quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut If people had evidence in 1990 that I had several kilos of cocaine under my bed, and no one checked there for 10 years, and after 10 years I wouldn't let anybody come into my room to check under my bed, and if all my friends were still saying that I had a stash of coke, wouldn't it be logical to assume that I did in fact have some coke? Maybe I sniffed it all, or sold it all, or just burned it all in the past 10 years... or, maybe, I got rid of most of it but kept just a few grams and that's why I didn't want to let anyone in my room. Or maybe there's no coke but there are phone numbers of the people I sold it to. The point is, there was pre-existing evidence that Iraq had WMDs, and there was very little evidence to support that they'd gotten rid of them. That doesn't actually mean that they DIDN'T get rid of them - it just means that the U.S. was acting on whatever intelligence they had, however correct or incorrect, which pointed to there being at least a potential of them still having the WMDs.

And what about the drug dealer that wanted to make a quick buck by using you? You don't hide the receipt for the coke under the bed, in fact you have shown many people exactly who you bought the drugs from.

So who is worse, the drug users, or the drug traffickers and dealers

Who was it that supplied Iraq with the money and weapons in the first place?? Oh yeah, that's right, the USA.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX - Yes, there was evidence that Iraq once had WMD. Now, there was NO evidence if they destroyed them, or not. One of the reasons why at the end Germany and France strongly went against a war, was because last minute intelligence, somewhat started to suggest that Saddam MAY have got rid of the weapons, so did the Chief Weapons Inspector, Hanx Blix, who because of that, asked for more time. But Bush administration, blindly believed on a every piece/small evidence given, not even proving it to be right/correct evidence ( Uranium in Africa, all those chemical facilities with supposed Chemical Weapons ) .. and well, all the things he had mentioned on the State of The Union to the American public. Bush administration did not back up, and it was obvious enough, because Bush WANTED Saddam out of power, no matter what. Overall, THIS did not, and still Does not Justify a country to go to war.. the US commited an act of IMPERIALISM, and its a big shame that the US intelligence was SO wrong.. it has lost lots of credibility, although the ones looking dirty are the Bush Administration.

If I am to understand the basis of your post (and believe me, you aren't making it easy with your grammar), you've essentially chosen not to dispute that there was pre-existing evidence for Iraq's possession of WMDs and only a minute amount of evidence to the contrary. You've stated that:

(a) A small amount of evidence had been gathered which suggested that Iraq may have disposed of its WMDs. The USA was told to "hold on a moment." They jumped the gun on it anyway, presumably because they thought it was better to be safe than sorry. Occam's razor here, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one - the USA didn't want to take any chances. Now, this may have been poor judgment on their part, which I don't deny; however, it is totally unfair to accuse Bush and his government "thugs" of having "sinister" intentions in all of this without a good deal of proof, of which I have seen none. The evidence only suggests that Iraq probably doesn't have WMDs - there is no proof of Bush's "imperialistic intentions" in all of this, and it frightens me to hear that kind of talk because it's the same talk that comes out of the mouths of extremists and terrorists.

(b) The USA's intelligence was wrong. Well, yes, although I think it would be more correct to say that their intelligence was incomplete. The evidence they had DID point to the existence of WMDs - they just hadn't gathered enough objective evidence to point AWAY from the existence of WMDs. You have to bear in mind that it's far more difficult to prove that something doesn't exist than to prove that it does. Again, I don't dispute that they failed in their duties, but it would be presumptuous to imply that they had any kind of secret agenda here.

I think everyone should take note of the irony of all these people crucifying Bush and U.S. intelligence without proper evidence to support their claims. You are doing to Bush precisely what you claim he did to Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by tathi And what about the drug dealer that wanted to make a quick buck by using you? You don't hide the receipt for the coke under the bed, in fact you have shown many people exactly who you bought the drugs from. So who is worse, the drug users, or the drug traffickers and dealers

I imagine that most drug deals don't involve printed receipts. And I am not entirely sure what you're trying to say, either. I guess you're implying that the U.S. is just as guilty than Iraq (or more guilty) for supplying them with the WMDs? While you may choose to see it this way, it makes no more sense than saying that gun merchants across the USA are responsible for deaths caused by criminals who purchase their weapons. When you supply someone with a weapon, you don't know what they will use it for.

Besides which, the USA was only partially responsible for Saddam's government. To imply that they single-handedly put him in power and gave him WMDs is... well... wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Vigilante Who was it that supplied Iraq with the money and weapons in the first place?? Oh yeah, that's right, the USA.

Perhaps this is true, but it is also irrelevant.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

I imagine that most drug deals don't involve printed receipts. And I am not entirely sure what you're trying to say, either. I guess you're implying that the U.S. is just as guilty than Iraq (or more guilty) for supplying them with the WMDs? While you may choose to see it this way, it makes no more sense than saying that gun merchants across the USA are responsible for deaths caused by criminals who purchase their weapons. When you supply someone with a weapon, you don't know what they will use it for. Besides which, the USA was only partially responsible for Saddam's government. To imply that they single-handedly put him in power and gave him WMDs is... well... wrong.

well if we are using smoking gun theory, the US sold more "cocaine" to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki than Iraq ever sold to the Kurds and Iranians

I'm just pointing out that it was a weak analogy and i replied with my own weak analogy that's all, and i know Saddam had European drug dealers

Well at least Saddamn ain't pretenting he's hiding a horde of WMD anymore. The only thing he's trying to hide now is his asshole in prison!

Lol!
[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by Vigilante Who was it that supplied Iraq with the money and weapons in the first place?? Oh yeah, that's right, the USA.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO that cant be!!USA is the most peaceful nation on earth,and they want peace for all other countries as well.

___________________
Mystic Mind - DJ Mixes
http://soundcloud.com/mystic-mind

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/DJMysticMind

can't argue with emoticons

quote:

Originally posted by tathi can't argue with emoticons

do I have to say more??lol

___________________
Mystic Mind - DJ Mixes
http://soundcloud.com/mystic-mind

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/DJMysticMind

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DigiNut
If I am to understand the basis of your post (and believe me, you aren't making it easy with your grammar), you've essentially chosen not to dispute that there was pre-existing evidence for Iraq's possession of WMDs and only a minute amount of evidence to the contrary. You've stated that:

(a) A small amount of evidence had been gathered which suggested that Iraq may have disposed of its WMDs. The USA was told to "hold on a moment." They jumped the gun on it anyway, presumably because they thought it was better to be safe than sorry. Occam's razor here, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one - the USA didn't want to take any chances. Now, this may have been poor judgment on their part, which I don't deny; however, it is totally unfair to accuse Bush and his government "thugs" of having "sinister" intentions in all of this without a good deal of proof, of which I have seen none. The evidence only suggests that Iraq probably doesn't have WMDs - there is no proof of Bush's "imperialistic intentions" in all of this, and it frightens me to hear that kind of talk because it's the same talk that comes out of the mouths of extremists and terrorists.

(b) The USA's intelligence was wrong. Well, yes, although I think it would be more correct to say that their intelligence was incomplete. The evidence they had DID point to the existence of WMDs - they just hadn't gathered enough objective evidence to point AWAY from the existence of WMDs. You have to bear in mind that it's far more difficult to prove that something doesn't exist than to prove that it does. Again, I don't dispute that they failed in their duties, but it would be presumptuous to imply that they had any kind of secret agenda here.

I think everyone should take note of the irony of all these people crucifying Bush and U.S. intelligence without proper evidence to support their claims. You are doing to Bush precisely what you claim he did to Iraq.

- OMG!. Well, Bush is the chief inspector of the United States. He is to make the most accurate decisions, especially on a WAR, where not only Iraquis lifes, but where American lifes are to be in danger. Its not a game, but sadly, it all seems to me that it was all politicized. Every decision making its upon this president, and his administration, therefore, making him in charge of the decisions DONE to invade Iraq. I just wonder, what proper evidence DO YOU want in order to not blame the president and US intelligence. Yes, we could also blame the foreign intelligence, the UN, and the list could go on.. but the realy problem rely's on how the misinformed information was passed to this administration, and blindingly, without any exceptions, nor more time given, the US president DECLARED war on Iraq, BECAUSE Iraq HAD Weapons of Mass Destructions, and THERE was concrete evidence of this... Today, all that is BS, who should we blame then? where is the irony?!?!.. but its ok. You are a supporter of his, and you are just a person that believes the war was justified. Understandable, I dont expect 100% of the people to believe that, right?.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Well at least Saddamn ain't pretenting he's hiding a horde of WMD anymore. The only thing he's trying to hide now is his asshole in prison! Lol! [[[smoke]]]

yeah good thing the Kurds captured him. As a reward they should get their own country, right?

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO that cant be!!USA is the most peaceful nation on earth,and they want peace for all other countries as well.

Well, to be historically accurate, Iraq purchased its first chemical weapons factory from Italy, West Germany, and East Germany which were in components and later assembled in Iraq. Iraq's first uranium reactor was purchased from France in 1976. I shall exclude conventional weapons sales which were intitially brokered through Russia and later Europe.

___________________
Retro ...

Some Boortz commentary from this morning.

quote:

At this point we all realize that there were some serious problems with the intelligence information being supplied to President Bush prior to the liberation of Iraq. Based on that intelligence information Bush thought that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that could be pressed into service in short order. Not only did George Bush believe this intelligence information, but so did quite a few other people. Do you need some reminders? OK .. here goes. On October 9, 1998 some members of the U.S. Senate sent a letter to Bill Clinton expressing their concerns about Saddam and his weapons program. That letter contained this paragraph: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program." That letter was signed by Tom Daschle, Carl Levin and John Kerry .. three Senators, one a probable Democratic nominee for president, who are now slamming George Bush for acting on the very intelligence they relied on for their 1998 letter to their president, Bill Clinton. Carl Levin is particularly obnoxious. I saw him on some talking head show earlier this week pressing the idea that Bush should have known that the intelligence information he was relying on was faulty. In September of 2002 Levin said "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Levin, it seems, believed the exact same intelligence information that Bush relied on ... and now he's faulting Bush. How about some other names of people who believed that Saddam had a weapons program and a stockpile of WMDs? Let's put Nancy Pelosi on that list, and there's Clinton's Secretary of State Madeline Albright. Al Gore said "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Ted Kennedy said "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." How about some more from John Kerry? On October 9th of last year Kerry said "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real grave threat to our security." In January of this year Kerry said "So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." Now we are hearing doubts about the quality of that intelligence. Maybe Saddam didn't have the weapons. Maybe he shipped them out to Syria and Iran. Maybe his own scientists were telling him what they thought he wanted to hear. OK .. let me try to create a little scenario for you. Let's say that NASA scientists together with experts from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California suddenly discover that there is a 15-mile-wide asteroid heading for the earth. If that asteroid strikes the earth millions of people will die. The president of the United States orders a very expensive crash program to develop a response. Billions of dollars are poured into an all-out project to develop and launch a dozen nuclear-tipped rockets toward the asteroid to destroy it before it crashes into the earth. To fund the project billions are taken from various social projects. People suffer. The deficit blossoms. A debt is created that our grandchildren will have to pay. The project is successful. The missiles score a direct hit on the asteroid and it is blasted into thousands of smaller fragments. Unfortunately some of those fragments are still large enough to cause severe damage and kill hundreds of people when they crash into the earth. Later, after the danger is past, we discover that the NASA scientists who originally warned of the threat from this asteroid made a little mathematical miscalculation. The asteroid was actually going to pass harmlessly between the moon and the earth. We now know that all of that money was wasted. Not only that, but those people who died when smaller fragments hit the earth would still be alive today if the asteroid had just been left alone. Who do we blame here? Do we blame the president? He was acting on the information available to him at the time. He had no real choice but to trust that information. To ignore the warnings of the impending strike could be to pass a death sentence on millions. You can't condemn the president for acting on information that he, and the rest of the world, thought to be correct. Another quicker example. A surgeon finds a lump in your breast. He wants to do a biopsy. A test of the lump shows it to be benign. Do you condemn the doctor because he didn't know that the growth was benign before he went in there with a scalpel? Now, after Saddam has been deposed and after Iraq has been liberated, we find that some of the intelligence information was faulty. What do we do? Blame Bush for acting on information that was believed to be true at the time action was taken? All of this 20-20 hindsight is wonderful, but when it comes to the defense of our country you can act on what you think might be true in 12 months, you act on what you believe to be true right now. A bloodthirsty dictator has been removed from power. Rape rooms are no longer in operation in Iraq. The torture chambers have been shut down. Mass graves containing hundreds of thousands have been uncovered. Saddam will never again use chemicals to kill tens of thousands of his enemies. And this is somehow bad?