Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1603423 -

bush could have easily drummed up public support, WITHOUT ever mentioning WMD's.

if this is true, then why did Bush feel it was necessary to make WMD the centerpiece for his argument for going to war? what the hell was he thinking?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1603427 -

WHAT?! NO PROOF HE WAS INVOLVED IN TERRORISM?

Yep. Even the CIA said so.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: infidelGOD]
    #1603437 -

Quote:
bush could have easily drummed up public support, WITHOUT ever mentioning WMD's.

if this is true, then why did Bush feel it was necessary to make WMD the centerpiece for his argument for going to war? what the hell was he thinking?



Exactly. If bush KNEW that their were no WMD's, and he just wanted an excuse to invade, what the hell was eh thinking? That noone would care that they weren't found?



--------------------
As I felt the soft cool mud squish between my toes, I thought, Man, these are not very good shoes!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: Xlea321]
    #1603440 -

Quote:
WHAT?! NO PROOF HE WAS INVOLVED IN TERRORISM?

Yep. Even the CIA said so.


Is that so?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html
Home > News & Policies > Policies in Focus



Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of international terrorism. UNSCR 687 prohibits Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Saddam continues to violate these UNSCR provisions.



In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.



Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.



Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.



Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.



In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."



Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.





Is this the CIA and US Gov'ts denial that Saddam participated in terrorism? I'd like to see your information where the CIA refudiates any of these claims.

Jr

*steps gently over your argument, gasping for air as it dies on the floor*


--------------------
As I felt the soft cool mud squish between my toes, I thought, Man, these are not very good shoes!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1603467 -

I don't know if Bush knew or not, but if he was going to start a war that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, he SHOULD have known that Iraq indeed possesed WMD. He should have been CERTAIN of it. you can't just go to war based on conjecture, you need some kind of EVIDENCE. he didn't have any evidence before the war (although he said he did) and now he can't come up any evidence after the war. If he can't find any WMD soon, he will be guilty of misleading a nation, intentional or not. He is the president. He is ultimately responsible.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: infidelGOD]
    #1603662 -

Anyone remember the "hard evidence about Iraqui WMD" that was presented in UN by Powell? Nobody beleived it and the countries who dared to speak up are now being punished.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1603938 -

Your theory makes plenty of sense if you think there is one single reason that is solely why we went in. If you think like someone who isn't mentally ill, you realize maybe there are multiple conditions that need to be met to make for a just war.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1604121 -

Is that it? "Evidence" from the whitehouse?  :grin:

*stifles chuckles*

You do realise these are the same people who lied through their teeth that he had WMD? Get some proof any of this actually exists before you believe it. I thought you'dve learned that after the WMD fiasco. 


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: Xlea321]
    #1604372 -

Alex - It's not that I consider that per se evidence, it's that YOU stated that the US Govt, particularlly the CIA, stated Saddam had NO Terrorist ties. I didn't post it to debate the quality of the article, but to prove that you were mistaken. The proof of those are irrelevant, since I am not proving to you that saddam is a terrorist, I am proving to you (to contradict your statement) that he is considered a terrorist by the US Gov't, and if they had wanted to, they could have drummed these incidences up and used it as justificaion for the wra


--------------------
As I felt the soft cool mud squish between my toes, I thought, Man, these are not very good shoes!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1604504 -

Quote:
could have drummed these incidences up and used it as justificaion for the war 


Moral responsibility eh?...Sounds to me like the US drummed up any number of reasons already to "justify" the war...to bad they didn't pick the most logical, ie: WMD... :tongue:


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1604755 -

It's not that I consider that per se evidence, it's that YOU stated that the US Govt, particularlly the CIA, stated Saddam had NO Terrorist ties.

I said the CIA, not Bush. I'm sure Bush would say anything.

I was indeed one of several journalists--and members of Congress--who considered it significant that Tenet, in an October 8 letter to the Senate intelligence committee, reported the CIA had concluded that "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical and biological weapons] against the United States." The agency eggheads also believed that Saddam Hussein "probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions" and in "assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] attack against the United States," if Washington were about to strike Iraq. In other words, Saddam is not likely to hit the United States or collaborate with al Qaeda, unless the United States assaults Iraq.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1606811 -

Way to ignore the post that completely invalidates your moronic premise.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: ]
    #1607902 -

Well its a fact that he disapears whenever he is thouroughly humiliated. :smirk:
ie, ifartblues' little lesson in economics... :smirk:


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1608080 -

I know you're not a moron dude.... but what the hell are you talking about?

Its not the fact that there are or aren't WMDs in Iraq; its the fact that these guys constantly lie to us.

WHY DO YOU THINK WE ATTACKED IRAQ, JOHNNY? WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?


--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: Strumpling]
    #1608115 -

I think that we attacked IRaq because the best information we had showed that hte IRaqi's had dangerous weapons. the clinton administration felt the same way. Iraq obviouilsy HAS had chemical weapons, because he used them on a the Iranians, and on the Kurds. The premise that Saddam wanted us to believe is that AFTER using the WMD's (so we KNOW he had them), and AFTER kicking out UN inspectors, THAT is when he destroyed them. Does that, honestly now, make sense? Did YOU beleive it?


--------------------
As I felt the soft cool mud squish between my toes, I thought, Man, these are not very good shoes!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1608127 -

JR...as it's been repeatedly pointed out, the only reason that Iraq had those weapons is because the U.S. supplied them in the first place...and they have a little thing called "shelf-life"..in other words, they don't last forever...stop me if I'm going too fast...


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1608136 -

Iraq obviouilsy HAS had chemical weapons, because he used them on a the Iranians,

Well we know that cos Rumsfield and Reagan sold them to him. That was in the 80's tho. No UN inspectors have found any evidence Saddam had weapons since 1994. All they know is when Saddam destroyed stuff it was impossible to know exactly how much he destroyed - so they say things are "unaccounted" for - meaning they may well have been destroyed but it's not 100% certain. Now of course it turns out Saddam had destroyed all the weapons. Finding a few litres of degraded chemicals is the best Bush can hope for now - and that is a long way away from the standard definition of a WMD.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: Xlea321]
    #1608213 -

Well, who cares now, hm? Bush is in, Saddam is out, we have more oil, and you liberals ***Edited by Rono*** are in the very quiet, very ignored, minority :-) Nah nah!


--------------------
As I felt the soft cool mud squish between my toes, I thought, Man, these are not very good shoes!

Edited by Rono (06/04/03 05:05 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1608238 -

Quote:
you liberal pussies

Was that a flame?...because I'm sure you know that we have very strict rules about flaming in this forum...and I know for a fact that you have already been warned. Care to save me the effort and edit that before I have to issue a temporary ban?


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"

Edited by Rono (06/04/03 04:41 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq: [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1608283 -

The wheel turns tho johnny. Us liberal pussies will have our day  :laugh:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Kay: WMD never existed
( 1 2 3 all )		 Xlea321 4,014 41 02/15/04 02:35 AM
by The_Red_Crayon
* Iraq Lenore 1,050 2 12/06/01 10:17 PM
by Innvertigo
* Blix - "No WMD since 1991" Xlea321 954 8 12/25/03 11:46 PM
by enimatpyrt
* 51% still believe Saddam had WMD
( 1 2 all )		 zeronio 2,665 21 05/07/04 09:28 PM
by Crobih
* Blix: Iraq had no WMD since 1991
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 Xlea321 7,121 106 09/23/03 05:43 PM
by infidelGOD
* Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11 RonoS 1,120 10 09/27/02 01:00 AM
by Phred
* Support US war on IRAQ
( 1 2 all )		 LordMorham 4,857 29 09/20/02 11:56 AM
by LordMorham
* Why the war in Iraq was a mistake phi1618 1,198 18 03/20/04 10:12 PM
by valour

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,308 topic views. 1 members, 25 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.039 seconds spending 0.015 seconds on 18 queries.