Iraqi WMD trucks turn out to be hydrogen-production facilities

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iraqi WMD trucks turn out to be hydrogen-production facilities
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

Posted by Greedy on Jun-21-2003 16:35:

who in the hell makes facilities to produce hydrogen for helium balloons anyways? Iraq is hiding their stuff and playing games with the US to make them look bad. Sure, iraq cant beat americans with missles and guns, but they can make the US look like jackasses and beat them with their own ppl by making them distrust the ppl that run their own nation.

Posted by DR86 on Jun-21-2003 17:05:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
You missed the point of my post entirely ...

Bush would have had no legitmacy nor any reason to invade Iraq if Saddam had fully complied. Despite the administrations proven hostilities towards Iraq even before 9/11, it would have been virtually impossible for it to have invaded Iraq with absolutely no justification at all. So my primary argument still stands that Saddam is the biggest dumbass of them all ... simply look at his situation right now.

I see what you're saying. But I think that the Bush would have still invaded Iraq under some other false pretense because (like ou said) the administration has a hard on for Iraq and Saddam.

Posted by Psionic on Jun-21-2003 22:24:

quote:
Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
I see what you're saying. But I think that the Bush would have still invaded Iraq under some other false pretense because (like ou said) the administration has a hard on for Iraq and Saddam.

Haha, "the Bush." But yeah, the Bush administration can always find some bogus reason. I was listening to CBS radio this morning and Bush claims the lack of WMD finding is because Saddam has been smuggling them out for the past decade! I mean jesus, if you knew that, why bother searching in Iraq?!? This is all just to buy more time until he can announce that he was lying.

www.votetoimpeach.org

Posted by Psionic on Jun-22-2003 01:18:

quote:
Originally posted by Vesa
What? Did Bush really say that? Which country were the Iraqi WMD supposed to have been smuggled to?

I'm asking because the Debka website claimed long ago that Saddam had had WMD co-operation with Syria for a decade (Debka also claimed that Baathists escaped to France ). Hopefully Bush is not referring to that "information"

BTW, the last time Neocons were making up propaganda against Syria, it was NOT meant to hide their deception in Iraq, but to use as an EXCUSE to invade Syria. Bush stopped Neocons then, even though their invasion plans were already ready. But what will happen this time?

The Bush Administration has passed the point where they don't even attempt to make plausible pretexts. Part of the public is obviously addicted to believing any of their lies, up to a point where even the tiniest detail of the lies is fiercely defended. So I'm afraid it may be quite pointless to try expose the WMD deception if half of the public don't want to listen.

Man, that is exactly what I heard. Then they aired a little of some speech he recently made saying how over the past 10 years, since the first Gulf War, Saddam has been hiding his weapons, until the point that now, when we look for them, they aren't there.

Posted by DR86 on Jun-22-2003 16:42:

quote:
Originally posted by Vesa
(Debka also claimed that Baathists escaped to France )

Posted by Shakka on Jun-23-2003 00:42:

quote:
Originally posted by Vesa
However, not all critics of the current US Administration are Anti-Americans or principled guys. During this war, the Anti-War Camp joined forces with both American and European supporters of secular Realpolitik (that's how I became Anti-War ). Realpoliticians know that Saddam has been a deceiver and a potential future threat. They don't hesitate to play dirty themselves, and approve the use of Machiavellian methods when necessary. The problem for them has not been that the US Administration exaggerated the WMD situation. The main problem for them was Neocons' goal of an irresponsible American Hegemony.

So when they bring up the WMDs now, they are not criticizing, but rather trying to impeach Neocons by referring to a technicality, and also telling the great masses of ordinary voters not to blindly believe what Neocons say.

PS. I don't currently believe that a large-scale war in Iran is likely. It might happen, but it's also possible that the US resorts to propaganda and special operations only. The only reason which might trigger a war is if Iran is indeed on the verge of building a nuclear bomb, or more likely, if Neocons are desperate to change Iranian regime before Neocons may lose their Pentagon positions in the next Presidential Elections. Anyway, the recent American threats against Iran are worrying because they look like a standard preparation to aggression.

PPS. Neocons now claim themselves to be Conservatives, but that's not accurate. Guys like Pat Buchanan are true Conservatives. Top Neocons have admitted that they only shifted a bit towards Conservatism after starting their political careers as "Liberals who were mugged by reality". Wolfowitz used to be a Democrat backing Henry Scoop Jackson. So this was an untypical American invasion because its main ideologists were not very Rightist nor Conservative.

It appears that we just have different personal philosophies.

also, just because a person supported the war, doesn't mean they're a 'neo-conservative". Seems like you're pigeon-holing people.

Posted by Johan (DJ Irish) on Jun-23-2003 09:16:

Read in my daily newspaper this morning that Bush said in a recent speach that the WMD has been taken and/or destroyed by looters.

All these "explanations" seems to get pretty desperate as of late

Posted by DR86 on Jun-23-2003 15:05:

quote:
Originally posted by Dj_Irish
Read in my daily newspaper this morning that Bush said in a recent speach that the WMD has been taken and/or destroyed by looters.

All these "explanations" seems to get pretty desperate as of late

Wait...haven't the explanations always been acts of desperation?

Posted by Johan (DJ Irish) on Jun-23-2003 15:15:

quote:
Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
Wait...haven't the explanations always been acts of desperation?

Hey...after taken into account previous statements I must say they have!

Posted by LiquidX on Jun-23-2003 16:16:

LoL!! And only Bush has said that..anyways, americans will still believe that.. I bet ya!

Posted by Shakka on Jun-23-2003 19:34:

Well put. One of the main reasons (if not THE primary reason) that the U.S. didn't seek out any further UN resolutions was that France openly said they would veto any new resolutions regardless of what they were. That kind of put the pressure on Bush to either go to war or back off, which would have made him and the U.S. look exponentially weaker. Politics is a dirty game.

Posted by DR86 on Jun-23-2003 23:30:

Posted by Shakka on Jun-23-2003 23:37:

quote:
Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
You think that Bush actually cared about the UN? He was going to go to war with or without their help!

Maybe, but his hand was still forced. You don't know what any other outcomes would've been, you only know what the actual outcome is.

Posted by Psionic on Jun-23-2003 23:55:

Seriously though, Bush was going to war no matter what. We all knew it was inevitable. He only went to the UN to mass together support and attempt to make his war "legal".

Posted by DR86 on Jun-24-2003 02:48:

quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Maybe, but his hand was still forced. You don't know what any other outcomes would've been, you only know what the actual outcome is.

True. I think it would have been interesting to see what Bush would have done if he had gained UN backing.

Posted by LiquidX on Jun-24-2003 03:10:

quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Well put. One of the main reasons (if not THE primary reason) that the U.S. didn't seek out any further UN resolutions was that France openly said they would veto any new resolutions regardless of what they were. That kind of put the pressure on Bush to either go to war or back off, which would have made him and the U.S. look exponentially weaker. Politics is a dirty game.

Chile proposed a resolution in which there will be giving Iraq 2 weeks and then UN will have its backing after that. But US strongly opposed to that, England actually liked it.. so with that you can also see that US just wanted to get it over with, and do what it has been waiting for so long. I also agree that the US went through UN just for the heck of it.. they were going to attack anyways.

Posted by Shakka on Jun-24-2003 03:28:

I think it just became apparent that the global community was willing to take little delay after little delay and drag their feet to do anything to avoid war. Not that avoiding war is a bad thing, but at some point you have to follow through or else you still end up as a defunct organization. The UN helped to seal it's own fate.

Posted by occrider on Jun-24-2003 03:43:

quote:
Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
True. I think it would have been interesting to see what Bush would have done if he had gained UN backing.

It would have also been interesting to see what would have happened if Saddam had opened up his country to inspectors without any delay and got an A rating from Blix. I do agree with Shakka however, the UN sealed its own fate by letting the issue turn into a 13 year debacle.

Posted by DR86 on Jun-24-2003 03:44:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
It would have also been interesting to see what would have happened if Saddam had opened up his country to inspectors without any delay and got an A rating from Blix. I do agree with Shakka however, the UN sealed its own fate by letting the issue turn into a 13 year debacle.

agreed.

Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]