Forum Thread

death dealers

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 13 Posts
  • Democrat
    Julian, CA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Does anyone else out there in Americaland find it a wee bit odd that a economic basketcase like Syria has tons of chemical weapons?! and "Who sold those chemical weapons to Syria?!"
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Russia.
  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    No I don't, because I paid attention to the news (more than just the liberal side) during the build up to Operation Iraqi Freedom... For those who didn't pay attention, within the weeks prior to us going into Iraq in 2003 there were dozens of semi-trucks (like you see on the road all over the United States) going to areas that the UN knew were storage area's for biological and chemical weapons, loading up, and then heading out to other countries, many of them to Syria. Keep in mind we knew going in that Saddam had literally tons (hundreds of tons really) of chemical and biological weapons like he used on the Kurds, and after we went in we found very few, not even signs that they had been destroyed. Hope that clears things up some.

    RanmaMOJ
  • Independent
    Plymouth, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    RanmaMOJ Wrote: No I don't, because I paid attention to the news (more than just the liberal side) during the build up to Operation Iraqi Freedom... For those who didn't pay attention, within the weeks prior to us going into Iraq in 2003 there were dozens of semi-trucks (like you see on the road all over the United States) going to areas that the UN knew were storage area's for biological and chemical weapons, loading up, and then heading out to other countries, many of them to Syria. Keep in mind we knew going in that Saddam had literally tons (hundreds of tons really) of chemical and biological weapons like he used on the Kurds, and after we went in we found very few, not even signs that they had been destroyed. Hope that clears things up some.

    RanmaMOJ
    This really doesn't clear up much, where are the nukes the GOP claimed were there to justify an unwinnable war for the majority but a win win for the system? If any of those trucks were carrying a nuke, we would of been able to pick up the radiation, but there was no radiation to be picked up, nor any chemical weapons in these trucks, non you or Fox can prove anyhow. We don't believe the fabrications of conservative media around here, do you see why we don't watch Fox around here, if not, remove the Fox News placed blinders, we rely on facts for our news, not corporate propaganda like the garbage Fox is spitting in your face.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Talking about the Iraqi freedom we created; the turmoil continues, due to our actions; now the US has sent two attack helicopters to help them to stop insurgents; they are not allowed to use these on their own people. Wow, sure they won't. don't let me laugh. It amazes me that wherever on this globe the US has interfered it still is a mess; don't we ever learn? ( Korea ,Cuba, Haiti, Mali, Lybia, Egypt, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) only Vietnam is stil quite stable because we did not "win".
  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Try noted liberal groups like CNN and The Guardian. Here's paraphrased what they say.

    The Guardian reported on Oct 12, 2004 that equipment and materials that could be used to make a nuclear warhead went missing from Iraq (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/12/iraq)

    CNN reported on June 26, 2003 that an Iraqi scientist led US forces to a rose garden where parts and plans were buried by him, under Saddam's orders 12 years prior. The parts and plans were for nuclear warheads. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html)

    As CNN said, this isn't a smoking gun, but there is a problem with a smoking gun... If its smoking its already gone off and likely killed someone. In the case of a WMD of any sort, a smoking gun could leave thousands or millions dead.

    As for picking up the radiation, no we wouldn't. Its called LEAD. Uranium, Plutonium, and most of the other stable radioactive materials used to create nuclear warheads cannot penetrate the density of lead. Why do you think the bunkers and silo's where the nuclear weapons are stored in the United States are lined with lead? Also, you can't pick up chemical traces from a satellite. With all due respect, did you read what I wrote about the source being a satellite or just see that I claimed they were from Iraq and go into propaganda mode? I've just used liberal sources to show that Saddam was working, up until operation Iraqi freedom on at least concealing his nuclear weapons program while he was under embargo from the United Nations (which he violated 14 times in 10 years. How many times would you let a murderer violate parole before you did something?)

    Fact of the matter is, I very rarely watch Fox myself, I generally watch CNN, CBS, NBC, or ABC (all of which are liberal news stations) then I do my own research and come to my own conclusions. What conclusions would you draw from the news from The Guardian and CNN? As for the war being unwinnable... It was unwinnable because Bush was trying to appease (Sorry, but there is only one way to say it and I am an independent because I don't agree with either the Left or Right often enough to claim either side) the liberals. Truth be told, under international law, we could have taken the insurgents, lined them up, and shot them on the spot. They are NOT freedom fighters, there are specific guidelines that must be met under the Geneva Convention to qualify for that. According to the Geneva Convention they are, by definition, terrorists and as such have absolutely no rights under international law. Had Bush fought them as terrorists instead of 'enemy combatants' then the war would have been long over.

    Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you claiming Saddam NEVER had chemical weapons and NEVER was working on a nuclear warhead program?

    RanmaMOJ


  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    RanmaMOJ Wrote: Try noted liberal groups like CNN and The Guardian. Here's paraphrased what they say.

    The Guardian reported on Oct 12, 2004 that equipment and materials that could be used to make a nuclear warhead went missing from Iraq (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/12/iraq)

    CNN reported on June 26, 2003 that an Iraqi scientist led US forces to a rose garden where parts and plans were buried by him, under Saddam's orders 12 years prior. The parts and plans were for nuclear warheads. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html)

    As CNN said, this isn't a smoking gun, but there is a problem with a smoking gun... If its smoking its already gone off and likely killed someone. In the case of a WMD of any sort, a smoking gun could leave thousands or millions dead.

    As for picking up the radiation, no we wouldn't. Its called LEAD. Uranium, Plutonium, and most of the other stable radioactive materials used to create nuclear warheads cannot penetrate the density of lead. Why do you think the bunkers and silo's where the nuclear weapons are stored in the United States are lined with lead? Also, you can't pick up chemical traces from a satellite. With all due respect, did you read what I wrote about the source being a satellite or just see that I claimed they were from Iraq and go into propaganda mode? I've just used liberal sources to show that Saddam was working, up until operation Iraqi freedom on at least concealing his nuclear weapons program while he was under embargo from the United Nations (which he violated 14 times in 10 years. How many times would you let a murderer violate parole before you did something?)

    Fact of the matter is, I very rarely watch Fox myself, I generally watch CNN, CBS, NBC, or ABC (all of which are liberal news stations) then I do my own research and come to my own conclusions. What conclusions would you draw from the news from The Guardian and CNN? As for the war being unwinnable... It was unwinnable because Bush was trying to appease (Sorry, but there is only one way to say it and I am an independent because I don't agree with either the Left or Right often enough to claim either side) the liberals. Truth be told, under international law, we could have taken the insurgents, lined them up, and shot them on the spot. They are NOT freedom fighters, there are specific guidelines that must be met under the Geneva Convention to qualify for that. According to the Geneva Convention they are, by definition, terrorists and as such have absolutely no rights under international law. Had Bush fought them as terrorists instead of 'enemy combatants' then the war would have been long over.

    Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you claiming Saddam NEVER had chemical weapons and NEVER was working on a nuclear warhead program?

    RanmaMOJ


    In other words you approve of invading countries because they "tried" something we don't like? How about N.Korea, it is much more obvious there, so when are we going to invade? The Pentagon will love it. What right has the US to have these weapons? So I guess someone has the right to invade us? Sorry the US invasion of Iraq was a pure power play of the "brass" in Washington; "money" was the driver not plutonium or human life's.
  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        


    What money, other than that we spent, was involved in Iraq? We still get the same amount of oil from Iraq we did before the war, about 1% of the total we get. As for invading countries for having WMD's, that isn't exactly what we did. We went into Iraq because they were working on WMD's in violation of INTERNATIONAL LAW. There are certain countries that are allowed to have Nuclear weapons because they developed them BEFORE the United Nations established a ban on nuclear proliferation. As for biological and chemical weapons, NO country is allowed to use them. The United States does have some, but we do not use them, and the only time we did use them is prior to the international treaties banning their use. (Vietnam and agent orange...) Also, as I pointed out, how many times does a convicted murderer on parole have to violate his parole before you remove him from society?

    As for N. Korea, look at how close we came within the last few years. There were even talks with China about how they would respond if the US/UN went in to do a regime change when Kim Jung Un was testing his nukes and threatening other countries. I would like to point out that Kim Jung Un backed off after a meeting with Hillary Clinton and generally its believed the basically told him, "Cut the BS out or we will nuke you till you glow and shoot you in the dark". (Not the exact words, I'm sure 'regime change' was mentioned, but I hope you get the point.)

    RanmaMOJ

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    RanmaMOJ Wrote:


    What money, other than that we spent, was involved in Iraq? We still get the same amount of oil from Iraq we did before the war, about 1% of the total we get. As for invading countries for having WMD's, that isn't exactly what we did. We went into Iraq because they were working on WMD's in violation of INTERNATIONAL LAW. There are certain countries that are allowed to have Nuclear weapons because they developed them BEFORE the United Nations established a ban on nuclear proliferation. As for biological and chemical weapons, NO country is allowed to use them. The United States does have some, but we do not use them, and the only time we did use them is prior to the international treaties banning their use. (Vietnam and agent orange...) Also, as I pointed out, how many times does a convicted murderer on parole have to violate his parole before you remove him from society?

    As for N. Korea, look at how close we came within the last few years. There were even talks with China about how they would respond if the US/UN went in to do a regime change when Kim Jung Un was testing his nukes and threatening other countries. I would like to point out that Kim Jung Un backed off after a meeting with Hillary Clinton and generally its believed the basically told him, "Cut the BS out or we will nuke you till you glow and shoot you in the dark". (Not the exact words, I'm sure 'regime change' was mentioned, but I hope you get the point.)

    RanmaMOJ

    I guess you are way to naive to know that your Repub. buddies and lobbyists collect billions from the war industry; a few get rich the rest can die for their wallet. I guess you have no clue at all about anything happening in this world.
    I refuse to comment on Republican nonsense.
  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    And how much did the liberals and Democrat's buddies make on the war? I ask you to remember that when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan many Democrats supported going in, because of the money they and their friends would make. Were mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes, they are made in any war/conflict. (Especially when involving the French, but that's my personal bias...) Is it right to sit here years later and look with 20/20 hindsight at the same intel we looked at then and say that someone lied? No, intel isn't perfect. Based on 'intel' (stats and such) I could say that the Bronco's will win the Super Bowl this weekend, if they lose, am I a liar or simply mistaken?

    RanmaMOJ
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Mother Jones, September 2006: Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq

    This is indeed old news, but since you brought it RanmaMOJ I'll share a few links. From the above Mother Jones article:

    "At A congressional hearing examining the march to war in Iraq, Republican congressman Walter Jones posed "a very simple question" about the administration's manipulation of intelligence: "How could the professionals see what was happening and nobody speak out?"

    "Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, responded with an equally simple answer: "The vice president."


    When I think of all the events that transpired to get us into that stupid war, the name Dick Cheney always comes to my mind...and all the lies he told then and continues to tell again and again. He should have been impeached and jailed.

    Mother Jones has published a timeline of those events starting in 1992 and going into 2003.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Mother Jones, September 2006: Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq

    This is indeed old news, but since you brought it RanmaMOJ I'll share a few links. From the above Mother Jones article:

    "At A congressional hearing examining the march to war in Iraq, Republican congressman Walter Jones posed "a very simple question" about the administration's manipulation of intelligence: "How could the professionals see what was happening and nobody speak out?"

    "Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, responded with an equally simple answer: "The vice president."


    When I think of all the events that transpired to get us into that stupid war, the name Dick Cheney always comes to my mind...and all the lies he told then and continues to tell again and again. He should have been impeached and jailed.

    Mother Jones has published a timeline of those events starting in 1992 and going into 2003.
    "Schmidt" again the right answer; I'm so amazed that in our world of readily available information via all kind of media, that people like Ranma still come up with so much nonsense.
  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        


    And yet some very smart Democrats (held up as being more intelligent than the 'Slope browed Bush') supported the war. Are we to believe Bush lied to and fooled them, several of them having access (up to 2000) to the EXACT SAME INTEL? I'll tell you this, Intel doesn't change very fast, so you can't really blame the 2 years separating Clinton's leaving office to the ramp up to war.

    Here's some of the Democrats:

    Joe Biden (D-Senator)
    *Madeline Albright (Secretary of State for Clinton)
    *Bill Clinton (President of United States, anything Bush could look at, so could Clinton up to 2000)
    Howard Dean (DNC Chairman)
    *Sandy Berger (National Security Advisor for Clinton)
    *Nancy Pelosi (D-Senator, later Speaker of the House)
    Jay Rockefeller (D-Senator)
    Harry Reid (D-Senator)
    *Hillary Clinton (First Lady, D-Senator, later Secretary of State for Obama)

    All of these are very well known, very smart democrats. Either we are to believe that they are stupid enough for a man who can't even pronounce nuclear right to fool or they saw the same intel Bush did, drew the same conclusions, and in hindsight feel they were wrong. There is a difference between being wrong and lying. Five of those had access to the same Intelligence data that Bush did and came to the same conclusion. I'll put an asterix next to the ones who had access to the same intelligence data Bush did, either at the time or since then. Lets put an end to the ridiculous phrase/belief that 'Bush lied and people died'. The intelligence pointed to something, even high level democrats saw the same thing. Also, look into the bills, WMD's and terrorists were only 2 of MANY reasons for going into Iraq.

    And do you really want me to go through the link and point out all the mistakes (one could say lies) in it? I started reading the timeline and found several 'mistakes'/misrepresentations (forgotten facts) and I haven't even gone past the year 2000 on it...

    RanmaMOJ