WMD - Bekaa Valley

[Tylanner]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: irwincur
What was illegal about it... It was mandated by the UN after all.

BULLSH8! The U.S. invasion of Iraq was NEVER mandated by the U.N. :|

Can you tell me what the proper response to twelve years of "fuck you" is?

I think the Bush admin made a mistake in selling this as a "new" war. They should have gone about it as a renewal of hostilities because Saddam wouldn't hold up his end of the ceasefire.

But, but, but..

Some would say that the UN was jerking Saddam around for the those thelve years.
He was just mis-understood and was not a threat to anyone.

The US pushed him over the edge. He was just minding his own business and trying to be the baddest boy on the block.

Ehem...

More like Saddam was jerking around the UN......

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Tylanner

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: irwincur
What was illegal about it... It was mandated by the UN after all.

BULLSH8! The U.S. invasion of Iraq was NEVER mandated by the U.N. :|

Can you tell me what the proper response to twelve years of "fuck you" is?

I think the Bush admin made a mistake in selling this as a "new" war. They should have gone about it as a renewal of hostilities because Saddam wouldn't hold up his end of the ceasefire.

But, but, but..

Some would say that the UN was jerking Saddam around for the those thelve years.
He was just mis-understood and was not a threat to anyone.

The US pushed him over the edge. He was just minding his own business and trying to be the baddest boy on the block.

Ehem...

More like Saddam was jerking around the UN......

Not the "entire" group per-say...

The fact is, he DOES NOT HAVE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

I have no doubt in my mind he wasn't happy when he now has to baby a bunch of UN Weapons Inspectors. There is no way in the world you could expect any country to be happy about something like this. UN's program has found a single WMD, and that's the way it is. When they do, well... Let me know.

 

[MoFunk]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Tylanner

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: irwincur
What was illegal about it... It was mandated by the UN after all.

BULLSH8! The U.S. invasion of Iraq was NEVER mandated by the U.N. :|

Can you tell me what the proper response to twelve years of "fuck you" is?

I think the Bush admin made a mistake in selling this as a "new" war. They should have gone about it as a renewal of hostilities because Saddam wouldn't hold up his end of the ceasefire.

But, but, but..

Some would say that the UN was jerking Saddam around for the those thelve years.
He was just mis-understood and was not a threat to anyone.

The US pushed him over the edge. He was just minding his own business and trying to be the baddest boy on the block.

Ehem...

More like Saddam was jerking around the UN......

Not the "entire" group per-say...

The fact is, he DOES NOT HAVE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

I have no doubt in my mind he wasn't happy when he now has to baby a bunch of UN Weapons Inspectors. There is no way in the world you could expect any country to be happy about something like this. UN's program has found a single WMD, and that's the way it is. When they do, well... Let me know.

Read the link in my previous post. Sounds to me like he DID.

 

[WiseOldDude]

QUOTES DEEPER THAN 2 LEVELS SHOULD CAUSE EXPULSION FROM THESE FORUMS

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: irwincur
The UN CLEARLY AUTHORIZED serious consequences for not complying. Just because France, Russia, and China were so ar in Saddam's pockets to be honest does not mean that this resolution did not exist. Serious consequences really only mean one thing.

Please explain how "serious consequences" equals a mandate to invade and occupy.

 

[MoFunk]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: irwincur
The UN CLEARLY AUTHORIZED serious consequences for not complying. Just because France, Russia, and China were so ar in Saddam's pockets to be honest does not mean that this resolution did not exist. Serious consequences really only mean one thing.

Please explain how "serious consequences" equals a mandate to invade and occupy.

You do mean invade and liberate right?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: MoFunk

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: irwincur
The UN CLEARLY AUTHORIZED serious consequences for not complying. Just because France, Russia, and China were so ar in Saddam's pockets to be honest does not mean that this resolution did not exist. Serious consequences really only mean one thing.

Please explain how "serious consequences" equals a mandate to invade and occupy.

You do mean invade and liberate right?

No.

 

[irwincur]

What the hell do you think it means. The Un was already imposing sanction. Diplomatically, the only thing above and beyond that is war. 'Serious consequences' clearly implies war - unless of course you are in the pocket of Saddam, then you can redefine it to mean 'less serious consequences than you are currently dealing with'.

Quit being so ignorant and weak minded.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: irwincur
What the hell do you think it means. The Un was already imposing sanction. Diplomatically, the only thing above and beyond that is war. 'Serious consequences' clearly implies war

No. It could mean revised sanctions or even forced inspections. If it clearly implied war why didn't it explicity state as such, thereby removing any doubt.

- unless of course you are in the pocket of Saddam, then you can redefine it to mean 'less serious consequences than you are currently dealing with'.

Quit being so ignorant and weak minded.

Sorry, I'm far from being you.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: irwincur
What the hell do you think it means. The Un was already imposing sanction. Diplomatically, the only thing above and beyond that is war. 'Serious consequences' clearly implies war

No. It could mean revised sanctions or even forced inspections. If it clearly implied war why didn't it explicity state as such, thereby removing any doubt.

- unless of course you are in the pocket of Saddam, then you can redefine it to mean 'less serious consequences than you are currently dealing with'.

Quit being so ignorant and weak minded.

Sorry, I'm far from being you.

What would you think forced inspections are. Going in with military backing.
The inspectors were already in the country and being hindered and/or told where they could not go. It took threats every time to remove any obsticle that was put in their way.

It was shown that sanctions were not working against Saddam. He was punishing his people and then blaming in on the evil empire. More sanctions would have either imposed aditional hardship agsint the general population (Saddam would never give up his milk and cookies) and/or be circumvented just as the original sanctions were.

The UN was not going to be able to actually threaten war. There were to many obsticles in the way. All they could do was to come up with comprmising language that made any document look like a paper tiger. That may be one reason why Saddam never cared what the UN itself did, there was no chance of them backing up (as a body) what was implied. "They spoke softly and did not carry a stick"

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: irwincur
What the hell do you think it means. The Un was already imposing sanction. Diplomatically, the only thing above and beyond that is war. 'Serious consequences' clearly implies war

No. It could mean revised sanctions or even forced inspections. If it clearly implied war why didn't it explicity state as such, thereby removing any doubt.

- unless of course you are in the pocket of Saddam, then you can redefine it to mean 'less serious consequences than you are currently dealing with'.

Quit being so ignorant and weak minded.

Sorry, I'm far from being you.

What would you think forced inspections are. Going in with military backing.
The inspectors were already in the country and being hindered and/or told where they could not go. It took threats every time to remove any obsticle that was put in their way.

And military backing for inspections equals an invasion and occupation how?

It was shown that sanctions were not working against Saddam. He was punishing his people and then blaming in on the evil empire. More sanctions would have either imposed aditional hardship agsint the general population (Saddam would never give up his milk and cookies) and/or be circumvented just as the original sanctions were.

Then why not do what Powell proposed? Revise the sanctions. Remember, war is a last option. Remember, Bush wasn't going to use our troops to engage in nation building.

The UN was not going to be able to actually threaten war. There were to many obsticles in the way. All they could do was to come up with comprmising language that made any document look like a paper tiger. That may be one reason why Saddam never cared what the UN itself did, there was no chance of them backing up (as a body) what was implied. "They spoke softly and did not carry a stick"

And those obstacles were there for a good reason. We now see the errors of the Bush admin in the open.

 

[MoFunk]

Conjur, you keep saying occupation as if we are not welcomed there. How many people showed up to vote? How many, in the face of death, showed up? MILLIONS! Yes there are those there who are opposed, but they are seriously outnumbered at this point. Terrorism has taken a mighty blow. The plan is working over there but you refuse to see it. You are letting your hate for Bush blind you. Why would the NY Times run an article validating the WMD "story"? Because they know what is coming and they are trying to save face. You are going to have to come to grips with reality at some point.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: MoFunk
Conjur, you keep saying occupation as if we are not welcomed there. How many people showed up to vote? How many, in the face of death, showed up? MILLIONS! Yes there are those there who are opposed, but they are seriously outnumbered at this point. Terrorism has taken a mighty blow. The plan is working over there but you refuse to see it. You are letting your hate for Bush blind you. Why would the NY Times run an article validating the WMD "story"? Because they know what is coming and they are trying to save face. You are going to have to come to grips with reality at some point.

You can hear the tendons, ligaments and muscles STRRREEEEETTCCHING.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: MoFunk
Conjur, you keep saying occupation as if we are not welcomed there. How many people showed up to vote? How many, in the face of death, showed up? MILLIONS! Yes there are those there who are opposed, but they are seriously outnumbered at this point. Terrorism has taken a mighty blow. The plan is working over there but you refuse to see it. You are letting your hate for Bush blind you. Why would the NY Times run an article validating the WMD "story"? Because they know what is coming and they are trying to save face. You are going to have to come to grips with reality at some point.

We still control the government. If you think otherwise, you're delusional. It's been almost two months since the election and still nothing has come of that. The U.S. is trying to find a way to get someone like Chalabi or Allawi in at the top. Have to be sure this new democracy is as pro-U.S. as possible, eh?

Terrorism continues to strike deadly blows each and every day. It's getting worse over there, not better. Wake up.

And WTF are you talking about the NY Times validating the WMD story?

 

[Tab]

The nutcase liberal New York times is a load of crap. Running some crappy article about WMDs that Saddam has WMD does NOT prove that he has had WMDs.

The United Nations was not bought out, it's a select group of indiviuals.

They were hindered? Yea! Of course they were! What do you expect? You want them to be nice about some forigeners going around in your own country and telling you what to do? The inspectors did find some missles that went over xxxx Kilometers and Saddam did compley to destroy these weapons and he did. The United States did NOT use diplomacy to the fullest. We did not even listen to France's plea to send 3 times as many inspectors.

Don't bullsh1t it, the concept of the war is wrong. The don't really hate us, they just really hate Saddam.

 

[MoFunk]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: MoFunk
Conjur, you keep saying occupation as if we are not welcomed there. How many people showed up to vote? How many, in the face of death, showed up? MILLIONS! Yes there are those there who are opposed, but they are seriously outnumbered at this point. Terrorism has taken a mighty blow. The plan is working over there but you refuse to see it. You are letting your hate for Bush blind you. Why would the NY Times run an article validating the WMD "story"? Because they know what is coming and they are trying to save face. You are going to have to come to grips with reality at some point.

We still control the government. If you think otherwise, you're delusional. It's been almost two months since the election and still nothing has come of that. The U.S. is trying to find a way to get someone like Chalabi or Allawi in at the top. Have to be sure this new democracy is as pro-U.S. as possible, eh?

Terrorism continues to strike deadly blows each and every day. It's getting worse over there, not better. Wake up.

And WTF are you talking about the NY Times validating the WMD story?

Requires registration, I can e-mail it to you if you like http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/inter...?oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: MoFunk

Originally posted by: conjur
We still control the government. If you think otherwise, you're delusional. It's been almost two months since the election and still nothing has come of that. The U.S. is trying to find a way to get someone like Chalabi or Allawi in at the top. Have to be sure this new democracy is as pro-U.S. as possible, eh?

Terrorism continues to strike deadly blows each and every day. It's getting worse over there, not better. Wake up.

And WTF are you talking about the NY Times validating the WMD story?

Requires registration, I can e-mail it to you if you like http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/inter...?oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=

LMAO!!

Here, from a post I made in this thread:

Originally posted by: conjur
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1319487&enterthread=y&arctab=y

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1326399&enterthread=y&arctab=y

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1351544&enterthread=y&arctab=y


Wow, it took me a whole ten seconds to find those. Conservatives here have been trying for months to prove WMDs existed, this is simple proof that they keep rehashing the same old crap.

And check out my post in the locked thread from Condor:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1543720&enterthread=y


BTW, nice of you to ignore the other two points, unless, of course, you are conceding those points.

 

[I800C0LECT]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: irwincur
What the hell do you think it means. The Un was already imposing sanction. Diplomatically, the only thing above and beyond that is war. 'Serious consequences' clearly implies war

No. It could mean revised sanctions or even forced inspections. If it clearly implied war why didn't it explicity state as such, thereby removing any doubt.


Forced Inspections? Is that like holding a gun to Saddam and telling him you are gonna kill his soldiers for the sake of an inspection?...

That sounds like an act of war.

 

[lanche]

Bottom line is that everyone was in agreement about the danger that Saddam posed and after 9/11 we had no choice but to eliminate the possibility that these WMD's would get into other terrorists hands. History will prove that George Bush is one of the greatest and most consistent presidents of our time. Unlike the Dems quoted below who only say what they think voters want to hear. And now seem to have developed amnesia.

As long as you liberals out there remain as angry and bitter as you are you will continue to remain out of power. The Democratic minority is transparent at best and until you find a consistent path you and your weak views will remain irrelevant and you will consistently have your asses handed to you in every election. By all means please don't change a thing.

Someone on this thread mentioned the Bible Codes. I was doubtful on this subject until I started researching and now it seems that coincidence does not play a part. It has been mathematically proven. The bible codes distinctly say that WMDs were moved from Iraq through Damascus to the Bekaa Valley. I encourage eveyone to research this and come to your own conclusion.



"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of
mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a

great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest
security threat we face."
-Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times
since 1983."
-Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the
U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively
to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction
programs."
-Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and
he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


"There is no doubt that .. Saddam Hussein has invigorated his
weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition,

Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the
cover
of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will
threaten
the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,)
and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I
believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is
a
real
and grave threat to our security."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

 

[MoFunk]

Originally posted by: lanche

As long as you liberals out there remain as angry and bitter as you are you will continue to remain out of power.

Shhhhh........ Don't tell them!

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta love it-

"Bottom line is that everyone was in agreement about the danger that Saddam posed and after 9/11 we had no choice but to eliminate the possibility that these WMD's would get into other terrorists hands."

Nice framing, particularly considering the whole thing was and is based on facts not in evidence. "Everyone" was obviously wrong- not a single shred of actual evidence has ever been produced to indicate that Iraqi CBW programs or weapons existed after the early 90's. Not to mention that using statements made in defense of air or missile strikes in defense of a policy of invasion is more than a little bit dishonest...

Nevermind, though, it's all in the "Bible Codes". BIBLE CODES? Be my guest, step off into the deep end of irrational justifications, if that's all there is to be had... I've encountered some rather lame justifications for the Iraqi situation, particularly on this forum, but that, sir, pretty much takes the cake....

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: lanche
Bottom line is that everyone was in agreement about the danger that Saddam posed and after 9/11 we had no choice but to eliminate the possibility that these WMD's would get into other terrorists hands.

Who's everyone? Myself, I actually was for the war back then but only because of the claims made by the Bush administration that Saddam had WMDs, was planning on nuclear weapons, etc. I took the bait and bit hard. Won't make that mistake again. I'd still be interested to know how you justify "everyone was in agreement", esp. considering our own intelligence community had serious doubts and reservations.

History will prove that George Bush is one of the greatest propagandists and most consistently deceptive presidents of our time.

Fixed.

Unlike the Dems quoted below who only say what they think voters want to hear. And now seem to have developed amnesia.

Oh, you mean most of those quotes that were from 1998...before the new inspections were underway and new intelligence reports came out that showed the Bush admin's claims to be dubious, at best? I see. Nice way to distort the past to suit your agenda.

As long as you liberals out there remain as angry and bitter as you are you will continue to remain out of power. The Democratic minority is transparent at best and until you find a consistent path you and your weak views will remain irrelevant and you will consistently have your asses handed to you in every election. By all means please don't change a thing.

It's not just liberals that are angry and bitter. I've been a Republican my entire life until this past week. I just changed my voter registration and marked it as Independent. The GOP is no longer the party that I've known.

Someone on this thread mentioned the Bible Codes. I was doubtful on this subject until I started researching and now it seems that coincidence does not play a part. It has been mathematically proven. The bible codes distinctly say that WMDs were moved from Iraq through Damascus to the Bekaa Valley. I encourage eveyone to research this and come to your own conclusion.

Uhh....yeah....right.

<BS use of quotes snipped>

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: MoFunk

Originally posted by: conjur
We still control the government. If you think otherwise, you're delusional. It's been almost two months since the election and still nothing has come of that. The U.S. is trying to find a way to get someone like Chalabi or Allawi in at the top. Have to be sure this new democracy is as pro-U.S. as possible, eh?

Terrorism continues to strike deadly blows each and every day. It's getting worse over there, not better. Wake up.

And WTF are you talking about the NY Times validating the WMD story?

Requires registration, I can e-mail it to you if you like http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/inter...?oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=

LMAO!!

Here, from a post I made in this thread:

Originally posted by: conjur
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1319487&enterthread=y&arctab=y

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1326399&enterthread=y&arctab=y

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1351544&enterthread=y&arctab=y


Wow, it took me a whole ten seconds to find those. Conservatives here have been trying for months to prove WMDs existed, this is simple proof that they keep rehashing the same old crap.

And check out my post in the locked thread from Condor:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1543720&enterthread=y


BTW, nice of you to ignore the other two points, unless, of course, you are conceding those points.

I take it you have conceded them, then, and are afraid to admit your beloved NY Times article proves nothing that you claim.

 

[lanche]

You people are so predictable. By all means please continue to keep your inacurrate and irrelevant views. You and people like you have been and will continue to be on the wrong side of history. Your only use at this point is pure entertainment value and even that will get old as your arguement already has.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even you, and I respect that. Actually if it wasn't for people like you we would not have any exmples of the mindset that could have been detrimental to the security of this wonderful country.

To correct your ignorance here is a link, with your "evidence" that discusses two shells found in Iraq last year, one containing sarin, and one containing mustard gas. The amount of sarin gas estimated to be in the shell was enough to kill 40,000 people+-. If thats not WMD, then what is. At what point do you draw the line? I know, I know, its not stockpiles but it does provide proof that your "evidence" of nothing existing after 1990 is just plain wrong and it shows just how ignorant and irrelevant you are.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120401,00.html

We all know that you most likely will bash this as well due to it being a Fox News link but do your research and you will find more stories that cover this. Of course the reality of it is, is that people like you will ALWAYS find a way to bash any argument that is pro war. History has proven that it takes war to bring peace.

Peoplpe who understand how this world works understand that there will always be a "pecking order". It is the way of nature. Meaning that some country will always have more power than any others. If not already there then they will be striving to achieve this. It would appear to me that you do not want the US in that position. So who would you prefer to be at the top?

Thank you for being out there to use as an example. No offense intended.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: lanche
You people are so predictable. By all means please continue to keep your inacurrate and irrelevant views. You and people like you have been and will continue to be on the wrong side of history. Your only use at this point is pure entertainment value and even that will get old as your arguement already has.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even you, and I respect that. Actually if it wasn't for people like you we would not have any exmples of the mindset that could have been detrimental to the security of this wonderful country.

To correct your ignorance here is a link, with your "evidence" that discusses two shells found in Iraq last year, one containing sarin, and one containing mustard gas. The amount of sarin gas estimated to be in the shell was enough to kill 40,000 people+-. If thats not WMD, then what is. At what point do you draw the line? I know, I know, its not stockpiles but it does provide proof that your "evidence" of nothing existing after 1990 is just plain wrong and it shows just how ignorant and irrelevant you are.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120401,00.html

We all know that you most likely will bash this as well due to it being a Fox News link but do your research and you will find more stories that cover this. Of course the reality of it is, is that people like you will ALWAYS find a way to bash any argument that is pro war. History has proven that it takes war to bring peace.

Peoplpe who understand how this world works understand that there will always be a "pecking order". It is the way of nature. Meaning that some country will always have more power than any others. If not already there then they will be striving to achieve this. It would appear to me that you do not want the US in that position. So who would you prefer to be at the top?

Thank you for being out there to use as an example. No offense intended.

So, who were you before the ban?