Well, reading them would help you understand where we're all coming from with our arguments.
You should be able to explain your line of reasoning on a given point in a pithy way that even I could understand, right?
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
No. Not "encourage democracy"; topple the existing government and install a democratic one.
Still I see no real problem a the old one was so evil, bad, or whatever word you use for it.
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
The problem is that this is NOT what we were told. The admin did NOT lay out the standard neo-con line of reasoning (domino theory and all that). Had they done that, they most likely would not have been able to generate public support for the invasion. INSTEAD, they trotted out "evidence" that was quickly de-bunked, made claims about the immediacy of the threat to national security and freedom Iraq presented, and effectively LIED to the people about both the reason we were going there and the level of threat Iraq posed.
President Clinton 1/98: 'Think how many people 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 and send it to the city he wants to destroy. Think about all the terrorists and other bad actors who could parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores if we don't take action.'
Rgis the reasoning that the Clinton admin used. So I would have to say this is not a Neo-Con Conspiracy that you all are trying to say.
I would love to if you could stay on-task and hit things point by point. I mean, come on. In the middle of one discussion, you throw in a, "GWB is gay and the CIA covered it up" kind of thing, that requires a comment to point out the absurdity of the whole thing. Then in the middle of that one you do it again, and BAM we are all out on some tangent.
It make me a little woozy.
Every time I start to like you, you demonstrate again that you are just FOS (and I quote):
Nipples: All the things you seem you hang onto as lies from this president were things that the world community has known for years as true.
Giant: Such as? And I want figures.
Nipples: Do you accept that SH used WMD on his own people and on the Iranians or is that just hype too?
The US sold him WMD to fight Iran and he used them since on the kurds. Intel sources know roughly what he had at that point and and knew he was trying to acquire and make more. SH did not account for the known quantities of WMD and has yet to. This has been accepted as truth by the world community as evidenced by UN resolutions on the matter.
Giant: [Response to point one then...] I said figures, didn't I? Or have you not actually looked into the sources of those claims, right down to the individual documents?
Nipples: I will give you this, you have mastered the art of diversion.
Giant: So does this mean we won't be discussing the actual topic, as you pointed out, Iraqi WMD capabilities?
Nipples: Then in the middle of that one you do it again, and BAM we are all out on some tangent.
Rgis the reasoning that the Clinton admin used. So I would have to say this is not a Neo-Con Conspiracy that you all are trying to say.
Actually, these same people were very much pushing clinton on iraq.
Edit: I should add that I don't claim authority at all on clinton's Iraq policy. What it seems like to me is that his admin didn't have a real developed one, and most actions appeared to be somewhat reactionary.
Actually, these same people were very much pushing clinton on iraq
You are giving me a headache. Your mind works way different than mine does. Not that I think that that is bad, just it seems very difficult to reach any conclusion with you. I am not opposed to agree to disagree but you keep throwing in other topics requiring further discussion.
I am not opposed to agree to disagree but you keep throwing in other topics requiring further discussion.
Oh, and WTF? You were the one that brought up clinton. I'm still waiting for you to give me tonnage claims for each chemical weapon and the original sources for each figure.
I am just wondering what you intend to accomplish here? You let everyone know you know it all, and they know nothing.
i jumped into this thread because I like to learn; learn other people's views and how they form them, to see if my views are from a reasonable standpoint, and such things.
You seem to be doing none of this. You seem like you are preaching to the quire. You seem to be trolling for disciples to the church of bash bush. All of this as WW III is going on all around you. You profess to know so much more than all here, are you just slumming it or what?
You seem to be in a perpetual state of defending liberalism, despite the fact that I never attacked liberalism or liberals. You don't seem to be searching for any knowledge, just spreading your POV.
Where am I wrong? I have to ask myself why I continue to talk with someone like that. Maybe I am as dumb as you say.
I'm a real piece of work? You were the one that started us on this. Apparently you need our conversation posted again:
Nipples: All the things you seem you hang onto as lies from this president were things that the world community has known for years as true.
Giant: Such as? And I want figures.
Nipples: Do you accept that SH used WMD on his own people and on the Iranians or is that just hype too?
The US sold him WMD to fight Iran and he used them since on the kurds. Intel sources know roughly what he had at that point and and knew he was trying to acquire and make more. SH did not account for the known quantities of WMD and has yet to. This has been accepted as truth by the world community as evidenced by UN resolutions on the matter.
Giant: [Response to point one then...] I said figures, didn't I? Or have you not actually looked into the sources of those claims, right down to the individual documents?
Nipples: I will give you this, you have mastered the art of diversion.
Giant: So does this mean we won't be discussing the actual topic, as you pointed out, Iraqi WMD capabilities?
Nipples: Then in the middle of that one you do it again, and BAM we are all out on some tangent.
Nipples: [something on clinton]
Giant: [response to nipples' clinton comments]
Nipples: I am not opposed to agree to disagree but you keep throwing in other topics requiring further discussion.
Giant: I'm still waiting for you to give me tonnage claims for each chemical weapon and the original sources for each figure.
As I said, WTF?
Anyway, I have new wave flicks to watch. Later, man...
- UNSCOM supervised the destruction of more than 40,000 chemical munitions, nearly 500,000 liters of chemical agents, 1.8 million liters of chemical precursors, and seven different types of delivery systems, including ballistic missile warheads.
- UNSCOM discovered a document at Iraqi Air Force headquarters in July 1998 showing that Iraq overstated by at least 6,000 the number of chemical bombs it told the UN it had used during the Iran-Iraq War?bombs that remain are unaccounted for.
- Iraq has not accounted for 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were its preferred means for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent.
- Iraq probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents.
- Baghdad did not provide persuasive evidence to support its claims that it unilaterally destroyed its BW agents and munitions._ Experts from UNSCOM assessed that Baghdad's declarations vastly understated the production of biological agents and estimated that Iraq actually produced two-to-four times the amount of agent that it acknowledged producing, including Bacillus anthracis?the causative agent of anthrax?and botulinum toxin.
These are quotes from the cia site and I take them at face value, if you like I could look up and cross reference with the UN stuff. I really don't see the need.
This was after about 5 minutes of looking, I suppose I could find more if you like.
You should be able to explain your line of reasoning on a given point in a pithy way that even I could understand, right?
Just because you seem to fail to grasp the point doesn't mean that I didn't explain my line of reasoning over and over and over and over and over again.
I think the fault lies with you, sir.
Quote:
President Clinton 1/98: 'Think how many people 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 and send it to the city he wants to destroy. Think about all the terrorists and other bad actors who could parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores if we don't take action.'
Rgis the reasoning that the Clinton admin used. So I would have to say this is not a Neo-Con Conspiracy that you all are trying to say. [/B]
Well, for one thing, Clinton was far from being a liberal. As a New Democrat, he was effectively a conservative in democrat clothing. And as Giant points out, it's not like there weren't people pushing Clinton to do this same thing. Secondly, Clinton is not talking about toppling the Iraqi government in that quote. He's talking about the US acting alone to neutralize threats (i.e. drop some bombs). But we're not talking about Clinton. We're talking about Bush, what Bush did, and why Bush did it.
As I have said OVER AND OVER, 9/11 gave Bush the entree into an invasion of Iraq. But in order to accomplish that, he had to LIE about the reasons we were invading, since Americans won't support a war based on *potential* threats. It is dishonorable, and the logic is truly terrifying.
- UNSCOM supervised the destruction of more than 40,000 chemical munitions, nearly 500,000 liters of chemical agents, 1.8 million liters of chemical precursors, and seven different types of delivery systems, including ballistic missile warheads.
I guess you missed the word 'destruction' there
Quote:
- UNSCOM discovered a document at Iraqi Air Force headquarters in July 1998 showing that Iraq overstated by at least 6,000 the number of chemical bombs it told the UN it had used during the Iran-Iraq War?bombs that remain are unaccounted for.
Oh, come on. Here, look:
Quote:
Iraq provided the 6-page "Air Force" document to UNMOVIC on 30 November 2002, as discussed in an article in The Times of 21 December. After reviewing it, Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, in his notes for briefing the Security Council of 9 January 2003, stated:
"The so-called Air Force document, which was provided separately from the Declaration, relates to the consumption of chemical munitions in the Iraq/Iran war. It was hoped that the submission of this document would help verify material balances regarding special munitions. After having analysed the document, we have concluded that it will in fact not contribute to resolving this issue. There remains therefore, a significant discrepancy concerning the numbers of special munitions."
Dr Blix elaborated on these comments in his update to the Security Council on 27 January 2003:
"The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."
Dr Blix clarified his position in his briefing to the Security Council on 14 February 2003:
"To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were 'unaccounted for'. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist."
More details are provided in the UNMOVIC Working Document of 6 March 2003: "Unresolved Disarmament Issues", p.50:
"The 'Air Force document' recently received by UNMOVIC introduces additional uncertainty in accounting as it indicates that 6,526 fewer aerial CW bombs (of gauges 250, 500 and DB-2 types) had been ?consumed? during the Iraq Iran War. Iraq has explained that the 'Air Force' document, which had been complied [sic] by one of its officers in 1995, was incomplete. According to Iraq, data on consumption of CW filled munitions positioned at three airbases was not included as the airbases had been occupied in 1991 and the records destroyed. This explanation is being reviewed by UNMOVIC."
Of these, 450 aerial bombs contained mustard, and would still be viable ("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", pp.76-77). The others, containing Sarin and Tabun, would no longer be of use (see below).
But even more importantly
Quote:
Jafar Dhia Jafar, a British-educated physicist who coördinated Iraq?s efforts to make the bomb in the nineteen-eighties, and who had direct access to Saddam Hussein, fled Iraq in early April, before Baghdad fell, and, with the help of his brother, Hamid, the managing director of a large energy company, made his way to the United Arab Emirates...
Jafar had his own explanation, according to the notes, for one of the enduring mysteries of the U.N. inspection process?the six-thousand-warhead discrepancy between the number of chemical weapons thought to have been manufactured by Iraq before 1991 and the number that were accounted for by the U.N. inspection teams. It was this discrepancy which led Western intelligence officials and military planners to make the worst-case assumptions. Jafar told his interrogators that the Iraqi government had simply lied to the United Nations about the number of chemical weapons used against Iran during the brutal Iran-Iraq war in the nineteen-eighties. Iraq, he said, dropped thousands more warheads on the Iranians than it acknowledged. For that reason, Saddam preferred not to account for the weapons at all.
From Hersh's The Stovepipe
Oh, and remember that no nerve agents whatsoever would be viable at this point. You can look at this site for detailed info on why that is. It also addresses each of the other statements in detail, I just don't have time to go through it all since I need to get to the theater:
These are quotes from the cia site and I take them at face value, if you like I could look up and cross reference with the UN stuff. I really don't see the need.
Clinton, not a liberal? That is new to me. Is that the tack liberals are taking now to explain away Clinton? Clinton a republican? You have obviously taken the liberal "revisionist history 101" class. That is actually funny. Your making a joke right?
Clinton, not a liberal? That is new to me. Is that the tack liberals are taking now to explain away Clinton? Clinton a republican? You have obviously taken the liberal "revisionist history 101" class. That is actually funny. Your making a joke right?
Ha.
Good lord. Try this on for size:
NAFTA= liberal policy?
Balanced budget = liberal policy?
Other than his tax hike on the rich, please point out why Clinton was a liberal, if you want to sidetrack this discussion.
I didn't say Clinton was a Republican. I said he was a conservative. He was obviously a democrat. But he, like most of the people in the democratic party at the national level, is hardly a liberal.
Instead of accusing me of revising history, I suggest you pay closer attention to it. Especially while it's happening. The hallmark of Clinton's presidency was that he would routinely co-opt Republican agenda items and get them passed and take the credit. How could they have possibly complained and not seemed like childish partisans? "But, but, that was our bill! We're opposed to it now!"
That's one of the reasons the Republicans hated him so much.
Clinton, not a liberal? That is new to me. Is that the tack liberals are taking now to explain away Clinton? Clinton a republican? You have obviously taken the liberal "revisionist history 101" class. That is actually funny. Your making a joke right?
Ha.
If you don't know the answer as to what clinton was then ....forget it.
The hallmark of Clinton's presidency was that he would routinely co-opt Republican agenda items and get them passed and take the credit.
You got the taking credit part right. It was the republican contract with america push that got a lot of the conservative agenda pushed forward. Did you forget about that little detail?
Comments
Originally posted by midwinter
Well, reading them would help you understand where we're all coming from with our arguments.
You should be able to explain your line of reasoning on a given point in a pithy way that even I could understand, right?
Originally posted by midwinter
No. Not "encourage democracy"; topple the existing government and install a democratic one.
Still I see no real problem a the old one was so evil, bad, or whatever word you use for it.
Originally posted by midwinter
The problem is that this is NOT what we were told. The admin did NOT lay out the standard neo-con line of reasoning (domino theory and all that). Had they done that, they most likely would not have been able to generate public support for the invasion. INSTEAD, they trotted out "evidence" that was quickly de-bunked, made claims about the immediacy of the threat to national security and freedom Iraq presented, and effectively LIED to the people about both the reason we were going there and the level of threat Iraq posed.
President Clinton 1/98: 'Think how many people 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 and send it to the city he wants to destroy. Think about all the terrorists and other bad actors who could parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores if we don't take action.'
Rgis the reasoning that the Clinton admin used. So I would have to say this is not a Neo-Con Conspiracy that you all are trying to say.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I would love to if you could stay on-task and hit things point by point. I mean, come on. In the middle of one discussion, you throw in a, "GWB is gay and the CIA covered it up" kind of thing, that requires a comment to point out the absurdity of the whole thing. Then in the middle of that one you do it again, and BAM we are all out on some tangent.
It make me a little woozy.
Every time I start to like you, you demonstrate again that you are just FOS (and I quote):
Nipples: All the things you seem you hang onto as lies from this president were things that the world community has known for years as true.
Giant: Such as? And I want figures.
Nipples: Do you accept that SH used WMD on his own people and on the Iranians or is that just hype too?
The US sold him WMD to fight Iran and he used them since on the kurds. Intel sources know roughly what he had at that point and and knew he was trying to acquire and make more. SH did not account for the known quantities of WMD and has yet to. This has been accepted as truth by the world community as evidenced by UN resolutions on the matter.
Giant: [Response to point one then...] I said figures, didn't I? Or have you not actually looked into the sources of those claims, right down to the individual documents?
Nipples: I will give you this, you have mastered the art of diversion.
Giant: So does this mean we won't be discussing the actual topic, as you pointed out, Iraqi WMD capabilities?
Nipples: Then in the middle of that one you do it again, and BAM we are all out on some tangent.
So remind me again, WTF?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Rgis the reasoning that the Clinton admin used. So I would have to say this is not a Neo-Con Conspiracy that you all are trying to say.
Actually, these same people were very much pushing clinton on iraq.
Edit: I should add that I don't claim authority at all on clinton's Iraq policy. What it seems like to me is that his admin didn't have a real developed one, and most actions appeared to be somewhat reactionary.
Originally posted by giant
Actually, these same people were very much pushing clinton on iraq
You are giving me a headache. Your mind works way different than mine does. Not that I think that that is bad, just it seems very difficult to reach any conclusion with you. I am not opposed to agree to disagree but you keep throwing in other topics requiring further discussion.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You are giving me a headache. Your mind works way different than mine does.
Yeah, I actually bother to learn about things before starting to come to conclusions.
If I say the sun rises in the east and you say it rises in the west, we don't call that a difference of opinion.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am not opposed to agree to disagree but you keep throwing in other topics requiring further discussion.
Oh, and WTF? You were the one that brought up clinton. I'm still waiting for you to give me tonnage claims for each chemical weapon and the original sources for each figure.
You are a real piece of work.
I am just wondering what you intend to accomplish here? You let everyone know you know it all, and they know nothing.
i jumped into this thread because I like to learn; learn other people's views and how they form them, to see if my views are from a reasonable standpoint, and such things.
You seem to be doing none of this. You seem like you are preaching to the quire. You seem to be trolling for disciples to the church of bash bush. All of this as WW III is going on all around you. You profess to know so much more than all here, are you just slumming it or what?
You seem to be in a perpetual state of defending liberalism, despite the fact that I never attacked liberalism or liberals. You don't seem to be searching for any knowledge, just spreading your POV.
Where am I wrong? I have to ask myself why I continue to talk with someone like that. Maybe I am as dumb as you say.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You are a real piece of work.
I'm a real piece of work? You were the one that started us on this. Apparently you need our conversation posted again:
Nipples: All the things you seem you hang onto as lies from this president were things that the world community has known for years as true.
Giant: Such as? And I want figures.
Nipples: Do you accept that SH used WMD on his own people and on the Iranians or is that just hype too?
The US sold him WMD to fight Iran and he used them since on the kurds. Intel sources know roughly what he had at that point and and knew he was trying to acquire and make more. SH did not account for the known quantities of WMD and has yet to. This has been accepted as truth by the world community as evidenced by UN resolutions on the matter.
Giant: [Response to point one then...] I said figures, didn't I? Or have you not actually looked into the sources of those claims, right down to the individual documents?
Nipples: I will give you this, you have mastered the art of diversion.
Giant: So does this mean we won't be discussing the actual topic, as you pointed out, Iraqi WMD capabilities?
Nipples: Then in the middle of that one you do it again, and BAM we are all out on some tangent.
Nipples: [something on clinton]
Giant: [response to nipples' clinton comments]
Nipples: I am not opposed to agree to disagree but you keep throwing in other topics requiring further discussion.
Giant: I'm still waiting for you to give me tonnage claims for each chemical weapon and the original sources for each figure.
As I said, WTF?
Anyway, I have new wave flicks to watch. Later, man...
- UNSCOM supervised the destruction of more than 40,000 chemical munitions, nearly 500,000 liters of chemical agents, 1.8 million liters of chemical precursors, and seven different types of delivery systems, including ballistic missile warheads.
- UNSCOM discovered a document at Iraqi Air Force headquarters in July 1998 showing that Iraq overstated by at least 6,000 the number of chemical bombs it told the UN it had used during the Iran-Iraq War?bombs that remain are unaccounted for.
- Iraq has not accounted for 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were its preferred means for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent.
- Iraq probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents.
- Baghdad did not provide persuasive evidence to support its claims that it unilaterally destroyed its BW agents and munitions._ Experts from UNSCOM assessed that Baghdad's declarations vastly understated the production of biological agents and estimated that Iraq actually produced two-to-four times the amount of agent that it acknowledged producing, including Bacillus anthracis?the causative agent of anthrax?and botulinum toxin.
These are quotes from the cia site and I take them at face value, if you like I could look up and cross reference with the UN stuff. I really don't see the need.
This was after about 5 minutes of looking, I suppose I could find more if you like.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You should be able to explain your line of reasoning on a given point in a pithy way that even I could understand, right?
Just because you seem to fail to grasp the point doesn't mean that I didn't explain my line of reasoning over and over and over and over and over again.
I think the fault lies with you, sir.
President Clinton 1/98: 'Think how many people 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 and send it to the city he wants to destroy. Think about all the terrorists and other bad actors who could parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores if we don't take action.'
Rgis the reasoning that the Clinton admin used. So I would have to say this is not a Neo-Con Conspiracy that you all are trying to say. [/B]
Well, for one thing, Clinton was far from being a liberal. As a New Democrat, he was effectively a conservative in democrat clothing. And as Giant points out, it's not like there weren't people pushing Clinton to do this same thing. Secondly, Clinton is not talking about toppling the Iraqi government in that quote. He's talking about the US acting alone to neutralize threats (i.e. drop some bombs). But we're not talking about Clinton. We're talking about Bush, what Bush did, and why Bush did it.
As I have said OVER AND OVER, 9/11 gave Bush the entree into an invasion of Iraq. But in order to accomplish that, he had to LIE about the reasons we were invading, since Americans won't support a war based on *potential* threats. It is dishonorable, and the logic is truly terrifying.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by NaplesX
- UNSCOM supervised the destruction of more than 40,000 chemical munitions, nearly 500,000 liters of chemical agents, 1.8 million liters of chemical precursors, and seven different types of delivery systems, including ballistic missile warheads.
I guess you missed the word 'destruction' there
- UNSCOM discovered a document at Iraqi Air Force headquarters in July 1998 showing that Iraq overstated by at least 6,000 the number of chemical bombs it told the UN it had used during the Iran-Iraq War?bombs that remain are unaccounted for.
Oh, come on. Here, look:
Iraq provided the 6-page "Air Force" document to UNMOVIC on 30 November 2002, as discussed in an article in The Times of 21 December. After reviewing it, Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, in his notes for briefing the Security Council of 9 January 2003, stated:
"The so-called Air Force document, which was provided separately from the Declaration, relates to the consumption of chemical munitions in the Iraq/Iran war. It was hoped that the submission of this document would help verify material balances regarding special munitions. After having analysed the document, we have concluded that it will in fact not contribute to resolving this issue. There remains therefore, a significant discrepancy concerning the numbers of special munitions."
Dr Blix elaborated on these comments in his update to the Security Council on 27 January 2003:
"The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."
Dr Blix clarified his position in his briefing to the Security Council on 14 February 2003:
"To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were 'unaccounted for'. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist."
More details are provided in the UNMOVIC Working Document of 6 March 2003: "Unresolved Disarmament Issues", p.50:
"The 'Air Force document' recently received by UNMOVIC introduces additional uncertainty in accounting as it indicates that 6,526 fewer aerial CW bombs (of gauges 250, 500 and DB-2 types) had been ?consumed? during the Iraq Iran War. Iraq has explained that the 'Air Force' document, which had been complied [sic] by one of its officers in 1995, was incomplete. According to Iraq, data on consumption of CW filled munitions positioned at three airbases was not included as the airbases had been occupied in 1991 and the records destroyed. This explanation is being reviewed by UNMOVIC."
Of these, 450 aerial bombs contained mustard, and would still be viable ("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", pp.76-77). The others, containing Sarin and Tabun, would no longer be of use (see below).
But even more importantly
Jafar Dhia Jafar, a British-educated physicist who coördinated Iraq?s efforts to make the bomb in the nineteen-eighties, and who had direct access to Saddam Hussein, fled Iraq in early April, before Baghdad fell, and, with the help of his brother, Hamid, the managing director of a large energy company, made his way to the United Arab Emirates...
Jafar had his own explanation, according to the notes, for one of the enduring mysteries of the U.N. inspection process?the six-thousand-warhead discrepancy between the number of chemical weapons thought to have been manufactured by Iraq before 1991 and the number that were accounted for by the U.N. inspection teams. It was this discrepancy which led Western intelligence officials and military planners to make the worst-case assumptions. Jafar told his interrogators that the Iraqi government had simply lied to the United Nations about the number of chemical weapons used against Iran during the brutal Iran-Iraq war in the nineteen-eighties. Iraq, he said, dropped thousands more warheads on the Iranians than it acknowledged. For that reason, Saddam preferred not to account for the weapons at all.
From Hersh's The Stovepipe
Oh, and remember that no nerve agents whatsoever would be viable at this point. You can look at this site for detailed info on why that is. It also addresses each of the other statements in detail, I just don't have time to go through it all since I need to get to the theater:
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html
Oh, and you can get further info in the otlines here:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/w...q/default.html
These are quotes from the cia site and I take them at face value, if you like I could look up and cross reference with the UN stuff. I really don't see the need.
How about now, smart guy?
Ha.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Clinton, not a liberal? That is new to me. Is that the tack liberals are taking now to explain away Clinton? Clinton a republican? You have obviously taken the liberal "revisionist history 101" class. That is actually funny. Your making a joke right?
Ha.
Good lord. Try this on for size:
NAFTA= liberal policy?
Balanced budget = liberal policy?
Other than his tax hike on the rich, please point out why Clinton was a liberal, if you want to sidetrack this discussion.
I didn't say Clinton was a Republican. I said he was a conservative. He was obviously a democrat. But he, like most of the people in the democratic party at the national level, is hardly a liberal.
Instead of accusing me of revising history, I suggest you pay closer attention to it. Especially while it's happening. The hallmark of Clinton's presidency was that he would routinely co-opt Republican agenda items and get them passed and take the credit. How could they have possibly complained and not seemed like childish partisans? "But, but, that was our bill! We're opposed to it now!"
That's one of the reasons the Republicans hated him so much.
Cheers
Scott
Here's that essay. Turns out it was from Esquire. clicky.
Enjoy.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by NaplesX
Clinton, not a liberal? That is new to me. Is that the tack liberals are taking now to explain away Clinton? Clinton a republican? You have obviously taken the liberal "revisionist history 101" class. That is actually funny. Your making a joke right?
Ha.
If you don't know the answer as to what clinton was then ....forget it.
let me guess.
you think the media is liberal too.
Originally posted by midwinter
Other than his tax hike on the rich, please point out why Clinton was a liberal, if you want to sidetrack this discussion.
Lets not forget the clinton health care bill.
Sorry I meant conservative.
Originally posted by midwinter
The hallmark of Clinton's presidency was that he would routinely co-opt Republican agenda items and get them passed and take the credit.
You got the taking credit part right. It was the republican contract with america push that got a lot of the conservative agenda pushed forward. Did you forget about that little detail?
Originally posted by keyboardf12
you think the media is liberal too.
Probably not any more than you probably thing there is a 'vast right wing conspiracy"
Originally posted by NaplesX
The stuff you quoted does not say that the WMD does not exist.
Put it together:
"WMD that are unaccounted for" + SH lied about the numbers of weapons he had = very, very likely that there are no WMD