Well considering what he's done to this country so far.....
I rest my case.
(you know the one that says you are just a partisan parrot, with no real desire to set things right, just the determination to smear anyone who is a republican...right before an election, because that is what you ultimately want is a democrat in that office, any including Dean, arguably the most extreme left in a long time.)
just got back and am trying to catch up to where you guys are right now....
jimmac I don't think it would hurt your argument to include a caveat regarding the potential that a hidden chemical weapons cache could be uncovered. I recently saw photos of a Russian MIG that was covered with sand. There's a lot of sand over there, a lot of places to hide things. Remember how intricate the tunnels were in Vietnam? Far more ingenious than anyone originally gave the Vietnamese credit for building. I would assert the same could be said for anyone on the planet. The fact that nothing has been found yet isn't proof that it never existed....just modify your wording to include the possibility that weapons could be discovered. It by no means invalidates your argument.
Bunge, I don't mean to imply that there was an organized Illuminati-style plan afoot by the member nations to resist the UN's entry into an American-initiated police action against Iraq. I do suggest that the member nations who did resist had gamed the scenario to see how it would play to their own peoples and how it might in the long run affect their power in the UN. Russia was delighted that Europe seemed to fall in their direction...they postulated a Russian-led EU voting bloc in the near future. Here's a good BBC Link on that topic.
(you know the one that says you are just a partisan parrot, with no real desire to set things right, just the determination to smear anyone who is a republican...right before an election, because that is what you ultimately want is a democrat in that office, any including Dean, arguably the most extreme left in a long time.)
Oh geez you're so transparent. Waiting until I left so you could get one more jab in.
Pathetic.
By the way right before the election is a very appropriate time to reevaluate one's leaders.
just got back and am trying to catch up to where you guys are right now....
jimmac I don't think it would hurt your argument to include a caveat regarding the potential that a hidden chemical weapons cache could be uncovered. I recently saw photos of a Russian MIG that was covered with sand. There's a lot of sand over there, a lot of places to hide things. Remember how intricate the tunnels were in Vietnam? Far more ingenious than anyone originally gave the Vietnamese credit for building. I would assert the same could be said for anyone on the planet. The fact that nothing has been found yet isn't proof that it never existed....just modify your wording to include the possibility that weapons could be discovered. It by no means invalidates your argument.
Bunge, I don't mean to imply that there was an organized Illuminati-style plan afoot by the member nations to resist the UN's entry into an American-initiated police action against Iraq. I do suggest that the member nations who did resist had gamed the scenario to see how it would play to their own peoples and how it might in the long run affect their power in the UN. Russia was delighted that Europe seemed to fall in their direction...they postulated a Russian-led EU voting bloc in the near future. Here's a good BBC Link on that topic.
Okay, need to read more....and other business.
How would he deploy it? Rememeber it has to be a threat to us so maybe an ICBM or a super SCUD.
just got back and am trying to catch up to where you guys are right now....
jimmac I don't think it would hurt your argument to include a caveat regarding the potential that a hidden chemical weapons cache could be uncovered. I recently saw photos of a Russian MIG that was covered with sand. There's a lot of sand over there, a lot of places to hide things. Remember how intricate the tunnels were in Vietnam? Far more ingenious than anyone originally gave the Vietnamese credit for building. I would assert the same could be said for anyone on the planet. The fact that nothing has been found yet isn't proof that it never existed....just modify your wording to include the possibility that weapons could be discovered. It by no means invalidates your argument.
Drew you are a wise man. Well said. Jim, that is what I have been trying to get across, you gave accepted one and only one possibility and it makes you sound like a rigid partisan.
I just read the fabled SOU speech that laid out the reasons for war.
You argument fails you. Bush said the threat was SH could give WMD's to terrorist organizations. This in turn was a threat to the the region and the US because we are the main target of terrorism.
Here is a direct quote from the transcript:
"With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."
Drew you are a wise man. Well said. Jim, that is what I have been trying to get across, you gave accepted one and only one possibility and it makes you sound like a rigid partisan.
Because it's the most likely.
Most discoveries in science work that way. We know it works we just don't know how. We don't until you eiliminate the other possibilities.
After all this time it really looks like there aren't any others.
I didn't buy Sadaam as a direct threat from the get go. The reason he knows what would happen if he didn't go along. Also it's pretty far fetched to believe he'd have any way to deploy this. And NaplesX before you start Bush wasn't building a case for this war with " He'll attck nearby countries. It was us he was talking about. Once again ( and I think this is the 3rd time I've said this ) if he had he wouldn't have gotten any support for this war. And that's what's wrong here.
Saddam didn't have any way to attack us in a way that constitutes a threat.
If Bush wanted to build a case on attacking middle eastern countries he should have said so. But he knew as well I do it wouldn't have gone anywhere.
I just read the fabled SOU speech that laid out the reasons for war.
You argument fails you. Bush said the threat was SH could give WMD's to terrorist organizations. This in turn was a threat to the the region and the US because we are the main target of terrorism.
Here is a direct quote from the transcript:
"With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."
How about this part :
" Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons? "
Where's the proof on this one :
" We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States. "
" If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. "
Yes Mr. Bush and how would he send it here?
" Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. "
Yes Mr. Bush lets run headlong into war with out asking why. Yeah, that'll scare em'.
" The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear. "
Hmmmm? Given the title of this thread we still seem to be in fear even though we attacked Iraq, clearly won, and Saddam is in custody.
Provide the speeches these came from because these are not from the SOU that I clearly quoted from.
I gave you the link. I couldn't find the war speech on the spur of the moment do you have a link? It wasn't just the one speech he sold this from you know.
I gave you the link. I couldn't find the war speech on the spur of the moment do you have a link? It wasn't just the one speech he sold this from you know.
How can you argue a viewpoint thrown together so haphazardly?
" Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons? "
Where's the proof on this one :
This was quoted from the October 7, 2002 Cincinnati speech, all quotes here were from that speech.
"New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN."
"Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS)."
" We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States. "
Also from the Kay INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT:
"A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range ofÂ_ 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit."
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
" If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. "
Yes Mr. Bush and how would he send it here?
refer to first quote. Not to mention a dirty bomb which was mentioned over and over by this admin.
This was the preliminary report, we do not have the full report yet. Not only that this is a summary of the full report. Most of it is still classified.
For what it is worth. It's time to take off the glasses.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
Please. Your democrat compatriots will not let that happen.
I guess through "bush hating glasses" he looks like the devil too.
Well considering what he's done to this country so far.....
Originally posted by jimmac
Well considering what he's done to this country so far.....
I rest my case.
(you know the one that says you are just a partisan parrot, with no real desire to set things right, just the determination to smear anyone who is a republican...right before an election, because that is what you ultimately want is a democrat in that office, any including Dean, arguably the most extreme left in a long time.)
jimmac I don't think it would hurt your argument to include a caveat regarding the potential that a hidden chemical weapons cache could be uncovered. I recently saw photos of a Russian MIG that was covered with sand. There's a lot of sand over there, a lot of places to hide things. Remember how intricate the tunnels were in Vietnam? Far more ingenious than anyone originally gave the Vietnamese credit for building. I would assert the same could be said for anyone on the planet. The fact that nothing has been found yet isn't proof that it never existed....just modify your wording to include the possibility that weapons could be discovered. It by no means invalidates your argument.
Bunge, I don't mean to imply that there was an organized Illuminati-style plan afoot by the member nations to resist the UN's entry into an American-initiated police action against Iraq. I do suggest that the member nations who did resist had gamed the scenario to see how it would play to their own peoples and how it might in the long run affect their power in the UN. Russia was delighted that Europe seemed to fall in their direction...they postulated a Russian-led EU voting bloc in the near future. Here's a good BBC Link on that topic.
Okay, need to read more....and other business.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I rest my case.
(you know the one that says you are just a partisan parrot, with no real desire to set things right, just the determination to smear anyone who is a republican...right before an election, because that is what you ultimately want is a democrat in that office, any including Dean, arguably the most extreme left in a long time.)
Oh geez you're so transparent. Waiting until I left so you could get one more jab in.
Pathetic.
By the way right before the election is a very appropriate time to reevaluate one's leaders.
Originally posted by drewprops
just got back and am trying to catch up to where you guys are right now....
jimmac I don't think it would hurt your argument to include a caveat regarding the potential that a hidden chemical weapons cache could be uncovered. I recently saw photos of a Russian MIG that was covered with sand. There's a lot of sand over there, a lot of places to hide things. Remember how intricate the tunnels were in Vietnam? Far more ingenious than anyone originally gave the Vietnamese credit for building. I would assert the same could be said for anyone on the planet. The fact that nothing has been found yet isn't proof that it never existed....just modify your wording to include the possibility that weapons could be discovered. It by no means invalidates your argument.
Bunge, I don't mean to imply that there was an organized Illuminati-style plan afoot by the member nations to resist the UN's entry into an American-initiated police action against Iraq. I do suggest that the member nations who did resist had gamed the scenario to see how it would play to their own peoples and how it might in the long run affect their power in the UN. Russia was delighted that Europe seemed to fall in their direction...they postulated a Russian-led EU voting bloc in the near future. Here's a good BBC Link on that topic.
Okay, need to read more....and other business.
How would he deploy it? Rememeber it has to be a threat to us so maybe an ICBM or a super SCUD.
Originally posted by drewprops
just got back and am trying to catch up to where you guys are right now....
jimmac I don't think it would hurt your argument to include a caveat regarding the potential that a hidden chemical weapons cache could be uncovered. I recently saw photos of a Russian MIG that was covered with sand. There's a lot of sand over there, a lot of places to hide things. Remember how intricate the tunnels were in Vietnam? Far more ingenious than anyone originally gave the Vietnamese credit for building. I would assert the same could be said for anyone on the planet. The fact that nothing has been found yet isn't proof that it never existed....just modify your wording to include the possibility that weapons could be discovered. It by no means invalidates your argument.
Drew you are a wise man. Well said. Jim, that is what I have been trying to get across, you gave accepted one and only one possibility and it makes you sound like a rigid partisan.
You argument fails you. Bush said the threat was SH could give WMD's to terrorist organizations. This in turn was a threat to the the region and the US because we are the main target of terrorism.
Here is a direct quote from the transcript:
"With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."
Originally posted by NaplesX
Drew you are a wise man. Well said. Jim, that is what I have been trying to get across, you gave accepted one and only one possibility and it makes you sound like a rigid partisan.
Because it's the most likely.
Most discoveries in science work that way. We know it works we just don't know how. We don't until you eiliminate the other possibilities.
After all this time it really looks like there aren't any others.
I didn't buy Sadaam as a direct threat from the get go. The reason he knows what would happen if he didn't go along. Also it's pretty far fetched to believe he'd have any way to deploy this. And NaplesX before you start Bush wasn't building a case for this war with " He'll attck nearby countries. It was us he was talking about. Once again ( and I think this is the 3rd time I've said this ) if he had he wouldn't have gotten any support for this war. And that's what's wrong here.
Saddam didn't have any way to attack us in a way that constitutes a threat.
If Bush wanted to build a case on attacking middle eastern countries he should have said so. But he knew as well I do it wouldn't have gone anywhere.
Originally posted by jimmac
Saddam didn't have any way to attack us in a way that constitutes a threat.
If Bush wanted to build a case on attacking middle eastern countries he should have said so. But he knew as well I do it wouldn't have gone anywhere.
Read the previous reply, he did.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I just read the fabled SOU speech that laid out the reasons for war.
You argument fails you. Bush said the threat was SH could give WMD's to terrorist organizations. This in turn was a threat to the the region and the US because we are the main target of terrorism.
Here is a direct quote from the transcript:
"With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."
How about this part :
" Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons? "
Where's the proof on this one :
" We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States. "
" If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. "
Yes Mr. Bush and how would he send it here?
" Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. "
Yes Mr. Bush lets run headlong into war with out asking why. Yeah, that'll scare em'.
" The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear. "
Hmmmm? Given the title of this thread we still seem to be in fear even though we attacked Iraq, clearly won, and Saddam is in custody.
A link you might be interested in :
http://www.accuracy.org/bush/
Originally posted by NaplesX
Provide the speeches these came from because these are not from the SOU that I clearly quoted from.
I gave you the link. I couldn't find the war speech on the spur of the moment do you have a link? It wasn't just the one speech he sold this from you know.
Originally posted by jimmac
I gave you the link. I couldn't find the war speech on the spur of the moment do you have a link? It wasn't just the one speech he sold this from you know.
How can you argue a viewpoint thrown together so haphazardly?
Don't worry I will find them and reply.
Originally posted by jimmac
oops! I guess now that you saw I was gone you left.
how can I tell that?
Originally posted by NaplesX
how can I tell that?
All you have to do is look to see who's browsing this forum ( as if you didn't know ). It's at the top of the forum.
Originally posted by jimmac
" Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons? "
Where's the proof on this one :
This was quoted from the October 7, 2002 Cincinnati speech, all quotes here were from that speech.
Kay INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT (link: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair..._10022003.html) talking about evidence that was found.
"New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN."
"Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS)."
Picture: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair...7vials_300.jpg
Originally posted by jimmac
" We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States. "
Also from the Kay INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT:
"A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range ofÂ_ 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit."
Originally posted by jimmac
" If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. "
Yes Mr. Bush and how would he send it here?
refer to first quote. Not to mention a dirty bomb which was mentioned over and over by this admin.
This was the preliminary report, we do not have the full report yet. Not only that this is a summary of the full report. Most of it is still classified.
For what it is worth. It's time to take off the glasses.