EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Nov 28, 2014 9:21 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:11 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:09 am
Posts: 542
Location: Stratford WI
http://www.mediaresearch.org/press/2006 ... 060623.asp
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly ... 99,00.html
500 WMDs found so far.

blah blah blah....Of course Iraq didn't attack us on 9-11
I believe that is an antis line to try to make the war look like a sham.

We waited 12 years for ol Saddam to comply with UN sanctions and show that he was doing away with WMDs he would not. He kicked out UN inspectors.
The problem was with the fact that he did have ties with terrorist networks and the thought that he maybe could slip a few WMDs into the wrong hands for some quick cash was one of the reasons.

It was firmly believed by many that he had WMDs and was actively working with them.

Quote:
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

Quote:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Quote:
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998


Even the link posted on how we played with documents says the US didn't forge anything it was a CIA mistake that they weren't spotted or reported as fakes. Not a Cheney/Bush thing really at all. They used what they were told was OK.

_________________
sammyds world

Watch out where the huskies go, don't you eat that yellow snow


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:42 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 2314
here's what I found on the 500 WMD but there appears to be questions
about the legitimacy of these more recent findings.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/press/2006 ... 060623.asp


no one is defending the actions of the UN that organization has failed
miserably in its foreign policy enforcement...why was Saddam allowed to go 12 yrs defying UN Resolutions?


Quote:
And she also said Afghanastian was wrong, and her son died for Israel not the US. Do you agree with her on those points too?


any facts to support that?...transcripts, news quotes?

her book says this:

The book also puts to rest a number of falsities and malicious lies about Sheehan that have appeared in the media and circulated on the Internet since she rose to prominence in August. These include the falsity that she has been divorced from her husband since Casey was four, the allegation that she and her supporters went to Louisiana after the hurricane Katrina disaster in order to garner publicity, the lie that she is anti-Semitic and said her son died protecting Israel, the claim that she has no voice of her own and is a mere puppet for the enemies of the Bush administration, and the accusation that she is unpatriotic and is providing aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0512e.asp

_________________
join the Ron Paul Revolution!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

if I could wake up tomorrow morning and push a button and all the AR's would be gone, I would lay awake tonight in anticipation of pushing the button.~~OHIOSTEVE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:54 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20584
Location: Southeastern US
hunter88 wrote:
Quote:
From the sources I have read on the push for war the UN Inspectors vehemently opposed going to war so soon and had asked the administration for more time so that they could complete the inspections and deliver their final report to the UN Security Council.


As I go down your post I see a constant thread, and that is the inability of the UN to do anyting right. I believe you are right the UN inspectors wanted to go in again, but Saddam wouldn't let them. What were they going to do to make him, more sanctions. Sanctions didn't bother Saddam, he was busy working his oil for food deal, so the only ones sanctioned were his people.


The inspectors were already in country and the US warned them to leave before we attacked, so we were the ones kicking them out. The sanctions seemed to have worked as there were no WMDs and no proof of the programs expected. The only thing preventing full compliance was the threat the Iraqi army would be attacked if it were known there were no WMD type weapons available.

Quote:
Quote:
I haven't seen anything in the news about the 500 WMD's recently found and I follow the news regularly..any links?


When I get home I'll see what I can find, but I have seen something on it twice. The WMDs were old, so that is why I don't think they were going to be used. They could be some that were forgotten about, which is why I didn't think it proved anything.


This is correct, they were old shells mixed in with other munitions in ones and twos and were basically useless as a WMD due to the degraded condition.

Quote:
Quote:
Religious War:
got that right we're training the Iraqi Forces to secure their country so we can come home and all they're doing with the training is waging "sectarian" war against each other. Iraqi Shiites and Sunni's are are having a go at each other swimming in each others bloodbath. I guess our soldiers can come home when they finish each other off.


Yes Iraqi's fighting amongst themselves will occur. It has for thousands of years and will continue. That's the biggest mistake of going inot the middle east. they've always been fighting and they will always be fighting. It's all they know.


Which puts the US in the bad position of having destabilized the area and no way to re-stabilize it in the foreseeable future ... thus another open ended conflict in which we have no way to remove ourselves without screwing things up even more. IF we continue badly though we will give them a common enemy to hate even more ... the US.

Quote:
Quote:
Hezbollah:
when the Syrian Army pulled out of Lebanon last year the US and Israel should have pressured France and the UN to come in and fill the void until the Lebanese gov't could get their forces trained and prepared to secure that region of the country.No one did a damn thing and Hezbollah seized the opportunity to move itself in and take control and now we have what we have.


And there it is again the UN not doing anything. If the UN would have enforced it's last resolution there wouldn't be any fighting in Lebanon now. Well that's probably not true because there is always fighting over there. But if the UN would have done what it was suppose to do with Hezbollah, Israel wouldn't have had to do what it's doing.


Not a lot can be done with Hezbollah without risking another civil war in Lebanon, which cost a lot of Marines the last time.

Quote:
Maybe that is the problem, the US always has to be the one that goes in and cleans up the mess left by an inactive UN.


We left Lebanon hanging too ....

Quote:
Quote:
Iraq never attacked the US or even threatened to, neither the Iraqi people or Saddam participated in the 9/11 attacks. We had no business or right to go and destroy their country and kill them in the name of "war on terrorism".


I didn't say they did. But again if Saddam had a WMD, which everyone including his own army thought he had, he would have gladly given it to Osama or someone that would use it against us over here.


No, the two were too much of an enemy. Osama wanted the Arab world to join together to destroy Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. That brought in the foreign troops onto holy soil and made that relationship even more of a conflict as a result.

Quote:
I guess the difference is I'm not willing to take the chance of a WMD in the US, and you are.


There is more of a chance of that from North Korea than Iraq but we have not even hinted at an invasion of North Korea. :wink:

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:43 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 2314
thank you Wayne for the clarification on some things.

I remember the Inspectors were already in Iraq when the date was set to invade and they were insisting on more time.

if what they are calling WMD are the old bombs that still had biological and
chemical agents encased well everyone already knew that.

when I hear WMD I'm thinking 'Nuclear'.

it's a holy hell and horror over there...for our soldiers, Iraqi people
and Lebanese people.

_________________
join the Ron Paul Revolution!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

if I could wake up tomorrow morning and push a button and all the AR's would be gone, I would lay awake tonight in anticipation of pushing the button.~~OHIOSTEVE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:09 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 6190
Quote:
Which puts the US in the bad position of having destabilized the area and no way to re-stabilize it in the foreseeable future ... thus another open ended conflict in which we have no way to remove ourselves without screwing things up even more. IF we continue badly though we will give them a common enemy to hate even more ... the US.


I agree the only way Saddam kept them in line was to kill them. I knew when we went in some of them would be happy to see us, but others that were favored by Saddam would not. They do not think the way we do, and will not react the way we think they should. They have been fighting amongst themselves for thousands of years, and if left undisturbed that will probably continue. The problem is when one gets weapons like WMDs and is willing to sell or give them to a radical group that wants the western world destroyed, do you just stand back and wait for it to happen. If they want to use them on each other, let them. But that's not what's going to happen. One of them, like Iran, will give the Hezbollah a WMD to use here.

Quote:
Not a lot can be done with Hezbollah without risking another civil war in Lebanon, which cost a lot of Marines the last time.

Quote:
Maybe that is the problem, the US always has to be the one that goes in and cleans up the mess left by an inactive UN.


We left Lebanon hanging too ....


Yep we made a big mistake when we left after our Marines were killed by Hezbollah. Osama said that was when he knew we didn't have the stomach for a fight. They despise any sign of weakness in the middle east, and we gave them a great sign of weakness then. And in the 90s we did the same thing. After 9-11 was the only time we showed any backbone and did what we said we'd do. that is something they may not like, but they will respect.

Look at the Iran crisis when Jimmy Carter was in. They kept our hostages 444 days. Right up until the time Reagan was elected. They knew he would come over and get them, when Jimmy wouldn't. Well I guess he did give a half way try with a couple choppers. But Iran watched too many of Regan's cowboy movies, and figured he'd come in with guns blazing, so the hostages were set free.

Quote:
There is more of a chance of that from North Korea than Iraq but we have not even hinted at an invasion of North Korea. :wink:


Ah, I brought up N Korea. But I still think they negotiate by bluffing because that is the only way they know. It worked for them in the 90s, and they got something when they huffed and puffed. Now they figure the same thing will work again. Yes they could sell a nuke to a terrorist for some much needed cash. But unless that guy is totally crazy, and he just may be, they know it could be traced back to them, and then how much good will the money be when we send 150 nukes over to them after they sent their one to us.

I'm more concerned with a religious zealot that wants me and everyone like me dead so his savior can come save him, then I am about a crazy guy that wants money. Money may be the root of all evil, but I have a feeling religious differences have killed more people over the years then a need for money.

_________________
I don't know what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:05 pm 
hunter88 wrote:
Quote:
Which puts the US in the bad position of having destabilized the area and no way to re-stabilize it in the foreseeable future ... thus another open ended conflict in which we have no way to remove ourselves without screwing things up even more. IF we continue badly though we will give them a common enemy to hate even more ... the US.


I agree the only way Saddam kept them in line was to kill them. I knew when we went in some of them would be happy to see us, but others that were favored by Saddam would not. They do not think the way we do, and will not react the way we think they should. They have been fighting amongst themselves for thousands of years, and if left undisturbed that will probably continue. The problem is when one gets weapons like WMDs and is willing to sell or give them to a radical group that wants the western world destroyed, do you just stand back and wait for it to happen. If they want to use them on each other, let them. But that's not what's going to happen. One of them, like Iran, will give the Hezbollah a WMD to use here.

Quote:
Not a lot can be done with Hezbollah without risking another civil war in Lebanon, which cost a lot of Marines the last time.

Quote:
Maybe that is the problem, the US always has to be the one that goes in and cleans up the mess left by an inactive UN.


We left Lebanon hanging too ....


Yep we made a big mistake when we left after our Marines were killed by Hezbollah. Osama said that was when he knew we didn't have the stomach for a fight. They despise any sign of weakness in the middle east, and we gave them a great sign of weakness then. And in the 90s we did the same thing. After 9-11 was the only time we showed any backbone and did what we said we'd do. that is something they may not like, but they will respect.

Look at the Iran crisis when Jimmy Carter was in. They kept our hostages 444 days. Right up until the time Reagan was elected. They knew he would come over and get them, when Jimmy wouldn't. Well I guess he did give a half way try with a couple choppers. But Iran watched too many of Regan's cowboy movies, and figured he'd come in with guns blazing, so the hostages were set free.

Quote:
There is more of a chance of that from North Korea than Iraq but we have not even hinted at an invasion of North Korea. :wink:


Ah, I brought up N Korea. But I still think they negotiate by bluffing because that is the only way they know. It worked for them in the 90s, and they got something when they huffed and puffed. Now they figure the same thing will work again. Yes they could sell a nuke to a terrorist for some much needed cash. But unless that guy is totally crazy, and he just may be, they know it could be traced back to them, and then how much good will the money be when we send 150 nukes over to them after they sent their one to us.

I'm more concerned with a religious zealot that wants me and everyone like me dead so his savior can come save him, then I am about a crazy guy that wants money. Money may be the root of all evil, but I have a feeling religious differences have killed more people over the years then a need for money.


What gives us the right to dictate to others? They only country in this world that has turned WMDs ( Atomic bomb ) on others are the Americans.

You would not let Iran do the same to you in American nor would we in the UK so what right do we have to tell them?

I think America and England should leave the middle east and Afghanistan and sort our own countries out first.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:16 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 6190
Quote:
They only country in this world that has turned WMDs ( Atomic bomb ) on others are the Americans.


Only because they could develop them sooner. Germany would have done the same to England if they could have gotten the bomb built in time. Bet you're glad that didn't happen.

Quote:
You would not let Iran do the same to you in American nor would we in the UK so what right do we have to tell them?


What right do we have to tell them not to develop a nuke? The right to stay alive. The difference is the US or the UK would not drop a nuke on a country just because their religious belief was not the same as ours. Maybe that makes us civilized, or maybe that makes us stupid, I don't know. But I do know Iran will not blink. They would nuke us as soon as look at us.

Quote:
I think America and England should leave the middle east and Afghanistan and sort our own countries out first.


Great, you convince me that Iran will nuke the middle east but leave the rest of us alone, and I'll say fine the cost of glass should go down because there is a lot of it in the middle east. But unfortunately it won't work that way. Iran will not see it's savior come until you and I are dead and gone. Unless you have the same religious beliefs as the President of Iran, then you're safe.

_________________
I don't know what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:54 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:41 pm
Posts: 6190
Denni I'm sorry I forgot to address this for you.

Quote:
And she also said Afghanastian was wrong, and her son died for Israel not the US. Do you agree with her on those points too?


any facts to support that?...transcripts, news quotes?


I think I brought this up earlier in this thread, and I'm not sure I posted the link where I got it. But I do know I got it by googleing her name.

It said she sent an e mail to ABC, and in it she said Afghanastian was wrong just like Iraq, and that is also where she said her son died for Israel not the US. Later they would ask her about that statement, and she would claim she did not say that, and when shown the e mail she said an ABC employee must have changed it.

I just figured she said it in the e mail, then either thought better of it, or her handlers said that wasn't a good thing to say so deny it.

_________________
I don't know what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:53 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:09 am
Posts: 542
Location: Stratford WI
Quote:
They only country in this world that has turned WMDs ( Atomic bomb ) on others are the Americans.


WMDs are not just nuclear weapons.
They include bacterial and chemical weapons as well.
And if you will recall Saddam unleashed them on the Kurds.
Then there was that really old war back in the teens when mustard gas was pretty popular.
So while America has been the only country to use nuclear weapons it is not the only to use weapons of mass destruction.

_________________
sammyds world

Watch out where the huskies go, don't you eat that yellow snow


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group