Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on December 18, 2003, 09:03:33 AM
-
All these can be found on Snopes website, and verified true. Gee, I could see how the current administration could be duped considering how long this has been an issue in politics for the last 10 years...
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destrution and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
-
Not to pat myself on the back but I posted this along time ago.
But you’re right this has been an on going problem and one Admin. gave it to the next, And that could have been Gore for that matter. Clinton didn't care who got the problem as long as it wasn't him.
Clinton was scared to do anything for fear of his legacy. He ordered the launch of a few cruse missiles and washed his hands of it. Others will argue he fought tooth and nail to stop terror :rolleyes: But anyone informed and not looking for political gain will agree he did very little.
-
They shouldn't be hard to find then eh.:rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
No luck yet?:D
-
No one denied saddam wanted WMD.
Hence the sanction and inspection policy.
Which worked.
If the Bush whitehouse was sure of Saddam's WMD, why did they fabricate evidence to support it?
WMD was a false pretext for going to war.
The fact that we are still talking about it shows how successful it was.
-
Originally posted by Virage
No one denied saddam wanted WMD.
Hence the sanction and inspection policy.
Which worked.
If the Bush whitehouse was sure of Saddam's WMD, why did they fabricate evidence to support it?
WMD was a false pretext for going to war.
The fact that we are still talking about it shows how successful it was.
so what evidence did they fabricate and please be specific and site sources.
-
Ya beat me to it Krusher:aok
-
Just a couple questions here.
If sadumb didn't have wmd's what did he use against the iranians during the iraq / iran war and against the kurds after gulf war 1?
I thought that was already independantly verified. Anyone think he used them all during these actions?
-
Originally posted by Krusher
so what evidence did they fabricate and please be specific and site sources.
Let me introduce you to Google (http://www.google.com). A good place to start your own thinking.
-
Originally posted by Virage
Let me introduce you to Google (http://www.google.com). A good place to start your own thinking.
yea thats pretty much what I expected..
nothing
-
Attempting to pin the WMD argument on a political party and another President appears to be a desparate attempt to divert blame for something...like the lack of WMDs found in Iraq thus far. Is this the idea now?
-
You can Lead a Horse to Water...
-
Originally posted by JBA
Clinton was scared to do anything for fear of his legacy.
They tried to get support for action against saddam, as a matter of fact they had a debate on it. They were laughed out of the building to chants of "no war for oil". It was an embarrassment. As a matter of fact I believe it was Hillary doing the talking, as soon as she said action against saddam the no war for oil chants started and you couldn't even hear her speak.
The fact is the same would have happened to Bush, but then came 911, and people woke up.
-
"...Gee, I could see how the current administration could be duped...."
Not that it would take much to dupe this bunch.
yowser
-
Originally posted by Curval
Attempting to pin the WMD argument on a political party and another President appears to be a desparate attempt to divert blame for something...like the lack of WMDs found in Iraq thus far. Is this the idea now?
No, this was the idea from the beginning, when the liberals ignored mass graves, Pulp mill shredders, and Rape rooms, and started asking "Waaa! where are the WMD???" ;) They can't find anything to pin on Bush anymore, so this is all they have to hold onto.
-
Originally posted by yowser
"...Gee, I could see how the current administration could be duped...."
Not that it would take much to dupe this bunch.
yowser
Actually, what you view as "stupid" will be recorded in military history as "brilliant".
From a strategic point of view, it was a brilliant move.
Establish a base in the middle east to ensure safe flow of the oil to the world.
Center the "fight on terrorism" in the Middle east, instead of on our home. Let the terrorists come to us in Iraq.
Let neighboring countries know that if you plan to support/finance terrorism in the future, *we* will know about it. Think of it as a neighborhood "Block watch".
Regardless of the initial motive, the humanitarian side of it has proven it was a just war.
Brilliant!
-
Originally posted by Virage
You can Lead a Horse to Water...
Nah, the burden of proof is on you to support your statements with data.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
...If sadumb didn't have wmd's what did he use against the iranians during the iraq / iran war and against the kurds after gulf war 1?...
You got any documentation for this?
-
Originally posted by Curval
Attempting to pin the WMD argument on a political party and another President appears to be a desparate attempt to divert blame for something...like the lack of WMDs found in Iraq thus far. Is this the idea now?
Exactly what I was thinking.
-
So the peradem seems to be "We attacked Saddam cuz Bill Clinton told us to"
-
Before the war i thought sadddam had wmd, but i still did not think that a war was justified.....war seldom is of some odd reason.
Now we see that he does not have these weapons, at least not ready for use.
The US needs to rethink its aggressive postiure to avoid beeing attacked again. Retaliation and pre-emptive strikes against those that may someday in the future threaten them will just lead them deeper into something that they won't be able to get out of.
Hate and ignorance will never bring the world closer to a more peaceful and safe world for anyone. Sometimes you just have to take few punches without shooting back with a shotgun.
As long as the US does not get this, it will reamain on the hitlist for alot of people.
-
The Bush Legacy: "Don't Blame Me"
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
So the peradem seems to be "We attacked Saddam cuz Bill Clinton told us to"
Originally posted by Ripsnort
No, this was the idea from the beginning, when the liberals ignored mass graves, Pulp mill shredders, and Rape rooms, and started asking "Waaa! where are the WMD???" ;) They can't find anything to pin on Bush anymore, so this is all they have to hold onto.
-
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg)
-
Which idea are you talking about? The first time you used that statement in reply to Curval's question, it did not answer the question. And now, the second time it is just an odd juxtaposition.
Have you degenerated to such a level that now all you can do it cut&paste your own drivel?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
No, this was the idea from the beginning, when the liberals ignored mass graves, Pulp mill shredders, and Rape rooms, and started asking "Waaa! where are the WMD???" ;) They can't find anything to pin on Bush anymore, so this is all they have to hold onto.
Well that is why the war was begun wasn't it...WMD...I'm pretty sure I do remember that...
I mean surely that information hasn't been through the ministry of truth just yet...
Tronsky
-
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq October 10, 2002
....In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.....
-
the real war hasnt even started and these weenies are crying foul.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
the real war hasnt even started and these weenies are crying foul.
Who are we fighting against in this "real" war?
-
Let's see if I've got this right…. Clinton lied repeatedly to the American public about Iraq having WMDs and now. These statments should be forgotten like they never happened?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Actually, what you view as "stupid" will be recorded in military history as "brilliant".
From a strategic point of view, it was a brilliant move.
Establish a base in the middle east to ensure safe flow of the oil to the world.
Center the "fight on terrorism" in the Middle east, instead of on our home. Let the terrorists come to us in Iraq.
Let neighboring countries know that if you plan to support/finance terrorism in the future, *we* will know about it. Think of it as a neighborhood "Block watch".
Regardless of the initial motive, the humanitarian side of it has proven it was a just war.
Brilliant!
Interesting viewpoint. Food for thought.
-
Seems to me that the guys in Iraq responsible for makeing the WMD stuff fooled everyone in attempt to save their own lives and family.
I mean , they not only fooled Saddam, but they fooled the whole world
of course, I might be wrong
-
Originally posted by Furious
You got any documentation for this?
Here is just the first of many links on google regarding the WMD used by iran.
Search thread: iraq iran war WMD.
http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What evedence did they have and please be specific and site sources.
How the heck should I know. I'm not CIA or anything close.
You said they fabricated evidence, so you must have more information than I do. What evidence did they fabricate?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
First of all I wasn't asking you, and second I've never claimed they fabricated anything. I've always claimed they didn't HAVE any evidence. Prove me wrong.
You work at the Pentagon? If not, how would you know?
Ooooh, I get it, it's speculation. You made it up. Much like your time in the service.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Here is just the first of many links on google regarding the WMD used by iran.
Search thread: iraq iran war WMD.
http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html
I know what was done during the iran-iraq war. You stated that wmd were used against the kurds after GW1. I asked you to document this use.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Hehehe you really are an asshole Martlet. Why don't you join Grunherz in my ignorelist ... bye.
Ahhh, the standard "you got me there, so I'm ignoring you" post.
I guess it works when you realize you're wrong, but refuse to admit it.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I love this ignore thing, I can se him posting but don't need to read his fascist drivel anymore. Love it!
HA! I love knowing that GScholz is really reading this, but pretending not to. How pathetic.
He can't NOT read it. Just like Miko, he doesn't have it in him.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
There he goes again! I saw the lips move, did anyone hear anything? No? Good.
HA! Much like his war stories, I doubt anyone is buying this either.
Unfortunately, I must sleep. Much like my Lab, I'm sure he can be coaxed to chase more sticks tomorrow. Dumb animals just can't help it.
-
We didn't invade because of WMDs, terrorism, or to make money for Halliburton. The main reason was to get our troops out of Saudi Arabia.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
Now we see that he does not have these weapons, at least not ready for use.
I guess that depends on what you mean by ready use. If I bury weapons in the desert it may take you 10 years to find them if you don't know where they are. Whereas it may take me only an hour to drive out to them, dig a few feet, open up the hatch, and start loading the trucks if I do know where they are.
-
I guess that depends on what you mean by ready use.
"I didn't have sexual relations with that woman."
-
Originally posted by Virage
Let me introduce you to Google (http://www.google.com). A good place to start your own thinking.
Sorry to bust your bubble Virage. Google is one of the most biased and manipulative source of information you can access. They decide what you find and what not! They filter out unwanted sites and present you the fitting ones on top. Google is anything but indpendent! Sure it's a good tool for your every day inquiries but not the place to look for raw, unfiddeled, uncensored information.
-
Partisan rhetoric aside, there is a point to be taken from this:
The perception of a current and future threat from Iraqi WMD did not originate with the current administration. Agree or disagree with using said threat as a justification for war all you want, agree or disagree with the contention that the threat was imminent, but accept the fact that the threat has been considered credible for many years. And considered so by policy makers and advisors from both sides of the aisle.
-
we first knew he had wmd during the reagan administration when they sold them to him. pretty much all he had. the rest is the retoric.
simple and to the point.
-
Support of the use of chemical weapons, of course, cannot be defended. And Hussein was a dangerous psychopath from the word go. But the zeitgeist of 1984 and 2003 are entirely different. While I think it is valid to criticize the Reagan Administration's policy of supporting Iraq as a counterweight to Iran, I don't think it is fair to accuse any of the principals of inconsistency or hypocrisy. The geopolitical situation 20 years ago was just too different to make such comparisons valid.
-
Rip, why can't all your posts be like the last two? Clear, concise, thoughtful and with no rhetoric, fantastic contribution.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Rip, why can't all your posts be like the last two? Clear, concise, thoughtful and with no rhetoric, fantastic contribution.
Why, because it had big words in it?
-
Nah, it's because of what wasn't it in.
-
These posts reminded me of Jerry Springer Episodes...
:lol
-
"...Rip, why can't all your posts be like the last two? Clear, concise, thoughtful and with no rhetoric, fantastic contribution.".
Obviously copied and pasted from somewhere. Either that or somebody else is logged in with his account.
yowser
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
we first knew he had wmd during the reagan administration when they sold them to him. pretty much all he had. the rest is the retoric.
simple and to the point.
Again, prove it.
A democraticly controlled Senate Banking committee tried tried to in 1994 and failed to find the evidence you call simple and to the point.
The bottom line of the report is that NO US OR INTERNATIONAL LAWS WERE BROKEN and that several companies from places like Germany mostly, but also the United States, Britain, France, Austria, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and more were doing business with Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
"I didn't have sexual relations with any women."
I'd rather not be privy to your personal life. ;)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
"I didn't have sexual relations with that woman."
He never lied about that...it is true, he didn't have sexual relations with her.
Actually, we are having a nice converstaion about this topic over at Check 6...kind of.
-
Cur, even >>>>I<<<< can't defend the former President on that one...
-
I'd rather not be privy to your personal life. ;)
Ho ho! We got a comedian! ;)
-
We are all comedians in this life
although others may not laugh at our jokes.