0
PhillyKev

Ex-Arms Hunter Kay Says No WMD Stockpiles in Iraq

Recommended Posts

Quote

The ability of Republicans to be selective simply amazes me. Kallend points out what we now know to be lies that were spoken by our President, and you guys try to gloss it over with "Clinton said it too"?? Then you say that violations of UN Resolutions gave us the right to use force. Ha, how many other countries regularly ignore the UN. I can guarantee you there are a few, we're one of them. But you select Iraq. Get over it, no weapons, they bluffed, they thought we were bluffing, they lost? 500+ American troops killed, was that worth it if there were no weapons? What did you guys think of Kosovo where no Americans died and we stopped ongoing genocide?



Not that I like feeding the trolls, but I thought I'd throw this out....

Hmmmm. I seem to remember a great number of Democrats, one of them very high profile, making a very strong case for military action in Iraq with no mention of WMD's or UN Resolutions.....

Quote

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration must target Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in its war against terrorism, Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Monday. It was one of a series of steps he said are needed to undermine a "theological iron curtain" being put up in the Muslim world by fanatics.



Here's the link, by the way.

Comparing the recent military action in Iraq with that in Kosovo is almost pointless, as the two arenas were tactically very different. In Kosovo, ground forces were already engaged in fighting when US air power was brought to bear. The presence of ground forces already in place made a ground invasion by UN and American forces unnecessary.


Bobby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Do you honestly believe he didn't have WMDs proof or no proof?



You seem to be real adamant that GW lied about WMDs in Iraq. This leads me to assume that YOU believed SH when he said there are not any WMDs in Iraq. Is my assumption correct?



What is it about "LIE" that the Bush apologists don't understand?

It matters not who else lies. When the President of the USA lies to the people, that's a real problem. It was a problem with Clinton, and it is a problem with Bush.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is it about "LIE" that the Bush apologists don't understand?

It matters not who else lies. When the President of the USA lies to the people, that's a real problem. It was a problem with Clinton, and it is a problem with Bush.



I don't think that he lied. You have said that we sold SH WMD's. Where did they go?



never pull low......unless you are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't think that he lied. You have said that we sold SH WMD's. Where did they go?



Its very simple if you do a little searching of the backgrounds of the people in the current administration ..... who were in the REagan Administration.. Cheney , Rumsfeld...et.al.....( remember the pictures with Sadaam... I do) many many thousands of Iranians died at the hads of SH... as a surrogate for the US... do not think that lesson is lost on the people of the region... Our surrogate USED the WMD against people we did not like... they needed killin as the southernism goes.
How dare they take our embassy hostage.. kill em all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I don't think that he lied. You have said that we sold SH WMD's. Where did they go?



Its very simple if you do a little searching of the backgrounds of the people in the current administration ..... who were in the REagan Administration.. Cheney , Rumsfeld...et.al.....( remember the pictures with Sadaam... I do) many many thousands of Iranians died at the hads of SH... as a surrogate for the US... do not think that lesson is lost on the people of the region... Our surrogate USED the WMD against people we did not like... they needed killin as the southernism goes.
How dare they take our embassy hostage.. kill em all.



They didn't take our Embassy hostage. They took innocent American Diplomats hostage. If you lived thru that ordeal you remember the hatred in this country against Iran. I had the opportunity to meet one of the hostages several months after they returned home. I can assure you the truth of how they were treated was surpressed to keep the American People from demanding all out war. Perhaps one time when our oil interests in the region saved many lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, that's twice that you have avoided my question and I find that rather convenient. Perhaps that is because you see it as the logic trap that it truly is. All you do is sit there and scream, "LIAR, LAIR, PANTS ON FIRE!"

The fact is you really have no idea if there is or isn't WMDs in Iraq. No one does and we may never know till 50 years from now. I am amazed that your hatred for GW is so great that you fail to see(or refuse to care) that SH has throughout history proven himself a murderer, torturer and a politically violent person. Certainly a tyrant like SH should never recieve the bennefit of the doubt like you so strongly feel he deserves.

This will be my last reply/post to you Kallend because for a while now it has been my opinion that your arguments never live up to your credentials and your narrow minded opinion will never be swayed.

That is how I really feel.:|
www.FourWheelerHB.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I am amazed that your hatred for GW is so great that you fail to see(or refuse to care) that SH has throughout history proven himself a murderer, torturer and a politically violent person.

That is how I really feel.:|



Yes, but why won't you tell us how you really feel?

SH may have been "politically violent" (....*coughBUSHcough*...), but that was NOT the reason that was sold to the American people for why we had to invade Iraq. The given reason was WMD. The level of intelligence regarding WMD that we allegedly held was said to be so precise that we were told that it was sufficient justification for preemptive war. And yet when no WMD could be found, the political motivation for the invasion and occupation then became the "liberation" of the Iraq people. The same people who we have killed in the thousands:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0406-02.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And yet when no WMD could be found, the political motivation for the invasion and occupation then became the "liberation" of the Iraq people.



Wasn't it Operation Iraqi Freedom? :S



Convenient, wasn't it. It's almost like they knew they'd have to change the emphasis for some reason. Nah... that couldn't possibly be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well maybe it was a bit better thought out than the bonehead use of CRUSADE in the first stages of the War on Terror

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html

President Bush's reference to a "crusade" against terrorism, which passed almost unnoticed by Americans, rang alarm bells in Europe. It raised fears that the terrorist attacks could spark a 'clash of civilizations' between Christians and Muslims, sowing fresh winds of hatred and mistrust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wasn't it Operation Iraqi Freedom? :S



Convenient, wasn't it. It's almost like they knew they'd have to change the emphasis for some reason. Nah... that couldn't possibly be it.



It's funny that the people that think Bush is stupid, give him so much credit in their conspiracy theories. :S



never pull low......unless you are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

SH may have been "politically violent" (....*coughBUSHcough*...) . . .



I wonder how many American citizens have have had one-to-four limbs amputated for stealing a goat or calf on Bush's orders. Oh, I know . . . ZERO.

Want to take a guess at Hussein's numbers?


. . =(_8^(1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SH may have been "politically violent" (....*coughBUSHcough*...), but that was NOT the
Quote

reason that was sold to the American people for why we had to invade Iraq. The given reason was WMD. The level of intelligence regarding WMD that we allegedly held was said to be so precise that we were told that it was sufficient justification for preemptive war. And yet when no WMD could be found, the political motivation for the invasion and occupation then became the "liberation" of the Iraq people. The same people who we have killed in the thousands:



So you are saying that despite all the intellegence that Iraq had WMDs, that GWB actually was the only world leader who didn't KNEW they didn't and he invaded Iraq anyway?

edited to add quotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

SH may have been "politically violent" (....*coughBUSHcough*...) . . .



I wonder how many American citizens have have had one-to-four limbs amputated for stealing a goat or calf on Bush's orders. Oh, I know . . . ZERO.

Want to take a guess at Hussein's numbers?



Do you want to take a guess at how many American soldiers have had to have limbs amputated as a result of injuries sustained in Iraq? How about children in Iraq or Afghanistan who have had an arm or a leg blown-off because they picked up an unexploded cluster bomb? Or how about Iraqi's who have been similarly mutilated in "precision" bombing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites