|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Bodyguard
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 3:08 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
CS I have asked that question before and I think you are correct. I think it was indeed part of the plan.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
sleK
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:18 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Since we have gone around and around on this subject on this and other threads AND will never agree, I have a different question. |
Hold your horses there little lady. I am NOT going to let you get off that easy this time.
First of all it is not an agree or disagree issue. It's simply fact and fiction.
Repeatedly spewing the same fiction does not, in any way, shape or form, diminish the facts.
Fact: "Liberation" was not the pretense for the invasion.
Fact: There are no WmD's in Iraq.
Fact: The UN did not back the invasion.
Fact: There are ZERO credible links between Hussein and terrorists.
Fact: Since the US invaded Iraq, terrorist activity has increased.
Fact: Bin Laden is still a free man and AQ is still operating.
Fact: As many as 15,000 people have died because thick-headed morons like you are stupid enough to "disagree" with facts.
So, you can "disagree" with the facts above till you're blue in the face if you choose. It's not going to change them. But I'll be damned if I'll let you spread your fictitious bullshit unchallenged.
So, since you've proven, yet again, that you're unable to adequately challenge the facts, if you so much as think about presenting another proven fictitious tidbit as fact, I am going to be on your dumb ass like white on rice buddy. And I will not hesitate to humiliate you in the process.
You need to get a clue, and you need to get it quick. As, although I've never banned anyone for sheer stupidity before, there's a first for everything.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Bodyguard
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:24 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Before I reply to your insult filled rant I need to know that I can respond in kind. Since your past behavior does not lead me to even remotely trust you. I want you to say in public I will not be banned for anything I say to you in response.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
sleK
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:38 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Stick to the facts BG, and there will be no problem. Be prepared to back your statements up however as I am both willing and prepared to dispute any more BS that you choose to post.
If you ad-hom in lieu of addressing my points, it'll be your last one.
And, for the record, it's not an insult if it's true. 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Bodyguard
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:46 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Fact: "Liberation" was not the pretense for the invasion.
|
FACT No one in the government said it was. It was a by product of the invasion. DUH
| Quote: |
| Fact: There are no WmD's in Iraq. |
That is not a fact YET. It may turn out to be but who knows.
| Quote: |
| Fact: The UN did not back the invasion. |
True but they did believe there WERE WMDs again DUH.
| Quote: |
Fact: There are ZERO credible links between Hussein and terrorists.
|
This is a flat out lie. There may have been no links between AQ and Saddam but there were PLO camps in Iraq and several other fundementalists Muslim groups in Iraq.
| Quote: |
| Fact: Since the US invaded Iraq, terrorist activity has increased. |
In Iraq it has in a different way....you admitted what Saddam did to his people when in power was a form of terror.......now that he is gone it has changed into somthing more in the way of classic terror (I.E. the IRA and PLO style of cowardly killing of the innocent.)
| Quote: |
| Fact: Bin Laden is still a free man and AQ is still operating. |
Who in the hell has disputed this fact? Do you dispute that he is in hiding and AQ has been denied many friendly bases? Oh and when was the US attacked by him? Or even our friends to the North?
| Quote: |
| Fact: As many as 15,000 people have died because thick-headed morons like you are stupid enough to "disagree" with facts |
Back this fucking slander up right fucking now. Some dude sitting in his mothers basement claiming to be the guru of "truth" and "facts" does not impress me. Do you realize that millions of people dis-gree with you? Are they all stupid? Or just in need of your wisdom?
| Quote: |
So, since you've proven, yet again, that you're unable to adequately challenge the facts, if you so much as think about presenting another proven fictitious tidbit as fact, I am going to be on your dumb ass like white on rice buddy. And I will not hesitate to humiliate you in the process.
|
I would love to take the gloves off if you would let me. But this is all a trap to ban me. Dont think I and many others who have pm'd me about it dont see it. Kinda like when you joined the other RW just to go after some of us........remember that? Hell even your own moderators (when you had any ) warned me about you. People who dont agree with you arent all stupid, sleK. Many are afraid to do so however. That is the ultimate arrogent attitude "if you dis-agree with me you are unreasonable or stupid) Well let me clue you in champ, many many people who are smarter than you and I disagree with you on these issues.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Bodyguard
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:51 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| And, for the record, it's not an insult if it's true. |
I will remember that as should you. And just who will be the judge of the truth?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Bodyguard
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:57 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I am not a little lady. That is an ad hom.
I am far from dumb........ad hom #2
| Quote: |
And I will not hesitate to humiliate you in the process.
|
Is this a violation of your own rules?
| Quote: |
| sheer stupidity before |
I am far from stupid........................well only in the way that I dare to dispute you.............in only leads to hatred and threats from you. In that respect I am.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
sleK
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 9:30 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Fact: "Liberation" was not the pretense for the invasion. |
FACT No one in the government said it was. It was a by product of the invasion. DUH |
YOU have consistently used "liberation" as the pretense for the invasion when, in fact, WmD's were the pretense.
As the "liberation" argument is fictitious in every context that you have attempted to use it, you were willfully ignoring the fact.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Fact: There are no WmD's in Iraq. |
That is not a fact YET. It may turn out to be but who knows. |
"Who knows"?
Good question! You don't know! Your administration clearly doesn't know either!
So, just what the fuck were they thinking using that as a pretense for the invasion of a sovereign nation?
What the fuck were YOU thinking supporting an invasion when no clear evidence of a WmD threat existed?
The truth of the matter is, you weren't thinking. You were too busy being a republican shill and spreading the war-mongering rhetoric you learned from fox news whilst ignoring such simple questions as "Well, where are they?" or "How come the inspectors haven't found any yet?" or "I thought you said 'stockpiles'?" or "How come everyone else wants more inspections?".
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Fact: The UN did not back the invasion. |
True but they did believe there WERE WMDs again DUH. |
"WERE"?
Do you understand tense?
As in past-tense? Or present-tense?
Clearly you don't, so let me explain:
While the UN may have believed that, at one time (<= past-tense), Iraq did (<= past-tense) possess WmD's, the intelligence provided by the US did not sufficiently indicate that Iraq was currently (<= present-tense) a threat. Thus the UN did not back the invasion.
Attempting to use what the UN believed Iraq used to possess as corollary justification for the invasion, despite the UN's refusal to back the invasion, is simply another example of you ignoring the facts, thus stupid.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Fact: There are ZERO credible links between Hussein and terrorists. |
This is a flat out lie. There may have been no links between AQ and Saddam but there were PLO camps in Iraq and several other fundementalists Muslim groups in Iraq. |
Well, if you want to take it out of context, sure. But I won't let you. :)
You have NOTHING to prove any credible nor meaningful relationship between Hussein and any terrorist organization existed and was a threat to US security.
If you are going to continue to claim otherwise, in this thread or any other, I suggest you prove it NOW.
Might I suggest you reference the 9/11 commissions report issued early yesterday. It should clear that bad case of fiction right up for you.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Fact: Since the US invaded Iraq, terrorist activity has increased. |
In Iraq it has in a different way....you admitted what Saddam did to his people when in power was a form of terror.......now that he is gone it has changed into somthing more in the way of classic terror (I.E. the IRA and PLO style of cowardly killing of the innocent.) |
Don't change the subject BG. Earlier (see my next response) you denied... pardon me, "disagreed" with the fact that terrorist activites are on the rise. While I'm glad that you're finally acknowledging that fact, trying to worm your way out out of the smackdown I'm about to give you for suggesting such pompous shit is highly disingenuous.
The "War on Terror" you blindly and unquestionably support has literally exacerbated terrorism.
How, you ask? Because thousands of terrorist fuckheads all over the planet now have indisputable evidence that the US is a big fat fucking hypocritical nation.
If you'd like to deny the hypocrisy, you can start by disproving each and every one of the facts we're currently discussing and/or demonstrate that freedom, liberty and justice are not American ideals.
As before, good luck.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Fact: Bin Laden is still a free man and AQ is still operating. |
Who in the hell has disputed this fact? Do you dispute that he is in hiding and AQ has been denied many friendly bases? Oh and when was the US attacked by him? Or even our friends to the North? |
AQ is short for Al-Qaeda.
Previously in this thread (page 3) you stated:
| Quote: |
| It is retarded to draw the conclusion that terror will only increase over time since we removed two huge enablers of terror........the Taliban and Saddam. |
Which is funny on two accounts:
First we have you "disagreeing" with the fact that terrorism has increased... "retarded" indeed.
Second, removing the Taleban has done precious little to stop terrorism. This is evidenced by the fact that their home team, Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, are still at large and in operation. This is further evidenced by the fact that terrorist activity in general is on the rise (as you've finally acknowledged).
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Fact: As many as 15,000 people have died because thick-headed morons like you are stupid enough to "disagree" with facts |
Back this fucking slander up right fucking now. Some dude sitting in his mothers basement claiming to be the guru of "truth" and "facts" does not impress me. Do you realize that millions of people dis-gree with you? Are they all stupid? Or just in need of your wisdom? |
Millions of people can, indeed, be wrong BG.
Witness Nazi Germany.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| So, since you've proven, yet again, that you're unable to adequately challenge the facts, if you so much as think about presenting another proven fictitious tidbit as fact, I am going to be on your dumb ass like white on rice buddy. And I will not hesitate to humiliate you in the process. |
I would love to take the gloves off if you would let me. But this is all a trap to ban me. Dont think I and many others who have pm'd me about it dont see it. Kinda like when you joined the other RW just to go after some of us........remember that? Hell even your own moderators (when you had any ) warned me about you. People who dont agree with you arent all stupid, sleK. Many are afraid to do so however. That is the ultimate arrogent attitude "if you dis-agree with me you are unreasonable or stupid) Well let me clue you in champ, many many people who are smarter than you and I disagree with you on these issues. |
Well, if you wanna get personal, perhaps we should discuss the many PM's I've received from people praising me for my patience in dealing with you. Or perhaps all the ones that simply state "Don't say I didn't warn you!" or "I told ya so!". Even better we can discuss the PM's from some fine and clearly compassionate people apologizing for your idiotic behaviour. I get a lot of those ones.
So, you can go blow your bogus we-the-people bullshit right out of your ass as far as I'm concerned as your ass is, indeed, exactly where you got it from.
As further evidence to the accuracy of every "stupid" or "retarded" or "ignorant" I've ever thrown in your direction, I want to pay a special visit to this quaint little nugget:
| Quote: |
| "if you dis-agree with me you are unreasonable or stupid |
You see BG. I endeavour to report the facts. I base my opinion upon the facts. When the facts evolve, my opinion evolves.
Do you know what a fact is? Your posting history suggests that you don't. In fact, in this very post, I've documented a number of instances where you... ahem, "disagree" with the facts.
Even after having the facts explained to you, using as many monosyllabic terms as possible, you miraculously find a way to repeat the same fiction.
So, disagreeing with me doesn't make you stupid or unreasonable. However, disagreeing with the facts makes you an idiot. Even further, disagreeing (or more accurately refusing to acknowledge [as "disagreement" suggests that you have some evidence to prove otherwise.]) with facts that clearly demonstrate the questionable nature of a case for an invasion that resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people makes you a fucking imbecile.
Thus, if you are going to continue to act like a fucking imbecile, I'm going to continue to do everything in my power to demonstrate your stupidity for all the world to see.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| And, for the record, it's not an insult if it's true. |
I will remember that as should you. And just who will be the judge of the truth? |
Those with the facts and/or an opinion supported by facts.
And please, learn what an ad-hom is.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
FOOTSOLDIER
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:12 am Post subject:
|
|
|
sLEK writes.... "Millions of people can, indeed, be wrong BG. Witness Nazi Germany."
And why do I believe had their been the internet and retail-worker forums back then, you would have been right there siding against the United States like you are today.
As Bush once said.... "You're either for us or your against us". Nice to see who's side of the fence you're on. Saddam has no better friend.
FS
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
sleK
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:16 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
:yawn:
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
FOOTSOLDIER
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:35 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Why not admit it publically sLEK. You're anti-United States. Whatever position this country takes, you're likely to take the opposite position.
Can you cite one instance where you believe the US was right in it's military actions? Was Japan somehow justified in blowing up Pearl Harbor? Was the US wrong to get involved in WWII and fight against Hitler? Were we wrong to stand in the way of those Russian ships during the Bay Of Pigs?
The real atrocoties here were not committed by the United States government. They were committed by Saddam Hussein yet you seem to ignore this point altogether. You refuse to consider even the slightest notion that if he were capable of killing his own citizens and family that he might just be capable of sponsering terrorists.
Why the hatred for the US sLEK, and why the free pass for Saddam? The venum you spew here daily is heavily weighted against the US while Mr. Hussein gets nothing. THAT speaks volumes about YOU.
FS
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
sleK
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:51 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Why don't you try to dispute what I've said instead of engaging in pathetic character attacks?
I really don't give a fuck what you think about me as it in no way, shape or form diminishes my points.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
FOOTSOLDIER
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 11:23 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| sleK wrote: |
| I really don't give a fuck what you think about me as it in no way, shape or form diminishes my points. |
Well now... it appears we've found common ground after all, because I couldn't give a flying f**k what you think about me either.
Your points? You state possibilities as facts. You don't make points. You spew allegations and make personal attacks on any who happen to not see the world through your warped eyes.
FS
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Bodyguard
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 5:42 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
sleK, you have completely lost it. You, out of anger and hate have violated your own PG. You are so blinded by your feelings you cannot even fathom that other people may have different outlooks about your "facts". You stated that you dont care what anybody thinks of you. Fine I dont care what you think of me either. But I, at least, state how I feel on subjects honestly and openly. Why not come out and say what you feel about the US and its citizens? Or Isreal? Or Iraq? Or Syria as a base of terror? If you dont care then let it roll! How can it possibly hurt you?
You have shown in this thread your hatred of me personally. I have enjoyed bringing that out in you! I actually dont have the same feelings for you.........I am just amazed that such anger exists in people. Take a chill pill and have a nice day!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
USA#1
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1964
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:05 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| sleK wrote: |
Why don't you try to dispute what I've said instead of engaging in pathetic character attacks?
I really don't give a fuck what you think about me as it in no way, shape or form diminishes my points. |
I agree with Bodyguard and Foots on this. Slek, you have violated your own PG on numerous occasions and one person gets banned for asking a simple question (Ratchet). If it were up to the rest of us, we'd ban you for such use of language.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
sleK
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:24 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Hmm... I still don't see anything that disputes my points. Just a bunch of (surprise surprise!) ill-conceived personal attacks which, as you should have learned by now, don't dispute sweet fuck all.
gg
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
CCCs
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Slek Fact #1: "Liberation" was not the pretense for the invasion.
Definition of Pretense: pretending with the intention to deceive, the act of giving a false appearance.
You are right on here slek…as liberation was not the “pretense” for Operation Iraqi Freedom. It was a main reason for the Operation. Unfortunately, the press around the world focused on the WMD’s as the only reason for the invasion…but one can find many statements made by members of the Administration running up to the Operation that make Liberation the ultimate goal.
Please prove to me that there was an “intention to deceive”.
| Quote: |
We need to act on this commitment to a better world in all aspects of our foreign policy, including those cases where we take military action. The United States, as the President so often points out, is not a conquering nation - we are a liberating nation; committed to helping peoples seize the opportunity for freedom, and to build better societies for themselves and their children.
That is why we are standing with the people of Afghanistan in their efforts to rebuild their country. And if the Iraqi regime - by its failure to meet the world's just demands - forces the world to enforce those demands, then the United States will lead an international effort to bring assistance and freedom to the people of Iraq |
| Quote: |
Should it be necessary for the United States to take military action, here are some of the principles that are guiding our thinking.
· First, we will demonstrate to the Iraqi people and the world that the United States aspires to liberate, not occupy.
· Second, Iraq must be disarmed of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, weapons production capabilities, and the means to deliver these weapons. This will be a complex, dangerous, and expensive task -- one for which detailed planning is underway.
· Third, we must also eliminate Iraq's terrorist infrastructure.
· Fourth, Iraq must be preserved as a unified state, with its territorial integrity intact. Concern for the safety of Iraq's people will begin not on the day hostilities cease, but on the day they begin. The United States and its coalition allies will provide security that should prevent chaos, score-settling, and bloodletting.
· Fifth, along with our coalition partners, we must begin the process of economic and political reconstruction, working to assist the people of Iraq in putting their country on a path towards prosperity and freedom. In many ways, this will be our greatest challenge |
Liberation 1
| Quote: |
In these circumstances, we would undertake a solemn obligation to help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors. The Iraqi people deserve to be lifted from insecurity and tyranny, and freed to determine for themselves the future of their country. We envisage a unified Iraq with its territorial integrity respected. All the Iraqi people -- its rich mix of Sunni and Shiite Arabs, Kurds, Turkomen, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and all others -- should enjoy freedom, prosperity, and equality in a united country. We will support the Iraqi people's aspirations for a representative government that upholds human rights and the rule of law as cornerstones of democracy.
We will work to prevent and repair damage by Saddam Hussein's regime to the natural resources of Iraq and pledge to protect them as a national asset of and for the Iraqi people. All Iraqis should share the wealth generated by their national economy. We will seek a swift end to international sanctions, and support an international reconstruction program to help Iraq achieve real prosperity and reintegrate into the global community.
We will fight terrorism in all its forms. Iraq must never again be a haven for terrorists of any kind. |
Liberation 2
| Quote: |
If Saddam leaves us no choice but to disarm him by force, the United States and our coalition partners will do our utmost to minimize the loss of civilian life, meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, and take responsibility for the post-war stabilization of the country.
We want an Iraq whose people are free from fear and can look to the future with hope. The hard work of rehabilitation and reconstruction will begin at the first possible moment, but our collective, long-term commitment to Iraq will be our efforts to help the Iraqi people build a unified Iraq that does not pose a threat to international peace and a welcome presence among nations. |
Liberation 3
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
CCCs
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:33 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Slek fact #2: There are no WmD's in Iraq.
You state this with absolute certainty even though we have found shells with Sarin gas in them...in fact one of these shells was used in an IED .
| Quote: |
| Two shells found earlier in Iraq have been confirmed to contain sarin. |
Iraqi Nuclear Materials removed by U.S.
| Quote: |
"I can now announce that the United States Department of Defense (news - web sites) and Department of Energy (news - web sites) have completed a joint operation to secure and remove from Iraq radiological and nuclear materials that the ousted regime could have potentially used in a radiological dispersal device or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program," Allawi said in a statement.
"Iraq has no intention and no will to resume these programs in the future. These materials which are potential weapons of mass murder are not welcome in our country and their production is unacceptable," Allawi said. |
David Kay's Testimony before the CIA
| Quote: |
We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone. We are actively engaged in searching for such weapons based on information being supplied to us by Iraqis.
Why are we having such difficulty in finding weapons or in reaching a confident conclusion that they do not exist or that they once existed but have been removed? Our search efforts are being hindered by six principal factors:
1. From birth all of Iraq's WMD activities were highly compartmentalized within a regime that ruled and kept its secrets through fear and terror and with deception and denial built into each program;
2. Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post conflict;
3. Post-OIF looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily collectable material and forensic evidence concerning Iraq's WMD program. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of this looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF activities of Saddam's regime;
4. Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them;
5. Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small in relation to the total conventional armaments footprint and difficult to near impossible to identify with normal search procedures. It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two car garage;
6. The environment in Iraq remains far from permissive for our activities, with many Iraqis that we talk to reporting threats and overt acts of intimidation and our own personnel being the subject of threats and attacks. In September alone we have had three attacks on ISG facilities or teams: The ISG base in Irbil was bombed and four staff injured, two very seriously; a two person team had their vehicle blocked by gunmen and only escaped by firing back through their own windshield; and on Wednesday, 24 September, the ISG Headquarters in Baghdad again was subject to mortar attack.
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
· A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
· A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
· Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
· New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
· Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
· A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
· Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
· Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
· Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence - hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use - are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts |
Read through his testimony...although they have not found the stockpiles, they certainly have found evidence that the program existed and there are still many unanswered questions.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Bodyguard
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 5:48 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Excuse me CCC's have you not read the above posts by sleK. Anybody who does not share his opinions is stupid. No matter how many facts you present he will never believe otherwise. It is a complete waste of time.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
sleK
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 7:04 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Slek Fact #1: "Liberation" was not the pretense for the invasion.
Definition of Pretense: pretending with the intention to deceive, the act of giving a false appearance. |
Wrong one.
Try this one (from the american heritage):
| Quote: |
| 7. The quality or state of being pretentious; ostentation. |
Do you know what ostentation means?
| Quote: |
1. Pretentious display meant to impress others; boastful showiness.
2. Archaic. The act or an instance of showing; an exhibition. |
How about pretentious?
| Quote: |
1. Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified.
2. Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious. |
Thus your semantic debate, while cute, is innaccurate.
| Quote: |
| Unfortunately, the press around the world focused on the WMD’s as the only reason for the invasion... |
Passing the buck to the media now? How noble of you!
| Quote: |
| Please prove to me that there was an “intention to deceive”. |
Probably could but don't need to as you foolishy picked the wrong usage for pretense.
| Quote: |
| but one can find many statements made by members of the Administration running up to the Operation that make Liberation the ultimate goal. |
"Ultimate"? Sorry bud, you're going to have to qualify that shite.
Nevertheless, note that each of the government news releases you've cited date from 2003. Specifically, February 12, March 6 and March 16. Now, let's go back a little bit further when the ramp-up to the invasion actually began. Pay attention to the evident ostentation and pretentiousness:
August 10th, 2002 during a press conference:
| Quote: |
Q Mr. President, yesterday in an interview I guess with Scott, you described Iraq as the enemy.
THE PRESIDENT: I described them as the axis of evil once. I described them as an enemy until proven otherwise. They obviously, you know, desire weapons of mass destruction.
[...]
What I do believe the American people understand is that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of leaders such as Saddam Hussein are very dangerous for ourselves, our allies.
|
September 7, 2002 during a photo-op with Blair: (key points)
| Quote: |
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: The point that I would emphasize to you is that the threat from Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, potentially nuclear weapons capability, that threat is real.
THE PRESIDENT: We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new report. I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA that they [Iraq] were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need.
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Absolutely right. And what we -- what we know from what has been going on there for a long period of time is not just the chemical, biological weapons capability, but we know that they were trying to develop nuclear weapons capability. And the importance of this morning's report is it yet again it shows that there is a real issue that has to be tackled here.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. A lot of people understand that this man has defied every U.N. resolution -- 16 U.S. resolutions he's ignored. A lot of people understand he holds weapons of mass destruction. A lot of people understand he has invaded two countries. A lot of people understand he's gassed his own people. A lot of people understand he is unstable. So we've got a lot of support. A lot of people understand the danger.
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Yes, and I can tell you from the discussions I've had with people, of course, there are people asking perfectly reasonable questions about this, but the one thing that no one can deny is that Saddam Hussein is in breach of the United Nations resolutions on weapons of mass destruction -- that is, chemical, biological, nuclear weapons; that that poses a threat not just to the region, because there is no way, if those weapons were used, that the threat would simply stay in the region.
THE PRESIDENT: That's why Americans must understand that when a tyrant like Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, it not only threatens the neighborhood in which he lives, it not only threatens the region, it can threaten the United States of America, or Great Britain, for that matter. |
You can double-check it if you choose, but you will find no dialogue whatsoever about Iraqi liberation.
September 14, 2002, in a radio address, GwB quotes Richard Butler:
| Quote: |
| "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction." |
While GwB is gracious enough to give a single passing reference to the oppression of the Iraqi people, his mission in this tirade is clear and indisputable.
October 2, 2002, the joint resolution: (key points)
| Quote: |
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; |
Once again, only passing reference to the harm Hussein brought unto his own people.
October 16, 2002 signing the resolution: (key points)
| Quote: |
The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace. On the commands of a dictator, the regime is armed with biological and chemical weapons, possesses ballistic missiles, promotes international terror and seeks nuclear weapons.
And Iraq's combination of weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorist groups and ballistic missiles would threaten the peace and security of many nations. |
Again only a passing reference to liberation.
November 8, 2002 on the passing of a UN resolution:
| Quote: |
| And we oppose a uniquely dangerous regime -- a regime that has harbored terrorists and can supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction; |
Once again, a single reference, literally one short sentence, to the oppression of the Iraqi people amongst 21 paragraphs of WmD fear-mongering.
December 4, 2002 at a Louisiana luncheon:
| Quote: |
| He says he won't have weapons of mass destruction; he's got them. He's not only got them, he's used them. And he's not only used them in his neighborhood, he's used them on his own people. |
Luckily, the only mention of the Iraqi people in this farce happens to be right where GwB's most damning lie is. So I included it.
So, while you may have a few paltry examples of GwB subsequently moving the goal-posts in order to maintain support for his pet invasion, you've demonstrated nothing but his, thus your own, disingenuousness.
The fact remains, as I've asserted many times in this thread and others and have now demonstrated with a number of white house press releases that predate the ones you've chosen to base you claim upon, that the threat of WmD's was the pretense used to garner support for the invasion of Iraq.
You can claim that the concept of liberation was used to maintain support when it started to dwindle, but citing it as a primary reason for the invasion is patently false.
| Quote: |
| Two shells found earlier in Iraq have been confirmed to contain sarin. |
OMG!! Shouldn't you be cowering in your back-yard bunker? :roll:
| Quote: |
| Iraqi Nuclear Materials removed by U.S. |
Did you even read your link?
| Quote: |
| U.S. and U.N. officials said Wednesday Washington had transported 1.8 tons of enriched uranium out of Iraq for safekeeping more than a year after looters stole it from a U.N.-sealed facility left unguarded by U.S. troops. |
That means the UN already knew about it and had accounted for it.
Nice try nonetheless.
| Quote: |
| although they have not found the stockpiles, they certainly have found evidence that the program existed and there are still many unanswered questions. |
A program does not indicate that he possesses WmD's. It simply shows that he had a program. Whoopie!
edit: sp
edit: grammar
Last edited by sleK on Sat Jul 24, 2004 8:50 am; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
sleK
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 7:07 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Oh! And buh-bye BG. It was a pleaure.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
CCCs
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 4:56 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
National Security Strategy of the United States
| Quote: |
"Our Nation's cause has always been larger than our Nation's defense. We fight, as we always fight, for a just peace—a peace that favors liberty. We will defend the peace against the threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. And we will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent."
President Bush
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002
The United States possesses unprecedented— and unequaled—strength and influence in the world. Sustained by faith in the principles of liberty, and the value of a free society, this position comes with unparalleled responsibilities, obligations, and opportunity. The great strength of this nation must be used to promote a balance of power that favors freedom.
For most of the twentieth century, the world was divided by a great struggle over ideas: destructive totalitarian visions versus freedom and equality.
That great struggle is over. The militant visions of class, nation, and race which promised utopia and delivered misery have been defeated and discredited. America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few.We must defeat these threats to our Nation, allies, and friends.
This is also a time of opportunity for America. We will work to translate this moment of influence into decades of peace, prosperity, and liberty. The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better. Our goals on the path to progress are clear: political and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human dignity.
And this path is not America’s alone. It is open to all. To achieve these goals, the United States will:
champion aspirations for human dignity;
strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends;
work with others to defuse regional conflicts;
prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends, with weapons of mass destruction;
ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade;
expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy;
develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power; and
transform America’s national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century. |
From Webster's Dictionary:
| Quote: |
| {Pretense}. A pretense is something held out as real when it is not so, thus falsifying the truth. |
Even with the other definitions you have provided, the goal is to decieve. I still ask you to prove to me that the intention of the President was to decieve. Don't take the easy way out, buddy. 
Read our National Security Strategy and tell me that we have deviated from this Strategy. The Strategy was delivered to congress in September of 2002.
Your fact #2 was " Iraq has no WMD". I proved that you were wrong. End of story.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
USA#1
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1964
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 6:37 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| sleK wrote: |
| Oh! And buh-bye BG. It was a pleaure. |
Banned again? 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
denimandlace_69
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 420
Location: Somewhere between here and there...
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 6:56 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Damn, slek! You banned Bodyguard again?!?! This seems personal, since you can't follow the damn pg yourself. 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
USA#1
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1964
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 7:00 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Yep. No kidding. Why not ban ALL of us.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|