That actually makes sense....but there is more going on here than meets the eye, I think alot of this will be unreadable at least in the short term.
quote:
In fact, one thing that I have noticed...is that all of these conspiracy theories depend on the perpetrators being endlessly clever. I think you'll find the facts also work if you assume everyone is endlessly stupid.
Brian E. Moore
I think that the thing is with conspiracies to hide the truth it usually comes out that it is a lie because not everyone is 'endlessly stupid'
perhaps that is what we are finding out now . . . or rather, what many people allready knew:
namely: that there was a very big falsification of data (LIE) in order to achieve aims not expressed directly and perhaps not expressible directly to the public, both American that of the rest of the world's.
. . . not saying that i wouldn't agree with those ulteriors . . . just stating that they were withheld for various reasons not stated or revealed . . .lied via omission and lied via 'cover story'
There was plenty of time for the weapons to be destroyed. Again, a tip of the hat to France and Germany.
Helllooooooo???? The intent from the start was to "rid Iraq of WoMD". Saddam was requested to disarm. If there are no WoMD now (which it looks like) then it looks as if Saddam had them destroyed. According to his assassinated brother-in-law, thats exactly what he did, in 1991. Iraq complied, but we still went to war.
Quote:
Why were the inspectors kicked out?
Hellooooooo???? They were NOT kicked out, either 4 years ago or just before the recent war started. They were withdrawn, firstly for Clinton to get his piece of the bombing action, then in March 2003 so the current war could get under way.
Quote:
Why the obfuscation by Hussein when they were let back in? Why did it take the threat of invasion to get them back in? Why not put the demolitions of WMD on CNN, win the favor of the world, and get on the UN's human rights commission with Libya and Cuba?
Hellllooooo??? Probably for a similar reason the the US (together with a tiny handful of banana republics and dictatorships) refuses to recognize the International Criminal Court. Violation of sovereignty, blah blah.....
Quote:
HEEEELLLLLOOOOOOO?????
...but then....
Was it another Halliburton conspiracy? When DID Cheney cut the deal with the alien invasion force? Did he or did he not KNOW there was oil in IRAQ? It has to be a conspiracy---going to the highest levels of the shadow government!
IT'S THE ONLY EXPLANATION!!!!!!!!!!!!
If it looks like a duck...you know the rest. Occam's Razor etc. Tell me, who would refuse a $600+ million contract?
Are you now going to admit that when I was arguing that a credible thread was enough to get Iraq to destroy and/or give up its weapons, you were wrong to say war was the only way?
......thats exactly what he did, in 1991. Iraq complied, but we still went to war.
They were NOT kicked out.....
Tell me, who would refuse a $600+ million contract?
The point is not about semantics of "kicking out"....I thought it was understood what happened----there may be a lack of understanding here. There was endless bombing by the coalition forces in the 90's, and endless obfuscation by the regime. Yes, Hussein did effectively kick out the inspectors.
Quote:
Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after handing Annan a report yesterday afternoon on Baghdad's continued failure to cooperate with UNSCOM, the agency that searches for Iraq's prohibited weapons of mass destruction.
-- Newsday, 12/17/98
The reason Hussein gave was that the U.N. inspectors' work was completed years ago, before he kicked them out in 1998, and they dismantled whatever weapons they found. That's disingenuous.
--Newsday editorial, 8/14/02
As for $600 million---perhaps you can name another company that is capable of doing that kind of work (and on that scale) and then tell me it's political connections?
Yes, Hussein did effectively kick out the inspectors.
You quoted an editorial that states they were kicked out. That's not a valid source. It's an editorial. I'd like to see what the 'truth' was, not what the media has renamed it.
You quoted an editorial that states they were kicked out. That's not a valid source. It's an editorial. I'd like to see what the 'truth' was, not what the media has renamed it.
effectively----the UN called the inspectors back---Hussien apparently got what he wanted.
No, you used to say that we couldn't hold a credible threat long enough for Iraq to destroy the weapons.
IF those weapons were destroyed before the war began, then you were wrong and in fact the war was not necessary.
You go from "you said a credible threat was necessary" to "the war was not necessary". Do you not see the leap in logic you're making there?
And were they destroyed "before the war"? Perhaps in the same sense that the Romam Empire fell "before the war", but is there any connection between the two?
Go back and read our debate, you're confusing yourself.
[B]The point is not about semantics of "kicking out"....I thought it was understood what happened----there may be a lack of understanding here. There was endless bombing by the coalition forces in the 90's, and endless obfuscation by the regime. Yes, Hussein did effectively kick out the inspectors.
According to Kamal Hussein (in that infamous UNMOVIC document), all Iraq's banned weapons were destroyed in 1991, before the UN inspections officially started. Kamal Hussein's testimony was the centerpiece of the "damning evidence" that Bush etc used to "justify" the war. Of course, that inconvenient part about the weapons having being destroyed was omitted....that wouldn't look too convincing now, would it. And Fox etc would be struggling for a story.
So...there was this instance of Iraq not possessing the materials they were accused of having. It is thus so easy for the US to level the charge of "non-compliance" by Iraq. Tell me: how do you give up weapons that you dont have???? It makes it even easier to gain public support when contrary evidence is deliberately left out, while simultaneously the media is controlled by parties who share the ideology of those who stand to gain from this war.
Quote:
As for $600 million---perhaps you can name another company that is capable of doing that kind of work (and on that scale) and then tell me it's political connections?
This kind of work should never have to be done...namely spending humungous $$ to rebuild facilities which have been bombed to kingdom come, in order to provide big $$ for one of the only companies who have the means to do this kind of work. It's a closed loop of corruption.
Go back and read our debate, you're confusing yourself.
Of course there's a 'connection', and that is a credible threat. It's a credible threat if we act on that threat or not.
I'm not confusing myself. You believed we couldn't hold a credible threat long enough (or that six more months of 'threat-ing' was too long.) Rumsfeld now says that the weapons were gone before we went to war.
That means the threat, prior to the war, was enough to force compliance. That means the war was unnecessary.
Where is the leap in logic? If I worded it poorly before, sorry. This is clear though.
Comments
Originally posted by ena
[B]There was plenty of time for the weapons to be destroyed. Again, a tip of the hat to France and Germany.
France and Germany has nothing to do with the lack of discovering of WOMD in Iraq.
If you have problems with the lack of discovering of WOMD iraq blamethe secret agencies of your countrie. Find another scapegoat.
Originally posted by ena
That actually makes sense....but there is more going on here than meets the eye, I think alot of this will be unreadable at least in the short term.
quote:
In fact, one thing that I have noticed...is that all of these conspiracy theories depend on the perpetrators being endlessly clever. I think you'll find the facts also work if you assume everyone is endlessly stupid.
Brian E. Moore
I think that the thing is with conspiracies to hide the truth it usually comes out that it is a lie because not everyone is 'endlessly stupid'
perhaps that is what we are finding out now . . . or rather, what many people allready knew:
namely: that there was a very big falsification of data (LIE) in order to achieve aims not expressed directly and perhaps not expressible directly to the public, both American that of the rest of the world's.
. . . not saying that i wouldn't agree with those ulteriors . . . just stating that they were withheld for various reasons not stated or revealed . . .lied via omission and lied via 'cover story'
Originally posted by ena
There was plenty of time for the weapons to be destroyed. Again, a tip of the hat to France and Germany.
Helllooooooo???? The intent from the start was to "rid Iraq of WoMD". Saddam was requested to disarm. If there are no WoMD now (which it looks like) then it looks as if Saddam had them destroyed. According to his assassinated brother-in-law, thats exactly what he did, in 1991. Iraq complied, but we still went to war.
Why were the inspectors kicked out?
Hellooooooo???? They were NOT kicked out, either 4 years ago or just before the recent war started. They were withdrawn, firstly for Clinton to get his piece of the bombing action, then in March 2003 so the current war could get under way.
Why the obfuscation by Hussein when they were let back in? Why did it take the threat of invasion to get them back in? Why not put the demolitions of WMD on CNN, win the favor of the world, and get on the UN's human rights commission with Libya and Cuba?
Hellllooooo??? Probably for a similar reason the the US (together with a tiny handful of banana republics and dictatorships) refuses to recognize the International Criminal Court. Violation of sovereignty, blah blah.....
HEEEELLLLLOOOOOOO?????
...but then....
Was it another Halliburton conspiracy? When DID Cheney cut the deal with the alien invasion force? Did he or did he not KNOW there was oil in IRAQ? It has to be a conspiracy---going to the highest levels of the shadow government!
IT'S THE ONLY EXPLANATION!!!!!!!!!!!!
If it looks like a duck...you know the rest. Occam's Razor etc. Tell me, who would refuse a $600+ million contract?
Originally posted by sammi jo
Helllooooooo???? The intent from the start was to "rid Iraq of WoMD".
Not if you wanted to start a war. Then the removal of WoMDs would be counterproductive.
Are you now going to admit that when I was arguing that a credible thread was enough to get Iraq to destroy and/or give up its weapons, you were wrong to say war was the only way?
How does this prove your point?
Originally posted by groverat
How does this prove your point?
If the WMD don't exist now, and as Rumsfeld suggests, they were destroyed before the war, that proves that we didn't need a war to destroy the WMD.
Originally posted by sammi jo
......thats exactly what he did, in 1991. Iraq complied, but we still went to war.
They were NOT kicked out.....
Tell me, who would refuse a $600+ million contract?
The point is not about semantics of "kicking out"....I thought it was understood what happened----there may be a lack of understanding here. There was endless bombing by the coalition forces in the 90's, and endless obfuscation by the regime. Yes, Hussein did effectively kick out the inspectors.
Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after handing Annan a report yesterday afternoon on Baghdad's continued failure to cooperate with UNSCOM, the agency that searches for Iraq's prohibited weapons of mass destruction.
-- Newsday, 12/17/98
The reason Hussein gave was that the U.N. inspectors' work was completed years ago, before he kicked them out in 1998, and they dismantled whatever weapons they found. That's disingenuous.
--Newsday editorial, 8/14/02
As for $600 million---perhaps you can name another company that is capable of doing that kind of work (and on that scale) and then tell me it's political connections?
And all this shouldn't diminish the point that:
It aint over till it's over.
Originally posted by ena
Yes, Hussein did effectively kick out the inspectors.
You quoted an editorial that states they were kicked out. That's not a valid source. It's an editorial. I'd like to see what the 'truth' was, not what the media has renamed it.
If the WMD don't exist now, and as Rumsfeld suggests, they were destroyed before the war, that proves that we didn't need a war to destroy the WMD.
You do realize you changed your statement, don't you?
I was arguing that a credible thread was enough to get Iraq to destroy and/or give up its weapons
You're just as "wrong" as me on that.
Of course, I never said that Iraq absolutely *had* WMD so there's little point to your petulant "SEE! I WAS RIGHT!" garbage anyway.
You won a battle that was never fought, congrats!
Originally posted by bunge
You quoted an editorial that states they were kicked out. That's not a valid source. It's an editorial. I'd like to see what the 'truth' was, not what the media has renamed it.
effectively----the UN called the inspectors back---Hussien apparently got what he wanted.
Originally posted by groverat
bunge:
You do realize you changed your statement, don't you?
I was arguing that a credible thread was enough to get Iraq to destroy and/or give up its weapons
You're just as "wrong" as me on that.
Of course, I never said that Iraq absolutely *had* WMD so there's little point to your petulant "SEE! I WAS RIGHT!" garbage anyway.
You won a battle that was never fought, congrats!
I don't know.....Blair says he "has the proof"----the link I posted goes to the WP story.
Originally posted by groverat
You won a battle that was never fought, congrats!
No, you used to say that we couldn't hold a credible threat long enough for Iraq to destroy the weapons.
IF those weapons were destroyed before the war began, then you were wrong and in fact the war was not necessary.
No, you used to say that we couldn't hold a credible threat long enough for Iraq to destroy the weapons.
IF those weapons were destroyed before the war began, then you were wrong and in fact the war was not necessary.
You go from "you said a credible threat was necessary" to "the war was not necessary". Do you not see the leap in logic you're making there?
And were they destroyed "before the war"? Perhaps in the same sense that the Romam Empire fell "before the war", but is there any connection between the two?
Go back and read our debate, you're confusing yourself.
Originally posted by groverat
bunge:
You go from "you said a credible threat was necessary" to "the war was not necessary". Do you not see the leap in logic you're making there?
I don't see a leap in his logic.
Originally posted by ena
[B]The point is not about semantics of "kicking out"....I thought it was understood what happened----there may be a lack of understanding here. There was endless bombing by the coalition forces in the 90's, and endless obfuscation by the regime. Yes, Hussein did effectively kick out the inspectors.
According to Kamal Hussein (in that infamous UNMOVIC document), all Iraq's banned weapons were destroyed in 1991, before the UN inspections officially started. Kamal Hussein's testimony was the centerpiece of the "damning evidence" that Bush etc used to "justify" the war. Of course, that inconvenient part about the weapons having being destroyed was omitted....that wouldn't look too convincing now, would it. And Fox etc would be struggling for a story.
So...there was this instance of Iraq not possessing the materials they were accused of having. It is thus so easy for the US to level the charge of "non-compliance" by Iraq. Tell me: how do you give up weapons that you dont have???? It makes it even easier to gain public support when contrary evidence is deliberately left out, while simultaneously the media is controlled by parties who share the ideology of those who stand to gain from this war.
As for $600 million---perhaps you can name another company that is capable of doing that kind of work (and on that scale) and then tell me it's political connections?
This kind of work should never have to be done...namely spending humungous $$ to rebuild facilities which have been bombed to kingdom come, in order to provide big $$ for one of the only companies who have the means to do this kind of work. It's a closed loop of corruption.
Originally posted by sammi jo
They LIED and they LIED and they LIED http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...455767,00.html and they LIED and they lied again
heh. You might also like this nice little annotated chronology of quotations leading up to the whipping.
Originally posted by groverat
...but is there any connection between the two?
Go back and read our debate, you're confusing yourself.
Of course there's a 'connection', and that is a credible threat. It's a credible threat if we act on that threat or not.
I'm not confusing myself. You believed we couldn't hold a credible threat long enough (or that six more months of 'threat-ing' was too long.) Rumsfeld now says that the weapons were gone before we went to war.
That means the threat, prior to the war, was enough to force compliance. That means the war was unnecessary.
Where is the leap in logic? If I worded it poorly before, sorry. This is clear though.