Saddam Hussein captured.

[CougTek]

Alive too. Or at least that's what they said at the news this morning. More later.

 

[flagreen]

He's looking a bit shabby.

 

[P5-133XL]

The real man or one of his doubles? Does our govt. care?

 

[CougTek]

People in Bagdad who were asked this morning (not morning there, but...whatever) often tought it was his double. Surprisingly, I'm whiling to believe he's the real guy. Your government will do whatever it can to push this belief down your throat no matter what the truth is however.

I also expect the U.S. gov. to bargain with Hussein so that he declares publicly that there were WMD even if in fact there were none, just to appease the U.S. crowd and give G.W. Buisson a push for next year's election. The guy has nothing to lose anyway.

 

[flagreen]

The real man or one of his doubles? Does our govt. care?

Supposedly DNA testing has confirmed that it is him. I didn't know there was any DNA test which could be done in 12 hours.

 

[CougTek]

Bill, those DNA tests are IMO bullshit to add credibility to the announcement. They might or might not be true, but even if they would have been negative, with all the lies your gov. has told you during the last three years, do you really believe they would admit to have catched the wrong guy?

Again, it's probably Saddam, but I don't believe it because the U.S. gov. say so.

 

[flagreen]

Bill, those DNA tests are IMO bullshit to add credibility to the announcement. They might or might not be true, but even if they would have been negative, with all the lies your gov. has told you during the last three years, do you really believe they would admit to have catched the wrong guy?

Again, it's probably Saddam, but I don't believe it because the U.S. gov. say so.

What lies?

 

[Pradeep]

A man died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St. Peter at the
Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, "What are all those clocks?" St. Peter answered, "Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone on Earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie the hands on your clock will move." "Oh," said the man, "whose clock is that?" "That's Mother Teresa's. The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie." "Incredible," said the man. "And whose clock is that one over there?" St.Peter replied, "That's Abraham Lincoln's clock. The hands have moved twice,telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire life." "Where's George Bush's clock?" asked the man. "Bush's clock is in Jesus' office. He's using it as a ceiling fan."

 

[CougTek]

ROFL!

Senior Green,

You're right. Bush never lied and is a genuinely good man. All he wants is the well being of all american and iraqi citizens. Keep being a happy dreamer.

 

[CougTek]

Speaking about most wanted criminals, I checked Osama's profile and I'm pretty sure the birthdate is incorrect. The guy is older than that. I'm almost certain he's past 50.

 

[sechs]

The real man or one of his doubles? Does our govt. care?

Supposedly DNA testing has confirmed that it is him. I didn't know there was any DNA test which could be done in 12 hours.

You can do a simple electrophoresis gel in four hours. Now, where they got a cross-sample and a lab to do this is beyond me.

 

[Howell]

Did anyone else happen to notice that the Get-Saddam operation was "Red Dawn" and the target sites were Wolverine 1 and -2? I assume you saw the movie (1982).

 

[flagreen]

I'm not aware of any lies the President Bush has told. He was, apparently, wrong about the WMD just as PM Blair and PM Howard and many, many others were as well. But lies? No. I'm not going to argue with anyone about it because there is no way anyone here including myself can know what another man's motives are. But in my opinion Bush, Blair and Howard all three believed that there were WMD.

According to Human Rights Watch fewer Iraqis have died this year in Iraq than would have had Saddam remained in power. Iraq is being rebuilt into a free society. A free society where the people are sovereign not some tyrant. Schools are being built and opened all across Iraq. Over three hundred newspapers have sprung up since liberation. We now know that Iraq does not have WMD.

Was the incursion into Iraq justified? I believe so, you guys may not. But can't we at least agree that the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, are better off today than they were if Saddam were still in power?

 

[Mercutio]

The present administration seems to do things, then come back with reasons to justify them. Sometimes even changing their story a few times along the way. Making their facts to fit the story, as it were.

That sounds a lot like lying to me.

The thing is, now we have Saddam.

Huzzah. 2 wars, $300 billion dollars and we're in no way closer to catching terrorists or ridding the world of WMDs (hint: there's some in North Korea).

 

[Pradeep]

The reason the US hasn't moved on North Korea is that 1) no oil, and most importantly 2) it has plenty of missiles that can lob a nuclear warhead right into downtown Tokyo. Assuming they do have warheads, like the Iraqis did.....

I was reading the other day that a lot of the shitty intel that Bush et al based their plans on came from the Israelis, particularly the stuff about WMD.

 

[CougTek]

If Bush and friends' story about liberating Iraqi from their tyrant would have been right, then they should have invade and replaced a lot of other governments too well before Iraq. But when there's no oil, there's no motivation to send the U.S. army, unless there are a lot of complains worldwide about a given massacre elsewhere (Somalia, Kosovo).

About the motivation, remember how few soldiers died in Somalia before the U.S. army decided to quit? The situation out there was far worse for the inhabitants though. Now compare with the hundred of casualities the U.S. army sustained without blinking in Iraq.

Plus, the main reason why there's no real order in Iraq even now, several months after the supposedly end of the war (and in Afghanistan too BTW) is because your oh-so-dear soldiers are way more busy to fix the oil installations and prepare them for exploitation (exploitation, a very appropriate word here) than to establish any kind of order, government or economy in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you think both invasions were motivated in any way by humanitary reasons, you're naive beyond belief IMO. This is just the bullshit sent to medias (along with the WMD, which were never reported by the inspectors throughout the nineties IIRC) to hide the real goal of the operation.

BTW, next country to be invaded by U.S. isn't North Korea : it's Iran. And sooner than later. Ti-clin Powell has began to threaten it of severe reprisals for relatively low-consequences irregularities. If Bush is re-elected, less than two years IMO. So U.S. oil bastards (those who pushed Bush for the Presidency) will control the three main oil productors (Afghan doesn't produce, but there's a very important pipeline there) in the area that were not already sold to United States interest (like Saudi Arabia, in which people aren't much better than in former Iraq).

Liberate Iraq my ass. It's go, go, go, let's deprive those peons from their most valuable natural ressource for the Bush administration. It's obvious to most medias outside United States and if your medias weren't so manipulated by the White House, it would be denounced by yours too.

 

[CougTek]

Sorry to have been a tad offensive above, but it infuriates me to read someone vomit Bush's PR mooseshit. Everytime it happens, it hurts both my forehead and my desk.

 

[flagreen]

Early in 2002 the question of Iraq arose among the media and politicians here in America in the context of being the next battle in the War on Terror. In so far as that context is concerned the U.S. intervention in Iraq has never changed. It has never been presented by the President or any other Administration official that I am aware of as being anything other than that. The discussion in early 2002 centered around whether or not it would be justified to intervene militarily in Iraq should it become necessary to do so. The various reasons discussed were as follows;

Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism - this is fact. Iraq had not accounted for all the WMD they were known to have been in possession of following the end of the Gulf War - this is fact. Since 1991 Iraq had violated numerous U.N. resolutions including the Gulf War cease fire resolution. Many of these resolutions were designed to disarm Iraq of WMD - this is fact. I recall President Bush also mentioning at every opportunity, along with many others, the brutal nature of Saddam's regime while recounting the many atrocities he had committed upon his own people - this is fact.

All of these reasons, or justifications that were valid in early 2002 and are still valid today. But even if you do not agree then at least of those you who do disagree must, upon reflection, agree that these reasons were in fact all put forth by the administration prior to the war beginning. In reality the justification given for opening this battle in Iraq has not in fact changed. The only thing that has changed is that WMD have not been found. But those U.N. resoutions were violated, Iraq has never accounted for the weapons and materials they were supposed to have accounted for, Iraq did support terrorism, and Saddam was a brutal oppressor of his own people.

Those of us who discuss this subject with the unhappy hordes who oppose the war here, frequently try to persuade you to see the good that has come of this battle along with what is in your opinion the bad. Hence the humanitarian aspects are brought into the discussion. But this does not mean that we have abandoned the other justifications for this battle having been launched in the first place. Because we haven't. And neither has the administration.

 

[Pradeep]

Early in 2002 the question of Iraq arose among the media and politicians here in America in the context of being the next battle in the War on Terror. In so far as that context is concerned the U.S. intervention in Iraq has never changed. It has never been presented by the President or any other Administration official that I am aware of as being anything other than that. The discussion in early 2002 centered around whether or not it would be justified to intervene militarily in Iraq should it become necessary to do so. The various reasons discussed were as follows;

The way I saw it was that originally Iraq and Saddam were going down because of the reputed links to AlQueda etc. Now when the evidence for this was not forthcoming, things moved on to WMD. You know Colin showing the mobile labs etc. Nothing has been found. After that, we finally come to "salvation of the Iraqi people". Nothing wrong with that, but at no stage were all three of these reasons put up front together IMO, they were lined up like dominoes so when one collapsed there was another one standing.

I don't put too much heed in UN resolutions, Israel thumbs it's nose at many of them to this very day, such as withdrawing from the occupied lands it currently sits on etc.

 

[sechs]

The ends don't justify the means, and I sure don't see an end in sight....

 

[flagreen]

Early in 2002 the question of Iraq arose among the media and politicians here in America in the context of being the next battle in the War on Terror. In so far as that context is concerned the U.S. intervention in Iraq has never changed. It has never been presented by the President or any other Administration official that I am aware of as being anything other than that. The discussion in early 2002 centered around whether or not it would be justified to intervene militarily in Iraq should it become necessary to do so. The various reasons discussed were as follows;

The way I saw it was that originally Iraq and Saddam were going down because of the reputed links to AlQueda etc. Now when the evidence for this was not forthcoming, things moved on to WMD. You know Colin showing the mobile labs etc. Nothing has been found. After that, we finally come to "salvation of the Iraqi people". Nothing wrong with that, but at no stage were all three of these reasons put up front together IMO, they were lined up like dominoes so when one collapsed there was another one standing.

I don't put too much heed in UN resolutions, Israel thumbs it's nose at many of them to this very day, such as withdrawing from the occupied lands it currently sits on etc.

Here is a link to a page on the Whitehouse's web site which has transcripts of all of the President's remarks regarding Iraq going back to early 2001 when he took office.

I'll quote from two of them from a few months after 9-11 which will give you an idea of what he felt were the key issues as regards Iraq;

From the 2002 State of the Union Speech 1-29-2002

"Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens."
<snip>
"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world."

Note above quote mentions WMD, the atrocities to his own people, state support of terrorism, and violations of U.N. resolutions regarding weapons inspections.

From a news conference held 3-13-2002

"Q Vice President Cheney is on the road now trying to build support for possible action against Iraq. If you don't get that, down the road you decide you want to take action, would you take action against Iraq unilaterally?

THE PRESIDENT: One of the things I've said to our friends is that we will consult, that we will share our views of how to make the world more safe. In regards to Iraq, we're doing just that. Every world leader that comes to see me, I explain our concerns about a nation which is not conforming to agreements that it made in the past; a nation which has gassed her people in the past; a nation which has weapons of mass destruction and apparently is not afraid to use them.

And so one of the -- what the Vice President is doing is he's reminding people about this danger, and that we need to work in concert to confront this danger. Again, all options are on the table, and -- but one thing I will not allow is a nation such as Iraq to threaten our very future by developing weapons of mass destruction. They've agreed not to have those weapons; they ought to conform to their agreement, comply with their agreement.

Yes, John.

Q It seems to me -- you seem to be saying, yes, you would consult with the allies and others, including in the Mideast, but if you had to, you'd go ahead and take action yourself.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you're answering the question for me. If I can remember the exact words, I'll say it exactly the way I said it before. We are going to consult. I am deeply concerned about Iraq. And so should the American people be concerned about Iraq. And so should people who love freedom be concerned about Iraq.

This is a nation run by a man who is willing to kill his own people by using chemical weapons; a man who won't let inspectors into the country; a man who's obviously got something to hide. And he is a problem, and we're going to deal with him. But the first stage is to consult with our allies and friends, and that's exactly what we're doing."

Again not only WMD are mentioned but also the brutality against his own people and violation of the agreed to U.N. inspections.

Here is a link to page these come from. I'd encourage you to look at them yourself. There far too many other examples confirming what I have said to be able to quote them here.

Link - http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_archive.html?static

 

[Mercutio]

Puh-lease.
Discussion of humanitarian reasons for fighting in Iraq didn't make Condi Rice's talking points for "Meet the Press" until we were already in Baghdad.

Oh, yeah. Hey, look lies!

 

[flagreen]

Puh-lease.
Discussion of humanitarian reasons for fighting in Iraq didn't make Condi Rice's talking points for "Meet the Press" until we were already in Baghdad.

Oh, yeah. Hey, look lies!

Isn't it clear from the President's remarks which I quoted above that he had a problem not only with the WMD but with Saddam himself and the way he treated his people? And those are only two instances from early last year in which he mentioned these these things prominently.

No offense but the examples of "lies" you link to are just silly.

 

[flagreen]

From President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech;

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

Clearly the "humanitarian" justification was there before the start of the war.

 

[Mercutio]

Bill, you cited information on the presidential web site as if it were a valid news source. I provided a link describing a tiny "revision" to something on that page - a revision with a vast difference in meaning from the original statement (and the further change of blocking the sorts of web agents that might easily make other comparisons possible).

That's not silly. That is misleading the public. Were the whitehouse site something other than the lying mouthpiece of a lying liar, its webmasters might've done something vaguely journalistic, like issue a correction or an apology for "misrepresenting" the "president's" statements. They didn't. They made a change and pretended nothing was wrong.

For the second part, not giving search engines the permission to examine public parts of the site (that's what robots.txt does) suggests that someone in the white house doesn't want materials on that site scrutinized. Why would that be?

 

[flagreen]

Bill, you cited information on the presidential web site as if it were a valid news source. I provided a link describing a tiny "revision" to something on that page - a revision with a vast difference in meaning from the original statement (and the further change of blocking the sorts of web agents that might easily make other comparisons possible).

That's not silly. That is misleading the public. Were the whitehouse site something other than the lying mouthpiece of a lying liar, its webmasters might've done something vaguely journalistic, like issue a correction or an apology for "misrepresenting" the "president's" statements. They didn't. They made a change and pretended nothing was wrong.

For the second part, not giving search engines the permission to examine public parts of the site (that's what robots.txt does) suggests that someone in the white house doesn't want materials on that site scrutinized. Why would that be?

Merc the issue regarding the addition of the word "major" in various Whitehouse news articles and photo captions is no reflection upon the President other than in as far as his overall responsibility for what his staff does is concerned. Clearly President Bush used the word "major" in his address to the crew of the Abrahm Lincoln and he has never changed or tried to clarify what he said that day. He has personally never revised his original statement.

For the record, there are important legal ramifications which center around the using the phrase "major combat operations have ended" as opposed to saying that all combat has ended.

I quote from the Washington Post;

White House officials described today's event as the "bookend" to Bush's March 19 Oval Office speech announcing the beginning of the war. But the president carefully avoided announcing that the war itself was over, a declaration that has international legal ramifications. Instead, he said that " major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

Link - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2415-2003May1?language=printer

No doubt the Whitehouse website having used the pharse "combat operations have ended" without the modifier of "major" created consternation at the Justice Department and a problem for the Whitehouse legal staff who should have reviewed this matter with the Webmaster of the site before anything was posted. I suspect that one is no longer able to search the public areas of the website for the very same reason. That is, not to avoid public scrutiny per se, but rather to avoid international legal complications. A wise thing to do in my opinion as a tax payer.

I only described your link as silly because it is pointing out the discrepency between the words of President Bush - who got it right, with the words on the Whitehouse website - who got it wrong, and somehow claiming that this makes President Bush a liar.

 

[CougTek]

Guys, it's hopeless. Unlce Bill feeds on the manipulated U.S. press and Bush'S misleasding declarations like a hungry baby on pablum. He's patriotic in the wrong way, supporting every garbage his rotten government throws within a second thought instead of focusing on truth and what should be right for american people instead of american corrupted leading class. He's the kind of citizen Bush and friends like : naive, blind and who stops thinking every time they see a flag with 50 stars on it.

Not a bad guy, just trust the wrong sources. Wish he would realize that he's not helping his country this way, just the manipulative bastards ruling it. Sad. Especially since there are a lot of those politically-clueless folks in the States and that by supporting the cause of their deceptive administration, they are contributing to the unjustified lost of U.S. soldiers in wars that aren't for U.S. true interests.

 

[flagreen]

Guys, it's hopeless. Unlce Bill feeds on the manipulated U.S. press and Bush'S misleasding declarations like a hungry baby on pablum. He's patriotic in the wrong way, supporting every garbage his rotten government throws within a second thought instead of focusing on truth and what should be right for american people instead of american corrupted leading class. He's the kind of citizen Bush and friends like : naive, blind and who stops thinking every time they see a flag with 50 stars on it.

Not a bad guy, just trust the wrong sources. Wish he would realize that he's not helping his country this way, just the manipulative bastards ruling it. Sad. Especially since there are a lot of those politically-clueless folks in the States and that by supporting the cause of their deceptive administration, they are contributing to the unjustified lost of U.S. soldiers in wars that aren't for U.S. true interests.

Is this supposed to be an argument in favor of your point of view?

 

[sechs]

Come on people. We got the guy who was trying to kill our president's daddy!

 

[Mercutio]

You forgot to preface your remarks with "In a remarkable show of good taste...", sechs.

Bill, have you read Al Franken's new book? If you haven't, I'll be perfectly willing to send you a copy. Heck, I can email you the ebook or the audio version right now.

 

[zx]

Bill, have you read Al Franken's new book?

I don't know why, but I feel that Bill would be one of the last persons to read a book by Al Franken .

 

[flagreen]

You forgot to preface your remarks with "In a remarkable show of good taste...", sechs.

Bill, have you read Al Franken's new book? If you haven't, I'll be perfectly willing to send you a copy. Heck, I can email you the ebook or the audio version right now.

Thanks Merc but I'd rather have someone here respond to the points which I have made. Either that or I see no point really in continuing with this discussion.

Even on his worst day The Giver at least mixed in a few valid points with his sarcasm and insults. I'm not talking about you Merc as you've been fine. As for the others, well....

 

[zx]

I've looked at some speeches that the president did about Iraq, and you're right bill, the president has never said that Iraq actually has WMD's. But, he talked about Iraq (and others) actively seeking to acquire such weapons. We still did not get much proof of that either.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Where's proof that he could have produced a nuclear weapon within a year? Where is the proof that Saddam actively pursued a WMD program?

Right now, there is not much proof that I've heard of...

 

[zx]

I'm not aware of any lies the President Bush has told. He was, apparently, wrong about the WMD just as PM Blair and PM Howard and many, many others were as well. But lies? No. I'm not going to argue with anyone about it because there is no way anyone here including myself can know what another man's motives are. But in my opinion Bush, Blair and Howard all three believed that there were WMD.

Good point.

According to Human Rights Watch fewer Iraqis have died this year in Iraq than would have had Saddam remained in power. Iraq is being rebuilt into a free society. A free society where the people are sovereign not some tyrant. Schools are being built and opened all across Iraq. Over three hundred newspapers have sprung up since liberation. We now know that Iraq does not have WMD.

Did Human Rights Watch include the death toll from the war? AFAIK, there is no official numbers about the number of civilians killed in the war.

Was the incursion into Iraq justified? I believe so, you guys may not. But can't we at least agree that the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, are better off today than they were if Saddam were still in power?

I'm tempted to say yes, the world is a better place without Saddam. But only time will tell. No matter how ugly things got when Saddam was in power, it could always get worse. So let's wait and see...

 

[jtr1962]

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Where's proof that he could have produced a nuclear weapon within a year? Where is the proof that Saddam actively pursued a WMD program?

Right now, there is not much proof that I've heard of...

Agreed, although I honesty believe Bush thought that there were. And even if Saddam had nuclear weapons, he most certainly would not have used them against the United States. That would be virtual suicide. Therefore, exactly what threat did Saddam pose to the United States? His army was in shambles, and any WMDs would not have been used against the US. Once again, Israeli intelligence misled the US so that we could do their dirty work for them. Personally, I would have liked to have seen Israel take on Iraq by itself. I would think the situation akin to two cockroaches killing each other off.

Using humanitarian reasons to justify the invasion is public relations BS. There is a list of countries as long as my arm where conditions are just as bad, if not worse. Why put Iraq to the head of that list? Iraq under Saddam is paradise compared to the current conditions in North Korea, for example. There are reports of people there resorting to cannibilism.

Sure, the world's a better place without Saddam but at what cost? At least he showed his true colors by surrendering like the coward he is. A true leader would have fought to the death, and taken out as many enemy soldiers as he/she could have.

 

[CougTek]

Thanks Merc but I'd rather have someone here respond to the points which I have made.

You've made no point here Bill, you've simply quoted bullshit from the Whitehouse. I don't care about the details the guy (Bush) vomits publicly, I care about the general message he sends and the acts he poses in reality. Both diverge tremendously. For the record, I did write more than a year ago that nothing good would come out of the Afghanistan invasion and one year later, the country is less safe than it was last year, is still far from being autonomous, definetly doesn't have even the shadow of an economy and still lacks basic infrastuctures. Kaboul is apparently the only relatively safe place in the country. The pipeline though, is probably operating quite well.

That's what I call lies. Claiming that the invasion was to hunt terrorists and liberate the Afghans from the Talibans while focusing mainly on the oil once the former government has been overthrown. In fact, terrorists and Talibans were only a pretext, powder to the eyes of the misinformed voters, while oil was the true target. Who cares about the details? Is the big picture too large to see or what?

Interested in details Bill? Then find me the place where bonobo Bush spoke about taking control of all oil-related infrastructure in Irak being the primary and paramount objective of the invasion. What you'll probably find though are declarations in the line of "controling and securing the cities" and "bring peace to the streets". Stopping the pillages of the early days of the occupation might also have been mentioned by Ape chief and friends. Then try to find out why the oil installations were almost all, if not all, protected within hours (not days) following the fall of Bagdad, while Bagdad and many other Irak cities were left unprotected to the burglars' pleasure for several days, if not a week later.

Of course, I could waste a few hours to find those dates and declarations then quote some here and post a few links too, but somehow I think it would be futile because you're so stubborn that you wouldn't even believe it if Bush himself would tell you how proud he his of screwing most of his voters.

I feel like I'm trying to teach maths to a teflon kid who has decided that 2+2=5.

 

[flagreen]

I've looked at some speeches that the president did about Iraq, and you're right bill, the president has never said that Iraq actually has WMD's. But, he talked about Iraq (and others) actively seeking to acquire such weapons. We still did not get much proof of that either.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Where's proof that he could have produced a nuclear weapon within a year? Where is the proof that Saddam actively pursued a WMD program?

Right now, there is not much proof that I've heard of...

Shortly before the President gave the speech at the U.N. that your quotation is taken from, the IISS released a dossier entitled "IISS Strategic Dossier - Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction". And I quote from that study as regards Iraq's nuclear capabilities;

Our net assessment of the current situation is that:

Iraq does not possess facilities to produce fissile material in sufficient amounts for nuclear weapons.

It would require several years and extensive foreign assistance to build such fissile material production facilities.

It could, however, assemble nuclear weapons within months if fissile material from foreign sources were obtained.

It could divert domestic civil-use radioisotopes or seek to obtain foreign material for a crude radiological device.

Link - http://www.iiss.org/confStatement.php?confID=3

The UN's IAEA is the source used by both the President and IISS for the statements regarding information, documents, and plans for nuclear devices which Iraq was known to have had for a decade were still being withheld. How much of this material has been recovered since April of this year I do not know.

The dossier contains much information as regards biological and chemical WMD as well.

The dossier was released to the public on September 9 and was followed by the President's address to the U.N. General Assembly three days later on September 12, 2002.

As to the question of how it was known the Iraq still sought to obtain / hold onto such weapons, I quote again from the IISS dossier;

From the start of the inspections by UNSCOM in 1991 through to the demise of UNSCOM in 1998 Iraq practised a series of measures designed to prevent the UN inspectors from finding the full range and extent of its proscribed WMD and missile programmes. Indeed, this activity was so intense, that UNSCOM had to set up a special unit to counter Iraq’s efforts. While there were notable successes in defeating Iraqi concealment efforts, many others failed.

The UNSCOM experience demonstrates that no on-site inspections of Iraq’s WMD programmes can succeed unless inspectors develop an imaginative and carefully co-ordinated counter-concealment strategy.

<snip>

If UNMOVIC inspectors were ever to go to Iraq, it would take them time to develop and refine the unique inspection techniques required. In addition, it would take them considerable field experience to develop the necessary tradecraft to deal with Iraqi obfuscation efforts.

Certainly, the strength of Baghdad’s commitment to possess WMD is measurable in part by its efforts to resist unfettered UN inspections.

 

[flagreen]

Thanks Merc but I'd rather have someone here respond to the points which I have made.

You've made no point here Bill, you've simply quoted bullshit from the Whitehouse. I don't care about the details the guy (Bush) vomits publicly, I care about the general message he sends and the acts he poses in reality. Both diverge tremendously. For the record, I did write more than a year ago that nothing good would come out of the Afghanistan invasion and one year later, the country is less safe than it was last year, is still far from being autonomous, definetly doesn't have even the shadow of an economy and still lacks basic infrastuctures. Kaboul is apparently the only relatively safe place in the country. The pipeline though, is probably operating quite well.

Well the Afghanis apparently do not feel as you do regarding the state of security or living conditions in their homeland. Since the conclusion of the war over two million Afghan refugees who fled Afghanistan in the previous decade have returned to Afghanistan.

Further to aquaint you with just how much progress has made in Afghanistan I quote from Development Gateway's site as follows;

What has been achieved so far? One year after Bonn and Tokyo, there seems to be considerable ground for optimism about Afghanistan's future. An independent government has been established, and the country is led by an elected head of state, Hamid Karzai. With the support of the international donor community, the government has made tremendous efforts in the areas of education, health, and agriculture. The security situation has improved and some two million Afghan refugees have returned to their country. In addition, a multilateral Afghan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF) was established in May 2002, providing over US $200 million to help finance the country's budget deficit and becoming a major source of technical assistance and investment support.

Agricultural production has increased by an estimated 82 percent compared to 2001. With international assistance, the government has undertaken a tremendous effort to eradicate polio and vaccinate against measles and TB. The numbers of students and teachers returning to school as a result of a donor-assisted Back-to-School Campaign have far exceeded expectations, with 3.0 million students enrolled and another 1.5 million looking for schooling opportunities. Education was one of the success stories of the first year of reconstruction, particularly in reopening schools to girls after they were banned from the classroom during the Taliban's five-year rule. Twenty-six thousand students were at universities and 850 literacy courses had been launched in a country with an estimated illiteracy rate of 65 per cent.

Other areas of progress were the establishment of a new press law, which has sparked the creation of 150 independent publications - though journalists note that the law has yet to be anchored in the new constitution currently being drafted - and a national commission on human rights. A new law on foreign investment had been passed, aimed at encouraging companies to come in and help rebuild the devastated economy. So far, 1,600 companies have applied to invest, and 1,000 applications have been approved.

Link - http://www.developmentgateway.org/download/163273/oneyear.htm

Oh and Coug... there is no pipeline!

That's what I call lies. Claiming that the invasion was to hunt terrorists and liberate the Afghans from the Talibans while focusing mainly on the oil once the former government has been overthrown. In fact, terrorists and Talibans were only a pretext, powder to the eyes of the misinformed voters, while oil was the true target. Who cares about the details? Is the big picture too large to see or what?

What oil? What are you talking about? The proposed natural gas pipeline? It doesn't exist anywhere but on paper just as it has since it was first proposed over ten years ago IIRC. The last I heard it was a dead issue. There is no oil!

Interested in details Bill? Then find me the place where bonobo Bush spoke about taking control of all oil-related infrastructure in Irak being the primary and paramount objective of the invasion. What you'll probably find though are declarations in the line of "controling and securing the cities" and "bring peace to the streets". Stopping the pillages of the early days of the occupation might also have been mentioned by Ape chief and friends. Then try to find out why the oil installations were almost all, if not all, protected within hours (not days) following the fall of Bagdad, while Bagdad and many other Irak cities were left unprotected to the burglars' pleasure for several days, if not a week later.

Of course, I could waste a few hours to find those dates and declarations then quote some here and post a few links too, but somehow I think it would be futile because you're so stubborn that you wouldn't even believe it if Bush himself would tell you how proud he his of screwing most of his voters.

I feel like I'm trying to teach maths to a teflon kid who has decided that 2+2=5.

I'm not even going to dignify the above with a response other than to say that such behavior is beneath you. You're a better man than that.

 

[CougTek]

I thought the pipeline had been built. The talks about it were so frequent ten years ago that I thought it had been done. A few readings on the Net informed me that it was cancelled due to the instability in the country. The project still floats around though and it's probably a major reason behind the invasion of that country.

 

[Pradeep]

"The annual U.S. Government estimate for opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan is complete and shows that approximately 30,750 hectares of poppy were cultivated during the crop season in 2002. This compares to 64,510 hectares cultivated during the peak growing year of 2000, and an estimated 1,685 hectares cultivated in 2001, the year the Taliban instituted a poppy ban."


http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/sasia/afghan/text/1028poppy.htm


Looks like agriculture is booming. And think, all the extra deficit money that can be pumped in to the "war on drugs".