What should we do now: for Liberals

[MrMarbles]

The key word here is "you", perhaps you should be saying, "Our government should take the lead on this one and back up our neighbors while they are busy elswhere" but of course you will go the spineless route and claim there was never any WMD's without any proof other than they have not been found yet!
How typically liberal of you!

Just like every other country, you wanna bitch about what we do but the first to want us to step into action to protect the rest of the world!

When America goes thumping around as the World police, you are giving yourselves the responmsibility. People look to what the US will do, and asks what the US will do because She is the one always messing around.

Canada would probably help out with N. Korea, probably not with military support (we don't have the means) but politically and economically. This is because N. Korea is a threat, Iraq was not.

You have the typical attitude of the "worldly" liberal losers. You hate us for what we have and what we can do. Our economics have helped the world countless times over but all you can do is whine about it. Our intervention has prevented countless threats to the free world but all you can do is scoff at us. I am so sick of you whiny wusses.

The whole "they hate us for what we have", is a pretty petty and insulting over-generalization of your views of other peoples. People have a distaste for America due to it's hypocracy. It's a bad colour on you. You police the world but only to the extent of helping yourselves.

As for N. Korea and the missile sheild. They will just find ways around, or just build up a bigger arsenal to get around it. Which in turmn will raise the stakes and tension, till eventually someone will sneeze, amnd the world will end.

Try open dialogue, overwhelming economic advantages. N. Korea in the state it is in can't last forever, there is no need to speed up the process and endanger the world.

 

[NATO AIR]

Do you really think so though? I look at history and it is more often than not the other way around. When democracy successfully takes route it is in countries that have progressed to a certain degree of economic wealth, ie a development of a successful middle class. Installing democracies on countries with highly stratified societies tends to lead to collapse.

Issac you would do well to read Fareed Zakaria's excellent "The Future Of Freedom" He basically sets out to prove what you're saying and does so quite convincingly, especially with examples like S. Korea, Chile, Taiwan and Portugal.

 

[alien21010]

I disagree. It is Freedom that brings wealth not wealth that brings freedom. Hence why all these tyranny's throughout the world are not prosperous. You cant be prosperous without the freedom to make your own way in the world and you cant have that if you have to watch yourself so that you dont get yourself beheaded or your family slaughtered or have the government taking so much of your money its not profitable to work anymore.

I'd disagree here. Some dictatorships have been extremely profitable and wealthy. Examples: Rome (during the reign of the emperors), and Nazi Germany. Both of which were under very strict military rule, but were some of the wealthiest countries on the face of the planet at the time.

His original argument was not that wealth brings freedom or vice versa. It was that democracy can only be established in countries after achieving a certain status of wealth, which is firmly established in history. This is a fairly recognizable fact in the modern world too. In which countries with very little wealth (most of Africa) and have democracies, are usually just puppet governments for the dictators pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Democracy and freedom do not necessarily go hand in hand either. In fact a direct democracy can be nearly as oppressive as any dictatorship, if not moreso.

The key word here is "you", perhaps you should be saying, "Our government should take the lead on this one and back up our neighbors while they are busy elswhere" but of course you will go the spineless route and claim there was never any WMD's without any proof other than they have not been found yet!
How typically liberal of you!

Sir Evil, the one making the claim must assert evidence to support his ideas. You claimed that there are/were WMD in Iraq, yet there is no evidence to support this claim. You sir, possess the burden of proof.

What other proof does he need? The official CIA report has listed no credible Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq.

The UN inspectors knew that many of the sites that the Americans had given them had no weapons, before the war.





EDIT: Removed sentence that did not make sense.

 

[ajwps]

The Islam religion is not responsible for 9/11. Why would you round 'em all up. Just punish those who have done you harm. The pre-emptive stuff is a iffy stragety at best. Putting all your troops on Hercs and flying out of Iraq is peacful, maybe not reasonable. It's a mess, maybe a really big swiffer will do the job.

Sorry about the beef stuf, i was on a tangent.

The religion of Islam is responsible for 9/11 and the attack on civilization. The people of Islam are not ALL responsible but their Qur'an holds full responsibilty. The people of the Islamic religion pray 5 times a day from this evil book from Muhammad the pedophile. Read the following verse from Qur'an to see that there will either be an end to civilization and a return to a 7th century time when mankind became beasts because of one insane man or an end to 1.35 billion believers whose MAJORITY feels dispossessed and left behind in time.

Qur'an

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=282392

Sura [9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters (those who do not believe in Allah) wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

 

[ajwps]

I'd disagree here.

Sir Evil, the one making the claim must assert evidence to support his ideas. You claimed that there are/were WMD in Iraq, yet there is no evidence to support this claim. You sir, possess the burden of proof.

Without going and digging up the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, the following site gives not only the location of the WMDs but also a copy of a letter to that effect. If you doubt what these letters written in Arabic actually say, copy and print them in 8 /12 X 11 size, take them to an Arabic interpreter and ask him to validate their content.

http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

and for exact location see

http://www.2la.org/syria/wmd.html

If you believe that the world intelligence services aren't aware of these WMD cashes, then you must also believe in Tinkerbell.

 

[Mariner]

Your logic is unsound. If you're going to shoot a man because you think he's got a hidden piece and is planning to kill you, then, when he's down, and found to be unarmed, you bear the responsibility for having made an error. "But he was acting weird for 12 years, and all some of his former friends told me that he wanted to get me" won't save your rear end at your murder trial.

By your logic, we should invade any country where there's the least suspicion of threat. Iraq had fewer Al Qaeda contacts than any other country in the region, so why don't we invade all of them?

But we've gotten off the point here, which was the very good question of what to do NOW rather than how we got where we are.

Mariner.

 

[ajwps]

Your logic is unsound. If you're going to shoot a man because you think he's got a hidden piece and is planning to kill you, then, when he's down, and found to be unarmed, you bear the responsibility for having made an error. "But he was acting weird for 12 years, and all some of his former friends told me that he wanted to get me" won't save your rear end at your murder trial.

By your logic, we should invade any country where there's the least suspicion of threat. Iraq had fewer Al Qaeda contacts than any other country in the region, so why don't we invade all of them?

But we've gotten off the point here, which was the very good question of what to do NOW rather than how we got where we are.

Mariner.

Good response. Why not attack them all?

The answer to where we are and what should be done now is rather obvious. If you are the remaining superpower in the world, and you have the moral imperative to destroy those who would destroy you then you use your weapons and strength to end the threat.

Recorded history and time have proved your surrender to evil to be DEADLY WRONG.....

 

[Isaac Brock]

Issac you would do well to read Fareed Zakaria's excellent "The Future Of Freedom" He basically sets out to prove what you're saying and does so quite convincingly, especially with examples like S. Korea, Chile, Taiwan and Portugal.

Believe it or not, I remember reading sections of it for an anthropology counrse I took in university. A little dry writer though!

 

[Isaac Brock]

I'd disagree here. Some dictatorships have been extremely profitable and wealthy. Examples: Rome (during the reign of the emperors), and Nazi Germany. Both of which were under very strict military rule, but were some of the wealthiest countries on the face of the planet at the time.

His original argument was not that wealth brings freedom or vice versa. It was that democracy can only be established in countries after achieving a certain status of wealth, which is firmly established in history. This is a fairly recognizable fact in the modern world too. In which countries with very little wealth (most of Africa) and have democracies, are usually just puppet governments for the dictators pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Democracy and freedom do not necessarily go hand in hand either. In fact a direct democracy can be nearly as oppressive as any dictatorship, if not moreso.

Rome and Nazi Germany, are in my opinion bad examples.

Rome was indeed wealth for the period, but remember that they were one of the most democratic nations at that time, though their democracy could hardly be compared to modern democracy. What other nation during that era had even the first signs of democracy? Indeed the Senate came about through wealthy land owners, a "middle-class" of that era, if you will.

Nazi Germany was, for all manner of speaking democractic. Hitler's party, though terribly as we now know it, was initially democratically elected and at that time his movement was a populist one.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your logic is unsound. If you're going to shoot a man because you think he's got a hidden piece and is planning to kill you, then, when he's down, and found to be unarmed, you bear the responsibility for having made an error. "But he was acting weird for 12 years, and all some of his former friends told me that he wanted to get me" won't save your rear end at your murder trial.

By your logic, we should invade any country where there's the least suspicion of threat. Iraq had fewer Al Qaeda contacts than any other country in the region, so why don't we invade all of them?

But we've gotten off the point here, which was the very good question of what to do NOW rather than how we got where we are.

Mariner.

Your unsound thinking doesn't really apply at the nation state level. He kicked out inspectors. That's an act of international aggression. He should have been taken out by the WORLD community. But alas, the politicians in europe have a secret coalition with terrorists. Just watch the news.

 

[alien21010]

See what happens when you have your head up your ass?
I never made any claim! Therefore you made my case stronger, he made the claim that there wasn't so the burden of proof is on him!
You sir, possess shit for brains!

The burden of proof is on you. The default stance towards weapons of mass destruction, like everything else, is that they do not exist unless it can be shown otherwise. It all revolves around the whole concept of "innocent until proven guilty."

So, I pose the question again. Where is the evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction?

Without going and digging up the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, the following site gives not only the location of the WMDs but also a copy of a letter to that effect. If you doubt what these letters written in Arabic actually say, copy and print them in 8 /12 X 11 size, take them to an Arabic interpreter and ask him to validate their content.

http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

and for exact location see

http://www.2la.org/syria/wmd.html

If you believe that the world intelligence services aren't aware of these WMD cashes, then you must also believe in Tinkerbell.

And if you had taken the time, you would realize that the "informant" here was a dissenting journalist who has made his hatred of the Syrian government known. Wouldn't it be convenient if he just came out with information that led to the invasion of Syria by the United States because they are suspected to have huge caches of weapons?

This guy obviously has alterior motives. It is highly unlikely that we will be invading another country over alleged claims of weapons of mass destruction for quite some time.

No offense, but I don't know many people who consider journalists as credible when it comes to hard facts.

So by your logic I take it we should of allowed Saddam more time eh?

The main source of Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan which was already in progress of being dealt with. Like I have said so many times before about the WMD's, They may of not been found but the Anthrax, VX poision were never answered for but I guess they are of real threat anyway!

Just yesterday another chemical lab was uncovered, please tell me what it's was there for????

Allowing Saddam more time would have gained neither of us anything. It would only have given the UN inspectors more time to complete their job. Ah, but the UN is full of peace loving pussies right? Fuck logic. Fuck reason. We're the only superpower left, so lets abuse our power.

What do you mean the Anthrax and VX poison gas were never accounted for? The Iraqi government confirmed their existance when they released an all weapons disclosure to the UN before the war started.

Chemical weapons lab? Yet with all the other one's that we've "found" they all have turned out to be run down, or destroyed. Most of them from the 80s.

Rome was indeed wealth for the period, but remember that they were one of the most democratic nations at that time, though their democracy could hardly be compared to modern democracy. What other nation during that era had even the first signs of democracy? Indeed the Senate came about through wealthy land owners, a "middle-class" of that era, if you will.

Not really. Under the Roman emperors, the Senate was rendered useless and effectively dissolved. The Romans thrived on war and conquer. It was through this that they gained their immense wealth. The Senate was formed by the aristocrats of Roman society, the immensely wealthy.

The Athenian states were the most democratic during the time period that you mention (before the Roman invasion). The Greek states later became the foundation for the democracies of the modern world.

Nazi Germany was, for all manner of speaking democractic. Hitler's party, though terribly as we now know it, was initially democratically elected and at that time his movement was a populist one.

Democratic? Yes, he was initially voted into power, but then became a despot of horrendous proportions. The Nazis, just as the Romans had done a millenia before, used their military power to project their influence and gain extreme wealth.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

When America goes thumping around as the World police, you are giving yourselves the responmsibility. People look to what the US will do, and asks what the US will do because She is the one always messing around.

Canada would probably help out with N. Korea, probably not with military support (we don't have the means) but politically and economically. This is because N. Korea is a threat, Iraq was not.

The whole "they hate us for what we have", is a pretty petty and insulting over-generalization of your views of other peoples. People have a distaste for America due to it's hypocracy. It's a bad colour on you. You police the world but only to the extent of helping yourselves.

We are the hypocrites?

In 2001 you guys voted the United States off the UN Human Rights Commission just because you wanted to let us know how much you hate us. Just take a look at the human rights record of Saddam in Iraq that you wanted to continue to support. Was this hypocritical or what?

We are following a policy of diplomatic efforts with North Korea which is exactly what you internationalist liberals think we should have continued to do with Saddam who was considered just as much of a threat. But now you criticize us for not "doing" anything with North Korea. That's hypocritical. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

You're angry because we do not want to submit our sovereignty to an International Criminal Court. This is what you think is American arrogance.

You hate us because you think we are turning a blind eye to developing nations needs yet we have poured countless dollars into needy and oppressed nations, more than you guys have even thought of doing. This puts a "bad colour" on us?

You hate us for supporting Israel. The truth is that Europe is reviving its old anti-semitic ways. Is this also why you have a "distaste" for America? What ever happened to your supposed goal to help the "oppressed"?

As for N. Korea and the missile sheild. They will just find ways around, or just build up a bigger arsenal to get around it. Which in turmn will raise the stakes and tension, till eventually someone will sneeze, amnd the world will end.

Have you forgotten the Cold War already? Have you forgotten Libya already?

Try open dialogue, overwhelming economic advantages. N. Korea in the state it is in can't last forever, there is no need to speed up the process and endanger the world.

Why should we reward a rogue nation with economic advantages if they are not willing to lay down their arms? Unlike so many of you two-faced liberal countries, we are not willing to do deals with the bastards behind everybody's backs. We also not willing to have nicey-nicey chit-chat for 12 years again. We ARE willing to talk only if they are willing to talk turkey. In the meantime we will do everything to counter their development and well-being including working with other countries that are also concerned about them. Or are you not aware of that?

North Korea wants the U.S. to stop being "hostile" before it gets down to talks with us and South Korea, Japan, Russia and China. This is why you liberals think the U.S. is such a badass - because we won't kowtow to the demands of a lying bastard of a repressive dictator who does not believe in any human rights except his own.

Yes, we are confronting the bastard. Too bad if that upsets you. We are not going to waste time chit-chatting with him again as was done under stupid Clinton. He has lied to us before, he will lie to us again. All we want is for him to give up the nuclear weapons. Has he said he would yet? Of course not.

He wants us to lay down our arms before he condescends to talk. Yet he still wants to retain HIS weapons. Why should we do that? That's just letting the bully get his way. The US is willing to discuss things - but NOT with the preconditions that Mr. Nastyang is demanding. So you liberals think WE are the bad guys. :finger:

 

[ajwps]

The burden of proof is on you. The default stance towards weapons of mass destruction, like everything else, is that they do not exist unless it can be shown otherwise. It all revolves around the whole concept of "innocent until proven guilty."

So, I pose the question again. Where is the evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction?

And if you had taken the time, you would realize that the "informant" here was a dissenting journalist who has made his hatred of the Syrian government known. Wouldn't it be convenient if he just came out with information that led to the invasion of Syria by the United States because they are suspected to have huge caches of weapons?

This guy obviously has alterior motives. It is highly unlikely that we will be invading another country over alleged claims of weapons of mass destruction for quite some time.

No offense, but I don't know many people who consider journalists as credible when it comes to hard facts.

Your contorted logic is certainly very entertaining. Do you remember those journalists, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein who exposed and caused the resignation of the US president Richard Nixon. So no credible journalist can dig up real documents and evidence? Very funny....

So a 'dissenting' Syrian journalist presents documents verifying WMD's in Syria that could easily be checked for authenticity. Unlike the documents Dan Rather used about George W. Bush's attendance at his Air National Guard service complaint.

And that dissenting Syrian journalist wants the USA to attack his homeland only to find nothing. Do you think that George Bush is really ready to attack Syria and Lebanon to dig up the proof that everybody says doesn't exist?

It is obvious that if this type of material is posted on the Internet, the US and every other world intelligence services are in possession of these documents.

 

[MrMarbles]

We are the hypocrites?

In 2001 you guys voted the United States off the UN Human Rights Commission just because you wanted to let us know how much you hate us. Just take a look at the human rights record of Saddam in Iraq that you wanted to continue to support. Was this hypocritical or what?

You are violating people's rights, and violating the Geneva convention with the prisoners in Guantamano Bay. Being imprisoned without reason , just cause or due process is an infringement of your rights.

We are following a policy of diplomatic efforts with North Korea which is exactly what you internationalist liberals think we should have continued to do with Saddam who was considered just as much of a threat. But now you criticize us for not "doing" anything with North Korea. That's hypocritical. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

When you punch someone in the face because they may have stole your lunch money, but negotiate with someone else who HAS stole your money, thats hypocritical. You are making the world safe only when you get something big out of it. You have appointeed yourselves as world police, but turn your back, that is hypocriticle.

You're angry because we do not want to submit our sovereignty to an International Criminal Court. This is what you think is American arrogance.

It is arrogance. The US wants to intergrate Canada's security with it's own, this will take away our sovereignty. But you cannot make the same concessions to the world court. Again you only use this processes to help yourselves, but once it works against you, you pull out.

You hate us because you think we are turning a blind eye to developing nations needs yet we have poured countless dollars into needy and oppressed nations, more than you guys have even thought of doing. This puts a "bad colour" on us?

You have just invaded the two poorest nations in the world, and killed countless innocents. We are just to forget this because you bougfht some rice?

You hate us for supporting Israel. The truth is that Europe is reviving its old anti-semitic ways. Is this also why you have a "distaste" for America? What ever happened to your supposed goal to help the "oppressed"?

The conflict in the middle east is very complicated. Bith parties are to blame for the tension. Palestine for using terror tactics, Israel for oppressing a people. To back one side only is wrong.

Have you forgotten the Cold War already? Have you forgotten Libya already?

Have you frogotten WW1. The result of which we are still paying for. 90% of all conflicts today can be traced back to that original arms race. Do you want to put us once again into prepetual suffering?

Why should we reward a rogue nation with economic advantages if they are not willing to lay down their arms? Unlike so many of you two-faced liberal countries, we are not willing to do deals with the bastards behind everybody's backs. We also not willing to have nicey-nicey chit-chat for 12 years again. We ARE willing to talk only if they are willing to talk turkey. In the meantime we will do everything to counter their development and well-being including working with other countries that are also concerned about them. Or are you not aware of that?

Reward progress.

N. Korea can't last much longer.

North Korea wants the U.S. to stop being "hostile" before it gets down to talks with us and South Korea, Japan, Russia and China. This is why you liberals think the U.S. is such a badass - because we won't kowtow to the demands of a lying bastard of a repressive dictator who does not believe in any human rights except his own.

Yes, we are confronting the bastard. Too bad if that upsets you. We are not going to waste time chit-chatting with him again as was done under stupid Clinton. He has lied to us before, he will lie to us again. All we want is for him to give up the nuclear weapons. Has he said he would yet? Of course not.

He wants us to lay down our arms before he condescends to talk. Yet he still wants to retain HIS weapons. Why should we do that? That's just letting the bully get his way. The US is willing to discuss things - but NOT with the preconditions that Mr. Nastyang is demanding. So you liberals think WE are the bad guys. :finger:

Blah, blah, blah.
Confront N. Korea. Be careful. A missle sheild won't help. It will just increase tension.

 

[ajwps]

You are violating people's rights, and violating the Geneva convention with the prisoners in Guantamano Bay. Being imprisoned without reason , just cause or due process is an infringement of your rights.

We are following a policy of diplomatic efforts with North Korea which is exactly what you internationalist liberals think we should have continued to do with Saddam who was considered just as much of a threat. But now you criticize us for not "doing" anything with North Korea. That's hypocritical. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

When you punch someone in the face because they may have stole your lunch money, but negotiate with someone else who HAS stole your money, thats hypocritical. You are making the world safe only when you get something big out of it. You have appointeed yourselves as world police, but turn your back, that is hypocriticle.

You're angry because we do not want to submit our sovereignty to an International Criminal Court. This is what you think is American arrogance.

It is arrogance. The US wants to intergrate Canada's security with it's own, this will take away our sovereignty. But you cannot make the same concessions to the world court. Again you only use this processes to help yourselves, but once it works against you, you pull out.

You hate us because you think we are turning a blind eye to developing nations needs yet we have poured countless dollars into needy and oppressed nations, more than you guys have even thought of doing. This puts a "bad colour" on us?

You have just invaded the two poorest nations in the world, and killed countless innocents. We are just to forget this because you bougfht some rice?

You hate us for supporting Israel. The truth is that Europe is reviving its old anti-semitic ways. Is this also why you have a "distaste" for America? What ever happened to your supposed goal to help the "oppressed"?

The conflict in the middle east is very complicated. Bith parties are to blame for the tension. Palestine for using terror tactics, Israel for oppressing a people. To back one side only is wrong.

Have you forgotten the Cold War already? Have you forgotten Libya already?

Have you frogotten WW1. The result of which we are still paying for. 90% of all conflicts today can be traced back to that original arms race. Do you want to put us once again into prepetual suffering?

Why should we reward a rogue nation with economic advantages if they are not willing to lay down their arms? Unlike so many of you two-faced liberal countries, we are not willing to do deals with the bastards behind everybody's backs. We also not willing to have nicey-nicey chit-chat for 12 years again. We ARE willing to talk only if they are willing to talk turkey. In the meantime we will do everything to counter their development and well-being including working with other countries that are also concerned about them. Or are you not aware of that?

Reward progress.

N. Korea can't last much longer.

North Korea wants the U.S. to stop being "hostile" before it gets down to talks with us and South Korea, Japan, Russia and China. This is why you liberals think the U.S. is such a badass - because we won't kowtow to the demands of a lying bastard of a repressive dictator who does not believe in any human rights except his own.

Yes, we are confronting the bastard. Too bad if that upsets you. We are not going to waste time chit-chatting with him again as was done under stupid Clinton. He has lied to us before, he will lie to us again. All we want is for him to give up the nuclear weapons. Has he said he would yet? Of course not.

He wants us to lay down our arms before he condescends to talk. Yet he still wants to retain HIS weapons. Why should we do that? That's just letting the bully get his way. The US is willing to discuss things - but NOT with the preconditions that Mr. Nastyang is demanding. So you liberals think WE are the bad guys. :finger:

Blah, blah, blah.
Confront N. Korea. Be careful. A missle sheild won't help. It will just increase tension

 

[alien21010]

Your contorted logic is certainly very entertaining. Do you remember those journalists, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein who exposed and caused the resignation of the US president Richard Nixon. So no credible journalist can dig up real documents and evidence? Very funny....

So a 'dissenting' Syrian journalist presents documents verifying WMD's in Syria that could easily be checked for authenticity. Unlike the documents Dan Rather used about George W. Bush's attendance at his Air National Guard service complaint.

And that dissenting Syrian journalist wants the USA to attack his homeland only to find nothing. Do you think that George Bush is really ready to attack Syria and Lebanon to dig up the proof that everybody says doesn't exist?

The point is, that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had a credible source who could procure evidence. They were not the source that they cited. To do so, is ridiculous.

Did I say that no journalist can produce credible evidence? No. I said it would be wise to doubt one man's claim when he is an open opponent of the government. Anyone with a brain realizes that if the US had even pseudo proof of weapons of mass destruction, then we would probably be banging on Syrias door.

I agree, let's check his documents for authenticity. But you know, I'm sure they've already done that, and found that there is no authenticity to them. Why would the Bush administration conceal that the weapons are in Syria? It doesn't make any sense. This evidence could exonerate him from all the backlash he's taking.

1+1 does not equal 2 here.

The skeptic in me, decides that this "evidence" is not evidence at all.

Alterior motives are obviously at play.

It is obvious that if this type of material is posted on the Internet, the US and every other world intelligence services are in possession of these documents.

Keep in mind, that the US intelligence agencies were sure that there were WMD still in Iraq. How wrong were they? And we're to trust a single source of information, coming from a journalist?

How many times were the Iraqi defectors wrong? How many times have defectors been absolutely wrong in the past?


The inconsistencies just do not allow me to deem this with merit.

 

[alien21010]

Wrong Again! Niether the anthrax or the VX was accounted for, Blix himself said that there was not co operation on behalf of Iraq on this issue.

Wasn't accounted for, and never turned up, post-invasion. Now either it just "disappeared" or *gasp* it didnt exist.

And speaking of pulling that head from your ass, another chemical lab was found yesterday. Not run dowm, not destroyed but in use with instructional info for anthrax!!

 

[jimnyc]

Wasn't accounted for, and never turned up, post-invasion. Now either it just "disappeared" or *gasp* it didnt exist.

They were accounted for by UN inspectors before they left in 1998 so I believe they did exist. The chemicals were never to be seen again even after UN inspectors demanded to see proof of destruction or whereabouts of the chemicals.

 

[ajwps]

The point is, that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had a credible source who could procure evidence. They were not the source that they cited. To do so, is ridiculous.

Wrong again. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had a credible source called 'deep throat.' Never verified as a person source to this very day. These two reporters like the Syrian reporter dug up the evidence by themselves from evidence that came into their hands. And unlike Woodward and Bernstein, the Syrian reporter has taken his life into his hands by exposing this supposedly hidden WMD information. Not credible?

Did I say that no journalist can produce credible evidence? No. I said it would be wise to doubt one man's claim when he is an open opponent of the government. Anyone with a brain realizes that if the US had even pseudo proof of weapons of mass destruction, then we would probably be banging on Syrias door.

So Woodward and Bernstein were not OPEN OPPONENTS of the then Republican US president and worked for a paper that was openly biased against the conservative government and its leader!

Anyone with a brain understands that the US simply produced verified information from many world intelligence services as proof to the United Nations. Through Colin Powell, the US used this hard information to attack Iraq and its leader. Do you think that Bush wants to assert the proof of WMDs in Syria by starting another front before the last one is pacified. Mr. Bush doesn't need that proof any longer, did you forget HE GOT RE-ELECTED?

I agree, let's check his documents for authenticity. But you know, I'm sure they've already done that, and found that there is no authenticity to them. Why would the Bush administration conceal that the weapons are in Syria? It doesn't make any sense. This evidence could exonerate him from all the backlash he's taking.

Really. These documents are not the only evidence of WMDs buried in Syria and in Lebanon. It was announced only once and then dropped like a hot potato that satellite pictures existed which showed several large eighteen wheeled trucks leaving Iraq shortly before the US and coalition invaded.

The following is taken from the then CIA chief George J. Tenet.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2004/tenet_georgetownspeech_02052004.html

The third stream of information came after the UN inspectors left Iraq in 1998. We gathered intelligence through human agents, satellite photos, and communications intercepts.
Other foreign intelligence services were clearly focused on Iraq and assisted in the effort. In intercepts of conversations and other transactions, we heard Iraqis seeking to hide prohibited items, worrying about their cover stories, and trying to procure items Iraq was not permitted to have.
Satellite photos showed a pattern of activity designed to conceal movement of material from places where chemical weapons had been stored in the past.

Actually it makes excellent sense that the US knows exactly where these WMDs are being kept. It makes perfect sense that the US and Israel are constantly watching these sites from satellites and the minute that they are dug up and moved, they will be destroyed from the air in a matter of minutes. Kept where they are is not only safe for the world but also a very good excuse to eventually attack Syria and Lebanon when it is considered strategic to do so. What back-lash is he TAKING? Mr. Bush won the election even without showing this evidence of WMDs and the war in Iraq still did not allow John Kerry to win.

1+1 does not equal 2 here.

Actually 1 + 1 = Strategic Advantage

The skeptic in me, decides that this "evidence" is not evidence at all.

Good for your inside skeptic...

Alterior motives are obviously at play.

Ulterior motives are obviously at play. You are very correct.

Keep in mind, that the US intelligence agencies were sure that there were WMD still in Iraq. How wrong were they? And we're to trust a single source of information, coming from a journalist?

Not at all. As I said before, the US and the world intelligence services had ample satellite information and evidence garnered from Iraqis captives transferred to alternate Arab countries where information is obtained by 'means' other than the US is allowed to use.

How many times were the Iraqi defectors wrong? How many times have defectors been absolutely wrong in the past? The inconsistencies just do not allow me to deem this with merit.

Satellite pictures of Iraq nuclear weapons site 1991.

same site in 2001 before coalition invasion.

Saddam Hussein’s unconventional weapons programs were present on the eve of the American-led invasion and quantities of forbidden materials were spirited out to Syria. Whatever Dr. Kay may choose to say now, at least one of these sources knows at first hand that the former ISG director received dates, types of vehicles and destinations covering the transfers of Iraqi WMD to Syria.

Indeed the US administration and its intelligence agencies, as well as Dr Kay, were all provided with Syrian maps marked with the coordinates of the secret weapons storage sites. The largest one is located at Qaratshuk at the heart of a desolate and unfrequented region edged with marshes, south of the Syrian town of Al Qamishli near the place where the Iraqi, Syrian and Turkish frontiers converge; smaller quantities are hidden in the vast plain between Al Qamishli and Az Zawr, and a third is under the ground of the Lebanese Beqaa Valley on the Syrian border.

These transfers were first revealed by satellite pictures in February 2003 a month before the war. We also discovered that a Syrian engineering corps unit was detailed to dig their hiding places in northern Syria and the Lebanese Beqaa.

A senior intelligence source confirmed this again to Dr. Kay who knows exactly what was contained in the tanker trucks crossing from Iraq into Syria in January 2003. His job gave him access to satellite photos of the convoys; the instruments used by spy planes would have identified dangerous substances and tracked them to their underground nests. There exists a precise record of the movement of chemical and biological substances from Iraq to Syria.”

Armed with this knowledge, Kay was able to say firmly to The Telegraph’s Con Coughlin on January 25: “We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons. But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam’s WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved.

Yet in later interviews, the last being on February 1 with Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s Late Edition - and for reasons known only to himself - Kay turned vague, claiming there was no way of knowing what those convoys contained because of the lack of Syrian cooperation.

Why did David Kay become vague about this information?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You are violating people's rights, and violating the Geneva convention with the prisoners in Guantamano Bay. Being imprisoned without reason , just cause or due process is an infringement of your rights..

Oh sure, we are "violating" the rights of the dirty dogs who kill our citizens and saw off their heads. Tell me, are you now going to say that these filthy terrorists are NOT violating peoples rights or the Geneva convention? Why should we give them special rights and privileges when they don't do likewise to the innocents that they capture?

When you punch someone in the face because they may have stole your lunch money, but negotiate with someone else who HAS stole your money, thats hypocritical. You are making the world safe only when you get something big out of it. You have appointeed yourselves as world police, but turn your back, that is hypocriticle..

So you think it is hypocritical to trounce a dictator BEFORE he actually develops operating nuclear weapons? You would rather wait until he has the nukes aimed at your cities instead? We are "negotiating" with NK now because they already have the nukes in our faces, get it?? Like I said before, Clinton, the liberal you liberals think was so great with nicey-nice negotiations botched the job and now we need to be extra careful because nastyang has a trigger to pull. That is hardly hypocritical. You libs are really reaching.

It is arrogance. The US wants to intergrate Canada's security with it's own, this will take away our sovereignty. But you cannot make the same concessions to the world court. Again you only use this processes to help yourselves, but once it works against you, you pull out..

Of course you think it is "arrogance". I call it sanity. You liberals just want to pull the U.S. down to your pitiful level. If we joined the ICC you guys would act like jackals. The first person you would probably haul into court would be our President Bush, the man who is leading the fight against the terrorists and providing freedom to helpless peoples. You marxist socialists just don't want freedom to spread and grow in this world, plain and simple.

You have just invaded the two poorest nations in the world, and killed countless innocents. We are just to forget this because you bougfht some rice?.

We have just invaded two of the poorest and MOST OPPRESSED nations in the world and provided them FREEDOM and a FUTURE from oppression and the killing and torture of countless MORE innocents, not only in their own countries but in other countries as well. Is this really a concept you find really difficult to understand? Or is it you just refuse to take off the blinders you wear?

Oh, btw, I'll remember your gratitude when you Canucks want something again.

The conflict in the middle east is very complicated. Bith parties are to blame for the tension. Palestine for using terror tactics, Israel for oppressing a people. To back one side only is wrong..

Sure, blame your anti-semitism on "complications".

Have you frogotten WW1. The result of which we are still paying for. 90% of all conflicts today can be traced back to that original arms race. Do you want to put us once again into prepetual suffering?.

No, pray tell me about your "perpetual suffering" from WWI.

Reward progress.

N. Korea can't last much longer..

What do you define as progress? We define progress to be the dismanteling of the nukes. Not empty promises. If NK can't last much longer, then that is Nastyang's problem, isn't it? Not ours. And certainly no reason to "reward" him.

Blah, blah, blah.
Confront N. Korea. Be careful. A missle sheild won't help. It will just increase tension.

Why is putting up a defense system going to "increase tension"? Why do you have a problem with a system that is only there to PROTECT? I just don't follow your "logic".

Also, you dismissively (blah, blah, blah) ignore what I said about the current "negotiations" happening with NK. What is it you really find so horrible about what Bush is doing? Is there something so much better to do? Enlighten me.