... 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?
Now that actually opens up another avenue on this thing.
Would you say that the sat. photos were faked as well?
Wrong. It is a technical question, and you are doing a piss-poor job of avoiding answering it.
How is it a technical question? It's all about what you believe could happen, that's it.
Take the Cluster document and assume it's mostly accurate (it's UNMOVIC, not Wolfowitz). If you're the leader of a nation and this guy who may or may not have these things hates your nation (and your last name especially) you may feel there's a threat there; directly or through international terror.
A threat doesn't have to have a logical 1-2-3 demonstrable trail.
Clinton used the weapons hand-off to terroist logic as a threat explanation before Bush, was it so stupid then, after 8 years of harsh inspections? Do we not remember his 01/09/99 State of the Union Address where he praised a young Captain for attacking Saddam's "war machine"?
Who said this?
"Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy. Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores...This is a serious thing with me, this is a very serious thing. You imagine the capacity of these tiny amounts of biological agents to cause great harm; it's something we need to get after."
A) Colin Powell
George W Bush
C) Bill Clinton
(And before you freaks jump into me for mentioning the forbidden sacred cow Bill Clinton, read the first post of the thread again.)
Quote:
If you are referring to the evidence that the Bush admin (including Bush himself) lied and skewed intelligence reports, it's already been demonstrated thoroughly.
Evidence of anything illegal is what I was referring to. Quite clear in context.
--
Anders:
Quote:
Did the Bush administration know what they said was not true, secondary was twisted enough to be considered very questionable despite presented as facts to the US congress, UN SC, GB, Polan, Australia, Denmark and whoever else reacted on the information by supporting the US lead war against Iraq
If those nations didn't know whether or not those reports were really shady then I would be absolutely shocked.
Why this idea that everyone is so naive about it and that anyone actually bought the administration's line when we had million-strong protests going on!?
--
for giant and jimmac, who seemingly find a new victory over me every time they see something about Bush lying:
When have I said that Iraq definitely has weapons?
When have I said that Bush never lied?
Thanks.
--
kneelbeforezod:
If you want to bring in the human cost of war be prepared to receive an ass-whipping.
don't be weird Anders---did Powell show phoney-baloney pictures at the UN?
Okay lets try this as an example:
Quote:
As you can clearly see from this picture the frencies are preparing a revenge against USA because we renamed french fries to freedom fries. They have build a large electro-state emitting doomsdays machine that will throw lightning over the entire US.
If those nations didn't know whether or not those reports were really shady then I would be absolutely shocked.
I have been shocked over my own government ever since it was elected
But what kind of defence is that? "Well you know we wanted to start this war so of course we lied a little bit to you. Gosh you really didn´t think we would lie to our allied? [/surprised face]"
If your administration actually thought the were bending the truth/lied and the allied would be able to look through that then why lie in the first place?
Crap, Anders, I just read the quote in your post---thought it was quoting me. So you basically understand the question. So, is this what you are saying Powell did?
Take the Cluster document and assume it's mostly accurate (it's UNMOVIC, not Wolfowitz). If you're the leader of a nation and this guy who may or may not have these things hates your nation (and your last name especially) you may feel there's a threat there; directly or through international terror.
No. The information they were providing was incorrect, fabricated and skewed, and they were criticised by their own intel services. Both the British and US admins pressured intel services to skew or fabricate information. Period.
Quote:
A threat doesn't have to have a logical 1-2-3 demonstrable trail.
Yes it does. All evidence pointed to Iraq being benign. If our government is so dramatically incompetent that they ignore all available evidence, then they should not be in power.
Which brings us to the center of your argument, that the Bush admin is incredibly incompetent. I will agree with you that Bush himself is, but the Admin that consists of many people is not.
If the Bush admin really is that dramatically incompetent, Bush needs to be taken out of power immediately and a massive review of our government needs to be conducted.
As for Clinton, I think he was a crook. Better than Bush, but a crook. So stop with this SDW bullshit where you try to retreat to criticisms of someone that is irrelevant in the actions of the Bush admin.
If those nations didn't know whether or not those reports were really shady then I would be absolutely shocked.
Why this idea that everyone is so naive about it and that anyone actually bought the administration's line when we had million-strong protests going on!?
They did know, but for some reason decided to go along. Spain, for instance, was one of our core allies. While the Spanish Prime Minister stood there with Bush and Blair before the attack, a full 90%+ of his citizens opposed the war under any circumstances. I'm not spanish, but I feel horrible for what my government coerced their's into.
Quote:
If you want to bring in the human cost of war be prepared to receive an ass-whipping.
Why? Are you going to bring up the human toll due to our neglect in Congo?
I guess when Powell went in front of the UN to show those pictures, they had to bring along another intern with a wheelbarrow----just for Powell's balls.
Comments
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?
Now that actually opens up another avenue on this thing.
Would you say that the sat. photos were faked as well?
Originally posted by ena
Now that actually opens up another avenue on this thing.
Would you say that the sat. photos were faked as well?
As the kids nowadays say : LAME!
You wouldn't have to fake them since the pictures were so small you couldn't tell anything without the special government analysis.
Originally posted by jimmac
As the kids nowadays say : LAME!
you mean kids like ena? I doubt his high school (or middle school) teaches him anything about these subjects.
Originally posted by giant
you mean kids like ena?
Just don't tell my children about this giant, they'll be furious.
Originally posted by ena
Just don't tell my children about this giant, they'll be furious.
They probably just think you are one of their school-mates:
Originally posted by ena
*sticks tounge out at Anders*
nanner nanner!!
Originally posted by ena
Double dumbass on you!!!!
Originally posted by ena
Would you say that the sat. photos were faked as well?
What did the images show you Ena (sans the text read by Powell)? A weapons factory or a building first with a truck next to it and then without?
If the latter then my parents house is a weapons factory.
Originally posted by giant
They probably just think you are one of their school-mates:
*turns around, raises kilt, and moons giant*
take that!
Originally posted by Anders
What did the images show you Ena (sans the text read by Powell)? A weapons factory or a building first with a truck next to it and then without?
If the latter then my parents house is a weapons factory.
oh, lighten up---this an internet forum, not a Harvard fellowship---although we have had some Fellowship forums.
hmmmmmmm......
You are basically saying that Powell showed pictures (and at the UN, no less) that were not CBN related, and claimed them as proof---yes?
I think that is bad argumental tactics.
don't be weird Anders---did Powell show phoney-baloney pictures at the UN?
Wrong. It is a technical question, and you are doing a piss-poor job of avoiding answering it.
How is it a technical question? It's all about what you believe could happen, that's it.
Take the Cluster document and assume it's mostly accurate (it's UNMOVIC, not Wolfowitz). If you're the leader of a nation and this guy who may or may not have these things hates your nation (and your last name especially) you may feel there's a threat there; directly or through international terror.
A threat doesn't have to have a logical 1-2-3 demonstrable trail.
Clinton used the weapons hand-off to terroist logic as a threat explanation before Bush, was it so stupid then, after 8 years of harsh inspections? Do we not remember his 01/09/99 State of the Union Address where he praised a young Captain for attacking Saddam's "war machine"?
Who said this?
"Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy. Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores...This is a serious thing with me, this is a very serious thing. You imagine the capacity of these tiny amounts of biological agents to cause great harm; it's something we need to get after."
A) Colin Powell
C) Bill Clinton
(And before you freaks jump into me for mentioning the forbidden sacred cow Bill Clinton, read the first post of the thread again.)
If you are referring to the evidence that the Bush admin (including Bush himself) lied and skewed intelligence reports, it's already been demonstrated thoroughly.
Evidence of anything illegal is what I was referring to. Quite clear in context.
--
Anders:
Did the Bush administration know what they said was not true, secondary was twisted enough to be considered very questionable despite presented as facts to the US congress, UN SC, GB, Polan, Australia, Denmark and whoever else reacted on the information by supporting the US lead war against Iraq
If those nations didn't know whether or not those reports were really shady then I would be absolutely shocked.
Why this idea that everyone is so naive about it and that anyone actually bought the administration's line when we had million-strong protests going on!?
--
for giant and jimmac, who seemingly find a new victory over me every time they see something about Bush lying:
When have I said that Iraq definitely has weapons?
When have I said that Bush never lied?
Thanks.
--
kneelbeforezod:
If you want to bring in the human cost of war be prepared to receive an ass-whipping.
Originally posted by ena
CHEETAH?
don't be weird Anders---did Powell show phoney-baloney pictures at the UN?
Okay lets try this as an example:
As you can clearly see from this picture the frencies are preparing a revenge against USA because we renamed french fries to freedom fries. They have build a large electro-state emitting doomsdays machine that will throw lightning over the entire US.
Is the picture faked in that example Ena?
Originally posted by Anders
New theory: Ena is one of us trying to make the other side look bad.
they certainly don't need help in this area.
Originally posted by groverat
If those nations didn't know whether or not those reports were really shady then I would be absolutely shocked.
I have been shocked over my own government ever since it was elected
But what kind of defence is that? "Well you know we wanted to start this war so of course we lied a little bit to you. Gosh you really didn´t think we would lie to our allied? [/surprised face]"
If your administration actually thought the were bending the truth/lied and the allied would be able to look through that then why lie in the first place?
In front of the UN?
Originally posted by groverat
Take the Cluster document and assume it's mostly accurate (it's UNMOVIC, not Wolfowitz). If you're the leader of a nation and this guy who may or may not have these things hates your nation (and your last name especially) you may feel there's a threat there; directly or through international terror.
No. The information they were providing was incorrect, fabricated and skewed, and they were criticised by their own intel services. Both the British and US admins pressured intel services to skew or fabricate information. Period.
A threat doesn't have to have a logical 1-2-3 demonstrable trail.
Yes it does. All evidence pointed to Iraq being benign. If our government is so dramatically incompetent that they ignore all available evidence, then they should not be in power.
Which brings us to the center of your argument, that the Bush admin is incredibly incompetent. I will agree with you that Bush himself is, but the Admin that consists of many people is not.
If the Bush admin really is that dramatically incompetent, Bush needs to be taken out of power immediately and a massive review of our government needs to be conducted.
As for Clinton, I think he was a crook. Better than Bush, but a crook. So stop with this SDW bullshit where you try to retreat to criticisms of someone that is irrelevant in the actions of the Bush admin.
Originally posted by groverat
If those nations didn't know whether or not those reports were really shady then I would be absolutely shocked.
Why this idea that everyone is so naive about it and that anyone actually bought the administration's line when we had million-strong protests going on!?
They did know, but for some reason decided to go along. Spain, for instance, was one of our core allies. While the Spanish Prime Minister stood there with Bush and Blair before the attack, a full 90%+ of his citizens opposed the war under any circumstances. I'm not spanish, but I feel horrible for what my government coerced their's into.
If you want to bring in the human cost of war be prepared to receive an ass-whipping.
Why? Are you going to bring up the human toll due to our neglect in Congo?