WMD - Bekaa Valley

[WiseOldDude]

Originally posted by: raildogg


If you guys are getting your butt creamed by someone as dumb as Dumbya, what does that say about you?

Pathetic people.

No you are the pathetic person here, there you go along with most other idiots that automatically assume that if you disagree with an idiot you must be from the other side.

I am a life long republician, and I KNOW that dumbya is the stupidest man to ever rise to the oval office.

And to point out while you felt you were being such a smart ass is your pathetic attempt to put someone that you disagrees with you, you also acknowledged that dumbya is dumb <snicker>

 

[WiseOldDude]

Originally posted by: Velk
I never didn't say that WMDs were not the sole most important justification for invading Iraq.

And you ain't the president, dumbya did say that WMD's WERE the reason, and he started a war over them.

Only when they couldn't be found did the 'human rights' bull crap become the reason.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: irwincur
Debate does not work that way. I brought up an issue, refute it. Apparently you cannot.

You brought up a wild-ass claim.

Well, y'know, Syria says they will depart all of Lebanon in two weeks except the Baaka valley. They say it will take them three months to get out of the Baaka valley. Wonder why the difference. They must have a lot of bars to close and a lot of property to sell in the valley, y'think? Maybe they have a lot of heavy stuff to sneak out?

Maybe they need time to sell their condo timeshares. Maybe they need time to cover up the alien spacecraft.


Jesus H. Christ and you morons rip on me when I engage in the least bit of speculation?

:roll:

So Conjur...ya think maybe Syria has something hidden there...regardless of where it came from?

I don't, but my grandpa does. He swears an angel has been coming to him in visions and he was told, at one point about 2 years ago, by this angel that WMDs were buried in Syria.


soooo...maybe Bush can use that intel to invade.

 

[I800C0LECT]

Originally posted by: WiseOldDude

Originally posted by: Velk
I never didn't say that WMDs were not the sole most important justification for invading Iraq.

And you ain't the president, dumbya did say that WMD's WERE the reason, and he started a war over them.

Only when they couldn't be found did the 'human rights' bull crap become the reason.

I thought we invaded Iraq for violation of the guidelines setup post Iraq war by the United Nations? That did include WMD's...but wasn't it nice to uncover the food for oil scandal and many other stories that were not reguarded as high news priority? I remember Bush made a huge claim and push for civil rights before we officially pushed through the countryside with our military. The president has people write many of his speeches and to commit to a cause such as this for namely one circumstancial reason is political suicide. I believe he gave many reasons for going to war with Iraq if you go back and look.

On a side note...Virginia Tech (VPI) had a speaker come through a couple weeks ago...of course it didn't make the news. The speaker was supposedly one of the secretary's for Saddam. He was pretty pissed off at Hussein for killing his uncle for loyalty reasons...it didn't make much sense, but neither did killing so many of his people. Anyways, he made many points concerning America's position. He was extremely greatful. He went on to say that yes Iraq had WMD's because he helped place some of the calls to make sure they had been gotten rid of. He also was ordered to make the phone call himself to make sure Bin Laden had received proper medical attention at one point. He made various other bold statements as well. He concluded by saying that it discouraged him to come here and hear the media and portrayal of his people as people who hated America. He left asking that we continue to fight for his people and that it would be devastating for us to leave them now. He said they desperately needed us and it scared him to watch the spin the news media put on everything.

I know about this because I am a student in Virginia. It only made the local news in blacksburg, VA.

VT HOKIES!!! WOOT!!!!!

 

[shira]

The basic argument for war went as follows:

"(1) Saddam has significant stocks of WMDs.

(2) Saddam has a relationship with Al Qaida.

Ergo, Saddam is likely to transfer WMDs to Al Qaida, which will put the US and the rest of the world at risk for significant terrorist acts."


You'll note that even if (1) were found to be true, without (2) there is/was no justification for going to war. And (2) was definitely the shakiest part of the argument. I'm pretty left-wing, but even I thought (1) was likely to be true. But I was VERY skeptical of (2), and pre-invasion argued against the war for that reason.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: shira
The basic argument for war went as follows:

"(1) Saddam has significant stocks of WMDs.

(2) Saddam has a relationship with Al Qaida.

Ergo, Saddam is likely to transfer WMDs to Al Qaida, which will put the US and the rest of the world at risk for significant terrorist acts."


You'll note that even if (1) were found to be true, without (2) there is/was no justification for going to war. And (2) was definitely the shakiest part of the argument. I'm pretty left-wing, but even I thought (1) was likely to be true. But I was VERY skeptical of (2), and pre-invasion argued against the war for that reason.

Selective memory?

The basic argument for war seemed to be presented as follows in fall of 03/winter 04:

(1) Saddam refuses to account for his stock of WMDs.
(2) Saddam refuses to allow accounting except at the point of a sword
(3) Saddam has been attemtping to obtain nuclear weaponry.
(4) Saddam supports terrorism.
(4a) Saddam is thought to have a relationship with Al Qaida.

And all but forgotten.
Saddam has sponsored attacks on the US previously.

I believe that Congress back a war on terrorism.

 

[SuperTool]

i heard that Elvis, OJ's "real killers," and that lost Desert Storm pilot are also in the Bekaa Valley.

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
It will never cease to amaze me why so many people on the right seem to think that thinking people can be sucked in by the weak BS that makes them believe.

While I agree with this statement, I wouldn't limit it to "people on the right." There is plenty of idiocy to spread around.

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: WiseOldDude

Originally posted by: Velk
I never didn't say that WMDs were not the sole most important justification for invading Iraq.

And you ain't the president, dumbya did say that WMD's WERE the reason, and he started a war over them.

Only when they couldn't be found did the 'human rights' bull crap become the reason.

The following quote has been rated 'C' for cynical by the internet message board ratings authority. It may contain irony and some tongue in cheek humor.

It is not recommended for viewing by strict literalists or those with a non whimsical sense of humor.

The feature is presented with smiley face captions to indicate humor where available.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: shira
The basic argument for war went as follows:

"(1) Saddam has significant stocks of WMDs.

(2) Saddam has a relationship with Al Qaida.

Ergo, Saddam is likely to transfer WMDs to Al Qaida, which will put the US and the rest of the world at risk for significant terrorist acts."


You'll note that even if (1) were found to be true, without (2) there is/was no justification for going to war. And (2) was definitely the shakiest part of the argument. I'm pretty left-wing, but even I thought (1) was likely to be true. But I was VERY skeptical of (2), and pre-invasion argued against the war for that reason.

Selective memory?

The basic argument for war seemed to be presented as follows in fall of 03/winter 04:

(1) Saddam refuses to account for his stock of WMDs.

He was beginning to. But, he was also putting up a front to keep intimidating his neighbors and possibly preclude repercussions from Iran. The inspectors job was to find the truth but Bush yanked them out after a few months.

(2) Saddam refuses to allow accounting except at the point of a sword

Not true. Inspectors were back in the country and had unprecedented access as compared to previous inspections.

(3) Saddam has been attemtping to obtain nuclear weaponry.

Complete and utter lie. Total propaganda.

(4) Saddam supports terrorism.

Again, more propaganda.

(4a) Saddam is thought to have a relationship with Al Qaida.

Again, more lies and propaganda.

And all but forgotten.
Saddam has sponsored attacks on the US previously.

WTF??? Name *one* time the U.S. was attacked by Saddam.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EagleKeeperThe basic argument for war seemed to be presented as follows in fall of 03/winter 04:

(1) Saddam refuses to account for his stock of WMDs.

He was beginning to. But, he was also putting up a front to keep intimidating his neighbors and possibly preclude repercussions from Iran. The inspectors job was to find the truth but Bush yanked them out after a few months.

(2) Saddam refuses to allow accounting except at the point of a sword

Not true. Inspectors were back in the country and had unprecedented access as compared to previous inspections.

(3) Saddam has been attemtping to obtain nuclear weaponry.

Complete and utter lie. Total propaganda.

(4) Saddam supports terrorism.

Again, more propaganda.

(4a) Saddam is thought to have a relationship with Al Qaida.

Again, more lies and propaganda.

And all but forgotten.
Saddam has sponsored attacks on the US previously.

WTF??? Name *one* time the U.S. was attacked by Saddam.

================================
Response:

(1) Saddam refuses to account for his stock of WMDs.

He was beginning to. But, he was also putting up a front to keep intimidating his neighbors and possibly preclude repercussions from Iran. The inspectors job was to find the truth but Bush yanked them out after a few months.

Everything that you state is correct; However, that information regarding his possible intentions was known after he was booted out. The inspectors were not US inspectors but UN inspectors (I believe) and not under US control. Saddam was not going to allow that. More in #2. You seem to be looking at the short time frame of 3-6 months prior to hostilities, not the previous 10 years.

(2) Saddam refuses to allow accounting except at the point of a sword

Not true. Inspectors were back in the country and had unprecedented access as compared to previous inspections.

Everytime inspectors were in Iraq, they were being hindered and/or restricted. Eventually they would report that they were not able to do their job and leave. Only when the sabers were being rattled did Saddam allow them back in "with conditions".
And even then he would delay the negotiations with unreasonable rules trying to circumvent the original & recent agreements. Information would only be provided when he was being threatened. Then little was provided on what was asked, the majority of the "documentation" was padding to try and impress people that he was cooperating.

(3) Saddam has been attemtping to obtain nuclear weaponry.

Complete and utter lie. Total propaganda.

Saddam had previously started to build up a nuke program. He may have been blowing smoke to impress others, however, given his state of mind, it was a chance that could not be overlooked. Again by creating a smoke screen and refusing to "open his books", he created the impression that he was hiding something.

Now it is known that waht he was hiding was hot air; again this is 20/20. In 2001-2003 this was not known.

(4) Saddam supports terrorism.

Again, more propaganda.

He was rewarding the Palestinians for sucide bombers with cash payments. He allowed training camps within his country. There should be other documented areas if you look.

(4a) Saddam is thought to have a relationship with Al Qaida.

Again, more lies and propaganda.

Key word is thought. There was evidence that Al Qaida operatives had been in Iraq.
Saddam was publicly supportive of Al Qaida. Saddam ruled Iraq with such a tight hand, that it was inconcievable that major players did not pass though his country without his knowledge and possible approval. His security forces were not incompetent.

And all but forgotten.
Saddam has sponsored attacks on the US previously.

WTF??? Name *one* time the U.S. was attacked by Saddam.

People forget the Worl Trade Center bombing the first time. People involved were run from Iraq.

As time has past, some details of the basic assumptions have become clouded.
In 2001-2003, everyone was jumpy and Saddam was determined to exploit the chaos to his benefit.


However, if you choose to believe that Saddam was a good boy and just mis-understood, then any documention/intelligence is either considered to be false or planted. His history towards his neighbors and own people (outside of his tribe) seems to prove otherwise. He was willing to prove that he was the big man on the area and had a dream of creating a Pan-Arab nation with himself at the top.

He had been pushing the envelope for the past 10 years and when he tried again to see who was the biggest dog on the block, he lost.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: conjur
He was beginning to. But, he was also putting up a front to keep intimidating his neighbors and possibly preclude repercussions from Iran. The inspectors job was to find the truth but Bush yanked them out after a few months.

Everything that you state is correct; However, that information regarding his possible intentions was known after he was booted out. The inspectors were not US inspectors but UN inspectors (I believe) and not under US control. Saddam was not going to allow that. More in #2. You seem to be looking at the short time frame of 3-6 months prior to hostilities, not the previous 10 years.

Uh, no. It was known to many in the Arab world and in other government circles (including our own intelligence agencies which were much in doubt as to the claims being proffered by those in the Propgandist's administration). Remember, the inspectors were over there and were finding NOTHING. Even after going to sites where the Bush admin was certain WMDs existed. Kaye, Blix, and Ritter have written that the WMDs were destroyed in the 1991 War, the subsequent inspections, and retaliatory strikes by Clinton.

Not true. Inspectors were back in the country and had unprecedented access as compared to previous inspections.

Everytime inspectors were in Iraq, they were being hindered and/or restricted. Eventually they would report that they were not able to do their job and leave. Only when the sabers were being rattled did Saddam allow them back in "with conditions".

And even then he would delay the negotiations with unreasonable rules trying to circumvent the original & recent agreements. Information would only be provided when he was being threatened. Then little was provided on what was asked, the majority of the "documentation" was padding to try and impress people that he was cooperating.

Hans Blix's report seems to discredit your claims.

(3) Saddam has been attemtping to obtain nuclear weaponry.

Complete and utter lie. Total propaganda.

Saddam had previously started to build up a nuke program. He may have been blowing smoke to impress others, however, given his state of mind, it was a chance that could not be overlooked. Again by creating a smoke screen and refusing to "open his books", he created the impression that he was hiding something.

Now it is known that waht he was hiding was hot air; again this is 20/20. In 2001-2003 this was not known.

No, again, our intelligence agencies all knew that Saddam was NOT reconstituting a nuclear weapons program. The centrifuges were not of a type to work in a nuclear weapon but, rather, were for normal rockets already possessed by Saddam. The yellowcake claim was based upon documents forged by the British (you know the story...the reason why an investigation has been going on for two years into who leaked a covert CIA operative in retaliation for having some smackdown put upon the Propagandist's administration.

(4) Saddam supports terrorism.

Again, more propaganda.

He was rewarding the Palestinians for sucide bombers with cash payments. He allowed training camps within his country. There should be other documented areas if you look.

1) He was giving money to the surviving family members of suicide bombers. Even then, we don't know how many even actually received anything.

2) What training camp? The one in Kurdish territory protected by the U.S. no-fly zone? The one in which Zarqawi was located and where the Propagandist had three chances to capture/kill Zarqawi?

(4a) Saddam is thought to have a relationship with Al Qaida.

Again, more lies and propaganda.

Key word is thought. There was evidence that Al Qaida operatives had been in Iraq.

Oh, we invaded on a hunch? Wow. You are sick.

Saddam was publicly supportive of Al Qaida. Saddam ruled Iraq with such a tight hand, that it was inconcievable that major players did not pass though his country without his knowledge and possible approval. His security forces were not incompetent.

That's why bin Laden wanted to protect the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina FROM Saddam? Guess you forgot about that, eh?

And all but forgotten.
Saddam has sponsored attacks on the US previously.

WTF??? Name *one* time the U.S. was attacked by Saddam.

People forget the Worl Trade Center bombing the first time. People involved were run from Iraq.

Link? Al Qaeda was responsible for the WTC attack in '93 and, at that time, was based in the Sudan.

 

[xaeniac]

If true how long until the U.S. finds the WMD? I hope this is true and would be a great boost for our invasion there. It would make Bush look really good. Why is Syria withdrawing from Lebanon anyway?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: I800C0LECT

Originally posted by: WiseOldDude

Originally posted by: Velk
I never didn't say that WMDs were not the sole most important justification for invading Iraq.

And you ain't the president, dumbya did say that WMD's WERE the reason, and he started a war over them.

Only when they couldn't be found did the 'human rights' bull crap become the reason.

I thought we invaded Iraq for violation of the guidelines setup post Iraq war by the United Nations? That did include WMD's...but wasn't it nice to uncover the food for oil scandal and many other stories that were not reguarded as high news priority? I remember Bush made a huge claim and push for civil rights before we officially pushed through the countryside with our military. The president has people write many of his speeches and to commit to a cause such as this for namely one circumstancial reason is political suicide. I believe he gave many reasons for going to war with Iraq if you go back and look.

On a side note...Virginia Tech (VPI) had a speaker come through a couple weeks ago...of course it didn't make the news. The speaker was supposedly one of the secretary's for Saddam. He was pretty pissed off at Hussein for killing his uncle for loyalty reasons...it didn't make much sense, but neither did killing so many of his people. Anyways, he made many points concerning America's position. He was extremely greatful. He went on to say that yes Iraq had WMD's because he helped place some of the calls to make sure they had been gotten rid of. He also was ordered to make the phone call himself to make sure Bin Laden had received proper medical attention at one point. He made various other bold statements as well. He concluded by saying that it discouraged him to come here and hear the media and portrayal of his people as people who hated America. He left asking that we continue to fight for his people and that it would be devastating for us to leave them now. He said they desperately needed us and it scared him to watch the spin the news media put on everything.

I know about this because I am a student in Virginia. It only made the local news in blacksburg, VA.

VT HOKIES!!! WOOT!!!!!

P&N libs are teflon coated. Truth and reason just slide right off. You are wasting your time!

Oh, yeah! Credit me with a new word - teflib. Has a good sound, don't you think?

 

[outriding]

Why are we not there right now ???

I dont want to hear crap like well they had time to hide them, terrorists stole them, etc..

Lets pull people out of iraq and go get them.

But instead we are going to play in iraq then go to bekka and say well they are not here.

Sounds like a broken record.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Condor
P&N libs are teflon coated. Truth and reason just slide right off. You are wasting your time!

Oh, yeah! Credit me with a new word - teflib. Has a good sound, don't you think?

No it sounds lame. Now TefCons sounds better and is a lot more appropriate, especially when it comes to their reasoning for the Dub's ill advised Excellent Adventure into Iraq.

 

[BeauJangles]

So when we finally investigate the Valley and find nothing there, where is the NEXT place that we are going to WMDs?

I'm sure Bush will come and say it's a huge conspiracy that we can't find the WMDs, the rest of the world is conspiring against us. Syria, Lebanon, Libya, France, Spain, Russia are all working tirelessly to hide Iraq's WMDs from all of us :roll:

We won't find anything there, just like we didn't find anything in Iraq. Face it. It was made up, not true, a lie.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
So when we finally investigate the Valley and find nothing there, where is the NEXT place that we are going to WMDs?

I'm sure Bush will come and say it's a huge conspiracy that we can't find the WMDs, the rest of the world is conspiring against us. Syria, Lebanon, Libya, France, Spain, Russia are all working tirelessly to hide Iraq's WMDs from all of us :roll:

We won't find anything there, just like we didn't find anything in Iraq. Face it. It was made up, not true, a lie.

It's obvious the WMDs are in that armadillah hole in Crawford.

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: conjur

(4a) Saddam is thought to have a relationship with Al Qaida.

Again, more lies and propaganda.

I think you're confused. There are very good ties between the Iraqis and Al Qaeda. The statement that lacked evidence was "saddam/Iraq was involved in 9/11," which has only been claimed by the media and people bashing on the current administration for something they never said.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: conjur

(4a) Saddam is thought to have a relationship with Al Qaida.

Again, more lies and propaganda.

I think you're confused. There are very good ties between the Iraqis and Al Qaeda. The statement that lacked evidence was "saddam/Iraq was involved in 9/11," which has only been claimed by the media and people bashing on the current administration for something they never said.

Ok, show me some of these "very good ties".

 

[EagleKeeper]

As long as Saddam is a good guy who is misunderstood, what negative information that may exists is not credible.

 

[irwincur]

Still waiting for one of the libs to refute my original claim. All I saw were four pages of personal attacks, cried for evidence (of which no counter evidence was offered), and idiocy.

I will stand on the side of NATO, Israeli intel, US intel, French intel, and pretty much every other nation with a sattelite in the sky that managed to track the obvious convoys leading from Iraq, across the Bathist brother state of Syria, and into the Bekaa.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Still waiting ...

Still waiting for the WMD stockpiles to be found.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Condor
P&N libs are teflon coated. Truth and reason just slide right off. You are wasting your time!

Oh, yeah! Credit me with a new word - teflib. Has a good sound, don't you think?

No it sounds lame. Now TefCons sounds better and is a lot more appropriate, especially when it comes to their reasoning for the Dub's ill advised Excellent Adventure into Iraq.

Naw, TefLib sounds better. TefCons sounds like a phone company. Can I patent that and make money off it like Paris Hilton with "That's hot!"?

 

[Jhhnn]

From Irwincur-

"I will stand on the side of NATO, Israeli intel, US intel, French intel, and pretty much every other nation with a sattelite in the sky that managed to track the obvious convoys leading from Iraq, across the Bathist brother state of Syria, and into the Bekaa."

Yeh, except you haven't provided a source for the information you seem to believe to be true, other than the scandalous and discredited Jack Shaw... who really didn't put it in the same terms as you did, either... His own co-conspirators and fellow looters had to toss him out because of his outrageous conduct, which should lead any reasonable person to at least question his credibility...

You've merely repeated unsubstantiated allegations, and then have the gall to demand that others prove a negative, that the weapons aren't there... You're the one who needs to substantiate the allegations, and you haven't, at all- zero, zip, nothing, nyet, nada- just empty trash talkin'....