For everyone who said Iraq was not a threat... - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

powerclown · 10-10-2004, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Aside from 1069 American dead, other troops wounded and maimed, the
$120 billion spent (borrowed) the damge inflicted to U.S. military readiness,
and the misuse of reserve and national guard forces, and the backdoor draft
that will make future recruitment of new volunteers more difficult, to name only
the impact on this misuse of U.S. forces in the "war on terror", is the continued deception of nearly half the electorate by Bush and Cheney.

I guess I just have more faith in the intelligence of the other 100 million or so Americans who support this war. I don't believe they feel themselves decepted; I think they saw 9/11 and realized fully from then on the nature of the enemy we're dealing with, and agree with current US policy that the only way to prevent more 9/11s is measured, decisive pre-emption.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Powerclown still argues "we take it to them and fight it now, or we wait until they bring it to us", when the truth is that Iraq had nothing to do
with 9/11 or the war against the people who the president claimed attacked
this country. How can you "take it to them", when there would have been no
conflict with those who kill our troops in Iraq today, if we had not invaded
Iraq under false, and ever changing pretenses ?

Iraq was a time-bomb waiting to go off. The mad dog needed to be put to sleep. Scratch one country off the list of potential terrorist allies willing to sell them WMD to light up an infidel Western city or three. The entire middle east and western hemisphere should be thankful Hussein is gone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Bush feeds his propaganda to his faithful base; they parrot his empty.
macho, "bring it on", rhetoric, while American troops continue to die in
an unnecessary war that Bush intiated. If our troops were killing foreign
fighters in Iraq in any numbers, why would our government not offer proof
of this by inviting journalists and international monitors from the Red Crescent, Red Cross, and the U.N. to view the bodies and the evidence, and
even make a validating point by inviting the Red Crescent to identify the
bodies and repatriot themn to their country of origin. Instead, we hear Bush's
bluster about taking the fight to them instead of fighting them here, echoed
by those who need no truth from Bush to continue to believe his every word!

Indeed, keep the American people protected and far from the fighting, while at the same time pacify a hostile anti-western terrorist arms depot.

host · 10-10-2004, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I guess I just have more faith in the intelligence of the other 100 million or so Americans who support this war. I don't believe they feel themselves decepted; I think they saw 9/11 and realized fully from then on the nature of the enemy we're dealing with, and agree with current US policy that the only way to prevent more 9/11s is measured, decisive pre-emption.

Iraq was a time-bomb waiting to go off. The mad dog needed to be put to sleep. Scratch one country off the list of potential terrorist allies willing to sell them WMD to light up an infidel Western city or three. The entire middle east and western hemisphere should be thankful Hussein is gone.

Indeed, keep the American people protected and far from the fighting, while at the same time pacify a hostile anti-western terrorist arms depot.

You made my argument for me. Iraq did not attack the U.S. "The fighting" did
not have to happen. Our president and his neocons caused an unnecessary
war. None of the reasons for launching the attack on Iraq were valid. Bush
knew this in advance. You demonstrate that you cannot accept this. You have no facts to back your statement that "Iraq was a time-bomb waiting to go off". Your president has, however, made your statement a true
prediction for the future. We are fighting Iraqis in Iraq, who Bush elected,
unnecessarily to fight!

Quote:

Iraq <a href="http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/CIA/CIA-2-23-01.htm">CIA Director Tenent's Feb., 2001 Testimony to Congress</a>

Since Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, Baghdad has refused to allow United Nations' inspectors into Iraq as required by Security Council Resolution 687. In spite of ongoing UN efforts to establish a follow-on inspection regime comprising the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the IAEA's Iraq Action Team, no UN inspections occurred during this reporting period. Moreover, the automated video monitoring system installed by the UN at known and suspect WMD facilities in Iraq is no longer operating. Having lost this on-the-ground access, it is more difficult for the UN or the US to accurately assess the current state of Iraq's WMD programs.

We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs, although given its past behavior, this type of activity must be regarded as likely. We assess that since the suspension of UN inspections in December of 1998, Baghdad has had the capability to reinitiate both its CW and BW programs within a few weeks to months. Without an inspection monitoring program, however, it is more difficult to determine if Iraq has done so.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml">Feb. 4, 2004 The Man Who Knew</a>
Powell said that when he made the case for war before the United Nations one year ago, he used evidence that reflected the best judgments of the intelligence agencies.

But long before the war started, there was plenty of doubt among intelligence analysts about Saddam's weapons.

One analyst, Greg Thielmann, told Correspondent Scott Pelley last October that key evidence cited by the administration was misrepresented to the public.

Thielmann should know. He had been in charge of analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Powell's own intelligence bureau.......

"The main problem was that the senior administration officials have what I call faith-based intelligence. They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show."
Greg Thielmann

Bush and his administration knew the truth but later misled and distorted the actual threat Saddam posed to the rest of the
world are press remarks from Colin Powell on Feb. 24:

Quote:

2001:"QUESTION: The Egyptian press editorial commentary that we have seen here has been bitterly aggressive in denouncing the U.S. role and not welcoming you. I am wondering whether you believe you accomplished anything during your meetings to assuage concerns about the air strikes against Iraq and the continuing sanctions?
SECRETARY POWELL: I received a very warm welcome from the leaders and I know there is some unhappiness as expressed in the Egyptian press. I understand that, but at the same time, with respect to the no-fly zones and the air strikes that we from time to time must conduct to defend our pilots, I just want to remind everybody that the purpose of those no-fly zones and the purpose of those occasional strikes to protect our pilots, is not to pursue an aggressive stance toward Iraq, but to defend the people that the no-fly zones are put in to defend. The people in the southern part of Iraq and the people in the northern part of Iraq, and these zones have a purpose, and their purpose is to protect people -- protect Arabs -- not to affect anything else in the region. And we have to defend ourselves.
We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."
Please take note that the above quote comes from a page on the
U.S. State Departments own website. <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm">http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm</a>

Next, we offer a quote from National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice, date July 29, '01:

Quote:

"(Larry) KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?

(Dr. Condoleeza) RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.

We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that."
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html">http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html</a>

Iraq was no "time bomb"......and now it is ! If the "new justification" that
Bush spews as the reason for this war is true, that Saddam could spread
knowledge of how to make WMD's to terrorists, why is the following happening?:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.wtnh.com/global/story.asp?s=2378632&ClientType=Print">Iraq-Arms Makers for Hire</a>
U.S. bid to rein in Iraq weapons scientists slows to crawl

(AP. Oct. 2, 2004 4:25 PM) _ The dangers of Baghdad and a shortage of cash have set back the U.S. effort to put Iraqi weapons scientists to work rebuilding their country and keep them off the global job market for makers of doomsday arms.

To steer them to civilian projects and training, the State Department had planned a dozen workshops and seminars for hundreds of idled specialists from Iraq's old nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, beginning in the first half of 2004.

It also envisioned an early project, a desalination plant, as a model for other ventures employing scientists, engineers and technicians who once built weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear physicists might work in radiotherapy, for example, and chemists at environmental monitoring stations.

But the department got no new funds for the program, and none of these plans has gotten off the ground, nine months after U.S. officials said they would "jump-start" the initiative to discourage weapons experts from emigrating and offering their services to the highest bidder.

Such nearby countries as Syria, Iran and Egypt are believed to have programs in unconventional weapons that might benefit from Iraqi expertise.

This is an "imminent danger," said one of the Iraqi experts, Mahdi Obeidi.

"I hear there are some cases where scientists have left Iraq. There's a concern of proliferation, and this should be controlled," said Obeidi, an engineer and key figure in Iraq's effort to build nuclear bombs in the 1980s.

Washington arms control specialist Rose Gottemoeller agreed.

"If they're in despair because they cannot get jobs, because the entire country is in chaos, they may be driven by necessity to find work elsewhere. That could include WMD work for other countries," said Gottemoeller, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The State Department says the kidnappings, car bombings and general violence wracking much of Iraq are a major obstacle to the joint U.S.-Iraqi activities needed to build momentum in the "redirection" program, as it's called.

In fact, the program's on-the-ground manager arrived in Baghdad only three weeks ago.

Prospects for the jobs-for-scientists program had dimmed when the Bush administration, facing a projected $521 billion budget deficit this year, "flat-lined" spending in many areas. Its request to Congress calls for the same $50 million for this purpose in fiscal year 2005 as allocated in 2004, when all of it was spent on a continuing, 12-year-old program in the former Soviet Union to employ ex-weapons builders. No new money is specified for Iraq.

The coming year "is going to be a very challenging year for all programs," said Anne Harrington, deputy director of the State Department's nonproliferation office.

Discussions a year ago suggested $16 million or more in first-year costs for Iraq projects, but so far in 2004 Harrington's office has scraped up only $2 million from a State Department contingency fund.

Iraq's interim government has a "nonproliferation fund" of $37.5 million, but "it's unclear at this point how this would be used," said Raphael Della Ratta, who tracks nonproliferation programs for the Russian-American Nuclear Security Advisory Council, a private Washington group.

Della Ratta said it's also unclear just which Iraqis should be "engaged with."

His council estimates Iraq has between 2,000 and 4,000 "WMD scientists." The State Department hopes to focus on 500 key physicists, chemists, biologists and others. Although not yet working on projects, 50 of those are receiving U.S. retainer payments -- amounts undisclosed. A dozen others have been in U.S. detention since last year.

In addition, Iraq's new Ministry of Science and Technology pays stipends of about $50 to $200 a month to hundreds of others. But this "is not enough to stabilize them," said Obeidi, who left Iraq last year for the United States and was a director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Commission.

Despite Bush administration claims to the contrary, international inspectors have confirmed that Iraq's work on banned arms ended more than a decade ago, after which the scientists and engineers were diverted to work on conventional weapons, or to more peaceful pursuits.

But the U.S.-British invasion of March 2003, and the subsequent wholesale looting and arson in Baghdad, devastated many of their workplaces.

"The infrastructure was damaged, buildings were destroyed, equipment was looted," Obeidi said. Some are teaching at reopened universities, but "only a small percentage of the scientists have found work."

One more time:
There were no WMD's in Iraq.
Before 9/11 happened, there was no "excuse" to attack Iraq.
Powell, Rice, and Tenent are all on record saying that Saddam was
contained and that there was no evidence that he had reconstituted
pre-Gulf War weapons programs, They said that the sanctions and the
no fly zone patrols WERE WORKING!
Bush and Cheney keep changing the reasons we invaded Iraq, as
events unfold that expose their deliberate misleading manipulation of
some Americans and some foreigners.
The newest reason is to prevent Saddam from passing knowledge of
weapons making to terrorists. That reason is as dubious as all the others.
Can you provide anything to substantiate your defense of Bush except
to quote him? Will you even consider that this was a mistaken war that
has cost too many American and Iraqi lives and too much money, and that
it has destablizied the middle east, and exposes Bush as an international
war criminal and as an incompetent commander in chief ?
I suspect that you will continue to back his orders to send more of our
troops to their deaths in Iraq, while mistaking your unquestioning loyalty
as "patriotism", instead of as enabling a pathetic failure of a president !

powerclown · 10-10-2004, 06:06 PM

Looks like were going to have to agree to disagree host. Iraq did, in fact, have WMD. This was not a secret. The entire world knew it. I'm too lazy to go look for the links right now, maybe you might want to? Its a matter of public record. We've been over this before here. He killed a million Iranians in the Iran/Iraq War, putting mustard gas, nx/sarin-derivative and blistering agent, among others, to widespread use. He used nerve gas on the Kurdish rebels in Halabja, Northern Iraq. But don't take my word for it, research the matter yourself.

We'll possibly never know for absolute certain if he did/did not have some type of connection to 9/11, but what is known undeniably is that he had a pathological hatred of the US, he provided sanctuary to known terrorists, he personally sponsored Palestinean terrorism in Israel, he had hostile relations with every single neighboring country in the region (invading one of them) and led his country to economic ruin, a la Kim Jung-Il of N. Korea. He was an international pariah.

I really don't care what further evidence this Administration or any other subsequent Administration can or cannot bring to bear to justify action against Saddam Hussein. His public record makes the case for itself as far as I'm concerned. It takes very little imagination to conceive of the type of damage this guy could have done by arming terrorists as hostile to the West as he was.

hannukah harry · 10-10-2004, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Looks like were going to have to agree to disagree host. Iraq did, in fact, have WMD. This was not a secret. The entire world knew it. I'm too lazy to go look for the links right now, maybe you might want to? Its a matter of public record. We've been over this before here. He killed a million Iranians in the Iran/Iraq War, putting mustard gas, nx/sarin-derivative and blistering agent, among others, to widespread use. He used nerve gas on the Kurdish rebels in Halabja, Northern Iraq. But don't take my word for it, research the matter yourself.

1) chemical weapons are not WMD. i realize that they've been lumped into that catergory, but that's a pretty recent development. first of all, they don't destroy anything, and second of all, even under pristine conditions, you'll get more terror then death from them. remember the tokyo subway gas bomb? i think 11 people died when sarin was released into a subway station filled with hundreds of people. not very destructive.

2) his having chemical weapons in the 80's weren't the basis for the war. the basis was that he had be rebuilding his weapons programs since the gulf war, which has been proven to be false.

Quote:

We'll possibly never know for absolute certain if he did/did not have some type of connection to 9/11, but what is known undeniably is that he had a pathological hatred of the US, he provided sanctuary to known terrorists, he personally sponsored Palestinean terrorism in Israel, he had hostile relations with every single neighboring country in the region (invading one of them) and led his country to economic ruin, a la Kim Jung-Il of N. Korea. He was an international pariah.

you're right, we'll never know for 100% sure. but so far 99% of the evidence seems to suggest that he had no relations with al queda. and while that 1% chance means it was still possible, the other 99% is pretty damning to the point that he wasn't in cahoots with them.

Quote:

I really don't care what further evidence this Administration or any other subsequent Administration can or cannot bring to bear to justify action against Saddam Hussein. His public record makes the case for itself as far as I'm concerned. It takes very little imagination to conceive of the type of damage this guy could have done by arming terrorists as hostile to the West as he was.

so basically, you're saying that you don't care about why we went to war, you just like us being at war. cause the reasons don't seem to matter to you. i guess being blindly partisan is nice and comforting... makes you all warm and fuzzy inside...

possibly surprising, i would have been for the war if they'd just said "he's a bad man, he's got oil, and he tried to kill my dad, and he's violating sanctions that were part of the cease-fire agreement." but he didn't, he decided to create a pink unicorn to get the poeple to believe in...

pedro padilla · 10-10-2004, 08:47 PM

as the prophet PT Barnum said: there´s a sucker born every minute. He just underestimated by a coupla hundred thousand.

powerclown · 10-10-2004, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

1) chemical weapons are not WMD.

Yes, they are.

Definition of WMD

Quote:

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are weapons designed to kill large numbers of people, typically targeting civilians and military personnel alike. They are generally considered to have a psychological impact rather than a strictly military usefulness.

Though the phrase was coined in 1937 to describe aerial bombardment, the types of weapons today considered to be in this class are often referred to as NBC weapons or ABC weapons:

-nuclear weapons (including radiological weapons)
-biological weapons
-chemical weapons

They are also known as weapons of indiscriminate destruction, weapons of mass disruption and weapons of catastrophic effect.

Quote:

History

As early as 1000 BCE the Chinese employed arsenical smoke in warfare. During the Peloponnesian War Spartans used noxious smoke against Athenian cities.

A New York school teacher, John Doughty, proposed the use of chlorine gas as a weapon in the American Civil War. Although it is widely speculated that the weapon was never used, poison gas claimed at least one causualty in the Civil War. John Sitzler, a drummer boy in the Union Army, was injured by chlorine gas. He died sometime after 1893 of lung damage from the gas. His wife, Emelia Pauline Langner Sitzler, was paid a United States Army pension as the widow of a casualty until her death.

The first major use of chemical warfare agents was during World War I, with the use of various agents including chlorine, mustard gas, and phosgene gas. They were not extensively used during World War II due to the fear of retaliation and because chemical weapons are of limited use in a mobile front in which their use would slow the advance of one's own troops. In addition chemical warfare requires supply from railroads which was available in the fixed fronts of World War I, but not the mobile fronts of World War II.

The Nazis used the chemical weapon Zyklon B, a derivative of hydrogen cyanide, to kill Jews and other victims in gas chambers in extermination camps such as Auschwitz and Majdanek: see Holocaust.

In 1944 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini, launched a chemical warfare assault on the Jewish community in Palestine; e-Husseini was the Islamic religious authority of the Palestinian Arabs, and allied with Adolf Hitler. Five parachutists were sent with a toxin to spread into the water system of the Jewish community. While the parachutists were caught, the amount of toxin they had was estimated sufficient to kill 25,000 people.

Chemical weapons were also extensively used by both sides during the Iran-Iraq War and are additionally believed to have been used by Iraq against Kurdish civilian populations. The Iraqi weapons were supplied by western governments hoping to contain the Iranian revolution.

The use of chemical weapons is generally abhorred in international law, and there are many rules to discourage or make difficult their acquisition and use. Of these the most important is the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Quote:

2) his having chemical weapons in the 80's weren't the basis for the war. the basis was that he had be rebuilding his weapons programs since the gulf war, which has been proven to be false.

It has been claimed that he stopped producing WMD because he wanted to get UN sanctions lifted. It has been further claimed that he would have revived those programs the moment sanctions were lifted. There is confirmation in the Duelfer Report of a top-secret 'poisons program' developed by Hussein out of his WMD program that was used to assasinate his rivals and political enemies. Gotta put some of that juice to good use, at least while the whole world is watching for WMD.

Quote:

so basically, you're saying that you don't care about why we went to war, you just like us being at war. cause the reasons don't seem to matter to you. i guess being blindly partisan is nice and comforting... makes you all warm and fuzzy inside...

If your accusing me of not being a pacifist, then yes you are correct. 9/11 changed everything about terrorism, the potential damage caused by terrorists, hiding terrorists, and supporting terrorists. I believe the reaction was an appropriate one: to prove Bin Laden & Co. dead wrong that America is not, in fact, a hedonistic paper tiger that could be brought down by one simple massive strike.

trickyy · 10-10-2004, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

And let me guess--you'll be the first one to blame Bush if something happens to a school here.
You're right-- it's impossible. Nothing like that has ever happened anywhere else. Especially Russia.

Or at any government buildings in Oklahoma.

why anyone blame bush for a terrorist attack on a school in michigan? he can't stop someone from blowing up a school if they truly want to.

so there have been attacks in russia and ok city. it's a real strech to compare this to russia/chech. i don't think michigan is trying to leave the union or is engaged in a decade-old conflict with the central gov't. but since you mention oklahoma, who's to say that toledo and branson aren't next? well, i'm sorry my postion bothers you, but i'm not going to lose any sleep over it since it's really out of my hands.

in all likelihood, a specific threat that had made the news will not come to fruition. in my completely ignorant opinion, this particular situation is not worth worrying about. let me know if something actually happens here and i'll apologize for being so trite. if not, i see no problem with that i said. earlier someone predicted that republicans would play up the fear aspect of the story, and i illustrated my doubts that they would do so. i haven't heard much more about it, so perhaps i was right?

there's a new "threat" every week or so, but usually it's just an attempt to get you to wait through the commericals.

hannukah harry · 10-10-2004, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Yes, they are.

Definition of WMD

my bad. "During the Cold War, WMD exclusively meant nuclear weapons." (from your site). guess i hadn't updated my definition. it also mentions that up until 1991, chemical and biological weapons weren't referred to as WMD. and it's still my opinion that they shouldn't be (but that's neither here nor there).

Quote:

It has been claimed that he stopped producing WMD because he wanted to get UN sanctions lifted. It has been further claimed that he would have revived those programs the moment sanctions were lifted. There is confirmation in the Duelfer Report of a top-secret 'poisons program' developed by Hussein out of his WMD program that was used to assasinate his rivals and political enemies. Gotta put some of that juice to good use, at least while the whole world is watching for WMD.

so? what your basically saying is "while sanctioned its illegal for him to make these things and we can legally enforce that, but once we lift the sanctions, and he can legally make them (and we can't force him not to), well, we've gotta stop that." i'm sorry but your theory of intent has nothing to do with the original reasons for the war, and unless you like the idea of thought crimes, that just doesn't hold up.

and oh my god! a dictator, especailly one we already know is as bad as saddam was, had a poison program to get rid of his enemies!?!?@! what the hell does that have to do with justifying the war?

Quote:

If your accusing me of not being a pacifist, then yes you are correct. 9/11 changed everything about terrorism, the potential damage caused by terrorists, hiding terrorists, and supporting terrorists. I believe the reaction was an appropriate one: to prove Bin Laden & Co. dead wrong that America is not, in fact, a hedonistic paper tiger that could be brought down by one simple massive strike.

i agree, 9/11 changed everything. and there's no better way to prove we're not a paper tiger than to take on an inferior army (after 12 years of sanctions) that's not a threat to us while we let countries that are actual threats go unbothered. it's kinda like when i used to beat up my little bro as a kid because i knew that if i tried to take on my older bro, it wouldn't be nice and easy.

your paper tiger wants steak. but all it got was iraq.

smooth · 10-11-2004, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

your paper tiger wants steak. but all it got was iraq.

you've GOT to put that on a fucking T-shirt!

DJ Happy · 10-11-2004, 03:59 AM

Thank God Saddam is gone and all we have now is that splendid fellow Zarqawi.

I'm sure all of Iraq, America and the world will sleep better for it.

shakran · 10-11-2004, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irishsean

Do you personally know this for a fact? Or are you just regurgitating facts from a biased news source like the rest of us?

Your logic is horriffic. According to your reasoning, none of us can ever know anything about anything.

Oh, and yes, you can be too paranoid when kids are involved. If you strip liberties from US citizens to "protect" the children, then the children will grow up without the liberties that make this country what it is. Rather like destroying the village in order to save it, isn't it?

Dragonlich · 10-11-2004, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

Thank God Saddam is gone and all we have now is that splendid fellow Zarqawi.

1) Zarqawi is not (and will not be) in charge of Iraq, and does not have the necessary support to do what Saddam did to the Iraqis. He also does not have an army to attack Iraq's neighbors with.
2) Zarqawi was around *before* the Iraq war, and was doing nasty things before too. The US invasion did not create Zarqawi or his brand of terrorism, it just exposed it.
3) as nasty as he may be, he's still just one leader of one very small group of criminals. I suspect more Iraqis died of traffic accidents than from his terror attacks. You just tend to hear about terror attacks because it's a lot of dead people at one time, at one place. Saddam was infinately more deadly.

sob · 10-11-2004, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trickyy

why anyone blame bush for a terrorist attack on a school in michigan? he can't stop someone from blowing up a school if they truly want to.

Better tell John Kerry that. He's going to end terrorism. I assume by giving a group hug to terrorists. Or maybe with the UN.

Quote:

so there have been attacks in russia and ok city. it's a real strech to compare this to russia/chech. i don't think michigan is trying to leave the union or is engaged in a decade-old conflict with the central gov't. but since you mention oklahoma, who's to say that toledo and branson aren't next? well, i'm sorry my postion bothers you, but i'm not going to lose any sleep over it since it's really out of my hands.

I'm not sure what your position IS, but as far as I know, no one in the World Trade Center was trying to leave the union or was engaged in a decade-old conflict with the central government.

Quote:

in all likelihood, a specific threat that had made the news will not come to fruition. in my completely ignorant opinion, this particular situation is not worth worrying about. let me know if something actually happens here and i'll apologize for being so trite.

I doubt that will make the victims and their families feel any better.

sob · 10-11-2004, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

You made my argument for me. Iraq did not attack the U.S.

Germany didn't attack Pearl Harbor, either.

Quote:

One more time:
There were no WMD's in Iraq.
Before 9/11 happened, there was no "excuse" to attack Iraq.
Powell, Rice, and Tenent are all on record saying that Saddam was
contained and that there was no evidence that he had reconstituted
pre-Gulf War weapons programs, They said that the sanctions and the
no fly zone patrols WERE WORKING!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Quote:

Can you provide anything to substantiate your defense of Bush except to quote him? Will you even consider that this was a mistaken war that has cost too many American and Iraqi lives and too much money, and that it has destablizied the middle east, and exposes Bush as an international
war criminal and as an incompetent commander in chief ?
I suspect that you will continue to back his orders to send more of our
troops to their deaths in Iraq, while mistaking your unquestioning loyalty
as "patriotism", instead of as enabling a pathetic failure of a president !

Well, for starters, he's wiped out two thirds of Al Qaeda. Oh, and the Navy SEALS in Iraq recently destroyed an al Qaeda training camp consisting of 40 buildings and capable of training 600 recruits at a time.

So is it your position that we should ignore all terrorists who don't live in the US?

host · 10-11-2004, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOB
Well, for starters, he's wiped out two thirds of Al Qaeda. Oh, and the Navy SEALS in Iraq recently destroyed an al Qaeda training camp consisting of 40 buildings and capable of training 600 recruits at a time.

So is it your position that we should ignore all terrorists who don't live in the US?

To respond to the first part of your post, my criticism of Bush is that he
he failed in leadership of our military by not ordering them into war only
as a "last resort". History reveals now that he was wrong, and he refuses to take responsibility for his mistake, his own father's book reinforces the folly of his decision to invade Iraq:

Quote:

In the March 2, 1998 issues of Times Magazine publish an excerpt from George H.W.Bush book " World Transformed (Alfred A. Knopf, 1998)."

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
You find this article at The Memory Hole: http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

The weapons inspector's report reveals the error in judgment Bush made by
not heeding the request for more time made by Hans Bilx:

Quote:

Ending Inspections 'Not Reasonable,' Blix Says
Citing Iraqi Cooperation, U.N. Arms Official Asserts More Time Was Needed

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 19, 2003; Page A17

UNITED NATIONS, March 18 -- The United Nations' chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said today that it "was not reasonable" for the United States to end U.N. inspections in Iraq at a time when its government was providing more cooperation than it has in more than a decade.

"I don't think it is reasonable to close the door on inspections after 31/2 months," Blix said in his first public appearance since 134 U.N. inspectors were evacuated from Iraq, effectively ending a 12-year effort to disarm Iraq through inspections. "I would have welcomed some more time. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A49075-2003Mar18&notFound=true">http://www.washingtonpost.com</a>

James Chace, the biographer of U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson,
wrote an article about Bush and Iraq that contained the following.....
(Chace died on Oct. 8, and the world has lost an important historian and
a critical thinker)

Quote:

(Exceprt) "Imperialism Lite"
At the very moment Washington was deploying its armed forces to fight a preventive war in Iraq, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace released a study (in January 2003), stating that "Saddam is in an iron box." With tens of thousands of troops massed in the region, "an international coalition united in support of the [United Nations] inspection process, and now hundreds of inspectors in the country able to go anywhere at any time, Saddam is unable to engage in any large-scale development or production of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons." 10 Under the circumstances, Iraq could have been tied down indefinitely by a U.S. policy of aggressive containment.

But the Bush administration rejected the reasoning that if U.N. inspectors were allowed simply to continue their job military intervention could be avoided. Had this been the policy of the United States, there was a good chance of establishing a terrorist-free Afghanistan by focusing on the unfinished work there while waiting to see if the U.N. inspectors could finish their task in Iraq. <a href="http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj03-3/chace.html">http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj03-3/chace.html</a>

There is no way to verify how much damage Bush's response has inflicted
on al Qaeda. It is fact that bush diverted military resources from Afghanistan
for the invasion of Iraq.

Quote:

Bush also claimed that 75 percent of Al Qaeda leaders have been "brought to justice." While some security estimates suggest that that proportion of pre-Sept. 11 leaders have been killed or apprehended, it does not take into account an unknown number of new leaders and followers who have emerged since the terrorist attacks. <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0410100363oct10,1,7561876.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed">www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/</a>

You provided no link to reference your claim that Navy Seals destroyed a
large al Qaeda training camp in Iraq. If you are referring to Salman Pak, it was
not an al Qaeda camp, and it does not appear that it was in use as a terrorist
training facility.

Quote:

August 14, 2004
Salman Pak -- The Smoking Gun Linking Iraq to 9/11?

In an interesting recent comment, Brian asked me whether I thought Salman Pak, the Iraqi training camp south of Baghdad, undermined my critique of Bush's decision to invade Iraq. The right-wing press has made much of the fact that two Iraqi defectors claim that Iraq used a 707 fuselage at Salman Pak to train non-Iraqis to hijack airplanes. Some even claim that Salman Pak may well be the "smoking gun" connecting Iraq to 9/11.

But not so fast. Here's what Seymour Hersh, whose insider access in Iraq is without parallel, has to say on the subject:

The U.N. teams that returned to Iraq last winter were unable to verify any of al-Haideri’s claims. In a statement to the Security Council in March, on the eve of war, Hans Blix, the U.N.’s chief weapons inspector, noted that his teams had physically examined the hospital and other sites with the help of ground-penetrating radar equipment. “No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far,” he said.
<a href="http://yin.typepad.com/the_yin_blog/2004/08/salman_pak_the_.html">http://yin.typepad.com/the_yin_blog/2004/08/salman_pak_the_.html</a>

If this is true, these are not the actions of a U.S. government that I, and
I suspect, the founding fathers, could support. Can you ?

Quote:

U.S.: Detained al-Qaeda Suspects "Disappeared"
12 Oct 2004 01:55:08 GMT
(New York, October 12, 2004)-At least 11 al-Qaeda suspects have "disappeared" in U.S. custody, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. U.S. officials are holding the detainees in undisclosed locations, where some have reportedly been tortured. The 46-page report, "The United States' 'Disappeared': The CIA's Long-Term 'Ghost Detainees,'" describes how the Central Intelligence Agency is holding al-Qaeda suspects in "secret locations," reportedly outside the United States, with no notification to their families, no access to the International Committee of the Red Cross or oversight of any sort of their treatment, and in some cases, no acknowledgement that they are even being held.

"'Disappearances' were a trademark abuse of Latin American military dictatorships in their 'dirty war' on alleged subversion," said Reed Brody, special counsel with Human Rights Watch. "Now they have become a United States tactic in its conflict with al-Qaeda."

Under international law, enforced disappearances occur when
persons are deprived of their liberty and the detaining authority refuses to disclose their fate or whereabouts or refuses to acknowledge their detention, which places the detainees outside the protection of the law.
<a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/b7496379699509f7a0228908ed169344.htm">http://www.alertnet.org/</a>

trickyy · 10-11-2004, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

Better tell John Kerry that. He's going to end terrorism. I assume by giving a group hug to terrorists. Or maybe with the UN.

i was responding to one unmotivated insinuation you made (somehow i would blame bush for something); now you seem to be making more. i'm not sure this is really worth a response.

no one will end terrorism for a very long time, if ever. "yep, we got the last one! no one hates us anymore." = wishful thinking.

actually kerry said he intends to kill terrorists, but i'm not sure when he said he was going to end terrorism. either way, this has nothing to do with my post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

I'm not sure what your position IS, but as far as I know, no one in the World Trade Center was trying to leave the union or was engaged in a decade-old conflict with the central government.

my position is (third time now) republicans won't make an issue out of the story that started this thread. and, as the past days have shown, they have not done so. the story was a bunch of nothing to being with. a politician would be foolish to make an issue out of this story.

you cited russia as an example of terrorism. i said it was not comparable to an attack in michigan because the situation is completely different. russia was recently attacked by chechen rebels. this has been going on for years. chechnia wants to leave russia, a somewhat legitimate position, but uses methods of terrorism. you can't really parallel their situation to any random terrorist attack on us. an amount of violence over there is expected because it has been happening for a long time. in the US there is not a highly organized resistance to the government. here there is no terrorism associated with an ongoing conflict in a specific part of the country.

so it is not valid to cite russia as an example of terrorism that could happen in the US.

what's more, russia and the US are increasingly different. russia is hardly even a democracy anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

I doubt that will make the victims and their families feel any better.

well, since the story has been repeatedly shown to be baseless, it would take an amazing set of circumstances for the alleged threat to happen after all.

Konichiwaneko · 10-11-2004, 11:11 PM

"you cited russia as an example of terrorism. i said it was not comparable to an attack in michigan because the situation is completely different. russia was recently attacked by chechen rebels. this has been going on for years. chechnia wants to leave russia, a somewhat legitimate position, but uses methods of terrorism. you can't really parallel their situation to any random terrorist attack on us. an amount of violence over there is expected because it has been happening for a long time. in the US there is not a highly organized resistance to the government. here there is no terrorism associated with an ongoing conflict in a specific part of the country."

Chechan rebels are Muslims, I really wonder why the news won't say that.

DJ Happy · 10-11-2004, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

1) Zarqawi is not (and will not be) in charge of Iraq, and does not have the necessary support to do what Saddam did to the Iraqis. He also does not have an army to attack Iraq's neighbors with.

No, he just wants to harm Westerners. So we've gone from someone who did nothing to Westerners to someone who only wants to target Westerners and their supporters and who doesn't mind killing a few Iraqis on the way. The US has actually created what they set out to destroy. Is that a step in the right direction?

Whether he's in charge of the country or not or is able to invade Kuwait is irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

2) Zarqawi was around *before* the Iraq war, and was doing nasty things before too. The US invasion did not create Zarqawi or his brand of terrorism, it just exposed it.

Yes, they gave it a global stage and in the eyes of many impressionable young men, they gave his cause a very persuasive justification. Youths from all around the region are pouring into Iraq to follow him. He couldn't have hoped for a more impactful recruitment campaign than this invasion. How is this helping to defeat terrorism?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

3) as nasty as he may be, he's still just one leader of one very small group of criminals. I suspect more Iraqis died of traffic accidents than from his terror attacks. You just tend to hear about terror attacks because it's a lot of dead people at one time, at one place. Saddam was infinately more deadly.

Give him time. Saddam had decades to "do his thing." Let's talk about this 10 years from now when we can really see who was worse.

Dragonlich · 10-12-2004, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

No, he just wants to harm Westerners. So we've gone from someone who did nothing to Westerners to someone who only wants to target Westerners and their supporters and who doesn't mind killing a few Iraqis on the way. The US has actually created what they set out to destroy. Is that a step in the right direction?

Whether he's in charge of the country or not or is able to invade Kuwait is irrelevant.

DJ Happy, are you suggesting that Zarqawi did not want to harm westerners before the Iraq war? 'Cause that's bullocks - he was a major Al-Qaida figure before, so it's not like the war suddenly changed his mind. The US did not create Zarqawi and his band of merry men; the Iraq war gave Zarqawi a stage to play on. I'd say he would've gone on killing Westerners in other countries had the US not attacked. And that he's not in charge of a country is pretty damn relevant - it means he's unable to kill as many people as he might have otherwise.

Quote:

Yes, they gave it a global stage and in the eyes of many impressionable young men, they gave his cause a very persuasive justification. Youths from all around the region are pouring into Iraq to follow him. He couldn't have hoped for a more impactful recruitment campaign than this invasion. How is this helping to defeat terrorism?

The young men would have been angry anyway, or are you forgetting the US-backed sanctions that killed thousands of innocent Muslim babies, and the US-backed no-fly-zones that killed many brave Muslim soldiers? Extremists don't need a reason to hate, just an excuse, *any* excuse.

Quote:

Give him time. Saddam had decades to "do his thing." Let's talk about this 10 years from now when we can really see who was worse.

Yes, when Zarqawi is able to kill millions of innocent civilians instead of dozens, we'll talk again. But I think you're giving the man too much credit - I think he'll be dead pretty damn soon, killed by the Iraqis he's "liberating".

Sun Tzu · 10-12-2004, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

"Did Iraq ever attack us?"....for 10 years, while we were trying to enforce UN sanctions, the answer would be "yes" damn near daily.

I'm just curious; do you give credability to the UN?

DJ Happy · 10-12-2004, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

DJ Happy, are you suggesting that Zarqawi did not want to harm westerners before the Iraq war? 'Cause that's bullocks - he was a major Al-Qaida figure before, so it's not like the war suddenly changed his mind. The US did not create Zarqawi and his band of merry men; the Iraq war gave Zarqawi a stage to play on. I'd say he would've gone on killing Westerners in other countries had the US not attacked. And that he's not in charge of a country is pretty damn relevant - it means he's unable to kill as many people as he might have otherwise.

No, I was saying that Saddam wasn't targeting Westerners.

I find it disturbing that you say the fact that he can't kill as many as he wants to is a positive. I thought the aim was to eliminate killing altogether.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

The young men would have been angry anyway, or are you forgetting the US-backed sanctions that killed thousands of innocent Muslim babies, and the US-backed no-fly-zones that killed many brave Muslim soldiers? Extremists don't need a reason to hate, just an excuse, *any* excuse.

This statement is baseless. The fact is that while they may have been angry, they weren't acting on it. Even if what you say is true, Iraq has given them the perfect opportunity to act. Your argument is that terrorists will always exist, no matter what you do. In which case, what are you doing?

Extremists always need a reason to hate. Your analysis of them as nutters who just want to kill is one of the major problems with the US attitude to this situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

Yes, when Zarqawi is able to kill millions of innocent civilians instead of dozens, we'll talk again. But I think you're giving the man too much credit - I think he'll be dead pretty damn soon, killed by the Iraqis he's "liberating".

You mean the ones who are currently hiding him?

I like your use of the word "liberating" in inverted commas. It seems appropriate on so many levels.

10-11-2004, 11:11 PM	#57 (permalink)
Konichiwaneko The Dreaded Pixel Nazi Location: Inside my camera	"you cited russia as an example of terrorism. i said it was not comparable to an attack in michigan because the situation is completely different. russia was recently attacked by chechen rebels. this has been going on for years. chechnia wants to leave russia, a somewhat legitimate position, but uses methods of terrorism. you can't really parallel their situation to any random terrorist attack on us. an amount of violence over there is expected because it has been happening for a long time. in the US there is not a highly organized resistance to the government. here there is no terrorism associated with an ongoing conflict in a specific part of the country." Chechan rebels are Muslims, I really wonder why the news won't say that. __________________ Hesitate. Pull me in. Breath on breath. Skin on skin. Loving deep. Falling fast. All right here. Let this last. Here with our lips locked tight. Baby the time is right for us... to forget about us.

10-10-2004, 06:06 PM	#43 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Looks like were going to have to agree to disagree host. Iraq did, in fact, have WMD. This was not a secret. The entire world knew it. I'm too lazy to go look for the links right now, maybe you might want to? Its a matter of public record. We've been over this before here. He killed a million Iranians in the Iran/Iraq War, putting mustard gas, nx/sarin-derivative and blistering agent, among others, to widespread use. He used nerve gas on the Kurdish rebels in Halabja, Northern Iraq. But don't take my word for it, research the matter yourself. We'll possibly never know for absolute certain if he did/did not have some type of connection to 9/11, but what is known undeniably is that he had a pathological hatred of the US, he provided sanctuary to known terrorists, he personally sponsored Palestinean terrorism in Israel, he had hostile relations with every single neighboring country in the region (invading one of them) and led his country to economic ruin, a la Kim Jung-Il of N. Korea. He was an international pariah. I really don't care what further evidence this Administration or any other subsequent Administration can or cannot bring to bear to justify action against Saddam Hussein. His public record makes the case for itself as far as I'm concerned. It takes very little imagination to conceive of the type of damage this guy could have done by arming terrorists as hostile to the West as he was.

10-10-2004, 08:47 PM	#45 (permalink)
pedro padilla Insane	as the prophet PT Barnum said: there´s a sucker born every minute. He just underestimated by a coupla hundred thousand.

10-11-2004, 03:59 AM	#50 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	Thank God Saddam is gone and all we have now is that splendid fellow Zarqawi. I'm sure all of Iraq, America and the world will sleep better for it.