|
Questionaire. Please reply.
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
'Bush's Illegal War' Questionnaire
Please answer as many of the following questions as you can, and as many with a straight face as possible. Please answer quickly as you already have all of the answers.
1. Since George W. Bush is evil, and thought by some to be far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, could you please list the instances you are aware of where George W. Bush has ordered the murder, torture and rape of American citizens, like yourself, who oppose his presidency.
2. Could you list any sites of mass graves of American citizens ordered to be killed by the Bush administration?
3. Further, could you please list the instances you are aware of when George W. Bush has ordered the murder of members of his own family.
4. Do you feel that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons he was specifically forbidden to have by the UN; for example, the Scud missiles he fired into Kuwait during the first two weeks of the war?
5. How do you think Saddam was able to fire weapons that he didn't have?
6. Are inspectors inspectors, or are inspectors detectives?
7. How many more months would you have given Saddam Hussein to comply with the 17 UN resolutions, passed over 12 years?
8. If you owned an apartment building, for how many months would you allow a tenant to defy you to kick him out for not paying the rent he owes?
9. If the UN, and the previous administration, were convinced Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and used that as a basis for their actions against Iraq, how do those reasons evaporate when applied by the Bush administration?
10. If the Bush administration, led by the evil GWB, lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to go to war, why haven't we found any WMD secretly planted by the Bush administration?
11. If you feel it would be too difficult to plant WMD in Iraq, because there are too many people watching, such that no one can do anything sneaky in Iraq, then why can't we find Saddam?
12. Do you disagree with the statement..."The weapons of mass destruction used in the 9/11 attacks were box-cutters"?
13. Do you think finding an airplane fuselage in a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq means terrorists were practicing hijackings? If not, for what purpose do you think they were using the airplane?
14. Knowing what little you may know about spy satellites, what do you think Iraq was hiding using the tunnel-digging equipment they bought from the French some 5 years ago?
15. Why do you think Iraq had a 'Higher Committee for Monitoring the Inspection Teams' headed by Hussein's Vice-President, and son, Qusay?
16. The fact that Iraq trained experts to foil UN weapons inspectors is documented not just by U.S. intelligence organizations, but by those of many other countries. Why do you think Iraq needed to use these tactics, if George W. Bush is lying?
17. In 1995, Iraq admitted it had biological weapons. They declared they had, for example, 8500 liters of anthrax. Where did they all go? If Iraq destroyed them, why would there be any need for more UN resolutions after that?
18. When do you think Iraq abandoned their existing Weapons of Mass Destruction program? What do you think was their motivation for abandoning it- the 17th time the UN said 'pretty please', or the fact that it was spending too much money that could used for social programs to improve the lives of Iraqi citizens?
19. Do you think the bio-weapons lab vehicles found in Iraq were being used as lunch wagons, or as mobile auto detail trucks?
20. If a terrorist organization attacked America tomorrow by spraying anthrax over a large city, would you blame George W. Bush for not doing enough?
21. Would Hillary?
22. How many minutes after the attack do you think it would take for Hillary to appear on CNN?
23. If an illegal U.S. president declares an illegal war, wouldn't the two cancel each other out?
Bonus Question: Do you think O.J. killed Ron and Nicole, or was he the victim of a massive conspiracy to plant evidence by many separate divisions of the LAPD? |
|
|
| surferfb |
There are a couple of problems with that, I'll enlighten you.
4) Iraq never fired SCUD missles in this war, in fact, no evidence of SCUD missles have been found at all this time around.
5) See 4.
10) Too difficult to plant
11) Bringing WMDs into the country and placing them is far more difficult than 1 guy hiding among supporters.
19) No bioweapons labs were found, they were used for making weather balloons.
20) Yes, because he was focused on Iraq and not the real threat.
A few questions for you: :D
Do you see a problem going to war with a country for ignoring the UN and in the process ignoring the UN?
If these WMDs exist, where are they?
What do yo think about the paperwork glich that was reported a few weeks ago that pretty much said the WMD descripancies was just bad bookkeeping, not existing WMDs?
What do you think about Hans Blix saying he believes there are no WMDs in Iraq?
Do you see a difference in a weapons program and actual weapons themselves?
If no weapons exist, but just a program, is the threat immenet?
If this had been Clinton and not Bush, would be calling for his impeachment?
Isn't it obvious that at best the administration missled us?
Or if not our intellegence agencies suck?
Do you think the CIA was influenced by Dick Cheney visiting several times asking about WMD data? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by surferfb
A few questions for you: :D |
| quote: | | Do you see a problem going to war with a country for ignoring the UN and in the process ignoring the UN? |
The UN was consulted and proven to be inept, no thanks to France, Germany, and Russia. There would've been pretty unanimous support from the UN had France not flatly said they would veto ANY new resolution, placing the burden on Bush to either back down like a or be a leader and not back down. Bush did the right thing.
| quote: | | If these WMDs exist, where are they? |
Apparently still hidden, or dispersed. No doubt they were documented and known to be there. They will ultimately be found.
| quote: | | What do yo think about the paperwork glich that was reported a few weeks ago that pretty much said the WMD descripancies was just bad bookkeeping, not existing WMDs? |
I'm not aware that this is the exact story as there are documented incidents by the UN of illegal weapon caches in Iraq. There may have been some bookkeeping errors, but that doesn't mean no WMD's exist.
| quote: | | What do you think about Hans Blix saying he believes there are no WMDs in Iraq? |
I think Hans Blix has very little value to add to this process. His opinion means little more than anyone else. He's just speculating. It's meaningless.
| quote: | | Do you see a difference in a weapons program and actual weapons themselves? |
Yes, but both are bad and were violations of U.N. resolutions, so in the eyes of the U.N. I don't think there's much difference. A program leads to weapons--is it better to wait until they're armed and ready to fire a few missiles off?
| quote: | | If no weapons exist, but just a program, is the threat immenet? |
yes, relatively speaking. Can you spell imminent?:D
| quote: | | If this had been Clinton and not Bush, would be calling for his impeachment? |
No. Clinton would never have the balls anyway.
| quote: | | Isn't it obvious that at best the administration missled us? |
I don't feel misled.
| quote: | | Or if not our intellegence agencies suck? |
Sure, there's always room for improvement with intelligence.
| quote: | | Do you think the CIA was influenced by Dick Cheney visiting several times asking about WMD data? |
Maybe. That's speculation. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
'Bush's Illegal War' Questionnaire
Please answer as many of the following questions as you can, and as many with a straight face as possible. Please answer quickly as you already have all of the answers.
1. Since George W. Bush is evil, and thought by some to be far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, could you please list the instances you are aware of where George W. Bush has ordered the murder, torture and rape of American citizens, like yourself, who oppose his presidency.
2. Could you list any sites of mass graves of American citizens ordered to be killed by the Bush administration?
3. Further, could you please list the instances you are aware of when George W. Bush has ordered the murder of members of his own family.
|
Saddam's personal cruelty had impact only on the local population. Bush's behaviour has impact on the whole world. You are intentionally emphasizing Saddam's greatest attrocities, while avoiding to mention Bush's murders. You have conveniently forgot to mention how many civilians and soldiers on both sides died as a direct result of Bush's war.
| quote: |
4. Do you feel that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons he was specifically forbidden to have by the UN; for example, the Scud missiles he fired into Kuwait during the first two weeks of the war?
5. How do you think Saddam was able to fire weapons that he didn't have?
|
He did posses those weapons, even the UN inspectors who were in Iraq found some forbidden missiles which the Iraqi government then went off to destroy.
| quote: |
6. Are inspectors inspectors, or are inspectors detectives?
7. How many more months would you have given Saddam Hussein to comply with the 17 UN resolutions, passed over 12 years?
|
See, you're forgetting that the inspectors weren't working between 1998 and 2003. You're also forgetting that the second time they weren't obstructed in their search.
| quote: |
8. If you owned an apartment building, for how many months would you allow a tenant to defy you to kick him out for not paying the rent he owes? |
If you're comparing the world to an apartment and the US to the owner, I am getting the impression you think US owns the world and can do anything it pleases to any disobedient country? Well, a newsflash for you, the US is not the ruler of the world. Other countries have their rights as well.
| quote: |
9. If the UN, and the previous administration, were convinced Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and used that as a basis for their actions against Iraq, how do those reasons evaporate when applied by the Bush administration? |
Because there was no proof for that. If there's an uncertainty, then sending inspectors is ok, but an invasion isn't.
| quote: | 10. If the Bush administration, led by the evil GWB, lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to go to war, why haven't we found any WMD secretly planted by the Bush administration?
11. If you feel it would be too difficult to plant WMD in Iraq, because there are too many people watching, such that no one can do anything sneaky in Iraq, then why can't we find Saddam? |
Two reasons for that. The first one is that the US government was largely convinced Iraq possesed WMD's, based on their flawed report. The second one is that WMDs were obviously not the real reason for the war.
| quote: | | 12. Do you disagree with the statement..."The weapons of mass destruction used in the 9/11 attacks were box-cutters"? |
I don't get it.
| quote: | | 13. Do you think finding an airplane fuselage in a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq means terrorists were practicing hijackings? If not, for what purpose do you think they were using the airplane? |
So what are you trying to say, that Saddam was behind 11.9.? Even the Bush administration admitted he had nothing to do with it. Besides, northern Iraq was largely under control of local kurds and various militant groups because of the no-fly zone.
| quote: | | 14. Knowing what little you may know about spy satellites, what do you think Iraq was hiding using the tunnel-digging equipment they bought from the French some 5 years ago? |
Because they didn't like a country which is bombing them every day to know all the information about their military. The same reason why countries usually shoot down spy planes.
| quote: | 15. Why do you think Iraq had a 'Higher Committee for Monitoring the Inspection Teams' headed by Hussein's Vice-President, and son, Qusay?
16. The fact that Iraq trained experts to foil UN weapons inspectors is documented not just by U.S. intelligence organizations, but by those of many other countries. Why do you think Iraq needed to use these tactics, if George W. Bush is lying? |
I think the events you're talking about are those prior to 1998.
| quote: | | 17. In 1995, Iraq admitted it had biological weapons. They declared they had, for example, 8500 liters of anthrax. Where did they all go? If Iraq destroyed them, why would there be any need for more UN resolutions after that? |
Most of it was probably spent on gassing the kurds. But as I said before, antrax doesn't last forever, and it may have deteriorated beyond usefulness. The resolutions were enacted because there was no evidence for that.
| quote: | | 18. When do you think Iraq abandoned their existing Weapons of Mass Destruction program? What do you think was their motivation for abandoning it- the 17th time the UN said 'pretty please', or the fact that it was spending too much money that could used for social programs to improve the lives of Iraqi citizens? |
Because they were under sanctions and had no chance of obtaining necessary materials.
| quote: | | 19. Do you think the bio-weapons lab vehicles found in Iraq were being used as lunch wagons, or as mobile auto detail trucks? |
No, they were used to create hydrogen baloons. I already mentioned that and you're pretending like you didn't hear it. You're so blinded by pro-american propaganda that even when the very people who told it to you admit they have lied, you still believe the original story.
| quote: | | 20. If a terrorist organization attacked America tomorrow by spraying anthrax over a large city, would you blame George W. Bush for not doing enough? |
No, unless he was the one that sold antrax to that organization.
| quote: | 21. Would Hillary?
22. How many minutes after the attack do you think it would take for Hillary to appear on CNN? |
I have no idea on that one.
| quote: | | 23. If an illegal U.S. president declares an illegal war, wouldn't the two cancel each other out? |
He's not illegal, he used a loophole in the system to become the president against the will of the majority of american people. And even if that weren't the case, I think you know the answer.
| quote: | | Bonus Question: Do you think O.J. killed Ron and Nicole, or was he the victim of a massive conspiracy to plant evidence by many separate divisions of the LAPD? |
I couldn't care less. |
|
|
| che |
| quote: | Originally posted by surferfb
There are a couple of problems with that, I'll enlighten you.
4) Iraq never fired SCUD missles in this war, in fact, no evidence of SCUD missles have been found at all this time around.
5) See 4.
|
Ahh if she was refering to the Gulf War then yes they did fire SCUDS, if she was refering to the "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (lol, makes me laugh) then no no SCUDS were fired. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| he, dint know Shakka was on the pro war, pro bush side:p .. |
|
|
| Spin Doctor |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
17. In 1995, Iraq admitted it had biological weapons. They declared they had, for example, 8500 liters of anthrax. Where did they all go? If Iraq destroyed them, why would there be any need for more UN resolutions after that?
|
You can have a “beware of the dog” sign on your gate without having a dog. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
I didn't know Rush Limbaugh is a tranceaddict...
definitions of danger and capabilities of violence should not be comparitively based by the actions of a world superpower and the actions of a desperate world minority. If the few that have declared themselves our enemy had $100 billion and the personnel and equipment to wage an equivicable war against the us, would we still call it terrorism? terrorism, by definition is someone that causes terror, therefore, if an institiution is causing terror among ANY population is it a terrorist organization?
Please, spit out "W"'s cum before posting this garbled bull.:whip:
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
he, dint know Shakka was on the pro war, pro bush side:p .. |
Word. |
|
|
| Renegade |
I'm not going to respond to all these, but:
| quote: | 4. Do you feel that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons he was specifically forbidden to have by the UN; for example, the Scud missiles he fired into Kuwait during the first two weeks of the war?
5. How do you think Saddam was able to fire weapons that he didn't have? |
We knew that Saddam had weapons (what do you think the Iraqi troops were firing at the Americans with? Insults?) the question was whether they possessed weapons banned under the UN Resolutions that were enforced immediately after the Gulf War. Under the resolutions, Iraq were permitted missiles, but only so long as their maximum travelling distance was 150km or less. If you think back the the al-Samoud missiles that were found and destroyed by the UN weapons inspectors just prior to the invasion, the issue wasn't that Iraq possessed weapons they shouldn't (they were permitted to have Scud missiles so long as they were incapable of travelling more than 150km) it was that the weapons were more powerful than they should be. The UN and the US knew that Iraq possessed these weapons (and Iraq made no attempt to prevent access to them) the controversy only erupted when it was discovered that the weapons could travel further than the 150km limit.
The missiles shot down in Kuwait were possibly Scud missiles, but there is no evidence to suggest that they had travelled/were capable of travelling more than the 150km limit. The Pentagon said this:
| quote: | | But Pentagon officials in Washington were less sure the missiles used in the attack were Scuds. Furthering the confusion, Army officials here in Kuwait said the missiles were a Scud version called the Ababil-100. That missile actually is not a Scud but a solid-fuel missile developed by Iraq that has an official range within U.N. limits. CIA officials have claimed the Ababil-100 can be modified to exceed a 93-mile range, however. |
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...iraq-scud_x.htm
Information about this missile can be found here:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/ababil.htm
| quote: | | 7. How many more months would you have given Saddam Hussein to comply with the 17 UN resolutions, passed over 12 years? |
As many as was needed to ensure all weapons were accounted for. At least with prolonged inspections we would have had a chance of detecting whatever WMDs Saddam may have had, now - as evidenced by their absense - they could be anywhere including - gasp! - in the hands of terrorists. How many weapons factories were raided immediately after the toppling of the Baathist regime? How many may have possessed the weapons the UN inspectors were looking for before Bush kicked them out of the country? Wouldn't you agree that the weapons were safer in the hands of Hussein than in the hands of a clandestine, international terrorist organisation?
Or perhaps we should just ask Bush senior where they might be. Afterall, he was the one who sold most of them to Hussein in the first place, wasn't he? :conf:
| quote: | | 9. If the UN, and the previous administration, were convinced Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and used that as a basis for their actions against Iraq, how do those reasons evaporate when applied by the Bush administration? |
What "actions against Iraq"? Besides, it doesn't matter how convinced Clinton or the UN were that Iraq had WMDS (assuming, that is, that they were convinced of this fact at all) the wash-up of the second Iraqi war has demonstrated undeniably that either:
a) Iraq actually didn't have any weapons.
or
b) Even if they did have weapons, they certainly weren't in a quantity large enough to justify a unilateral invasion on the premise that Iraq was a threat to the rest of the civilised world.
Perhaps you war-mongers would be best served by abandoning the "WMDs as a case for war" angle by virtue of the fact that, in case you hadn't noticed, you've been in there for nearly 6 months and haven't actually found a ing thing? :conf:
| quote: | | 10. If the Bush administration, led by the evil GWB, lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to go to war, why haven't we found any WMD secretly planted by the Bush administration? |
1) They did lie about the weapons of WMDs. Here's a useful timeline of quotes for those of you with selective amnesia (believe it or not, it wasn't originally a war waged for "humanitarian reasons"!):
http://billmon.org.v.sabren.com/archives/000172.html
Keep those quote in the above link in mind, and then take a read of this:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world...sp?story=446782
Even if you can't admit that Dubya would ever "lie" to us, surely it is impossible to suggest that, given all this, we weren't at least grossly misled by the Bush admin in the build-up to the war?
2) Why would George Bush plant weapons to cover up for a lie he "never made"? :conf:
The logic is perverse: the fact that George Bush hasn't planted weapons to cover up for the weapons he lied about, makes him righteous and the war in any way justified? Can someone tell me how this "lack of deceit" after the war in any way alters the implications of the deceit committed prior to the war?
| quote: | | 12. Do you disagree with the statement..."The weapons of mass destruction used in the 9/11 attacks were box-cutters"? |
That's a great point. All those 149 countries that manufacture box-cutters should be next on our list, I assure you.
| quote: | | 13. Do you think finding an airplane fuselage in a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq means terrorists were practicing hijackings? If not, for what purpose do you think they were using the airplane? |
Large areas of northern Iraq are not under Saddam Hussein's jurisdiction, nor are the "terrorist training camps" mentioned by the US administration in the build-up to the war. Northern Iraq is largely lawless, but falls primarily under Kurdish jurisdiction under the supervision of the US and the UN:
| quote: | Powell accused Baghdad of supporting Ansar al-Islam, a "deadly terrorist network" based in the ethnic Kurd controlled region of Northern Iraq. According to Powell, Ansar al-Islam has been responsible for plotting terror attacks in a number of countries including France, Britain, and Germany. US officials have also pointed to the role of Iraq's embassy in Islamabad, which was allegedly used as a liaison between Al Qaeda operatives and representatives of the Iraqi government.
Baghdad has no jurisdiction in the ethnic Kurd controlled region of Northern Iraq. In fact, the region is in the US sphere of influence. "But the picture is neither complete nor conclusive. Ansar al-Islam has its bases in the Kurdish-controlled area of Iraq, beyond the control of Saddam Hussein." (NYT, 14 Febrauary 2003)
[...]
Northern Iraq -which falls in "the no fly zone"-- is virtually a US protectorate. US military and intelligence observers stationed in the Kurdish region have turned a blind eye to the influx of Al Qaeda fighters from Afghanistan, as well as to the various acts of terrorism committed in the Kurdish region. |
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO302B.html
Even if there was an aeroplane fuselage in one of these camps it can be said with certaintly that the Iraqi regime had nothing to do with it.
| quote: | | 17. In 1995, Iraq admitted it had biological weapons. They declared they had, for example, 8500 liters of anthrax. Where did they all go? If Iraq destroyed them, why would there be any need for more UN resolutions after that? |
In 1998, former UN Chief Weapons inspector Scott Ritter declared that, via UN inspections, 95% of Iraqs arsenal had been destroyed. Where did all these new weapons - that Iraq were accused by the Bush administration of possessing - come from? Why would there be any need for war after that?
| quote: | | 19. Do you think the bio-weapons lab vehicles found in Iraq were being used as lunch wagons, or as mobile auto detail trucks? |
I think they were made to inflate artillery balloons (or should that be artillery balloons...... of mass destruction! :eyespop: ), exactly what they were intended to do when the British sold them to Iraq in 1987:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq...,973195,00.html
Try again. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
OJ is SO guilty |
That figures Cheney, that's what all Conservatives think! :happy2: |
|
|
|
|
