TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- US gives up on WMD search
Pages (8): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 »
Other than the whole car accident thing, there's nothing wrong with being assocated with Ted Kennedy. He's definitely a good drinking buddy.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by wolverine16 Other than the whole car accident thing, there's nothing wrong with being assocated with Ted Kennedy. He's definitely a good drinking buddy. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 Patently absurd....To say everyone who voted for Bush is what you depict above... I voted for Bush and yet i am not a follower of Jesus, Christianity or any other religion, your stereotypes are what perpetuate hate, racism, bigotry and ignorance. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cal Hahaha I never said everyone who voted for Bush are like that, check my post. What you need to do is go back to school and take elementary school english so you can learn to READ. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cal Hah, ignorance. Ignorance is lapping up lies from your elected president, and then voting for him again! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 You implied it..and i quote u ... "Hah the majority of people that voted for dubya are rednecks from jesusland, tiesto. You must have seen this before." Am i missing something? All politician lie...name one that doesn't...surely one you have voted for...since...you know...cus you only vote for honest politicians based on your knowledge And was it "REALLY" a lie that Bush said Hussein had WMDs?...If Bush firmly beleived it, as Kerry did, due to all the evidence pointed at Hussein having WMDs would that really be him lieing? by definition of the word "lie"? |
| quote: |
| Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. - Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002 |
"And was it "REALLY" a lie that Bush said Hussein had WMDs?...If Bush firmly beleived it, as Kerry did, due to all the evidence pointed at Hussein having WMDs would that really be him lieing? by definition of the word "lie"?"
you have just proved how blind you really are..
read these comments made by your great leader and tell me, if there is smoke then where is the fire ?? they just went away into thin air ??
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." Radio Address
October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"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 or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
The war in Iraq is, apparently, over. In yet another media stunt, Bush hitched a ride on a military jet to proclaim this "fact" from a US carrier. He praised the bravery of the troops he, from the safety of the White House, sent to kill or be killed.
Needless to say, few newspapers reported the obvious irony that this was a man whose connections allowed him to join the Texas Air National Guard in order escape serving his country in Vietnam. Or that it was like saluting the bravery of a bodybuilder who had just pummelled a handicapped person to a bloody pulp.
Yet Bush's photo opportunity serves more than to remind us how obnoxious politicians or that the US elections are approaching (Bush wants to be elected to the office he stole in the 2000 elections). It can be considered a fitting end for a stage-managed war, thrust upon an unwilling world by systematic state lying and media collusion.
The minimum number of Iraqi civilian deaths has now exceeded the maximum number of civilian deaths from September 11th. Let us never forget that America's generals publicly stated that there would be no attempt to count the bodies of the dead left in their troops wake. This exposed the "humanitarian" nature of the war: an Iraqi's life was only of value if Saddam was extinguishing it, otherwise it (literally and figuratively) did not count.
For all the crowing in the pro-war camp, the fact is that this invasion has vindicated the anti-war case. It's easy to see why. The pro-war arguments have been exposed as the lies they obviously were. Rather than a "new Hitler" poised to take over the world, Saddam has been exposed as an evil dictator ruling over a devastated nation by means of a clapped out military machine. And he was picked by the US because they knew it.
Now you seem them...
Let us remember the "official" case for the war, namely Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The stated rationale for the US invasion was that Iraq was a threat to the US, if not the world. We were asked to believe that after a devastating war and a decade of sanctions, US bombing runs, and UN inspections, Iraq still possessed a viable nuclear, chemical or biological threat.
And let us not forget how formidable this threat was. Bush talked about "25,000 litres of anthrax. 38,000 litres of botulinum toxin. 500 tons of sarin, mustard [gas] and VX nerve agent. Several mobile biological weapons labs. An advanced nuclear weapons development program." In October 2002, he said, "We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons." Moreover, Saddam had the means of deploying them, including missiles and tens of thousands of warheads. In March, Vice President Cheney asserted that Saddam "has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Colin Powell claimed at the UN to possess clear evidence that huge stocks of everything from sarin gas to anthrax to sanction-violating missiles were stored in Iraq, ready for use. Blair and his cronies faithfully echoed these claims of the Bush Junta.
... and now you don't
Yet where are these massive stores of weapons now? No weapons have been found. None. Colin Powell said to the United Nations Security Council that "every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." How could these "facts" have proved so elusive to prove now that the US has complete control over Iraq?
Apparently the Iraqis were able to hide or smuggle it all out despite almost constant tactical surveillance and nearly constant satellite and aircraft recognisance. And is there any evidence at all this stuff has been secreted out or hidden? None. It's unfounded speculation based on the lack of evidence. In this, though, Bush and Blair are consistent. As before the war, if no evidence exists then the evidence must have been cleverly hidden or destroyed! Rest assured, David Blunkett will shortly revise the UK courts to operate on these "moral" principles of "guilty until proven innocent" and "no evidence equates to guilt."
None of the "facilities" claimed to exist by the Bush Junta have been found. Can we be surprised? There was no way for Iraq to replace chemical and biological weapons once they did degrade. Chemical weapons require vast industrial infrastructure to make, and another industrial infrastructure to build the means to deliver the chemical agents. Iraq had neither. As was pointed out before the war, even if Hussein had somehow secretly imported the materials necessary to rebuild his WMD within the past five years, even as UN sanctions, no-fly zones and vigorous spying by Western forces remained firmly in place, Iraq could not hide the gases, heat, and gamma radiation which centrifuge facilities emit - and which the intelligence capacities would have identified by now. Plants that make VX, for instance, cannot be hidden, they discharge residual elements into the atmosphere that would have been immediately detectable by the UN teams, or by foreign intelligence establishments watching Iraq like falcons waiting to pounce but their combined resources produced not one piece of evidence.
The argument for Iraq as a nuclear threat was built on even shakier ground. As the US Congress was preparing to vote on authorising the use of force against Iraq, Blair publicly released an apparent bombshell: British intelligence had obtained documents showing that between 1999 and 2001, Iraq had attempted to buy "significant quantities of uranium" from an unnamed African country "despite having no active civil nuclear power programme that could require it." This evidence was important in getting Congress to back the war resolution. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was to verify the authenticity of these important documents for the UN Security Council, but only obtained them from the U.S. government after months of pleading. A strange delay, considering the Bush White House was so eager to prove Saddam's nuclear intentions to a sceptical world. But an unsurprising one, for the IAEA told the UN Security Council that the documents were clearly and obviously fakes. MI6 was regarded by many as the perpetrators. This is the very same agency which Blair asserted would never plant WMD in "liberated" Iraq in order to provide evidence justifying war.
Likewise, the same Iraqi defector who told Powell about the stores of chemical and biological weapons also said they had been completely destroyed. Powell neglected to inform the UN of this.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 The funny thing about your ignorance is that the majority of Bush supporters are the top 1% of America...people that graduated Yale, Harvard, MIT, USC, UCLA etc etc...most of the CEOs, CFOs and board room members of the worlds biggest corporations, people that attend country clubs, and wine and dine in places you will never be able to valet park a car...yet you go on and on about how they can not speak right or are uneducated...tsk tsk..jealousy of the upper class just makes you look foolish and a tad bitter. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by razmataz Compliments of The Economist |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Or not. Surely you're not gullible enough to think that. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cal ROOOOOOFL ok maybe Im being mean and english is not your first language. Kids, today we learn the difference between MAJORITY, and EVERYONE! MAJORITY - The greater number or part EVERYONE - Every person; everybody. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cal And I guess you're right about the firm belief thing that, for example, is attributed to Dick Cheney saying http://www.williambowles.info/wmd/bush_lies.html So instead of being lying scumbags, the current administration is really just totally incompetent! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cal The country with the biggest economy of the world, and the biggest military budget in the world, and the biggest network of intelligence in the world has somehow found enough evidence of non-existent weapons to have its vice president state on full authority that black is white! You must be proud! |
Lets not forget about Dubyas good buddy in all of this...and so far he hasnt even been mentioned in this thread..good old "Shoulder to shoulder" Tony Blair the British Prime Minister.
Tony Blair stood up in the House of Commons, the British Parliment and produced a Dossier on Iraq,the now imfamous 45 minute dossier,which was supplied by the British intelligience agencies M 15 and M 16.
The dossier the prime minister proclaimed contained chilling new facts about the weapons of mass destruction that the Iraqi regime had procured or produced itself and he went on to describe how Iraq was "at any time capable of launching a chemical attack against British interests(he was referring to british military bases in cyprus of which there are several)within 45 minutes of the order being given"
This claim was obviously made before the invasion of Iraq.
Within weeks of this claim being made by Tony Blair serious doubts arose among the british press the BBC called the documents "Sexed UP" on british television,large tracts of the documents contained in the dossier later turned out to have been written in 1992 after the first gulf war (by of all people an irish student at the time writing his thesis for a degree course in an american university in california..and these documents made ther way onto the universitys database and were subsequently copied word for word by british intelligience to be included in the dossier even though they were written in 1992..and at that time in 1992 Saddam did have chemical weapons so what was written by the student held true for 1992 not 2002)
A subsecquent inquirey by the britih parliment into this dossier(after the invasion)called The Hutton Report turned out to be a whitewash Blair was found not guilty in the report of any wrong doing (Blair personally picked the judge who carried out the inquiry)the british media meanwhile laughed at the findings of this report and the british public soon joined their ranks.
Blairs reputation has not recovered since.
Everybody in Britian knows he lied through his teeth and to this day they still believe that.
Everything that i have written can be verified just do a google...
What we all seem to be forgetting is that they had planned the invasion of Iraq way in advance.
The occurrences of 9/11 and the ensuing "War on Terror" was initially the justification for the invasion of a sovereign nation - Afghanistan. Iraq had no involvement in 9/11, but yet that's where the real focus had always been.
The guiding philosophy of current administration advocates subterfuge. One only needs to read into it to understand their principles - something which I doubt many Bush voters have done.
01. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
02. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
03. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
04. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means�that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
05. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
06. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
07. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
08. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
09. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is cceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=177813
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=221928
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=126444
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual. 14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X [color=orange]What we all seem to be forgetting is that they had planned the invasion of Iraq way in advance. |
yeah, there's no money being made here
| quote: |
| Our Congress gave the President the ability to respond to the tragedy of September the Eleventh. We licensed a response to those who helped bring the terror of September the Eleventh. But we the people and our elected representatives must reserve the right to measure the response, to proportion the response, to challenge the response, and to correct the response. Because we did not authorize the invasion of Iraq. We did not authorize the invasion of Iran. We did not authorize the invasion of North Korea. We did not authorize the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan. We did not authorize permanent detainees in Guantanamo Bay. We did not authorize the withdrawal from the Geneva Convention. We did not authorize military tribunals suspending due process and habeas corpus. We did not authorize assassination squads. We did not authorize the resurrection of COINTELPRO. We did not authorize the repeal of the Bill of Rights. We did not authorize the revocation of the Constitution. We did not authorize national identity cards. We did not authorize the eye of Big Brother to peer from cameras throughout our cities. We did not authorize an eye for an eye. Nor did we ask that the blood of innocent people, who perished on September 11, be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan. We did not authorize the administration to wage war anytime, anywhere, anyhow it pleases. We did not authorize war without end. We did not authorize a permanent war economy. Yet we are upon the threshold of a permanent war economy. The President has requested a $45.6 billion increase in military spending. All defense-related programs will cost close to $400 billion. Consider that the Department of Defense has never passed an independent audit. Consider that the Inspector General has notified Congress that the Pentagon cannot properly account for $1.2 trillion in transactions. Consider that in recent years the Dept. of Defense could not match $22 billion worth of expenditures to the items it purchased, wrote off, as lost, billions of dollars worth of in-transit inventory and stored nearly $30 billion worth of spare parts it did not need. Yet the defense budget grows with more money for weapons systems to fight a cold war which ended, weapon systems in search of new enemies to create new wars. This has nothing to do with fighting terror. This has everything to do with fueling a military industrial machine with the treasure of our nation, risking the future of our nation, risking democracy itself with the militarization of thought which follows the militarization of the budget. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka There are think tanks and military strategists who's job is to come up with said strategies. |
| quote: |
| In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of the Defense Policy Guidance document. Wolfowitz had objected to what he considered the premature ending of the 1991 Iraq War. In the new document, he outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism. The guidance called for preemptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The primary goal of U.S. policy should be to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States. When the document leaked to the New York Times, it proved so extreme that it had to be rewritten. These concepts are now part of the new U.S. National Security Strategy. http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif...licationID=1214 |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 The funny thing about your ignorance is that the majority of Bush supporters are the top 1% of America...people that graduated Yale, Harvard, MIT, USC, UCLA etc etc...most of the CEOs, CFOs and board room members of the worlds biggest corporations, people that attend country clubs, and wine and dine in places you will never be able to valet park a car...yet you go on and on about how they can not speak right or are uneducated...tsk tsk..jealousy of the upper class just makes you look foolish and a tad bitter. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Sevas Stra i love the fact that no one realizes that and when you point it out they just shut the fuck up. Good job. No way you can argue with that, unless you come up with something stupid by which means you go right ahead. |
your post was the dumbest thing i've ever read so didn't bother to reply...What does your post prove that the 1 percent are wealthy? Yeah they are and they are also the smarter part of the country. that's a fact look over at the voter turn outs. NY times for example the most influantial news paper 
. Stick to your DC.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 I wont argue the rest of what u said...but 9.11 is more to blaim on Clinton not Bush..thats a fact! |
I've been browsing this thread back and forth but haven't seen much from the Bush lemmings... er, I mean supporters. I've seen a handful on TV lately trying to explain that this war wasn't "just about WMD."
Why the silence? Especially from my outspoken & good friends Q5echo and Smokeape.
because yapping and going on websites that claim they know everything doesn't make you look smart ...you could use a comp though, i'll give you that :\
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Sevas Stra your post was the dumbest thing i've ever read so didn't bother to reply...What does your post prove that the 1 percent are wealthy? Yeah they are and they are also the smarter part of the country. that's a fact look over at the voter turn outs. NY times for example the most influantial news paper . Stick to your DC. |
noobs...yeah you got me there L0L
[audible exhale]
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.