That would be clever if it weren't for two glaring problems.
- Santa Cruz, California hasn't been inspected, put under sanction and formally reprimanded and threatened with war (both by the UN and by the Unilateral States of Unilateralstan) over a dozen years because of WMD.
- Santa Cruz, California isn't ruled by a tyrant with a history of territorial aggression.
Good effort, though, you almost made sense.
The UN wasn't obligated to find a damned thing, Iraq was obligated to answer every single question, and they were supposed to do it in 1991. Read the resolutions.
We can say Bush lied, sure, but to act like it was the UN's or even the US's responsibility under law to find them then you're lying worse than Bush ever did, because at that point it isn't even ambiguous how wrong you are.
--
jimmac:
Thanks for continuing to have nothing to add.
Hey if you still keep drawing the same stupid ( I've got a blind spot ) conclusions I'll still repeat the truth !
Exactly. Santa Cruz also didn't demonstrate their possession and willingness to use WMD by using the weapons on the people IN Santa Cruz.
jimmac:
So, the simplest explanation is that the President of the United States had some secret ulterior motive (based on financial and political profit) and thereby convinced the Prime Minister of Great Britain to go along with his evil plan even though the War was tremendously unpopular in his country? The simplest explanation is that George Bush went to war on a personal vendetta in order to divert attention from the economy when the next Presidential election was still 18 months away and economy was already beginning its recovery cycle?
Yes, quite reasonable and simple. Ockham is turning over in his grave right now.
Once again, there is no reasonable argument for Saddam NOT having WMD. There just isn't.
Goverat was right. Liberals, in particular, think it was the UN's and United States' responsibility. It's as if they believe that WE were the ones legally bound to find WMD. This is the same thing the French and Germans, not to mention Russians did. But, it wasn't the US and UN (and the UK) that were bound by special sanctions, resolutions and ultimatums! It was Saddam's regime!!! The burden of proof was on SADDAM HUSSEIN! Leading up to war, however, we had people here running around asking where the "smoking gun" was. Ummmm...OK.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq was bound by 17 UN reslutions to FULLY disarm. Not one person here can tell me he did that. Not one! The UN knew Saddam didn't totally disarm. We knew it, Iraq knew it, even Chirac knew it! It wasn't even a question. Saddam Hussein was required to provide evidence of destruction of his WMD. He didn't. End of story. And don't go telling me "one can't prove a negative". In this case, there were a multitude of ways Saddam could have proved he had destroyed his WMD. If he hadn't, he could have easily have shown the inspectors were they were and allowed the to destroy them. Instead, we had, as the President appropriately put it in his State of the Union Address, a "Scavenger Hunt" for weapons. That was never the intention of the inspection process.
And listen up guys! If Bush had just said Saddam must comply without the issue of proof this war wouldn't have got over the first hurdle. They said they had proof but for security reasons they couldn't devulge everything. Well they haven't devulged much of anything. As a matter of fact if they were so sure that Saddam had these they should have found them without much difficulty. Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense now does it? You can make long, drawn out, convoluted, comebacks on this but it really all boils down to proof! You know, the simplist reason.
I wish one of these guys would just demonstrate using actual technical information what exactly Iraq has that constitutes a threat to the US, especially considering the war was conducted for the expressed purpose of preempting a threat.
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
proof!
of course, the only thing we do have proof of is that at least 90% of the pre-gulf war capacity was destroyed.
They can't provide evidence pointed the other way because none exists.
What is funny is how these people would jump on a chemical agent find, not realizing either that any chem agent would be degraded to the point of uselessness, or any of the other particulars regarding agents like mustard gas.
In other words, even though every piece of evidence shows that there is no way Iraq is a threat, and since there are no new production facilities of any significance if at all, there is no way that evidence will arise that trumpts everything and demonstrates a threat as described by the Bush admin. The time has already passed. There is no nuclear program. There are no new weapons that are poised to attack the US. No matter what small materials or facilities are found from this day on, they don't matter because anything significant would have been found weeks ago.
Well, anything significant actually would have been found before the war, either by the UN or by any allied intel service, but who's counting?
The 'labs' were most likely hydrogen generators (as even the CIA report conceeded they could be), sold by britain to Iraq:
Quote:
Senior Iraqi officials of the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul were shown pictures of the mobile production trailers, and they claimed that the trailers were used to produce hydrogen chemically for artillery weather balloons. Artillery balloons are essentially balloons that are sent up into the atmosphere and relay information on wind direction and speed, allowing more accurate artillery fire. Crucially, these systems need to be mobile. The Observer has discovered that not only did the Iraq military have such a system at one time, but that it was actually sold to them by the British. In 1987, Marconi, now known as AMS, sold the Iraqi army an Artillery Meteorological System or Amets for short.
Honestly I don't mean to make light of this so much ( if only it wasn't for the dogged stupidity here ). Lives were lost and there's the very real possibility that a president has lied to us about something important again. That is a really sad state of affairs.
What's the Iraqi death toll at? 14,000? 15,000? I remember reading somewhere recently that it was in the region of 5,000+ civillians and 9,000+ soldiers.
I'd say that finding evidence to support the argument made for this war is pretty important.
What's the Iraqi death toll at? 14,000? 15,000? I remember reading somewhere recently that it was in the region of 5,000+ civillians and 9,000+ soldiers.
I'd say that finding evidence to support the argument made for this war is pretty important.
Add to that all of the deaths that will happen as a result (sometimes this can be much larger than the # during the war) plus all of the people that lost only a limb or their eyesight, which is likely much higher than the number killed.
Also add the number of American servicemen and women (177). Let's also hope we don't have another gulf war sickness.
Well he is delivering the salmon to California. Thats considered interstate terrorism.
Ena to Cuba.
Well you know if it goes bad! My mom once was cleaning out her cabinets in the garage storage area. Well you know how little old ladies are. They never throw anything away. I found some tins of canned salmon. They were blown up like balloons! I said " Mom you really should get rid of most of this stuff ". She said " are you sure ? "
I said " Well look at the label on this jar of " Nestea ". They haven't used that label since the Carter administration! "
Ahh, my mom! I really do miss her.
Sorry for the little trip down memory lane but I thought you'd get a laugh.
Add to that all of the deaths that will happen as a result (sometimes this can be much larger than the # during the war) plus all of the people that lost only a limb or their eyesight, which is likely much higher than the number killed.
Also add the number of American servicemen and women (177). Let's also hope we don't have another gulf war sickness.
Also didn't Senator Byrd say before the war that the average age in Iraq was 15!
gaint, I'm going to fly down to california and bury a Suitcase full of fresh Salmon somewhere in the state.
I want you to find it. (you can keep the suitcase)
... and this satellite image (one of many we could have shown you) clearly shows a concealed salmon facility. There, arrowed, next to the very clear image of a suitcase. Incontrevertible proof.
... and this satellite image (one of many we could have shown you) clearly shows a concealed salmon facility. There, arrowed, next to the very clear image of a suitcase. Incontrevertible proof.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
pfflam:
That would be clever if it weren't for two glaring problems.
- Santa Cruz, California hasn't been inspected, put under sanction and formally reprimanded and threatened with war (both by the UN and by the Unilateral States of Unilateralstan) over a dozen years because of WMD.
- Santa Cruz, California isn't ruled by a tyrant with a history of territorial aggression.
Good effort, though, you almost made sense.
The UN wasn't obligated to find a damned thing, Iraq was obligated to answer every single question, and they were supposed to do it in 1991. Read the resolutions.
We can say Bush lied, sure, but to act like it was the UN's or even the US's responsibility under law to find them then you're lying worse than Bush ever did, because at that point it isn't even ambiguous how wrong you are.
--
jimmac:
Thanks for continuing to have nothing to add.
Hey if you still keep drawing the same stupid ( I've got a blind spot ) conclusions I'll still repeat the truth !
Originally posted by SDW2001
Exactly. Santa Cruz also didn't demonstrate their possession and willingness to use WMD by using the weapons on the people IN Santa Cruz.
jimmac:
Yes, quite reasonable and simple. Ockham is turning over in his grave right now.
Once again, there is no reasonable argument for Saddam NOT having WMD. There just isn't.
Goverat was right. Liberals, in particular, think it was the UN's and United States' responsibility. It's as if they believe that WE were the ones legally bound to find WMD. This is the same thing the French and Germans, not to mention Russians did. But, it wasn't the US and UN (and the UK) that were bound by special sanctions, resolutions and ultimatums! It was Saddam's regime!!! The burden of proof was on SADDAM HUSSEIN! Leading up to war, however, we had people here running around asking where the "smoking gun" was. Ummmm...OK.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq was bound by 17 UN reslutions to FULLY disarm. Not one person here can tell me he did that. Not one! The UN knew Saddam didn't totally disarm. We knew it, Iraq knew it, even Chirac knew it! It wasn't even a question. Saddam Hussein was required to provide evidence of destruction of his WMD. He didn't. End of story. And don't go telling me "one can't prove a negative". In this case, there were a multitude of ways Saddam could have proved he had destroyed his WMD. If he hadn't, he could have easily have shown the inspectors were they were and allowed the to destroy them. Instead, we had, as the President appropriately put it in his State of the Union Address, a "Scavenger Hunt" for weapons. That was never the intention of the inspection process.
Ok, so where are they? Hmmm?
WOMD WHERE ARE THEY?
Originally posted by jimmac
Ok, so where are they? Hmmm?
I wish one of these guys would just demonstrate using actual technical information what exactly Iraq has that constitutes a threat to the US, especially considering the war was conducted for the expressed purpose of preempting a threat.
Originally posted by jimmac
proof!
of course, the only thing we do have proof of is that at least 90% of the pre-gulf war capacity was destroyed.
They can't provide evidence pointed the other way because none exists.
What is funny is how these people would jump on a chemical agent find, not realizing either that any chem agent would be degraded to the point of uselessness, or any of the other particulars regarding agents like mustard gas.
In other words, even though every piece of evidence shows that there is no way Iraq is a threat, and since there are no new production facilities of any significance if at all, there is no way that evidence will arise that trumpts everything and demonstrates a threat as described by the Bush admin. The time has already passed. There is no nuclear program. There are no new weapons that are poised to attack the US. No matter what small materials or facilities are found from this day on, they don't matter because anything significant would have been found weeks ago.
Well, anything significant actually would have been found before the war, either by the UN or by any allied intel service, but who's counting?
Senior Iraqi officials of the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul were shown pictures of the mobile production trailers, and they claimed that the trailers were used to produce hydrogen chemically for artillery weather balloons. Artillery balloons are essentially balloons that are sent up into the atmosphere and relay information on wind direction and speed, allowing more accurate artillery fire. Crucially, these systems need to be mobile. The Observer has discovered that not only did the Iraq military have such a system at one time, but that it was actually sold to them by the British. In 1987, Marconi, now known as AMS, sold the Iraqi army an Artillery Meteorological System or Amets for short.
http://www.observer.co.uk/internatio...973012,00.html
http://yellowtimes.org/article.php?s...thread&order=0
Note that NO TRACE has been found. Not even something pointing to any program.
When are you guys going to realize that NO LARGE-SCALE WEAPONS PROGRAM EXISTED?
I want you to find it. (you can keep the suitcase)
Originally posted by giant
U.S. forces run out of places to look for weapons
Note that NO TRACE has been found. Not even something pointing to any program.
When are you guys going to realize that NO LARGE-SCALE WEAPONS PROGRAM EXISTED?
That's great! Just hilarious. grover, SDW does the term " Damage Control " mean anything to you?
Originally posted by ena
gaint, I'm going to fly down to california and bury a Suitcase full of fresh Salmon somewhere in the state.
I want you to find it. (you can keep the suitcase)
If it's that small and you don't have anyway to deliver it how's that a threat?
Damage Control.
Originally posted by ena
gaint, I'm going to fly down to california and bury a Suitcase full of fresh Salmon somewhere in the state.
I want you to find it.
If Giant have sattelite images of the case and it is fastened in cement he wouldn´t have such a hard time doing it
Originally posted by jimmac
If it's that small and you don't have anyway to deliver it how's that a threat?
Damage Control.
Well he is delivering the salmon to California. Thats considered interstate terrorism.
Ena to Cuba.
I'd say that finding evidence to support the argument made for this war is pretty important.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
What's the Iraqi death toll at? 14,000? 15,000? I remember reading somewhere recently that it was in the region of 5,000+ civillians and 9,000+ soldiers.
I'd say that finding evidence to support the argument made for this war is pretty important.
Add to that all of the deaths that will happen as a result (sometimes this can be much larger than the # during the war) plus all of the people that lost only a limb or their eyesight, which is likely much higher than the number killed.
Also add the number of American servicemen and women (177). Let's also hope we don't have another gulf war sickness.
Originally posted by Anders
Well he is delivering the salmon to California. Thats considered interstate terrorism.
Ena to Cuba.
Well you know if it goes bad! My mom once was cleaning out her cabinets in the garage storage area. Well you know how little old ladies are. They never throw anything away. I found some tins of canned salmon. They were blown up like balloons! I said " Mom you really should get rid of most of this stuff ". She said " are you sure ? "
I said " Well look at the label on this jar of " Nestea ". They haven't used that label since the Carter administration! "
Ahh, my mom! I really do miss her.
Sorry for the little trip down memory lane but I thought you'd get a laugh.
Originally posted by giant
Add to that all of the deaths that will happen as a result (sometimes this can be much larger than the # during the war) plus all of the people that lost only a limb or their eyesight, which is likely much higher than the number killed.
Also add the number of American servicemen and women (177). Let's also hope we don't have another gulf war sickness.
Also didn't Senator Byrd say before the war that the average age in Iraq was 15!
Originally posted by ena
gaint, I'm going to fly down to california and bury a Suitcase full of fresh Salmon somewhere in the state.
I want you to find it. (you can keep the suitcase)
... and this satellite image (one of many we could have shown you) clearly shows a concealed salmon facility. There, arrowed, next to the very clear image of a suitcase. Incontrevertible proof.
Ring any bells ena?
Originally posted by Harald
... and this satellite image (one of many we could have shown you) clearly shows a concealed salmon facility. There, arrowed, next to the very clear image of a suitcase. Incontrevertible proof.
Ring any bells ena?
Time for another one of my useless laugh faces!