Iraq WMD report
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=8&u=/nm/20040108/wl_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_dc[^] Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
What else would you expect from a radical-liberal think-tank. I never believed the US was in any imminent danger from Saddam. I did believe that Saddam might pass on WMD secrets to terrorists. From these 2 viewpoints you can have all sorts of fun whereby the rabid anti-US/pro-Saddam people will tell you that this means Bush lied whereas the anti-terrosist/anti-Saddam people will say that potentially transferring WMD technology to terrorist groups is enough of a threat to warrent action. I personally don't care that his pre-1990 VX gas was nearly impotent. He knew how to whip up a batch using chemicals and equipment that had dual uses and were thus hidden in plain site just waiting for France and Russia - Saddam's military and economic allies - to force the UN into abandoning sanctions. Thank god the US wasn't stupid enough to listen to assholes like that and thank god the president wasn't weak enough to listen to snivelling pro-terrosist think tanks when it came to formulating national security policy.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
Yeah, and it is even nicer that these are American bodies that are conducting such investigations. Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
pankajdaga wrote: Yeah, and it is even nicer that these are American bodies that are conducting such investigations. American bodies who are rabidly anti-Bush. You would expect to hear such "think tanks" parroting the positions also held by France, Syria and other pro-terrorist nations. Sure sounds cute to smirk and say that though! It damn near makes sense. But just because the think-tank was AMERICAN, it was not a GOVERNMENT study. it was an extremely partisan study released to show the Bush govt. in the worst possible light. Get over it - your buddy Saddam is gone. Americans are on the ground in force in the heart of the middle east and all of your whining and the whining of a billion of your jealous little wankers isn't going to change that fact. A vote for the US to stop its war on terrorism is a vote for the terrorists!
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
I'm so tired of hearing about this. Yeah, I thought Iraq had WMD. Yeah, I thought it justified a war. Yeah, I thought Saddam ranked up there with the rest of the worlds worst dictators. I learned an important lesson and I'm humbled by it.
Sorry to hear you wish Saddam was still in power :(
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
What else would you expect from a radical-liberal think-tank. I never believed the US was in any imminent danger from Saddam. I did believe that Saddam might pass on WMD secrets to terrorists. From these 2 viewpoints you can have all sorts of fun whereby the rabid anti-US/pro-Saddam people will tell you that this means Bush lied whereas the anti-terrosist/anti-Saddam people will say that potentially transferring WMD technology to terrorist groups is enough of a threat to warrent action. I personally don't care that his pre-1990 VX gas was nearly impotent. He knew how to whip up a batch using chemicals and equipment that had dual uses and were thus hidden in plain site just waiting for France and Russia - Saddam's military and economic allies - to force the UN into abandoning sanctions. Thank god the US wasn't stupid enough to listen to assholes like that and thank god the president wasn't weak enough to listen to snivelling pro-terrosist think tanks when it came to formulating national security policy.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!I've had a revelation - Terry is actually Mike Moore trolling to try and make those who oppose his views look narrow minded, bigoted and stupid. I dunno why it took me this long to figure it out. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Sorry to hear you wish Saddam was still in power :(
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
I've had a revelation - Terry is actually Mike Moore trolling to try and make those who oppose his views look narrow minded, bigoted and stupid. I dunno why it took me this long to figure it out. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
What else would you expect from a radical-liberal think-tank. I never believed the US was in any imminent danger from Saddam. I did believe that Saddam might pass on WMD secrets to terrorists. From these 2 viewpoints you can have all sorts of fun whereby the rabid anti-US/pro-Saddam people will tell you that this means Bush lied whereas the anti-terrosist/anti-Saddam people will say that potentially transferring WMD technology to terrorist groups is enough of a threat to warrent action. I personally don't care that his pre-1990 VX gas was nearly impotent. He knew how to whip up a batch using chemicals and equipment that had dual uses and were thus hidden in plain site just waiting for France and Russia - Saddam's military and economic allies - to force the UN into abandoning sanctions. Thank god the US wasn't stupid enough to listen to assholes like that and thank god the president wasn't weak enough to listen to snivelling pro-terrosist think tanks when it came to formulating national security policy.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!Hi, How come you are so whole-heartedly convinced that Saddam had WMDs? Before you start screaming and clog up the bandwidth, I would clarify that I am no fan of Saddam and one good thing out of all of this is that he is gone. However, the US/UK said that the main reason for going into Iraq was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. However, here is why I am leaning to the belief that it was utter nonsense. 1: No weapons of mass destruction have been found. 2: Sure people say that Saddam transferred or destroyed it before the war. If Saddam indeed did that, he could have averted the war by opening the gates to really full-fledged investigation. The weapons are gone, why not invite people over. 3: Even if he destroyed the weapons, they would still leave traces in the soils and the effect would be seen for many years. That is a lot of WMDs we are talking about. 4: Sure he transferred tons and tons of weapons of mass destruction but himself was hiding in a bunker probably for months like a dog that he is. I am sorry somehow things do not add up here. Pardon my skepticism, but I would not believe none of this they come up with some real evidence. I would rather keep an open mind than stroke myself into ignorance and blind faith. Sorry Terry, could not resist ;P Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
-
It's people like Terry that make so many people not in the USA love him. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Hi, How come you are so whole-heartedly convinced that Saddam had WMDs? Before you start screaming and clog up the bandwidth, I would clarify that I am no fan of Saddam and one good thing out of all of this is that he is gone. However, the US/UK said that the main reason for going into Iraq was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. However, here is why I am leaning to the belief that it was utter nonsense. 1: No weapons of mass destruction have been found. 2: Sure people say that Saddam transferred or destroyed it before the war. If Saddam indeed did that, he could have averted the war by opening the gates to really full-fledged investigation. The weapons are gone, why not invite people over. 3: Even if he destroyed the weapons, they would still leave traces in the soils and the effect would be seen for many years. That is a lot of WMDs we are talking about. 4: Sure he transferred tons and tons of weapons of mass destruction but himself was hiding in a bunker probably for months like a dog that he is. I am sorry somehow things do not add up here. Pardon my skepticism, but I would not believe none of this they come up with some real evidence. I would rather keep an open mind than stroke myself into ignorance and blind faith. Sorry Terry, could not resist ;P Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
pankajdaga wrote: If Saddam indeed did that, he could have averted the war by opening the gates to really full-fledged investigation. The weapons are gone, why not invite people over. Exactly! Why do you believe that he did NOT open the gates?? :confused: Please allow me to introduce myself - I’m a man of wealth and taste. I’ve been around for a long, long year - Stole many a man’s soul and faith
-
Actually, the fact that he can't kill and torture women and children is very comforting. I'm glad he's not in power.
Then don't be humbled. Believing the US/UN/Saddam himself/Iraqi defectors/etc were all lying is quite unbelievable. It is more likely Saddam was lying and all of those other groups believed it. You are not a victim.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
pankajdaga wrote: If Saddam indeed did that, he could have averted the war by opening the gates to really full-fledged investigation. The weapons are gone, why not invite people over. Exactly! Why do you believe that he did NOT open the gates?? :confused: Please allow me to introduce myself - I’m a man of wealth and taste. I’ve been around for a long, long year - Stole many a man’s soul and faith
He had opened the gates. The UN inspectors were never given a chance! Well, now the gates are open! Where are the weapons?? Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
-
I've had a revelation - Terry is actually Mike Moore trolling to try and make those who oppose his views look narrow minded, bigoted and stupid. I dunno why it took me this long to figure it out. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: I've had a revelation - Terry is actually Mike Moore trolling to try and make those who oppose his views look narrow minded, bigoted and stupid. I dunno why it took me this long to figure it out. HuuuuuuuuuUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHH?!??!?!??!?!? Christian Graus wrote: narrow minded Trust me - the width of my mind is in no way represented by the tiny slice of issues I choose to post about here. For you to suggest that a persons entire width of mind can be determined by their personal opinion about the Iraq liberation is rather troubling. Christian Graus wrote: bigoted Who do you think I am bigoted against? Christian Graus wrote: stupid I'd hate to think you found interest in debating issues with a stupid person.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
It's people like Terry that make so many people not in the USA love him. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: It's people like Terry that make so many people not in the USA love him. I had no idea....... Wow.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
Christian Graus wrote: I've had a revelation - Terry is actually Mike Moore trolling to try and make those who oppose his views look narrow minded, bigoted and stupid. I dunno why it took me this long to figure it out. HuuuuuuuuuUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHH?!??!?!??!?!? Christian Graus wrote: narrow minded Trust me - the width of my mind is in no way represented by the tiny slice of issues I choose to post about here. For you to suggest that a persons entire width of mind can be determined by their personal opinion about the Iraq liberation is rather troubling. Christian Graus wrote: bigoted Who do you think I am bigoted against? Christian Graus wrote: stupid I'd hate to think you found interest in debating issues with a stupid person.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!Terry O`Nolley wrote: . For you to suggest that a persons entire width of mind can be determined by their personal opinion about the Iraq liberation is rather troubling. By narrow minded, I mean completely unable to consider an alternative point of view on a specific subject, not holding opinions on a narrow range of subjects, but holding narrow opinions on a range of subjects. Terry O`Nolley wrote: Who do you think I am bigoted against? Anyone willing to criticise any aspect of US policy. Terry O`Nolley wrote: I'd hate to think you found interest in debating issues with a stupid person. We don't debate, that would involve you addressing issues more and making wild accusations a lot less. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
pankajdaga wrote: If Saddam indeed did that, he could have averted the war by opening the gates to really full-fledged investigation. The weapons are gone, why not invite people over. Exactly! Why do you believe that he did NOT open the gates?? :confused: Please allow me to introduce myself - I’m a man of wealth and taste. I’ve been around for a long, long year - Stole many a man’s soul and faith
See, I would also like to clarify that I am just trying to be a rational person, to look at facts (as they are being presented by various media) and try to draw a picture. Somehow to me it seems that there is no way he had WMDs. He destroyed everything so perfectly in such a short time that no trace remains of any WMDs. One has to be totally blinded, brain-washed or a total moron like Terry who pays no regards to any facts to be absolutely sure that Saddam was the threat that he was made out to be and that US did not make up facts here. Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
-
pankajdaga wrote: Yeah, and it is even nicer that these are American bodies that are conducting such investigations. American bodies who are rabidly anti-Bush. You would expect to hear such "think tanks" parroting the positions also held by France, Syria and other pro-terrorist nations. Sure sounds cute to smirk and say that though! It damn near makes sense. But just because the think-tank was AMERICAN, it was not a GOVERNMENT study. it was an extremely partisan study released to show the Bush govt. in the worst possible light. Get over it - your buddy Saddam is gone. Americans are on the ground in force in the heart of the middle east and all of your whining and the whining of a billion of your jealous little wankers isn't going to change that fact. A vote for the US to stop its war on terrorism is a vote for the terrorists!
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!Terry O`Nolley wrote: Get over it - your buddy Saddam is gone. Americans are on the ground in force in the heart of the middle east and all of your whining and the whining of a billion of your jealous little wankers isn't going to change that fact. You do sound like a very mature person. Maybe you can do some wanking after you get it out of Bush's ass. What a dumbass you are. Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
-
He had opened the gates. The UN inspectors were never given a chance! Well, now the gates are open! Where are the weapons?? Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
-
pankajdaga wrote: The UN inspectors were never given a chance! Ummmm... he threw them out. Please allow me to introduce myself - I’m a man of wealth and taste. I’ve been around for a long, long year - Stole many a man’s soul and faith
Not during the inspection before this war started. They chief inspector even said that they need more time but US got too ansy. Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: . For you to suggest that a persons entire width of mind can be determined by their personal opinion about the Iraq liberation is rather troubling. By narrow minded, I mean completely unable to consider an alternative point of view on a specific subject, not holding opinions on a narrow range of subjects, but holding narrow opinions on a range of subjects. Terry O`Nolley wrote: Who do you think I am bigoted against? Anyone willing to criticise any aspect of US policy. Terry O`Nolley wrote: I'd hate to think you found interest in debating issues with a stupid person. We don't debate, that would involve you addressing issues more and making wild accusations a lot less. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: By narrow minded, I mean completely unable to consider an alternative point of view on a specific subject, not holding opinions on a narrow range of subjects, but holding narrow opinions on a range of subjects. So, anyone who disagrees with you on a specific subject is narrow-minded. Care to change your mind and agree with me? If not, you are narrow minded. You also have no right to claim that I do not even consider other viewpoints. I have already stated that the proof of lack of WMD is looking like it will bear enough weight to change my opinion on the actual amount of WMD in Iraq immediately prior to the war. I still do not believe that the USA/UN/iraqi defectors were lying about them. If it turns out that they had no WMD, it will only mean that we were fooled. If it is proven that Bush knew that Saddam had no WMD and no intent of producing them then I will be the one lied to instead of the US govt. But (even though I didn't vote for Bush) I would feel the invasion was still justified because of the other reasons we listed as factors in removing Saddam. Christian Graus wrote: Anyone willing to criticise any aspect of US policy. This isn't true and you know it. I have a very narrow range of subjects that I am vocal about. You choose to read that to mean I am a 1-dimensional Bush sycophant. Personally, I don't care. But I just thought I throw it out there in case you weren't bigoted and narrow minded. Christian Graus wrote: We don't debate, that would involve you addressing issues more and making wild accusations a lot less. How many more issues do I need to offer my opinions/responses to my opinions/responses to those responses/etc./etc. before I can claim to be debating issues? Obviously we aren't debating now. I am prepared to offer a logic chain for any "wild accusations" I have made. You may choose to not agree with my logic. You may even go to the extraordinary step of offering counter-logic rather than flatly labelling my opinion a "wild accusation".
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=8&u=/nm/20040108/wl_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_dc[^] Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
From the article: that U.N. weapons inspectors had discovered that nerve agents in Iraq's chemical weapons program had lost most of their lethal capability as early as 1991. The weird thing is that Time magazine's report said that Saddam's military had kept a few chemical artillery munitions (undeclared to UN inspectors) because they wanted to see how long it could be stored for. The article said that they opened the munitions before Gulf War 2 and the chemical agents were nearly 100% as lethal as the day they had created them - in direct contradiction to the think tank's statement. It's also worth noting what the BBC said about the think tank's report: The report is from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a liberal think tank in Washington, which opposed the war, arguing that UN inspections should continue. I somewhat agree with the report, but I don't think you can hold up the report as the objective conclusion of an independent body who's conclusions should be accepted on that basis. Also, But in one area, it does accept that Iraq was acting in violation of UN sanctions. It had developed its al Samoud rocket by more than the 150 kilometres permitted, albeit by only 30 km. The rockets were destroyed by the inspectors. The report also acknowledges that Iraq probably intended to develop a 1000 km range missile. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3380645.stm[^] ------------------------------------------ Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. In any debate, Hitler's opinion on the subject is automatically the evil one, so it had better be contrary to the side you're arguing.