Iraqi soccer players no fan of Bush

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Lanny, still holding onto that apparition of being a conservative?

Yes, because I am, because I am (i'm actually a right leaning Libertarian according to the Worlds Smallest Political Quiz). There are lots of people who are staunch conservatives that think the actions of the United States and the Bush administration are wrong. I didn't think that by feeling strongly on a top that went against the stereotypic norm of a belief was reason to have your belief nulified. I guess that is something else that I have to get used to about living down here, that people need to have a label to describe you at all times and can't handle it if you happen to display behaviours that don't meet their definitition.


If it is so terrible in the US, why the hell do you live here? You're not even an American? You HAVE a choice. Unbelievable.

I thought it was obvious dumbass? I'm here for the weather and the year round golf! Seriously, I live here for the same reasons your wife does. We both married Americans and have it within our hearts to abide by their wishes of where they would like to live.

On that note as well, I didn't think that to live in America you had to agree woth everything she does. I thought it was just the opposite and exactly what USED to make America so great. In a true democracy people are expected to have a different view and encouraged to share that view. Or are you forgetting that? Just because I share a view, one shared by many born and raised Americans, that the present administration is corrupt and the action in Iraq is unconsienionable, does not mean I think the US is terrible and all Americans should burn in hell. I think the country needs some change to get back to the greatness that it once had and needs to find its core values again.

As for choice, I choose to live where's its warm and there are no snow flakes, even though I have to put up with flakes of a different variety. I also choose to exercise my first ammendment rights (I have all those rights and all protections of a naturalized US citizen, except I can't legally vote) and express my opinion about the country I live in and the short comings I see. That's what makes a democracy work, and why so many people (Americans AND Iraqis) are dying right now, remember?

You have made so many factual errors in defense of your stance in this thread that it's almost troublesome. You seem to have lost all ability to think through these things logically!

Really? Where? Two whole munnitions that had traces of sarin and mustard? Wow, I'm glad we're spending a billion dollars a day and letting countless innocent lives be destroyed so we could fine that massive stock pile of WMD's. I think you need to stop watching FoxNEWS and letting them poison your mind. You talk logic but refuse to use any yourself. Where is the logic in going into Iraq? Please, share this with the dumb immigrant, who just isn't up to speed on this as you ultra intelligent 'Merican in this regard. Please explain...

1) The WTC was planned and executed by al Qaeda, which is headed and funded by a Saudi national, who has a great hate for Saddam Hussein and likely would not cooperate with him.

2) 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals (the others being Egyptian, Lenanese, Emeritsian) who had travelled through Afghanistan, Iran, Germany, etc. Not a single one was Iraqi nor travelled through Iraq.

3) Training camps are known to be in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Sudan. Iraq did not make the list.

4) Iraq has not been connected as one of the top countries sponsoring terrorism. Fundamentalist Iran is at the top of the list followed closely by Saudi Arabia.

5) In the chase to nab the fleeing al Qeada where thy most likely to run? To neighbouring Pakistan? To neighbouring Iran? To the neighbouring frontiers of Turkmenistan, Uzebekistan, Tajikistan where support is high? To neighbouring China? Or to distant Iraq?

6) If you were al Qeada, where would you go to get a WMD? Would it be the country (Iraq) that has had UN weapons inspectors crawling around the country for years looking for evidence of the bugbears? Would it be a country (Iraq) that did not have the capability of building a nuclear device? Or would you go to one of the breakaway Soviet Republics (Turkmenistan, Uzebekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbyjan, etc.) where catalogues of bio and nuclear weapons have been lost and are rumored to be available at very reasonable prices?

Logically. Please, lets hear the "logic" on this one. How did we get from the events of 9/11 back to Iraq based on the evidence and motivation trail?

While we're floating conspiracy theories (bush stole the Florida vote...man, that is so old and simply unproven it makes you look like a middle schooler) I'll answer a couple of the questions you posed above...all though evidence for my answers can be found.

Unproven? Okay, so now the Bush administartion can just whipe the slate clean of all the official protests registered by representatives from Florida in regards to irregularities (putting it politely) with the voting process in that state? The whole procession was there to be seen LIVE on C-Span. Unproven? Okay. What ever you say Dis.

Why didn't the UN agree with going into Iraq? A corrupt Oil for Food prorgam administration did NOT want to be found out...

...the Bush administration LIED about WMD's! Why? Because it doesn't make any freaking sense whatsoever for them to have lied.

I'll group these two together because they support each other so well and punch holes in your own argument. You sit there and talk about how corrupt the UN sponsored program was (multiple nations raking in the money by your account) but make it out that the American occupation of is squeaky clean. There is no corruption in the American occupation! Look at how the contracts have been handed out during the rebuilding process. If you know someone, you get a contract. If you can actually build something of value, but aren't from America, forget it, no soup for you! Corruption? Motivation? Holy sh*t, no one is that stupid not to see the direct connection! Oil is at a record high, meaning lots of money for the Bush's and his backers (those bin Laden fellas that have been in the news for the past few years, you remember them?) and there is no connection? How about we go back to that exercise in logic again. Where was al Qeada from and where would they likely flee? What was this "war" all about again?

Did I mention that the price of oil was at a record high?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Dodgy as usual.

I don't really have the time or the desire to argue this any further.

I guess you're right...you win. Go buy yourself a beer or something.

I'll leave you with this bit of logic...

If the Bush administration had knowingly lied about the presence of WMD's in Iraq, they would have made damn sure that their were WMD's in Iraq. It's really that simple and those who continue to say they lied are incapable of applying logic over emotion.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Aug 21 2004, 02:30 AM
Yes, if there are thousands of people dying as a result of sanctions on a government, then they should be MODIFIED to stop it from happening. Simple goodness of the heart stuff.

Because they continued to be strictly imposed and things like medicine became unavaialble, the troops are finding out that their governments policy over the last 10-13 years has not provided them with "arms outstretched" welcome they were anticipating. If tortured soccer players are madder than heck at the US policy, imagine what those who weren't tortured are thinking.

So basically what you're saying is that we should reward the governments that are subjected to sanctions for not changing.

It's that government's fault for not providing medicine to their people. It's that government's fault for not providing food. Instead, they want to continue their posh lifestyle, building palaces and whatnot, and don't care for their people.

And you want to reward these people for this action?

The sanctions against Iraq were modified. Originally, there was no "oil for food" program. That came into being later on.... but we now see what kind of a sham that was.

UN Sanctions are there for a reason. Ignoring them should not be an option.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Aug 22 2004, 05:40 AM
Dodgy as usual.

I don't really have the time or the desire to argue this any further.

I guess you're right...you win. Go buy yourself a beer or something.

I'll leave you with this bit of logic...

If the Bush administration had knowingly lied about the presence of WMD's in Iraq, they would have made damn sure that their were WMD's in Iraq. It's really that simple and those who continue to say they lied are incapable of applying logic over emotion.

Logic over emotion? The fact is no information has been produced. Until they are revealed, there is no WMD. You're CERTAINTY that there was WMD's is based not on evidence, but on what you believe. Which is more emotional than the logic of "show me the WMD's".

Less than a year after declaring there was "no doubt the Iraqi regime
continues to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised," President Bush
and the White House began to openly "back away from its WMD assertions
today." The New York Times reported, "White House officials are no longer
asserting that stockpiles of banned weapons would eventually be found" after
their weapons inspector, David Kay said he "doesn't think [WMD] existed"
after the 1991 Gulf War.

The backtracking is reverberating throughout the Bush administration. While
Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations last year that "our
conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and
500 tons of chemical weapons agent," he said this weekend that it could
actually be "zero tons." Powell told the United Nations in 2003 that Iraq
"can produce anthrax," that it might "have produced 25,000 liters" and
showed a video of an Iraqi plane that dumping "2,000 liters of simulated
anthrax" as proof, but he now says they might have produced no anthrax at
all.

Similarly, Vice President Dick Cheney, said before the war, "there is no
doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction...to use
against our friends, against our allies, and against us," but now says the
war was about Iraq's "efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction." The
vice president also cited a classified report his own Administration has
labeled "inaccurate" as the "best source" of proof that Saddam Hussein and
Al Qaeda were linked.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro+Aug 22 2004, 01:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheCommodoreAfro @ Aug 22 2004, 01:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Aug 22 2004, 05:40 AM
Dodgy as usual.

I don't really have the time or the desire to argue this any further.

I guess you're right...you win. Go buy yourself a beer or something.

I'll leave you with this bit of logic...

If the Bush administration had knowingly lied about the presence of WMD's in Iraq, they would have made damn sure that their were WMD's in Iraq. It's really that simple and those who continue to say they lied are incapable of applying logic over emotion.

Logic over emotion? The fact is no information has been produced. Until they are revealed, there is no WMD. You're CERTAINTY that there was WMD's is based not on evidence, but on what you believe. Which is more emotional than the logic of "show me the WMD's".

Less than a year after declaring there was "no doubt the Iraqi regime
continues to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised," President Bush
and the White House began to openly "back away from its WMD assertions
today." The New York Times reported, "White House officials are no longer
asserting that stockpiles of banned weapons would eventually be found" after
their weapons inspector, David Kay said he "doesn't think [WMD] existed"
after the 1991 Gulf War.

The backtracking is reverberating throughout the Bush administration. While
Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations last year that "our
conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and
500 tons of chemical weapons agent," he said this weekend that it could
actually be "zero tons." Powell told the United Nations in 2003 that Iraq
"can produce anthrax," that it might "have produced 25,000 liters" and
showed a video of an Iraqi plane that dumping "2,000 liters of simulated
anthrax" as proof, but he now says they might have produced no anthrax at
all.

Similarly, Vice President Dick Cheney, said before the war, "there is no
doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction...to use
against our friends, against our allies, and against us," but now says the
war was about Iraq's "efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction." The
vice president also cited a classified report his own Administration has
labeled "inaccurate" as the "best source" of proof that Saddam Hussein and
Al Qaeda were linked. [/b][/quote]
Fro, that was waaaay too emotional a slant on the whole topic. I mean, you have to use logic and reasoning when it comes to Iraq having WMD's (something the Us has been "dodgy" on itself), but should not use logic and reasoning when it comes to the engagement with Iraq in the first place.

Dis is right. The Bush administration did not lie to get into Iraq, they just did not tell everyone the whole story and embellished the information they did present. Unfortunately no-one bought that story and would not lend support to the US in their desire to get into Iraq. Of course then the oil for money angle was brought up (some consider a cheap attempt at blackmail for support) which "logically" meant there was an international conspiracy to support Iraq. The "reasoning" for that accusation is obvious, but the "logic" may not be as obvious.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Some more WMD admissions, from folks who usually play well with Bush. Now I will leave this be.

Ones who were right are now pariahs?

Republican Senator Withdraws War Support

An interview with the UN's lead weapon inspector

[transplant99]

Well since we are being "logical" here....lets look at a couple things being considered "logical".

Less than a year after declaring there was "no doubt the Iraqi regime
continues to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised," President Bush
and the White House began to openly "back away from its WMD assertions
today." The New York Times reported, "White House officials are no longer
asserting that stockpiles of banned weapons would eventually be found" after
their weapons inspector, David Kay said he "doesn't think [WMD] existed"
after the 1991 Gulf War.

That NY Times sure is an interesting place. Making that claim about Kay "saying he doest think WMD existed after the gulf war".....logically is completely and utterly inaccurate.

From aDavid Kay report to the UN in January of 2003....his OWN words.

In the next six years of UNSCOM inspections only one other such discovery was made -- when the existence of an Iraqi biological weapons program was finally uncovered in 1995. But it is often forgotten that the weapons themselves were not found by the inspectors. Iraq told the inspectors that it had destroyed the biological munitions, which, it said, had been stored inside abandoned railroad tunnels and buried along the runways at two military airfields. Even the best inspectors have almost no chance of discovering hidden weapons sites such as these in a country the size of Iraq.

Not about a smoking gun

Does that sound like a guy who believes there are no WMD in Iraq? Or does that sound like a guy that KNOWS they existed but cant find them anymore? And a note to Lanny....read this part again.

Iraq told the inspectors that it had destroyed the biological munitions, which, it said, had been stored inside abandoned railroad tunnels and buried along the runways at two military airfields

Even the Iraqi's themselves ADMIT burying this stuff....so why are you finding it so "illogical" to buy into the fact that this stuff may very well still be there, yet cant be discovered because the guys that know where it is are either dead or in jail or on the run??

Scott Ritter....very true he was the lead inspector when HE RESIGNED in 1998, due to the lack of support from the US administration in getting aggressive with inspections. Oh yeah...the President at that ime? Bill Clinton...NOT George Bush They failed to mention that part....but i digress.

So he quits in 98...and never goes back again until the US makes its intentions of war known. Somehow, during this time he wasnt in Iraq, he comes to the conlusion that WMD are all gone now. I guess Hussein was justa good guy and decided to get rid of them without really telling anyone, shooting video to prove it or making a detailed log of it...as required by the UN.

Not too many people speak of the struggle between the weapons inspectors and the U.S. to beat back the forces of U.S. intelligence which were seeking to infiltrate the weapons inspectors program and use the unique access the inspectors enjoyed in Iraq for purposes other than disarmament.

You mean the US actually tried to do things OTHER than wage a war in order to dismantle Hussein's regime?? Isnt that what the left wanted all along?? Yet here is a guy admitting they "struggled" with US intelligence officers and clearly stopped those very attempts. Interesting stuff huh? Logical? I guess if it fits your own point of view.

Then there is this interview conducted on PBS in days following his resignation from the UNSCOM team

WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Well, basically, the investigations that I was tasked with carrying out by the executive chairman involved looking at exposing the means by which Iraq hides their prohibited weapons and weapons capabilities from the special commission. We needed to expose this methodology so that they used so we could get at the weapons, themselves. And the investigation has been going on for several years now, and this summer we were in the process of resuming these inspections, you know, in accordance with the agreement reached by Kofi Annan and Saddam Hussein in accordance with the Security Council resolutions that said Iraq had to comply or face severe consequences, so we're trying to get back on task. We had some very specific information, which led us to believe we could go to locations where we would find aspects of this hidden weaponry, of these hidden components, and also uncover how Iraq actually went about hiding these weapons from the commission. We had very specific information, and we believe that if we'd been allowed to accomplish this inspection, we could have achieved meaningful disarmament results.




ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ritter, does Iraq still have prescribed weapons?

Mr. Ritter: "Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability."

WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.





Ritters previous position on WMD in Iraq


Logic? I guess it doesnt really work after all.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

You are aware that the one BIG source the Americans had was an informant who later changed his tune and said he had just told the Americans what they wanted to hear so he would get what he wanted out of the deal? Its funny that we expect the media to get confirmation on a story, but the government isn't smart enough to do so when it is the evidence that is going to lead to war and the loss of countless lives. Logic was completely lost in this situation and has turned out to be one of the biggest political/strategic ###### ups in memory.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Aug 22 2004, 12:35 PM
You are aware that the one BIG source the Americans had was an informant who later changed his tune and said he had just told the Americans what they wanted to hear so he would get what he wanted out of the deal? Its funny that we expect the media to get confirmation on a story, but the government isn't smart enough to do so when it is the evidence that is going to lead to war and the loss of countless lives. Logic was completely lost in this situation and has turned out to be one of the biggest political/strategic ###### ups in memory.

HUH???

ONE big source? How about the FACT he had used them in offensive invasions in the past, as well as spraying Iraqi citizens with them AFTER the war in 1991?

Fer chrissakes Lanny...the ENTIRE UN security council...all 15 countries at the time ALL agreed the Iraq's had WMD...wtf do you think the 17 resolutions were all about anyhow?

Russia admitted it, China admitted it, France Germany....all agreed that the had a HUGE biological weapons program. They only disagreed with an invasion to oust the regime....based on the imminent threat claim by Bush. THAT was the one big screwup on his part....stupid claim.

Logic is a word you should really stop using in your argument....unless logic equates to Hussein becoming a stellar citizen of the world after 30 years of oppression, aggression and invasions.
All because he felt like it and did so without telling anyone.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

David Kay, eapons inspector, about the WMD claims (in the link I posted in my last post).

In 1998, you said Saddam had "not nearly disarmed." Now you say he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind?

I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact. To say that Saddam's doing it is in total disregard to the fact that if he gets caught he's a dead man and he knows it. Deterrence has been adequate in the absence of inspectors but this is not a situation that can succeed in the long term. In the long term you have to get inspectors back in.

Iraq's borders are porous. Why couldn't Saddam have obtained the capacity to produce WMD since 1998 when the weapons inspectors left?

I am more aware than any UN official that Iraq has set up covert procurement funds to violate sanctions. This was true in 1997-1998, and I'm sure its true today. Of course Iraq can do this. The question is, has someone found that what Iraq has done goes beyond simple sanctions violations? We have tremendous capabilities to detect any effort by Iraq to obtain prohibited capability. The fact that no one has shown that he has acquired that capability doesn't necessarily translate into incompetence on the part of the intelligence community. It may mean that he hasn't done anything.

Oh, here's some crazy out there conspiracy theory about the gassing of the Kurds (which apparently happened, or didn't happen) before the Kuwait Invasion.

More stuff.

I do recall horrifying pictures from Iraq on TV at that point in my life, so I am sceptical, but it's there.