Fred Hansen
New member
Excellent points Big R. 
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Saddam Had No WMD's or programs
- Thread starter bountyh
- Start date
No money in it.
HERETIC!
Sun Tzu was the ultimate expert on everything from war to stamp collecting! Read it or you won't be cool! Don't listen to anybody else! No one else ever had a thought worth having!
Get your nose out of Sun Tsu and read some Clausewitz.
HERETIC!
Sun Tzu was the ultimate expert on everything from war to stamp collecting! Read it or you won't be cool! Don't listen to anybody else! No one else ever had a thought worth having!
There were two choices: continue the status quo (leading quickly to the complete collapse of the sanctions, more billions flowing into Saddam's pocket and his restarting of his WMD program) or get rid of him.
Kerry, I think, now says that we should have chosen the former. The route that relies on the UN, France et al. At least I think that's his current position. I don't know why I'm so confused, whenever anyone brings up the cloud prohibiting understanding the Kerry/Edwards position re: Iraq they say over and over again how 'consistent' theyve been on the issue. I'm always waiting for the rimshot, but it never comes.
To advocate remaining with the former status quo in Iraq is lunacy. Add to that Kerry's senate record, his disgusting treasonous and seditious actions in the 70's and his lying waffling BS of the campaign and it is beyond understanding how anyone could stand up for this slimeball. Least of all a 2nd Amendment advocate.
Scratch that, I do understand. It has nothing to do with Kerry and everything to do with W. These people would elect a Mao/Fonda ticket if it meant getting rid of Bush.
- Gabe
Kerry, I think, now says that we should have chosen the former. The route that relies on the UN, France et al. At least I think that's his current position. I don't know why I'm so confused, whenever anyone brings up the cloud prohibiting understanding the Kerry/Edwards position re: Iraq they say over and over again how 'consistent' theyve been on the issue. I'm always waiting for the rimshot, but it never comes.
To advocate remaining with the former status quo in Iraq is lunacy. Add to that Kerry's senate record, his disgusting treasonous and seditious actions in the 70's and his lying waffling BS of the campaign and it is beyond understanding how anyone could stand up for this slimeball. Least of all a 2nd Amendment advocate.
Scratch that, I do understand. It has nothing to do with Kerry and everything to do with W. These people would elect a Mao/Fonda ticket if it meant getting rid of Bush.
- Gabe
These people would elect a Mao/Fonda ticket
You are kidding here, right? These people would LOVE a Mao/Fonda ticket!
"Let's look at the big picture, we went into Iraq because we needed to seriously stomp some Islamofascist butt"
Except prior to us invading (And opening the floodgates for real Al Qaeda and other various fundies to get in and stir up things) Iraq was a secular nation with little or no religious influence in it's government.
Except prior to us invading (And opening the floodgates for real Al Qaeda and other various fundies to get in and stir up things) Iraq was a secular nation with little or no religious influence in it's government.
Which raises the question; just how exactly does one prove that one has "no weapons of mass destruction" in a country as large as Iraq?
"Giving inspectors unlimited access" doesn't prove anything - except "there are none where they choose to look". It is not going to prove they are not elsewhere underground - under the desert or some mountains.
So it comes down to the "inspectors" perhaps wanting to look somewhere where you do not have any "WMDs" - but maybe something else which you do not want them to see. Like gold bullion? Could be anything.
But then the pretense of an international board of criminals wanting to "inspect" my country for anything would not impress me.
"Giving inspectors unlimited access" doesn't prove anything - except "there are none where they choose to look". It is not going to prove they are not elsewhere underground - under the desert or some mountains.
So it comes down to the "inspectors" perhaps wanting to look somewhere where you do not have any "WMDs" - but maybe something else which you do not want them to see. Like gold bullion? Could be anything.
But then the pretense of an international board of criminals wanting to "inspect" my country for anything would not impress me.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
True enough, but two counterpoints:DLoken said:Except prior to us invading (And opening the floodgates for real Al Qaeda and other various fundies to get in and stir up things) Iraq was a secular nation with little or no religious influence in it's government.
AlQaeda is fighting our miliary "over there" instead of killing civilians "over here." So we've been sucessful in converting their asymmetrical war into a more traditional one involving the brave and selfless people who have volunteered to take the fight to them.
Iraq was and is an Islamic nation, but they had a secular government. Where better to plant the seeds of Democracy but in soil that is unspoiled by Theocracy.
Fred Hansen
New member
I hate to break it to you, but those 4 smoking holes in the ground on 9/11/01 was the "fundies" way of saying that things ARE stirred up. I know that most Americans didn't realize that things had been stirred up for 30 years before 9/11, but now no one has any excuse not to "get it".Except prior to us invading (And opening the floodgates for real Al Qaeda and other various fundies to get in and stir up things) Iraq was a secular nation with little or no religious influence in it's government.
Iraq was the only middle-eastern country whose military we had already pummeled. We needed a way to get troops to a place where 7th century barbarian death-cult psychotics could feel at home. A place where they could get their pathetic little selves in a hurry so they could die by the hundreds. Quite frankly, they needed a place to meet the senseless death that they worship. And in the meanwhile the little pissant Sadam (that the death-cult psychotics saw as proof of OUR weakness to fight) got his rotten kids whacked, and himself dragged out of his rathole. Win/Win
The icing on the cake.Iraq was and is an Islamic nation, but they had a secular government. Where better to plant the seeds of Democracy but in soil that is unspoiled by Theocracy.
Iraq was the only middle-eastern country whose military we had already pummeled. We needed a way to get troops to a place where 7th century barbarian death-cult psychotics could feel at home. A place where they could get their pathetic little selves in a hurry so they could die by the hundreds.
Fred is voicing his theory that we invaded Iraq to encourage non-Iraqi fundamentalists to flood into the country and fight an insurgency, which we would put down, killing many fundamentalists.
The problem with this theory is that our military didn't properly equip or staff itself for a counter insurgency, even though Fred says it was the plan all along.
Anyone else see the problem with this theory?
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Why doesn't the Bush campaign spread these quotes all over TV?
Code:
Why doesn't the Bush campaign spread these quotes all over TV?At the last debate Bush got up and gleefully spoke of his "coalition of nations" and then kerry pointed out that the US presently has more than 90% of all military in that country.
That subject is not one that Bush can make points talking about. The only bell he can ring is "we are better off without saddam in power"...... but the problem is, the price we paid was a million times more than we gained and while we were screwing around in Iraq, Al Qaeda grew another hundred heads and spread like herpes.
Because the Bush admin has told so many lies about Iraq and the reason they had to go to war,
List one.
Oh, before you go off on the WMD thing, one rule - if you are going to say that Bush lied about this, you must explain why Bush was lying when he said Saddam had WND and everybody else who said exactly the same thing wasn't also lying.
At the last debate Bush got up and gleefully spoke of his "coalition of nations" and then kerry pointed out that the US presently has more than 90% of all military in that country.
And of course you believed Kerry. It's not, "Kerry claimed that...". No, it's "Kerry pointed out that..."
And even if the number of military personnel really IS 90% U.S., so what? There are still other nations in there with us. It's still a coalition.
Which is actually a problem in my book. The United States does not need anybody's permission to defend itself, and should never act as if it does.
One of the later paragraphs...
in the report on Iraq's WMD programs has some interesting (and ignored) comments.
Among other things, it mentions that there is no way to verify if any WMD has been removed from Iraq to say - how about Syria? The report also mentions the practically impossible job of searching all the uninhabited area in Iraq. It also mentions the Iraqis were 'working' (whatever that means) on WMD programs.
Handy, your last post says:
BountyH; your devotion to Michael Moore is touching. Not in touch with reality, but touching just the same.
Probably the main factor keeping the 'insurgent' movement going in Iraq is the encouragment they are getting from John Kerry and his supporters. The bombing in Madrid worked; the socialists were elected and the Spanish pulled out of Iraq. Now, they think, if we can just John Kerry elected in the US...
Sorry folks if I seem touchy. National cowardice has never appealed to me.
in the report on Iraq's WMD programs has some interesting (and ignored) comments.
Among other things, it mentions that there is no way to verify if any WMD has been removed from Iraq to say - how about Syria? The report also mentions the practically impossible job of searching all the uninhabited area in Iraq. It also mentions the Iraqis were 'working' (whatever that means) on WMD programs.
Handy, your last post says:
Handy, this is what as known as a 'strawman' argument. You make up a nonsensical argument, then defeat the made up argument. If you are honest, you will look and see Mr. Hansen made no such argument. You did, he didn't.The problem with this theory is that our military didn't properly equip or staff itself for a counter insurgency, even though Fred says it was the plan all along.
BountyH; your devotion to Michael Moore is touching. Not in touch with reality, but touching just the same.
Probably the main factor keeping the 'insurgent' movement going in Iraq is the encouragment they are getting from John Kerry and his supporters. The bombing in Madrid worked; the socialists were elected and the Spanish pulled out of Iraq. Now, they think, if we can just John Kerry elected in the US...
Sorry folks if I seem touchy. National cowardice has never appealed to me.
It's such a comfort to know that there are SO many monday morning keyboard QB's that have every answer to every problem (albeit in hindsight) and if we just listen to them we will be safe and secure and never be unprepared for anything ever again...as long as we have the gift of hindsight.
Now, how to actually apply that gift to future events?
Now, how to actually apply that gift to future events?
Fred Hansen
New member
No need to apologize. The day yellow-bellies become appealing is when one needs to worry.Sorry folks if I seem touchy. National cowardice has never appealed to me.
Herr Clinton and his cadre of feminist hags have wounded our country pretty deeply in terms of weakening our military and the national ethos in general, but I have to believe we will recover.
November will tell the tale. If "Victor Charlie" Kerry and his metrosexual boy-toy win, then maybe we won't recover. The run-and-hide party will give us another four years of using our military as a meals-on-wheels program, while simultaneously seeking to "understand" people who worship death. Four years we can't afford.
"The run-and-hide party will give us another four years of using our military as a meals-on-wheels program, while simultaneously seeking to "understand" people who worship death. Four years we can't afford."
Then maybe we should look at our current leader's use of our military? Think of all the resources that we're wasting in Iraq, the billions of dollars wasted and hundreds (Thousands if you count Iraqi civilians we and the opposition have killed in the crossfire) of people killed. Think of what that could've done to get Osama Bin Laden and effectively killed Al Qaeda.
Also we have Iran inbetween Iraq and Afghanistan who is playing the nuclear game with the world as we speak, and we have North Korea who probably already has nuclear weapons. So between them and Al Qaeda why did we go after a secular dicatorship that never directly attacked us (No they supported terrorism BS, as there really isn't any evidence to show this)?
Then maybe we should look at our current leader's use of our military? Think of all the resources that we're wasting in Iraq, the billions of dollars wasted and hundreds (Thousands if you count Iraqi civilians we and the opposition have killed in the crossfire) of people killed. Think of what that could've done to get Osama Bin Laden and effectively killed Al Qaeda.
Also we have Iran inbetween Iraq and Afghanistan who is playing the nuclear game with the world as we speak, and we have North Korea who probably already has nuclear weapons. So between them and Al Qaeda why did we go after a secular dicatorship that never directly attacked us (No they supported terrorism BS, as there really isn't any evidence to show this)?
A. There is plenty of evidence to support a link between Saddam & terrorism, against us and against others. You want proof that will stand in a court of law? You're playing the wrong game. This is war - the rules of evidence are a bit different. You don't wait for search warrants on a battlefield.
B. If you think attacking North Korea or Iran would be a smart move, I'm glad you aren't running things. Like it or not, sometimes you have to take one thing at a time, and you don't bite off the biggest chunk first.
Especially when your predecessor has left you with an emaciated military capability.
B. If you think attacking North Korea or Iran would be a smart move, I'm glad you aren't running things. Like it or not, sometimes you have to take one thing at a time, and you don't bite off the biggest chunk first.
Especially when your predecessor has left you with an emaciated military capability.
Fred Hansen
New member
I know that most people view intelligence gathering, military efforts, and related activities from a Hollywierd perspective, and so I understand why you think that you know how to do a better job. No offense, but I'm going to go with the judgement of folks like Donald Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks on this one.Think of what that could've done to get Osama Bin Laden and effectively killed Al Qaeda.
The fact of the matter is that our troops need to have a distinct and ovewhelming presence in the parts of the world in which the animals they hunt lurk. Our troops don't get from one place to the next by magic. We don't gather intelligence by magic. We don't easily infiltrate 7th century barbarian death-cult groups; I know they do in Hollyperv movies, but we are talking now about the real world. People with 21st century sensibilities stick out like sore thumbs in these hellholes, ergo capturing and interogating known death-cultists is one of the only ways available to us to gain information on them.
Life would be grand if we could have a hottie like Sydney Bristow swoop down on the misunderstood (and much maligned I'm sure) death-cultists, and download the contents of their laptop harddrives by osmosis, but again we are talking about the real world. Not the one on TV.
There is plenty of evidence that shows Saddam's tacit and overt support for terrorism. You simply choose to ignore it. Saddam paid $25,000 to families of Palestinian (whatever a Palestinian is) murder-bombers. Saddam harbored Abu Abbas until our forces IN IRAQ captured him last year. Abu Nidal also found a haven in Iraq until he "committed suicide" after he was no longer of use to his Iraqi master. But then again leftists don't believe that those guys were terrorists since they mainly murdered Jews. Hey, Leon Klinghoffer was an American and all, but hey, he was still just a Jew. Where is the terrorism in throwing a wheelchair bound Jew overboard? Hmm?So between them and Al Qaeda why did we go after a secular dicatorship that never directly attacked us (No they supported terrorism BS, as there really isn't any evidence to show this)?
President Bush isn't the most articulate guy in the world. I'll stipulate that point without reservation, but he did say (again, and again, and again) that those involved in terrorism, those harboring terrorists, those sympathetic to terrorists, should take warning. We will no longer stand for this terrorist BS.
Saddam, a person whose defiance of America was an inspiration to terrorists everywhere, pretended not to get the memo. Democrats in this country like to pretend that they don't understand the connections between paying the salaries of, and harboring terrorists, and TERRORISM itself. Saddam then found himself with dead sons, and a rathole for a home.
Now if I could only get so lucky as to have the Democrats in this country crawl into a suitable (or not) hole somewhere.
One other note since you brought up the subject of nukes and Iran. In the first Presidential debate "Victor Charlie" Kerry was sniveling about nuclear proliferation as being his #1 concern. He then mentioned that N.Korea betrayed the (idiotic) trust of the Clinton administration by turning the fissionable material into weapons. He then went on to say that he would like to give nuclear materials to Iran as a token of our esteem in the hope that they could use it in a way that would show them to be trustworthy. THEN he said that WE couldn't be trusted with our nuclear weapons, and that one of his priorities as President would be to eradicate our nuclear bunker-busters! The one weapon that would be vital in containing/destroying the nuclear programs of rogue nations, and he would destroy the program BEFORE giving death-cult nuts nuke material.
The more I think about it, the more I take John "Victor Charlie" Kerry at his word when he says he has had one plan all along. A plan to destroy America at any cost.
Quartus
Um, I think the invasion of a sovereign country is a tad more serious than a court case involving a single offender. If the rules of evidence and a court apply to a traffic violation, there certainly ought to be something rather more concrete before throwing the weight of an army against a nation, which even with all due care and attention is going to forseeably result in the inadvertant death of thousands of innocent civilians.
Once a war is actually under way it is too late. This is an issue of it's beginning.
There is plenty of evidence to support a link between Saddam & terrorism, against us and against others. You want proof that will stand in a court of law? You're playing the wrong game. This is war - the rules of evidence are a bit different. You don't wait for search warrants on a battlefield.
Um, I think the invasion of a sovereign country is a tad more serious than a court case involving a single offender. If the rules of evidence and a court apply to a traffic violation, there certainly ought to be something rather more concrete before throwing the weight of an army against a nation, which even with all due care and attention is going to forseeably result in the inadvertant death of thousands of innocent civilians.
Once a war is actually under way it is too late. This is an issue of it's beginning.