Why hasn't Bin Larden been found despite spy satellites covering his area?

[smercer]

Hi all,


Quote from website http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-05-12-spy-satellite_x.htm

Limits on commercial spy satellites to ease
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is significantly loosening controls on commercial spy satellites, allowing them to capture images with high enough resolution to show people on the ground and using them as a much greater resource for national security organizations.

The Bush administration is easing on limits of spy satellites, similar to the Japanese one being carried by this rocket.

The administration also plans to allow exports of spy satellite systems, including radar mapping and other types of sensors.

The policy, to be announced Wednesday, was authorized by President Bush on April 25 and described at a briefing Monday by a senior administration official.

The administration's motive is two-fold: To get the images cheaper for the Defense Department, CIA and other agencies than the government can produce them itself. The national security agencies will then concentrate on space activities that can't be met by private companies for economic or national security reasons.

Secondly, the move will bolster U.S. dominance over other nations in the increasingly competitive field of spy satellite technology.

In 1994, President Clinton signed a directive allowing U.S. companies to sell commercial images taken from space on a restricted basis. Clinton's policies limited these businesses to images of about 20-inch resolution, too big to show a person, and severely limited exports of satellite technology by U.S. companies. The new policy will allow these exports, subject to approval by Defense and foreign policy officials.

Critics have been concerned that this technology could fall into the wrong hands, such as terrorists targeting dams or power plants or unfriendly nations looking for weak points in U.S. security. But during the Iraq war, the spy satellite companies acted as "good citizens," the senior administration official said. The official said those businesses restricted sales that might have threatened national security and provided timely images to defense agencies.

During operations last year in Afghanistan, the U.S. government purchased all satellite time from Space Imaging of Thornton, Colo., which then was the only operating private company. Now, three U.S. and one Israeli companies operate private spy satellites, and the private sector of several other nations plan to enter the arena.

"This policy really confirms the government is behind the industry," said Mark Brender of Space Imaging.

In November, his company asked the government for permission to launch a private spy satellite with 10-inch resolution of the ground, which will now be approved. Currently, the company's IKONOS satellite takes pictures with a 39-inch resolution. A competitor, DigitalGlobe of Longmont, Colo., takes images with a 24-inch resolution. "Higher resolution images provide more information and more detail needed for military mapping, state and local government zoning and homeland security disaster preparedness," Brender said.

The senior administration official stressed that remote sensing images will still be subject to "shutter control" by the government if it appears to damage U.S. security. The National Imagery and Mapping Agency, jointly run by the CIA and Defense Department, will enforce the policy. NIMA officials would not comment on it.


First Question: Why Has'nt Bin Larden been caught/found yet dispite spy satellites covering his area?

Some in these forums say the Weapons of Mass Desruction (WMD) in possession of Suddem Hussain was moved around, and that the Weapons inspectors have not been able to prove anything. this is simply not true.


quote from website http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=382&sID=6

Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we been - seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.

...

At all sites which had been inspected before 1998, rebaselining activities were performed. These included the identification of the function and contents of each building, new or old, at a site. It also included verification of previously tagged equipment, application of seals and tags, taking samples and discussions with the site's personnel regarding past and present activities. At certain sites, ground-penetrating radar was used to look for underground structures or buried equipment.


Second Question: If Suddem Hussain moved the WMD around to avoid being caught, Why are the Bush Administration not supplying proof in the form of Satellite images of his weapons being moved?


Edit: Quote deleted, link dead.


Question four: Why was there a war with Iraq without proof that WMD existed?

By the way UN weapons Inspectors never found any WMD that were not destroyed anywhere in Iraq until a year later, which is a very questionable event, because what they found was a bombshell on the side of the road where anyone driving past would have seen it. Obviously they would have found the bomb in many different ways 1) by Spy Satellite 2) US Army Patrols doing inspections on suspicious people while in their possession(if it was left there after the war) 3) US Army Patrols finding the bomb when driving by 4)Someone reporting in the bomb. 5) some other means I have not yet thought of.


Quote by website http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=382&sID=6

Another matter, and one of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for.

I must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

...

It is our intention to examine the possibilities for surveying ground movements, notably trucks. In the face of persistent intelligence reports - for instance, about mobile biological-weapons production units - such measures could well increase the effectiveness of inspections.

...

We have, to date, found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq.

This would be the only factor that Bush went to war on. some things was unaccounted for, but not found. Of course if it was used up in the gulf war, the weapons inspectors would not have found any thing left, and this would not be proof enough to justify war.

quote from website http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16221-2004Oct7.html

The report released Wednesday by U.S. weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer confirmed that the Iraqi leader had destroyed his chemical and biological weapons stockpiles in the 1990s and had effectively ended his elementary efforts to pursue nuclear weapons.

...
He recalled that Russian gyroscopes were smuggled into the country and his U.N. inspectors got divers to go into the Tigris River to find them where the Iraqis had attempted to hide them.

...
Duelfer said he believed when Hussein began discussions with the United Nations in late 2000 about readmitting inspectors, "to me that was a very key indicator that there probably wasn't large stocks there to be found." When the U.S. troop buildup began in the Gulf, it became "clear that Saddam chose not to have weapons at a point in time before the war," he added.

Question five: Why did it take so long (a year) to find a bomb that was so convenient to find when such effective means of disabling Suddam was in place could find things they had hidden in much harder places much easier when it was known there were none?

Now some may say that Suddem Hussein had prevented weapons inspectors from coming in to check his weapons stock pile. After reading all this,
Question six: If he had proven that he was no threat, why would he have to worry about the Weapon Inspectors?

Quote from website http://www.vermelho.org.br/english/text/struggler.asp

Another pretext of the United States that must be demystified is that Iraq expelled the UN inspectors in 1998 and did not allow them to return. It was the United States that told the inspectors to leave so that they could start the bombing campaign that was called Operation Desert Fox, when 1,100 bombs and Cruise missiles were thrown at Iraq. After the operation, an article by the Washington Post shown that the Defense Intelligence Agency obtained the information gathered in the inspection and handed it to the Pentagon that used them to direct the bombardments. It is obvious that in such conditions the Iraqi government could not allow the return of the inspectors.
Having said all this,
Question seven: If Bin Larden and Suddem Hussain's weapons of mass desruction has not been found using satellite technolergy, are they really beening used for the purpose Bush and gang say they are for?
Don't forget, You Americans are paying for this in your taxes, Isn't it time you start questioning their motives for spending your money on something like this with no apparent results?
Edit: links was dead, replaced with new links.

[jeff_archer7]

OH MY GOD HERE WE GO AGAIN :D

Q. Why hasn't the spy sattelites got Osama Bin Laden?

A. Cause he is one sneaky bastard with a long list of loyal followers who would never give him up..... money isn't the issue with fanatics, you can't buy them, so forget about the reward, it won't work.... That coupled with the fact that America loves to tru and swat flies with a sledge hammer (it may work if the flies are en-masse but the individual will slip through)... Lets face it AMERICA can't track down it's OWN top 10 MOST wanted (makes you wonder just how wanted they are) Let alone some crazy bastard (who looks like every other crazy bastard) a few thousand miles away....


Q If Suddem Hussain moved the WMD around to avoid being caught, Why are the Bush Administration not supplying proof in the form of Satellite images of his weapons being moved?

A. There are not any WMD, Bush jnr. wanted to win where his Bush snr. got his arse Kicked.... PRIDE...... Oh yeah did I mention Saddam hated the states and was being mean when it came to HIS oil.. therefor any excuse to invade will do (got to get that OIL)


Q. Why was there a war with Iraq without proof that WMD existed?

A. OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL,


Q. Why did it take so long (a year) to find a bomb that was so convenient to find when such effective means of disabling Suddam was in place could find things they had hidden in much harder places much easier when it was known there were none?

A. It was the Americans who were doing the looking..... lmao


Q. If he had proven that he was no threat, why would he have to worry about the Weapon Inspectors?

A. He wasn't worried, that doesn't mean however He wanted other people sniffing around in his back yard... He was arrogant enough to tell them to F**K OFF... sadly America Didn't..... Now its Vietnam in the desert.....


Q.If Bin Larden and Suddem Hussain's weapons of mass desruction has not been found using satellite technolergy, are they really beening used for the purpose Bush and gang say they are for?

A. They are there to spy on us.... everyone..... cause America need an excuse (no matter how cheap) to be the SCHOOL YARD BULLY.... The technology will never be used for niceness..... only Evil....

I'm Glad I'm Not American

[Fantatier]

watch fahrenheit 911 to get answers to most of those questions ;) :D

[smercer]

I am not asking the questions because I don't know them, I am asking them to shed light on the situation.

By the way Jeff, you get a medal for answering correctly :D

[jeff_archer7]

Originally posted by smercer
I am not asking the questions because I don't know them, I am asking them to shed light on the situation.

By the way Jeff, you get a medal for answering correctly :D

Sorry I didn't know it was rhetorical :(

Thanks for giving me an A... Seems us Aussies Know more about the Americans that the Americans do..... LMAO...

[smercer]

Originally posted by jeff_archer7
Sorry I didn't know it was rhetorical :(

Thanks for giving me an A... Seems us Aussies Know more about the Americans that the Americans do..... LMAO...

But you only know about it becaue you have an open mind. It was not very long ago that you only just found out. Scary when you do find out, it's like the foundations you built your morals and beliefs all your life on comes out from under you.

The Americans have less independent news coverage then Australia does, and that is why they are so (trying to find the right word) uninformed, because their media outlets are bought and owned by very few people, so they have less news stories that contradict each other.

[philaweb]

Q. Why hasn't the spy sattelites got Osama Bin Laden?

A. Coz he shaved, got a baseball cap on backwards and went cruisin' with his homies in hummers wearing phat gold chains and AK-47's. Oh, that, and the fact he went undercover in LA. ;)

Q. Why hasn't the spy sattelites got Elvis?

[thuko135]

Originally posted by Fantatier
watch fahrenheit 911 to get answers to most of those questions ;) :D That movie is filled with so many deceits (http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm), starting from the top and Michael Moron, er, Moore. FahrenHype 9/11 goes over the facts in a more documentary-like production.

I was and still am completely against the war and find the actions by the current administration suspect to say the least. However, I consider myself an Independent, and did not vote in the election because I felt we were doomed either way.

Jeff, the war was not because of oil. If we wanted oil, we would not be instituting a democracy there. The war was a result of Bush feeling a threat to a much needed democracy movement. In addition, Bush indeed wanted revenge on the man who nearly killed his daddy [cnn (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/)].

I'd also like to make the point: (1) Is it better now that bin Laden is on the defensive, or was it better when he could attack the country? and (2) Is the world safer with Hussein out of power? A simple yes or no will answer fine.

Mike

EDIT: I should also point out several WMD were found in Iraq. "10 or 12 sarin and mustard gas shells" were found. [fox (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123680,00.html)].
EDIT: My taxes?! My taxes are finally coming back to me. This is the first time since Reagen that I've gotten/noticed tax relief.
EDIT: Where's question 3?

[thuko135]

Getting sick of edits, soOriginally posted by smercer
The Americans have less independent news coverage then Australia does, and that is why they are so (trying to find the right word) uninformed, because their media outlets are bought and owned by very few people, so they have less news stories that contradict each other. You really haven't a clue what you are talking about, do you. Try and prove that with a credible source, because I don't buy itOriginally posted by jeff_archer7
Seems us Aussies Know more about the Americans that the Americans do..... LMAO...Seems as if you think wrong :rolleyes:. Your answers have proved nothing to show you know anything about the US.

[Jupac]

Originally posted by philaweb
Q. Why hasn't the spy sattelites got Osama Bin Laden?

A. Coz he shaved, got a baseball cap on backwards and went cruisin' with his homies in hummers wearing phat gold chains and AK-47's. Oh, that, and the fact he went undercover in LA. ;)



rofl i saw him :D, but i thought it was Snopp Dogg when i frist glanced

[smercer]

Originally posted by thuko135
That movie is filled with so many deceits (http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm), starting from the top and Michael Moron, er, Moore.

That sounds one sided to me, and that web site you gave does not give any points exactly, for instance it would call a statement made by Michael Moore a lie but would not say why it is a lie.

Originally posted by thuko135

I was and still am completely against the war and find the actions by the current administration suspect to say the least. However, I consider myself an Independent, and did not vote in the election because I felt we were doomed either way.

the current administration is far from being good, and Bush should therefore be impeached for 1) his lies and deceits 2) war when Suddem was cooperating.

Originally posted by thuko135

Jeff, the war was not because of oil. If we wanted oil, we would not be instituting a democracy there. The war was a result of Bush feeling a threat to a much needed democracy movement. In addition, Bush indeed wanted revenge on the man who nearly killed his daddy [cnn (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/)].

You do not send in your countries army for personal reasons.
The war was all about OIL. The country is now run by a government that is put there by the Bush Admin, and now is controlled much like the queen of England rules over Australia (She has a representive we call the Governor-General) but democracy is only what they call it. Because the people there have to go and write on a piece of paper and put in a box, Does not mean that the people behind the scenes are not going to instate who the people want. Do you get to see what lies beyond the smokescreen, the ballot boxes and ballot paper? You only believe that a bunch of votes is going to allow the people of Iraq to choose their leader (you can choose between black or black, Now who do you want to vote for?). The election is rigged to make it look like a democracy, and think about that next time you go to vote.

Originally posted by thuko135

I'd also like to make the point: (1) Is it better now that bin Laden is on the defensive, or was it better when he could attack the country?

More to that point: The Americans bombed and killed many Afghanis, for the sake of bringing to justice someone who the Bush and gang refused to supply proof before going to war. Now think about this: How many more terrorists (who would not have been considered terrorist before the war, because of revenge) do you think the US Gov will now be defending their borders from?

Having said that, I'll let you answer your own question based on what I have said.

Originally posted by thuko135

and (2) Is the world safer with Hussein out of power? A simple yes or no will answer fine.

No.
Originally posted by thuko135

EDIT: I should also point out several WMD were found in Iraq. "10 or 12 sarin and mustard gas shells" were found. [fox (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123680,00.html)].

I think you need to re-read my sources

Quote by website http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=382&sID=6
edit: link was dead, Replaced with another site.

How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed.

Now, who are you willing to believe; a neutral who only wants to stop weapons of mass destruction from being used who was hired by the UN, who was in Iraq and physically saw Suddem was not danger to the rest of the world,

or are you willing to believe someone who is trying to make a buck from a sensational story in the news while sitting behind his desk and getting his info second hand from the head of the Iraq Survey Group while not even checking if his statement is true?

Originally posted by thuko135

EDIT2: My taxes?! My taxes are finally coming back to me. This is the first time since Raegen that I've gotten tax relief.

so for every dollar that goes to tax, you get five cents back?</sarcasm>

That does not say that your money is being spent rightfully by the people who are supposed to represent the people of USA.
Originally posted by thuko135

EDIT3: Where's question 3?
Got lost between Question two and Question four. lol :D

[smercer]

Originally posted by thuko135
You really haven't a clue what you are talking about, do you. Try and prove that with a credible source, because I don't buy it


Quote by website http://www.bernie.house.gov/documents/opeds/20020612104617.asp

Corporations Have Chokehold on U.S. Media
by Rep. Bernie Sanders

One of our best-kept secrets is the degree to which a handful of huge corporations control the flow of information in the United States. Whether it is television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books or the Internet, a few giant conglomerates are determining what we see, hear and read. And the situation is likely to become much worse as a result of radical deregulation efforts by the Bush administration and some horrendous court decisions.

Television is the means by which most Americans get their “news.” Without exception, every major network is owned by a huge conglomerate that has enormous conflicts of interest. Fox News Channel is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a right-wing Australian who already owns a significant portion of the world’s media. His network has close ties to the Republican Party, and among his “fair and balanced” commentators is Newt Gingrich.

NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the largest corporations in the world — and one with a long history of anti-union activity. GE, a major contributor to the Republican Party, has substantial financial interests in weapons manufacturing, finance, nuclear power and many other industries. Former CEO Jack Welch was one of the leaders in shutting down American plants and moving them to low-wage countries like China and Mexico.

ABC is owned by the Disney Corp., which produces toys and products in developing countries where they provide their workers atrocious wages and working conditions.

CBS is owned by Viacom, another huge media conglomerate that owns, among other entities, MTV, Showtime, Nickelodeon, VH1, TNN, CMT, 39 broadcast television stations, 184 radio stations, Paramount Pictures and Blockbuster Inc.

The essential problem with television is not just a right-wing bias in news and programming, or the transformation of politics and government into entertainment and sensationalism. Nor is it just the constant bombardment of advertising, much of it directed at children. It’s that the most important issues facing the middle-class and working people of our country are rarely discussed. The average American does not see his or her reality reflected on the television screen.

The United States is the only industrialized nation on earth that does not have a national healthcare program. Yet, despite 41 million people with no health insurance and millions more underinsured, we spend far more per capita on healthcare than any other nation. Maybe the reason is that we are seeing no good programs on television, in between the prescription drug advertisements, discussing how we can provide quality healthcare for all at far lower per capita costs than we presently spend?

Despite the great “economic boom” of the 1990s, the average American worker is now working longer hours for lower wages than 30 years ago, and we have lost millions of decent-paying manufacturing jobs. Where are the TV programs addressing our $360 billion trade deficit, or what our disastrous trade policy has done to depress wages in this country? And while we’re on economics, workers who are in unions earn 30 percent more than non-union people doing the same work. There are a lot of programs on television about how to get rich by investing in the stock market. But have you seen any “specials” on how to go about forming a union?

The United States has the most unfair distribution of wealth and income in the industrialized world, and the highest rate of childhood poverty. There’s a lot of television promoting greed and self-interest, but how many programs speak to the “justice” of the richest 1 percent owning more wealth than the bottom 95 percent? Or of the CEOs of major corporations earning 500 times what their employees make?

If television largely ignores the reality of life for the majority of Americans, corporate radio is just plain overt in its right-wing bias. In a nation that cast a few million more votes for Al Gore and Ralph Nader than for George Bush and Pat Buchanan, there are dozens of right-wing talk show programs. Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Bob Grant, Sean Hannity, Alan Keyes, Armstrong Williams, Howie Carr, Oliver North, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan, Pat Robertson, Laura Schlessinger — these are only a few of the voices that day after day pound a right-wing drumbeat into the heartland of this country.

And from a left perspective there is — well, no one. The Republican Party, corporate owners and advertisers have their point of view well represented on radio. Unfortunately, the rest of America has almost nothing

As bad as the current media situation is, it is likely to be made much worse by a recent decision in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals that responded to a suit by Fox, AOL Time Warner, NBC and Viacom. That decision struck down a federal regulation limiting companies from owning television stations and cable franchises in the same local markets. The court also ordered that the Federal Communications Commission either justify or rewrite the federal rule that limits any one company from owning television stations that reach more than 35 percent of American households.

The bottom line is that fewer and fewer huge conglomerates are controlling virtually everything that the ordinary American sees, hears and reads. This is an issue that Congress can no longer ignore.

Notice the .gov? it means it is from a credible source.

Originally posted by thuko135

Seems as if you think wrong :rolleyes:. Your answers have proved nothing to show you know anything about the US.

Well he does have a point, in a way. which comes back to

The Americans have less independent news coverage then Australia does, and that is why they are so (trying to find the right word) uninformed, because their media outlets are bought and owned by very few people, so they have less news stories that contradict each other.

[thuko135]

smercer, the Bush Admin need not be impeached. In the past election, he got more votes than any other presidential candidate in any previous election, and won with a majority vote, which Clinton never did. I don't like the actions they've taken, but I don't nearly think they deserve impeachment. Clinton was impeached, and deserved it. Bush never will be, not with a Republican dominance in the house and majority in the Senate (55-44-1 I believe).

The web site regarding the Michael Moron film that I linked to has numeorus credible points, spending paragraphs about each deceit. For example, the Bush vacation section:Fahrenheit 9/11 Deceits
Fahrenheit 9/11 states, "In his first eight months in office before September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time."

Shortly before 9/11, the Post calculated that Bush had spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route, including all or part of 54 days at his ranch. That calculation, however, includes weekends, which Moore failed to mention.

Tom McNamee, "Just the facts on ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ Chicago Sun-Times, June 28, 2004. See also: Mike Allen, "White House On the Range. Bush Retreats to Ranch for ‘Working Vacation’," Washington Post, August 7, 2001 Many of those days are weekends, and the Camp David stays have included working visits with foreign leaders. Since the Eisenhower administration, Presidents have usually spent many weekends at Camp David, which is fully equipped for Presidential work. Once the Camp David time is excluded, Bush's "vacation" time drops to 13 percent.



Much of that 13 percent was spent on Bush's ranch in Texas. Reader Scott Marquardt looked into a random week of Bush's August 2001 "vacation." Using public documents from www.whitehouse.gov, here is what he found:

Monday, August 20
Spoke concerning the budget while visiting a high school in Independence, Missouri.
Spoke at the annual Veteran's of Foreign Wars convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Signed six bills into law.

...

Spoke with workers at the Harley Davidson factory.
Dined with Kansas Governor Bill Graves, discussing politics.


Tuesday, August 21
Took press questions at a Target store in Kansas City, Missouri.
Spoke with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien on the matter of free trade and tariffs on Canadian lumber.



Wednesday, August 22
Met with Karen Hughes, Condi Rice, and Josh Bolten, and other staff (more than one meeting).
Conferenced with Mexico's president for about 20 minutes on the phone. They discussed Argentina's economy and the International Monetary fund's role in bringing sustainability to the region. They also talked about immigration and Fox's planned trip to Washington.
Communicated with Margaret LaMontagne, who was heading up a series of immigration policy meetings.
Released the Mid-Session Review, a summary of the economic outlook for the next decade, as well as of the contemporary economy and budget.
...
Issued a Presidential Determination ordering a military drawdown for Tunisia.
Issued a statement regarding the retirement of Jesse Helms.

Thursday, August 23
Briefly spoke with the press.
Visited Crawford Elementary School, fielded questions from students.

Friday, August 24
...
Met with Andy Card and Karen Hughes, talking about communications issues.
Issued a proclamation honoring Women's Equality Day.

Saturday, August 25
Awoke at 5:45 AM, read daily briefs.
Had an hour-long CIA and national security briefing at 7:45
Gave his weekly radio address on the topic of The Budget.

Having shown a clip from August 25 with Bush explaining how he likes to work on the ranch, Moore announces "George Bush spent the rest of the August at the ranch." Not so, as Scott Marquardt found by looking at Bush's activity for the very next day.

Sunday, August 26
Speaks at the Little League World Series in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Speaks at the U.S. Steel Group Steelworkers Picnic at Mon Valley Works, southeast of Pittsburgh. He also visits some employees still working, not at the picnic.

Marquandt looked up Bush's activities for the next three days:

Declared a major disaster area in Ohio and orders federal aid. This affects Brown, Butler, Clermont and Hamilton counties.
Sent a report on progress toward a "solution of the Cyprus question" to the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Announced his intention to nominate Kathleen Burton Clarke to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management (Department of the Interior).
Spoke at the American Legion's 83rd annual convention in San Antonio, discussing defense priorities. Decommissioned the Air Force One jet that flew 444 missions, from the Nixon administration to Bush's retirement ceremony for the plane in Waco, Texas.
Attended the dedication ceremony of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park in San Antonio.
Announced appointment of 13 members of the Presidential Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nations Veterans.

It is true in a sense that the Presidency is a "24/7" job. But this does not mean that the President should be working every minute. A literal "24/7" job would mean that the President should be criticized for "sleeping on the job 33 percent of the time" if he slept for eight hours a day.



Christopher Hitchens notes:

[T]he shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won’t recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.



The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that’s what you get if you catch the president on a golf course.

Christopher Hitchens, "Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore," Slate.com, June 21, 2004. (Some of Moore's defenders have denounced Hitchens as a member of the vast-right wing conspiracy. Hitchens, however, wrote an obituary of Ronald Reagan recalling his lone meeting with Reagan, when he asked a question which made Reagan angry: "The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard." Hitchens also wrote a book and produced a movie, The Trials of Henry Kissinger, urging that Kissinger be tried for war crimes.)



By the way, the clip of Bush making a comment about terrorism, and then hitting a golf ball, is also taken out of context, at least partially:

Tuesday night on FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume, Brian Wilson noted how "the viewer is left with the misleading impression Mr. Bush is talking about al-Qaeda terrorists." But Wilson disclosed that "a check of the raw tape reveals the President is talking about an attack against Israel, carried out by a Palestinian suicide bomber."

"Cyberalert," Media Research Center, July 1, 2004, item. 3.



...



Moore wraps up the vacation segment: "It was a summer to remember. And when it was over, he left Texas for his second favorite place." The movie then shows Bush in Florida. Actually, he went back to Washington, where he gave a speech on August 31.



[Moore response: Accurately quotes the Washington Post: "if you add up all his weekends at Camp David, layovers at Kennebunkport and assorted to-ing and fro-ing, W. will have spent 42 percent of his presidency 'at vacation spots or en route.'" Does not attempt to defend Fahrenheit's mischaracterization of the Post's meaning. Does not explain why the Israeli context was removed from the Bush quote. Does not defend the claim that Bush went from Texas to Florida.]That definately does a job explaining
how Moron tries to deceit the viewer, not mentioning a 28% from weekends and a small percent at Camp David, where the president is highly qualified to carry out his duties. The number 13%, as mentioned above, was absent from the film.

The Bush admin sent the army because the major reason I already provided. Hussein was a threat to a much needed spread of democracy in the Middle East. I think war should have been a last resort; however, I never protested his decision. Oil was not the cause. Since 1996, Clinton and Bush have both attempted to enact legislation that would strengthen domestic energy source (eg. Alaskan oil). IF the country wnats to stop foreign source of energy, I don't think we'd go into a foreign country looking for their oil.

smercer, justify your response that the world isn't safer without Hussein. Australia was a major alliance to coalition forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom, so I would've expected you to have some knowldge to know that the war dramatically increased safety in both your country and mine. Not sure what makes you not want to see this. I guess if you can't call yourself independent and you have a biased viewpoint, you'll never admit to the truth.

And about the wmd, I won't read your conspiracy sources. I'll stick to my impartial sources.

Mike

[theuedimaster]

Originally posted by thuko135
And about the wmd, I won't read your conspiracy sources. I'll stick to my impartial sources.

Mike

:) Stop lying to yourself. Impartial my ass....

[theuedimaster]

Originally posted by thuko135
smercer, the Bush Admin need not be impeached. In the past election, he got more votes than any other presidential candidate in any previous election, and won with a majority vote, which Clinton never did. I don't like the actions they've taken, but I don't nearly think they deserve impeachment. Clinton was impeached, and deserved it.


Clinton deserved it, but Bush didn't eh? Oh, wait, I see your thinking Moron, you think messing around with one's secretary is worse than genocide? No wonder half of our country are a bunch of no-nothing idiots. You guys have no idea about the value of life, you are all just a bunch of flaming conservative egoists.

And that whole thing about "us" being safer from the Iraqi war, your joking right. Iraq was doing nothing to us man. Sadam was just sitting on his butt doing nothing. Nothing. We can't find weapons, we can't find ****. He was just sitting there. I am no safer now because of it, actually, now it is more dangerous. Now 3 times as many people want to kill Americans, and 99% of the world thinks we're a bunch of idiots. Mind you Smercer and jeff, I understand your views about Americans, but don't generalize all of us man. Not cool. Say sorry. Yes, the majority of my fellow citizens are a bunch of nazis, but don't label all of us like them. C'mon.

[thuko135]

Originally posted by theuedimaster
And that whole thing about "us" being safer from the Iraqi war, your joking right. Of course. And Hussein was joking when he tried to take Iran off the map 2 decades ago. and Kuwait in the early 90s. These were all jokes.

[smercer]

Originally posted by thuko135
smercer, the Bush Admin need not be impeached. In the past election, he got more votes than any other presidential candidate in any previous election, and won with a majority vote, which Clinton never did. I don't like the actions they've taken, but I don't nearly think they deserve impeachment. Clinton was impeached, and deserved it. Bush never will be, not with a Republican dominance in the house and majority in the Senate (55-44-1 I believe).

Well, I have to wonder which side you are on. You don't agree with what Bush is doing, yet you are supporting him and defending him. Makes me wonder.

Originally posted by thuko135

The web site regarding the Michael Moron film that I linked to has numeorus credible points, spending paragraphs about each deceit. For example, the Bush vacation section:That definately does a job explaining
how Moron tries to deceit the viewer, not mentioning a 28% from weekends and a small percent at Camp David, where the president is highly qualified to carry out his duties. The number 13%, as mentioned above, was absent from the film.

As I have not seen the film, I'll leave it everyone else to comment on that. I wouldn't be surprised that it is all hype and crap.

Originally posted by thuko135

The Bush admin sent the army because the major reason I already provided. Hussein was a threat to a much needed spread of democracy in the Middle East. I think war should have been a last resort; however, I never protested his decision. Oil was not the cause. Since 1996, Clinton and Bush have both attempted to enact legislation that would strengthen domestic energy source (eg. Alaskan oil). IF the country wnats to stop foreign source of energy, I don't think we'd go into a foreign country looking for their oil.

How do you think the Germans lost WWI??? They ran out of OIL to run their war machines. The US government has learned from this and are trying to get as much oil as they can so they do not run out, so they can go on with their wars. Those tanks use up alot of fuel because of the weight to move them around. 300 litres per hour for just ONE tank. That does not include what the planes, Jeeps, Trucks, and the navy, and every other war machine they use up.

Having said this, Do you really think there is enough oil to go around just from the US Alaskan oil and any other US Oil field?

Originally posted by thuko135

smercer, justify your response that the world isn't safer without Hussein.

I did when I said:

Originally posted by smercer


The Americans bombed and killed many Afghanis, for the sake of bringing to justice someone who the Bush and gang refused to supply proof before going to war. Now think about this: How many more terrorists (who would not have been considered terrorist before the war, because of revenge) do you think the US Gov will now be defending their borders from?

You do a good job of remaining ignorant.

Originally posted by thuko135

Australia was a major alliance to coalition forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom, so I would've expected you to have some knowldge to know that the war dramatically increased safety in both your country and mine.

Do you really think that because my Prime Minister says that we should all go to war, he has the same views as everyone else in Australia?

Originally posted by thuko135

Not sure what makes you not want to see this. I guess if you can't call yourself independent and you have a biased viewpoint, you'll never admit to the truth.

Speak for yourself.

Originally posted by thuko135

And about the wmd, I won't read your conspiracy sources. I'll stick to my impartial sources.


quote from website http://www.news24.com/News24/World/...1425251,00.html
Inspectors hunting for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have not produced evidence to prove the country posed a big enough threat to justify war, former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said on Friday.


quote from website http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...1-2004Oct7.html

The report released Wednesday by U.S. weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer confirmed that the Iraqi leader had destroyed his chemical and biological weapons stockpiles in the 1990s and had effectively ended his elementary efforts to pursue nuclear weapons.


This last one is of what former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said. Read it, an you'll find that Suddem was cooperating.

Quote by website http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=382&sID=6
Edit: link dead, replaced with UN site, content same.

How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed.


and this all comes down to:

Now, who are you willing to believe; a neutral who only wants to stop weapons of mass destruction from being used who was hired by the UN, who was in Iraq and physically saw Suddem was not danger to the rest of the world,

or are you willing to believe someone who is trying to make a buck from a sensational story in the news while sitting behind his desk and getting his info second hand from the head of the Iraq Survey Group while not even checking if his statement is true?


If all you want to gain by posting here is to stir the s***, I think I might just Ignore you.

[smercer]

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Clinton deserved it, but Bush didn't eh? Oh, wait, I see your thinking Moron, you think messing around with one's secretary is worse than genocide? No wonder half of our country are a bunch of no-nothing idiots. You guys have no idea about the value of life, you are all just a bunch of flaming conservative egoists.

And that whole thing about "us" being safer from the Iraqi war, your joking right. Iraq was doing nothing to us man. Sadam was just sitting on his butt doing nothing. Nothing. We can't find weapons, we can't find ****. He was just sitting there. I am no safer now because of it, actually, now it is more dangerous. Now 3 times as many people want to kill Americans, and 99% of the world thinks we're a bunch of idiots. Mind you Smercer and jeff, I understand your views about Americans, but don't generalize all of us man. Not cool. Say sorry. Yes, the majority of my fellow citizens are a bunch of nazis, but don't label all of us like them. C'mon.

It is true on what you say about some Americans give the rest a bad name. I did not mean to generalize my statement.

Still, I can see that you wish you weren't born American. I know you couldn't help it, and I know you don't have much say in what your president says or does.

You are going to suffer when the World war III comes around, because that is the only thing that will stop the US Government, and you are going to be caught in the middle of it. I do, and will feel sorry for you about the pain that will come to you.

[thuko135]

I've done the best to keep my threads concise. I don't live my life arguing with others. All I'm doing is spreading the truth, and if you take no initiative to understand and comprehend it, my role in correcting your ignorance is done.

[smercer]

Originally posted by thuko135
I've done the best to keep my threads concise. I don't live my life arguing with others. All I'm doing is spreading the truth, and if you take no initiative to understand and comprehend it, my role in correcting your ignorance is done.
its 4 to 1 (theuedimaster, jeff_archer7, Fantatier, and myself) who disagree with you, you loose.

[thuko135]

Originally posted by smercer
its 4 to 1 (theuedimaster, jeff_archer7, Fantatier, and myself) who disagree with you, you loose. I loose? Loose is an adjective smarty ;). I'm not so sure what was being debated that you have 4 supporters for. If its the US gov't, its 5-0. If its the Iraq war, its 5-0. If its that the Iraq war made us safer, we've got the opinions of only 2. I'm Al Gore, and I want a recount :rolleyes:

Mike

[thuko135]

And for the record, you haven't proven that world without Hussein is more dangerous than with Hussein. All you've done is quote irreliable sources and in the process, made invalid, hypocritical points. You make the other Australians, most of which I respect on this board, look bad.

[smercer]

*ignores latest two posts because of stiring s***.*

[thuko135]

Originally posted by smercer
*ignores latest two posts because of stiring s***.* If you have no confidence in being able to win a debate with me, I don't mind.

[smercer]

Originally posted by thuko135
If you have no confidence in being able to win a debate with me, I don't mind.

It's not a debate if you refuse to look at evidence. Discussion with you for me is closed as I don't what this thread to become an arguement. I could send you a few swear words, but its not worth the trouble. And no you didn't 'win', which is only make beleive.


theuedimaster, jeff_archer7 and Fantatier: Found some articles about the tsunami in Asia.

http://www.newsocialist.org/index.php?id=94

about quakes/tsunami in Alaska.
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/dmaw.html

This one sounds like a conspiracy theory, even though it's possible to have a nuclear bomb detonate in the ocean to create a tidal wave. I will still keep my mind open on this subject though as it may have a grain of truth in it somewhere. If it is true though it would not surprise me because of the horrible things I have heard of Bush and gang.
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/Indonesia/Quake.htm

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by Fantatier
watch fahrenheit 911 to get answers to most of those questions ;) :D Get most of the answers? No, answers are not what you are getting from Moore movies. Conservatives who were featured in his movie were interviewed on several news programs stating that he misquoted them, took their quotes out of context, and even just flat out edited their stuff, he made it look like one quy was speechless. That is just one of the tactis you will find with his movies. His movies are not truthful, they are from it. I suggest you what farenhype911.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer
That sounds one sided to me, and that web site you gave does not give any points exactly, for instance it would call a statement made by Michael Moore a lie but would not say why it is a lie. farenhype is a movie about the inaccuracies of farenheight. I suggest you look into it.


the current administration is far from being good, and Bush should therefore be impeached for 1) his lies and deceits 2) war when Suddem was cooperating. Okay, this has gotten absurd. Point out one instance where bush flat out lied to the american people. The american people can see through the bs of people like moore, that is why bush was reelected.


You do not send in your countries army for personal reasons.
The war was all about OIL. and so was afganistan right? [n]The country is now run by a government that is put there by the Bush Admin, and now is controlled much like the queen of England rules over Australia[/b] I beleive the people of Iraq had an election and chose their next leader.
Does not mean that the people behind the scenes are not going to instate who the people want. Do you get to see what lies beyond the smokescreen, the ballot boxes and ballot paper? You only believe that a bunch of votes is going to allow the people of Iraq to choose their leader (you can choose between black or black, Now who do you want to vote for?). The election is rigged to make it look like a democracy, and think about that next time you go to vote. You are completely outragious. You keep saying conspiracy this conspiracy that. It is absurd.

Now, who are you willing to believe; a neutral who only wants to stop weapons of mass destruction from being used who was hired by the UN, who was in Iraq and physically saw Suddem was not danger to the rest of the world, Nothing about the UN is neutral. The un has been UN-american historically. Plus the inspectos cannot tell their arse from a hole in the ground, they are not effective at finding weapons, saddam clearly howed that he knows how to toy with them.

or are you willing to believe someone who is trying to make a buck from a sensational story in the news while sitting behind his desk and getting his info second hand from the head of the Iraq Survey Group while not even checking if his statement is true? Yeah, except the information I think you are referring two was supported by the CIA and the intelligence of the brits and russians.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer
It's not a debate if you refuse to look at evidence. Discussion with you for me is closed as I don't what this thread to become an arguement. I could send you a few swear words, but its not worth the trouble. And no you didn't 'win', which is only make beleive.


theuedimaster, jeff_archer7 and Fantatier: Found some articles about the tsunami in Asia.

http://www.newsocialist.org/index.php?id=94

about quakes/tsunami in Alaska.
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/dmaw.html

This one sounds like a conspiracy theory, even though it's possible to have a nuclear bomb detonate in the ocean to create a tidal wave. I will still keep my mind open on this subject though as it may have a grain of truth in it somewhere. If it is true though it would not surprise me because of the horrible things I have heard of Bush and gang.
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/Indonesia/Quake.htm If you want us to look at your 'evidence' post some websites with some darned credibility. You and I both know that anyone can put something on the internet.
I can make a page that says "I hate people of color - Bush" and that does not make it true. Find a website with some credibility because they are the ones who will check their sources. I have to post this every time but you keep posting these hole in the wall websites that have _no_ credibility.

[smercer]

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Okay, this has gotten absurd. Point out one instance where bush flat out lied to the american people. The american people can see through the bs of people like moore, that is why bush was reelected.

"There are weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" is one lie (obvious one too),
"Bin Larden is in Afghanistan" Did they find him let alone know where he was? If they had the technology to say they "know" he is Afghanistan, why haven't he been found by now even if he escaped? Makes you wonder if he did know at all.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

and so was afganistan right?

Which comes back to the title of this thread, "Why hasn't Bin Larden been found despite all of the technology available to US gov" (the title I wanted to have)

Well? why hasn't he been found? He would have been betrayed by now, or found by US Solders during the war or during US occupation. There must be some reason for letting him slip away, while invading Afghanistan.

Originally posted by PeOfEo
I beleive the people of Iraq had an election and chose their next leader.

Yeah...Which criminal do you want to vote for?

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Nothing about the UN is neutral. The un has been UN-american historically.
At least we can agree on something political...I never liked the UN any more then I liked US Gov. But I found the article on how the weapons inspectors had been so unbiased about the search, and made me decide that the weapons inspectors would be some of the exceptions.



Originally posted by PeOfEo

Plus the inspectos cannot tell their arse from a hole in the ground, they are not effective at finding weapons, saddam clearly howed that he knows how to toy with them.

have a read of this: http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=382&sID=6
Edit: Link was dead so I changed it

even you would say it is mostly true, if not all true, and shows how much Saddem was cooperating. The weapons inspectors were not expelled, but left because the US told them to get out because US wanted to start bombing Iraq.


Originally posted by PeOfEo

Yeah, except the information I think you are referring two was supported by the CIA and the intelligence of the brits and russians.
So? I could run for presidency, create an Intelligence agency to say "Pigs have flown to Iraq" does that make it true?

To say a sensational story is true without any hard evidence is a complete lie.

[smercer]

Originally posted by PeOfEo
If you want us to look at your 'evidence' post some websites with some darned credibility.

Was you name listed? Was I talking to you? No in both cases.

I posted those sites for those listed because they have the common sense to put two and two together and decide for themselves. You however need all reasoning and other thought processes to be done for you by someone else you like to put your faith in.

Jick: Ok, I'll calm down now. PeOfEo was starting to bug me, so I let him know about it.

*takes three deep breaths*

PeOfEo: So that this discussion stays Civil, please don't just say "that's a lie", "that’s bull****", whatever other comment you can think of. Please state WHY, and please state it logically. There isn't much enjoyment in debating if you don't use logic to get your message across.

There have been times where you have stated your reasons logically, and that's what we are after, not the arguments we have gotten into.

[thuko135]

Originally posted by smercer
"There are weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" is one lie (obvious one too) Did you have a look regarding the shells found?http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123680,00.html
"10 or 12 sarin and mustard gas shells have been found in various locations in Iraq." You don't think Fox is reliable, have a look at all the other sites publishing the same story: Google (http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=%2210+or+12+sarin+and+mustard+gas+shells%22&btnG=Google+Search).

Mike

[smercer]

Originally posted by thuko135
Did you have a look regarding the shells found? You don't think Fox is reliable, have a look at all the other sites publishing the same story: Google (http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=%2210+or+12+sarin+and+mustard+gas+shells%22&btnG=Google+Search).

Mike

No I don't think Fox is reliable. and every one of the search results of what google found as that quote was made by one person and numerous websites had it on their site.


Quote from website http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter

In fact it sensationalised the story.

Iraq says it destroyed them, but lacks proper documentation. Most were made in the 1980s, and may be degraded or inert from age. Nerve gas and germs are weapons of mass destruction. Mustard gas, the bulk of Iraq's chemical weaponry, is not, being no more lethal than napalm or the fuel-air explosives the U.S. and Russia are using in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

some facts about mustard gas:

quote from website http://www.bartleby.com/65/mu/mustardg.html
Its vesicant property is readily destroyed either by oxidation or by chlorination (e.g., with bleaching powder).

it is very quickly destroyed where oxygen is in the air. It will not kill a whole city, and therefore not a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

[thuko135]

I would definately consider anything capable of mass destruction a wmd. Maybe read into this (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1239104/posts) discussion.

Mike

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer
"There are weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" is one lie (obvious one too), Not a lie, our intelliegence said they were there, other countires had intel that corraberated, and the un had records of weapons that had not be destroyed that were not located and are believed to still exist today.

"Bin Larden is in Afghanistan" Did they find him let alone know where he was? If they had the technology to say they "know" he is Afghanistan, why haven't he been found by now even if he escaped? Makes you wonder if he did know at all. Alquida was based out of afganistan, they had scores of camps in afganistan, and all intelligence indicated that he was infact in afganistan. No lies.


Which comes back to the title of this thread, "Why hasn't Bin Larden been found despite all of the technology available to US gov" (the title I wanted to have) You do not think they are doing a manhunt? There is a bounty on is head and everyone is looking for him. We do not have some tracking bracelet attached to his leg. You act like we can just magically find him. Heck we just stumbled onto hussain.

Well? why hasn't he been found? He would have been betrayed by now, or found by US Solders during the war or during US occupation. There must be some reason for letting him slip away, while invading Afghanistan. No, not by his followers. These are men who do not want us money... they want 70 virgins. No one 'let' him slip away.


Yeah...Which criminal do you want to vote for?
That's just such a great remark, it shows how much you cannot stand authority and how you think everything is corrupt.

At least we can agree on something political...I never liked the UN any more then I liked US Gov. But I found the article on how the weapons inspectors had been so unbiased about the search, and made me decide that the weapons inspectors would be some of the exceptions. The inspections themselves are not biased... they are just ineffective. It took them years, as I have said over and over, to lovate saddams stuff after the first golf war because he kept shifiting it and hiding it in his 'residences'.


have a read of this: http://www.caci.com/homeland_securi...blix_2-14.shtml

even you would say it is mostly true, if not all true, and shows how much Saddem was cooperating. The weapons inspectors were not expelled, but left because the US told them to get out because US wanted to start bombing Iraq. 404. They were expelled in the past, in the 90s. When Saddam kicked them out in the first place.


So? I could run for presidency, create an Intelligence agency to say "Pigs have flown to Iraq" does that make it true? but could you make the intelligence agenices of other countires corraberate? Also could you fool your watch dogs?

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer
Was you name listed? Was I talking to you? No in both cases. does any of that matter?

I posted those sites for those listed because they have the common sense to put two and two together and decide for themselves. You however need all reasoning and other thought processes to be done for you by someone else you like to put your faith in. No, I just like to get my information from someone that check's their sources, and makes sure the information is not bogus and is factual.

PeOfEo: So that this discussion stays Civil, please don't just say "that's a lie", "that’s bull****", whatever other comment you can think of. Please state WHY, and please state it logically. There isn't much enjoyment in debating if you don't use logic to get your message across. I never say it is a lie or bs, I say your sources are bs and that they have no credibility. You should link sites with credibility for the 1,000th time or I am going to challenge your evidence. Like I said, just because it is on the internet does not make it ture. You and I both know we can just make a website with whatever we want on it. Sites like this are not good evidence. Good evidence is a website that is official, one of a news organization or something, because they must check their sources. If they do not the information they will publish will be full of lies and slander and they will loose all of the credibility they have.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer
No I don't think Fox is reliable. and every one of the search results of what google found as that quote was made by one person and numerous websites had it on their site. fox check's it's sources. It is much more solid then what you normall post. Some plane, personal home page looking thing, with just some guys assertions on it.


In fact it sensationalised the story.

Iraq says it destroyed them, but lacks proper documentation. Most were made in the 1980s, and may be degraded or inert from age. Nerve gas and germs are weapons of mass destruction. Mustard gas, the bulk of Iraq's chemical weaponry, is not, being no more lethal than napalm or the fuel-air explosives the U.S. and Russia are using in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Just because they were made in the 80s does not mean saddam did not have the stuff and that he still was not compling with us or the un. Also who is to say he stopped making sutff? He kicked the weapons inspectors out in the mid 90s and still had everything he needed to restart his programs. Could anyone, just before the war started, say that saddam did not have weapons? No. It looked, to our intelligence agency, and the intel of other nations, like Saddam had weapons, and plenty of them. Some evidence points to Syria, because there were plenty of vehicles going over the border just before and during the invasion. Some of the trucks that crossed the border were even photographed at armories and weapons dumps.


also: Sarin would not be contained in rubber baloons. It would be kept in air tight drums / canisters. Or air tight shells. If stored in a secure manner it can last very long. Our stuff was not made in the 90s either, yet everyone complains about it being around still, so it must be a wmd still.

[wamboid]

Just letting everyone know I'm still alive, work has just been too busy lately. As far as this thread goes, at least it has a better title than the last political thread.

As far as the original topic goes, everyone should realize that it isn't quite that simple. I watched a demo of a spy satelite once where we could actually see what brand of cigarette someone had lit outside our building. Of course, that person knew we were watching and cooperated.

I've also had to go to testify in court against someone that I had spent several hours with one night. Identifying him in court was very difficult, and I was in the same room.

Of course, with all the conspiracy theory believers in this thread, I can see why everyone must think Big Brother is watching them and should find Bin Laden so easily.

[smercer]

Originally posted by thuko135
I would definately consider anything capable of mass destruction a wmd. Maybe read into this (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1239104/posts) discussion.

Mike

Quote by website http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html
Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date.


Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years.


...

Following the invasion of Kuwait, nearly all of the key nuclear facilities—those involved in the processing of nuclear material or weapons research—were bombed during Desert Storm. Many of the facilities located at Tuwaitha were devastated, and the EMIS enrichment plants at Tarmiya and Ash Sharqat were largely destroyed. Iraq’s yellowcake recovery plant at Al-Qa’im and feed material production plant at Mosul (Al Jazira) also were bombed during the war. Al-Athir—a high-explosives testing site revealed after the war to be Iraq’s planned nuclear weapons development and assembly site—was also damaged. Iraq’ s centrifuge research and development site at Rashdiya and the planned centrifuge production and operations site at Al Furat were neither found nor targeted in the 1991 war, but industrial sites, found after the war to be supporting nuclear weapons efforts, were attacked and damaged.

...

Iraq did not possess a nuclear device, nor had it tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991.


ISG has uncovered no information to support allegations of Iraqi pursuit of uranium from abroad in the post-Operation Desert Storm era.


Iraq did not reconstitute its indigenous ability to produce yellowcake. As a result of Desert Storm and IAEA inspection efforts, Iraq’s indigenous yellowcake production capability appears to have been eliminated. Bomb damage in 1991 destroyed the uranium extraction facility at the Al Qaim Superphosphate Fertilizer Plant. During the years of intrusive inspections, the IAEA also closed and sealed the Abu Skhair mine to curtail Iraq’s secondary pilot plant production capability for acquiring uranium.

These issues also are further described in the uranium pursuits section of this paper.

Post-1991, Iraq had neither rebuilt any capability to convert uranium ore into a form suitable for enrichment nor reestablished other chemical processes related to handling fissile material for a weapons program. Prior to the 1991 war, Iraq had established uranium conversion and feed material capabilities at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center—Baghdad’s premier nuclear center—as well as a feed material plant near Mosul called Al-Jazira. Iraq also was establishing chemical processes at Tarmiya, and Al-Sharqat—its two primary sites for uranium enrichment using the electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS) technique. Baghdad also planned to produce feed materials for its centrifuge program at its main centrifuge research site Rashidiyah and planned a pilot plant at Al Furat. Uranium metal production planned for the pre-1991 program was planned for the Al-Athir nuclear weapons assembly facility. These issues are described in the EMIS and uranium conversion sections of this paper.


Available evidence leads ISG to judge that Iraq’s development of gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment essentially ended in 1991. Prior to 1991, gas centrifuge technology was one of the primary methods being pursued for uranium enrichment, with emphasis being placed on carbon-fiber composite centrifuge rotors.


According to Iraq’s disclosures to IAEA, ISG interviews and documentary evidence, Iraq’s centrifuge program by June 1990 had built—with foreign assistance—two magnetic-bearing centrifuges, one of which was tested with uranium hexafluoride (UF6) feed. Two oil-bearing centrifuges had also been built by the Iraqis as of June 1989.

...

Former Presidential Scientific Advisor Amir Hamudi Hasan al-Sadi stated that he neither received nor issued orders to resume any centrifuge-related work and could not have done so because the war had destroyed the equipment and facilities.

The head of design implementation in the former centrifuge program, Faris ‘Abd Al ‘Aziz Al Samarra’i, did not believe that there was a reconstituted nuclear weapons program in Iraq after 1991. He stated that he did not believe that the universities had the resources or ability to undertake weapon-related research. Since 1992, Dr. Faris had worked for MIC, in Studies and Planning, and as Director General of the Al-Shaheen Company since 1996 and of the al Samud State Company since 2002.

Jamal Ja’far, the designer of the pre-1991 magnetic centrifuge program, stated in an interview that he also did not believe that it was possible, given the conditions in Iraq in 2002, to reconstitute such a complicated and serious effort.

...

It does not appear that Iraq took steps to advance its pre-1991 work in nuclear weapons design and development. ISG has not identified a materials research and fissile component manufacturing capability that would be required to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program. Working with molten highly enriched uranium requires special consideration for criticality during the melting and solidification process. ISG found no evidence that Iraq had acquired or developed the technology dealing with casting and machining issues of highly enriched uranium.

...

ISG obtained evidence from recovered documents and from debriefings of Iraqi scientists that Iraq utilized high-speed switches—like those of potential interest for nuclear weapons development—in support of rail-gun projects that we believe were intended for air defense. ISG has found no links between Iraq’s interest in special high-speed switches after 1991 and a nuclear weapons program.

ISG also was not able uncover indications that Iraq had resumed any work related to neutron initiators/generators for a renewed weapons program.

Don't forget this evidence is from when USA armed Saddam Hussein in Iraq and told him to go ahead and invade Kuwait.

Your grasping at straws. First of all posting a site full of rumors is not proof, second the link (http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/8/112447.shtml) on the site that it was based on is dated Friday, Oct. 8, 2004, yet is based on old news that dates in the pre 1991 era. Third the story is sensationalised...again. stop posting 'news stories' as they are sensationalised to the max for profit reasons.

PeOfEo: NOW will you please admit there was no reason to invade Iraq, and there were no WMD left (that was still usable) to cause concern.

[smercer]

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Not a lie, our intelliegence said they were there, other countires had intel that corraberated, and the un had records of weapons that had not be destroyed that were not located and are believed to still exist today.



Originally posted by PeOfEo

Alquida was based out of afganistan, they had scores of camps in afganistan, and all intelligence indicated that he was infact in afganistan. No lies.

You do not think they are doing a manhunt? There is a bounty on is head and everyone is looking for him. We do not have some tracking bracelet attached to his leg. You act like we can just magically find him. Heck we just stumbled onto hussain.


You did 'stumble' onto Hussain, why can't you 'stumble' onto Bin Larden? Obviously US didn't let Hussain 'stumble' through enermy lines, Yet Bin Larden got away.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

The inspections themselves are not biased... they are just ineffective. It took them years, as I have said over and over, to lovate saddams stuff after the first golf war because he kept shifiting it and hiding it in his 'residences'.

They couldn't find what YOU hoped they would find, you mean? They looked through private residents, stoped mobile trucks and inspected them and found they were not moblie chemical factories, but where mobile canteens.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

but could you make the intelligence agenices of other countires corraberate? Also could you fool your watch dogs?

Why do you think John Howard, Tony Blair etc went for a meeting with CIA, Bush etc? John Howard said he saw what the proof was that incriminated Bin Larden, but did not say what it was. When Tony Abbot (Our Employment minister at the time) was asked by the public on TV about the proof that incriminated Bin Larden, He says "you would have to ask John Howard that question as he was the one that saw the evidence".

They also went for meetings with the CIA etc before the war with Iraq.

[smercer]

Originally posted by PeOfEo
does any of that matter?

Yes. and if I told you why, you would consider it an insult (actuly I already told you why). Anyway you but in
Originally posted by PeOfEo

No, I just like to get my information from someone that check's their sources, and makes sure the information is not bogus and is factual.

You like to get your information from anywhere that does not criterzise bush (one sided). You have not yet posted anything that states facts as is without sensational phases in them
Originally posted by PeOfEo

I never say it is a lie or bs, I say your sources are bs and that they have no credibility. You should link sites with credibility for the 1,000th time or I am going to challenge your evidence. Like I said, just because it is on the internet does not make it ture. You and I both know we can just make a website with whatever we want on it. Sites like this are not good evidence. Good evidence is a website that is official, one of a news organization or something, because they must check their sources. If they do not the information they will publish will be full of lies and slander and they will loose all of the credibility they have. stop posting 'news stories' as they are sensationalised to the max for profit reasons.

[smercer]

One more quick post because I have to go to a meeting.

Originally posted by PeOfEo
Just because they were made in the 80s does not mean saddam did not have the stuff and that he still was not compling with us or the un. Also who is to say he stopped making sutff? He kicked the weapons inspectors out in the mid 90s and still had everything he needed to restart his programs. Could anyone, just before the war started, say that saddam did not have weapons?

yes, the CIA.

quote by website: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter

Originally posted by PeOfEo

It looked, to our intelligence agency...like Saddam had weapons, and plenty of them.

Which intelligence agency?

Originally posted by PeOfEo

also: Sarin would not be contained in rubber baloons. It would be kept in air tight drums / canisters. Or air tight shells. If stored in a secure manner it can last very long. Our stuff was not made in the 90s either, yet everyone complains about it being around still, so it must be a wmd still.
I was refering to the mustard gas.


http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html

What is “corrosion resistant” equipment? “Corrosion resistant” is a term usually applied to equipment where all the surfaces that come into direct contact with the reagents are made of high nickel alloys, titanium alloys, tantalum alloys, ferrosilicons, ceramic or glass—all highly corrosion resistant to specific materials. Corrosion resistant equipment is commonly used in fluorinating reactions, such as Sarin and soman production

...

Most of the Iraqi modifications for chemical delivery consisted of simple machining and/or welding of aluminum or steel.

To store Serin as you say would have to be highly corrosion resistant containers, and to store it since 1991 given the conditions the Iraqis had them in would mean that that shell found would have either rusted/corroded away by year 2000 and thereby would have evaporated.

since CIA say they were in steal and not stainless steal, would mean there would be not much Nickel in it to prevent it from rusting. Aluminium is not one of those alloys and so that would also corrode and thereby would have evaporated.

Conclusion: From this evidence I conclude that the shell found on the side of the road was not made by Suddem Hussain, nor by his scientists nor from his laboratories. In addition the only proof that Serin could have existed was that there are empty shells if there was evidence of corrosion (guess), and even then would still not be proof as it only means that something corrosive was in the shells.

To say there are missing weoponary is not really proof, as those could have been used during the gulf war, and certanly not enough proof to go to war on, let alone assure the people of the world.

This only means that the Iraq war in 2003 was not justified with proof that Suddem Hussain was a significant problem to USA.

[thuko135]

The war was completely justified. You are missing the point, not me nor poef. I didn't agree with the war, but looking back on it, it has proved that democracy defeats dictatorships, which is a move in the right direction. We've destroyed a corrupt regime that was a threat to the middle east and to democracy itself. We've ended iraqi terrorist links. IT all seems justified to me.

[smercer]

Originally posted by thuko135
The war was completely justified. You are missing the point, not me nor poef. I didn't agree with the war, but looking back on it, it has proved that democracy defeats dictatorships, which is a move in the right direction. We've destroyed a corrupt regime that was a threat to the middle east and to democracy itself. We've ended iraqi terrorist links. IT all seems justified to me.

Can't you argue with logic backed up by proof? I notice when you can't, because you completely deny everything despite whatever is shown from what ever source.

I JUST GOT THE PROOF FROM THE CIA AND YOU STILL DENY IT!!!

That had to be in big bold letters so you could see it more clearly.

[wamboid]

Smercer, you keep talking about peo not answering your questions with good facts, but you still haven't answered my questions from the last debate with even a bad source! Let me refresh your memory, although I will admit up front that I'm not looking back at the actual posts, just doing this from memory.

I reminded you that we did not go to war because Saddam had wmd's, but simply because he wouldn't let the inspectors back to prove he didn't have wmd's. Your only response was something about not wanting his bum inspected. Like I said before, he lost a war and agreed to terms of surrender. If an inspector wanted to look in his bum, fine.

Yes, another excuse may have been come up with later to go to war, but even the UN agreed that he was violating sanctions.

[theuedimaster]

Originally posted by wamboid
I reminded you that we did not go to war because Saddam had wmd's, but simply because he wouldn't let the inspectors back to prove he didn't have wmd's.

What a great reason to kill more than 100,000 innocent people... :mad:

[smercer]

Originally posted by wamboid
I reminded you that we did not go to war because Saddam had wmd's, but simply because he wouldn't let the inspectors back to prove he didn't have wmd's.
There was hardly anything left to look for, The CIA said they had bombed his chemical manufaturing plants and any other means of making Weopons of Mass destruction during the gulf war and could not make any more. The weapons the inspectors found were old and were harmless or do very little damage because of age when they where found. all the weapons inspectors found was that Suddem had not made any more weapons after 1991. USA Realised that Suddems weapons were ineffective via the Weapons Inspectors and knew they could go to war with Iraq with very small number of deaths compared to if he did have weapons of mass destruction. They had very good knowledge with the placement of weapon stockpiles, and therefore could very quickly disable any defence Suddem had.

Originally posted by wamboid

Your only response was something about not wanting his bum inspected. Like I said before, he lost a war and agreed to terms of surrender. If an inspector wanted to look in his bum, fine.

I did not say "not wanting his bum inspected". I said:


He let them in, They saw his Weapons stock pile, which was not violating any rules, they went away, then said they wanted to look into his own personal things like his own bref case, his sleeping quarters etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to look in his bum for plans on how to make a nuclear bomb. This was straight off the TV.

I did not state it as factual.

Originally posted by wamboid

Yes, another excuse may have been come up with later to go to war, but even the UN agreed that he was violating sanctions.

only because the weapons inspectors were not going to hang around to get friendly fire by being bombed by US airforce, navy and Army.

[thuko135]

Fehrenhype 9/11 further brought up thr point that Hussein sold oil fields to countries life France, Russia, and Pakistan. I do not remember the numbers perfectly, but I think it was 10 million barrels, at $10/barrel, which is fairly cheap. These bribes would've and di halt the U.N. At least Pakistan saw beyond the bribe, declines, and supported the coalition. If the United States had waited, as I see now, we'd still be waiting. And why should the U.S. get permission to defend itself?

A report on the issue is found here (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008046.php), which quotes from the Londons Times.

[wamboid]

Let me say again, I'm not a big fan of Bush, just less of a fan of his opposition. That being said, the man can't win. The biggest problem with the split within this country and the rest of the world for that matter is that the sides have dug in. This thread is a prime example of that. Over and over again I read how both sides don't understand why the others won't listen to reason.

A couple of points about Bush for thought. He has been criticized for not taking action prior to 9/11 to prevent it. The same people criticize him for making a pre-emptive attack on Iraq.

By the way, those claims that we only attacked because we knew there were no wmd's giving us the confidence that our losses would be minimal is an insult to every soldier who fought there, especially those who died. You obviously weren't there, and probably know few if any who actually were. Our soldiers were constantly taking precautions agains chemical attack, which makes it more difficult to fight and more likely to cause casualties. Of course, this is probably just another aspect of your conspiracy theory.

Meanwhile, here's what I hear from my friends who were actually there, not some questionable news source. One friend in particular is an old roommate and member of my darts and bowling teams a few years back. He worked as an interrogator, mostly interviewing POW's. Practically every prisoner he interviewed claimed that his unit did not have wmd's, but they knew other units did. Memebers of those other units claimed the same, except in reverse. From those interviews, it really looks like Saddam was playing a really high stakes game of poker and GW called his bluff.

[smercer]

Originally posted by thuko135

Fehrenhype 9/11 further brought up thr point that Hussein sold oil fields to countries life France, Russia, and Pakistan. I do not remember the numbers perfectly, but I think it was 10 million barrels, at $10/barrel, which is fairly cheap. These bribes would've and di halt the U.N.

...

A report on the issue is found here (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008046.php), which quotes from the Londons Times.

the whole report is one big lie (1000+ pages) from the CIA.


quote from http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

Although Saddam had reluctantly accepted the UN’s Oil for Food (OFF) program by 1996

I caught him red handed in a big lie.

What this means is Saddam did not set up any kind of bribe whatsoever. the UN set it up.


Originally posted by thuko135

And why should the U.S. get permission to defend itself?

Protect your borders: Yes you may protect your borders without permission.
Invade other countries on the presumption that the enemy has Weapons of Mass Destruction: No. You have to prove why such a war is necessary.

[smercer]

Originally posted by wamboid
Let me say again, I'm not a big fan of Bush, just less of a fan of his opposition. That being said, the man can't win. The biggest problem with the split within this country and the rest of the world for that matter is that the sides have dug in. This thread is a prime example of that. Over and over again I read how both sides don't understand why the others won't listen to reason.



Originally posted by wamboid

A couple of points about Bush for thought. He has been criticized for not taking action prior to 9/11 to prevent it. The same people criticize him for making a pre-emptive attack on Iraq.

To not shoot down the planes after it was obvious that they were using the planes as weapons is not taking action. It would be a hard order to make, but looking back on history many more died than what was in the planes, so they were going to die anyway. (very sad for the people that died.)

Originally posted by wamboid

By the way, those claims that we only attacked because we knew there were no wmd's giving us the confidence that our losses would be minimal is an insult to every soldier who fought there, especially those who died. You obviously weren't there, and probably know few if any who actually were. Our soldiers were constantly taking precautions agains chemical attack, which makes it more difficult to fight and more likely to cause casualties. Of course, this is probably just another aspect of your conspiracy theory.

No, I was not there, I beleive in peace and NOT running around in a another country shooting people, and bombing innocent victims while attached to a political leash. :mad:

Originally posted by wamboid

Meanwhile, here's what I hear from my friends who were actually there, not some questionable news source. One friend in particular is an old roommate and member of my darts and bowling teams a few years back. He worked as an interrogator, mostly interviewing POW's. Practically every prisoner he interviewed claimed that his unit did not have wmd's, but they knew other units did. Memebers of those other units claimed the same, except in reverse.
And what was interpreted as WMD? Mustard Gas?
Remember this post?

Originally posted by smercer

Quote from website http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter



In fact it sensationalised the story.

Iraq says it destroyed them, but lacks proper documentation. Most were made in the 1980s, and may be degraded or inert from age. Nerve gas and germs are weapons of mass destruction. Mustard gas, the bulk of Iraq's chemical weaponry, is not, being no more lethal than napalm or the fuel-air explosives the U.S. and Russia are using in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

some facts about mustard gas:



quote from website http://www.bartleby.com/65/mu/mustardg.html
Its vesicant property is readily destroyed either by oxidation or by chlorination (e.g., with bleaching powder).


it is very quickly destroyed where oxygen is in the air. It will not kill a whole city, and therefore not a Weapon of Mass Destruction.


or was it serin?

Originally posted by smercer

http://www.cia.gov/cia/repor...2004/chap5.html

What is “corrosion resistant” equipment? “Corrosion resistant” is a term usually applied to equipment where all the surfaces that come into direct contact with the reagents are made of high nickel alloys, titanium alloys, tantalum alloys, ferrosilicons, ceramic or glass—all highly corrosion resistant to specific materials. Corrosion resistant equipment is commonly used in fluorinating reactions, such as Sarin and soman production

...

Most of the Iraqi modifications for chemical delivery consisted of simple machining and/or welding of aluminum or steel.



To store Serin as you say would have to be highly corrosion resistant containers, and to store it since 1991 given the conditions the Iraqis had them in would mean that that shell found would have either rusted/corroded away by year 2000 and thereby would have evaporated.

since CIA say they were in steal and not stainless steal, would mean there would be not much Nickel in it to prevent it from rusting. Aluminium is not one of those alloys and so that would also corrode and thereby would have evaporated.

Conclusion: From this evidence I conclude that the shell found on the side of the road was not made by Suddem Hussain, nor by his scientists nor from his laboratories. In addition the only proof that Serin could have existed was that there are empty shells if there was evidence of corrosion (guess), and even then would still not be proof as it only means that something corrosive was in the shells.

also ask your friend these questions:

If so many Persons Of War (POW)s had made confessions, why hasn't more WMD been found? as they would have told all about where they are stored.

Why hasn't the mobile vehicles that transports the WMD been discovered yet? so far they have been unable to prove that Weapons of mass destruction were moved around, and such weapons would need trucks with special capabilities.

Why hasn't the mobile laboratories been discovered yet?

I think you are basing your argument in the pre 1991 era, is that true?

[wamboid]

The biggest problem with the split within this country and the rest of the world for that matter is that the sides have dug in. This thread is a prime example of that. Over and over again I read how both sides don't understand why the others won't listen to reason.
Thanks for providing such a quick example of exactly what I was talking about.

What this means is Saddam did not set up any kind of bribe whatsoever. the UN set it up.
The bribe wasn't setting up the program, it was in the abusing of it. The program was to provide food for the people, not not feasts and palaces. To quote another source I actually trust, "We found the people there starving. They actually liked our MRE's(lousy cold Army food for those who don't know). The vast majority of them were supportive of us being there, and were glad to be rid of Saddam. Their greatest fear was that he would somehow return to power." Not from CNN, FOX, or any other news agency. It came from my nephew upon his return from Iraq in December.

[theuedimaster]

Thats all good, I understand; however, the question is, was it worth the 100,000 innocents we killed? Was it worth the thousands of our young boys dying out there? Was it worth actually pissing more people off in the middle east? Was it worth losing most of the alliances we gained from WWII? Was it worth actually getting ourselves tied up with a region that doesn't like us because of our arrogance and culture that we try to impose upon them? Was it worth invading a dictator way out of his prime that had no threat to us? His people didn't like him, yes, but thousands of them were not being killed everyday. Maybe back in 92, but not anywhere close to invasion time. During invasion time, was it worth ignoring the countries that really needed our help? Was it worth giving the cold shoulder to GENOCIDE in Africa because our president wanted to satisfy his pride? Was it worth scaring the U.S population of 300 million? Was it worth lying to them? Was it worth causing this immense revival of blind patriotism and nationalism? Was it worth sacrificing time to rebuild our economy by going to war?

Was it worth the children we killed?

[theuedimaster]

Additionally, we have no right as a country to criticize the U.N for the oil-for-food program. Absolutely not. How do we have the balls to go after them for giving money to Sadamn that obviously saw some of it go wasted? We have given more money as a country to cruel and corrupt dictatorships and regimes through the World Bank than any other nation. Knowing that our money would fund weapons that would kill innocents, we still gave money to these countries. I think the whole concept in the oil-for-food program and world bank is flawed, obviously, there has to be more supervision of money. But again, we have no right to criticize the U.N until we first look upon ourselves.

[smercer]

Originally posted by wamboid
Thanks for providing such a quick example of exactly what I was talking about.

If you had not taken out the quote from the CIA pdf file it would not have lost it's meaning of what I intended. I know you are only trying to make me look bad. Do I ever make you look bad apart from proving you wrong? No

I'll give you the quote again

quote from http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq...ey_Findings.pdf

Although Saddam had reluctantly accepted the UN’s Oil for Food (OFF) program by 1996



Originally posted by wamboid

The bribe wasn't setting up the program, it was in the abusing of it. The program was to provide food for the people, not not feasts and palaces. To quote another source I actually trust, "We found the people there starving. They actually liked our MRE's(lousy cold Army food for those who don't know). The vast majority of them were supportive of us being there, and were glad to be rid of Saddam. Their greatest fear was that he would somehow return to power." Not from CNN, FOX, or any other news agency. It came from my nephew upon his return from Iraq in December.
You mean the people actually liked their own friends and family being bombed for the sake of food? hard to believe.

many US troops commit suicide (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Suicides_in_Iraq_021904.htm)


This was in Year 2000.

Quote from
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg00621.html

The UN's sanctions committee, which is dominated by the U.S. and Britain,
has held up billions of dollars worth of badly needed medical supplies,
including blood, ambulances, medicine and spare parts.

Before sanctions were imposed in 1990, Iraq had one of the most advanced
medical systems in the Middle East.

So in the wards and hallways of every hospital, you see very advanced
equipment, built in France, Germany, Sweden, Italy and other countries.

But the absence of a simple part can make a $2 million machine
worthless--and so the equipment is left lying around, useless.

Hospitals also lack clean needles and clean sheets.

The facilities are overcrowded, so patients can't be isolated. As a result,
cross-infections within the hospital are killing people.

In Basra, a major city in southern Iraq near the border with Kuwait,
conditions are even worse.

The area around Basra was exposed to massive amounts of toxic pollution
during the Gulf War--including exposure to depleted uranium (DU).

The U.S. and Britain fired countless rounds of bullets and shells tipped
with DU, which is a radioactive byproduct of uranium from nuclear fission.

More than 300 tons of DU is scattered across southern Iraq and Kuwait.

Scientists believe that radiation from DU-tipped weapons continues to
poison the air, water and the food chain.

In Basra, Dr. Thamir Ahmed Himdin, a bone cancer specialist, described how
the pattern and frequency of cancer cases has changed dramatically in Iraq
during the past decade.

Cancers are affecting younger and older populations, they proceed more
rapidly, and they are occurring with unprecedented frequency.

Dr. Himdin said that he thinks many of his patients feel less pain than
other people experience from cancer.

At first, that seemed like a blessing. Then he explained that, as a result,
people, particularly in rural areas, are waiting longer to come to the
hospital to receive care--and so are dying before they can be treated.

Treatment in many cases, he said, is amputation.

After showing us a number of cases of cancer and malnutrition--including a
9-month-old boy who weighed 6.6 pounds, what a baby ought to weigh at
birth--Dr. Himdin's assistant turned to our delegation and said, "Now we
will enter the miserable ward."

Here, we saw even worse cases of cancer.

Flies buzzed around the bodies of most patients, who were too weak to swat
them away.

UN, USA and British give terrorism a whole new meaning. they would have needed much more food to feed a whole country.

[smercer]

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Thats all good, I understand; however, the question is, was it worth the 100,000 innocents we killed? Was it worth the thousands of our young boys dying out there? Was it worth actually pissing more people off in the middle east? Was it worth losing most of the alliances we gained from WWII? Was it worth actually getting ourselves tied up with a region that doesn't like us because of our arrogance and culture that we try to impose upon them? Was it worth invading a dictator way out of his prime that had no threat to us? His people didn't like him, yes, but thousands of them were not being killed everyday. Maybe back in 92, but not anywhere close to invasion time. During invasion time, was it worth ignoring the countries that really needed our help? Was it worth giving the cold shoulder to GENOCIDE in Africa because our president wanted to satisfy his pride? Was it worth scaring the U.S population of 300 million? Was it worth lying to them? Was it worth causing this immense revival of blind patriotism and nationalism? Was it worth sacrificing time to rebuild our economy by going to war?

Was it worth the children we killed?
good points theuedimaster. Where have you been? I feel like the lonesome debater.

[JasonNYC]

Originally posted by jeff_archer7
I'm Glad I'm Not American


I'm glad your not an American either.

When all is said and done and we're all old and dying, you along with the other pessimist naysayers will realize you were on the wrong side of history. GOD BLESS AMERICA.

[wamboid]

I really wasn't intending to make you look bad smercer, sorry if you took it that way. Leaving out the quote wasn't intended to remove any of the meaning. My point was that most of the quotes from most of the sources in this thread only seem to have meaning to those quoting them. My point was that people on both sides of the issue keep posting huge quotes that those on the other side think are stupid. Notice, I didn't say that any of those quotes were right or wrong, just that they weren't going to convince anyone that already has their mind made up.

Meanwhile, to answer the long string of questions from theuedimaster, I'll ask a very simple question. Has there ever been any war at any time in history that was started over an actual cause worth any of the things mentioned in your questions?

[theuedimaster]

No, but just because "thats the way it is" doesn't mean we should just look the other way. We can stop war. It is a choice that is just as accesible as any other decision. We have always had the choice to stop the cycle. We will always have that choice.

The point, war is not worthy of any cause. Except in defense, not invasion. Even in defense however, you still sin... doesn't your Jesus tell you to give the other cheek?.....

Well I guess you agree with me wamboid, the Iraqi war is not worth any of those things. Damn those who decide to go down that path, who know what they have done...

[theuedimaster]

Originally posted by JasonNYC
I'm glad your not an American either.

When all is said and done and we're all old and dying, you along with the other pessimist naysayers will realize you were on the wrong side of history. GOD BLESS AMERICA.

LOL! With all the things our country has done, I doubt it. God should damn America..... maybe God already is.....

By the way Jason, are you a prophet? I didn't think so.

Hmm... I wonder why you said "God Bless America". Obviously that shows something about yourself, that you are scared of the future. A last moral stand I say, its you trying to convince yourself that what our country has done is right. Obviously it doesn't matter what good we've done, God should just bless us right?

Anyways, religion is a poky subject, my post isn't about it, but rather, it is about the way you said it. It would be good if Jeff Archer was an American, he would actually try to help the country see what they are doing.

Yeah, I havne't been joining in lately Smercer. Before you came, I had huge debates with PeofEo. Then the debate banning started and I stopped. Now that it has come about more again, I think I will take part more often...

[thuko135]

Originally posted by JasonNYC
I'm glad your not an American either.

When all is said and done and we're all old and dying, you along with the other pessimist naysayers will realize you were on the wrong side of history. GOD BLESS AMERICA. I'll second this impartially. I don't know is Jason supports or opposes the bush admin or the wars or whatever. Bt there is nothing better in the world to be an American. It's not because of a feeling or supremecy or a feeling of pride or superiority, it's a feeling of patriotism that we all share.Originally posted by JasonNYC
GOD BLESS AMERICA. Mike

[theuedimaster]

Originally posted by thuko135
I'll second this impartially. I don't know is Jason supports or opposes the bush admin or the wars or whatever. Bt there is nothing better in the world to be an American. It's not because of a feeling or supremecy or a feeling of pride or superiority, it's a feeling of patriotism that we all share.Mike

Sort of contrary eh? But I understand, everyone loves their country (even if it is only in name). You must understand, I love my country so much, I can't stand the road it has chosen to take..

[JasonNYC]

Originally posted by thuko135
....there is nothing better in the world than to be an American. It's not because of a feeling of supremecy or a feeling of ...... superiority, it's a feeling of patriotism that we all share.Mike

Thank you Mike

theuedimaster-

Don't take this the wrong way, but, Why don't you leave if it's such a terrible place. I'm sure you will be much happier.

[smercer]

Originally posted by JasonNYC
I'm glad your not an American either.

When all is said and done and we're all old and dying, you along with the other pessimist naysayers will realize you were on the wrong side of history. GOD BLESS AMERICA.
Originally posted by theuedimaster

was it worth the 100,000 innocents we killed? Was it worth the thousands of our young boys dying out there? Was it worth actually pissing more people off in the middle east? Was it worth losing most of the alliances we gained from WWII? Was it worth actually getting ourselves tied up with a region that doesn't like us because of our arrogance and culture that we try to impose upon them? Was it worth invading a dictator way out of his prime that had no threat to us? His people didn't like him, yes, but thousands of them were not being killed everyday. Maybe back in 92, but not anywhere close to invasion time. During invasion time, was it worth ignoring the countries that really needed our help? Was it worth giving the cold shoulder to GENOCIDE in Africa because our president wanted to satisfy his pride? Was it worth scaring the U.S population of 300 million? Was it worth lying to them? Was it worth causing this immense revival of blind patriotism and nationalism? Was it worth sacrificing time to rebuild our economy by going to war?

Was it worth the children we killed?

Now let me ask you JasonNYC, do you really think God should bless America?

I agree with theuedimaster:
GOD DAMN AMERICA

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer
link (http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/8/112447.shtml) on the site that it was based on is dated Friday, Oct. 8, 2004, yet is based on old news that dates in the pre 1991 era. Third the story is sensationalised...again. stop posting 'news stories' as they are sensationalised to the max for profit reasons. Oh, but it is okay to post sensationalized stuff from sites that are not for profit? The for profit part is what makes the site a good site: If they are for profit they care about how many people read their news, thus they have to maintain a rep of being reduble. Therefore they must check their sources. They cannot just right any bs.

PeOfEo: NOW will you please admit there was no reason to invade Iraq, and there were no WMD left (that was still usable) to cause concern. No. Because the intelliegence at the time the war started showed that saddam could very well have had wmd and I still think he did. He was also not cooperating and had other weapons in violation of his treaty.

HE ALSO SUPPORTED TERRORISM.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer
You did 'stumble' onto Hussain, why can't you 'stumble' onto Bin Larden? Obviously US didn't let Hussain 'stumble' through enermy lines, Yet Bin Larden got away. Smercer, I guess it should be taken as a compliment that you think we are omnipresent?


They couldn't find what YOU hoped they would find, you mean? They looked through private residents, stoped mobile trucks and inspected them and found they were not moblie chemical factories, but where mobile canteens. No, they found WMD, years after they started looking, this was after the first golf war.


Why do you think John Howard, Tony Blair etc went for a meeting with CIA, Bush etc? John Howard said he saw what the proof was that incriminated Bin Larden, but did not say what it was. When Tony Abbot (Our Employment minister at the time) was asked by the public on TV about the proof that incriminated Bin Larden, He says "you would have to ask John Howard that question as he was the one that saw the evidence". :rolleyes: do I dare ask where you got this information from? Alquida Launched the attacks, officials do not have to drop their drawers for everyone.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer
Yes. and if I told you why, you would consider it an insult (actuly I already told you why). Anyway you but in No, it really does not matter. This is a public forum, I will respond as I please.
[b[
You like to get your information from anywhere that does not criterzise bush (one sided). You have not yet posted anything that states facts as is without sensational phases in them [/B] What? I get news from all over, including cnn which was a non stop bush slam fest during the time of the election. I like to get my news from credible sources.

Hey smercer, watch this!
http://home.comcast.net/~quasi-modo/index.html

[JasonNYC]

Originally posted by smercer
Now let me ask you JasonNYC, do you really think God should bless America?

I agree with theuedimaster:
GOD DAMN AMERICA


Freedom! Librety! Why should we be the special ones, don't you think others (all human beings) deserve the same. Maybe things seem bleak now, but we have to be optimistic. It would be great to say that terrorism is isolated and a small problem......it's not. It's much broader. We have to protect ourselves. If that means changing a medival way of life, so be it. Things need to change in the mid-east. Don't be fooled, the people of the mid-east want change more than anyone can imagine. Ponder this.....What if GW said in May of 2001 that we were going to take out the Taliban and destroy the terrorist network that poses a threat to us. You and everyone else would be calling for his head, just like your doing now with Iraq. Now we see this action would have been justified. Fact is we don't have the luxury of a wait and see attitude now. 9/11 changed our way of thinking. I know our gov't doesn't have the greatest track record, same as most. But I believe change is possible for everyone. If not what the hell are we doing here, if we can't evolve and change for the better? I now that my feelings are not popular in this forum...that’s O.K. I'll take my lumps.
And being an American, I take your comments personally...so Damn you and your ignorant friend.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer
One more quick post because I have to go to a meeting.


yes, the CIA. Except they said that saddam did have weapons.



Which intelligence agency? CIA, not to mention the information the russians and the brits had. Your article was published sept 30, 04. Hind sight?


I was refering to the mustard gas.
which is still not stored in balloons and tied off condoms.

To store Serin as you say would have to be highly corrosion resistant containers, and to store it since 1991 given the conditions the Iraqis had them in would mean that that shell found would have either rusted/corroded away by year 2000 and thereby would have evaporated.

since CIA say they were in steal and not stainless steal, would mean there would be not much Nickel in it to prevent it from rusting. Aluminium is not one of those alloys and so that would also corrode and thereby would have evaporated.

Conclusion: From this evidence I conclude that the shell found on the side of the road was not made by Suddem Hussain, nor by his scientists nor from his laboratories. In addition the only proof that Serin could have existed was that there are empty shells if there was evidence of corrosion (guess), and even then would still not be proof as it only means that something corrosive was in the shells.

To say there are missing weoponary is not really proof, as those could have been used during the gulf war, and certanly not enough proof to go to war on, let alone assure the people of the world.

This only means that the Iraq war in 2003 was not justified with proof that Suddem Hussain was a significant problem to USA.

Most of the Iraqi modifications for chemical delivery consisted of simple machining and/or welding of aluminum or steel.
Note that is delivery, not storage.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer
Can't you argue with logic backed up by proof? I notice when you can't, because you completely deny everything despite whatever is shown from what ever source.

I JUST GOT THE PROOF FROM THE CIA AND YOU STILL DENY IT!!!

That had to be in big bold letters so you could see it more clearly. What you posted was not what we had before we went into the war :rolleyes: Before we went into the war our intelligence and the intelligence of others said he could have very likely had wmd. He also clearly had other weapons that were in violation of the treaty (he launched freaken skuds, I watched videos of them that were recorded by feild reporters).

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by theuedimaster
What a great reason to kill more than 100,000 innocent people... :mad: Innocent people? Nice spin. The insurgents shooting at our troops are clearly not innocent. Nor was his regime that payed for suicide attacks on Israel and let alquida operate within it's borders breifly after afganistan fell.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer

Invade other countries on the presumption that the enemy has Weapons of Mass Destruction: No. You have to prove why such a war is necessary. Uh, IIRC, this is a war on terror, and saddam was screwing with us. It amazes me that you would rather have saddam still in power.

Another instance of a liberal mind playing political football with the issues instead of acting in the best interest of everyone else.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Sort of contrary eh? But I understand, everyone loves their country (even if it is only in name). You must understand, I love my country so much, I can't stand the road it has chosen to take.. Obviously not. Because you would let your nation get attacked and not want it to defend it's self. You are content with your nation getting abused and played.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Additionally, we have no right as a country to criticize the U.N for the oil-for-food program. Absolutely not. How do we have the balls to go after them for giving money to Sadamn that obviously saw some of it go wasted? We have given more money as a country to cruel and corrupt dictatorships and regimes through the World Bank than any other nation. Knowing that our money would fund weapons that would kill innocents, we still gave money to these countries. I think the whole concept in the oil-for-food program and world bank is flawed, obviously, there has to be more supervision of money. But again, we have no right to criticize the U.N until we first look upon ourselves. Oh I got cha. So we can't criticize an organization made up of countries that are going to make deals with a man in the guise of helping his people when we know darned well that it is going to go right into his back pocket and right into his army. Of course the un is not going to side with us! France is profitting from keeping saddam around and they are not getting attacked and they hate Israel so of course they are not going to side with us when we voice our thoughts about taking down this regime. I love it when france and others can just profit at our expense and we can't do anything about it.

[Jupac]

We can nuke em P

[smercer]

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Oh, but it is okay to post sensationalized stuff from sites that are not for profit?
If you read what I said proberly I did not post the link for proof, I posted it to show what link I meant .

Originally posted by PeOfEo

HE ALSO SUPPORTED TERRORISM.

Powell claimed he had proof positive Iraq was linked to al-Qaida through Ansar al-Islam, a small, 600-man Islamist group in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq (not under Saddam's control), and through a "deadly terrorist network" led by one Abu Musa al-Zarqawi.

quote by website: http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/disarm/terrorism.htm

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate



The charge was immediately dismissed by Ansar's leader, Mullah Krekar

quote from website http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/33591.htm

Norway’s Dismissal of Mullah Krekar Case

Question: What is your reaction to the dismissal of the Mullah Krekar case? Should he still be expelled? Is there any reason to believe that the witness was abused by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan or by U.S. military or civilian officials at any time?

Answer: As we have stated previously, decisions on the Mullah Krekar case, as well as on the issue of his expulsion, are a matter for the Norwegian Authorities and Courts to decide.

We note a reported witness, interviewed in the case, alleged abuse while in detention. We have no independent confirmation of his allegation of abuse while under detention by Patriotic Union of Kurdistan forces. Any credible allegations of mistreatment by U.S. authorities would, of course, be investigated, and if evidence of criminal behavior were to be found, the responsible individuals would be held accountable.

The U.S. remains seriously concerned about Mullah Krekar's links to terrorism. He is the founder of Ansar al-Islam, a group that has conducted terrorist attacks in Iraq. We will continue our strong, close cooperation with the Government of Norway in combating terrorism around the globe.

a longtime, bitter foe of Saddam. And al-Zarqawi turned out to be an unknown nobody, not on any FBI wanted list. His name came from suspects being tortured in Jordan. Many reputable experts on terrorism scoffed at Powell's overblown charges.

To check up on the fact that al-Zarqawi turned out to be an unknown nobody, not on any FBI wanted list, do a search in google with results

"al-Zarqawi" +site:www.fbi.gov (http://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=%22al-Zarqawi%22+%2Bsite%3Awww.fbi.gov+&btnG=Search&meta=)

when I put in "Mullah Krekar" he does not come up either.
"Mullah Krekar" +site:www.fbi.gov (http://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=%22Mullah+Krekar%22+%2Bsite%3Awww.fbi.gov+&btnG=Search&meta=)

Or you could go straght to http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm
and find them missing on that page.

Now you might say an international terrorist would not appear on the FBI site. look what happens when I change the name to


"Osama Bin Laden" +site:www.fbi.gov (http://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=%22Osama+Bin+Laden%22+%2Bsite%3Awww.fbi.gov+&btnG=Search&meta=)

[smercer]

Originally posted by PeOfEo

No, they found WMD, years after they started looking, this was after the first golf war.

But have been destroyed since. There is no reason for 2003 attack

Originally posted by PeOfEo

:rolleyes: do I dare ask where you got this information from? Alquida Launched the attacks, officials do not have to drop their drawers for everyone.


Said by John Howard
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech69.html

Full disclosure by Iraq of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes and immediate and total cooperation by Iraq with the provisions of resolution 1441 of the Security Council will remove the need for military action.

In his report to the Security Council, Dr Hans Blix, the head of the United Nations weapons inspection body for Iraq, made it clear where he believed that the responsibility for the current terrible impasse lay, and I quote:

“Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace”.

This is just one instance of where Australian Government is getting their info from. I'm sure I could find the same of Tony Blair.

[Jupac]

"appears" means hes not 100% sure

[smercer]

Originally posted by JasonNYC

Things need to change in the mid-east.

So now your admitting that your country should have the power to say what needs to change in another country? A prime example of arrogance of most Americans who believe war is the cure for everything. (theuedimaster: Notice I said "most"?)

Originally posted by JasonNYC

the people of the mid-east want change more than anyone can imagine.
Only because your country created the nightmare with bombs, santions, etc who wouldn't be wanting change.
Originally posted by JasonNYC

Ponder this.....What if GW said in May of 2001 that we were going to take out the Taliban and destroy the terrorist network that poses a threat to us. You and everyone else would be calling for his head, just like your doing now with Iraq. Now we see this action would have been justified.

If the US did not know about the attacks going to happen, how did they have knowledge straght after it happened that Bin Larden was to blame?
Reason: Point the finger at someone.

Originally posted by JasonNYC

Fact is we don't have the luxury of a wait and see attitude now. 9/11 changed our way of thinking.


You have the attatued of: "If it moves, kill it."
You are not concerned if there is proof or not, so long as you believe there is a threat

Originally posted by JasonNYC

I know our gov't doesn't have the greatest track record, same as most. But I believe change is possible for everyone. If not what the hell are we doing here, if we can't evolve and change for the better?

<sarcasm>But first we'll blow every thing away, including family's, homes, hosptials and then we'll introduce santions that will make the survivers starve to death.</sarcasm> Does that sound right to you?

[smercer]

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Except they said that saddam did have weapons.



quote from http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html

Iraq completed the destruction of its pre-1991 stockpile of CW by the end of 1991, with most items destroyed in July of that year. ISG judges that Iraq destroyed almost all prohibited weapons at that time.

A contradiction don't you think? And the fact that saddam did have weapons before 1991 is true, however those weapons were distroyed and was no longer a threat to US by 1992.
Originally posted by PeOfEo

CIA, not to mention the information the russians and the brits had.

Which all came from the CIA and UN.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Your article was published sept 30, 04. Hind sight?

So what? If no weapons that was still a danger was found it just proves that war in 2003 was not justified by proof after the war let alone before the war even started.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

which is still not stored in balloons and tied off condoms.

Mustard gas is not a weapon of mass destuction. It does not kill many people unless you huddle everyone up into a small area, It degrades with oxygen in the air and will not last very long. even then Mustard gas still degrades over time and would be nutralized by year 2000. while in the shell it is a liquad and to get it to a gasous form you need to boil at 217°C.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Note that is delivery, not storage.



The site does not say what the chemicals were stored in (unless I missed it, and I know you are not going to prove what they were stored in)

[smercer]

Originally posted by PeOfEo

What you posted was not what we had before we went into the war :rolleyes:
*News Flash* That’s the first time I have actually seen you admit to having no proof before the war. *News Flash*
Now I think we are getting somewhere, let's work on that shall we?

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Before we went into the war our intelligence and the intelligence of others said he could have very likely had wmd.

Which is not proof enough to convince the world there is Weapons of Mass Destruction. The nut is finally cracking open. :D
Originally posted by PeOfEo

He also clearly had other weapons that were in violation of the treaty (he launched freaken skuds, I watched videos of them that were recorded by feild reporters).

Which was back in 1991. No evidence suggests he still had them when the weapons inspectors visited Iraq in 2003.

[smercer]

Originally posted by PeOfEo
Innocent people? Nice spin. The insurgents shooting at our troops are clearly not innocent. Nor was his regime that payed for suicide attacks on Israel and let alquida operate within it's borders breifly after afganistan fell.


Quote from website: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15555665

Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey.

Roberts L, Lafta R, Garfield R, Khudhairi J, Burnham G.

Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. les@a-znet.com

BACKGROUND: In March, 2003, military forces, mainly from the USA and the UK, invaded Iraq. We did a survey to compare mortality during the period of 14.6 months before the invasion with the 17.8 months after it. METHODS: A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17.8 months after the invasion with the 14.6-month period preceding it. FINDINGS: The risk of death was estimated to be 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.6-4.2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1-2.3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8.1-419) than in the period before the war. INTERPRETATION: Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes.

Why don't you do your research before spining your own.


The insurgents shooting at our troops are clearly not innocent.

So it's illegal to defend your country? US army, Airforce, Navy are the ones who are guilty.

[smercer]

Originally posted by PeOfEo
Uh, IIRC, this is a war on terror, and saddam was screwing with us. It amazes me that you would rather have saddam still in power.

Another instance of a liberal mind playing political football with the issues instead of acting in the best interest of everyone else.

...

Obviously not. Because you would let your nation get attacked and not want it to defend it's self. You are content with your nation getting abused and played.


the following is from website: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US, and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

from smercer: Please anwser these questions, thanks.

[smercer]

Originally posted by PeOfEo
Oh I got cha. So we can't criticize an organization made up of countries that are going to make deals with a man in the guise of helping his people when we know darned well that it is going to go right into his back pocket and right into his army. Of course the un is not going to side with us! France is profitting from keeping saddam around and they are not getting attacked and they hate Israel so of course they are not going to side with us when we voice our thoughts about taking down this regime. I love it when france and others can just profit at our expense and we can't do anything about it.

So what you are saying is those people that live in Iraq can starve because of the sanctions, simply because of one man?

And where is the evidence that he bought more weaponary with the money he gained?

His army was more or less non existant. there were much less fully grown males before the 2003 war because of the first gulf war, and you don't create fully grown men overnight for an army.

The sanctions cause more problems than they fix, Saddam could not distribute food proberbly because he needed parts to fix his trucks that would have distributed the countries food.</guess> also if roads and bridges have been bombed how much harder do you think it would be to distribute food?</guess> Those would be very good reasons why so many people are still starving. I am sure there is some other reasons as well.

[smercer]

Originally posted by Jupac
We can nuke em P

Oh bravo, one bomb will kill more innocent people. That would be like nuking Washington to get George Bush. :mad:

[thuko135]

Originally posted by smercer
Oh bravo, one bomb will kill more innocent people. That would be like nuking Washington to get George Bush. :mad: Well, as you wish. I've been the one for years saying I want Cheney to be President, even this last election. You'd be doing at least me a favor.Originally posted by smercer
So it's illegal to defend your country? US army, Airforce, Navy are the ones who are guilty.No it isn't, that is why we are in Iraq, justified as you claim.

[smercer]

Originally posted by thuko135
Well, as you wish. I've been the one for years saying I want Cheney to be President, even this last election. You'd be doing at least me a favor.
Well now we know how blood hungry you are, willing to kill your own people to get to George bush.

If you consider Suddam that bad, what would you consider yourself?

Just as well they don't have you in the whitehouse.

Originally posted by thuko135

No it isn't, that is why we are in Iraq, justified as you claim.
Please answer the question:
11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

[wamboid]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The insurgents shooting at our troops are clearly not innocent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it's illegal to defend your country? US army, Airforce, Navy are the ones who are guilty.

No, it's not illegal to defend your own country. That's why so many Iraqi soldiers were allowed to lay down their weapons and go home at the end of the original hostilities. The insurgents are, by definition, from other countries. <sarcasm>Of course, they must have just wandered in there by accident and be living totally of of the land since we all know there are absolutely no ties to terrorist in Iraq to help support them.</sarcasm> If the insurgents would go home, then our troops could go home all the sooner.

Doesn't it make sense that they really don't want us to go home? If they want us to leave, all they have to do is stop fighting for a short time. After we leave, they could start again and take over the country much easier. But no, they would rather fight with us. My personal opinion on that is that I'd rather have them in Iraq fighting us than here fighting us. Some say the world isn't safer because the terrorists hate us more now. At least some of them are in Iraq.

God (deity of your choice, not mine, unless you are an athiest then insert something you like other than God) bless America (my country) and everywhere else (that includes you)

[smercer]

Originally posted by wamboid
No, it's not illegal to defend your own country. That's why so many Iraqi soldiers were allowed to lay down their weapons and go home at the end of the original hostilities.

Iraqi soldiers in Iraq WERE AT HOME during 2003 invasion what was left of their home.
Originally posted by wamboid

The insurgents are, by definition, from other countries. <sarcasm>Of course, they must have just wandered in there by accident and be living totally of of the land since we all know there are absolutely no ties to terrorist in Iraq to help support them.</sarcasm> If the insurgents would go home, then our troops could go home all the sooner.

Doesn't it make sense that they really don't want us to go home? If they want us to leave, all they have to do is stop fighting for a short time. After we leave, they could start again and take over the country much easier. But no, they would rather fight with us.

I really don't get it: To make many lives miserable, to kill woman and children in the thousands all innocent, bomb homes, family's, create suffering, starvation, and disease because of a few. I cannot justify this at all.
Originally posted by wamboid
My personal opinion on that is that I'd rather have them in Iraq fighting us than here fighting us.

What has Iraq ever done to US that makes you think he's a threat? His war with Iran was at USA's bidding (puppet really)

Please answer the question:
11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?
Originally posted by wamboid

Some say the world isn't safer because the terrorists hate us more now. At least some of them are in Iraq.

Your right there. Wars only stir emotions and that only creates enemies. And who won? 100000 US Troops are now suffering from Depleted Uranium contamination from using Depleted Uranium ammo that they are going to go home with. and when they have sexual intercourse with their wives they pass it to them via semen and then the baby is then contaminated. Depleted Uranium is passed down through 7 generations.

Iraq has a bigger problem but, as Depleted Uranium is everywhere and desert winds blow the stuff around and they breathe it in, because when Depleted Uranium hits a target it explodes and becomes airborne.

there’s nothing stopping Iraqi kids from playing with the bullets and shells either to make their contamination worse as DU can be absorbed via the skin very easly.

This is why life expectancy is very low in Iraq now, with babies there born with abnormalities.

And this is USA's profitable way of waste disposal of used Urainium from places like power stations etc.

Quote from website: http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=518289

The U.S. Army has begun testing members of the New York National Guard returning from Iraq for possible depleted uranium contamination. The move comes after four Guard members showed signs of exposure to the radioactive material, the New York Daily News reported.

Nine men formerly stationed in the Iraqi town of Samawah contacted the newspaper after their return from the Persian Gulf late last year, alleging that the Army was ignoring their pleas to be evaluated for unexplained illnesses. Symptoms included insomnia, headaches, shortness of breath, fatigue, and frequent urination.

A nuclear medicine expert hired by the newspaper concluded that four of the men "almost certainly" inhaled radioactive dust from exploded depleted uranium (DU) shells fired by U.S. troops, the News reported.

Once the Army learned of the newspaper's findings, it reversed course and agreed to test more than a dozen members of the 442nd Military Police Company who had come back from the Gulf, the News said. The rest of the company, comprised largely of New York City police, firefighters, and correction officers, is due to return from Iraq later this month.

Medical experts critical of DU weapons have said exposure may cause kidney damage, cancer, and chromosome damage. The Army has said it has no evidence of long-term health problems relating to DU exposure among GIs returning from Iraq, the newspaper reported.

Another good source on Depleted Uranium
http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/pr030327.shtml

[JasonNYC]

smercer

I am no longer going to waste my time and energy here.
Unfortunately it seems I can not have an intelligent debate with you. Heated is one thing, but you are down right hostile. I think you have some serious issues that you need to address. Good luck to you.

Jason

[theuedimaster]

MOD EDIT: that comment's a bit too harsh.

Sorry :D:eek: won't do it again.

Good job Smercer! Lots of facts, opionions, information, and obviously lots of research! You have lots of time on your hands man... I lost mine some time ago

[thuko135]

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Too bad, Jason ... That is so incredibly rude. I'm reporting tht post, and I hope this great administration punished you to the fullest possible extent.

Originally posted by smercer
Well now we know how blood hungry you are, willing to kill your own people to get to George bush.

If you consider Suddam that bad, what would you consider yourself?

Just as well they don't have you in the whitehouse.

Please answer the question:
11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?I'm not bloodhungry at all. You make no sense in this comment. You commented that if we bombed anyone it should be George Bush, proving you wnat him dead. I made a comment that if he is to die, Dick Cheney would become president, who is the guy I would want in office after Bush. I consider myself a conservative, and Saddam a cruel dictator.Defense Secy. Rumsfeld
"Saddam Hussein is now taking his rightful place alongside Hitler, Stalin, (Vladimir) Lenin and (Romanian dictator Nicolae) Ceausescu in the pantheon of failed, brutal dictators."As for the question, the basis is very easy, and already been explained hundreds of times. Hussein supported terorism. He paid suicide bombers (Palestinians) to blow up Israelis and preferably Americans traveling abroad. Hussein paid countries like France oil. Hussein wqas a threat to a peace movement between Israel and Palestine. Hussein was a threat to democracy and peace itself. Hussein, to say the least, was just one big terrorist.

What should be considered is bin LAden attacked the country. bin LAden is in hiding, and he can't attack the U.S. now. By the time he is safe to do so, he will die. However, Hussein controls an entire people, and has wmd capable of doing more than terrorists. How else do you handle a country whose dictator refuses to co-operate, when intelligence sources claim wmd still exist that were never destroyed from 1991, and when the only way to get rid of terrorism fully is to remove all the roots. You need a news flash, not peof, Saddam was a major root of terrorism.

Mike

[smercer]

Originally posted by JasonNYC
smercer

I am no longer going to waste my time and energy here.
Unfortunately it seems I can not have an intelligent debate with you. Heated is one thing, but you are down right hostile. I think you have some serious issues that you need to address. Good luck to you.

Jason

I think I got out of hand only the once with the GOD DAMN AMERICA post. I have tried to keep it as civil as possible by ignoring insults as much as possible to stop the chain reaction.

I can't find where I have been "down right hostile". Proving you wrong is not "down right hostile".

sorry I insulted you (and everyone else) with that earlier post.

[smercer]

Originally posted by thuko135

I'm not bloodhungry at all. You make no sense in this comment. You commented that if we bombed anyone it should be George Bush, proving you wnat him dead. I made a comment that if he is to die, Dick Cheney would become president, who is the guy I would want in office after Bush.

I did not prove anything about wanting him dead, It was an example of something happening to America hoping you would get the idea being in you own country.

Originally posted by thuko135

I consider myself a conservative, and Saddam a cruel dictator.As for the question, the basis is very easy, and already been explained hundreds of times. Hussein supported terorism. He paid suicide bombers (Palestinians) to blow up Israelis and preferably Americans traveling abroad. Hussein paid countries like France oil. Hussein wqas a threat to a peace movement between Israel and Palestine. Hussein was a threat to democracy and peace itself. Hussein, to say the least, was just one big terrorist.

Please re-read post:

Originally posted by smercer

Powell claimed he had proof positive Iraq was linked to al-Qaida through Ansar al-Islam, a small, 600-man Islamist group in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq (not under Saddam's control), and through a "deadly terrorist network" led by one Abu Musa al-Zarqawi.


quote by website: http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/disarm/terrorism.htm[/url]

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate


The charge was immediately dismissed by Ansar's leader, Mullah Krekar, a longtime, bitter foe of Saddam.

quote from website http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/33591.htm

Norway’s Dismissal of Mullah Krekar Case

Question: What is your reaction to the dismissal of the Mullah Krekar case? Should he still be expelled? Is there any reason to believe that the witness was abused by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan or by U.S. military or civilian officials at any time?

Answer: As we have stated previously, decisions on the Mullah Krekar case, as well as on the issue of his expulsion, are a matter for the Norwegian Authorities and Courts to decide.

We note a reported witness, interviewed in the case, alleged abuse while in detention. We have no independent confirmation of his allegation of abuse while under detention by Patriotic Union of Kurdistan forces. Any credible allegations of mistreatment by U.S. authorities would, of course, be investigated, and if evidence of criminal behavior were to be found, the responsible individuals would be held accountable.

The U.S. remains seriously concerned about Mullah Krekar's links to terrorism. He is the founder of Ansar al-Islam, a group that has conducted terrorist attacks in Iraq. We will continue our strong, close cooperation with the Government of Norway in combating terrorism around the globe.



And al-Zarqawi turned out to be an unknown nobody, not on any FBI wanted list. His name came from suspects being tortured in Jordan. Many reputable experts on terrorism scoffed at Powell's overblown charges.

To check up on the fact that al-Zarqawi turned out to be an unknown nobody, not on any FBI wanted list, do a search in Google with results

"al-Zarqawi" +site:www.fbi.gov (http://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=%22al-Zarqawi%22+%2Bsite%3Awww.fbi.gov+&btnG=Search&meta=)

when I put in "Mullah Krekar" he does not come up either.
"Mullah Krekar" +site:www.fbi.gov (http://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=%22Mullah+Krekar%22+%2Bsite%3Awww.fbi.gov+&btnG=Search&meta=)

Or you could go straight to http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm
and find them missing on that page.

Now you might say an international terrorist would not appear on the FBI site. look what happens when I change the name to


"Osama Bin Laden" +site:www.fbi.gov (http://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=%22Osama+Bin+Laden%22+%2Bsite%3Awww.fbi.gov+&btnG=Search&meta=)



Originally posted by thuko135

What should be considered is bin LAden attacked the country. bin LAden is in hiding, and he can't attack the U.S. now. By the time he is safe to do so, he will die. However, Hussein controls an entire people, and has wmd capable of doing more than terrorists. How else do you handle a country whose dictator refuses to co-operate, when intelligence sources claim wmd still exist that were never destroyed from 1991, and when the only way to get rid of terrorism fully is to remove all the roots. You need a news flash, not peof, Saddam was a major root of terrorism.

Mike
Suddam was not involved in the terrorist network as I have so proved that there was no evidence on the so-called terrorist of al-Qaida Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and that Suddem did not harbour a terrorist.


quote by website http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst092302.htm

Will We Bring bin Laden to Justice?

A year has passed since the terrible September 11th terror attacks, yet still we seem unable to locate Osama bin Laden or his al Qaida associates.

President Bush has made it clear that he intends to use "all appropriate means" to oust Saddam Hussein, although everyone concedes that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. So why is the same approach not justified for the al Qaida criminals directly responsible for 3000 American deaths?

We seem to have forgotten that our primary objective in the war on terror is to capture or kill bin Laden and his henchmen. One year ago, the desire for retribution against bin Laden was tangible. President Bush referred to finding him "dead or alive." And while the hunger for vengeance was understandable, the practical need to destroy al Qaida before it mounted another terror attack was urgent. Yet we have allowed the passage of time and the false specter of an Iraq threat to distract us from our original purpose. We’re preoccupied with an invasion of Iraq, which actually will benefit bin Laden by removing a secular regime led by his enemy Saddam Hussein. This vacuum may well lead to a more fundamentalist Kurd government in Iraq that aligns itself with al Qaida.

Our troops in Afghanistan, and defense secretary Rumsfeld himself, are becoming increasingly frustrated over the lack of progress in locating bin Laden. Clearly we need to provide President Bush with innovative new tools to bring these criminals to justice. The drafters of the Constitution provided just such a tool to retaliate against attacks on America by groups not formally affiliated with a government: letters of marque and reprisal. Letters of marque and reprisal are especially suited to our modern campaign against terrorism, which is fought against individuals rather than governments. Essentially, marque and reprisal authorizes the President to use private parties to find international terrorists wherever they hide.

Conventional armed forces are ill-suited to tracking down international terrorists. Our military invasion of Afghanistan undoubtedly has scattered al-Qaida throughout the Middle East and Europe. Marque and reprisal would create an incentive for individuals close to bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. This method in effect places a bounty on the heads of international terrorists, who often travel between countries, melt into civilian populations, or hide in remote areas. The goal is to avail ourselves of the knowledge and expertise of private parties, especially given the lack of western intelligence in many of the countries likely to harbor bin Laden. Marque and reprisal could turn the tables on the terrorists, forcing them to live as marked men. Terrorist should fear us, not the other way around.

Ultimately, letters of marque and reprisal could help us avoid a wider war by bringing terrorists to justice without the need for military action- saving American lives in the process. I recently wrote defense Secretary Rumsfeld, urging administration support for my legislation, the "Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001." Unless and until the administration puts the focus back on bin Laden and al-Qaida, the horrific crimes of September 11th will remain unpunished.

[thuko135]

Originally posted by smercer
Suddam was not involved in the terrorist network as I have so proved that there was no evidence on the so-called terrorist of al-Qaida Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and that Suddem did not harbour a terrorist. Are you kidding? Saddam paid the families of terrorists/suicide bombers that killed Israelis and Americans. Hussein allowed the operation of terrorist camps in his country, but wouldn't allow investigations? Hmm, seems maybe if we look beyond the reports we learn something. You should try that.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer
If you read what I said proberly I did not post the link for proof, I posted it to show what link I meant . The sites you post still hold no water, you would have been better of not posting a site at all.


Powell claimed he had proof positive Iraq was linked to al-Qaida through Ansar al-Islam, a small, 600-man Islamist group in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq (not under Saddam's control), and through a "deadly terrorist network" led by one Abu Musa al-Zarqawi.



The charge was immediately dismissed by Ansar's leader, Mullah Krekar

a longtime, bitter foe of Saddam. And al-Zarqawi turned out to be an unknown nobody, not on any FBI wanted list. His name came from suspects being tortured in Jordan. Many reputable experts on terrorism scoffed at Powell's overblown charges.

To check up on the fact that al-Zarqawi turned out to be an unknown nobody, not on any FBI wanted list, do a search in google with results

"al-Zarqawi" +site:www.fbi.gov (http://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=%22al-Zarqawi%22+%2Bsite%3Awww.fbi.gov+&btnG=Search&meta=)

when I put in "Mullah Krekar" he does not come up either.
"Mullah Krekar" +site:www.fbi.gov (http://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=%22Mullah+Krekar%22+%2Bsite%3Awww.fbi.gov+&btnG=Search&meta=)

Or you could go straght to http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm
and find them missing on that page.

Now you might say an international terrorist would not appear on the FBI site. look what happens when I change the name to


"Osama Bin Laden" +site:www.fbi.gov (http://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=%22Osama+Bin+Laden%22+%2Bsite%3Awww.fbi.gov+&btnG=Search&meta=) Yet that does not chage the fact that saddam hussain paid off the families of sucide bombers in such groups as Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Also the fact that Saddam allowed camps linked to alquida to operate after the fall of the taliban:
http://nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock040703.asp <--- not the best article, there is another I read that was more definative.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer
But have been destroyed since. There is no reason for 2003 attack No, not all of them. The UN has stuff unaccounted for and they could not even find everything in the 90s because they were kicked out. I used this example to show how Saddam played the un. Saddam was able to track the un inspectors and eventually they had to disclose where they were going to be. He simply shifted his stuff.


This is just one instance of where Australian Government is getting their info from. I'm sure I could find the same of Tony Blair. Okay and now I fail to see your point. I also like that last bit of the quote.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer
So now your admitting that your country should have the power to say what needs to change in another country? A prime example of arrogance of most Americans who believe war is the cure for everything. (theuedimaster: Notice I said "most"?) Way to put words in someone's mouth.


Only because your country created the nightmare with bombs, santions, etc who wouldn't be wanting change. Right, I am sure they are happing being oppressed.

If the US did not know about the attacks going to happen, how did they have knowledge straght after it happened that Bin Larden was to blame?
Reason: Point the finger at someone. The cole, embassy bombings, aircraft attacks. Alquida is the second most deadly terrorist network after the PLO I believe and the PLO only attacked Isralies.

You have the attatued of: "If it moves, kill it."
You are not concerned if there is proof or not, so long as you believe there is a threat You seem to have this roll over and let them have their way with us attitude.


<sarcasm>But first we'll blow every thing away, including family's, homes, hosptials and then we'll introduce santions that will make the survivers starve to death.</sarcasm> Does that sound right to you? <sarcasm>No, instead lets just let the un make deals witht he dicatator and fatten his pockets so he can arm more troops to keep his people down more effectively</sarcasm>

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer
A contradiction don't you think? And the fact that saddam did have weapons before 1991 is true, however those weapons were distroyed and was no longer a threat to US by 1992. The inspectors found weapons in Iraq in I think it was 96 and half of those are to this day unaccounted for.

So what? If no weapons that was still a danger was found it just proves that war in 2003 was not justified by proof after the war let alone before the war even started. The intelliegence at the time said he had stock piles. You suggest we just wait two years for more informationt o come out and in the mean time he could be arming himself more or more proliferation could take place? Surely that would not be in the best interest of a country or the world.


Mustard gas is not a weapon of mass destuction. It does not kill many people unless you huddle everyone up into a small area, It degrades with oxygen in the air and will not last very long. even then Mustard gas still degrades over time and would be nutralized by year 2000. while in the shell it is a liquad and to get it to a gasous form you need to boil at 217°C. What does this matter, it was sarin we found in a shell on the side of a road, which is a wmd. Sarin is a very powerful blister agent. We have also seen saddam use Tanum in the past which is a powerful nerve agent.... also not tied off in condoms or baloons I might add.




The site does not say what the chemicals were stored in (unless I missed it, and I know you are not going to prove what they were stored in) Obviously they were stored in something substantial. Saddam loved his weapons and invested in those programs heavily, why would he keep them in something weak.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer
*News Flash* That’s the first time I have actually seen you admit to having no proof before the war. *News Flash*
Now I think we are getting somewhere, let's work on that shall we? The war was completely justified and we do have proof that saddam supported terrorism and had chemical weapons. Looking back on it we still would have gone to war. Now I still think saddam had stock piles before we went to war, I think he shifted them.


Which is not proof enough to convince the world there is Weapons of Mass Destruction. The nut is finally cracking open. :D If you were the leader of a country would you like to take a risk like this? Just wait and see? Just wait and see if he has them, never mind if they proliferate? Even when your own intelliegence agency and other intel agenices says he has them? How long would it take for them to say he does not have them? They could not have released the report you posted without our invasion.

[b[
Which was back in 1991. No evidence suggests he still had them when the weapons inspectors visited Iraq in 2003. [/B] Except the fact that we found weapons that were not destroyed which was not in compliance with the un and the fact that the inspectos found illegal missiles which were in perfect condition to carry a parload of an illegal agent, and the fact that inspectors found weapons several years after the first gulf war which was only the tip of the ice berg. Then the inspectors were kicked out. There was one instance where the inspectors were driving up a two lane road to a compound while semi trucks were passing them in the other direction.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer
Why don't you do your research before spining your own. why don't you research the tactics of the fighters? There have been many historical records of Islamic groups forcing innocent people to run into the line of fire to make their enemies look bad. Most notably the palestinian fighters. Also 100,000 innocent people? I think not.


So it's illegal to defend your country? US army, Airforce, Navy are the ones who are guilty. When did I say a us troop who died was one of those 100,000 innocent people. Also the insurgents who are attacking are not 'defending' their country. When they use car bombs to kill their own police, their own election officials, their own bretheren who are compeltely innocent, they are criminals.

[wamboid]

Reading this thread has become too much like homework, and I'm too old for school. I missed the quote that got edited out. I promise I wont get mad if someone pm's me with it. Some of the arguements here have gotten pretty strange lately. I can see good points on both sides of the issue. Much of what I've read here lately just seems like grasping at straws. Even at that, I have enjoyed the debate. I remember reading a post that I think was in a prior thread asking why we would debate such a topic in a computer forum. Personally, I enjoy hearing what others in my profession from around the world think, whether I agree with them or not. I'm going to bed now - I wonder how many pages there will be when I get up.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer
1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate? Mutual assured destruction

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat? proliferation

3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections? Stupid question, the inspectors are not effective because saddam fail's to cooperate. He was not going to cooperate, war is the only course of action.

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq? This is a war on all terrorism, not the countires 19 hijackers came from. Also the Saudies are atleast cooperating with us somewhat.

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism? Obviously. There is plenty of hard evidence that links him to several groups, including Hamas and Islamic jihad. He might not have armed the groups, but he sure did contribute funds.

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States? Iraq sponsored attacks on Israel.

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country? Becuase he committed genocide.

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war? Since when does the president have to ask the un to please let us defend ourselves. Also the president can move troops wherver he wants w/ out congress. He commands the armed forces. Congress approved him keeping the troops there.

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq? That is nonsence. There is substantial evidence that shows that Iraq was responsible for the genocide of the Kurds. The Kurds were against saddam, why would Iran want to go after them.

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died? a bit unrelated to our debate.

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States? They have the ability to funnel funds and weapons to groups that can attack us and our allies.

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there? 30 years? I think not.

19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty? This tells us that the un is unaffective and is a waste of time.

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe? The un does not play by it's own rules. Hypocrisy.

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president? That was a different era when our idea was containment of communism. The thought was fashism is better then communism. Arming dictators was never reguarded as being right, we just thought that it would keep communism from spreading and that any problems can be dealt with later.

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village? Knowingly supplied weapons after the fact? I have heard of companies doing so, but never the government. I might look this up later when I have more time.

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported? see a few posts up about the reds.

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy? The Korean war and the Vietnam wars were both preventative. It being considered immoral and something new would be false.

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted? Funding those who have and firisng at aircraft on a regular basis over the no fly zone is not aggression?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense? Our war wasn't in self defence? Wow last time I checked saddam was a threat to us (thru proliferation) and our allies in the region.

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war? I agree... saddam was not civilized.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by wamboid
Reading this thread has become too much like homework, and I'm too old for school. I missed the quote that got edited out. I promise I wont get mad if someone pm's me with it. Some of the arguements here have gotten pretty strange lately. I can see good points on both sides of the issue. Much of what I've read here lately just seems like grasping at straws. Even at that, I have enjoyed the debate. I remember reading a post that I think was in a prior thread asking why we would debate such a topic in a computer forum. Personally, I enjoy hearing what others in my profession from around the world think, whether I agree with them or not. I'm going to bed now - I wonder how many pages there will be when I get up. I am inclined to agree I have to have three tabs open just to follow this thing to see what is being quoted and where.



I will respond to more posts tomorrow. But I have to get some other things done now.

[theuedimaster]

Originally posted by thuko135
Are you kidding? Saddam paid the families of terrorists/suicide bombers that killed Israelis and Americans. Hussein allowed the operation of terrorist camps in his country, but wouldn't allow investigations? Hmm, seems maybe if we look beyond the reports we learn something. You should try that.

Hmmm.... we paid the Israelis to kill Palestinian civilians, what a small, small world.

[theuedimaster]

Originally posted by thuko135
That is so incredibly rude. I'm reporting tht post, and I hope this great administration punished you to the fullest possible extent.


Did you notice the wink and smile at the end? Anyways, problem got solved...

Great Administration? Watch out, I think you're making Jick and RHS blush... :D

[Jupac]

Michale Jackson abused a kid

[smercer]

Originally posted by thuko135

Hussein allowed the operation of terrorist camps in his country, but wouldn't allow investigations?

and
Originally posted by PeOfEo

This is a war on all terrorism, not the countires 19 hijackers came from.

...

They have the ability to funnel funds and weapons to groups that can attack us and our allies.

...

Funding those who have and firisng at aircraft on a regular basis over the no fly zone is not aggression?


quote from Whitehouse: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041006.html

Said by Vice President Dick Cheney
Concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam Hussein had been for years listed on the state sponsor of terror, that he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who operated out of Baghdad.

Abu Nidal could not establish any relationships with no one because he has been dead for over 2 years before 6 October 2004 when Vice President Dick Cheney made the statement something that Dick Cheney did not state.
http://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&as_qdr=y&q=%22Abu+Nidal%22+%2BDead+OR+Death+OR+died&as_qdr=y&btnG=Search&meta=

Originally posted by thuko135
Are you kidding? Saddam paid the families of terrorists/suicide bombers that killed Israelis and Americans.


quote from Whitehouse: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041006.html

Said by Vice President Dick Cheney
He paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers.

While Powell made a brief mention of Iraq funnelling money to the families of suicide bombers, this was never a prominent part of the Bush administration's case for war -- in large part because a number of other nations, most notably Saudi Arabia, have for years provided similar financial support to the families of Palestinian martyrs.
by http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192327/site/newsweek/

quote from Whitehouse: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041006.html

Said by Vice President Dick Cheney
And he had an established relationship with al Qaeda.


Quote by: The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing12/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-06-16.htm

Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists is Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, who wanted to protect their ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease his support for the anti-Saddam groups and arrange for meetings between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan and finally met with Bin Ladin in 1994. At that time, Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. And two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq, and so far we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.



quote from Whitehouse: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041006.html

Said by Vice President Dick Cheney
But let's look at what we know about Mr. Zarqawi. We know he was running a terrorist camp, training terrorists in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. We know that when we went into Afghanistan that he then migrated to Baghdad. He set up shop in Baghdad, where he oversaw the poisons facility up at Kurmal, where the terrorists were developing ricin and other deadly substances to use. We know he's still in Baghdad today. He is responsible for most of the major car bombings that have killed or maimed thousands of people. He's the one you will see on the evening news beheading hostages. He is, without question, a bad guy. He is, without question, a terrorist. He was, in fact, in Baghdad before the war, and he's in Baghdad now after the war. The fact of the matter is that this is exactly the kind of track record we've seen over the years. We have to deal with Zarqawi by taking him out, and that's exactly what we'll do.


edit: After some research I came up with this:
First of all, the Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his followers were not based in Baghdad, but in the far northeastern corner of the country inside the Kurdish safe havens established by the United Nations in 1991, well beyond the control of the Saddam’s government. The only evidence the Bush Administration has been able to put forward linking the al-Zarqawi terror network to the Iraqi capital was a brief stay that al-Zarqawi had in a Baghdad hospital in 2002, apparently having been smuggled by supporters into the country from Iran and smuggled out days later. Secondly, not only was the Khurmal area in Kurdish areas far outside of Saddam’s reach, but journalists who visited the supposed poisons factory within hours of it being identified by Bush Administration officials from satellite photos found nothing remotely resembling such a facility. U.S. Special Forces that seized control of the area weeks later came to a similar conclusion. Finally, Zarqawi and his followers established a presence in Baghdad only after U.S. forces overthrew the Iraqi government in March 2003.




from: US department of state
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/disarm/terrorism.htm

Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq.

...

He traveled to Baghdad in May of 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day.



By: The New York Times
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E12F7385F0C7A8CDDAB0894DB404482&incamp=archive:search

Militant Islamic group Ansar al Islam allows 20 journalists access to military compound in northern Iraq that United States has described as poison and explosives factory; reporters find small and largely undeveloped cluster of crude buildings, some of which appear to have recently been civilian homes; existence of camp was disclosed by Sec of State Colin Powell in his presentation to UN Security Council; said camp linked group to Al Qaeda and offered it as reason for war


from: Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds

Kurds are one of the Iranian peoples and speak Kurdish, a north-Western Iranian language related to Persian. They are, like most of the people of western Iran, descendents of Ancient Medes.

So that you get the idea that Khurmal was outside Hussein's control, I provide this map and shows the boundaries of Hussein's control prior to the war. On this map Khurmal is spelled "Tuz Xurmatu".
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/images/kurdistan-map-large.gif

Originally posted by smercer
And al-Zarqawi turned out to be not on any FBI wanted list.
To check up on the fact that al-Zarqawi not on any FBI wanted list, do a search in google with results

"al-Zarqawi" +site:www.fbi.gov (http://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=%22al-Zarqawi%22+%2Bsite%3Awww.fbi.gov+&btnG=Search&meta=)

when I put in "Mullah Krekar" he does not come up either.
"Mullah Krekar" +site:www.fbi.gov (http://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=%22Mullah+Krekar%22+%2Bsite%3Awww.fbi.gov+&btnG=Search&meta=)

Or you could go straight to http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm
and find them missing on that page.

Now you might say an international terrorist would not appear on the FBI site. look what happens when I change the name to


"Osama Bin Laden" +site:www.fbi.gov (http://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=%22Osama+Bin+Laden%22+%2Bsite%3Awww.fbi.gov+&btnG=Search&meta=)

Originally posted by thuko135

Hmm, seems maybe if we look beyond the reports we learn something.
Good on ya mate, that’s the spirit.

Edit: Ran out of time. Will return after work tomorrow. Try not to close the thread while I'm gone.

Edit#2: since I was in a hurry, I compromised with news stories, Now that I have time, I have changed this post, including changing the quote from Washington post, with a quote from The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

[JasonNYC]

Originally posted by smercer
I think I got out of hand only the once with the GOD DAMN AMERICA post. I have tried to keep it as civil as possible by ignoring insults as much as possible to stop the chain reaction.

I can't find where I have been "down right hostile". Proving you wrong is not "down right hostile".

sorry I insulted you (and everyone else) with that earlier post.

Thank you. Spoken like a gentleman. I accept your apology.
As for "proving me wrong" ....I don't think so. Trying to convince me of your opinions.....definitely. Notice I said "opinions".

And for being "down right hostile"....It is obvious in your tone that you have some deep rooted negative feelings towards America.
I think we as a people should strive to be better, not just Americans. I would never disrespect any ones country the way you did mine. We're all in the same boat. I don't know if you have, but you should come out here and visit. Meet some Americans. See for yourself that we are not what you think.

[smercer]

Originally posted by JasonNYC
And for being "down right hostile"....It is obvious in your tone that you have some deep rooted negative feelings towards America.

Well you are right about that, only because of what the governments doing, and its not just the fact they go to war, it's the way they go to war that makes me angry. Heres just one example:

Quote from website: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15555665

Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey.

Roberts L, Lafta R, Garfield R, Khudhairi J, Burnham G.

Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. les@a-znet.com

BACKGROUND: In March, 2003, military forces, mainly from the USA and the UK, invaded Iraq. We did a survey to compare mortality during the period of 14.6 months before the invasion with the 17.8 months after it. METHODS: A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17.8 months after the invasion with the 14.6-month period preceding it. FINDINGS: The risk of death was estimated to be 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.6-4.2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1-2.3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8.1-419) than in the period before the war. INTERPRETATION: Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes.

here are more examples of US government (which I already posted) war tactics.
http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=518289
http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/pr030327.shtml

It's understandable for me of why theuedimaster has a quick temper when talking about politics but you have to look at it from our side for you to understand.

What theuedimaster has to understand is that he says unbelievable (even if it is true) stuff without backing it up, and can say some really abusive stuff because of being frustrated because no one believes him. Sorry theuedimaster, I know you have good intentions, but when you get abusive, it does more harm then good.

I must admit I get annoyed that some people here in the forum lack some of the morals when it comes to war.

Originally posted by JasonNYC

I think we as a people should strive to be better, not just Americans. I would never disrespect any ones country the way you did mine. We're all in the same boat. I don't know if you have, but you should come out here and visit. Meet some Americans. See for yourself that we are not what you think.


As I was saying to theuedimaster, Not all Americans are as rude and arrogant as the world believes, but there are some really rotten apples that make the other Americans look bad.

[thuko135]

Originally posted by smercer
Not all Americans are as rude and arrogant as the world believes, but there are some really rotten apples that make the other Americans look bad. Paralleling, you make all Australians look bad. and I know from a fact from other australians here, that is not true.

[jeff_archer7]

Originally posted by Jupac
Michale Jackson abused a kid

Thanx for that

like we didn't know??

[smercer]

Originally posted by PeOfEo

No, not all of them. The UN has stuff unaccounted for and they could not even find everything in the 90s

...

The inspectors found weapons in Iraq in I think it was 96 and half of those are to this day unaccounted for.


From: United Nations
Disarming Iraq BRIEFING OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=382&sID=6

Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

but not found. Of course if it was used up in the gulf war, the weapons inspectors would not have found any thing left, and this would not be proof enough to justify war.

Any way, if he kept poor records of how much he used his weapons during war time, being under pressure and all, is that really a reason to say did have them? If you can't find them and they where used, bio-degraded because of age (in the case of anthrax), weathered or rusted/corroded away, how are you going to prove they did exist if they no longer exist? This is all speculation, but are worth considering every possible angle of seeing the facts and making educated guesses based on facts before you plan on going to war.

This is one of the reasons why Dr. Hans Blix has said "One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist." which is exactly what you are doing.

Originally posted by PeOfEo


I used this example to show how Saddam played the un. Saddam was able to track the un inspectors and eventually they had to disclose where they were going to be. He simply shifted his stuff.


Where did you get that from?

From: United Nations
Disarming Iraq BRIEFING OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=382&sID=6

Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.

The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centres, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites. At all sites which had been inspected before 1998, re-baselining activities were performed. This included the identification of the function and contents of each building, new or old, at a site. It also included verification of previously tagged equipment, application of seals and tags, taking samples and discussions with the site personnel regarding past and present activities. At certain sites, ground-penetrating radar was used to look for underground structures or buried equipment.

...

Inspections are effectively helping to bridge the gap in knowledge that arose due to the absence of inspections between December 1998 and November 2002.

More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations.

...

inspection of these sites were useful in proving the absence of such items and in some cases the presence of other items - conventional munitions. It showed that conventional arms are being moved around the country and that movements are not necessarily related to weapons of mass destruction.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Hmmm.... we paid the Israelis to kill Palestinian civilians, what a small, small world. when?

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer
but not found. Of course if it was used up in the gulf war, the weapons inspectors would not have found any thing left, and this would not be proof enough to justify war. There was not much used in the golf war. As we were driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait, we did not try to really invade their country.

Any way, if he kept poor records of how much he used his weapons during war time, being under pressure and all, is that really a reason to say did have them? If you can't find them and they where used, bio-degraded because of age (in the case of anthrax), weathered or rusted/corroded away, how are you going to prove they did exist if they no longer exist? This is all speculation, but are worth considering every possible angle of seeing the facts and making educated guesses based on facts before you plan on going to war. He did not keep poor records, he destroyed records. Also, as I have said before, saddam took care of his stuff. You posted a link about steal being used for delivery? That means the missiles and some artillary shells were made of this, not the containers that stored the stuff for the long term.

This is one of the reasons why Dr. Hans Blix has said "One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist." which is exactly what you are doing. Saddam has no cooperated, if he did not have them why wouldn't he do more to prove it?

Where did you get that from? [/B] This is not about current security council breifings or hans blix.... I am talking about the mid 90s... and you seem to be missing that.

[smercer]

Originally posted by PeOfEo
The intelliegence at the time said he had stock piles.

No he did not have weapons of mass desructon. Just look at my signature where George Bush admits he has not found any, but still says it was right to go to Iraq.
Originally posted by PeOfEo

What does this matter, it was sarin we found in a shell on the side of a road, which is a wmd. Sarin is a very powerful blister agent. We have also seen saddam use Tanum in the past which is a powerful nerve agent.... also not tied off in condoms or baloons I might add.

...

The war was completely justified and we do have proof that saddam supported terrorism and had chemical weapons.

...

Except the fact that we found weapons that were not destroyed which was not in compliance with the un and the fact that the inspectos found illegal missiles which were in perfect condition to carry a parload of an illegal agent, and the fact that inspectors found weapons several years after the first gulf war which was only the tip of the ice berg.




From: Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, Deputy Director for Coalition Operations
Department of Defence
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040517-0761.html

Monday, May 17, 2004

The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found. The round had been rigged as an IED, which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy. A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent. The round was an old binary type requiring the mixing of two chemical components in separate sections of the cell before the deadly agent is produced. The cell is designed to work after being fired from an artillery piece. Mixing and dispersal of the agent from such a projectile as an IED is very limited. The former regime had declared all such rounds destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War. Two explosive ordnance team members were minor exposure to nerve agent as a result of the partial detonation of the round.


from: United Nations
UNRESOLVED DISARMAMENT ISSUES
IRAQ’S PROSCRIBED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES
6 March 2003
Page 72 of 173

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/cluster6mar.pdf

The production plants declared by Iraq to have been involved in Sarin-type agents production were found by UNSCOM to be damaged by aerial bombardment during the Gulf war. Remaining chemical process equipment from these plants was subsequently destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision.

...

According to documents discovered by UNSCOM in Iraq, the purity of Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were on average below 60%, and dropped below Iraq’s established quality control acceptance level of 40% by purity some 3 to 12 months after production.



From: CIA
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html

CW nerve agents contained impurities that affected agent stability and thus limited the shelf life of stored filled munitions and bulk agent. This had not mattered during the Iran-Iraq War, when Iraq was using agent as fast as it could produce it, but given Iraq’s intent to use chemical weapons as a strategic deterrent, some stockpiling was essential.


From: Environmental Health Perspectives
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/1999/107p933-974munro/munro-3.html
(highly technical stuff removed)

Because GB is unstable in the long term ... and GB must be at least 93% pure ... GA is seldom found in pure form; it is generally contaminated with degradation products or production by-products.


Parliamentary office of science and technology
http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn167.pdf
(In reference to Tokyo Subway attack)

The low purity (30%) and ineffective
dissemination of the sarin meant that casualties were low,

So now that we know how short the shelf life of Chemical Weapons(CW) are and all of suddems means of manufacturing more Chemical weapons where bombed or destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, I will now ask these questions:

How is it possible for this Chemical Weapon shell to still be a hazard if CIA has said that it only has a limited shelf life given the fact that Suddem had stoped making them during 1991 era?

even if Suddem had made the last Sarin bomb 5 minutes before he was caught on 14 December 2003 would it have still have been effective when US found the sarin bomb 5 months later on 17 May 2004?
I will now post questions I have asked in another thread so people that visit this thread but missed the last one will understand what is being said.

US army would have been going by that site many times since the end of the war, and had not noticed it?

It being the first bomb found a year after it was found which was in a convenient place to find would have been found either during or immediately after the war, but instead was found a year later and five months after saddam was caught.

My conclusion: I think that bomb was planted there specially for the US army to find which was NOT made by Saddam, as it was so convenient being on the side of the road, without people not noticing it for a whole year.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Obviously they were stored in something substantial. Saddam loved his weapons and invested in those programs heavily, why would he keep them in something weak.
Guess #1: Because he could not afford anything better.

Guess #2: The sanctions had prevented him from using something better.
Originally posted by PeOfEo

If you were the leader of a country would you like to take a risk like this? Just wait and see? Just wait and see if he has them, never mind if they proliferate? Even when your own intelliegence agency and other intel agenices says he has them? How long would it take for them to say he does not have them? They could not have released the report you posted without our invasion.

That’s what the weapons inspectors were for.
Originally posted by PeOfEo

Then the inspectors were kicked out.



Originally posted by PeOfEo

There was one instance where the inspectors were driving up a two lane road to a compound while semi trucks were passing them in the other direction.

...

Stupid question, the inspectors are not effective because saddam fail's to cooperate. He was not going to cooperate, war is the only course of action.


From: Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix
United Nations
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=414&sID=6

This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.

American U-2 and French Mirage surveillance aircraft already give us valuable imagery, supplementing satellite pictures and we would expect soon to be able to add night vision capability through an aircraft offered to us by the Russian Federation. We also expect to add low-level, close area surveillance through drones provided by Germany. We are grateful not only to the countries which place these valuable tools at our disposal, but also to the States, most recently Cyprus, which has agreed to the stationing of aircraft on their territory.

...

As I noted on 14 February, intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks and, in particular, that there are mobile production units for biological weapons. The Iraqi side states that such activities do not exist. Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen, as well as large containers with seed processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities has so far been found.

you are wrong that they moved them around, because the inspectors had associates in planes and helicopters and could tell when they were moving them, and what trucks were carrying because they stoped them and inspected them. and how is "Food testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen, as well as large containers with seed processing equipment." a reason to believe they are holding Weapons of mass destruction? I have seen their report and they do stop trucks and media just publish what ever they wish, and you would be the one to believe them.

Saddem was co-operating almost (if it was a reasonable request it would have been in the report) at every whim that the weapons inspectors asked for and Saddam provided.

Originally posted by PeOfEo

The cole, embassy bombings, aircraft attacks. Alquida is the second most deadly terrorist network after the PLO I believe and the PLO only attacked Isralies.

They went through all that evidence, wreckage etc and could provide an answer straight after it happened? How is this possible?
Originally posted by PeOfEo

The inspectors found weapons in Iraq in I think it was 96 and half of those are to this day unaccounted for.


If the inspectors found them then, they would have distroyed them then.

Originally posted by PeOfEo
When did I say a us troop who died was one of those 100,000 innocent people.
You are missing the point. The Iraqis have a right to defend their country, and this is not Illegal.

What’s more, If the people of Iraq did not want saddam as their ruler, why did so many US Troops die from Iraqis defending their country?

[smercer]

Originally posted by PeOfEo

Also the insurgents who are attacking are not 'defending' their country. When they use car bombs to kill their own police, their own election officials, their own bretheren who are completely innocent, they are criminals.
"Their own police" and the "election officials" that US have put there?

Don’t forget there is a saying "if you can't beat em, join em", They may not want the US in their country, but they don't want to leave their kids and wives homeless either.
Originally posted by PeOfEo
Since when does the president have to ask the un to please let us defend ourselves. Also the president can move troops wherver he wants w/ out congress. He commands the armed forces. Congress approved him keeping the troops there.

First of all going into another country because you were attacked is not defence, it's retaliation. Defence is when you are in your country and you are being attacked and THEN you are defending your country while remaining within your boundaries or protecting your boundaries.

Second, Your troops don't belong anywhere but where they belong; in your country protecting from invasion. How is it possible if they are over in Iraq and your country is invaded, are they going to <sarcasm>open up a portal like they do in stargate and be in time to defend your country?</sarcasm>
Originally posted by PeOfEo
a bit unrelated to our debate.

No it's not unrelated.
Originally posted by smercer
Wars only stir emotions and that only creates enemies. And who won? 100000 US Troops are now suffering from Depleted Uranium contamination from using Depleted Uranium ammo that they are going to go home with. and when they have sexual intercourse with their wives they pass it to them via semen and then the baby is then contaminated. Depleted Uranium is passed down through 7 generations.

Iraq has a bigger problem but, as Depleted Uranium is everywhere and desert winds blow the stuff around and they breathe it in, because when Depleted Uranium hits a target it explodes and becomes airborne.

there’s nothing stopping Iraqi kids from playing with the bullets and shells either to make their contamination worse as DU can be absorbed via the skin very easily.

This is why life expectancy is very low in Iraq now, with babies there born with abnormalities.

And this is USA's profitable way of waste disposal of used Uranium from places like power stations etc.
when troops are Depleted Uranium contaminated, its called "Persian Gulf War syndrome"

Originally posted by PeOfEo
This tells us that the un is unaffective and is a waste of time.

No, no, It's you that’s saying it's a waste of time. Weapons inspectors have done a good job in disarming Iraq. It would be good if they could start on USA next, but USA won't allow weapons inspectors.
Originally posted by PeOfEo

The un does not play by it's own rules. Hypocrisy.

The UN does not have a need to jump when you say to.
Originally posted by PeOfEo
That was a different era when our idea was containment of communism. The thought was fashism is better then communism. Arming dictators was never reguarded as being right, we just thought that it would keep communism from spreading and that any problems can be dealt with later.

I will just get out my dictionary again...


Quote from Dictionary: "The Penguin Modern English Dictionary"
ISBN: 0-86136-651-4

Communism [komewnizm] n theory that all property should be vested in the community, each individual receiving according to his needs and working according to his capacity; the governmental system of the Soviet Union and other states that follow the teachings of Karl Marx

community [[komewniti] n Society of people linked together by common conditions of life, beliefs etc or organized under one authority; all members of a state, the public; group of nations having purposes or interests in common; ownership in common

Communize [komewniz] v/t transfer to public ownership; convert to communism; impose communist government on.


Comment from last debate:
Sounds good doesn't it? Now where does it say it is a police state?



Quote from Dictionary: "The Penguin Modern English Dictionary"
ISBN: 0-86136-651-4

capitalism [kapitaliszm] n possession of capital; economic system based on the private ownership of land or wealth.

capitalist [kapitalist] n one who has accumulated wealth and makes it available for business enterprises.

capitalization [kapitalizayshon] n act of capitalizing; c. issue issue of shares by a company to existing shareholders for which a cash payment is not required.

capitalize [kapitaliz] v/t convert to capital; convert into an equivalent capital sum; make profit out of, turn to account.



theuedimaster: help me out here, I am not American so I can't realy anwser these questions to well.
Now answer these questions: 1) How often do you hear that a government entity has been privatised? Last one I heard was that The New York Police department has been privatised and is now privately owned.

2) You have shares available, don’t you? World trade centre ring a bell?

The USA is being Capitalized.


Quote from Dictionary: "The Penguin Modern English Dictionary"
ISBN: 0-86136-651-4

democracy [dimokRasi] n government by the people; government by majority vote; community so governed; equalty of rights, opportunities etc; absence of class feeling; the working classes.

democrat [demOkRat] n supporter of democracy.

democratic [demokRatik] adj of the nature of democracy; believing in the rights of the people.

...

dictator [diktaytor] n absolute ruler, despot; person with absolute power; domineering person.

dictatorial [ditatawRi-al] adj like a dictator; imperious, overbearing, self-assertive.

dictatorship [diktaytorship] n office of a dictator; period of a dictator’s office; absolute authority; d. of the proletariat (Marzism) period in which supreme power is taken by representatives of the working class before the establishment of a classless society.

theuedimaster: help me out here, I am not American so I can't realy anwser these questions to well.
Now what rights do you have? Did you have any rights to say no to going to war with Afghanistan? Did you have any rights to say no to go to war against Iraq?

Absence of class feeling: Do Rich people get treated differently then the poor? Yes, They are not taxed like the working and the poverty class.

Some comments you left unmentioned in last debate:
By the way A DICTATORSHIP IS WHAT CONTROLS EVERYTHING. and therefore is in fact a police state. Now where is the connection that says Communism is a dictatorship?

communism is a democracy because it is owned by the people and run by the people as a whole. Now how can "Communism has failed to work without corruptions and loss of efficiency in every large country it has been used in."
Originally posted by PeOfEo

see a few posts up about the reds.

????? What are you talking about? :confused:
Originally posted by PeOfEo
The Korean war and the Vietnam wars were both preventative. It being considered immoral and something new would be false.


Vietnam war is I agree, totally unnecessary. But starting war with Iraq, totally Immoral and also totally unnecessary. You had the weapons inspectors in Iraq, and it was the right thing to do. And then USA clams that Iraq kicks them out and US starts bombing. Wherever the Inspectors went and found weapons inappropriate, were destroyed. This is acceptable too. but to say that there were weapons where the weapons inspectors had not checked out is jumping the gun and totally immoral as you are accusing someone.

Originally posted by PeOfEo
Our war wasn't in self defence? Wow last time I checked saddam was a threat to us (thru proliferation) and our allies in the region.

I could provide you with a map to remind you which part of the world is your country. but just remmember; the whole world is not yours and being in Iraq is nowhere near your borders and therefore not self defence.
Originally posted by PeOfEo
I agree... saddam was not civilized.

What it was telling you is that using weapons inspectors to distroy weapons of mass destruction is civilized compared to going there with guns blazing and being not civilized.

[thuko135]

Originally posted by smercer
First of all going into another country because you were attacked is not defence, it's retaliation. Defence is when you are in your country and you are being attacked and THEN you are defending your country while remaining within your boundaries or protecting your boundaries.

Second, Your troops don't belong anywhere but where they belong; in your country protecting from invasion. How is it possible if they are over in Iraq and your country is invaded, are they going to <sarcasm>open up a portal like they do in stargate and be in time to defend your country?</sarcasm> Remember that thing we call 9/11? Remember that terrorists caused that. Do you remember how numerous times already pointed out that Hussein supported terrorism, and paid the families who did so enough to kill themselves in order to kill others.

If you were in a war, you sure wouldn't want to wait to defend your country before you were attacked (again). In addition, our troops have every right to be stationed in Iraq. What you don't realize is they are starting to grdually come home. We have troops in the United States, and plenty of them. And what country would dare attack the United States? No country, only a loosely affiliated terrorist regime that Saddam supported anyway.

http://www.answers.com/defend&r=67
de·fend (dĭ-fĕnd') v.tr.

1. To make or keep safe from danger, attack, or harm.
2. ... (these definitions are alternate meanings)
...Where does it say you have to be under attack?

Now that you see all of your attempts to unjustify the Iraqi War has failed, why don't you admin that there was indeed a justified cause to liberate Iraq, and because of that, the world is safer?

Mike

[PeOfEo]

smercer. I am getting tired of saying the same things over and over again. Let me make this clear.


Just before we went into war intelliegence said Saddam very likely had wmd, ours and the intelliegence of some other nations. Saddam was not cooperating with us at all, if he did not have weapons he should have cooperated.

The un weapons inspectors have historically been a joke. In the 90s, after the firts war, the inspectors did not find weapons after quite a bit of searching. They did not find big stock piles until a few years after they started looking. Saddam had knowlege of where they were going to be which was part of the problem.

Saddam has historically not cooperated with us or the un.

You keep posting these links that are reports for after the war, but that is not the same info we had before the war. Obviously we are going to know more after we went into the country. If our intelliegence said saddam had weapons then we had a reason to go to war.


The UN does not have a need to jump when you say to.
No, it does not, you are right. But it should jump when it says so.
I could provide you with a map to remind you which part of the world is your country. but just remmember; the whole world is not yours and being in Iraq is nowhere near your borders and therefore not self defence. do you need me to explain what proliferation is? Also Iraq shares a border with some allies of ours.

smercer: Smercer a dictionary definition of communism really does not prove anything. It does not work in the real world. The soviet union was a police state, cuba is a police state, north korea is a police state, nam is a police state.

one more thought: This is a war on terrorism. Saddam supported terrorism (clearly) and the big point about wmd was proliferation. We did not want that getting into the hands of the terrorists, some of whom saddam supported.

[wamboid]

As far as the war being self defense, it really depends on who you believe and what you believe self defense really means. Forget about Iraq for a minute and lets look ad Afghanistan. What if, on Sept 1st, because we had what we thought was good intelligence that Osama Bin Laden, supported by the Taliban, was going to launch and attack on our country in 10 days. Let's pretend that we had invaded on that day and actually prevented the 9/11 attacks. I'm willing to bet that we would be having this same debate about that invasion. We probably wouldn't have found totally indisputable evidence of the attacks and both sides would be posting article after article about how right and wrong it was.

Unfortunately, only hindsight is 20/20. We now know we may have been able to prevent those attacks with a pre-emptive strike. My question is this, would you have considered an attack such as that self defense?

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by wamboid
As far as the war being self defense, it really depends on who you believe and what you believe self defense really means. Forget about Iraq for a minute and lets look ad Afghanistan. What if, on Sept 1st, because we had what we thought was good intelligence that Osama Bin Laden, supported by the Taliban, was going to launch and attack on our country in 10 days. Let's pretend that we had invaded on that day and actually prevented the 9/11 attacks. I'm willing to bet that we would be having this same debate about that invasion. We probably wouldn't have found totally indisputable evidence of the attacks and both sides would be posting article after article about how right and wrong it was.

Unfortunately, only hindsight is 20/20. We now know we may have been able to prevent those attacks with a pre-emptive strike. My question is this, would you have considered an attack such as that self defense? I would have, but I would be willing to be smercer wouldn't.

[theuedimaster]

Originally posted by smercer
Sorry theuedimaster, I know you have good intentions, but when you get abusive, it does more harm then good.
As I was saying to theuedimaster, Not all Americans are as rude and arrogant as the world believes, but there are some really rotten apples that make the other Americans look bad.

Once again, I'm sorry for ever being "abusive" in my posts. Won't do it again.

[theuedimaster]

Originally posted by thuko135
Remember that thing we call 9/11? Remember that terrorists caused that. Do you remember how numerous times already pointed out that Hussein supported terrorism, and paid the families who did so enough to kill themselves in order to kill others.

If you were in a war, you sure wouldn't want to wait to defend your country before you were attacked (again). In addition, our troops have every right to be stationed in Iraq. What you don't realize is they are starting to grdually come home. We have troops in the United States, and plenty of them. And what country would dare attack the United States? No country, only a loosely affiliated terrorist regime that Saddam supported anyway.

Where does it say you have to be under attack?

Now that you see all of your attempts to unjustify the Iraqi War has failed, why don't you admin that there was indeed a justified cause to liberate Iraq, and because of that, the world is safer?

Mike

Remember that thing called the IRA? Why don't we go after the Irishmen in this country who used to fund their terrorist activites, just like how Sadam used to fund the Palestinian terrorist activities. Why don't we go invade Ireland? Why dont' we get those terrorists?

Lets see what your argument may be.... maybe you would say its because the IRA has no relation to us and never attacked us. Its the problem of England and Ireland you say.....

But Sadam had no relation to us, even in the Palestininan terrorist thing. It should be the problem of Israel and Palestine. But you say it is your problem too. You guys are being hypocritical.

Why not go to Ireland? I think its because of a race issue.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by theuedimaster
Remember that thing called the IRA? Why don't we go after the Irishmen in this country who used to fund their terrorist activites, just like how Sadam used to fund the Palestinian terrorist activities. Why don't we go invade Ireland? Why dont' we get those terrorists?

Lets see what your argument may be.... maybe you would say its because the IRA has no relation to us and never attacked us. Its the problem of England and Ireland you say.....

But Sadam had no relation to us, even in the Palestininan terrorist thing. It should be the problem of Israel and Palestine. But you say it is your problem too. You guys are being hypocritical.

Why not go to Ireland? I think its because of a race issue. In ireland they use molotov ****tails, they do not blow themselves up on busses. The stuff in ireland is completely within the borders of that country. We do not send out troops into Israel to stop the suicide bombers there. But when saddam is sending funds accross a border it is a bit different... now we are protecting an ally from foreign funding of terrorism. You might also mention Sierra Leone, t hat is also contained within that countries borders.

[thuko135]

Ireland doesn't have a dictatorship that has threatened to remove countries from the map either. Saddam did that twice. And Ireland isn't commiting the offenses to destroy a great alliance. The U.S. has been allied with Israel for so long, and we wouldn't let Hussein make Israel his third coutnry to destroy in as many decades.

[theuedimaster]

So the IRA weren't terrorists eh? You guys don't know your history...

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by theuedimaster
So the IRA weren't terrorists eh? You guys don't know your history... I did not say that, nor did thuko135... reading is fundamental. They are insurgents fighting within their own borders. It is not international terrorism, it is a localized insurgency that resorts to terrorism.

[theuedimaster]

Within their own borders? Excuse me, you obviously don't know about the multitude of times the Irish have gone into England (past borders mind you) to kill nobility and regular citizens. And yes, the English terrorists have also done the same in Ireland.

But he point is, they are still TERRORISTS. Your Bush has so firmly declared his crusade against the TERRORISTS AND ALL THOSE WHO HARBOR OR HELP THEM. Just like the people here in our country that funded the IRA.... Why don't we get them? Because all they did was in the past right? And the past has gone by.... but haven't we gone after Sadamn because of the PAST? Because he used to have weapons back in the 90's? Because he, in the past, invaded a country (which we already fought a war for mind you, you know, its called the Persian Gulf War)? Because before the weapons inspectors, he used to have weapons of mass destruction?

We fight in the name of the past, yet we are selective of what past we act upon. Injustice has occurred....

Does it matter where the terrorists are? Does it matter who they are? We have promised to seek out and destroy the TERRORISTS! Not terrorists of brown skin, not terrorists who are only in the middle east, not terrorists who are not white, but rather, all TERRORISTS that threaten the peace and stability in the world! What about the terrorists right now killing people in Sudan? What about the terrorists in Ireland? What about the terrorists in Columbia? What about the terrorists in Mexico? Latin America? Russia? Indonesia? Thailand? Pakistan? India? Egypt? Turkey? Congo? Uganda?

No..... we have ignored their cry for help. We have declared them unworthy of our so called freedom.....

By turning a blind eye to terrorists (such as those in Ireland) and trying to get around the problem, you are tarnishing the meaning of those more than 2000 who died in the World Trade Center. You are tainting the innocents who died there by not taking true notice of their lost lives....

[JasonNYC]

Originally posted by wamboid
As far as the war being self defense, it really depends on who you believe and what you believe self defense really means. Forget about Iraq for a minute and lets look ad Afghanistan. What if, on Sept 1st, because we had what we thought was good intelligence that Osama Bin Laden, supported by the Taliban, was going to launch and attack on our country in 10 days. Let's pretend that we had invaded on that day and actually prevented the 9/11 attacks. I'm willing to bet that we would be having this same debate about that invasion. We probably wouldn't have found totally indisputable evidence of the attacks and both sides would be posting article after article about how right and wrong it was.

Unfortunately, only hindsight is 20/20. We now know we may have been able to prevent those attacks with a pre-emptive strike. My question is this, would you have considered an attack such as that self defense?

YES!!! Thank you!
We can't sit here like everything is cool. This is the 21st century, the world is alot smaller than it used to be. Why is it so hard to understand this?

I'm still here:)

[wamboid]

I agree, the IRA were terrorists. I just did a quick search, so I could be wrong, but haven't they basically disarmed? Also, we have this really great friend in the area called the UK. Haven't they been fighting the IRA for years? I also seem to remember them being mentioned by name in a speech shortly after 9/11 by GW.

Now, let's assume I'm totally wrong in that last paragraph. Go back to my last post about invading Afghanistan prior to 9/11, but change it to Ireland to get rid of the IRA. We'd just be having a stupid debate here about Ireland.

[thuko135]

Originally posted by wamboid
We'd just be having a stupid debate here about Ireland. But Ireland doesn't cause the same issues as Hussein did. Hussein fully supported and funded terrorism. Ireland doesn't do that. Ireland, as previously mentioned, doesn't have a record of trying to destroy two countries in successive decades. If England calls for help, the US will be there. However, IReland is the littlest of our concerns. The Middle East is clearly where terrorist roots, and we will eradicate its roots.

Pakistan is an ally we have. There terrorists, and the terrorists in nearly all of the other nations you've mentioned are not supported by their government. We can't get rid of these terrorists by invasion, or even negotiation, as who to invade or negotiate with.

Mike

[thuko135]

Originally posted by theuedimaster
By turning a blind eye to terrorists (such as those in Ireland) and trying to get around the problem, you are tarnishing the meaning of those more than 2000 who died in the World Trade Center. You are tainting the innocents who died there by not taking true notice of their lost lives.... Quit it with your Ireland theories. A difference has already been established, and a brief investigation by a forum member came to the conclusion that they had nearly disarmed fully.

What you are saying really parallels Ward Churchill (http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=96130561069e6be0d3417e08fa676749&topic=6840.0).

Mike

[theuedimaster]

Originally posted by thuko135
But Ireland doesn't cause the same issues as Hussein did.

People in the US supported terrorism in Ireland. Why don't we go after the supporters in our own country? We don't, we say it was just in the past.......

Hussein fully supported and funded terrorism. Ireland doesn't do that.


Irish people in our country fully supported and funded terrorism.

Ireland, as previously mentioned, doesn't have a record of trying to destroy two countries in successive decades.

Again, we already fought a war back in the Big Bush era for this. You're clinging to the past is like saying, oh, Japan fought back in World War II and tortured many of our soldiers inhumanly. How about we go back and beat them again.

If England calls for help, the US will be there.

Um... what country exactly called for help about Iraq? Iraq was just sitting there, Sadam was rotting in his fortress. And obviously, he was not making any weapons of mass destruction.

However, IReland is the littlest of our concerns. The Middle East is clearly where terrorist roots, and we will eradicate its roots.

Eradicate eh? Don't you understand that for every so called "terrorist" we kill, 3 more "terrorists" come up to take his place? Ever since the war, the membership of Al Qaeda has grown 3-fold. How many will we kill.....


Pakistan is an ally we have.

May I remind you that they are a military dictatorship. What happened to the call to democracy? How can Pakistan be our ally when Musharref threw away democracy..... He is a dictator who we cannot support.


There terrorists, and the terrorists in nearly all of the other nations you've mentioned are not supported by their government.

So you're saying there were terrorists in Iraq supported by Sadam? Killing the people in Iraq? No. The terrorists where in other countries. And yes, I have heard that Sadam once let some terrorists have a little camp out in the desert, with a few people mind you. Did go to war and sacrifice more than 100,000 lives for those few terrorists? We obviously had many other places we could of gone.... like going to war with the terrorists in Africa, who are killing thousands every day.....



Mike

Neil

[theuedimaster]

Originally posted by wamboid
I agree, the IRA were terrorists. I just did a quick search, so I could be wrong, but haven't they basically disarmed? Also, we have this really great friend in the area called the UK. Haven't they been fighting the IRA for years? I also seem to remember them being mentioned by name in a speech shortly after 9/11 by GW.

Now, let's assume I'm totally wrong in that last paragraph. Go back to my last post about invading Afghanistan prior to 9/11, but change it to Ireland to get rid of the IRA. We'd just be having a stupid debate here about Ireland.

Remeber, the UK weren't only good guys. They had their own terrorists also.....

[thuko135]

Your logic is good, but you aren't taking the entire post as a whole. Hussein supported the terrorist groups operating in his country, and funded the families of terorists and suicide bombers. There is no proof that Ireland's government does the same.

Japan doesn't have the same dictator in power in World War II as now. Now they have a democracy, thanks to the U.S, and are a great alliance to the USA as well.

The Iraqi people called for help, without words of course. How could they? Saddam prevented them from learning words like freedom for decades. Thye suffered under his regime long enough, and the US saw the dictatorship as a country. Any other country finding reason to invade the country would do the same. The US did so ti defend Israel, to defend peace, and to defend democracy.

Pakistan is a strange country. But they were the only country to my knowledge that refused to go against Iraq in this war. Hussein offered some million barrels of oil to countries like russia, france, and Pakistan at a cheap price. Pakistan declined, clinging to the American side. Our country has no problem with friendly dictatorships. I felt that we had one under Clinton for 8 years. The US has problems with cruel dictatorships, the reason Rumsfeld compared Hussein to Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, amongst others.

Terrorists hate democracy. Of course they will grow. The only way to kill them is to end the funding and support of terrorist groups. Saddam paid some 25 or 50 thousand to terrorist families. He's out of power, and no longer can fund these terrorists.

The move towards a terrorist-free world is coming closer. It doesn't matter how many exist. The US is just worried about ending the support for terrorism, and hence it will crumble, like hussein himself.

Mike

[smercer]

Originally posted by PeOfEo
Knowingly supplied weapons after the fact? I have heard of companies doing so, but never the government. I might look this up later when I have more time.

I will help you with your research.


From: Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true

What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.

...

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Throughout the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as "the bad guys."

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

...

When the Iran-Iraq war began in September 1980, with an Iraqi attack across the Shatt al Arab waterway that leads to the Persian Gulf, the United States was a bystander. The United States did not have diplomatic relations with either Baghdad or Tehran. U.S. officials had almost as little sympathy for Hussein's dictatorial brand of Arab nationalism as for the Islamic fundamentalism espoused by Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. As long as the two countries fought their way to a stalemate, nobody in Washington was disposed to intervene.

...

By the summer of 1982, however, the strategic picture had changed dramatically. After its initial gains, Iraq was on the defensive, and Iranian troops had advanced to within a few miles of Basra, Iraq's second largest city. U.S. intelligence information suggested the Iranians might achieve a breakthrough on the Basra front, destabilizing Kuwait, the Gulf states, and even Saudi Arabia, thereby threatening U.S. oil supplies.

...

To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia.

...

In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory.

Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW" against the Iranians. But the Reagan administration had already committed itself to a large-scale diplomatic and political overture to Baghdad, culminating in several visits by the president's recently appointed special envoy to the Middle East, Donald H. Rumsfeld.

...

In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq.



Originally posted by PeOfEo

Our war wasn't in self defence? Wow last time I checked saddam was a threat to us (thru proliferation) and our allies in the region.


From: Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true

By the summer of 1982, however, the strategic picture had changed dramatically. After its initial gains, Iraq was on the defensive, and Iranian troops had advanced to within a few miles of Basra, Iraq's second largest city. U.S. intelligence information suggested the Iranians might achieve a breakthrough on the Basra front, destabilizing Kuwait, the Gulf states, and even Saudi Arabia, thereby threatening U.S. oil supplies.
No he was a threat to US Oil supplies. And as I have being saying all along, the war was all about OIL and nothing to do with the weapons of mass destuction that was supplied by the US, or the fact that saddam was involved with terrorists.

From: United States Army
Inverse Engagement: Lessons from US-Iraq Relations, 1982-1990
http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume1/july_2003/7_03_2v2.html

In March 1982, the US government officially began engaging Saddam Hussein by removing Iraq from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. The official reason was to recognize Iraq's improved record

...

Iraq's sponsorship of international terrorism was seen as a lesser of evils, and therefore Baghdad was perceived as a potential partner that could serve US strategic interests in the region.

...

The contextual setting of the time strongly suggested that such a strategy had an excellent chance of success. As a result of war-related disruptions in shipping through the Persian Gulf, Iraq's oil revenues had shrunk from $22 billion in 1980 to approximately $9.5 billion in 1982. Iraq was dependent on imports for 75 percent of its food supply, and it was deep in debt.6 Thus, it comes as no surprise that three of the main areas of trade that Reagan Administration officials focused on for engagement with Iraq were in the realms of oil, agriculture, and finance. By 1984 the US Agriculture Department's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) had extended to Iraq $513 million in credits to purchase US farm products. In 1985 the US Export-Import Bank extended more than $684 million in short- and long-term credits to Iraq for the construction of a strategic oil pipeline through Jordan that would have the capacity for a million barrels per day. In terms of military assistance, the United States still officially maintained a stance of neutrality in the Iran-Iraq war. However, the United States sold to Iraq a wide variety of "dual-use" items. For instance, Iraq purchased more than 100 helicopters from manufacturers in the United States, which in export documents were designated for civilian and recreational purposes. Upon arrival in Iraq they immediately were diverted to the front with Iran, with no ensuing protest from Washington. The Reagan Administration also gave the "nod and wink" to the illegal transfer of US weapons from third countries, including sales of TOW anti-tank missiles, helicopters, small arms, mortars, and munitions from Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. However, of greater military value was the intelligence data supplied to Iraq from US satellite photography. In 1984 President Reagan signed a national security directive authorizing intelligence-sharing with Iraq, a move analysts would later describe as having saved the Iraqis from being overrun in several key battles.

[thuko135]

How can the war be about oil if the last 2 presidents have suggested to Congress to put a severe end to all foreign sources of energy (oil being one)? I know that politicians don't always tell the truth, but you don't get these complete 180s in no-foreign-oil to dependence-on-foreign-oil.

Apparently you don't learn as much about the coutnry as you thought you did, even though you'll insist you know more tha Americans themselves. You are wrong on that issue too.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer

No he was a threat to US Oil supplies. And as I have being saying all along, the war was all about OIL and nothing to do with the weapons of mass destuction that was supplied by the US, or the fact that saddam was involved with terrorists. Summer of 1982? Yeah, that really has a lot to do with the war we are talking about right now.

[smercer]

Originally posted by thuko135
you sure wouldn't want to wait to defend your country before you were attacked.




From: http://www.answers.com/Paranoid
par•a•noid (pãr'ə-noid')
adj.
Relating to, characteristic of, or affected with paranoia.
Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others: a paranoid suspicion that the phone might be bugged.

I think that you are paranoid, because there is little evidence to say he will attack again with weapons of mass destruction.

Heres why:
Originally posted by smercer
So now that we know how short the shelf life of Chemical Weapons(CW) are and all of suddems means of manufacturing more Chemical weapons where bombed or destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, I will now ask these questions:

How is it possible for this Chemical Weapon shell to still be a hazard if CIA has said that it only has a limited shelf life given the fact that Suddem had stoped making them during 1991 era?

even if Suddem had made the last Sarin bomb 5 minutes before he was caught on 14 December 2003 would it have still have been effective when US found the sarin bomb 5 months later on 17 May 2004?
I will now post questions I have asked in another thread so people that visit this thread but missed the last one will understand what is being said.

US army would have been going by that site many times since the end of the war, and had not noticed it?

It being the first bomb found a year after it was found which was in a convenient place to find would have been found either during or immediately after the war, but instead was found a year later and five months after saddam was caught.

My conclusion: I think that bomb was planted there specially for the US army to find which was NOT made by Saddam, as it was so convenient being on the side of the road, without people not noticing it for a whole year.

Planting of evedance is not proof that Weapons of mass destruction still exists in Iraq and is only proof that USA is trying to make themselves look good in the media. also you still have not provided proof that this is not the case.

Also if US supplied Saddam and allowed him to support terrorists before he attacked a country that was a supply of oil (Kuwait) for the US, how can you say now that supporting terrorists is bad when you allowed him?

And the Mustard gas is not a weapon of mass destruction.

Originally posted by thuko135

Where does it say you have to be under attack?

To make or keep safe from ... attack

Originally posted by thuko135

Now that you see all of your attempts to unjustify the Iraqi War has failed, why don't you admin that there was indeed a justified cause to liberate Iraq, and because of that, the world is safer?

You are the ones that can't supply proof that my sources from Government websites are incorrect. Not once have I seen you post sources that contradicts what I have said, WHY? Loss for words? all you have to say is that my words are incorrect with illogical explanations of why my words are incorrect.

[thuko135]

To make or keep safe from ... attackwhich would look a lot like preventing an attack, not waiting until one happens.how can you say now that supporting terrorists is bad when you allowed him?Do you happen to know what president had the opportunity to do something about it. Not H.W, since he had the war to fight, but what about Clinton? He could have done something, but never did. He put the US through 8 years of recession, which Bush is being blamed for.

Look at all of my posts. Look at all of peof's posts. They all prove what you say is wrong. Then you argue from a source which dates something as quoted from "1982" we are talking about this war, not the Iran Iraq war. All that the Iran Iraq War and Desert Storm prove is Hussein is corrupt, and we can all thank God he is gone. Whether you want to admit to or not, it is a better thing that Iraq is a democracy, not a dictatorship.

[smercer]

Originally posted by wamboid
As far as the war being self defense, it really depends on who you believe and what you believe self defense really means. Forget about Iraq for a minute and lets look ad Afghanistan. What if, on Sept 1st, because we had what we thought was good intelligence that Osama Bin Laden, supported by the Taliban, was going to launch and attack on our country in 10 days. Let's pretend that we had invaded on that day and actually prevented the 9/11 attacks. I'm willing to bet that we would be having this same debate about that invasion. We probably wouldn't have found totally indisputable evidence of the attacks and both sides would be posting article after article about how right and wrong it was.

Unfortunately, only hindsight is 20/20. We now know we may have been able to prevent those attacks with a pre-emptive strike. My question is this, would you have considered an attack such as that self defense?


From: The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

In passing through these checkpoints, each of the hijackers would have been screened by a walk-through metal detector calibrated to detect items with at least the metal content of a .22-caliber handgun. Anyone who might have set off that detector would have been screened with a hand wand-a procedure requiring the screener to identify the metal item or items that caused the alarm. In addition, an X-ray machine would have screened the hijackers' carry-on belongings. The screening was in place to identify and confiscate weapons and other items prohibited from being carried onto a commercial flight.

...

While Atta had been selected by CAPPS in Portland, three members of his hijacking team-Suqami, Wail al Shehri, and Waleed al Shehri-were selected in Boston...All five men cleared the checkpoint and made their way to the gate for American 11.

...

Hani Hanjour, Khalid al Mihdhar, and Majed Moqed were flagged by CAPPS. The Hazmi brothers were also selected for extra scrutiny by the air-line's customer service representative at the check-in counter. He did so because one of the brothers did not have photo identification nor could he understand English, and because the agent found both of the passengers to be suspicious.

...

All five hijackers passed through the Main Terminal's west security screening checkpoint; United Airlines, which was the responsible air carrier, had contracted out the work to Argenbright Security.13 The checkpoint featured closed-circuit television that recorded all passengers, including the hijackers, as they were screened. At 7:18, Mihdhar and Moqed entered the security checkpoint.

Mihdhar and Moqed placed their carry-on bags on the belt of the X-ray machine and proceeded through the first metal detector. Both set off the alarm, and they were directed to a second metal detector. Mihdhar did not trigger the alarm and was permitted through the checkpoint. After Moqed set it off, a screener wanded him. He passed this inspection.

...

Nawaf al Hazmi set off the alarms for both the first and second metal detectors and was then hand-wanded before being passed. In addition, his over-the-shoulder carry-on bag was swiped by an explosive trace detector and then passed. The video footage indicates that he was carrying an unidentified item in his back pocket, clipped to its rim.

...

When the local civil aviation security office of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) later investigated these security screening operations, the screeners recalled nothing out of the ordinary. They could not recall that any of the passengers they screened were CAPPS selectees. We asked a screening expert to review the videotape of the hand-wanding, and he found the quality of the screener's work to have been "marginal at best." The screener should have "resolved" what set off the alarm; and in the case of both Moqed and Hazmi, it was clear that he did not.

This is where the 9/11 incident would have been prevented and war with Afghanistan would not have been needed. This is another example of protecting your borders and everything within them.

[thuko135]

If we prevented a war with the taliban (need I remind you we never waged war against Afghanistan. Bush made it clear he didn't recognize a government in Afghanistan, and considered the country an ally), you'd've been complaining years ago, maybe on these very boards, all the problems with the war, the fact we never should have gone to war, etc. That was a wakeup call, and should be to the world. And the war against hussein was to prevent such an attack from happening again. And it has worked successfully.

Mik

[smercer]

Originally posted by thuko135
And the war against hussein was to prevent such an attack from happening again. And it has worked successfully.

<sarcasm>and where is your time machine? can you please prove what happened in the future in the present so we can prevent it in the past?</sarcasm>

[smercer]

Originally posted by PeOfEo
Summer of 1982? Yeah, that really has a lot to do with the war we are talking about right now.
Peo is trying to dodge a logical statement again. It is in Iraq and both wars are what we are talking about.

Anyway you go from one war to another, and so it's ok for you is it?

[smercer]

Originally posted by theuedimaster

Eradicate eh? Don't you understand that for every so called "terrorist" we kill, 3 more "terrorists" come up to take his place? Ever since the war, the membership of Al Qaeda has grown 3-fold. How many will we kill.....

and you forgot to mention about the innocent people that will be killed along with the terrorists.

[thuko135]

Unless Michael Moron makes it look, American forces killed very few innocent Iraqis. All military targets were absent of inoocent Iraqis, and people shooting at you are not innocent. Outside of them, the innocent Iraqis generally came ad hugged American soldiers, who provided them with provisions. Don't change what happened to fit your incorrect viewpoint.

Also, the point regarding the two past wars serves only as an example of what a cruel dictator hussein was. The war serves no purpose to benefit an anti-war viewpoint, as you are attempting, but failing, to do and see.

Mike

[wamboid]

I second what thuko135 just said. Again, my sources are actual friends and family who were actually there, not dubious blogs and network TV. I won't go as far as to say there were no innocents killed, but great care was taken to try to prevent it. Care that put our own people there in more danger.

[PeOfEo]

Originally posted by smercer
Peo is trying to dodge a logical statement again. It is in Iraq and both wars are what we are talking about.

Anyway you go from one war to another, and so it's ok for you is it? You posted an article based on an old situation and are trying to claim that it is relevant? Last time I checked Saddam invaded Kuwait in the last gulf war, not this one.

[theuedimaster]

Originally posted by thuko135
Unless Michael Moore makes it look, American forces killed very few innocent Iraqis.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/

Thats a pretty balanced viewpoint of the situation, although it may be biased very very little toward the right. It makes an estimate of about 25,000 to 30,000 innocents killed in Iraq. I don't care what you say, that is a sickening number. War is sickening. Trying to say its normal eh? thats 10 times the amount killed in September 11th.

The war serves no purpose to benefit an anti-war viewpoint, as you are attempting, but failing, to do and see.

I don't believe it.... how can you argue against not killing someone?

[smercer]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/propaganda_noevil.jpg

This picture reminds me so much of you guys. You don't care that the facts I have posted have come from government sources, you don't care about the fact that you didn't get a say in issues whether you wanted to go to war or not even if you wanted to, you remain ignorant of the fact that people have suffered in Afghanistan and Iraq so you could satisfy your paranoia which the wars are based on, you remain ignorant of any evidence of anything that says that Saddam lost the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and couldn't make any and therefore the sarin bomb found on the side of the road is a hoax, You remain ignorant of the fact that World War III could be upon us when the next war bush is about to start.

I now wonder if you would remain ignorant of when this world war III happens, your kids, nephews, uncles, mothers, fathers etc including yourself are going to suffer or be killed, would think of me then, when its too late? The time for you to have a think about this is now, and that decision is up to you and only you to decide on whether you want to listen to me to help prevent your family and yourself from suffering. Think about it, but don't wait too long.