Author Topic: More Freedumb  (Read 1460 times)

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
More Freedumb
« Reply #30 on: June 21, 2006, 03:43:54 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort
That's why I made the assumption that it was indeed illegal. They don't want to talk about it, what else am I suppose to presume?


Tell us your most secret wish Rip... come-on share something really personal with us all.

Wait a minute, you don't want to say?... It must be illegal then!!!!

Rip is a criminal!!!!!!!!

 :O

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
More Freedumb
« Reply #31 on: June 21, 2006, 04:06:04 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
Tell us your most secret wish Rip... come-on share something really personal with us all.

Wait a minute, you don't want to say?... It must be illegal then!!!!

Rip is a criminal!!!!!!!!

 :O

Okay. I really wish I could be a manager of minimum wage employees and have Walmart airplane toys in my office.:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
More Freedumb
« Reply #32 on: June 21, 2006, 04:11:47 PM »
Work hard.. you can get there someday.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
More Freedumb
« Reply #33 on: June 21, 2006, 04:13:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
Work hard.. you can get there someday.
Do I start at McDonalds and work my way up to Burger King? :rofl

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
More Freedumb
« Reply #34 on: June 21, 2006, 04:16:14 PM »
um. sure.

:huh

Offline Stringer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
More Freedumb
« Reply #35 on: June 21, 2006, 04:32:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort
There were WMD in Iraq, just not in the huge numbers that were assumed to be there. I'm a firm believer that the WMD was a front to get a foothold in the middle east, and put a base of operations there to keep an eye on the rest of the mindless radical muslims (Syria, Iran) and to depose of an idiot who not only harbored terrorists but would have used them sincerely in the future if given a chance. So WMD or not, it was a brilliant move by this admininstration and history will prove that it was the right thing to do.

Sleep tight tonight, the fights not near your house, thanks to a few good men.


The facts say you are wrong about WMD's being in Iraq.  Facts admitted by the Admin, admitted by the CIA, and admitted by the Inspection Team sponsored by the US after the invasion.  

I'm not OK with the our government lying to me to gain support for military action.  I support military use and the projection of our power, but either you make the case for your REAL reasons for going to war so the public can make an INFORMED decision or you don't go using trumped up reasons.  If the reasons are valid and justifiable, this nation will support military action, I honestly believe that, and that belief is proved right by the nations continued support of our action in Afghanistan.

Conservative media voices such as William F. Buckley, Jr, are saying Iraq is a mistake.  Military voices are saying our prosecution of the Iraq situation continues to be mis-handled.

BTW, I sleep tight everynight :)  Of course, I'm just as safe or unsafe from terror attack before 9/11 as after 9/11.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
More Freedumb
« Reply #36 on: June 21, 2006, 04:34:37 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Stringer
I'm not OK with the our government lying to me to gain support for military action.  I support military use and the projection of our power, but either you make the case for your REAL reasons for going to war so the public can make an INFORMED decision or you don't go using trumped up reasons.  If the reasons are valid and justifiable, this nation will support military action, I honestly believe that, and that belief is proved right by the nations continued support of our action in Afghanistan.
 

This just in: WMD was not the sole reason for going to war. I rest my case.

Offline Stringer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
More Freedumb
« Reply #37 on: June 21, 2006, 04:36:46 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort
This just in: WMD was not the sole reason for going to war. I rest my case.


What case?  You have yet to make a case.

BTW, this just in....WMD was THE reason for going to war.  You can't try to re-write THAT history.

Saddam was/is a vile evil human being, but he was not an iminent threat to this country as state below...

Again, if you claim iminent threat and WMD's you'd had better be right.....the Admin wasn't right.

And it looks like it was about WMD from his speech:

"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause"
« Last Edit: June 21, 2006, 04:44:56 PM by Stringer »

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
More Freedumb
« Reply #38 on: June 21, 2006, 04:43:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Stringer
What case?  You have yet to make a case.

BTW, this just in....WMD was THE reason for going to war.  You can't try to re-write THAT history.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

I'd suggest you get caught up on your history.

Quote
Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.


WMD? nope. (A minimal amount, sarin shells, but not the quantity we expected)
History of agression? Check
Seeking Nuclear weapons? Check
Violated numerous UN resolutions? Check
Undermining the sanctions put forth against that country? Check
Practicing terror on its own people? Check.
harboring terrorists? Check.

Incidently,you hijacked the thread. Why not start another thread if you want to debate this stuff?
« Last Edit: June 21, 2006, 04:46:36 PM by Ripsnort »

Offline Stringer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
More Freedumb
« Reply #39 on: June 21, 2006, 04:54:17 PM »
LOL...i posted at the same time you did, just a less abridged version, but lets run through the check list

WMD--nope...
History of Aggresion: To lesser neighbors (and sponsored by the US)..yes.  
Seeking Nuclear Weapons:..Not according to the CIA.  
Violated UN Resolutons:...yep..OK..hmmm..are we in full compliance...
Undermining Sanctions:  yep...not sure that's a invasionable offence...
Practicing terror on his own people: yep...but if that's a litmus test for military action, we've got some friendly dictators and government's to get rid of...(of course at the time that happened we sat on our hands...can't play that one both ways)
harboring terrorists:...shaky connection at best, if it all.

I think the best of all is the whole mobile lab thing that Powell cited in his UN SC Speech.  Turns out is was from a single source that was not reliable.  There never was any cross-verification of that.  Powell did not like that kind of egg on his face.

I suggest you get caught up on actual history.

Apology's to Funked for the hijack.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
More Freedumb
« Reply #40 on: June 21, 2006, 05:09:11 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Stringer
LOL...i posted at the same time you did, just a less abridged version, but lets run through the check list

WMD--nope...
History of Aggresion: To lesser neighbors (and sponsored by the US)..yes.  
Seeking Nuclear Weapons:..Not according to the CIA.  
Violated UN Resolutons:...yep..OK..hmmm..are we in full compliance...
Undermining Sanctions:  yep...not sure that's a invasionable offence...
Practicing terror on his own people: yep...but if that's a litmus test for military action, we've got some friendly dictators and government's to get rid of...(of course at the time that happened we sat on our hands...can't play that one both ways)
harboring terrorists:...shaky connection at best, if it all.

I think the best of all is the whole mobile lab thing that Powell cited in his UN SC Speech.  Turns out is was from a single source that was not reliable.  There never was any cross-verification of that.  Powell did not like that kind of egg on his face.

I suggest you get caught up on actual history.

Apology's to Funked for the hijack.

I'll give you that they got caught with their pants down on the WMD, but I still think they are looking at the bigger picture.  The WMDs was a cover. The US needed to establish a base in Iraq since Saudi Arabia was becoming too hot for the royal family to handle. And US can not leave the middle-East since we actually are the stabilizing power there. These countries are ruled in an autocratic manner and do not have an established tradition of transfer of power (e.g. in a democracy).

If we are not there, another power will come in and fill in the vacuum. There is a reason that the Chinese and the Russians are willing to do nuke deals with Iran. Do you want the world's oil supply to be controlled by the Russian Mafia or the Chinese Communist or Osama's Islamists or public US corporations  ? I am personally shocked at the lack of strategic vision often displayed by the "Where are the WMDs?" brigade.

This week's TIME magazine is a must read for anyone who wants to understand the threat we face from the Middle East.

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
More Freedumb
« Reply #41 on: June 21, 2006, 05:15:46 PM »
When it comes down to it, saddumb could have short circuited the entire invasion and resulting action very easily. All he had to do was open up the areas the UN teams wanted to inspect. Had he done that the oil scandal could have gone on fattening some euro wallets and he'd likely still be sitting in his palaces. He was freaking STUPID in thinking nothing would happen by not cooperating.
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Stringer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
More Freedumb
« Reply #42 on: June 21, 2006, 05:21:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Maverick
When it comes down to it, saddumb could have short circuited the entire invasion and resulting action very easily. All he had to do was open up the areas the UN teams wanted to inspect. Had he done that the oil scandal could have gone on fattening some euro wallets and he'd likely still be sitting in his palaces. He was freaking STUPID in thinking nothing would happen by not cooperating.


Mav,

Absolutely agree.  He absolutely miscalculated, period.  And was an idiot in doing so.  Hell, I'd be willing to wager that if he cooperated we would have used him to counter Iran (again, but with a lot less leash this time).
« Last Edit: June 21, 2006, 05:25:52 PM by Stringer »

Offline Dos Equis

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 365
More Freedumb
« Reply #43 on: June 21, 2006, 05:24:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Stringer
Mav,

Absolutely agree.  He absolutely miscalculated, period.  And was an idiot in doing so.  Hell, I'd be willing to wager that if he cooperated we would have used him to counter Iran (again, but with a lot lease leash this time).


He was an idiot. He became delusional with his power. He and his sons would still be alive and free to run the rape rooms, if he had just cooperated and been willing to do what we put him in there to do in the 1960s, be a force against Iran and let the Saudis have some of the contracts.

Offline FUNKED1

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6866
      • http://soldatensender.blogspot.com/
More Freedumb
« Reply #44 on: June 21, 2006, 05:46:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Maverick
When it comes down to it, saddumb could have short circuited the entire invasion and resulting action very easily. All he had to do was open up the areas the UN teams wanted to inspect. Had he done that the oil scandal could have gone on fattening some euro wallets and he'd likely still be sitting in his palaces. He was freaking STUPID in thinking nothing would happen by not cooperating.


That's not true.  Cheney and Rummy had decided on 9/11 (their words are documented) that they were going after Saddam.  Nothing the UN or Saddam could have done was going to stop them.