general is a pro-U.S. former Saddamist, who opposes his fellow Sunnis' insurgency. I don't think there are too many of those, but I'd be happy if there were some.

And if there are usable WMD's (presumably chemical or biologial?) in Syria, let's pressure that regime until it hands them over. Although it would help justify the invasion if there it were true, it would also condemn the current administration's military strategy, since many people worried that we had inadequate troops on the ground to properly seal the Syrian border.

I think it's because this is a lose/lose proposition for Bush that the White House has been very muted about any hints that WMDs might have been present but missed.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

since "outing" Syria to us would bring major repercussions for an already troubled regime.

Just as with the supposed "intelligence" from the Iraqi Shi'ite expatriates before the war, we should be very careful to assess the possible motives of people providing us information.

The only way this would make sense is if the general is a pro-U.S. former Saddamist, who opposes his fellow Sunnis' insurgency. I don't think there are too many of those, but I'd be happy if there were some.

And if there are usable WMD's (presumably chemical or biologial?) in Syria, let's pressure that regime until it hands them over. Although it would help justify the invasion if there it were true, it would also condemn the current administration's military strategy, since many people worried that we had inadequate troops on the ground to properly seal the Syrian border.

I think it's because this is a lose/lose proposition for Bush that the White House has been very muted about any hints that WMDs might have been present but missed.

Mariner.

Maybe. Maybe a dog with diarrhea shat in an envelope, mailed it to bush, and when they opened it, the feces formed the letters conveying a false message to the administration.

 

[deaddude]

One of Saddams top generals is right now, 5:10 Pm PST, is being interviewed on the radio and he is adamantly stating that they sent their WMD's to syria before the liberation of Iraq.

I am going to fence this one. Meaning I will believe it if and when we find a WMD.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I am going to fence this one. Meaning I will believe it if and when we find a WMD.

They were MOVED! Meaning they won't be in iraq. Can you read?

 

[dilloduck]

I am going to fence this one. Meaning I will believe it if and when we find a WMD.

May as well--It's a completely moot point except to historians and critics.

 

[Mariner]

to spell CONSerative.

But I don't believe either "side" really lies or that there are two sides. It's multiple competing values that have sorted themselves out (due to the political necessity of needing a majority of the vote to win an election) into two big camps.

Republicans are a hodgepodge of the religious right, gun lovers, businesspeople, and libertarians. Democrats are a hodgepodge of the religious left, unionized workers, and secular humanists.

I'm liberal on many social issues but fiscally conservative. The current batch of "conservative" Republicans is liberal on nation-building in Iraq and on deficit spending, but conservative on the Constitution, except in terms of presidential power, where their thinking is monarchial. If only it were all as simple as right=right, left=wrong.

Mariner.

 

[deaddude]

They were MOVED! Meaning they won't be in iraq. Can you read?

Yes I can RWA, If they were moved then they can still be found. Moving somthing does not mean it ceases to exist. Do try to understand that.

That said if they were moved then I would still be a sight pissed at the government. Many officials were quoted saying "we know where these things are." If we knew where they were then we should have had those locations under constant satelite servailence to make sure that the WMDs were not moved.

PS love the irony of writing to ask someone if they can read

 

[rtwngAvngr]

to spell CONSerative.

But I don't believe either "side" really lies or that there are two sides. It's multiple competing values that have sorted themselves out (due to the political necessity of needing a majority of the vote to win an election) into two big camps.

It's not a political reality. It's regular reality. Nothing is accomplished in a state of constant bickering.

Republicans are a hodgepodge of the religious right, gun lovers, businesspeople, and libertarians. Democrats are a hodgepodge of the religious left, unionized workers, and secular humanists.

SO I guess there are two sides.

I'm liberal on many social issues but fiscally conservative. The current batch of "conservative" Republicans is liberal on nation-building in Iraq and on deficit spending, but conservative on the Constitution, except in terms of presidential power, where their thinking is monarchial. If only it were all as simple as right=right, left=wrong.

Mariner.

You're not fiscally conservative if you want socialized medicine.

No republican thinking is monarchical. THe president IS The head of the military and IS sworn to protect the nation. He's performing his job. Who's out of control is the congress who wants to institute oligarchy.

The main difference between conservatives and libs revolves around this question: What should we be responsible for ourselves, and what should governent do for us? You are a communist. I don't know why you get on here and lie.

 

[deaddude]

May as well--It's a completely moot point except to historians and critics.

True.

 

[Hobbit]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28794

I heard him, too. We saw this crap happening, but never followed up on it. Right now, the U.S. is negotiating with Syrian officials about this allegation. I think it'll pretty much go over like this, "If you have them and hand them over now...all of them...we won't take any action against you over the whole thing, but if you have them and tell us you don't, you'd better learn to duck and cover, got it?"

 

[Mariner]

in favor of universal health insurance provided by gov't. I think with proper controls, the private sector could do a better job. See, I am fiscally conservative. I also favor tax reform to simplify the code (though I do not favor flattening the tax code) and free an army of accountants to find real work. And I favor the line-item veto, and an end to the practice of adding earmarks to large bills that do not show up in the language of the bill itself, the favored mode of larding the budget.

My point about two "sides" was that, yes, there are two political parties, but that people are more complicated than that. A gun-loving pro-lifer may vote Democratic because he wants stronger environmental protections (he's spent some time in woods and rivers, and wants them protected better). Every person has his hot-button issues, and has to choose which counts the most. The reason the parties are so evenly balanced is that they naturally co-opt as many smaller constituencies as they can. If they fall in the polls, they have to widen their appeal to some in the opposing camp. Hence Hillary supporting Iraq.

Mariner.

 

[Psychoblues]

in favor of universal health insurance provided by gov't. I think with proper controls, the private sector could do a better job. See, I am fiscally conservative. I also favor tax reform to simplify the code (though I do not favor flattening the tax code) and free an army of accountants to find real work. And I favor the line-item veto, and an end to the practice of adding earmarks to large bills that do not show up in the language of the bill itself, the favored mode of larding the budget.

My point about two "sides" was that, yes, there are two political parties, but that people are more complicated than that. A gun-loving pro-lifer may vote Democratic because he wants stronger environmental protections (he's spent some time in woods and rivers, and wants them protected better). Every person has his hot-button issues, and has to choose which counts the most. The reason the parties are so evenly balanced is that they naturally co-opt as many smaller constituencies as they can. If they fall in the polls, they have to widen their appeal to some in the opposing camp. Hence Hillary supporting Iraq.

Mariner.

Here is where we may differ, Mariner. We have allowed, even begged the private sector to enjoin Americn objectives to provide adequate heathcare and the so-called markets have at least resisted and at most refused to heed the requests by the population and the government. I could go on and on.

Who gives a damn about poor people? India has it's untouchables, Asia has it's coochies, and America has it's n-----s. Racial, ethnic, economic? Even sexual? Personal discrimination is a complete sin. JESUS was aware of all that and preached against it. I consistently remember, He who is without sin cast the first stone, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and turn the other cheek. I can mention a few other admonitions against WAR. Let your conscience be your guide.


Psychoblues

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Here is where we may differ, Mariner. We have allowed, even begged the private sector to enjoin Americn objectives to provide adequate heathcare and the so-called markets have at least resisted and at most refused to heed the requests by the population and the government. I could go on and on.

Who gives a damn about poor people? India has it's untouchables, Asia has it's coochies, and America has it's n-----s. Racial, ethnic, economic? Even sexual? Personal discrimination is a complete sin. JESUS was aware of all that and preached against it. I consistently remember, He who is without sin cast the first stone, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and turn the other cheek. I can mention a few other admonitions against WAR. Let your conscience be your guide.


Psychoblues

But we don't live in a theocracy. THis country was not intended to operate strictly along christian principles. Socialism is not an american objective.

 

[Gunny]

since "outing" Syria to us would bring major repercussions for an already troubled regime.

Just as with the supposed "intelligence" from the Iraqi Shi'ite expatriates before the war, we should be very careful to assess the possible motives of people providing us information.

The only way this would make sense is if the general is a pro-U.S. former Saddamist, who opposes his fellow Sunnis' insurgency. I don't think there are too many of those, but I'd be happy if there were some.

And if there are usable WMD's (presumably chemical or biologial?) in Syria, let's pressure that regime until it hands them over. Although it would help justify the invasion if there it were true, it would also condemn the current administration's military strategy, since many people worried that we had inadequate troops on the ground to properly seal the Syrian border.

I think it's because this is a lose/lose proposition for Bush that the White House has been very muted about any hints that WMDs might have been present but missed.

Mariner.

It's only a lose-lose situation to you and your fellow, partisan hacks.

Whether or not this guy's story is true is irrelevant to the fact that Saddam possessed WMDs, he USED WMDs ... Hell, the CIA even showed him how to refine his damned mustard gas.

Let's try to remember WHO the bad guy is here. Saddam was a genocidal maniac along with being a complete sociopath. While in power he invaded two sovereign nations bordering Iraq because he wanted their oil. He mass-murdered his own people using CHEMICAL WEAPONS simply for their ethnicity.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, y'all libs'd have us believe it's a CAT.

 

[Hobbit]

It's only a lose-lose situation to you and your fellow, partisan hacks.

Whether or not this guy's story is true is irrelevant to the fact that Saddam possessed WMDs, he USED WMDs ... Hell, the CIA even showed him how to refine his damned mustard gas.

Let's try to remember WHO the bad guy is here. Saddam was a genocidal maniac along with being a complete sociopath. While in power he invaded two sovereign nations bordering Iraq because he wanted their oil. He mass-murdered his own people using CHEMICAL WEAPONS simply for their ethnicity.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, y'all libs'd have us believe it's a CAT.

Duck, cat, oh well. I'll shoot it anyway. I'm allergic to cats.

 

[Mariner]

Wall Street Journal wrote the same thing in an editorial recently as I did: that it's lose/lose for Bush to find WMD's now, therefore he's keeping quiet on the issue. It's not Democratic politics that make him quiet; it's a Republican of not wanting to look incompetent:

Find WMD's now, after your administration has said "We were wrong" about them, and you look incompetent for both missing them in the first place, and for then saying they weren't there when they were. Even if you gain evidence that supports starting the war, you look like you failed your mission, and your military strategies (fewer troops on the ground) look to be proven wrong.

Mariner.

 

[dilloduck]

Wall Street Journal wrote the same thing in an editorial recently as I did: that it's lose/lose for Bush to find WMD's now, therefore he's keeping quiet on the issue. It's not Democratic politics that make him quiet; it's a Republican of not wanting to look incompetent:

Find WMD's now, after your administration has said "We were wrong" about them, and you look incompetent for both missing them in the first place, and for then saying they weren't there when they were. Even if you gain evidence that supports starting the war, you look like you failed your mission, and your military strategies (fewer troops on the ground) look to be proven wrong.

Mariner.

I disagree---If it is found that the WMDs existed but the intelligence couldn't keep up with them, the dems would crap in thier pants about how much crow they would have to eat. Bush has only said the intelligence was wrong. That's easy to recover from if you can present the world with a stockpile of WMDs.