View Full Version : A PROBLEM FOR THE 'other side'....
Ahhh.. I should not say it, but I must..
To those apologists for the Anti-Bush Crowd...
To those hard-left folks who disbelieved anything that wasn't supporting their side..
To those who thought 'those 16 words in the State of the Union' speech were bogus.
I heard, on various news outlets, on the 17th of May 2004 that A WMD WAS (umm can it be true?) WAS discovered in IRAQ..
(BUT THAT CAN'T BE! According to the media, some politicians, and lots of others... 'There ARE NO WMD in IRAQ!)
"But".. I say.. "They just announced they found one BURIED in the dirt alongside a road in Baghdad. They report that it matches the type of chemical weaponry that Saddam was KNOWN to have much of. They say that it was part of the 'UNREPORTED' chemical weapons that Saddam did not own up to in the report"
I continue to ask, with an INCREDULOUS lookon my face, "BUT YOU ALL SAID THERE WERE NONE!!! NOT ONE!!! NOTHING WAS FOUND! NOTHING IS THERE!! BUSH LIED!! IT'S A PLOT BY THE CONSERVATIVE BUSH FOLKS TO GO TO WAR AND FINISH UP 'DADDY'S WAR'!!!!"
I continue.. "BUT they just found chemical weapons.. Aren't chemical weapons (SARIN) classified as WMD?? I also understad that they may have found mustard gas a bit earlier. I'm perplexed! HOW CAN THIS BE!?!?!?! HOW CAN THIS BE!!?!!??"
Now that it has been CONFIRMED that a WMD HAS been fouin (IN IRAQ) where (according to the Greek Chorus and the Politicians0 there 'aren't supposed to be any!!"...
Will you be honest and upfront and aplogize?
Will you be honest and upfront and admit that you were wrong?
Rhetorical statement - I shal NOT hold my breath!
You all will TRY to spin it.. You'll say 'It was NOT from IRAQ.. it came in from Syria and they gave it to the insurgents who planted it. It's still NOT PROOF! WHERE ARE THE REST OF THE WMD??'
Ahh, so transparent you are!
YOu can't deny the FACTUAL EVIDENCE.
1) WMD **HAS** been found in Iraq!
2) It is of a type and configuration WELL KNOWN to have been kept and stored by Saddam for many years
SO!
HAH!
THE TRUTH COMES OUT!
Of course.. you'll spin it.. So I ask you this.
NOW that we know they are there.. andthe insurgents know what to start looking for in shells..
WHAT WILL YOU SAY WHEN ONE DOES GET DETONATED SUCCESSSFULLY and DOZENS DIE FROM A phantom WMD??
What will you say?
hhmmmmmmmm?
Not Bush's famous WMD factories... old news...old stufff.. You're grasping at straws...
and ya really ought to read the other threads first...
K6UEY
05-17-2004, 09:11 PM
Did any one else have as a wee youngster one of those tops that had holes in the side and when they spun they would whistle......
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!
KB9YCO
05-17-2004, 09:17 PM
I'm not generally partisan, but these chemical weapons have been proven to be from before the first Gulf war. I don't know if that makes any difference or not since they're using them now, and arguing about whether we should be there after we're already there seems pointless to me. We are there now and have an obligation to find a solution. As to what that solution is, or who gets to decide it, is beyond me; hopefully it will be solved soon for the sake of all of the war's victims.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YCO @ May 17 2004,15:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not generally partisan, but these chemical weapons have been proven to be from before the first Gulf war. I don't know if that makes any difference or not since they're using them now, and arguing about whether we should be there after we're already there seems pointless to me. We are there now and have an obligation to find a solution. As to what that solution is, or who gets to decide it, is beyond me; hopefully it will be solved soon for the sake of all of the war's victims.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I tend to agree with you...
EXCEPT...
I feel in my heart that we are in for more... We are headed toward invading more countries... We are headed for more lies to make it seem ok to invade people... and I really believe that we headed for more laws that water down the constitution in order to kepp us in a continual war as PNAC has stated they want...
THAT is why I keep talking about WHY we are in Iraq...
THAT is why I keep asking the tough questions...
THAT is why I refuse to believe all the propoganda coming out of Washington...
THAT is why I try to read between the lines and apply what I know about the history of the United States and our foreign policy... [and trust me...the more you learn about that the more you wish you didn't know... it is embarrassing the way we have treated some people! NO, it is CRIMINAL!]
THAT is why I don't like what I see...
n3ijw
05-17-2004, 09:38 PM
I'm getting dizzy already.
When you "refuse to believe", you are intentionally blocking out information that may in fact be correct. As long as you continue "refusing to believe", then you will NEVER know the truth.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n3ijw @ May 17 2004,15:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm getting dizzy already.
When you "refuse to believe", you are intentionally blocking out information that may in fact be correct. As long as you continue "refusing to believe", then you will NEVER know the truth.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm waiting to hear some...
This isn't about Bush only... I haven't heard a lot of truth coming out of Washington in 50 years... My first exposure to Washington was McCarthy... I was too young to fully understand but my old man was livid at the crap that jerk spouted... but the country was scared outta their drawers by him and his evil witch-hunt... They believed him as many now believe everything Bush and company spouts...
Ya gotta take everything outta Washington with a grain of salt and ask yourself "Who's pocket is this going to enrich?" ... ya gotta follow the money... very few things happen in that town that aren't about money or the power to get money...
I can show you case after case of the CIA, the White House and sometimes congress teaming up to 'aid' commerce... which translates 'screw some foreign country so we can get rich'...
THAT is why I am so cynical about almost everything coming off the lips of these politicians... they all have a bloody agenda... and the agenda doesn't always have to do with overall welfare of the country...
n3ijw
05-17-2004, 10:16 PM
Just giving you a hard time man #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
But since you did mention the last 50 years...do you remember last year when GWB flatly stated that a lot of what we have done in regard to foreign policy in the last 50 years was wrong?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n3ijw @ May 17 2004,16:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just giving you a hard time man http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I know... I tend to go a bit hard on this topic because I truly believe we are in for some bad times.... what is happening now, IMHO, is nothing compared to what is possible under this administration...
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
But since you did mention the last 50 years...do you remember last year when GWB flatly stated that a lot of what we have done in regard to foreign policy in the last 50 years was wrong?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Nope, but it wouldn't surprise me... He would say something like that to try and make people believe his lousy policies were 'better'... I don't remember what they call that, but there is a name for it... It is used as a distraction... say something a lot of people believe and then insinuate something like 'I'm above all that' ... Ya gotta watch for sucker punches like that... These people are masters at it... Not just Bush either... all of 'em...
Am I a cynic or what?
K3FT, before they get done, they'll have you believeing that you hid that chemical bomb in Iraq yourself, carried it in on your back. Give the propaganda network 2 days. Oh, what was the topic?
N7SYY
KI4BDW
05-17-2004, 11:44 PM
There haven't seemed to be any tests (conclusive or otherwise) to prove that it was sarin, although the soldiers have been treated for contact *just in case*
I love when the far-right goes crazy over something like this. It seems like in their "patriotic" (blind following is not patriotic, sorry guys) fervor, they are extremely excited that our troops are getting hit by these weapons to prove their point.
Even though I think US troops should be in Iraq, and we should also be invading Iran and Syria, I don't think one shell beside the road I going to measure up to the massive stockpile of chemical agents everyone is looking for.
If you consider what it was like under the reign of Saddam, is it any suprise that no one knows where anything is? Or, maybe, most of the stuff SH was bragging about never existed? There is every possibility that he was mislead by his own people into thinking he was much more powerful and had many more WMDs than he ever had. Honestly, if you were one of his lackeys would you admit that your WMD program was not going as well as Saddam had required it to?
I know I wouldn't. I would have lied through my teeth to stay alive.
So I have always considered that Saddam might have been mislead by his own people and then he got himself into trouble by shooting his mouth off. I have always felt that if he had the stuff he would have used it. He IS that kind of madman.
Does that mean we shouldn't be where we are? Not at all.
PAX Americana seems like a very good idea to me and this probally the only time in history that we are strong enough to require the rest of the world to accept it. And quite frankly I don't care if the other countries "love" us or not, and I don't care if we have to pop a nuke or two somwhere, I just don't ever want to see anything like 9/11 here again.
ki4bgo
05-18-2004, 12:37 AM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif More and more disturbing each day, almost to the point of these "bush-lovers" starting to SCARE me! At the risk of this being taken as a personal attack, which it's not, but FT, I think you need professional help to overcome this whole thing, and MoveOn! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
KB9YCO
05-18-2004, 12:39 AM
"And quite frankly I don't care if the other countries "love" us or not, and I don't care if we have to pop a nuke or two somwhere, I just don't ever want to see anything like 9/11 here again." W6EZ
So it's alright to nuke people as long as we don't lose anymore people to terrorist acts here? You do know that nuclear devices will kill many more people than just the 'enemy' being targeted right? Plus the fallout that will remain, the horrendous environmental effect, etc. That statement seems rather harsh, isolationist, and selfish. It's this 'bloodthirsty, anything to save ourselves at the cost of the rest of the world' attitude that seems to be the problem of late.
I'm not siting any particular party or philosophy, but it sure seems like some Americans are indulging in isolationist, hateful, selfish behavior that will not only NOT help the situation currently, it will cause even more division and hatred of America here and in the rest of the world. Just had to say so.
W3MIV
05-18-2004, 12:44 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w6ez @ May 17 2004,20:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...I don't think one shell beside the road I going to measure up to the massive stockpile of chemical agents everyone is looking for...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't think anyone else believes that one shell is a stockpile, but it is clearly an indication of the probability that others exist. In the first place, one doesn't build a single, sophisticated chemical artillery round.
As to the oft-repeated comment that this is an old round, dating from a dozen or more years ago, too, is meaningless.
Unless and until more evidence either way is found, analyzed and released, the jury will be out.
I don't have any doubt that Saddam had them, had used them in the past, and would not have hesitated to use them again, but not against us. I think his forces probably moved them into hiding rather than used them because everyone in Iraq knew without doubt what was going to happen once we crossed the border.
If I had to pick a hiding place, I think Syria the likeliest candidate in the region, though I would not doubt that some of the whackoes could have moved them into Iran just as they flew aircraft into Iran and out of our hands in DS.
Don't expect any truthful announcements either from the boy riding the tiger in S or the mullahs in I about anything.
I am genuinely bemused by all of the internet experts who sit on these threads and snipe without the least clue as to what is really involved with waging a counterinsurgency campaign of the type now engaging our troops in Iraq.
KI4BDW
05-18-2004, 01:23 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So I have always considered that Saddam might have been mislead by his own people and then he got himself into trouble by shooting his mouth off. I have always felt that if he had the stuff he would have used it. He IS that kind of madman.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
He wasn't really shooting his mouth off too much, at least, not as much as Kim Jong Il was...it seemed like he wanted to get invaded.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As to the oft-repeated comment that this is an old round, dating from a dozen or more years ago, too, is meaningless. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not really, since he wasn't barred from having those until he invaded Kuwait. He was ordered to destroy them, but with the shoddiness of the paper trails in Iraq, there is a high chance of a few not being accounted for.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ May 16 2004,15:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I feel in my heart that we are in for more... We are headed toward invading more countries... We are headed for more lies to make it seem ok to invade people...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Invaded? We took out a terrible regime. No longer will people be put to death for disagreeing with the Iraqi Gov't.. You should be glad Saddam didn't rule here. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I have spoken to soldiers who have returned from the country that was "invaded". Everthing I heard was good. They can listen to music, eat fast food, and chuck a finger at whoever they want. We were welcomed with open arms. The Iraqi people are happy.
What the news does not tell you is that the rebels you see are from Syria and Iran. Some are linked to Al Qaeda.
Whos next?? Take your pick.
Dave
It was only a matter of time. The world knew Saddam had chem weapons back after Desert Storm (Which ended, interestingly, in a CEASE FIRE...), after he used them to massacre thousands of Kurd women and children for supporting us after we led them to believe we would protect them and didn't...
Now, murdering scum like Saddam dont give up such toys, if for no other reason than they are the ultimate terrorize the population trump card. I have found it quite amusing how the unthinking have gone on and on about there being no "WMD's" in Iraq. Really, does anyone with any ability to think really believe that a savage beast like Saddam destroyed all such weapons he had and then spent all that time defying the UN? To what gain, pray tell?
And, to hear the unthinking tell it, Bush just decided to go get his hands on the oil, forgetting, of course the inconvenient facts that Saddam had been breaking his word (That he gave to the world which is why Desert storm ended in a CEASE FIRE, contingent on his compliance), never mind 14 UN resolutions, for 11 years, ending with the UN saying the US could use "Any force necessary AND Congress saying twice that he could do it.
Now, friends, these people are professional bulls****ters-oops, I mean politicians, who certainly know a lie when they see it...So, what does that tell you considering that this is a election year?
I love watching the unthinking grasp at straws. You know, I dont mind at all when people have opposing thoughts and opinions. Hell, I'm willing to be persueded I'm wrong. But the only way to do that is have your facts in a row. In the end, logic talks, just as it allways has.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K8GHB @ May 17 2004,23:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...does anyone with any ability to think really believe...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Anyone with the ability to think is concerned with EVIDENCE, not belief.
w5klb
05-18-2004, 09:12 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ May 17 2004,13:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not Bush's famous WMD factories... old news...old stufff.. You're grasping at straws...
and ya really ought to read the other threads first...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Now I get it!
It was not important enough that we found WMD's-it more important as to what period they were found.
I have thought that WMDs were WMDs no matter when they were found. I have always thought that they were designed to do the same thing-KILL PEOPLE!! But that's all changed now. WMD's found in the Bush period are not really WMD's. That Sarin gas won't hurt no one because it was automaticaly neutralized by finding it during the Bush Administration. Thank you for making this abundantly clear to me.
Do you feel dizzy from spinning at these speeds? HAW!
K6UEY
05-18-2004, 10:12 AM
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!
SPIN- SPIN- SPIN-------------
KD4LEI
05-18-2004, 01:35 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5wpw @ May 18 2004,02:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ May 17 2004,13:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not Bush's famous WMD factories... old news...old stufff.. You're grasping at straws...
and ya really ought to read the other threads first...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Now I get it!
It was not important enough that we found WMD's-it more important as to what period they were found.
I have thought that WMDs were WMDs no matter when they were found. I have always thought that they were designed to do the same thing-KILL PEOPLE!! But that's all changed now. WMD's found in the Bush period are not really WMD's. That Sarin gas won't hurt no one because it was automaticaly neutralized by finding it during the Bush Administration. Thank you for making this abundantly clear to me.
Do you feel dizzy from spinning at these speeds? HAW![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Isn't it amazing that when evidence starts popping up here and there, then it becomes an argument of, "oh they were there during the last war."
It changed from where are they, to the time period of when. It seems some are trying to trivialize what it going on here.
My bet is that the insurgents now know what to use against us, but will either try and hide the evidence, or use more of it.
Guess it's not that an old shell was found, but that it was found rigged to explode.
The real question is if the bozo who rigged the bomb just thought it was an old artilary shell that could be set off to do some damage or if they realized what they had in their hands and intentionally intended to use the chemical munition to do maximum harm.
Iraq is a dangerous place. To heck with the publicity of the prisons and all this talk about turn over in June. Put a press blackout on the entire place, use force to clean up pockets of resistance -- blow up any place that extremists use as staging areas once their combative nature has been confirmed (regardless of religious status).
Then turn over the country to the new leadership and get the troops the heck out of there -- tell the Ununited Nations that we're out and it's there problem. They don't like it, kick the UN out of New York and turn the UN building into low-rent housing!
Seems like I'm ranting. Probabily -- just getting tired to hear about the loss of life and all the finger pointing.
The simple fact is a need was established to go in, both the President and Congress agreed, the troops when it and are doing a great job giving the constraints being placed on them.
I don't believe in beating the bushes, however, Mr Bush -- give our troops the authority and tools to get the job done, leave them alone and give them the top cover they need when crap like the Syops activities in the prison leaks out.
If your not willing to do that, pull them out and let the entire country blow itself to bits!
KD4LEI
05-18-2004, 01:56 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0LNU @ May 18 2004,06:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then turn over the country to the new leadership and get the troops the heck out of there -- tell the Ununited Nations that we're out and it's there problem. #They don't like it, kick the UN out of New York and turn the UN building into low-rent housing![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
We do not go through another Somalia when things get tough. Bin Ladin's philosophy on how we fight is exactly what happened in Somalia. Things got rough and we cut and ran.
We do not need to do this this time.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KI4BDW @ May 17 2004,18:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not really, since he wasn't barred from having those until he invaded Kuwait. He was ordered to destroy them, but with the shoddiness of the paper trails in Iraq, there is a high chance of a few not being accounted for.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Except one thing blows this theory out of the water... it was marked as a convntional round. we know that they marked thier production prior to the war as chemical rounds. Yet thsi one had no such markings. It was marked as a conventional round
That indicates one thing... the intent to deceive. There would be no need to before the Gulf War and UN Resolution 1441. So after the GW, and the UN resoluntion, this round was remarked to obscure its capabilities.
So this round was known to exist, and intentionally hidden, in defiance of UN resolution 1441 and during the period when Saddam said all his munitions were unilatterally destroyed.
Now does anyone belive they went to all that trouble to hide one or two rounds........................
KA3RFE
05-18-2004, 02:30 PM
My personal belief is that one or two WMDs do not a "stockpile" make. My personal belief is also there probably are stockpiles, we just haven't found them yet. Consider all the stockpiles of arms and ammunition that have been found in schools and hospitals and etc. Why are they there? Saddam didn't have room for them in his palaces or something? If conventional weapons have been cached like this, who's to say the real bad stuff isn't stored somewhere?
Did we absolutely have to invade Irag when we did? That's something I'm unsure about. Certainly Saddam is a sadistic, evil man, and his followers are too, but where is the information that states his country is or was harboring terrorists? And invading Iran and Syria too? We're nowhere near accomplishing our goals in Iraq to return the country to a stable peaceful country. Far from it! We're talking YEARS here! I sometimes think Bush went after Saddam for trying to assassinate his father. Other times I think he did it "just because he could." And figured Irag would be an easy target, the Iraqi citizens would welcome us with open arms, we could quickly repair the infrastucture we damaged, and a new government would quickly evolve and we could leave. That didn't actually happen, did it? Poor planning, poor adimistration, declaring mssion accomplished when it is barely getting started, if at all, pulling back troops....
I dunno.
73, Pete KA3RFE.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kn6z @ May 17 2004,23:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K8GHB @ May 17 2004,23http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...does anyone with any ability to think really believe...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Anyone with the ability to think is concerned with EVIDENCE, not belief.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This response is nice and all, but it doesn't address the question. The EVIDENCE is that Saddam DID have them. And he used them. FACT. Do you believe Saddam destroyed all such weapons he had? Again, I ask: To what purpose, or gain? And if he did, why did he spend years defying the UN and obstructing inspections?
And, where did this shell filled with Sarin gas, or whatever it was, come from? Did it sprout legs and then walk to the side of the road and bury itself?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD4LEI @ May 17 2004,07:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We do not go through another Somalia when things get tough. #Bin Ladin's philosophy on how we fight is exactly what happened in Somalia. #Things got rough and we cut and ran.
We do not need to do this this time.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I heard that!!!
Thanks for stating the FACT.
Perhaps old Wild Bill's message from Somalia was the United States will not negotiate from terrorists, we will simply run away!
Wouldn't say that to the members of the armed forces though, I guarantee they would have liked to stay and get some payback. It's also nice to know our armed forces have the ability to follow orders, no matter how painful!
The former top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, said it's possible the shell was an old one overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-1990s. Kay, in a telephone interview with The Associated Press, said he doubted the shell or the nerve agent came from a hidden stockpile, although he didn't rule out that possibility.
"It is hard to know if this is one that just was overlooked - and there were always some that were overlooked, we knew that - or if this was one that came from a hidden stockpile," Kay said. "I rather doubt that because it appears the insurgents didn't even know they had a chemical round."
Kay also said, "It doesn't strike me as a big deal."
Source: #Washington Post
K6UEY
05-18-2004, 07:16 PM
KA3RFE,
Pete,where it is well and good that you take and interest in how your goverment is accomplishing it's tasks,you may be losing site of one minor fact,the "poor planning, poor administration,declaring Mission accomplished,when it is barely getting started ,if at all,pulling back the troops....."is your interpretataion of what might have taken place, unless of course you are privy to the classified briefing sessions,in which case you would be commiting a felony by by disclosing the information. As an American Citizen you have the right to second guess the professionals,but you also have the responsibility to state it is your idea of planning and admit you are not priviliged to all the information required .
One of the out standing factors with the QRZ gang is their ability to judge and offer advice in areas they have absolutely no knowledge of or experience.It must be some sort of Spiritual Revelation,a gift given to select individuals to be able to help their otherwise ignorant comrades with such Sage Advice.
KA3RFE
05-18-2004, 08:22 PM
UEY:
"Felony??" Pray tell what felony am I committing when I give my own opinoin that is based solely on observable facts? Combat it still going on in Iraq. Our troops are still dying and getting wounded. They are so thinly-spaced that they cannot come to reinforce each other in a pinch. There is a determined effort to drive us out of Iraq and another determined effort to stymie the formation of a new government.
I've said my peace and there it stays.
73, Pete KA3RFE
K0RGR
05-18-2004, 08:54 PM
Yep - that shell looks pretty fishy. There could be more. When you find them, let us know.
By the way, something is really bothering me. Did anyone else notice that poor Nick Berg was wearing an orange jumpsuit, similar to those worn in most U.S. prisons and jails? Somehow, I doubt that he got that from Al Qaeda, and we are being told he was never in U.S. custody. I've never seen pictures of anybody in an Iraqi jail wearing them (mostly, Iraqi prisoners are naked). As my sainted father would say "...it just don't figger for sour owl dung..." or words to that effect.
w5klb
05-18-2004, 09:59 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KA3RFE @ May 18 2004,07:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My personal belief is that one or two WMDs do not a "stockpile" make.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Just learned another tidbit of information to add to my knowledge of WMD's: "Stockpile"
So what I have learned is that no only is it important to what period they were found, but there also must be a "stockpile" of them to classified as a WMD. And all this time I thought it takes only ONE to kill people.
Boy, I am sure aquiring a lot of "new" knowledge on this thread! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5wpw @ May 18 2004,15:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KA3RFE @ May 18 2004,07:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My personal belief is that one or two WMDs do not a "stockpile" make.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Just learned another tidbit of information to add to my knowledge of WMD's: "Stockpile"
So what I have learned is that no only is it important to what period they were found, but there also must be a "stockpile" of them to classified as a WMD. And all this time I thought it takes only ONE to kill people.
Boy, I am sure aquiring a lot of "new" knowledge on this thread! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That is because ya didn't LISTEN to GW in the first place and now you are catching up to the rest of us...
He said they were presently increasing production... not true... not true=LIE... and the only thing found so far is two old shells... WMD or not that doesn't make facilities to manufacture... nor is it 3 metric tons of stockpiles as GW said...
Wanna see the quotes... I'll supply them... Straight from GW's mouth... IN context! ...
When are some of you folks gonna figure out that this whole thing was a put up deal to drive forward their plan for a continious war... READ people... THINK about what you read... TRY to see what the underlying causes for things are... These people are NOT honest... They are power hungry and energy and defense contractor pawns...
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YCO @ May 17 2004,17:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"And quite frankly I don't care if the other countries "love" us or not, and I don't care if we have to pop a nuke or two somwhere, I just don't ever want to see anything like 9/11 here again." W6EZ
So it's alright to nuke people as long as we don't lose anymore people to terrorist acts here? You do know that nuclear devices will kill many more people than just the 'enemy' being targeted right? Plus the fallout that will remain, the horrendous environmental effect, etc. That statement seems rather harsh, isolationist, and selfish. It's this 'bloodthirsty, anything to save ourselves at the cost of the rest of the world' attitude that seems to be the problem of late.
I'm not siting any particular party or philosophy, but it sure seems like some Americans are indulging in isolationist, hateful, selfish behavior that will not only NOT help the situation currently, it will cause even more division and hatred of America here and in the rest of the world. Just had to say so.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Call me what you want. I don't care. I don't want anyone to attack us here again.
Two nukes stopped WWII and saved AMERICAN lives.
Sand that has been fused into glass can't attack.
I prefer THEM dying to having them saw the heads off Americans here at home.
Selfish? When it comes to MY HOME, MY COUNTRY, MY WAY OF LIFE YOU BET!!
If we just sit here, or there, smile and try to make nice they are going to kill us and make videos of it to show their kids.
W4TEY
05-18-2004, 10:39 PM
4 liters of Sarin according to the news enough to kill thousands in one shell.Mustard gas 2 weeks ago covered up by the news media. Of course it's not a stockpile or from a stockpile. Its an old shell and it doesn't count? If we find a stockpile it won't count due to it being old? If we find incontravertible evidence it will be because George Bush had it planted there? Hans Blix didn't look at this type of shell because it wasn't labeled SARIN? Jesus Freaking Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is it going to take. My estimate is absolutely nothing will convince the libs that the war was justified. Maybe even thousands dead here. Maybe when one of them is about to get decapitated then they will go "Now I get it." I doubt it though they probably will be thinking its that moron Bush's fault. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
w5klb
05-18-2004, 11:22 PM
Harry,
Klinton had some of this intel and did nothing.
I still think a bomb is...well... A BOMB and WMD is...well...WMD. No matter how many and no matter what period they came from. It's still WMD and it can still kill people.
Redefining this term is not going to change that fact that we found some. Iraq is a pretty big place and who's not to say that SoDamn Insaine's (SY's term) WMD wasn't shipped to an outside country.
I guess you'll try to explain this away also.
Only time will tell, and it's beginning to tell right now.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5wpw @ May 18 2004,17:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Klinton had some of this intel and did nothing.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm not a big Clinton fan but there waas nothing TO do... Saddam was contained... 'nuff said...
The FACT is that Saddam had a very large stockpile of such weapons, as verified by the UN, never mind that he used them against the Kurds. I dont think for a minute he destroyed all of them. He may have done a few, but any dictator like him would have hedged his bets...Hell, I WOULD.
Besides, it's not like he didn't have plenty of time and warning before we came for him. They will be found, either in Iraq or Syria (which, by the way, is run by the Baath party and a dictator, just like Iraq was) I'm betting Syria, since they are going out of their way to cooperate now.
K6UEY
05-19-2004, 07:31 AM
While we are checking out conspiracies,who conspired to haul all that material from Iraq to Syria in those long lines of trucks, just prior to the invasion,or was that just furniture delivery,or maybe the Satellite photos were a product of Photo Shop.......
W3MIV
05-19-2004, 10:41 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5wpw @ May 18 2004,19:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...WMD is...well...WMD. No matter how many and no matter what period they came from. It's still WMD and it can still kill people.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Badddddaaa-Binnngggggg!
I think he's got it. Yes, by George, I know he's got it.
Harry, dear fellow, much as we love you and your treasury of internet sources, sarin is not a wrap around a maiden on a Gaugin canvas. It is a sophisticated chemical weapon capable of mayhem at wholesale rates.
One does not make a stockpile, but you can bet your sweet underpinnings that this solitary example of the Iraqi armorers' arts was once a member of a far larger clique. Where its brothers in arms now reside is a matter of conjecture, not fact, and it is very likely that others remain accessible to the whackoes. Whether or not the esteemed M. Kay would agree to that proposition is wholly immaterial.
Fundamentally it all boils down to a very little residue (not Presidue, which is a different substance):
SH had 'em. He used 'em. But not all of 'em. He said he destroyed what he had left. You may believe SH, but I do not.
I fervently wish to see all of our troops back with their families at home watching Kerry try to explain away his reprehensible past. But that is a wish, and if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. What is real is the mission to finish what we have started, and THEN bring our troops home to a warm and universal welcome.
Sooner or later, I think, we are going to have to escalate. As the song says, "Seems like old times..."
w5klb
05-19-2004, 12:41 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ May 18 2004,16:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
... there waas nothing TO do... Saddam was contained... 'nuff said...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Saddam-contained? Really!
Is this the reason why there were so many UN Resolutions passed against him?
If Saddam was left to his own devices and we did nothing do you feel that he wouldn't threaten his neighbors? He had already killed, jailed, threaten, tourtured, and raped his own people. Let's not forget that he was trying to make a nuclear weapon. British Intellegance had stopped a shipment of nuclear detonators, going to Iraq, against UN resolutions, during Klinton's administration.
#
Remember that Bush gave this tyrant plenty of opportunity to come clean, before we invaded, but he refused. Saddam continued to "cheat and retreat". He was doing some illegal stuff with this "Oil for Food Program" in which the UN Secretary General was turning a "blind eye". And the UN was passing resolutions that they flat refused to inforce. Yet you claim that this man was contained and, to me, that implies that he would have "peacefully" coexsisted with his neighbors, would comply with all relevent UN Resolutions, and start respecting his own people's human rights. But this didn't happen did it? The man was so self absorbed that he had pictures and statues of himself EVERYWHERE. The "arch" that shows the hands with the crossed swords that we tore down in Bagdad, was sculped from Saddams hands. This guy was totally out of touch with reallity and thought he could do ANYTHING he wanted to do. He was starving his own people while he was building elaborate palaces for himself. If we had let him continue with this "cheat and retreat" policy, how long to you think that it would take before he had the capability to theaten us on OUR SHORES?
Shipmate, this ain't my idea of "containment".
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5wpw @ May 19 2004,06:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ May 18 2004,16:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
... there waas nothing TO do... Saddam was contained... 'nuff said...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Saddam-contained? Really!
Is this the reason why there were so many UN Resolutions passed against him?
If Saddam was left to his own devices and we did nothing do you feel that he wouldn't threaten his neighbors? He had already killed, jailed, threaten, tourtured, and raped his own people. Let's not forget that he was trying to make a nuclear weapon. British Intellegance had stopped a shipment of nuclear detonators, going to Iraq, against UN resolutions, during Klinton's administration.
#
Remember that Bush gave this tyrant plenty of opportunity to come clean, before we invaded, but he refused. Saddam continued to "cheat and retreat". He was doing some illegal stuff with this "Oil for Food Program" in which the UN Secretary General was turning a "blind eye". And the UN was passing resolutions that they flat refused to inforce. Yet you claim that this man was contained and, to me, that implies that he would have "peacefully" coexsisted with his neighbors, would comply with all relevent UN Resolutions, and start respecting his own people's human rights. But this didn't happen did it? The man was so self absorbed that he had pictures and statues of himself EVERYWHERE. The "arch" that shows the hands with the crossed swords that we tore down in Bagdad, was sculped from Saddams hands. This guy was totally out of touch with reallity and thought he could do ANYTHING he wanted to do. He was starving his own people while he was building elaborate palaces for himself. If we had let him continue with this "cheat and retreat" policy, how long to you think that it would take before he had the capability to theaten us on OUR SHORES?
Shipmate, this ain't my idea of "containment".[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What the Hell does any of this have to do with a REAL THREAT to the United States...
Saddam had been playing the CIA and the UN like a fine fiddle for a lot of years... and it pissed 'em off that he was getting the better of them... He made them look like idiots...
He had no delivery system that would reach outside the middle east even if he did get nukes, which is highly unlikely...
He had no connection to 9/11... He was a nothing in wolf's clothing... and ya'll bit in to his bluster and now you're trying to make something out of it... and all the BS in the world isn't gonna make Saddam a REAL threat... Only in YOUR minds... and THAT is what he wanted!
You wanna talk about a REAL threat... Talk about Bin Laden... Clinton had the CIA tracking this SOB for a couple years... But Ole Bin Laden is sneaky... his time schedules changed... he modified his routes... nobody could nail down his next step in order to pick him up... But one of the things the Clinton administration demanded was MINIMUM civilian causualties when then went after Bin Laden... They tried a couple times with CIA types... They even tried with missles and still missed the SOB...
Then Bush took over and called the whole program to track Bin Laden OFF... Look it up... These dense dodos quit tracking the very man who was responsible for 9/11 ... hey, they went from a small chance to get him to NO chance... They ignored Clinton's administration's advise to track Bin Laden... Its documented, look it up... These arrogant fools thought they knew more than the folks in the power seat... They wanted Iraq... and they were SO focused on Iraq that they ignored all the other stuff going on...
THAT my friends is gross in-competance... anyone who worked for me and flubbed the ball this bad would get fired... post haste... and that is what I am going to do in NOV... cast my vote to FIRE BUSH...
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He had no delivery system that would reach outside the middle east even if he did get nukes, which is highly unlikely...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
OK -- let me get this straight. #It's OK to blow the mid east all to heck and back as long as they don't reach us? #What about Russia? #If he ever did get nukes are you foolish enough to think he wouldn't be able to export them to do maximum damage to us or our interests? #(This idea of actually thinking the fighting is restricted to the mid east and is acceptable as long as they cannot reach us is typical of those who have not travelled beyond our boarders and scares the heck out of me)
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He had no connection to 9/11... He was a nothing in wolf's clothing... and ya'll bit in to his bluster and now you're trying to make something out of it... and all the BS in the world isn't gonna make Saddam a REAL threat... Only in YOUR minds... and THAT is what he wanted![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Opinion only -- like you, WE do not have access to the classified information that may paint an entirely different picture. #I personally took offense to the painting of the twin towers burning down that he had in some of his homes, however -- like you, don't believe a picture is jutification for war. #One fact that cannot be disputed -- he enjoyed it when we got kicked in the junk.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You wanna talk about a REAL threat... Talk about Bin Laden... Clinton had the CIA tracking this SOB for a couple years... But Ole Bin Laden is sneaky... his time schedules changed... he modified his routes... nobody could nail down his next step in order to pick him up... But one of the things the Clinton administration demanded was MINIMUM civilian causualties when then went after Bin Laden... They tried a couple times with CIA types... They even tried with missles and still missed the SOB...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree with this one. #And the only way to deal with this type of evil is to play by their rules -- take the gloves off! (Maybe they should change the warheads on their missles the next time they have a confirmed siting -- maybe not. Not ready to turn any portion of the mid east into a sheet of glass)
I read your posts and try to keep an open mind, even if I don't agree with some of your observations. #I do not like Bush bashing. #I would not like it if Gore was in office instead of Bush (and I do not like Gore)
Fact is we need to support our elected leaders and remind them they MUST deal with the tasks at hand. #This not only involves deals with cleaning up the mess in Iraq, capture and punish those who caused or contributed to 911 but also deal with crisis at home -- such as unemployment and the rising energy costs that threaten to stop any recovery and throw us backwards into a resession.
kc0ebm
05-19-2004, 01:56 PM
NØPUQUOTE
When are some of you folks gonna figure out that this whole thing was a put up deal to drive forward their plan for a continious war... READ people... THINK about what you read... TRY to see what the underlying causes for things are... These people are NOT honest... They are power hungry and energy and defense contractor pawns...
EBM: PU, READ what you just wrote! THINK what you just said! You think it justifiable to search for the "underlying causes" of the acts and decisions of the Bush Administration. YOU claim they are not HONEST after conducting your own examination of "underlying causes".
But you seem to have some aversion to examining the "underlying causes" of the Saddam Regime.
May I remind you, Saddam repeatedly attacked our planes enforcing the NO FLY ZONE. Wonder what the underlying cause of that was? He thwarted and frustrated UN weapons inspections. Wonder what the underlying cause of that was? He robbed and totally misappropriated Oil for Food money. Wonder what the underlying cause of that was? He MURDERED tens of thousands of his own people. Wonder what the underlying cause of that was? He failed to account for TONS of illegal WMDs that he admitted having. Wonder what the underlying cause of that was? And without ANY provokation, he lobbed 39 scud missles into ISRAEL during Gulf war one. Wonder what the underlying cause of that was? The CIA stopped a shipment of nuclear triggers from being shipped to Iraq. Wonder what the underlying cause of that was?
PU....Why is it such a priority for you to examine "underlying causes" of the acts and decisions of the Buch Administration, and at the same time, seem to give a pass to the Saddam Regime?
I find this very incredulous, and to be honest, down right disturbing. And if your prejudice against the Bush Administration isn't just an outright indication of your political partisanship, then it must be nothing less than diabolically twisted logic.
In all your comments, you seem to want to give Saddam the benefit of all doubt, but you anally examine everything Bush says and does. You dismiss Saddam, but you think we should all closely examine the "underlying causes" for all that our President says and does. You seem to intimate that everything Bush does is calculated and cunning and self serving and devious and dishonest. Yet you seem to give Saddam a pass.
Why is that, PU?
EBM
KB9YCO
05-19-2004, 02:14 PM
"One of the out standing factors with the QRZ gang is their ability to judge and offer advice in areas they have absolutely no knowledge of or experience." K6UEY
Yes indeed, kind of like when you claim to know what all of no code techs think, say, or do while not actually knowing any of us or having any idea what our backgrounds are. Based simply on the fact that someone is a no coder or other such low life. Or when someone says something about politics that contradicts your philosophy so they are then a socialist liberal, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Seems like you offer the most advice, the most often, with little or no clue at all. Keep up the good work.
w5klb
05-19-2004, 03:10 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ May 19 2004,06:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
PU:
Saddam had been playing the CIA and the UN like a fine fiddle for a lot of years... and it pissed 'em off that he was getting the better of the... He made them look like idiots...
Reinforces the "Cheat and Retreat" policy. The UN inspectors were getting a little tired of playing this game with him. Once again Bush gave this tyrant plenty of opprotunity to come clean. It didn't happen did it?
PU:
He had no delivery system that would reach outside the middle east even if he did get nukes, which is highly unlikely...
But MY POINT, and the FACT is that he was trying to obtain them. And if you are going have nukes that only reach the Middle East, it isn't that much more of a "leap of faith" to beleave that he would try to reach other places with them INCLUDING US.
PU:
He had no connection to 9/11...
The Bush Admistration has never made NO SUCH CLAIMS. I do not know where you keep comming up with that. Pehaps its another one of your Internet "resorces".
PU:
He was a nothing in wolf's clothing...
That "nothing" you are referring to had, prior to Desert Storm, THE FOURTH LARGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD!! And, in the interest of full disclosure, we helped create this monster. Once again it isn't that far fetched to beleave, that if we left SoDamn Insaine (SY's term) in power, he would have became a bigger threat, and a royal pain in the a$$.
PU:
...and all the BS in the world isn't gonna make Saddam a REAL threat...
You got that right! He is now in custody, courtesy of The US Army, awaiting trial. Way to go ARMY!!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Go Gary! #Go Army!!!
Back in the corner, Al Gore is thankful that recount didn't go in his favor while his good buddy Bill just simply looks for another cigar.
Hillary, well she's wondering if Sadam will be available as a running mate in 2008
Poor Bush? #He's wondering how he's going to get out of this mess.
As for John Kerry? #He's just wondering which lane he needs to drive in next to look like the good guy.
Heck, the only one who has any sense is Powel -- and he's simply shaking his head and thinking I told you it was going to be tough. #But being prior Army, he knows when to keep his mouth shut and not get involved in the finger pointing.
Now why can't Powel be running for President -- through all of this mess he is one person I still trust! Hm Powel and Edwards, there's a thought!
EBM:
I look for the underlying causes for everything... That is the way I was trained... When a fuse blows in a transmitter, it might just be a weak fuse... OR, it might be blown diodes, OR, it might be a shorted transformer... But before I put another fuse in.. I look ariound and try to find what CAUSED it to blow...
When looking at politics I do the same... look for the undrlying causes of things... WHY do things happen... Bush quit tracking Bin Laden because HE and his underlings didn't pay attention to detail... He and his PNAC pals wanted Iraq.. Period... Read their manifesto... As far back as the mid-90s they were wanting to go after this country... WHY? ... Read the PNAC papers... That will tell you... and look at the PNAC membership... and look at the Presidential cabinet... Look at who got various contracts...
Then ask yourself WHY we got distracted from the most wanted man in the world... Bin Laden... Why did we lose focus... Why did we go off on this tangent... Even if we did want Saddam and Iraq, WHY didn't we finish one job first... He wasn't THAT much of a threat... If one at all... If we were worried about this business of human rights then WHY are we making deals with the Taliban now....
Read this and tell me WHY... http://www.newsday.com/news....umnists (http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-vpcoc183807327may18,0,7245811.column?coll=ny-news-columnists)
Why did Reagan allow drugs to be sold here to finance wars elsewhere that, had Iran-contra come up, would be hidden from the American Public...
Why did Slick Willie allow drugs and Arms to be transported through Arkansas when he was Governer...
There are a whole lot of questions that have to be looked at...
Gary Hart told the CIA to buzz off when they approached him and his little affair cost him a Presidential run, but ole Clinton had a couple of far more questionable affairs in his past that didn't affect his run, and he had pre-Presidential connections to the CIA for a long time... going clear back to his Oxford days...
There are way more things going on behind the scenes than people realize... Bush, PNAC and the CIA are in cahoots on some schemes that those of us on the outside can only guess at... but stuff like that BS at the Iraqi prison are minor compared to the real crap they do...
I'm admittedly a cynic... A cynic is one who feels that most things in human conduct are motivated by self-interest... And I believe that... That's why I keep saying 'follow the money' ... You follow the money and you will find out why a lot of this stuff REALLY happens... and if you believe one thing that comes out of these politician's mouths then you are being way too naive...
I used to tell my kids, when they would claim "YOU hate me!", 'I DON'T hate you, but I do hate what you do sometimes' ... I feel the same way towards Bush and company... I don't hate them personally... But I DO hate some of the stupid things they are doing.... and going into Iraq without finishing Afghanistan first was one of those things... IM[not so]HO, it was really ignorant to do this... It has given Bin Laden and AQ an opportunity to regroup... and THESE folks are the ones who are a REAL danger... These folks are the ones who have the balls and the planning methods to do REAL damage... Saddam was more of a sideshow... He was worth watching but not bad enough to distract us from the main event...
It occurs to me that had we finished the job in Afghanistan and made a deal witht heir new government for bases there on a long lease basis, then we would have had a good footholed in the middle-east and then told Saddam to knock off the crap, it would have been far better.... We had a REASON that was supported world wide to go into Afghanistan... NOBODY crabbed about that... We were attacked by those being harbored in Afghan territory... But BUSH and Company just had to follow their PNAC plans for Iraq.... It just doesn't make sense...
The only reason that I can see for the Iraq invasion is that a continued operation in there would not have been a very newsworthy item until they actually caught someone so getting more funding from congress would have been a problem... Iraq solved that... Now they get all the bucks they want, because to do otherwise is 'un-patriotic' ...
Enough rant for now...
Lacked delivery systems?
Ships leave that region every day, and travel all over the world. Some to the good old USA, some to other ports where they meet other ships that enter the USA.
One small device, even a low tech one the size of a volkswagon, in a container, the enters NY harbor and goes off before the ship even docks.......
He may have lacked CONVENTIONAL devilery systems. But he could have moved it here easily enough.
And to repeat what I put in an earlier post.... Saddam was getting old. His sons showed every sign of being more unstable, and more evil, than him and were in line to inherit power. What do you thing having them around, witha any kind of WMD at their disposal, would be like?
k6pme
05-19-2004, 08:47 PM
I've always thought that the Iraq War was just a stepping stone to IRAN. They are the 'silent partner' in all this fundamentalism after all.
Bin Ladin just made the situation somewhat convenient by being in Afganistan.
Thats just my opinion, I could be wrong....Dennis Miller
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5wpw @ May 19 2004,09:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PU:
He had no connection to 9/11...
The Bush Admistration has never made NO SUCH CLAIMS. I do not know where you keep comming up with that. Pehaps its another one of your Internet "resorces".[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Let's see...
"never made NO SUCH CLAIMS" ...
Hmmmmm, double negative = positive...
So you DO agree with me...
I'm glad...check this out:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 "I think it's not surprising that people make that connection" between Saddam and 9/11--he had no evidence to back up his claim.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
However, the one person in that cabinet with ANY sense said:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
In January 2004, Secretary Powell conceded that there is no "smoking-gun concrete evidence about" a connection with Iraq and Al Qaeda.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Its a smoke screen folks...
Bin Laden is a fundamentalist... Saddam is a secularist...
I have looked and looked and have never found where the two of them cooperated on anything... I really think, and this is my opinion, that Saddam was afraid of Bin Laden...afraid he would try to take over Iraq and his Bathists like he did Afghanistan and the Taliban... Bin Laden gave the Taliban free reign as long as they did what he wanted... He bought the Taliban leaders with houses and such... Bin Laden's money couldn't do him any good in Iraq... Saddam had all he needed and more...
Connecting Saddam and Bin Laden is going to be really tough to prove, unless of course you wanna just believe all the propoganda coming out of Washington.... and of course THEY don't have any agenda... yeah right! ... Follow the Money...
K6UEY
05-19-2004, 09:26 PM
KG6QQL,
Monty I think you are right but maybe not in the way you think. Confusing ?? I think the path to Iran is a stable Goverment in Iraq, which is the key to the whole Middle East. First of all once a stable Goverment is established it will attract investors,they will rebuild the oil fields that Sadamn neglected since the 70's,that will reduce the shortage on the global market and provide revenue for Iraq which will attract trade from EU and the US.That prosperity will bring the youth of Iran up in arms to revolt the old Fundamentalists and over throw them in favor of a more western style goverment so they also can partake in the global market.Of course a chain reaction can be set off through out the middle East,hopefully establishing more stable goverments.A new goverment in Iran would allow the Russian oil fields to be piped to be shipped from the Persian Gulf.With China and now India on the global scene the oil consumption is increasing ,which means we have to compete to buy oil,so we need as many oil sources as we can muster to keep from being in a position of being controlled by the oil market.I think you will also see renewed interest in Africa oil supplies as well as South America and our neighbor to the south Mexico. The major key to every thing was and still is Iraq,once they settle down and start acting like civilized people the world will be a better place to live for all .
EBM:
I'm not giving Saddam a 'pass' ...
What I'm saying is he wasn't the problem at the time...
He was a thorn in the Bush/PNAC team...
They have wanted to take him out for some time... and I think that his 'ownership' of a large part of the worlds oil has a lot to do with it...
Saddam was a sadist, a cruel dictator and a lot of other nasty things, but after the Kuwait thing, I think he got the message and would not have attempted anything against the US...
I still go back to my original assertion from many months ago that Bin Laden is the problem... Take him and his leadership out of the picture and things would get a LOT better...
Let's get back to the focus of 9/11... We have let ourselves be led astray...
k6pme
05-19-2004, 11:10 PM
K6UEY....Hmm....To tell the truth I had never extrapolated it that far out. But it's an outstanding theory and one I would hope could work out without anymore war. (or any other meddling as PU points out..)
I still feel that Iran has always been on the radar but they have been quiet so there hasn't been an credible issue to work with. As it stands now we sort of have Pakistan to the south, we essentially own Afganistan to the East and pretty much control Iraq on the West. I believe Russia has the most influence to the North.
So Iran is effectively contained and can hopefully come around to a little less of an antagonistic leadership situation in the next ten years or so.
kc0ebm
05-20-2004, 02:44 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ May 19 2004,14:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EBM:
I'm not giving Saddam a 'pass' ...
What I'm saying is he wasn't the problem at the time...
He was a thorn in the Bush/PNAC team...
They have wanted to take him out for some time... and I think that his 'ownership' of a large part of the worlds oil has a lot to do with it...
Saddam was a sadist, a cruel dictator and a lot of other nasty things, but after the Kuwait thing, I think he got the message and would not have attempted anything against the US...
I still go back to my original assertion from many months ago that Bin Laden is the problem... Take him and his leadership out of the picture and things would get a LOT better...
Let's get back to the focus of 9/11... We have let ourselves be led astray...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
PU,
You make a lot of fine points. But you need to read UEY's previous post. In it you can see the strategic value that focused on Iraq. Not only was Saddam a threat to the US and our allie Israel, but toppling his regime has far reaching strategic benefits as UEY so eloquently points out.
If we can just stay the course in Iraq and we can foster the development of a secure democracy there, many strategic goals can be met that will benefit the entire world.
Toppling the Saddam regime can only mean prosperity for Iraq, and the Iraqi people. For the first time in over 40 years, the Iraqi people will finally benefit from their oil wealth. A democratic representative government will foster peace through compromise between the opposing sects in Iraq. That will bring substantial peace in a war torn land. These changes will result in prosperity and a much higher standard of living in Iraq and will be envied by the rest of the moslem world, including Iran, another axis of evil nation that poses danger for America and Israel. The actions that we have taken in Iraq, while not obvious at first glance, may go a long way to paving a peaceful reform in Iran, which will totally avoid war there.
It may take several decades to realize the full benefit that the war in Iraq will generate, but I am convinced that history will record the infinite wisdom and the long term strategic benefits of the timely actions we have taken in Iraq.
As for Bin Laden, don't think for a moment that we have forgotten Bin Laden. He's toast! Its just a matter of time. But our time is well spent just now by patiently and intelligently observing how he operates in his new normal. The intelligence being gathered right now during this apparent distraction in Iraq will pay us far greater dividends down the road in dealing with him and his terrorist infrastructure. Despite all outward appearances, much beneficial work is being done regarding Bin Laden. And when the time is right, our work will be much more efficient and have more far reaching results. When Bin Laden goes down, a lot of bad guys will go down with him. Do not doubt for a moment that Bin Laden has Bin Forgotten!!!
Our actions in Iraq have accomplished much. And those accomplishments have benefits reaching far beyond Iraqi boarders. Our dismantling of Saddam's regime has put on notice all other world dictators that they may suffer a similar fate if they continue to plunder the people's assets and violate human rights. Also, our aggression put the entire terrorist world on notice that they will be held accountable. It also put on notice those nations in search of WMD technology that we will deal preemptively to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle.
We have wisely imposed sanctions on Syria, a country with whom we still have diplomatic relations, but one which poses a serious threat to peace in the middle east and a direct and indirect threat to Israel. Syria has long been a host nation to terrorism. Syria must no longer be a host nation for terrorists. One way or another, Syria must capitulate and cooperate in the war on terror. And if they are harboring Saddam's lost WMDs, they better surrender them.
The actions that we have taken in Iraq have put the wheels of reform in motion in the middle east and we must maintain that momentum. This is no time to get weak in our resolve. The momentum is ours and we must maintain it to foster further reform. The objective? A lasting peace in the middle east, stable representative governments and resulting prosperity, improved civil rights, reduced terrorist effectiveness and influence, and security for Israel.
If people would just look down the road 20 years, maybe even less, I think many of the protests and criticisms of this administration would cease.
EBM:
I understand where this is all going... and UEY has some strong points...
However... I cannot support nation building...
Going into Afghanistan after Bin Laden and the AQ was a defense move motivated by his 9/11 action.
Iraq was an aggression move. Once again I'll say that Saddam was contained and no immediate threat...
Our nation should never ever be aggressive in our actions, but should steadfastly defend ourselves. Had we gone in and taken over Afghanistan and KEPT it... Driven out all opposition and made it the 51st state... I would have supported even THAT... They, by harboring our enemy who attacked us on our shores, deserved no less...
But attacking a nation who has NOT attacked us is against all we as a country stand for, and we as a country could be guilty of war crimes for that action... And if the invasion of Iraq could be considered a war crime then we should not be involved in it... PERIOD...
Even Afghanistan is shakey according to memos that newsweek got their mitts on... and if our actions in Afghanistan is shakey, how shakey is what we did in Iraq? ...
w5klb
05-20-2004, 06:43 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ May 19 2004,14:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5wpw @ May 19 2004,09:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PU:
He had no connection to 9/11...
The Bush Admistration has never made NO SUCH CLAIMS. I do not know where you keep comming up with that. Pehaps its another one of your Internet "resorces".[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Let's see...
"never made NO SUCH CLAIMS" ...
Hmmmmm, double negative = positive...
So you DO agree with me...
I'm glad...check this out:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 "I think it's not surprising that people make that connection" between Saddam and 9/11--he had no evidence to back up his claim.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
However, the one person in that cabinet with ANY sense said:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
In January 2004, Secretary Powell conceded that there is no "smoking-gun concrete evidence about" a connection with Iraq and Al Qaeda.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Its a smoke screen folks...
Bin Laden is a fundamentalist... Saddam is a secularist...
I have looked and looked and have never found where the two of them cooperated on anything... I really think, and this is my opinion, that Saddam was afraid of Bin Laden...afraid he would try to take over Iraq and his Bathists like he did Afghanistan and the Taliban... Bin Laden gave the Taliban free reign as long as they did what he wanted... He bought the Taliban leaders with houses and such... Bin Laden's money couldn't do him any good in Iraq... Saddam had all he needed and more...
Connecting Saddam and Bin Laden is going to be really tough to prove, unless of course you wanna just believe all the propoganda coming out of Washington.... and of course THEY don't have any agenda... yeah right! ... Follow the Money...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Harry,
The real reason we went to Iraq was not because we beleaved Saddam was harboring terrorist, it was because of UN Resolution 1441 which states that there would be "serious consequences" if Saddam did not reveal all his information about his WMD's. Sure there was discussion with Dr. Rice, and others in Bush's inner circle concerning linkage between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. But it's my understanding that they quickly determined no such linkage existed. This is a FACT.
The Real Reason and our authority for being in Iraq is contained in UN Resolution 1441. Surley you do remember that, don't you? It was all over the press and TV. Don't you remember Bush addressing the UN General Assembly on this?
Surely you're not so blinded by mistrust of the President that it's affected your memory.
Shipmate, I want to state that I DO enjoy reading your post and bantering these issues with you because they are important to both of us. We both just see this quite differently. I'm just thankful that we can do this where we live. There are others around the world that don't have this priveledge.
WPW:
Excuse me... would you like to read those quotes again...
How do you explain away Bush's own words... The words HE used to justify this mess...
And 1441 did NOT give the US unilateral permission to do ANYTHING!
We told the UN to buzz off... and then we did what PNAC had planned 5 years ago...
WHAT is so complicated about understanding that... It is all written down... Ya just have to let go of the BS propoganda that Bush and company is putting out and LOOK at it...
In all the hubbub over WMD.. folks forget thebasic issue.
Saddam signed a CEASE FIRE that stipulated he would abide by certain things. These things, IF FOLLOWED, meant that the 1991 war was over.
BUT.. as we ALL (should) know.. SADDAM refused.. and refused.. and refused..and refused to follow the RULES for CEASEFIRE than HE signed up to.
So.. technically, legally, morally, ethically, HE broke the agreement and a STATE of WAR **STILL** existed!
The fact that We (then USA) NEVER chose to invoke that UNTIL 2004 is NOT a factor. We acceeded to the UN in NOT immediately going back(and the Clintonians would not want a 'war to mess with Bill's "legacy" anyway)
So.. ALL WE DID WAS invoke the results of Saddams NOT ABIDING BY HIS SIGNED AGREEMENT!
He broke the agreement and NULLIFIED the CEASE FIRE. SO we were FULLY legally, morally, and ethically within our rights to go back in and FINISH the job.
THe 1441 resolutions and others just REAFFIRMED this to be true.
OK.. NOW.. to the left.
COMMENCE THE SPIN MACHINE!
K3FT
w5klb
05-20-2004, 06:38 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ May 20 2004,02:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
PU:
Excuse me... would you like to read those quotes again...
How do you explain away Bush's own words... The words HE use to justify this mess...
Since you post NO referances concerning those "quotes" I can neither confirm nor denigh them. I am NOT "explaining away Bush's own words". I was going on PUBLIC INFORMATION that has been availble since March 7th, 2003, concerning a resolution that was ACCEPTED by ENTIRE UN SECURITY COUNSEL. It seems this "mess" was approved by the UN. But whatever you do keep reading and listening to the liberal media and their yellow journalism. When they starting giving BOTH sides of this issue equal time I might consider what they have to say. Until then...
PU:
And 1441 did NOT give the US unilateral permission to do ANYTHING!
You would have a hard time justifying that statement to Kofi Annan and the UN Security Counsel. They seem to disagree with you.
PU:
We told the UN to buzz off...
After they passed 1441 and failed to enforce it. Three countries-Germany, France, and Russia, vetoed the enforcement of this resolution. It seems all they want is a League of Nations. So we went in with a "Coalition of the Willing". We have tried to get these countries involved but to no avail. This is because I suspect these countries have something to hide.
This is not an "illegal invasion". If this were true, the UN would be passing resolutions against us. Notice they haven't done this because under international law, that resolution would have NO support as pertaining to that law.
There is NOTHING hard to understand this once you do the research and consider ALL the facts.
This is all COMMON KNOWLEDGE.