does this count as WMD?
- Thread starter $tinkle
- Start date
Yeah its a WMD if it had Sarin in it, but I picture a rusty old corroded shell that someone found, not so much a small piece of a much larger arsenal that Saddam had stockpiled.
whew!
Good thing that's all you picture. We wouldnt want to wait and let any of those pesky facts get in the way.
this was also troubling:
so kinda like a hot-stock, this'll get top billing among arms dealers in the region [155-mm shells].
edit:
why haven't we heard about this? Why was it buried in the 9th paragraph as a side-mention? Is our gubment covering up their own ability to find WMD?
One shell containing mustard gas is hardly the vast stockpiles of weapons that Bush and Co. asserted existed...maybe that has something to do with it?
You got to be kidding. Next thing you will tell me that a single shell (or two) is constitutes a WMD arsenal or even a WMD program. Phew. All I can say is that some Bush supporters need to get their heads out of the sand and wake up to the cold hard reality that Bush is a crook.
On another note, does anyone believe Pentagon's denial that Rumselfd did not authorize the torture of Iraqis? After all the so called "misstatements" I think it seems likely that Rumselfd did authorize them.
here's this too:
but this suggests (to me) there's more coming:
will this & other "discoveries" get de-classified in an october "surprise"? I say out with it all now. I don't see any harm to come of full disclosure. Won't this win back int'l & domestic support?
WTF are you talking about? I just wait for the facts to come out before we start jumping to any conclusions. Bush is a crook?Originally posted by the law
You got to be kidding. Next thing you will tell me that a single shell (or two) is constitutes a WMD arsenal or even a WMD program. Phew. All I can say is that some Bush supporters need to get their heads out of the sand and wake up to the cold hard reality that Bush is a crook.
Exactly how is he profiting from this? Actually, nevermind: Youre going to come up with the same stupid crap everyone else does.
dude if it were something from an organized arsenal dont you think it would have actually worked or that there would be a widespred usage of such an arsenal... Also dont you think they wouldnt have called it a 'rigged device'.
As a matter of fact, I do believe the denial. I find it very hard to believe that Rumsfeld would sanction all the sick things that happened.....and especially the picture taking. Interrogations, with techniques like sleep deprivation, isolation- maybe. Female soldier and dog leash with naked prisoner, glow sticks up the butt, forced masturbation, naked hooded prisoner pyramids, no.Originally posted by the law
You got to be kidding. Next thing you will tell me that a single shell (or two) is constitutes a WMD arsenal or even a WMD program. Phew. All I can say is that some Bush supporters need to get their heads out of the sand and wake up to the cold hard reality that Bush is a crook.
facts:Originally posted by BurlySurly
WTF are you talking about? I just wait for the facts to come out before we start jumping to any conclusions. Bush is a crook?
Actually, nevermind: Youre going to come up with the same stupid crap everyone else does.
- bush is a moron
- bush is a crook
- bush is a liar
- bush has bin laden already & is waiting to announce his capture to steal -- err -- win the election
- bush was selected, not elected
- bush is a puppet
- bush was awol
- bush is on a mission from god to rid the earth of islam
Of course he didn't say stick glow sticks up where the sun doesn't shine, etc. Here are the two aspects that I believe he knew about. First, he authorized the use of new and unconventional interrogation techniques. However, he did not make sure that these would (1) only be used by properly trained people (2) require other safeguards, particulalry given that the techniques authroized already meant to dehumanize people and thus made it more likely that abuse followed and (3) when the Pentagon became aware of the absuses they did nothing and insisted that U.S. soldiers wouldn't do such a thing. As the leader of the military he should have the honor to take responsibility for the actions of his men. If he refuses to take responsibility for his men is he really the man to lead them?
Word... I think some of the things may have been approved... he may have said, break them down to get what you need out of them. I seriously doubt the man said, 'sexually molest them, that ought to do the trick, oh and dont forget to take som pictures for my home scrapbook'.
I think that whole thing is a result of giving too much power to people that simple can not handle it with responsibility. I'm sure if a high ranking officer had been involved and had witnessed the things that were going on there would have been a high degree of ass kicking. Anyway, thats where I think Rummy messed up... there should have been a Lt. Colonel running that place, not some underling. He may have not assigned the personnell, but he should have been aware of who was in charge of the prison.
1. He DID take responsibility- in front of congress on national TV. Said it happened on his watch.
2. I don't think the authorized interrogation techniques were new and unconventional...sounded like they already used them (with results) in Cuba.
3. It also comes back to the chain of command....he has subordinates that are directly in control of the prisons and who is doing the interrogations. Plus, the CIA was involved, and they may not report to him as a matter of course.
Look, the way I see it Bush started the war for personal reasons never fully disclosed to the public. Whether or not he is profitting financially from it or not is a different question. However, I believe that there are people close to the president who receive an indirect financial windfall from doing business in Iraq. The real reason I called him a crook is that he fought his war for personal reasons not in the interest of the American people. Maybe a more appropriate term would be a liar or deceiver. Interestingly enough, if you dig far enough back, I did believe that Iraq had WMD before the war. Now I am no longer convinced. On the contrary, I now believe that other than a few random remnants of WMD supplied by the western powers, (i.e. lost shells, etc.)there are no WMDs left. Do I think that a couple of shells indicate the existence of a WMD program? What does the existence of a few shells indicate? That at some point in time Iraq had WMD. That is undisputed. Do the shells indicate that he maintained WMDs? No! After all, every nation has some part of its former arsenal unaccounted for. Even more shocking is that the U.S. cannot even account for all of its plutonium. THE REAL QUESTION IS CAN YOU TRUST A PRESIDENT WHO LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? Anyway, those are my two cents. Take it or leave it.Originally posted by BurlySurly
WTF are you talking about? I just wait for the facts to come out before we start jumping to any conclusions. Bush is a crook?
Actually, nevermind: Youre going to come up with the same stupid crap everyone else does.
Hope you had fun typing that.
you're going to have to atleast try to substantiate that. Have you ever read PNAC? This administration without GWB has been planning on going into Iraq since 97. One could argue that they truly believe they're doing it in the best interest of the US.
how can you say that? Either the info you had back then was sufficient or it wasn't. If it wasn't, then why did you believe it? re-read UNMOVIC reports, they *did* have 'em. The only debate is how neutralized did Iraq become. Iraq continued to maintain their programs, but was beaten back often by UNMOVIC. There's zero doubt that without UN inspections, Saddam would've built the biggest WMD program he could've.
Every president lies. It's the good liars we trust the most.
Yeah, sometimes I wonder why. I guess I was too optimistic when I thought reason could prevail.
Seriously though, at least everyone here has given some thought to these issue, regardless of whether our ultimate position is clouded by partisanship. without sarcasm, I applaud the general willingness to at least entertain other perspectives on these issues.No, what I believe is that the UN did such a good job that Iraq good rid of the WMDs during the decade after the first gulf war. Noone contests that Iraq had WMD at some time. The question is did he still have them when the war started? That a couple of shells were found does not indicate that he retained any WMD up to the second gulf war. On the contrary, the fact that a couple of shells were found indicate that he did not attempt to hide them. It is common sense that if there had been a program to hide WMD, they would not be hidden a round at a time. Thus more than a couple of shells should be found if any were found at all.
I'll leave it. Because with your assertion that Bush started the war for his personal reasons, and to enrich his friends means that he also managed to convince Colin Powell (a brilliant 4-star general) to lie in front of the United Nations and the world, and duped Condi Rice (an extremely intelligent lady) into backing him and lying also; and he also fooled most of the democrats in congress to vote for going in.
He (and his advisors) also must have thought "I'll use WMD's as an excuse, but when we don't find any, nobody will remember". So that either makes him a master manipulator, or talented hypnotist- pretty good for a "moron".
You mean Condi ("Exxon Oil Tanker") Rice?
"bush has bin laden already & is waiting to announce his capture to steal -- err -- win the election"
"bush is on a mission from god to rid the earth of islam"
Uh I'll agree with most of the statements but the two I quoted make you sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
I think he was being sarcastic and meant to say that none of the are correct.
By the way, look at this
Rumsfeld gave green light to torture
if this is the case, then why all the crying from the left about "let inspections work!". By your "reasoning", the inspectors had no more work left to do
so, a couple of shells (containing WMD) being found does not indicate iraq had WMD? did i get that right?
so, when i get busted by the IRS for tax evasion, i can just say, "because you found out my false deductions, that proves i wasn't hiding them", or howsa bout: "look officer, just because my bong was under my seat & you found it doing a routine traffic stop just proves i wasn't trying to hide it".
I dunno...
He BARELY won the 2000 election, and there is a rising sentiment against him. I think he would need a sweet little October suprise to help him win.
This doesn't suggest he has anything to do with it of course. I don't think he's smart enough to come up with any of this - he's a frat boy retard along for the ride.
Bush is out to erradicate Islam? I doubt that he could spell Islam.
He just does what he's told.
I always thought that Saddam's non-cooperation with weapons inspections was an indicator of still having WMD....
to use the cop analogy---you get pulled over and the cop who knows that you've had weapons in the past, asks to search your car.(something the judge in your last court appearance mandated- and you agreed to) You say no....or better yet, you want to let him search only certain areas of the car, but not under the seat or in the trunk. I'd say that would be probable cause. And if you resisted, or put up a fight, you'd probably be in for an ass-kicking.
Interestingly enough Kerry isn't able to get any real *bump* out of all the anti-Bush crap the Media Wing of the Democratic Party is spewing out....
When the President said to the nation:
Well...????
Was the President lying about Iraq's WMD program becoming an imminent when he said:
Well...????
Are you saying what happened wasn't torture?
Yes!Originally posted by N8
When the President said to the nation:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...the mission was to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program," was the president lying?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resistance on it's own doesn't--but coupled with past and present atrocities, use of WMD and suspected links to other terrorist organizations means there's a good chance of it.
What were his motivations for making these statements then? Were they to deliberatly mislead the American public, unite them with the president and divert attention away from what was really happening..???
It's a matter of scale again, $tinkle. To use your IRS example, it's like the IRS audited you and claimed that you had $1,000,000 in false deductions and after the audit came back with a $5 hot dog that you expensed the full amount on, instead of just the $2.50 you were allowed to.
Technically, the IRS would be right, and you cheated on your taxes...realistically, you had an insignificant oversight.
Technically, the IRS would be right, and you cheated on your taxes...realistically, you had an insignificant oversight.