1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Africa, Aluminum Tubes, & 45 Minutes!

Discussion in 'The OT' started by jonstad, Jul 22, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Well, the "liberal media" in this country is finally getting around to letting us know what the rest of the world knew before the last war(I think it's the last one? Geez, it's getting hard to keep track:scratch: ). And with no hint of "I told you so",:rolleyes: I posted on this board, also before the last war. I must admit to maybe missing the 45 minute thing, but hey, one only has so much time and frankly I thought it so laughable as to not be worth the trouble.

    It was well known to anyone who wanted to know, or wanted to report it, that UN inspectors(the ones we couldn't trust, remember?) had debunked the "yellow crud", or whatever it is, story from Niger, AND the "aluminum tube" fantasy. I assume they also thought the 45 minute thing was too ludicrious to comment on also considering a country that was under severe sanctions and weekly(at least) bombings for twelve years. And now it also appears that anyone with a security clearance higher then gate sentry knew it too. They just didn't want to say it.

    How about those links to al Qaeda and 9/11? Did I forget anything? Oh yeah, what was going to happen AFTER? I admit that might have been a kind of rhetorical question. You know, the kind with no answer. Because that's what we still have. No answer.

    So what exactly happened here? Did Junior lie to US? Surely not! Was ours and Britain's intelligence that poor? Well the 007 crowd are sticking to their story but they do have a hara-kiried scientist on their hands and 1/3 of the polls calling for Tony's. The CIA says they knew all along. But somehow they forgot to get this information to the White House. Ooops! Damned government employees!

    OK, let's be fair. We were SPUN into the last war. We were plastered with information that had very little or no basis in reality and anything contradictory was ignored, discarded or fancifully explained away.

    One more thing. How long will it be before GWB, and the rest of you, admit there are no WMDs in Iraq? Until we have time to plant some? I assume the only reason this hasn't happened is because the sooner before the election you plant them, the greater possibility you'll be discovered before the election. And that's the end of Dubbya. So I predict, if we don't actually find some real WMDs(anything's possible) before then, shortly before November 2004(2-4 months my guess, maybe 9/11? Nah, that'd be too obvious) we will miraculously "find" the elusive cashe of evil Saddam's evil weapons. If it's discovered after the election, he'll claim "plausable deniability". Maybe he can hire Ollie North back. It'd be fun to get ALL the old crew back together again.

    For God's sake fellas! And I do not use that phrase lightly.;) He was supposed to be swimming in this stuff. So much it was leaking across the border and he was handing it out like party favors to terrorists! Where is the stuff? We can't even find a trace. Not even from when Rumsfield and Daddy knew he had them and didn't care! Parts of a centrifuge buried for twelve years in a rose garden and ambiguous, non-functioning trailers do not "programs" make! And apparently they "make" very little WMDs either.
     
  2. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    How long will it be before GWB, and the rest of you, admit there are no WMDs in Iraq?

    Sorry, I can't go there. While I agree with most of your post, its simply a fact that Iraq did possess WMDs, and also never proved that they destroyed what they had in the amounts we know they had them. Ergo Iraq still has them somewhere.

    What I do agree with is that this war is total spin. Iraq has never used WMDs against us in either Gulf War. Likewise they have never used them against other superior military powers such as Israel. Therefore it seems to say that Iraq was totally deterable in this regard, and thus never was an "immediate threat" to US national security.

    While we know Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons (its well documented they tried getting enriched uranium from France, which was blocked), I think its safe to say that Iraq's nuclear program was pretty much theoretical, and the "proofs" Bush offered were total spin in order to heighten the goal of making Iraq look like a viable threat.

    Bush wanted a war, and Iraq was just an easy target. While I support removing Saddam, I think its a total shame that Bush had to lie to the public to do it.
     
  3. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    We haven't found many things yet, that doesn't mean they never existed. Obviously, using your logic, Sadam never existed either, or for that matter, neither did UBL. By the way, where have you been lately? When are you going back? :D
     
  4. gcutler

    gcutler Hall Of Fame

    3,435
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    I agree with Danny R, I believe that there were WMD in Iraq and they still are there (Like just about every other country in the region has similar stockpiles) They had existed, and at the least not all of them have been destroyed, let alone possibly new stockpiles. They could have been smuggled outside of IRAQ, Syria or Iran would have accepted them as a gift for other favors, they could be sitting burried in the sand, not like we have enough manpower to keep the peace let alone find the materials.

    But I believe they were not "A Clear And Present Danger" to anyone at the time and it was just Spin and a Grudge that the US went in at that time.
     
  5. Chris Blount

    Chris Blount Creator of DBSTalk Staff Member Administrator DBSTalk Gold Club

    17,316
    31
    Jun 22, 2001
    I guess that pretty much says which news outlets you watch.

    Liberals love to spin webs and they will spin the biggest web they can with this war. Even though right now we can't absolutely prove that there are WMD's in Iraq, can the liberals prove there weren't? Absolutely not! But they will continue with the assertion that there are not and never were WMD's without any basis of proof. Typical. :rolleyes:

    Also, with this situation and with the president's poll numbers slipping, the liberals feel that they may be gaining some of their "power" back. Well, as with all wars, concrete evidence takes time and when all is said and done in a few years, the liberals spinning webs right now will look like jackasses when election time rolls around. There is no doubt that WMD's exist in Iraq. It's only a matter of time when we find them.

    As for the war being a spin of the government? Maybe, but who cares. Saddam needed to go and GWB is just mopping up after the last gulf war. No biggy. It had to be done and the American people knew it with our without WMD's.
     
  6. waydwolf

    waydwolf Icon

    847
    1
    Feb 2, 2003
    I guess the Kurds and Iranians were gassed by the aftereffects of a particularly hearty Taco Bell lunch then?
    [​IMG]
    We weren't spun into the war. We were dragged in, inexorably, by virtue of the fact that we were the only power on Earth that could make good on the endless and otherwise empty threats of the United Nations for non-compliance with some number of resolutions that were on the verge of being inventoried in scientific notation they were seemingly so numerous.

    Or we could have stayed home and let the UN self-destruct as a world body and go the way of the League of Nations. The UN's intrasigence and obtuseness aside, they will eventually quietly ignore their former idiotic opposition as our resolve quickly put an end to a situation that more glaringly than anything else in recent memory showed the total lack of moral fiber and backbone of that body.

    What will show it next albeit to a lesser degree as the world media with their leftist bent would also be called into moral question so they will not report on it too much lest they attract notice to themselves, is the butchery in Africa. If the Koffi Annan of the UN doesn't see a resolution calling for a multinational military force under the UN to head for Liberia, it will show them to be interested only in the hyping and furthering of situations for political gain rather than humanitarian concern for suffering and misery. They certainly showed none over the killing fields of Cambodia, the purges and mass pogroms in the Soviet Union, or any other mass murder carried out under the auspices of the state.

    At this point, we pretty much need to form a new UN of real nations with real fortitude and leave the rest to hang on French apron strings as long as they can stand their attitude and duplicitousness.
     
  7. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Who said there were NEVER any WMDs? Sure they had them. And the proof is when they actually used them against the Iranians and again against the Kurds during Reagan/Bush. Ironically, the reaction to a country using WMDs seems to be far less then the reaction when they are merely suspected. And no matter what anyone says, until they are found, it is only suspicion. To date, they have not been able to isolate a single molecule. The media frenzy over a buried centrifuge is illustrative of the burning desire of the administration, AND the media, to go to any lengths to provide support for these suspicions, no matter how ludicrious they are.

    What's your favorite news outlet? The Washington Post?

    Here's an interesting analysis of the difference between the reporting of actual use of WMDs in the eighties and suspicion of their possession(without use) in the nineties and beyond. Now some of you will dismiss the source, FAIR.org. But regardless of whether you agree with their conclusions or not, it should be noted that all the quotes are dated and often linked to. If you wish to disute the quotes themselves, I suggest you do your own research. For me, they speak for themselves.
    http://www.fair.org/extra/0209/iraq-gas.html

    From the link: (Bold added)
    Try and remember now, this is The Washington Post, not the Washington Times or National Review.

    Am I the only one to see the irony? It is outrageously hypocritical to constantly refer to Saddam's use of WMDs against the Iranians and Kurds to justify this latest war when at the time, the best the administration AND the "liberal" media could do was to offer weak verbal reprimands and tacit justifications while continuing to do business as usual with our new found friend.

    Well for the time being, I've got my jackass suit in mothballs. Maybe I should FedEx it to 1600 Pennsylvania? Perhaps I'll get a visit from the SS, that's Secret Service. And since I am obviously pegged as one of those "liberals" newly feeling "power", I would like someone to point out where and when they think I ever exhibited doubt in my "power".

    Ya' know, this is the part I really can't believe. And what I really can't believe is that anyone really believes it!

    We were led into WAR, yes ladies and gentlemen, W-A-R, under the false pretenses of lies(at least of omission), half truths(if even half), distorted, manipulated intelligence, and fear mongering unashamedly taking advantage of the residue of insecurity left over from 9/11. If it had come out that Clinton had led us into Bosnia or Kosovo by similar methods, he not only would have been impeached, he would have been convicted, and rightly so. And the same people defending the current travesty would be calling for his head on a platter.

    We all know it's not often I agree with the right. However, never before have I been ashamed of them. This "SO WHAT?" apologetics is something very different though. It's a sad day when any American thinks it's "OK" if we were deliberately lied to to take US to war. A war that killed hundreds of Americans, and thousands of Iraqis, many of them completely innocent civilians. What will we be "led" into next? And what hidden agendas are behind this one, AND the next?
     
  8. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    We weren't spun into the war. We were dragged in, inexorably, by virtue of the fact that we were the only power on Earth that could make good on the endless and otherwise empty threats of the United Nations for non-compliance with some number of resolutions that were on the verge of being inventoried in scientific notation they were seemingly so numerous. ... Or we could have stayed home and let the UN self-destruct as a world body and go the way of the League of Nations.

    Your argument doesn't make sense. You say the US went in to save the credibility of the UN, yet its very bypass of them does the exact opposite and destroys whatever credibility they have left.

    Sure they had them. And the proof is when they actually used them against the Iranians and again against the Kurds during Reagan/Bush. ... And no matter what anyone says, until they are found, it is only suspicion.

    Again, while I agree with your general take on things, I don't buy your current arguments about WMDs. Iraq never proved they destroyed their weapons, therefore its not just "suspicion" that they have them now. A man shoots his wife in front of many witnesses. If the police can't find the gun, is he to go free?

    Yes I agree that WMDs are just the prop the administration has used to spin this war. We didn't care in the 80's when they were actually used, but its a convenient tool now. That just shows how despicable our government's manipulation of politics is. Besides, its better to correct the mistakes of the past than continue to ignore them.

    I likewise agree that its despicable how conservatives and others are so forgiving of any lie told to go to war. Our nation has a long history of going to war for false premises.

    In my opinion Bush should have simply said its time to take out Saddam because he's been a naughty boy. Thats all. Why search and make up reasons beyond what he's already done in the past.
     
  9. Rick_EE

    Rick_EE Godfather

    498
    0
    Apr 5, 2002
  10. RandyAB

    RandyAB Godfather

    304
    0
    Apr 4, 2002
    Why should I say there are no WMD, when a lot of other countries in the UN still have said that the inspectors should be sent back into still look for them? If they are still wanting that, they might still think there are some there too.
     
  11. Kevin G

    Kevin G AllStar

    62
    0
    Jul 3, 2002
    Watching on CNN last night, a talking head (can't remember who) was telling Wolf that Saddam had basically admitted to having 9 tons of mustard gas (or some type of weapon). He went on to explain that nine tons sounds like a lot, but that it's only a half of a semi truck load. In a country the size of California, how easy would it be to hide a whole semi truck, let alone, a half. And that's just in the country.

    The point is, if both Clinton and the U.N. have expounded about Iraq's capabilities, both nuclear and not, how can Bush be faulted using the same intelligence? He can't.

    Another point- Saddam had 12+ years to get rid of his weapons and prove to everyone that he did. He chose, instead, to kick out inspectors, fly in the no-fly zones, and otherwise flout restrictions placed on him. After September 11th, he had another 14 months to prove that he had no WMDs. President Bush conferred with allies and the administration went through the proper channels through the U.N. Apparently, Saddam simply thought that this President was like the last one and wouldn't follow-through.

    President Bush took the lead, as good leaders do, and now the country, region, and the world are better off for it.
     
  12. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Did you ever think "other countries" might want international inspectors back in for other reasons? Like they don't TRUST the US to be straightforward and unbiased in their inspections?

    It actually would behoove the US to allow just that, a return of the UN inspectors. However, we don't seem anxious to do that, do we. Why? The administration keeps insisting unequivocably that "We WILL find WMDs." To me, that means that we WILL "find" them, no matter what we have to do to "find" them. Don't you think that other countries, not quite so sure of Bush's and America's integrity in such matters, might share that same opinion? The sad part, and why it is really foolish NOT to allow impartial inspectors to do the job, is that even if we do actually, finally, legitimately uncover WMDs in Iraq, more then a few nations, and more then a few people, will conclude that we planted them there. Even now, many Iraqis are doubting that Uday and Qusay are dead even with the dead bodies. BTW, I believe it. But many more won't until they can see the dead bodies and smell the dried blood.

    Also, there are two completely different takes on why the UN is ineffective. The American position and that of most of the rest of the world. We of course think the UN is useless because the UN wouldn't join US in our frenzy to war. A LARGE portion of the rest of the world understands it as a failure of the UN to STOP us. A country, the most prominent member of the UN, refused to follow the process that we would demand of any other country with the same intentions. Instead, our country deliberately choose to ignore the concerns of the rest of the UN and go ahead anyway.

    But the precedent has been set. Any country can now attack any other based solely on their own interests regardless of world opinion without fear of sanction or reprisal.
     
  13. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    I'm sorry. This all sounds a little vague. AND a lot like still more apologetics for not finding them. "Saddam had basically admitted"??? What the hell's that supposed to mean? Was this a detailed analysis of when and where Saddam "basically admitted" this, or just some off the cuff conclusion of some "talking head"? And ya' know, I'm really sick of talking heads. Where do they get these doozies? With kudos to Butch and Sundance, "Who are those guys?"

    Who's claiming that Clinton didn't have the hots to get Saddam too? Most of the twelve years of "no-fly zone" bombings were on his watch. Madeline Albright, when confronted with UN figures that half a million Iraqi children had died as a direct result of sanctions, didn't deny the figures. She merely stated that "it was worth it" to get rid of Saddam. I guess your point is that Clinton WOULDN'T have lied or twisted intelligence to topple Saddam. Gee, Is Bill starting to get a good reputation on the right. Miracles will never cease.(despite my opinion on other threads);)

    As for the UN, they essentially caved to the US on Iraq until it came to war. Maybe we should remember that one of the main purposes of the UN is to PREVENT war. Like the impetuous child, the US constantly withholds funds and threatens to withdraw if things don't go exactly our way. And in fact these were the options suggested by many as we stomped our feet because the UN didn't want to give us permission to invade Iraq.

    We're swollowing the spin again. For the last time. Saddam DID NOT "kick out the inspectors".:hair: They were voluntarily removed by the UN when it was made clear that Clinton was about to begin a bombing not only in the no-fly zones but Baghdad itself. After eight years of inspections finding essentially nothing, this bombing gave Saddam convenient excuse not to allow them back in. Frankly I think the bombings served both our purposes. Saddam could look like he was bravely defying the US and UN. And no inspectors made it a cake walk for us to raise fear and loathing that Saddam was back in the WMD business.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page