I'll tell you this much, as early as the summer of 2002, the military was getting ready for war. I know this because I was a part of it. It wasn't a secret, infact it was well known by everyone and their families. The WMDs are very much real, maybe not a threat on the international level, but very much a regional threat. Its well known that they had N.B.C. related weapons, most of which would be fired by SCUD into neighbering countries.
Sorry, but you saying that Iraq had WMD's just isn't enough to convince me. Where's the evidence? There isn't any. None has ever been produced. In the course of the U.S ransacking Iraq from top to bottom over a period of 6 years no WMD's have been produced.
I'll tell you this much, as early as the summer of 2002, the military was getting ready for war. I know this because I was a part of it. It wasn't a secret, infact it was well known by everyone and their families. The WMDs are very much real, maybe not a threat on the international level, but very much a regional threat. Its well known that they had N.B.C. related weapons, most of which would be fired by SCUD into neighbering countries.
Sorry, but you saying that Iraq had WMD's just isn't enough to convince me. Where's the evidence? There isn't any. None has ever been produced. In the course of the U.S ransacking Iraq from top to bottom over a period of 6 years no WMD's have been produced.
but he had them and used them at some point. making him a threat to do it again, in the eyes of some. (not me, but some)
Who are these 'some'? Not the British and U.S leadership who knew he posed no threat but who lied to the public anyway in their determination to go to war?
and you hold all responsibly on the US, not Saddam? classic.
Is that what I said? I said you sold him the weapons - including chemical and biological weapons - which he used to gas the Kurds and others, and you continued to sell him these weapons after these atrocities had taken place. Iraq's WMD's were destroyed during the first Gulf War and during the subsequent 10 years of weapons inspections, sanctions, and daily bombing raids by British and U.S aircraft.
Who are these 'some'? Not the British and U.S leadership who knew he posed no threat but who lied to the public anyway in their determination to go to war?
Is that what I said? I said you sold him the weapons - including chemical and biological weapons - which he used to gas the Kurds and others, and you continued to sell him these weapons after these atrocities had taken place. Iraq's WMD's were destroyed during the first Gulf War and during the subsequent 10 years of weapons inspections, sanctions, and daily bombing raids by British and U.S aircraft.
Who are these 'some'? Not the British and U.S leadership who knew he posed no threat but who lied to the public anyway in their determination to go to war?
Is that what I said? I said you sold him the weapons - including chemical and biological weapons - which he used to gas the Kurds and others, and you continued to sell him these weapons after these atrocities had taken place. Iraq's WMD's were destroyed during the first Gulf War and during the subsequent 10 years of weapons inspections, sanctions, and daily bombing raids by British and U.S aircraft.
says:
West German companies were some of the main suppliers for Iraq's major weapons projects, including its nuclear weapons programme, chemical weapons facilities, ballistic missiles and long-range 'supergun' development. German companies are said to have contributed to the Iraqi government's weapons programme since the mid-1970s.
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I'll tell you this much, as early as the summer of 2002, the military was getting ready for war. I know this because I was a part of it. It wasn't a secret, infact it was well known by everyone and their families. The WMDs are very much real, maybe not a threat on the international level, but very much a regional threat. Its well known that they had N.B.C. related weapons, most of which would be fired by SCUD into neighbering countries.
Sorry, but you saying that Iraq had WMD's just isn't enough to convince me. Where's the evidence? There isn't any. None has ever been produced. In the course of the U.S ransacking Iraq from top to bottom over a period of 6 years no WMD's have been produced.
I don't know, I'll ask my father if the SCUDs fired at his base during the first gulf war had a chem/bio payload on it, but I don't think he could have noticed with a gas mask on. He might have seen it the second time he went there in 03/04 when he was told by the locals that the labs and stock piles exsisted, but have been burried in the desert. But what does he know, he was only there twice for both wars, I never went there so I don't know if I can believe him. However a secret copy of a memo I read on the internet might sway me to think they never really exsisted in the first place.
I don't know, I'll ask my father if the SCUDs fired at his base during the first gulf war had a chem/bio payload on it, but I don't think he could have noticed with a gas mask on. He might have seen it the second time he went there in 03/04 when he was told by the locals that the labs and stock piles exsisted, but have been burried in the desert. But what does he know, he was only there twice for both wars, I never went there so I don't know if I can believe him. However a secret copy of a memo I read on the internet might sway me to think they never really exsisted in the first place.
A scud missile doesn't pose an immediate threat to the Western world. The U.S and British governments lied to us.
"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03
"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03
"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03
"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03
"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03
"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02
"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02
"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02
"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02
"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02
"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02
"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
I don't know, I'll ask my father if the SCUDs fired at his base during the first gulf war had a chem/bio payload on it, but I don't think he could have noticed with a gas mask on. He might have seen it the second time he went there in 03/04 when he was told by the locals that the labs and stock piles exsisted, but have been burried in the desert. But what does he know, he was only there twice for both wars, I never went there so I don't know if I can believe him. However a secret copy of a memo I read on the internet might sway me to think they never really exsisted in the first place.
A scud missile doesn't pose an immediate threat to the Western world. The U.S and British governments lied to us.
"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03
"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03
"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03
"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03
"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03
"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02
"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02
"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02
"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02
"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02
"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02
"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
You should reread my post where I said it was a regional threat. Good work on all the quotes you pulled up though.....
You should reread my post where I said it was a regional threat. Good work on all the quotes you pulled up though.....
Yeah, but I thought the discussion was centered on 'weren't the people led to believe the WMD's were a worldwide threat'?
And I don't disagree with that statement. It was a regional (Middle Eastern) threat, which in turn is a very important to the rest of the world in terms of oil. Although Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey didn't outright support the war, they sure as hell let us use their bases to operate out of this time around in 2003. Iraq was very much a threat to the oil producing nations, like it or not we currently depend on oil, and Iraq has in the past tried to control it regionally, which in turns "chokes" the rest of the world resource wise. Does it have anything to do with the War on Terror? More then likely no, but then again I'm no foreign relations expert. Saddams removal is undisputedly a good thing, and history will prove it with in years to come when Iraq becomes self substaining.
Now the rub is with G.W. going off course on the GWOT with Iraq, and places like A-stan, P-stan, Sudan, Somalia, and parts of SE Asia are still hot with extremist, which may not pose an threat directly to the US, but a threat to their own region, which today effects this shrinking world in some way or another.
And I don't disagree with that statement. It was a regional (Middle Eastern) threat, which in turn is a very important to the rest of the world in terms of oil. Although Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey didn't outright support the war, they sure as hell let us use their bases to operate out of this time around in 2003. Iraq was very much a threat to the oil producing nations, like it or not we currently depend on oil, and Iraq has in the past tried to control it regionally, which in turns "chokes" the rest of the world resource wise. Does it have anything to do with the War on Terror? More then likely no, but then again I'm no foreign relations expert. Saddams removal is undisputedly a good thing, and history will prove it with in years to come when Iraq becomes self substaining.
Now the rub is with G.W. going off course on the GWOT with Iraq, and places like A-stan, P-stan, Sudan, Somalia, and parts of SE Asia are still hot with extremist, which may not pose an threat directly to the US, but a threat to their own region, which today effects this shrinking world in some way or another.
Except this wasn't how the threat was sold to the people of Britain of the U.S. We were given the bullshit claim that WMD's could be landing on our cities within 45 minutes.
i've been thinking lately and it is common knowledge he's not that bright. his business record shows he can't run a successful business and probably scoots by because of his wealth and daddy's connections. he said plainly that he didn't read reports or look into things, he relied on his advisers and people around him. and i can't help but think of his confusion during his '04 campaign during a town hall type meeting when a young girl asked about him making cuts to educational programs like student loans, which happened < a week prior to this meeting. Bush had no clue what she was talking about and even asked if she was sure she was right and his this confused look on his face then said he'd look into it.
so, what if he really believed the crap he was talking before the invasion of Iraq? it could be possible, he had hawks like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby (who spent decades in washinton and administrations)....telling him things, showing cooked intel, what if he fell for it?
he's the perfect useful idiot. if any type of collusion or crime is brought up you just point to him and say 'but he's far too stupid to pull that off!'
Tough question to answer, I have read that he took 911 personally and after that day he was a different man. To me that derailed his presidency to a great deal and I'm not sure as president you can or should take things personally. Just an opinion.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
i've been thinking lately and it is common knowledge he's not that bright. his business record shows he can't run a successful business and probably scoots by because of his wealth and daddy's connections. he said plainly that he didn't read reports or look into things, he relied on his advisers and people around him. and i can't help but think of his confusion during his '04 campaign during a town hall type meeting when a young girl asked about him making cuts to educational programs like student loans, which happened < a week prior to this meeting. Bush had no clue what she was talking about and even asked if she was sure she was right and his this confused look on his face then said he'd look into it.
so, what if he really believed the crap he was talking before the invasion of Iraq? it could be possible, he had hawks like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby (who spent decades in washinton and administrations)....telling him things, showing cooked intel, what if he fell for it?
he's the perfect useful idiot. if any type of collusion or crime is brought up you just point to him and say 'but he's far too stupid to pull that off!'
Tough question to answer, I have read that he took 911 personally and after that day he was a different man. To me that derailed his presidency to a great deal and I'm not sure as president you can or should take things personally. Just an opinion.
I don't know about that, I think most Americans would take it personally.
I don't agree with everything G.W. did during his term, but I still don't think hes as bad as everyone wants him to be. I didn't vote for Obama, but I still like some of the moves hes made so far, and some...not so much. You can't please everyone, and as the president you're going to be the scape goat for almost everything that goes wrong. People really over exaggerated him as this evil/moron which is ridiculous, and blamed him for things that aren't even in the president's control. Just look at the far rights view of Obama, its just flipped now and I don't think we are better off then before in some ways. Two different men with two different ways of doing things, not every one will always be pleased with their actions.
his actions for other deeds and crimes show he knew everything he was doing. The whole CIA leak thing, was proven to go up as high as Cheney. You really think Cheney did ANYTHING without the expressed written or oral consent of Bush? The point is, if Bush is capable of exposing a CIA agent because her husband criticized Bush, and Bush is also capable of the coverup, then who the hell knows what else he can do?
Bush had one of the most important people in modern politics on his team, in Rove. Rove is incredibly smart. His genius, and his diabolical nature are well documented.
For Bush to be a patsy, in the Oswald sense, you have to come to the conclusion that Bush was only doing the bidding of everyone else, that he doesnt really believe the whole "terrorists need to be smoked out" idea he perpetrated post 9/11. That he was only a pawn in a larger scheme. I dont really think thats true. He is one of the people doing the manipulating.
The whole "bush is evil" thing is sort of muddied for me. I hate Bush, and think he is evil, but I also think the war wouldnt have happened if the congress and house wasnt made up of Democrats who cow towed to every thing the president did post 9/11 because they were wewilly wewilly scared about being branded antiamerican and unpatriotic.
I think Bush has been honest about his beliefs. I think he really truely does believe that God talks to him, that God told him to invade, that this is a us versus them thing, and that terrorism can be stopped using military force.
I don't know, I think the far left put just as much fear about Bush then Bush about Terrorist. I don't think hes any worse then any of the other Presidents we've had or currently have. Just different ways about doing things.
All the Presidents have been made sinners and saints over the years, its just a matter of what side you want to look at it.
I don't know, I think the far left put just as much fear about Bush then Bush about Terrorist. I don't think hes any worse then any of the other Presidents we've had or currently have. Just different ways about doing things.
All the Presidents have been made sinners and saints over the years, its just a matter of what side you want to look at it.
i dunno ... they are all shits for one thing or another but this dude purposefully lied to send your country into war which in turn has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands (won't argue about the numbers here) of innocent lives ... that's about as bad as it gets ...
I don't know, I think the far left put just as much fear about Bush then Bush about Terrorist. I don't think hes any worse then any of the other Presidents we've had or currently have. Just different ways about doing things.
All the Presidents have been made sinners and saints over the years, its just a matter of what side you want to look at it.
In terms merely of crimes committed, I think you may have a point. Reagan was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Central Americans throughout the 1980's - although Bush is responsible for the deaths of over a million Iraqi's.
On the other hand, even though Reagan was an idiot, Bush was off the scale on that front. He resembled a backwards 10 year old. It must have felt weird for Americans knowing that they had a child as President.
I'd say that overall, when taking all factors into account, from greed, corruption, lies, death toll, fucking the economy, e.t.c, Bush was by far the worst President in U.S history.
his actions for other deeds and crimes show he knew everything he was doing. The whole CIA leak thing, was proven to go up as high as Cheney. You really think Cheney did ANYTHING without the expressed written or oral consent of Bush? The point is, if Bush is capable of exposing a CIA agent because her husband criticized Bush, and Bush is also capable of the coverup, then who the hell knows what else he can do?
Bush had one of the most important people in modern politics on his team, in Rove. Rove is incredibly smart. His genius, and his diabolical nature are well documented.
For Bush to be a patsy, in the Oswald sense, you have to come to the conclusion that Bush was only doing the bidding of everyone else, that he doesnt really believe the whole "terrorists need to be smoked out" idea he perpetrated post 9/11. That he was only a pawn in a larger scheme. I dont really think thats true. He is one of the people doing the manipulating.
The whole "bush is evil" thing is sort of muddied for me. I hate Bush, and think he is evil, but I also think the war wouldnt have happened if the congress and house wasnt made up of Democrats who cow towed to every thing the president did post 9/11 because they were wewilly wewilly scared about being branded antiamerican and unpatriotic.
I think Bush has been honest about his beliefs. I think he really truely does believe that God talks to him, that God told him to invade, that this is a us versus them thing, and that terrorism can be stopped using military force.
that's not the only way for Bush to be a patsy and yes, i think Cheney did a lot without the approval of Bush. I think Bush was rich and lazy and had no problem letting people 'who knew about these things' handle everything and call the shots. read the official timeline of 9/11, Cheney was calling shots without consulting with Bush, he told the military to send jets up without consulting with Bush.
i'm not trying to argue Bush is innocent for his role, i just think he is a fool and easily manipulated (which is the definition of a patsy). i think Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz played the threat up, showed cooked intel and he fell for it. or maybe he knew and just didn't care, i'm just saying given his personality and past i think he's used to not doing much and relying on others
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Comments
Sorry, but you saying that Iraq had WMD's just isn't enough to convince me. Where's the evidence? There isn't any. None has ever been produced. In the course of the U.S ransacking Iraq from top to bottom over a period of 6 years no WMD's have been produced.
but yet you agree the US gave Saddam WMDs right?
Yes, I do, because you did. During the 1980's.
What's your point?
if the US gave Saddam WMDs, that would suggest Saddam had WMDs right? :roll:
did Saddam use WMDs against Iran and his own people?
In 2003? After the first Gulf War and ten years of weapons inspections and sanctions? No.
During the 1980's and with the full support of the U.S? Yes, he did.
but he had them and used them at some point. making him a threat to do it again, in the eyes of some. (not me, but some)
and you hold all responsibly on the US, not Saddam? classic.
do the Russians have any fault in this? or is everything the US's fault?
Who are these 'some'? Not the British and U.S leadership who knew he posed no threat but who lied to the public anyway in their determination to go to war?
Is that what I said? I said you sold him the weapons - including chemical and biological weapons - which he used to gas the Kurds and others, and you continued to sell him these weapons after these atrocities had taken place. Iraq's WMD's were destroyed during the first Gulf War and during the subsequent 10 years of weapons inspections, sanctions, and daily bombing raids by British and U.S aircraft.
What's so difficult to understand?
yes, British and US leadership.
http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2003/ ... hecks.html
http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html
let me know if China blocks those links. I'll cut, paste, and colorize the facts.
that graph shows 0% for Germany, yet this article
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jcbw/ ... _1_n.shtml
says:
West German companies were some of the main suppliers for Iraq's major weapons projects, including its nuclear weapons programme, chemical weapons facilities, ballistic missiles and long-range 'supergun' development. German companies are said to have contributed to the Iraqi government's weapons programme since the mid-1970s.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I don't know, I'll ask my father if the SCUDs fired at his base during the first gulf war had a chem/bio payload on it, but I don't think he could have noticed with a gas mask on. He might have seen it the second time he went there in 03/04 when he was told by the locals that the labs and stock piles exsisted, but have been burried in the desert. But what does he know, he was only there twice for both wars, I never went there so I don't know if I can believe him. However a secret copy of a memo I read on the internet might sway me to think they never really exsisted in the first place.
A scud missile doesn't pose an immediate threat to the Western world. The U.S and British governments lied to us.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... 24970.html
"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03
"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03
"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03
"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03
"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03
"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02
"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02
"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02
"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02
"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02
"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02
"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
You should reread my post where I said it was a regional threat. Good work on all the quotes you pulled up though.....
I just stumbled upon them. I was looking for something else.
Yeah, but I thought the discussion was centered on 'weren't the people led to believe the WMD's were a worldwide threat'?
And I don't disagree with that statement. It was a regional (Middle Eastern) threat, which in turn is a very important to the rest of the world in terms of oil. Although Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey didn't outright support the war, they sure as hell let us use their bases to operate out of this time around in 2003. Iraq was very much a threat to the oil producing nations, like it or not we currently depend on oil, and Iraq has in the past tried to control it regionally, which in turns "chokes" the rest of the world resource wise. Does it have anything to do with the War on Terror? More then likely no, but then again I'm no foreign relations expert. Saddams removal is undisputedly a good thing, and history will prove it with in years to come when Iraq becomes self substaining.
Now the rub is with G.W. going off course on the GWOT with Iraq, and places like A-stan, P-stan, Sudan, Somalia, and parts of SE Asia are still hot with extremist, which may not pose an threat directly to the US, but a threat to their own region, which today effects this shrinking world in some way or another.
Except this wasn't how the threat was sold to the people of Britain of the U.S. We were given the bullshit claim that WMD's could be landing on our cities within 45 minutes.
Tough question to answer, I have read that he took 911 personally and after that day he was a different man. To me that derailed his presidency to a great deal and I'm not sure as president you can or should take things personally. Just an opinion.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I don't know about that, I think most Americans would take it personally.
I don't agree with everything G.W. did during his term, but I still don't think hes as bad as everyone wants him to be. I didn't vote for Obama, but I still like some of the moves hes made so far, and some...not so much. You can't please everyone, and as the president you're going to be the scape goat for almost everything that goes wrong. People really over exaggerated him as this evil/moron which is ridiculous, and blamed him for things that aren't even in the president's control. Just look at the far rights view of Obama, its just flipped now and I don't think we are better off then before in some ways. Two different men with two different ways of doing things, not every one will always be pleased with their actions.
Bush had one of the most important people in modern politics on his team, in Rove. Rove is incredibly smart. His genius, and his diabolical nature are well documented.
For Bush to be a patsy, in the Oswald sense, you have to come to the conclusion that Bush was only doing the bidding of everyone else, that he doesnt really believe the whole "terrorists need to be smoked out" idea he perpetrated post 9/11. That he was only a pawn in a larger scheme. I dont really think thats true. He is one of the people doing the manipulating.
The whole "bush is evil" thing is sort of muddied for me. I hate Bush, and think he is evil, but I also think the war wouldnt have happened if the congress and house wasnt made up of Democrats who cow towed to every thing the president did post 9/11 because they were wewilly wewilly scared about being branded antiamerican and unpatriotic.
I think Bush has been honest about his beliefs. I think he really truely does believe that God talks to him, that God told him to invade, that this is a us versus them thing, and that terrorism can be stopped using military force.
All the Presidents have been made sinners and saints over the years, its just a matter of what side you want to look at it.
i dunno ... they are all shits for one thing or another but this dude purposefully lied to send your country into war which in turn has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands (won't argue about the numbers here) of innocent lives ... that's about as bad as it gets ...
In terms merely of crimes committed, I think you may have a point. Reagan was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Central Americans throughout the 1980's - although Bush is responsible for the deaths of over a million Iraqi's.
On the other hand, even though Reagan was an idiot, Bush was off the scale on that front. He resembled a backwards 10 year old. It must have felt weird for Americans knowing that they had a child as President.
I'd say that overall, when taking all factors into account, from greed, corruption, lies, death toll, fucking the economy, e.t.c, Bush was by far the worst President in U.S history.
that's not the only way for Bush to be a patsy and yes, i think Cheney did a lot without the approval of Bush. I think Bush was rich and lazy and had no problem letting people 'who knew about these things' handle everything and call the shots. read the official timeline of 9/11, Cheney was calling shots without consulting with Bush, he told the military to send jets up without consulting with Bush.
i'm not trying to argue Bush is innocent for his role, i just think he is a fool and easily manipulated (which is the definition of a patsy). i think Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz played the threat up, showed cooked intel and he fell for it. or maybe he knew and just didn't care, i'm just saying given his personality and past i think he's used to not doing much and relying on others
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'