Bush: Iraq's WMD May Have Been Destroyed
 

full article here

So, one of the major reasons now is "officially" false? or what? :mad:

But hey, the iraqi people are now free to choose a new goverment, as long as it is no islamic goverment of course...

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/11...or_Iraq+.shtml

bull crap, now that he cant find 'em, iraq has destroyed 'em


i'm willing to wait though

I don't think there were any to tell you the truth.

The point is moot at this point however

Re: Bush: Iraq's WMD May Have Been Destroyed
 

Good. One of the reason's for the turmoil in the middle east is that Islam isn't one big happy religion, it has different sects. It'd be like Ireland-- If the catholics are in power the prodestants are mad and vice versa.

Never realease photos
 

As stated before let these pictures serve as proof that Iraq is definatley up to no good.

[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0PQDXAn0RIAkPUXTuu*7Ep4oua09z!gNUmGXLdvH9rvnfs3Y9tP5MlyyAhHNT0SNW!EU3*E8!3hXIpV4Mx270QwSScXiqUapO/DV.gif?dc=4675419028627321851[/IMG]

[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0QwD0ApUTLZAAxM6EvfZUrTpD9CyWY4Oy6Or0ZmOVKs85Xdxak2JNcgVhNamOW6umVZIifQlV8Q5tTRr*3NlDpz*8DKbm3GX8tsi1pp29MNU/cpgw_151.jpg?dc=4675419028603085510[/IMG]

[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0PQDiAlIRIv*CRsjU0oBD8jVPnqV0Ux*cgW2zKIBj7tndReuNpxbve7Ql4Bv0qKhjeoQPCBcfxG!XGVNgGCfYNM12PkGXQt6o/22.jpg?dc=4675419028601944958[/IMG]

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0QgDiA...19028666194487

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQAAA...19028636813729

[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RgDXAiEVSPdfTcTsliNU4TdwGyQNxsYqVzB7yV5WxzXMBcFW3pn*tzj4WYqDh3CKq!7slfHlERW2jOD8dv3ipE!2qGzSDGR6Q8K50pHvbgA/oildrums50_.jpg?dc=4675419029381958740[/IMG]

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RwAAA...19029376391190

[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RADiAsUTs5zKdDYxSxACL8a5hfthRXPubvtGsWh1!MstusliEPPFqHbj*8TYOD0L2TL*PcjxtcTDc*r2CNcBTF2g*LZugo9JexaXWqrdY14/D_day250_.jpg?dc=4675419028609648856[/IMG]

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0QQDXA...19028657095519

Nice one, Sun Tzu

Where'd you get those pictures? The second from the last looks like it may be tampered with.

You're kidding right?

Sun Tzu, grow up will ya?

Thank you Dragonlich for showing me the path, but what I really need is a droid that understands the binary language of Botchi.

*waves his hand in front of Sun Tzu* These are not the droids you are looking for.

maybe too early but

maybe all the nay sayers should wait 9 years like we had to for all the inspections to work, huh?

I sure hope they find something 100% concrete, or we're gonna look like a bunch of jackasses.

<img src="http://www.theforce.net/Skystation/animations3/desert.jpg">

I'm still waiting, and I hope the CNN thing is accurate. However. There is a little flaw in your logic reconmike.

If there aren't any WMD to speak of, what would the Inspectors have found in 9 years?

I think GWB will lose a lot of face internationally if nothing is found.

He has a face to loose?

I really do not think GW is worried about saving face, he has some huge balls doing what was right and needed even though the Gore cry babies where whinning and bitching about it.
Maybe just maybe a country will think before aiding a terrorist group.

Example...Syria, North Korea, and Iran all want dialogue now. Why? Because GW has the balls Slick Willie did not have(that is except to put them on that fatty Monica's chin) to stand up to Rogue states with American might.

What could be the reason for GWB not to let an independant group verify a WMD-find? Anyone?

Shit, if I was on the most powerful nation in the world's list of "Countries to be conquered" I'd want dialogue too.

...meaning that Bush's policy does work.

In some cases confrontation is the only way to make other governments realize you mean business. It worked with Reagan versus the Soviet Union, and it seems to work with Bush and the middle-east.

It is stupid to give credit to Dubya for the "preemptive" attacks.

Any president in his/her right mind would do the SAME. Nader or Gore would have bombed Afganistan/Iraq/rest of the world.

Did America think when it was aiding terrorist groups? Or how about when we aided the Taliban? Or sold WMD's to Saddam to kill Iraninans?

Now to your "American might" statement...That is not a way to get the world on our side.
These "rogue" states are bitter and resentful for years of backstabbing and ignorance by the Red White and the Blue. Do you really feel devestating a whole nation will really elimiate the bitterness?

How has the destruction of Baghdad brought, us Americans who are paying for this, any more feeling of safety? Are the Twin Towers back?

The colorful and interesting "Terror threat level" sits at the same spot it was before iraq was destroyed.

"How has the destruction of Baghdad brought, us Americans who are paying for this, any more feeling of safety? Are the Twin Towers back?"

Guess that would depend a whole lot on what your definition of destruction is. Does't look like it has destroyed - or for that matter even damaged to any great extent. Destruction is what Europe looked like after WW II. I would imagine that in 30 days, other than some damage to government buildings, Baghdad will be in better physical shape than it was prior to when the Baghdad Urban Renewal Project commenced. Are we feeling safer? I think you can answer that questioin for your self! Have there been any more attacks on this country other than those of 9-11? Do you honestly feel that was all there was planned - that they intended to make this a one day stand with nothing else to follow? I don't care for the current Attorney General (I think he is a Bible thumping twit!) - I do not like the way some things have been done but they obviously have been effective and accomplished what was intended.

" Nader or Gore would have bombed Afganistan/Iraq/rest of the world" ... One might ask what you've been smoking on this one!

Quoted - Simple_Min

I think the Baghdad's destrudction ( directly and indrectly due to bombings) has been discussed here so i'm not going to touch up on that.

9-11 occured many many years after the incidents of the 80's. Although there are many plots being foiled ( thankfully! ), the stageering number of plots is shocking. Keep in mind we are only hearing about the one's that are being foiled so there is this other percentage of plots in development that the "pre emtive" hawks haven't gotten to yet.

So as time reaches infinity, our safety in relation to time will be approaching zero.

Either way you look at it, this current policy/method of prevention is a short term project. This will not help in the long term.

The US if FAR more concerned with the reconstruction of oil facilities. How are they planning to repair all the cultural damage done by looters? How you noticed how quick the US secured the oil fields, and how they didn't give a rat's ass bout the Iraquis cultural heritage by not protecting the museums and buildings of the kind. It doesnt matter what reasons the US administration claims it went to war for... they are just after the oil. Freeing the iraqui people... weapons of mass destruction....:rolleyes: pigs fly....

I'd really like to hear about what you think Gore or Nader would have done? That is really getting out there!

lol geez.

Okay, do you think a US President would not approve the "retaliation" of 9/11 on the next day as resident bush did?

When public opinion was overwhelmingly supportive of attacking Al Queda, why would non-republican president say "No, we will use the path of justice and law and find those who did this and then attack."

My whole point for saying this is to unattach this "positive aura" bush is getting for "doing a good job"

He isn't doing anything for one, and he isn't doing anything that a Non Republican president wouldn't do. (Foreign, not domestic matters)

Damned if you aren't right! We were far more interested in trying to protect their only basic source of income than we were other things. It would have been nice if we could have left a detachment of troops at every building in Iraq to protect it from Iraqi people who reacted to having the ability to do something on their own for the first time in decades. The only problem with this logic would have been the resulting need for very little transportation to return what was left of our military - if anything at all was left. No militray in the world is large enough to disperse troops like this and hopefully, no military commander is inane enough to attempt it. As a former history teacher and a history buff I feel very badly about the looting of their museum - especially since it appears from most accounts to have been an inside job so far as those antiqities with monetary value were concerned. It is extremely hard, no, it is impossible to protect a people from their own corrupt government.

Not meaning to beat a dead horse but neither of these two are going to do anything other than hug a tree - until pigs fly!

"Are we safer"

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030505&s=cohen

More on the "safety" issue of us Americans.

Ignorance is bilss, i suppose.

Interesting article - interesting bio on the author. I was tempted to bring each of the seven points he made back to the board and look at tem individually - India and Pakistan - They're talking!

North Korea? Wants to talk!

The other points along this line deal with the recruiting of young Arabs to the Palestinian cause - looks like they are talking more seriously about settling their differences now that in any time in recent history. One cause of resentment has been our presence in Saudi Arabia - that is ending.

There is just something about watching someone you are afraid of getting the dog crap slapped out of them that gets neighbors attention. Will Iran get rid of its current theocracy? If the Iraqi thing works out changes will take place among all of Iraq's neighbors.

Hmm, if one of the biggest oil fields is right across the border from Kuwait, and the US troops are attacking from that country... why would they *not* secure that oil field? After all, not securing it would mean the Iraqis could set it ablaze (fucking up visibility, the region's environment, and the future source of Iraqi income), or attack the US from the rear...

As for the museums: how would you have reacted if the US had stopped the looting by shooting dozens of those thieves, as was probably required? Is protecting cultural heritage more important than protecting human lives?

Don't you think it could be more a delaying tactic than actually wanting to negotiate?

(by all means I wasn't being sarcastic, it's a legitimate question.)

I mean, if I had the world's largest military on my backporch, I would certainly say I wanted to talk. Don't you think that once we move out of the area, or at least move a massive chunk of the forces, that Kim Jong Il and company will be back to their old ways?

I am 100% sure teh the US will find these WMD... even if saddam destroyed all of his... why do you think they wont let the UN inspectors in? it is because the allied inspectors are "looking" for them them, by themselves.... then they will show it to the UN when they find something *wink* *wing*

The Nazis were a big fan of it too, to play the old "Bush is a Nazi" card.

Tssk... bad comparison. And perhaps a sign of uncertainty about the outcome of the discussion? ;)

I have yet to see Bush conquer Europe to create "lebensraum" for the superior American people. That scenario is quite far removed from the one where a big country shows it's muscles to convince smaller ones not to piss it off. The first scenario is offensive, and the other defensive in nature.

Yeah, I used it for the sheer fact no one else had yet. It's required in any anti-war/pro-war discussion to compare Bush to the Nazis.:D

Yeah, throw a match into a museum and see what happens. Now throw a match into an oil well. Compare the two reactions. Oil field desctruction would have been on an enormous scale compared to the lootings.

Not really. If we were like Nazi's, we would have told France we're invading Iraq, and they get half if they go along and not attack us. We would then enter into a war and half way through, attack them anyways. :D

Dubya's most recent soundbites refute this earlier insinuation...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2999225.stm

If we don't find 'em, and Iraq becomes Iran II...what a war to win, and a peace to lose.