I will stop now. But I think it is abundantly clear that SH had weapons all over Iraq. Most of the stuff found is conventionsal weapons. If SH would burry conventional weapons (not banned) why would you think he would keep WMD out in the open? HMMMM?
[i]*The entire administratation: "Iraq has close ties to Osama bin Laden, and al Qaida" [/B]
"Before the pharmaceutical plant was reduced to rubble by American cruise missiles, the CIA was secretly gathering evidence that ended up putting the facility on America's target list. Intelligence sources say their agents clandestinely gathered soil samples outside the plant and found, quote, "strong evidence" of a chemical compound called EMPTA, a compound that has only one known purpose, to make VX nerve gas."
and
"The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program."
You must be right on this one....
Oh wait... this was John McWethy, national security correspondent for ABC News BACK ON August 25, 1998 !
The Clinton admin believed there was strong ties with Al-Qaeda so apparently he lied also. or maybe he had some of the same intel or something. Who knows. Let's just say BUSH LIED, it sounds good. Right?
*Rumsfeld: "Saddams' WMDs are in an area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and north, south, weat and west of there, sort of..." [/B]
Ok, well, um, where did you get this from. Are you trying tell all of us that just because you make up some quote that we should all beleave that it is true?
You people are incredible.
I think I will start a thread called "Kerry is unblemished like a freshly washed air dried pillow case." yeah. That would be about as truthful your list of misquotes and half-truths or should I say half lies.
"Before the pharmaceutical plant was reduced to rubble by American cruise missiles, the CIA was secretly gathering evidence that ended up putting the facility on America's target list. Intelligence sources say their agents clandestinely gathered soil samples outside the plant and found, quote, "strong evidence" of a chemical compound called EMPTA, a compound that has only one known purpose, to make VX nerve gas."
and
"The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program."
You must be right on this one....
Oh wait... this was John McWethy, national security correspondent for ABC News BACK ON August 25, 1998 !
The Clinton admin believed there was strong ties with Al-Qaeda so apparently he lied also. or maybe he had some of the same intel or something. Who knows. Let's just say BUSH LIED, it sounds good. Right?
Nope. But it sounds the most plausible.
Even if he didn't lie he and his staff are then incompetent and should be ousted.
Clinton didn't wage a real war over this so that's a very weak and worn out comparison.
I will stop now. But I think it is abundantly clear that SH had weapons all over Iraq. Most of the stuff found is conventionsal weapons. If SH would burry conventional weapons (not banned) why would you think he would keep WMD out in the open? HMMMM?
Had ( at one time ) being the operative word here.
Naples, you really are off the deep end now. You actually are trying to cite the trailers?
And your proof is a blurb from last may?
Here's something a little more recent:
Quote:
The revelation that the mobile labs were to produce hydrogen for artillery balloons caused further embarrassment to the British authorities when it was disclosed that the system was sold to Iraq by the British company, Marconi Command & Control.
I mean, you are literally a year behind. Read the BASIC report. Read the ceip report. Welcome to 2004. Enjoy your visit.
Go back to your books, i really have no patience for your bile today.
Read the FU report, read the hind hovel report, don't forget the "why I don'd care to converse with pompous butt monkeys' report, I mean really. You can't even help yourself can you?
Condescension is not a way to skirt below the forum guidelines. It's not necessary to use such a tone if you're correcting or disagreeing with another member, and it's not OK to retaliate in such a way because someone else started with you. The tone of the debate can't continue as-is. Please mind how you present your opinion, and how you treat your fellow forum members. Thanks again.
Wow, Naples. You're having a mighty nasty reaction to the truth there.
You see, the thing is this:
Many have pointed out to you that you have a tendency to belittle those you disagree with. This in turn does not gain you any allies. At least true allies. What you do do is, create an environment not conducive to discussion, rather just argument.
There are many people in AO that are examples of proper debating abilities geared toward perpetuating civil discussion. You are not one of them.
I am sorry if I am coming off this way, but I just had to deal with someone that shares, at least, your online personality traits. Just like I have done with you, I have ignored him and let him believe he is god's gift to intellectualism for the most part, but today was the day he decided to push my buttons.
Well, anyway I am in no mood for your lofty presupposition.
Condescension is not a way to skirt below the forum guidelines. It's not necessary to use such a tone if you're correcting or disagreeing with another member, and it's not OK to retaliate in such a way because someone else started with you. The tone of the debate can't continue as-is. Please mind how you present your opinion, and how you treat your fellow forum members. Thanks again.
Many have pointed out to you that you have a tendency to belittle those you disagree with.
It's not about disagreement, it's about whether people deal with the facts or not.
Any 'facts' that backed up the idea you are supporting have fallen apart long ago. Even the plant site you talked about above (which was in SUDAN) was later tested 13 times and neither empta or its degradation product could be found.
See, believe what you want. If you believe crazy things, that's your choice. But someone who wants to have accurate beliefs takes the time to actually study the subject in question.
Comments
Originally posted by sammi jo
*Iraq was hiding WMDs from the UN inspectors
Are you saying that SH did not order weapons hid in Iraq?
try these:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93117,00.html
http://www.sundayherald.com/39252
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3386357.stm
blast from the past:
http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/0...0548.001.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...8/134236.shtml
I will stop now. But I think it is abundantly clear that SH had weapons all over Iraq. Most of the stuff found is conventionsal weapons. If SH would burry conventional weapons (not banned) why would you think he would keep WMD out in the open? HMMMM?
[i]*The entire administratation: "Iraq has close ties to Osama bin Laden, and al Qaida" [/B]
"Before the pharmaceutical plant was reduced to rubble by American cruise missiles, the CIA was secretly gathering evidence that ended up putting the facility on America's target list. Intelligence sources say their agents clandestinely gathered soil samples outside the plant and found, quote, "strong evidence" of a chemical compound called EMPTA, a compound that has only one known purpose, to make VX nerve gas."
and
"The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program."
You must be right on this one....
Oh wait... this was John McWethy, national security correspondent for ABC News BACK ON August 25, 1998 !
The Clinton admin believed there was strong ties with Al-Qaeda so apparently he lied also. or maybe he had some of the same intel or something. Who knows. Let's just say BUSH LIED, it sounds good. Right?
*Rumsfeld: "Saddams' WMDs are in an area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and north, south, weat and west of there, sort of..." [/B]
Ok, well, um, where did you get this from. Are you trying tell all of us that just because you make up some quote that we should all beleave that it is true?
You people are incredible.
I think I will start a thread called "Kerry is unblemished like a freshly washed air dried pillow case." yeah. That would be about as truthful your list of misquotes and half-truths or should I say half lies.
You guys are great dancers.
Originally posted by SilentEchoes
What lies? What are these lies?
RE: Lies
See reasons for starting this war.
Originally posted by NaplesX
"Before the pharmaceutical plant was reduced to rubble by American cruise missiles, the CIA was secretly gathering evidence that ended up putting the facility on America's target list. Intelligence sources say their agents clandestinely gathered soil samples outside the plant and found, quote, "strong evidence" of a chemical compound called EMPTA, a compound that has only one known purpose, to make VX nerve gas."
and
"The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program."
You must be right on this one....
Oh wait... this was John McWethy, national security correspondent for ABC News BACK ON August 25, 1998 !
The Clinton admin believed there was strong ties with Al-Qaeda so apparently he lied also. or maybe he had some of the same intel or something. Who knows. Let's just say BUSH LIED, it sounds good. Right?
Nope. But it sounds the most plausible.
Even if he didn't lie he and his staff are then incompetent and should be ousted.
Clinton didn't wage a real war over this so that's a very weak and worn out comparison.
Originally posted by jimmac
RE: Lies
See reasons for starting this war.
So you can read minds? How the hell do you know what GWBs motives where for starting the war?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Are you saying that SH did not order weapons hid in Iraq?
try these:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93117,00.html
http://www.sundayherald.com/39252
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3386357.stm
blast from the past:
http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/0...0548.001.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...8/134236.shtml
I will stop now. But I think it is abundantly clear that SH had weapons all over Iraq. Most of the stuff found is conventionsal weapons. If SH would burry conventional weapons (not banned) why would you think he would keep WMD out in the open? HMMMM?
Had ( at one time ) being the operative word here.
And your proof is a blurb from last may?
Here's something a little more recent:
The revelation that the mobile labs were to produce hydrogen for artillery balloons caused further embarrassment to the British authorities when it was disclosed that the system was sold to Iraq by the British company, Marconi Command & Control.
http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Research/2004WMD1.htm
I mean, you are literally a year behind. Read the BASIC report. Read the ceip report. Welcome to 2004. Enjoy your visit.
Originally posted by jimmac
Had ( at one time ) being the operative word here.
Still has. And because of that, there is still the possibility of finding more and even WMD's.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Still has. And because of that, there is still the possibility of finding more and even WMD's.
No. We have a damn good accounting of Iraqi WMD programs right now.
So dream on, but the best you can hope for is some left over mustard.
Originally posted by giant
Naples, you really are off the deep end now. You actually are trying to cite the trailers?
And your proof is a blurb from last may?
Here's something a little more recent:
http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Research/2004WMD1.htm
I mean, you are literally a year behind. Read the BASIC report. Read the ceip report. Welcome to 2004. Enjoy your visit.
Go back to your books, i really have no patience for your bile today.
Read the FU report, read the hind hovel report, don't forget the "why I don'd care to converse with pompous butt monkeys' report, I mean really. You can't even help yourself can you?
Originally posted by giant
No. We have a damn good accounting of Iraqi WMD programs right now.
So dream on, but the best you can hope for is some left over mustard.
Here, sorry I did not back it up with a link:
http://www.brunchma.com/archives/For...ML/002191.html
Originally posted by giant
Wow, Naples. You're having a mighty nasty reaction to the truth there.
No just you.
Originally posted by NaplesX
No just you.
Oh, now I get it... what Giant says = truth... Giant = absolute truth... Giant = Embodiment of Truth... Oh...
Naw, still just you.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Still has. And because of that, there is still the possibility of finding more and even WMD's.
Ok. Where are they?
Originally posted by giant
Wow, Naples. You're having a mighty nasty reaction to the truth there.
You see, the thing is this:
Many have pointed out to you that you have a tendency to belittle those you disagree with. This in turn does not gain you any allies. At least true allies. What you do do is, create an environment not conducive to discussion, rather just argument.
There are many people in AO that are examples of proper debating abilities geared toward perpetuating civil discussion. You are not one of them.
I am sorry if I am coming off this way, but I just had to deal with someone that shares, at least, your online personality traits. Just like I have done with you, I have ignored him and let him believe he is god's gift to intellectualism for the most part, but today was the day he decided to push my buttons.
Well, anyway I am in no mood for your lofty presupposition.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Condescension is not a way to skirt below the forum guidelines. It's not necessary to use such a tone if you're correcting or disagreeing with another member, and it's not OK to retaliate in such a way because someone else started with you. The tone of the debate can't continue as-is. Please mind how you present your opinion, and how you treat your fellow forum members. Thanks again.
Sorry, I will calm down now. My bad.
Bad day, had a bad flashback. Won't happen again.
I'm sorry everyone.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Many have pointed out to you that you have a tendency to belittle those you disagree with.
It's not about disagreement, it's about whether people deal with the facts or not.
Any 'facts' that backed up the idea you are supporting have fallen apart long ago. Even the plant site you talked about above (which was in SUDAN) was later tested 13 times and neither empta or its degradation product could be found.
See, believe what you want. If you believe crazy things, that's your choice. But someone who wants to have accurate beliefs takes the time to actually study the subject in question.