About the WMD. If it's still relevant to the thread! And if anyone cares.


THESE LINKS CONTAIN DISTURBING IMAGES!

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

Link 5

Link 5 is rom the BBC a reputable source in many eyes.

I do still wonder about the exact details, although the international concensus is that they were Iraqi chemical weapons!

So technically it is still speculation.

ahem, when i'm wrong i'll happily admit it, when it comes to religous debates i well know that neither side will come out on top, and i have a feeling those involved treat it more like a game as opposed to an actual arguement trying to find out who's right and who's wrong, the difference is that I like to base my arguments on facts, and when i speculate i don't treat it as fact, something this thread has shown you don't. When i'm wrong, i'll happily conceed.

ultimately, my original point that its all speculation is for both sides:)

I dont know why thats funny , it just is .

maybe i'm a comedian:(

woo woo go the evasion tactics:)

fluffybunny,

You fight a good fight and as you know you are not alone, some of us (for some reason mainly British) support your stance and agree with your argument.

For some people out there rudeness and barely hidden aggression seem to be the order of the day and their best form of argument.

I think that you have handled yourself with maturity, calmness and you certainly have my respect.

Keep the faith.

What are we debating here? The topic that a POLITICIAN may have lied to start a war? Hardly a ground breaking concept is it?

Surely a more productive way to approach this topic (unless you are a politician) would be to discuss the facts suggesting that Bush did lie, rather than denying it all and burying your head in the sand?

I think all politicians can be accused of lying or bending the truth to some degree, such is the nature of their job. And if a defence of Bush, or Blair for that matter, is that they were only mouthpieces for 'bad intelligence', then surely passing on that information without knowing if it was true or not, is a mistruth?

link

link2

Just wondering if anyone has had time to read the links I provided in my last post?

Or has it now gone past the point of talking about WMD and is now more about personal attacks?

Fair enough, hey I'm new I claim ignorance

Hey, you should see the ones on religion!!

Incoming!!!

Dig in, dig in!!!

Sorry, it's how i feel! I spent 8 years inthe Royal Navy, Now i relise the British RN is just a ship squadron of the US FLEET!!!!!!!!

Hey mate, post your feelings.

Just warning you, our US cousins can be a little defensive when you say the slightest negative thing about them.

Some points to remember:

1. Don't question their Prez.
2. Don't question the war.
3. Agree that anyone who does either 1 or 2 is a left-wing, Saddam-loving freak.
4. Agree that 911 was the work of all Arabs, who in an ideal world should all be nuked back into the stone age.
5. Want the invasion of the following countries: Syria, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and probably Canada (just to be safe).

If you stick to these current guidelines you should be safe.

Now after me: GOD SAVE THE U.S.A.

Now after me: GOD SAVE THE U.S.A.



And screw the rest of the world!

I sent a private message to the above posting.

I will state my comments on a more public setting.

It does not matter if Bush lied in his reasons for going to War.

As the president He, and he alone, is responsible for acting on information provided by his intel agencies.

If he had reason to believe that the intel was flawed or incomplete, and still acted on this information, he is still reposnsible.

Whatever he thought, he as the president, is reponsible to the American people to be da*n sure that his intel is correct. He is responsible for American lives, both in the military and civilian sector. (I suggest you all read the Constitution)

I am neither pro or anti Bush. But, my personal opinion is that he is a puppet president. And he and his administration have done more harm to this country than any other president in the past fourty years. My opinion is based on well documented laws he has passed, exec. orders he has issued, and the record of his office.

We need to take out Canada for sure.... It is well known that they have WMD!!
(Woods of Mass Density)

No, I just couldn't resist. I really do like Canada, and it's people. I used to make several trips a year to the western regions. B.C. and Alberta mostly. And I must say it looks has if B.C. stole all of Alberta's trees.
If I could just get you all to keep from saying "Aye"

Still crazy

I stand corrected eh

Fluffy- You talk of voting your beliefs...I do. So far the only candidates that share my beliefs are republicans. More pointedly conservative Republicans. I don't pick a winner. If you really want to know my beliefs and how I weigh them feel free to PM me.

To the person who Suggested the countries for invasion: Remove Canada and add mexico to the list ( the top for that matter) and you got a deal....although The mexico Invasion would be more of a counter invasion in my book.....

Fluffy your posts are immaculate and you mange never to be drawn down to the level of internet street brawling . It is allways appreciated when somebody can debate a topic not only without ridiculing the opponent but also without allowing yourself to get tangled up in cleverly, or not so cleverly worded digs .

Anyhow my ultimate reason for posting is to just bring to peoples attention the fact that generalising and grouping people as a Nation is a sure way to fire up an unhealthy debate . Coments like Americans do something such and such , while English people are allways blah blah , are sure ways to close a topic down .
Now that people are aware of it will they stop the generalisations .......... Perhaps not or perhaps only the clever ones will .

Could someone please help me and let me know if weapons such as Mustard Gas, Tabun and Sarin can be deemed as WMD?

I think it is possible to generalise to a certain degree. Especially when dealing with the impartiality of the British press compared to the largely dumbed down censored super patriotism of the American press.
I have witnessed quite a lot of US news broadcasting, and have to admit, if I was exposed to this kind of nationalist propaganda morning, noon and night, I would probably also be sharing the views of others on this forum.

I agree mowo, I've watched Fox and that station scares me.

However, many of the tabloids over here (especially The Sun and The Mail) were very hawkish about the War (The Sun still is).

Thankfully the tv in this country is a lot less biased!!

That makes a lot of sense, stillcrazy.

After all, he knew his conventional army wouldn't stand a chance against the allies, so the bluff was pretty much he all he had up his sleeve to try and put off an invasion.

With reference to the shipping of any WMDs to Syria?

It is a possibilty.

It is also a fantastic get out clause for Laurel and Hardy!!

"No, of course we can't find any WMDs in Iraq (even though we checked the receipt), they're in Syria. D'oh, lace up the ammo boys, we're going in again!!"

If President Bush lied about the intelligence how do you explain all
of these quotes?

Why did the Clinton Administration think this guy was such a threat?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"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

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

- 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

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.

- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

What ever

yes, you're just quoting more American politicians at us.

Just trying to remind some of you that the belief that Sadaam had WMD
was held long before President Bush.

If your near a tv Tenet just said the CIA knew there was no solid proof that Iraq was a imminate threat

Since you like to quote people, after I get back this afternoon I will send you the 62 speaches where Bush, Cheney and Rice have said that they were a imminate threat to U.S. Interest

Oh and FOX news station is the most one-sided right wing newscaster i have ever seen in my life. I mean the way they spoke about the Germans, French and Russians is a disgrace.

Talk about objective journalism, they dont even understand that phrase.

I just remembered that if you roll with a pig in the mud trying to catch them, you will after awhile, come to realize that the pig enjoys it.

I have come to realize that trying to discuss any issue that questions Bush or his administration, with joc, is like trying to catch a pig in the mud.

I remember during the Nixon administration that so many people couldn't or wouldn't see his wrong doing. I liked Nixon. He was a very effective President
He, more than any president before him, made the strongest effort to end our participation in Viet Nam. But he violated his oath of office, and was forced to resign.

I have read as many of joc's post has was possible and one that stuck out was the one were he mentions. "Bush ate jelly made at his house" Loyalty is a great thing.
and I commend him for it. However most of his post are very short and curt answers or comments, most with the air that he is right, and everyone else's opinion is wrong. No room nor desire for discussion.

I enjoy this forum, even though many of you are a good deal younger than I.
I value your comments, questions and more than anything else, your OPINIONS.

Now for a quick question. If Iraq was not an imminate threat to us (U.S. Britan, or the north pole.) Why the rush to war?.