PDA

View Full Version : Source of Iraq’s WMDs: ‘I made the whole thing up



Roger Perry
02-16-2011, 07:24 AM
From January 2000 to September 2001, anIraqi (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.3333333333,44.4333333333&spn=10.0,10.0&q=33.3333333333,44.4333333333%20%28Iraq%29&t=h) ex-pat namedRafid Ahmed Alwan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29) detailedSadaam Hussein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein)‘s efforts to construct biological weapons of mass destruction in conversations with German intelligence (BND). This information was passed on to theCIA (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.951796,-77.146586&spn=0.01,0.01&q=38.951796,-77.146586%20%28Central%20Intelligence%20Agency%29&t=h) which, despite the skepticism voiced by Alwan’s BND handlers and never having interviewed Alwan directly, relayed the intelligence provided by the man codenamed Curveball to the Bush administration in the months leading up to thewar in Iraq (http://www.wikinvest.com/concept/Iraq_War). This testimony made up the backbone of then-Secretary of StateColin Powell (http://answers.com/topic/colin-powell#Gale_Contemporary_Black_Biography_d)‘s March 2003 speech at the United Nations citing “eyewitness accounts” of Iraq’s WMD capabilities in making the American case for invasion.
Today in the Guardian, Alwan confirms for the first time what many have suspected for years: he made the whole thing up. “I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime,” an unrepentant Alwan told the paper. “I and my sons are proud of that, and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy.”
On the one hand, Alwan’s admission is hardly surprising.Charles Duelfer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_A._Duelfer), head of theIraq Study Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Study_Group), wrote that search forWMDs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction) had “gone as far as feasible” back in 2005. In August of 2006,President Bush (http://www.georgewbushlibrary.gov/) himself conceded in this White House press conference that Iraq did not possess WMDs.


http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/38798

TxHillHunter
02-16-2011, 07:35 AM
From January 2000 to September 2001, anIraqi (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.3333333333,44.4333333333&spn=10.0,10.0&q=33.3333333333,44.4333333333%20%28Iraq%29&t=h) ex-pat namedRafid Ahmed Alwan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29) detailedSadaam Hussein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein)‘s efforts to construct biological weapons of mass destruction in conversations with German intelligence (BND). This information was passed on to theCIA (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.951796,-77.146586&spn=0.01,0.01&q=38.951796,-77.146586%20%28Central%20Intelligence%20Agency%29&t=h) which, despite the skepticism voiced by Alwan’s BND handlers and never having interviewed Alwan directly, relayed the intelligence provided by the man codenamed Curveball to the Bush administration in the months leading up to thewar in Iraq (http://www.wikinvest.com/concept/Iraq_War). This testimony made up the backbone of then-Secretary of StateColin Powell (http://answers.com/topic/colin-powell#Gale_Contemporary_Black_Biography_d)‘s March 2003 speech at the United Nations citing “eyewitness accounts” of Iraq’s WMD capabilities in making the American case for invasion.
Today in the Guardian, Alwan confirms for the first time what many have suspected for years: he made the whole thing up. “I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime,” an unrepentant Alwan told the paper. “I and my sons are proud of that, and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy.”
On the one hand, Alwan’s admission is hardly surprising.Charles Duelfer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_A._Duelfer), head of theIraq Study Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Study_Group), wrote that search forWMDs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction) had “gone as far as feasible” back in 2005. In August of 2006,President Bush (http://www.georgewbushlibrary.gov/) himself conceded in this White House press conference that Iraq did not possess WMDs.


http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/38798

Proud of a bold faced lie.....what a great influence on his sons this guy is.

road kill
02-16-2011, 07:46 AM
Of course, the fly in this "ointment" is that Hussein USED WMD's on his own people.


RK

Granddaddy
02-16-2011, 08:30 AM
Of course, the fly in this "ointment" is that Hussein USED WMD's on his own people.


RK

I was thinking the same thing. He used WMDs on Iran during their long war & also on his on people. So maybe both claims are true - Iraq had WMDs & Iraq didn't have WMDs. I think the qualification is when did Iraq have them? Certainly during the Iran-Iraq war but probably got rid of them & all the evidence during the years after the UN got involved with inspections. Rumors persist that the technology, WMDs and raw materials went to Syria. And Hussein was too proud to avoid the conflict which he could have done by being completely open with the UN investigations.

ducknwork
02-16-2011, 08:30 AM
Well, now that we know this, Sherman...let's just get in the Waaaay Back Machine and take back everything that has been done in the middle east in the last 10 years. Oh wait, I guess we can't do that, so we'll just bash the Bush Administration instead.

BrianW
02-16-2011, 08:40 AM
Of course, the fly in this "ointment" is that Hussein USED WMD's on his own people.


RK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack for example
The Halabja poison gas attack , also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday, was an incident that took place on March 16, 1988 BB43 (before Bush 43).
The Iraqi High Criminal Court recognized the Halabja massacre as act of genocide on March 1, 2010. The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injured around 7,000 and 10,000 more.

mjh345
02-16-2011, 09:05 AM
Cloud the issue all you guys want to, but the clear fact of the matter is that Bush made the case to go to war in 2003 based on "reliable intelligence" that WMD's existed AT THAT TIME in 2003.

That was clearly FALSE!!!

Bush and his Administration have admitted that fact; I find it hard to believe, and would question the objectivity of those of you who still make excuses.

There are incompetent, and or crooked BOOBS all over the place in govt. It seems ther are many who won't admit and will continue to rationalize a BOOB strictly because of his supposed party affiliation. Nothing will change until this changes.

I voted for Bush in 2000, because I am a Conservative and he claimed to be one. He proved in 4 years that he was NOT a conservative; {either that or they changed the definition}. I would have voted for anyone BUT him in 2004.


This could be due to a variety of reasons, some of nefarious reasons, and some innocent reasons.

Regardless of the motivation for getting this most crucial decision wrong it clearly shows he missed the most important decision of his career. The U.S.A. is clearly the worse off for it.

Before you guys jump on me and bash this post, please tell me what happened under Bush that makes you feel he was conservative.

Then givew me your best shot. I promise NOT to run to the moderators

Roger Perry
02-16-2011, 09:37 AM
Of course, the fly in this "ointment" is that Hussein USED WMD's on his own people.


RK

I never denied that Hussein used WMD on his own people. They were supplied to him by the United States.:shock:

Roger Perry
02-16-2011, 09:43 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack for example
The Halabja poison gas attack , also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday, was an incident that took place on March 16, 1988 BB43 (before Bush 43).
The Iraqi High Criminal Court recognized the Halabja massacre as act of genocide on March 1, 2010. The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injured around 7,000 and 10,000 more.

How does that number compare to the 4,000 plus U.S. service men and women that have been killed in Iraq and the thousands that have been maimed or wounded? How does that number compare to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children that have been killed, maimed or wounded since the start of the invasion in 2003?

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/bush-says-iraq-had-no-wmds/ed5ca6c883e994225fd1ed5ca6c883e994225fd1-420171416009?q=video+of+bush+admitting+no+wmd+in+i raq&FROM=LKVR5&GT1=LKVR5&FORM=LKVR4

BrianW
02-16-2011, 12:09 PM
...They were supplied to him by the United States.:shock:
Just give credit where credit IS due.
Again from Wiki- The know-how (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know-how) and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained by Saddam's regime from foreign firms.
The largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in
Singapore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore) (4,515 tons),
the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands) (4,261 tons),
Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt) (2,400 tons),
India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) (2,343 tons), and
West Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Germany) (1,027 tons).
One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie Ltd.) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates), supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack#cite_note-22)
The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2% 80%93Iraq_war) was enabled by a Ronald Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan) administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism). Leaked portions of Iraq's "Full, Final and Complete" disclosure of the sources for its weapons programs shows that thiodiglycol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiodiglycol), a substance needed to manufacture mustard gas, was among the chemical precursors provided to Iraq from US companies such as Alcolac International and Phillips. Both companies have since undergone reorganization and Phillips, once a subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum is now part of ConocoPhillips (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConocoPhillips), an American oil and discount fossil fuel company, while Alcolac International has since dissolved and reformed as Alcolac Inc

dnf777
02-16-2011, 12:16 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack for example
The Halabja poison gas attack , also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday, was an incident that took place on March 16, 1988 BB43 (before Bush 43).
The Iraqi High Criminal Court recognized the Halabja massacre as act of genocide on March 1, 2010. The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injured around 7,000 and 10,000 more.

How does that number compare to the 4,000 plus U.S. service men and women that have been killed in Iraq and the thousands that have been maimed or wounded? How does that number compare to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children that have been killed, maimed or wounded since the start of the invasion in 2003?

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/bush-says-iraq-had-no-wmds/ed5ca6c883e994225fd1ed5ca6c883e994225fd1-420171416009?q=video+of+bush+admitting+no+wmd+in+i raq&FROM=LKVR5&GT1=LKVR5&FORM=LKVR4

Roger,
You're trying to show blind ideologues their hypocrisy. Its like telling a proud nudist that he doesn't have any clothes on, and hoping that will embarrass him.

The truth has been shown, and known....to those willing to see.

Cody Covey
02-16-2011, 12:44 PM
Cloud the issue all you guys want to, but the clear fact of the matter is that Bush made the case to go to war in 2003 based on "reliable intelligence" that WMD's existed AT THAT TIME in 2003.

That was clearly FALSE!!!

Bush and his Administration have admitted that fact; I find it hard to believe, and would question the objectivity of those of you who still make excuses.

There are incompetent, and or crooked BOOBS all over the place in govt. It seems ther are many who won't admit and will continue to rationalize a BOOB strictly because of his supposed party affiliation. Nothing will change until this changes.

I voted for Bush in 2000, because I am a Conservative and he claimed to be one. He proved in 4 years that he was NOT a conservative; {either that or they changed the definition}. I would have voted for anyone BUT him in 2004.


This could be due to a variety of reasons, some of nefarious reasons, and some innocent reasons.

Regardless of the motivation for getting this most crucial decision wrong it clearly shows he missed the most important decision of his career. The U.S.A. is clearly the worse off for it.

Before you guys jump on me and bash this post, please tell me what happened under Bush that makes you feel he was conservative.

Then givew me your best shot. I promise NOT to run to the moderators
So after re reading all the posts in this thread I have failed to come up with a single person that said the OP was wrong because of Bush's conservatism or lack thereof. Bush went off the intelligence he was given. So either you think Bush, the one you guys say is the most stupid president we have ever had, staged all the intelligence fed it to other countries to verify its authenticity and then went to war. All the while never getting caught. Or you think like most of the rest of the country that he was given intelligence that turned out to be false.

Should we have come home when we didn't find any? Sure, but not much can be done about that now. I don't see how that is protecting a conservative, I would say the same thing had it been Obama or Clinton or whoever.

Roger Perry
02-16-2011, 12:48 PM
Yeah, who is the real war criminal Hussein or Bush. 15,000 dead or wounded under Hussein or hundreds of thousands dead or wounded under Bush?

Cody Covey
02-16-2011, 12:49 PM
[QUOTE=Roger Perry;751668]

Roger,
You're trying to show blind ideologues their hypocrisy. Its like telling a proud nudist that he doesn't have any clothes on, and hoping that will embarrass him.

The truth has been shown, and known....to those willing to see.

I hope you don't mean Roger has shown us the truth. He has proved himself to be as bad as the "birthers" with his Bush lied crap. The TRUTH we KNOW is that the intelligence was there were WMD's and so we went to war the intelligence proved to be wrong. Is this the first time intelligence has been wrong or did Bush lie. What do you think DNF?

dnf777
02-16-2011, 01:20 PM
Proud of a bold faced lie.....what a great influence on his sons this guy is.

Bush has daughters, not sons.

huntinman
02-16-2011, 01:22 PM
Bush has daughters, not sons.

Roger, how did you get on DNF's computer?

dnf777
02-16-2011, 01:26 PM
[QUOTE=dnf777;751750]

I hope you don't mean Roger has shown us the truth. He has proved himself to be as bad as the "birthers" with his Bush lied crap. The TRUTH we KNOW is that the intelligence was there were WMD's and so we went to war the intelligence proved to be wrong. Is this the first time intelligence has been wrong or did Bush lie. What do you think DNF?

We'll never know exactly 'what we knew'. We were told, "just wait, and you'll see...trust us", and of course we never did. There weren't WMDs during the time leading up to the invasion, and if they did, they were buried under tons of sand and totally ineffective. Those are the facts.

What is in dispute, is what and WHEN we knew those things to be true. Was it truly in 2006? Or was it during or before the Iraq invasion? There is evidence to point to "before" the invasion. (Paul O'Neil, Scott McClelland, Downing St. memos, and numerous insider memoirs) We have high ranking officials telling us otherwise. I suspect we'll all be left to make up our own minds as to what really happened, based on the carefully selected and leaked information made available to the public.

how's that for non-commital? I think its the best anyone can offer based on what's out there.

Marvin S
02-16-2011, 01:26 PM
There are incompetent, and or crooked BOOBS all over the place in govt. It seems ther are many who won't admit and will continue to rationalize a BOOB strictly because of his supposed party affiliation. Nothing will change until this changes.

I voted for Bush in 2000, because I am a Conservative and he claimed to be one. He proved in 4 years that he was NOT a conservative; {either that or they changed the definition}. I would have voted for anyone BUT him in 2004.


This could be due to a variety of reasons, some of nefarious reasons, and some innocent reasons.

Regardless of the motivation for getting this most crucial decision wrong it clearly shows he missed the most important decision of his career. The U.S.A. is clearly the worse off for it.

Before you guys jump on me and bash this post, please tell me what happened under Bush that makes you feel he was conservative.

Then givew me your best shot. I promise NOT to run to the moderators

You will not find many Bush defenders on this forum, but you will find that many thought him to be the best choice of those offered. But he did give us the present POTUS, which indirectly may be the signature accomplishment of his presidency :o.

The federal bureaucracy is such that if it were placed on a scale it would tilt sharply left. One cannot expect rational decisions from the likes of those people.

B43 was little different than B41, both are Rockefeller R's or whatever else you want to name the disease. It is hard to relate to real life issues when you've not seen them, but would have Gore or Kerry done as well & we would not have Roberts-Alito on the Supremes, though not B43's 1st choice.

I judge conservatism by what AUH20 presented, precious few meet that standard & none meet his standard of not lining his pockets while in office.

In your youthful years in Creede, were you a town kid or a ranch kid?

dnf777
02-16-2011, 02:19 PM
Well, if there's a face that can launch 1000 ships in ancient times....the modern version would be a "curveball" that can cause 100,000 deaths, including 4000+ American troops, and three trillion dollars evaporated away!

1000 ships doesn't seem like that big of a deal anymore.

code3retrievers
02-17-2011, 08:36 AM
Well, if there's a face that can launch 1000 ships in ancient times....the modern version would be a "curveball" that can cause 100,000 deaths, including 4000+ American troops, and three trillion dollars evaporated away!

1000 ships doesn't seem like that big of a deal anymore.

Way to inflate the figures.

The Iraq was has cost to date aprox 770 billion. Just like you to inflate the figures to back your argument. The numbers you are using figure in the temp. rise in oil as well as the financial crisis and anything else that the Washington Post thought was related to it in some fashion. Those figures are a joke to add in.

http://costofwar.com/en/

dnf777
02-17-2011, 08:52 AM
Way to inflate the figures.

The Iraq was has cost to date aprox 770 billion. Just like you to inflate the figures to back your argument. The numbers you are using figure in the temp. rise in oil as well as the financial crisis and anything else that the Washington Post thought was related to it in some fashion. Those figures are a joke to add in.

http://costofwar.com/en/

Does your figure take into account the on-going long-term care to the thousands of veterans with permanent disabilities? Didn't think so.

Besides, let me concede that number, and we'll use YOURS.

$770 billion and 4000+ American troop's lives.....

Feel better?

BrianW
02-17-2011, 09:08 AM
The unstated implication (imo) was that, by this guy saying "I made the whole thing up", the WMD's were never there.

By analogy, if one has demonstrated a proven past history of spousal abuse, a current allegation is likely to be taken much more seriously, even if/when the current one turns out to be fabricated for whatever reason.
In addition, one who has demonstrated WMD use on his own country and a neighboring one would logically be considered a major threat to use them again.

The emperor has been shown to be naked underneath now, but he had clothes (WMD's) at one time. RK & I merely pointed that out. The resistance to the inspections made it all the more likely that they were stashed away in a closet somewhere.

That this guy thinks he is a hero and an example to his sons by being a good liar is indeed a sad comment.

code3retrievers
02-17-2011, 09:21 AM
Does your figure take into account the on-going long-term care to the thousands of veterans with permanent disabilities? Didn't think so.

Besides, let me concede that number, and we'll use YOURS.

$770 billion and 4000+ American troop's lives.....

Feel better?

Thanks, as a matter of fact I do feel better. Just trying to keep you honest. I get tired of reading your exaggerations. War is expensive enough.

Long term health care is expected to be 300-700 billion (quite a range)

Even including long term care your figure is still exaggerated.

dnf777
02-17-2011, 10:03 AM
Thanks, as a matter of fact I do feel better. Just trying to keep you honest. I get tired of reading your exaggerations. War is expensive enough.

Long term health care is expected to be 300-700 billion (quite a range)

Even including long term care your figure is still exaggerated.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html

Just so you know its not just me making up numbers, others also came up with these numbers. I'm sure the source will be attacked, and I don't defend it...just showing there is a wide range of estimates, that encompass the numbers I put up.

Edit: I hope we can agree at least that it was a GIAGANTIC waste of our treasury and a tragic loss of American lives, all based on lies and pi$$ poor planning even once the decision was made.

Uncle Bill
02-17-2011, 11:14 AM
But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html

Just so you know its not just me making up numbers, others also came up with these numbers. I'm sure the source will be attacked, and I don't defend it...just showing there is a wide range of estimates, that encompass the numbers I put up.

Edit: I hope we can agree at least that it was a GIAGANTIC waste of our treasury and a tragic loss of American lives, all based on lies and pi$$ poor planning even once the decision was made.


Your constant bashing of Bush, even in a backassward way as this view of the destruction of the Hussein regime, is as typical un-American as burning the flag.

Has it ever occurred to your airheaded thinking of what we might be facing at this time, were there a Saddam Hussein to be dealt with along with all the rest of the middle east antagonists?

The lack of WMD's is a non sequitur in the big picture of the Iraq war...it only is fodder for the small minds that just can't imagine how all their leadership was duped into that belief, and I don't mean the Bush folks.

How often do you need to be reminded of the entire liberal establishment that was absolutely positive those WMDs existed, along with the majority of the UN, not to mention the majority of the Kurd nation that lost millions already to that madman's WMDs.

Just for S & G's, try donning your military outfit as a 'uniform', rather than a 'costume', and attempt to take a little pride in your nation, rather than putting it down every chance you can. I realize you are just following your President's lead, but realize there is an entire movement of TEA Partiers that feel we don't need to apologize for what this nation stands for, and we are getting pissed at all you liberal/socialists that continue to put up with this POTUS that keeps bowing to our enemies, and ignoring our friends. His sham oligarchy is going down. Time to choose sides.

UB

code3retrievers
02-17-2011, 12:08 PM
But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html

Just so you know its not just me making up numbers, others also came up with these numbers. I'm sure the source will be attacked, and I don't defend it...just showing there is a wide range of estimates, that encompass the numbers I put up.

Edit: I hope we can agree at least that it was a GIAGANTIC waste of our treasury and a tragic loss of American lives, all based on lies and pi$$ poor planning even once the decision was made.


I cited your source even before you did.

The Washington post's source was including the financial crisis and housing collapse. They are really stretching.

You can spin this anyway you would like but it is real hard to get to 3 trillion.

When I come to you for a surgical procedure and ask what the cost is, does your price include my transportation to your office, the fact that I may or may not be out of work for a couple of weeks, the future rise in my health care premiums, or the possibility that I may contract MRSA and all medical expenses involved in that.

NO!

That is exactly what your source is trying to do- take into the account all future costs that may or may not exist as well as every economic calamity in the past 8 years.

I will say it again. EXAGGERATION!

dnf777
02-17-2011, 01:21 PM
Your constant bashing of Bush, even in a backassward way as this view of the destruction of the Hussein regime, is as typical un-American as burning the flag.

Has it ever occurred to your airheaded thinking of what we might be facing at this time, were there a Saddam Hussein to be dealt with along with all the rest of the middle east antagonists?

The lack of WMD's is a non sequitur in the big picture of the Iraq war...it only is fodder for the small minds that just can't imagine how all their leadership was duped into that belief, and I don't mean the Bush folks.

How often do you need to be reminded of the entire liberal establishment that was absolutely positive those WMDs existed, along with the majority of the UN, not to mention the majority of the Kurd nation that lost millions already to that madman's WMDs.

Just for S & G's, try donning your military outfit as a 'uniform', rather than a 'costume', and attempt to take a little pride in your nation, rather than putting it down every chance you can. I realize you are just following your President's lead, but realize there is an entire movement of TEA Partiers that feel we don't need to apologize for what this nation stands for, and we are getting pissed at all you liberal/socialists that continue to put up with this POTUS that keeps bowing to our enemies, and ignoring our friends. His sham oligarchy is going down. Time to choose sides.

UB


Hmmmm. More personal attacks. On my wearing of the uniform as well.
Really, I'd prefer a simple "thank you", rather than the insults.

And if you think I would do anything akin to burning the US flag, just try doing it in front of me and see what happens!

BTW, I will point out things when I think they are bad for this country. You have NOT heard me ever refer to Bush as "Dumbya" or other derogatory names. YOUR side constantly refers to Obama as "obumma" "bumface" "obongo" etc....

THAT type of disgracing of the President is more aking to descecrating a symbol of this nation (ie flag burning) that stating one's opposition to policy. You just can't handle it when your man's flaws are pointed out, and thus resort to personal attacks upon people, their profession, and even stoop so low as to attack a fellow veteran's service! That's pretty sad, Bill.

road kill
02-17-2011, 01:33 PM
Hmmmm. More personal attacks. On my wearing of the uniform as well.
Really, I'd prefer a simple "thank you", rather than the insults.

And if you think I would do anything akin to burning the US flag, just try doing it in front of me and see what happens!

BTW, I will point out things when I think they are bad for this country. You have NOT heard me ever refer to Bush as "Dumbya" or other derogatory names. YOUR side constantly refers to Obama as "obumma" "bumface" "obongo" etc....

THAT type of disgracing of the President is more aking to descecrating a symbol of this nation (ie flag burning) that stating one's opposition to policy. You just can't handle it when your man's flaws are pointed out, and thus resort to personal attacks upon people, their profession, and even stoop so low as to attack a fellow veteran's service! That's pretty sad, Bill.

Though I truly appreciate the sentiment, one needs to ask.....what would you do??
Tell on them??:rolleyes:


RK

dnf777
02-17-2011, 01:41 PM
Though I truly appreciate the sentiment, one needs to ask.....what would you do??
Tell on them??:rolleyes:


RK

I thought big muscle-men like you were supposed to be humble and understand implicit comments like that?

Let's just say I'd do the same thing you would do, and leave it at that.

Can we rejoin an adult conversation, without the insults and attacks now?

road kill
02-17-2011, 01:49 PM
I thought big muscle-men like you were supposed to be humble and understand implicit comments like that?

Let's just say I'd do the same thing you would do, and leave it at that.

Can we rejoin an adult conversation, without the insults and attacks now?


I know I can, and do, I see no evidence that you have that capacity.:D


RK

dnf777
02-17-2011, 02:05 PM
I know I can, and do, I see no evidence that you have that capacity.:D


RK


Stan,
I'm really disappointed in your behavior here. What are you looking for? A locker-room showdown or something? Isn't this childish enough already?

Once again, as in another thread, I'll concede that you are the bigger macho man, and give you another one for the "win" column. I'm bored with the petty jabs.

You used to be a voice of reason here....even calling for civility at one time. Did you just give up altogether on that? I'm sorry to see that. I once thought you would be a good moderator here, but lately, you've been just as deep in the ditch as anyone.

Have a good one.

road kill
02-17-2011, 02:14 PM
http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww42/sbx1/crybaby.jpg

RK:D

ducknwork
02-17-2011, 02:24 PM
This is tiresome.

mjh345
02-17-2011, 02:34 PM
Thanks, as a matter of fact I do feel better. Just trying to keep you honest. I get tired of reading your exaggerations. War is expensive enough.

Long term health care is expected to be 300-700 billion (quite a range)

Even including long term care your figure is still exaggerated.

Since you are a stickler on inaccuracies and exageration; why don't you comment the accuracy on what Cheney and the Bush administration told us would be the cost of the war

Welcomed liberator regards

Uncle Bill
02-17-2011, 02:49 PM
Hmmmm. More personal attacks. On my wearing of the uniform as well.
Really, I'd prefer a simple "thank you", rather than the insults.

And if you think I would do anything akin to burning the US flag, just try doing it in front of me and see what happens!

BTW, I will point out things when I think they are bad for this country. You have NOT heard me ever refer to Bush as "Dumbya" or other derogatory names. YOUR side constantly refers to Obama as "obumma" "bumface" "obongo" etc....

THAT type of disgracing of the President is more aking to descecrating a symbol of this nation (ie flag burning) that stating one's opposition to policy. You just can't handle it when your man's flaws are pointed out, and thus resort to personal attacks upon people, their profession, and even stoop so low as to attack a fellow veteran's service! That's pretty sad, Bill.


I am once again going against my prime directive of not arguing with idiots...you are so far more experienced at this level.

I'm not the one attacking your military service...you are. You continue to lambaste the Bush administration for their elimination of one of the most barbarian dictators in the world, because he didn't find WMDs. And being the hypocrite you and your fellow liberals are, you find that to be the most important part of the Iraq war. How myopic.

And of course you should be bowed to for your 'service'. Gosh I don't recall anyone saying thank you to me either, but that's the difference between an American taking his turn at doing his duty to his country, and a liberal that is always looking for praise for his meager investment in the country. Will your arrogance never cease?

UB

Cody Covey
02-17-2011, 04:15 PM
Stan,
I'm really disappointed in your behavior here. What are you looking for? A locker-room showdown or something? Isn't this childish enough already?

Once again, as in another thread, I'll concede that you are the bigger macho man, and give you another one for the "win" column. I'm bored with the petty jabs.

You used to be a voice of reason here....even calling for civility at one time. Did you just give up altogether on that? I'm sorry to see that. I once thought you would be a good moderator here, but lately, you've been just as deep in the ditch as anyone.

Have a good one.
Come on Dave, Can't you see that RK is just trying to get under your skin? I literally LOL'd at his last comment because I knew he was messing with you :) (At least I am pretty sure he is!)

road kill
02-17-2011, 04:21 PM
Come on Dave, Can't you see that RK is just trying to get under your skin? I literally LOL'd at his last comment because I knew he was messing with you :) (At least I am pretty sure he is!)

Who, me????:shock:


RK

Roger Perry
02-17-2011, 08:03 PM
Your constant bashing of Bush, even in a backassward way as this view of the destruction of the Hussein regime, is as typical un-American as burning the flag.

Has it ever occurred to your airheaded thinking of what we might be facing at this time, were there a Saddam Hussein to be dealt with along with all the rest of the middle east antagonists?

The lack of WMD's is a non sequitur in the big picture of the Iraq war...it only is fodder for the small minds that just can't imagine how all their leadership was duped into that belief, and I don't mean the Bush folks.

How often do you need to be reminded of the entire liberal establishment that was absolutely positive those WMDs existed, along with the majority of the UN, not to mention the majority of the Kurd nation that lost millions already to that madman's WMDs.

Just for S & G's, try donning your military outfit as a 'uniform', rather than a 'costume', and attempt to take a little pride in your nation, rather than putting it down every chance you can. I realize you are just following your President's lead, but realize there is an entire movement of TEA Partiers that feel we don't need to apologize for what this nation stands for, and we are getting pissed at all you liberal/socialists that continue to put up with this POTUS that keeps bowing to our enemies, and ignoring our friends. His sham oligarchy is going down. Time to choose sides.

UB

First off UB, the congress men and women were duped by the Bush Administration into believing WMDs existed. Second, The majority of the UN did not believe there WMDs because they did not back the U.S. when it went to war with Iraq. Third, there were not millions of Kurds that were killed but 5 to 7 thousand and those numbers pale in comparison to the number of innocent men women and childern that were killed or wounded since 2003.

If the U.S. wanted Saddam out of the way, they could have sent in a hit squad to take him out which would have saved thousands upon thousands of lives and billions and billions of dollars.

sandyg
02-17-2011, 08:56 PM
In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign-intelligence activities. In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford concisely but explicitly outlawed political assassination:
5(g) Prohibition on Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.
Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford’s prohibition on assassinations. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination:
In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition:



2.11 No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.
Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect.

code3retrievers
02-17-2011, 10:54 PM
Since you are a stickler on inaccuracies and exageration; why don't you comment the accuracy on what Cheney and the Bush administration told us would be the cost of the war

Welcomed liberator regards

50-60 billion was the original estimate. Obviously under estimated by a factor of X10 or greater. It was originally thought that the war would be quick, under a year. Guess what? You can't predict wars very easily. If their original time-line held then the war would have been with in the estimate. Instead the war has drug on, upping the cost year after year. I suppose you should be complaining about the cost of WWW II also since that one cost a lot more then anyone predicted.

Any other questions that you are too lazy to look up for yourself?

No exaggeration regards.

M&K's Retrievers
02-17-2011, 11:58 PM
Hmmmm. More personal attacks. On my wearing of the uniform as well.Constant reminding us of your "service" to the country while no one else seems to find the need.
Really, I'd prefer a simple "thank you", rather than the insults. You apparently need a pat on the back.

And if you think I would do anything akin to burning the US flag, just try doing it in front of me and see what happens! Don't think anyone believes you would do that

BTW, I will point out things when I think they are bad for this country. You have NOT heard me ever refer to Bush as "Dumbya" or other derogatory names. YOUR side constantly refers to Obama as "obumma" "bumface" "obongo" etc.... Our side? What side would that be? I've never done it. In fact only a couple here have done it.

THAT type of disgracing of the President is more aking to descecrating a symbol of this nation (ie flag burning) that stating one's opposition to policy.I guess it's OK to blast a past President if you don't care for him. You just can't handle it when your man's flaws are pointed out, And you can??[/B][/COLOR] and thus resort to personal attacks upon people, their profession, and even stoop so low as to attack a fellow veteran's service! That's pretty sad, Bill.

Thank you, thank you , thank you for pointing out your service. Again. And again. You are apparently the only one on this board who served their country. Oh, and thank you for only blasting a past president. I guess that's OK.

M&K's Retrievers
02-18-2011, 12:01 AM
............

Have a good one.

You leaving?? Promises, promises, promises...

You and Arnold will "be back" regards,

dnf777
02-18-2011, 04:50 AM
Thank you, thank you , thank you for pointing out your service. Again. And again. You are apparently the only one on this board who served their country. Oh, and thank you for only blasting a past president. I guess that's OK.

You're pathetic.
You haven't heard me EVER make disparaging remarks about other's military service....not even those who routinely do so themselves.

Its a matter of pride. You may or may not understand, I have no idea of what your background is, and again, nor do I care.

And just to set you straight....it was BILL who brought up my service....NOT ME....in the form of an insult of me wearing my uniform as a "costume". Once again, you are spewing substantively empty, factually inaccurate accusations......you're batting .1000!

But thank you for commenting. It once again shows you have nothing meaningful to contribute to this thread.

And no, I'm not going away. How would you feed your fetish if you didn't have me to insult with baseless claims?

Roger Perry
02-18-2011, 06:27 AM
In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign-intelligence activities. In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford concisely but explicitly outlawed political assassination:
5(g) Prohibition on Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.
Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford’s prohibition on assassinations. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination:

In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition:


2.11 No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect.

So it is all right to kill and maim hundreds of thousands innocent men, women and childres and bomb their Country back into the 18th Century but it is not ok to go after the one person who was the target of the war to begin with? Wasn't there a wanted dead or alive order out for Saddam?

Hew
02-18-2011, 06:47 AM
Since you wrote that you're just a rodeo clown seeking mostly just to rile people up I've been doing an excellent job of ignoring your blather. I started to respond to your earlier post of you repeating the lie that the US supplied WMDs to Iraq (some pesticides made by US companies were used by Hussein in his chemical weapons...a far cry "the US supplied WMDs" nonsense), but stopped myself. But after reading the rubbish below I can't help myself. You win, congrats:


First off UB, the congress men and women were duped by the Bush Administration into believing WMDs existed. LOL. Pssst....this is a thread YOU started about the supposed source of WMD intel in Iraq lying to everyone. If the source lied to the Bush Admin then the Bush Admin no more "duped" Congress than you repeating someone else's lie makes you a liar...like your whoppers about the US supplying WMDs to Iraq or that only 7k Kurds were killed by Saddam. Second, The majority of the UN did not believe there WMDs because they did not back the U.S. when it went to war with Iraq. No, there was never a vote on whether a majority of the UN nations believed that Iraq had WMDs. The votes were on whether to use force in Iraq to enforce their previous mandates. Most of the world's leaders felt that Iraq had WMDs (which is exactly what Saddam wanted them to think).Third, there were not millions of Kurds that were killed but 5 to 7 thousand and those numbers pale in comparison to the number of innocent men women and childern that were killed or wounded since 2003. Which are you...a shill for Saddam Hussein or someone too lazy to bother fact checking your own buffoonery on Wikipedia? 5 to 7 thousand was closer to the number of Kurd villages that were razed by Saddam; not the number of Kurds killed (which were well over 100k by other non-Roger Perry sources). Also, just for clarification, Americans killed/wounded relatively few Iraqi citizens...most were killed/wounded by their fellow countrymen/Islamists. You can make the argument that we are tangentially responsible because we invaded Iraq, but using that same logic you could also claim that Saddam was responsible since his actions/belligerance caused us to invade in the first place.

If the U.S. wanted Saddam out of the way, they could have sent in a hit squad to take him out which would have saved thousands upon thousands of lives and billions and billions of dollars. LMAO (as that sentence doesn't deserve anything more than that)

subroc
02-18-2011, 07:30 AM
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-07/us/iraq.uranium_1_yellowcake-uranium-cameco?_s=PM:US

Roger Perry
02-18-2011, 07:30 AM
Since you wrote that you're just a rodeo clown seeking mostly just to rile people up I've been doing an excellent job of ignoring your blather. I started to respond to your earlier post of you repeating the lie that the US supplied WMDs to Iraq (some pesticides made by US companies were used by Hussein in his chemical weapons...a far cry "the US supplied WMDs" nonsense), but stopped myself. But after reading the rubbish below I can't help myself. You win, congrats:

Well Hew, here are some facts to back up my statement that the U.S. supplied WMD to Iraq. Prove me wrong!




How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them


by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

http://hnn.us/resources/saddamrumsfeld.jpg Is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld an evildoer? If not, then what is he doing shaking hands with Saddam Hussein?


http://hnn.us/articles/1283.html

Here is another link.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp

ducknwork
02-18-2011, 10:54 AM
But thank you for commenting. It once again shows you have nothing meaningful to contribute to this thread.

And this little pissing contest that has gone on for pages contributes meaningfully to the thread how? Take it to PMs or get over it....

For the record, I too think UB was out of line with the uniform comment...but take it to PM's rather than soiling (;)RK) another thread with a personal argument.

This crap is getting so old.

Uncle Bill
02-18-2011, 11:28 AM
And this little pissing contest that has gone on for pages contributes meaningfully to the thread how? Take it to PMs or get over it....

For the record, I too think UB was out of line with the uniform comment...but take it to PM's rather than soiling (;)RK) another thread with a personal argument.

This crap is getting so old.


Thought the 'conservatives' on board would understand my comments, but apparently they only read what I said as a slam on a fellow soldier...which I will now make indelibly clear for all.

When you rail against the US objective in Iraq as much as DNF does, how can he then consider the rest of us to believe he is supportive of our nation? Oh sure, he was in the service...begrudgingly...and no doubt poor-mouthing it all the while he got his internship years out of the way. (N0 I wasn't in the medical Army, but I had friends there that were doing it for that reason. Seemed reasonable to me)

So if you are full of animosity for your Commander in Chief, how can that relate to making us believe you were an American in combat, supporting the American way of life? It must have been a miserable existance for DNF to wear a uni for a country, headed up by GWB as CIC, who he was holding in contempt.

Subsequently, my observation was he wasn't placing any more respect for his uniform than it being a 'costume' he was required to wear. As much disdain as he holds for the leadership and administration he served under, how could he have any pride in his uniform?

UB

PS Nothing makes me puke more than the liberal/socialists statement of "we are against the military, but we are in favor of the troops" That is the royal epitome of GDG.

WAKE UP AMERICA. The PC crowd is now running your nation into the ground.

ducknwork
02-18-2011, 11:38 AM
Subsequently, my observation was he wasn't placing any more respect for his uniform than it being a 'costume' he was required to wear. As much disdain as he holds for the leadership and administration he served under, how could he have any pride in his uniform?


I am not going to get into this with you, but do you feel the same way about current service members who dislike Obama and his administration?

I just think that you are making a lot of assumptions and big jumps based on things you have read and deduced on an internet forum. To make a disrespectful statement like you did, you really need more than that to back it up.

If you knew for a fact that what you described about dnf is true, then I could see where your statement would make sense and *possibly* be called for. But until you know it as cold, hard truth, you should just remember the saying about not having something nice to say...

I did not serve in the military and I have much respect for anyone who has/does serve(d) honorably. As far as we know, dnf did just that. In this circumstance, your comment should piss off anyone who has ever worn a uniform for the United States of America. After all, they have all fought for his right to disagree with our government.

subroc
02-18-2011, 11:39 AM
just another Roger is a left wing radical and hates the United States post. Nothing new to see here...

Roger Perry
02-18-2011, 11:44 AM
Since you wrote that you're just a rodeo clown seeking mostly just to rile people up I've been doing an excellent job of ignoring your blather. I started to respond to your earlier post of you repeating the lie that the US supplied WMDs to Iraq (some pesticides made by US companies were used by Hussein in his chemical weapons...a far cry "the US supplied WMDs" nonsense), but stopped myself. But after reading the rubbish below I can't help myself. You win, congrats:

Say Hew, you are awful silent on the articles I posted on Reagan and Bush41 supplying WMDs to Iraq. Did you get a chance to read them. The silence is deafening.:rolleyes:

Hew
02-18-2011, 02:03 PM
Say Hew, you are awful silent on the articles I posted on Reagan and Bush41 supplying WMDs to Iraq. Did you get a chance to read them. The silence is deafening.:rolleyes:
LOL. I didn't realize you were holding you breath. Some of us have jobs outside of posting on the interwebs.

You have stated, twice now, that the US supplied WMDs. We did not. The Iraqis were allowed to buy things that had legitimate uses beyond weapons from US companies that they later used in the production of their own WMDs. You can make the argument that: 1) we had a bumbling beauracracy that allowed Iraq to buy dual purpose items (my vote), 2) that we should have know they were going to use some stuff for evil purposes, or 3) that we turned a blind eye to what they were going to do with the chemicals, botulism cultures, etc. that we allowed them to buy. But YOU'RE A GD LIAR IF YOU CLAIM WE GAVE PROVIDED THEM WITH WMDs.

Now back in the safety barrell you go, rodeo clown. :D

Here's a partial 60 Minutes transcript you might enjoy:



(Footage of American Type Culture Collection building; ATCC sign; vials of cultures; storage containers; infectious substance label; photograph of document with close-up of text: 881215 Iraq Atomic Energy Commission)

SAFER: (Voiceover) Getting away with it was easy. The bacteria was simply ordered from this facility, The American Type Culture Collection of Rockville, Maryland, a non-profit supplier of microbes to the world. They're generally used for public health research. The Iraqi orders, including 34 batches of the deadliest bacteria, did not pass through Pentagon watchdogs. They were simply approved by the Commerce Department.

Dr. BRYEN: I was shocked to see that biological samples would be going to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission because in--it was absolutely clear that--that--that the at--Is--Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission was involved in their nuclear weapons programs and God knows what other weapons programs.

SAFER: I--in very precise terms, what was the--the policy about shipping bacterial cultures like anthrax and botulism to Iraq ?

Dr. BRYEN: I don't think there was a policy in--in--in the administration at the time. I think there was a--a general understanding that a shipment of these kinds of materials was sensitive, required a license.

SAFER: And yet the Commerce Department signed off on them?

Dr. BRYEN: The Commerce Department approved all these licenses. There were a number of licenses. We're not talking about one got through and the others got stopped; we're talking about they all got through, un-- untouched, unstopped.
(Footage of person at computer; ATCC order form coming out of printer; anthrax )

SAFER: (Voiceover) And to find out how to order up some anthrax , just dial up ATCC 's Web site, as we did today, and with the flip of a printer, your order form. Visa and MasterCard accepted. By the way, the effect of inhaled anthrax : one day of flu symptoms, followed by a few days of pneumonia symptoms, followed by death.

dnf777
02-18-2011, 02:47 PM
You have stated, twice now, that the US supplied WMDs. We did not. The Iraqis were allowed to buy things that had legitimate uses beyond weapons

3) that we turned a blind eye to what they were going to do with the chemicals, botulism cultures, etc. that we allowed them to buy. But YOU'RE A GD LIAR IF YOU CLAIM WE GAVE PROVIDED THEM WITH WMDs.

:


Yes, whooda thunk they would do anything nefarious with botulinum toxin? I'm sure we thought it would be distributed to all those plastic surgeons to eradicate age lines and crow's feet once and for all!

Hew
02-18-2011, 02:58 PM
Yes, whooda thunk they would do anything nefarious with botulinum toxin? I'm sure we thought it would be distributed to all those plastic surgeons to eradicate age lines and crow's feet once and for all!
So every country, research firm, hospital, and university around the world that ATCC sent cultures to used them to produce WMDs? You'd know better than I what the legit uses are, but I suspect they outweigh the bad uses by a large margin.

But I do get your larger point, and that's a legitimate argument...that we knew what was being done with the material and didn't care (or worse). I don't particularly agree, but again, a cogent argument can be made. But nobody can claim that we gave them WMDs. The US is as responsible for Saddam's chemical/bio WMDs as Microsoft is for the gibberish that comes out of Perry's computer.

dnf777
02-18-2011, 04:10 PM
So every country, research firm, hospital, and university around the world that ATCC sent cultures to used them to produce WMDs? You'd know better than I what the legit uses are, but I suspect they outweigh the bad uses by a large margin.

But I do get your larger point, and that's a legitimate argument...that we knew what was being done with the material and didn't care (or worse). I don't particularly agree, but again, a cogent argument can be made. But nobody can claim that we gave them WMDs. The US is as responsible for Saddam's chemical/bio WMDs as Microsoft is for the gibberish that comes out of Perry's computer.


I don't want to lock horns with you on this one Hew.

I just knew you'd be disappointed if I passed up a chance to land a jab! ;)

(and make a point in a round about way)