if we were deceived will an impeachment happen? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Dilbert1234567 · 06-07-2003, 11:06 AM

This is only if there was foul play on the administrations side.

Simply put, if the administration lied about the evidence for war, is that an impeachable offence?

Remember impeachment means trying to be impeached, going through an investigation, not being kicked out of office, for example Clinton was impeached, just it did not succeed.

The_Dude · 06-07-2003, 11:23 AM

not when the republicans control both the house and the senate (and the supreme court, but irrelevant)

Kadath · 06-07-2003, 11:31 AM

Amen, Dude. Though, taking devil's advocate, Bush would actually have to lie under oath to mirror Clinton's scenario, yes? I'm not condoning any sort of deception by the government, just trying to head our Republicans off at the pass.

Dilbert1234567 · 06-07-2003, 11:51 AM

OMG i forgot to spell check the title (Sh!t)

well that just makes me look real smart

MSD's Edit: Fixed that for you. I hope you don't mind

debaser · 06-07-2003, 11:55 AM

Plausible deniablity. 'Nuff said.

Sty · 06-07-2003, 01:10 PM

I truly hope that he will be thrown out of office, brought into court for "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause and for the federal crime "anti-conspiracy statute" which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

smooth · 06-07-2003, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dilbert1234567
This is only if there was foul play on the administrations side.

Simply put, if the administration lied about the evidence for war, is that an impeachable offence?

Remember impeachment means trying to be impeached, going through an investigation, not being kicked out of office, for example Clinton was impeached, just it did not succeed.

this might be better as a postulate:

If found to be the case, should he be?

(my answer to that is yes)

The_Dude · 06-07-2003, 02:09 PM

i think he should be, look @ all the lives lost.

but you really think that the party in power (both houses) would even think about starting an impeachment proceeding (nixon is an exception)

reconmike · 06-07-2003, 02:46 PM

To all the liberals out there, maybe the tooth fairy or santa claus will bring you a formidable opponent for GW in '04.

Lets be real Iraq had missles that flew longer than allowed by the UN resoultions and there has been a mobile bio-lab found.
Why would you propose they had to have a bio-lab that was mobile?

These two items already prove that they had illegal weapons.

So in my book GW wasn't deceiving anybody.

And last of all why would a leader of a country on the brink of war with the worlds strongest military not cooperate with the worlds governing body the UN?

He was hiding something.

smooth · 06-07-2003, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
To all the liberals out there, maybe the tooth fairy or santa claus will bring you a formidable opponent for GW in '04.

Lets be real Iraq had missles that flew longer than allowed by the UN resoultions and there has been a mobile bio-lab found.
Why would you propose they had to have a bio-lab that was mobile?

These two items already prove that they had illegal weapons.

So in my book GW wasn't deceiving anybody.

And last of all why would a leader of a country on the brink of war with the worlds strongest military not cooperate with the worlds governing body the UN?

He was hiding something.

First of all, the while the missiles flew farther than allowable they didn't have a long enough range to reach anything.

The direct quote was from a UN inspector who claimed that such an argument was a technicality--for example, if the missile flies 110 km, we said they couldn't have them if they flew over 100km but the closest target was 170 km away, there is no imminent danger to us or our allies.

(I made these numbers up because I saw the interview on televison months ago--whatever numbers he used were along the lines of the ones I constructed)

Secondly, the "mobile labs" seem to not have been used for any WMDs according to the most recent news. Exactly when we will know is as yet undetermined since the investigation is not open to outside corroberation.

Finally, none of this matters because you've already made up your mind about the matter. I am somewhat surprised by anyone who makes his or her mind up in the face of a lack of information--and I am even more concerned when such people advocate that others should follow suit.

The_Dude · 06-07-2003, 03:13 PM

about the bio weapon lab's, here is a story about it

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/1941172

Quote:

Analysts have doubts Iraqi trailers were germ labs
By JUDITH MILLER and WILLIAM J. BROAD
New York Times

U.S. and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence are disputing claims that two mysterious trailers found in Iraq were for making deadly germs. In interviews over the last week, they said the mobile units were more likely for other purposes and charged that the evaluation process had been damaged by a rush to judgment.

"Everyone has wanted to find the `smoking gun' so much that they may have wanted to have reached this conclusion," said one intelligence expert who has seen the trailers and like some others spoke on condition that he not be identified. He added, "I am very upset with the process."

The Bush administration has said the two trailers, which forces found in Iraq in April and May, are evidence that Saddam Hussein was hiding a program for biological warfare. In a "white paper" analysis last week, the administration publicly detailed its case, even while conceding discrepancies in the evidence and a lack of hard proof.

Now, intelligence analysts in the Middle East, as well as in the United States and Britain, are disclosing serious doubts about the germ evidence in what appears to be a bitter debate within the intelligence community. Skeptics said their initial judgments of a weapon application for the trailers had faltered as new evidence came to light.

Bill Harlow, a spokesman for the CIA, said the dissenters "are entitled to their opinion, of course, but we stand behind the assertions in the white paper."

At least three teams of Western experts have examined the trailers and evidence from them. While the first two groups to see the evidence were largely convinced that the vehicles were intended to make germ agents, the third group of more senior analysts disagreed sharply over the function of the trailers, with several members expressing strong skepticism, some of the dissenters said.

"I have no great confidence that it's a fermenter," a senior analyst with long experience in unconventional arms said of a tank which the first investigators thought had been used to multiply seed germs into lethal swarms. The government's public report, he added, "was a rushed job and looks political." This analyst had not seen the trailers but had reviewed evidence from them.

The skeptical experts said the mobile plants lacked gear for steam sterilization, normally a prerequisite for any kind of biological production, peaceful or otherwise. Its lack of availability between production runs would threaten to let in germ contaminants, resulting in failed weapons.

Senior intelligence officials in Washington rebutted the skeptics, saying, for instance, that the Iraqis might have obtained the needed steam for sterilization from a separate supply truck.

The debate came as the U.N. nuclear agency returned to Iraq Friday after a three-month absense. Representatives from the International Atomic Energy Agency -- operating this time under continuous U.S. military escort -- will assess what's missing from the nation's biggest nuclear plant and how to find any missing materials.

originally by the ny times, but they require registration, so i found the same story at houston chronicle.

Dilbert1234567 · 06-07-2003, 03:41 PM

answer me this: if saddam had thease Big Bad weapons, why did he no use them? he knew he was going down , why not take out as many Troops as he could.

why did he not use the weapons the addministration said he Wanted to use against the US.

reconmike · 06-07-2003, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dilbert1234567
answer me this: if saddam had thease Big Bad weapons, why did he no use them? he knew he was going down , why not take out as many Troops as he could.

why did he not use the weapons the addministration said he Wanted to use against the US.

When we finish digging up his bones we will....ahh no that wont work, I guess we will never know.

seretogis · 06-07-2003, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dilbert1234567
answer me this: if saddam had thease Big Bad weapons, why did he no use them? he knew he was going down , why not take out as many Troops as he could.

why did he not use the weapons the addministration said he Wanted to use against the US.

They were used -- on his own people.

seretogis · 06-07-2003, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
Finally, none of this matters because you've already made up your mind about the matter. I am somewhat surprised by anyone who makes his or her mind up in the face of a lack of information--and I am even more concerned when such people advocate that others should follow suit.

The search isn't over yet. Are you trying to say that you haven't made up your mind?

Dilbert1234567 · 06-07-2003, 05:32 PM

If we are told by our President that he is a big scarry man who wants to hurt us with his big scary weapons, Why Did He Not Use The WMD to take some of us with him. He had no trouble gassing 'his people' so why would he not gas our troops.

The_Dude · 06-07-2003, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
They were used -- on his own people.

i think what he meant was, as the battle was going sour for the iraqi's why not use them?

he knew he was going to lose, so why would he waste them on his OWN people?

and there have been no massive civilian casualty reports during the ending phase of the war, he didnt use anything when the time was about up.

so, why not use them against the invading troops? he has nothing to lose!

Dilbert1234567 · 06-07-2003, 05:46 PM

You hit the nail on the head on what i was saying, Saddam knew he was going to lose, he even knew where our command was set up, he did send missiles to it, but no chemical agents were aboard Just conventional explosives.

Why if he had these WMD would he just let them sit on a shelf collecting dust, the whole point of WMD is to level the playing field between a far superior country and a small country, that is, why small countries want WMD, as an insurance policy against larger neighbors.

But if he was caught like a rat in a trap knowing he would soon die or at least lose his regime, why would he have not used a last ditch effort to save him self, at the very least to take some of the invaders with him

seretogis · 06-07-2003, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
so, why not use them against the invading troops? he has nothing to lose!

Rumsfeld said that if he used WMDs against us that he would use "any means necessary" to destroy Saddam's regime. To me, that sounds like a threat of nuclear retaliation.

in fact, LINK!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...1/112516.shtml

Quote:

The Times quoted the document as saying, "The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including potentially nuclear weapons - to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies."

The_Dude · 06-07-2003, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Rumsfeld said that if he used WMDs against us that he would use "any means necessary" to destroy Saddam's regime. To me, that sounds like a threat of nuclear retaliation.

in fact, LINK!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...1/112516.shtml

does it matter if the US used the marines, army, and airforce or if the US used "any means necessary"?

the end result would have been the same, whether the US used what we used or if we had used "any means necessary".

saddam was going to lose.

you really think that saddam was scared by the "any means necessary" deal?

seretogis · 06-07-2003, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
does it matter if the US used the marines, army, and airforce or if the US used "any means necessary"?

you really think that saddam was scared by the "any means necessary" deal?

Yes, very much so. There is a big difference between a ground assault and multiple nuclear strikes. :P

The_Dude · 06-07-2003, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Yes, very much so. There is a big difference between a ground assault and multiple nuclear strikes. :P

ok, look @ the end result if either action was taken.

saddam would lose power, end up dead or go hiding (more likely).

so, i dont see why he wouldnt launch any. he had nothing to lose!

Sparhawk · 06-07-2003, 08:19 PM

As an American, I hope we find the NBC, find Bin Laden, find Hussein, most important of all I want us to be right.

As a Democrat, I like seeing Bush dance. Dance, Bush, Dance!!

Kadath · 06-07-2003, 09:17 PM

Sometimes I sit and wonder if I could be wrong in my view of things. I don't know how the other side can be so positive about things I am sure in my heart are wrong. I think about going over to the other side, just to see what it's like. Then I see that the other side doesn't seem to talk much about its mistakes, rather using misdirection or often simple silence to answer difficult questions. View reconmike here. His answer to "why didn't Saddam use WsMD?" was "Saddam is dead, guess we'll never know." Seretogis took a fair crack at it, but I think Dude answered that response pretty well. It's not as if a nuke would kill Saddam any more than a conventional weapon. All it would do is kill more innocent civilians and make the area uninhabitable for thousands of years. In fact, I would think Saddam, facing the end, would want to stab at us from hell's heart and provoke the US into a nuclear strike, an act that would earn us the condemnation of the entire world.

Dilbert1234567 · 06-07-2003, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Yes, very much so. There is a big difference between a ground assault and multiple nuclear strikes. :P

You really think that this scared Saddam? He knew he was going to lose his power; the only thing left to do was to lash at everyone he could, like during the 91 campaign, he lashed out at Israel, why would he not lash with all his power at us. He had nothing more to lose. Why would he not use the weapons unless he had none to use

Dilbert1234567 · 06-07-2003, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Rumsfeld said that if he used WMDs against us that he would use "any means necessary" to destroy Saddam's regime. To me, that sounds like a threat of nuclear retaliation.

in fact, LINK!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...1/112516.shtml

Where as I don’t disagree at all that he put nuclear retaliation on the table... the site in which you got this from is quite bias.

Further can you not see that Saddam knew that either way he would loose his country, so he had nothing to lose from using WMD, he only had things to gain. As some one who was characterizes as some one who gassed his own country (I don’t dispute this) and was not hesitant to use them, why now when he is at the end would he have a change in heart and not use them against us, the only explanation is that he did not have any to use against us, either they were packaged and stored where they could not be used (I, Blix as well as others doubt this) or he does not even have any WMD.

seretogis · 06-07-2003, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dilbert1234567
Where as I don’t disagree at all that he put nuclear retaliation on the table... the site in which you got this from is quite bias.

Uhh.. It's a recap of a Washington Times article. If the site offends you, feel free to view it there.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dilbert1234567
Further can you not see that Saddam knew that either way he would loose his country, so he had nothing to lose from using WMD, he only had things to gain.

I'm sure I'll be flamed for saying this, but I wouldn't doubt that he didn't use them because if he did so, France/Russia wouldn't smuggle him out of Iraq.

If he's even still alive, that is.

He has everything to gain by not using WMDs against us, as he proves our case if he does. If he were to be able to smuggle them into Iran / Syria / etc. in time, he would win the propaganda war just like he thinks he did after the Gulf War.

Either way, I find it amusing that you are 100% sure that I am dead wrong about what Hussein was thinking, but you somehow know. That's amazing. He may be a murderous dictator, but he wasn't a complete idiot.

KillerYoda · 06-08-2003, 05:38 AM

I think if we impeached Clinton over getting a blowjob, we should impeach Bush over going forth with an unneeded war. If in the end they find nothing, he flatout fucking lied to the people. We paid for the war with money and lives, so we have a right to take action if it was for nothing.

If not for American lives and taxes, for the fact that everytime I order "French fries" at a restaurant some backwoods, non-voting, inbred, near-retarded motherfucker says "Don't you mean 'freedom fries?'"

reconmike · 06-08-2003, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KillerYoda
I think if we impeached Clinton over getting a blowjob, we should impeach Bush over going forth with an unneeded war. If in the end they find nothing, he flatout fucking lied to the people. We paid for the war with money and lives, so we have a right to take action if it was for nothing.

If not for American lives and taxes, for the fact that everytime I order "French fries" at a restaurant some backwoods, non-voting, inbred, near-retarded motherfucker says "Don't you mean 'freedom fries?'"

Let's tell it correctly, Slick Willie was impeached for perjury. Which is a federal offense.
It is still alittle early to tell if GW was lying or not, furthermore the US relied on intelligence reports because Hussien did not cooperate with the inspectors and prove of the weapons destruction.

UMMM I like freedom fries.

Liquor Dealer · 06-08-2003, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dilbert1234567
You really think that this scared Saddam? He knew he was going to lose his power; the only thing left to do was to lash at everyone he could, like during the 91 campaign, he lashed out at Israel, why would he not lash with all his power at us. He had nothing more to lose. Why would he not use the weapons unless he had none to use

I think that he was given enough time, thanks to the stalling by his European allies, to move everything he owned somewhere else. I do not think he believed that this would amount to anything at all and at most, would be no more that what took place with Desert Storm. I think ke honestly did not think we would come after him in the way that we did. I think that he probably thought we would make a lot of noise, he would have a chance to make some type of compromise and all would be well. If you look at his past history you will see that when he has used gas, nerve agents, etc., it has been to deal with domestic issues. That was probably his only intent in having them. He was also under a lot of pressure from his allies who were stalling the UN. They didn't want to be caught with their pants down either. This will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction unless the Middle-East thing erupts into what it could potentially become and endanger the whole area. If this were to happen then the entire world would have to either put up or shut up and deal with the issue. The weapons exist. No matter which side of this argument you choose to take you know they exist - no one can say they are not aware of Saddam's past history - he had them - he used some of them - the UN inspectors did not find those that were left. They are still in the neighborhood.

smooth · 06-08-2003, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
If you look at his past history you will see that when he has used gas, nerve agents, etc., it has been to deal with domestic issues. That was probably his only intent in having them.

How do you reconcile this statement with the claim those weapons were an imminent threat to the United States and Britain?

The_Dude · 06-08-2003, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KillerYoda
I think if we impeached Clinton over getting a blowjob, we should impeach Bush over going forth with an unneeded war. If in the end they find nothing, he flatout fucking lied to the people. We paid for the war with money and lives, so we have a right to take action if it was for nothing.

If not for American lives and taxes, for the fact that everytime I order "French fries" at a restaurant some backwoods, non-voting, inbred, near-retarded motherfucker says "Don't you mean 'freedom fries?'"

nobody died because of that blowjob (except a bunch of clinton's sperm cells, which are not human! (we can debate that later!)

but for the impeachment to take place, they need a majority of votes in the house. doesnt look like that's gonna happen.

Dilbert1234567 · 06-08-2003, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
nobody died because of that blowjob (except a bunch of clinton's sperm cells, which are not human! (we can debate that later!)

Quote:

DAD:
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.
I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,
Because
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
CHILDREN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
GIRL:
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.
CHILDREN:
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
MUM:
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.
MEN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
WOMEN:
If a sperm is wasted,...
CHILDREN:
...God get quite irate.
PRIEST:
Every sperm is sacred.
BRIDE and GROOM:
Every sperm is good.
NANNIES:
Every sperm is needed...
CARDINALS:
...In your neighbourhood!
CHILDREN:
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
FUNERAL CORTEGE:
God needs everybody's.
MOURNER #1:
Mine!
MOURNER #2:
And mine!
CORPSE:
And mine!
NUN:
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
HOLY STATUES:
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.
EVERYONE:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!

im sorry i had to

Dilbert1234567 · 06-08-2003, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis

I'm sure I'll be flamed for saying this, but I wouldn't doubt that he didn't use them because if he did so, France/Russia wouldn't smuggle him out of Iraq. If he's even still alive, that is.

He has everything to gain by not using WMDs against us, as he proves our case if he does. If he were to be able to smuggle them into Iran / Syria / etc. in time, he would win the propaganda war just like he thinks he did after the Gulf War.

Either way, I find it amusing that you are 100% sure that I am dead wrong about what Hussein was thinking, but you somehow know. That's amazing. He may be a murderous dictator, but he wasn't a complete idiot.

how can you smuggle 500 tons of nerve Agent out of the country?

Quote:

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

As I posted early in another post, 500 tons of sarin is will nearly 15000 cubic feet of substance, You Cant Just Pick Up 15000 cubic feet of powder and make out of the country with it.

Further for even suggesting that Russia or France would aid him
Shame On You.

i agree the French are a bunch or pussies but they are not the enemy, we cant just ostracizes our self from the rest of the world

XenuHubbard · 06-08-2003, 10:26 PM

Okay, it's time to stop the "used 'em on his own people-bullshit".
Saddam Hussein is not a kurd. Never was one. He will never be one.

The Kurds are being played once again. They're still being tortured and persecuted in Turkey, still being bombed in Northern Iraq by Turkey, and nobody cares.

It's okay if NATO bombs them to death.

Daval · 06-09-2003, 07:35 AM

I agree with The_dude. the votes aren't there.

Although he deserves it.

View Poll Results: Will Bush be impeached if he deceives the American people?
Yes	8	33.33%
No	16	66.67%
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

06-07-2003, 11:06 AM	#1 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	if we were deceived will an impeachemnt happen? This is only if there was foul play on the administrations side. Simply put, if the administration lied about the evidence for war, is that an impeachable offence? Remember impeachment means trying to be impeached, going through an investigation, not being kicked out of office, for example Clinton was impeached, just it did not succeed. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

06-07-2003, 11:23 AM	#2 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	not when the republicans control both the house and the senate (and the supreme court, but irrelevant) __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-07-2003, 11:31 AM	#3 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Amen, Dude. Though, taking devil's advocate, Bush would actually have to lie under oath to mirror Clinton's scenario, yes? I'm not condoning any sort of deception by the government, just trying to head our Republicans off at the pass. __________________ it's quiet in here

06-07-2003, 11:51 AM	#4 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	OMG i forgot to spell check the title (Sh!t) well that just makes me look real smart MSD's Edit: Fixed that for you. I hope you don't mind __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen Last edited by MSD; 06-07-2003 at 07:11 PM..

06-07-2003, 11:55 AM	#5 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	Plausible deniablity. 'Nuff said. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

06-07-2003, 01:10 PM	#6 (permalink)
Sty Patron Administrator Location: Tôkyô, Japan	I truly hope that he will be thrown out of office, brought into court for "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause and for the federal crime "anti-conspiracy statute" which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose." __________________ br, Sty I route, therefore you exist

06-07-2003, 02:09 PM	#8 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i think he should be, look @ all the lives lost. but you really think that the party in power (both houses) would even think about starting an impeachment proceeding (nixon is an exception) __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-07-2003, 02:46 PM	#9 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	To all the liberals out there, maybe the tooth fairy or santa claus will bring you a formidable opponent for GW in '04. Lets be real Iraq had missles that flew longer than allowed by the UN resoultions and there has been a mobile bio-lab found. Why would you propose they had to have a bio-lab that was mobile? These two items already prove that they had illegal weapons. So in my book GW wasn't deceiving anybody. And last of all why would a leader of a country on the brink of war with the worlds strongest military not cooperate with the worlds governing body the UN? He was hiding something. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

06-07-2003, 03:41 PM	#12 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	answer me this: if saddam had thease Big Bad weapons, why did he no use them? he knew he was going down , why not take out as many Troops as he could. why did he not use the weapons the addministration said he Wanted to use against the US. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

06-07-2003, 05:32 PM	#16 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	If we are told by our President that he is a big scarry man who wants to hurt us with his big scary weapons, Why Did He Not Use The WMD to take some of us with him. He had no trouble gassing 'his people' so why would he not gas our troops. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

06-07-2003, 05:46 PM	#18 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	You hit the nail on the head on what i was saying, Saddam knew he was going to lose, he even knew where our command was set up, he did send missiles to it, but no chemical agents were aboard Just conventional explosives. Why if he had these WMD would he just let them sit on a shelf collecting dust, the whole point of WMD is to level the playing field between a far superior country and a small country, that is, why small countries want WMD, as an insurance policy against larger neighbors. But if he was caught like a rat in a trap knowing he would soon die or at least lose his regime, why would he have not used a last ditch effort to save him self, at the very least to take some of the invaders with him __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

06-07-2003, 08:19 PM	#23 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	As an American, I hope we find the NBC, find Bin Laden, find Hussein, most important of all I want us to be right. As a Democrat, I like seeing Bush dance. Dance, Bush, Dance!! __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

06-07-2003, 09:17 PM	#24 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Sometimes I sit and wonder if I could be wrong in my view of things. I don't know how the other side can be so positive about things I am sure in my heart are wrong. I think about going over to the other side, just to see what it's like. Then I see that the other side doesn't seem to talk much about its mistakes, rather using misdirection or often simple silence to answer difficult questions. View reconmike here. His answer to "why didn't Saddam use WsMD?" was "Saddam is dead, guess we'll never know." Seretogis took a fair crack at it, but I think Dude answered that response pretty well. It's not as if a nuke would kill Saddam any more than a conventional weapon. All it would do is kill more innocent civilians and make the area uninhabitable for thousands of years. In fact, I would think Saddam, facing the end, would want to stab at us from hell's heart and provoke the US into a nuclear strike, an act that would earn us the condemnation of the entire world. __________________ it's quiet in here

06-08-2003, 05:38 AM	#28 (permalink)
KillerYoda The Original Emo Gangsta Location: Sixth Floor, Texas School Book Depository	I think if we impeached Clinton over getting a blowjob, we should impeach Bush over going forth with an unneeded war. If in the end they find nothing, he flatout fucking lied to the people. We paid for the war with money and lives, so we have a right to take action if it was for nothing. If not for American lives and taxes, for the fact that everytime I order "French fries" at a restaurant some backwoods, non-voting, inbred, near-retarded motherfucker says "Don't you mean 'freedom fries?'" __________________ "So you're Chekov, huh? Well, this here's McCoy. Find a Spock, we got us an away team."

06-08-2003, 10:26 PM	#35 (permalink)
XenuHubbard Cute and Cuddly Location: Teegeeack.	Okay, it's time to stop the "used 'em on his own people-bullshit". Saddam Hussein is not a kurd. Never was one. He will never be one. The Kurds are being played once again. They're still being tortured and persecuted in Turkey, still being bombed in Northern Iraq by Turkey, and nobody cares. It's okay if NATO bombs them to death. __________________ The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me. "What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

06-09-2003, 07:35 AM	#36 (permalink)
Daval Junkie Location: The True North Strong and Free!	I agree with The_dude. the votes aren't there. Although he deserves it. __________________ "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." Winston Churchill