Senators Told Iraq Had WOMD & Delivery Capability (page 4)

Guest 77

News Items

Hans Blix is stepping down from his position, the reason, family and frustration. This was on tonite's FoxNews.

Yesterday, Diane Sawyer asked GB about the WoMD's, he got annoyed at her repeated questioning about WoMD's.

Guest 77

DakotaRed

Guest, please tell why the US Government is giving Native Americans blankets today, tainted with smallpox or not. Last I heard, smallpox is almost nonexistant anymore, at least, in this country.

While I will never argue that Indians have been severely mistreated in history, I will say many tribes across the country have done pretty good for themselves using the treaties to their advantage with casinos and untaxed merchandise. No, not all have done this, of course, but quite a few have.

I was once told, if all you look for is the bad, that is all you will find. Our government isn't lily white, but it sure isn't pure evil either.

Guest 77

DakotaRed, my challenge was about you saying 'ancient' history. I mean, where have you been about 'modern' history of the Native American Indians?

About diseased blankets given to Native people to wipe them out in this day and age? How about the story that was aired on a show similiar to 60 minutes where the government gave Native people in Arizona 'radioactive' building materials to build their home!!!!! Now if you consider the last 25-50 years as being 'ancient' history, then my time table of time is really screwed up.

In 1990 Canada had the Oka crisis in which most of this news was blocked out in the USA. Back in 1880's (ancient history), the Candian government came up with an 'Act' called the Indian Act. In that first edition, they defined of an Indian was a 'none person!'

May I refer you to 'ancient' history about Andrew Jackson's treatment of the Cherokee's. He removed the Cherokee's from their homeland and had the old people and young children walk in the dead of winter (500 miles) to another location. This in defiance to Chief Justice John Marshall's order that the Cheokee's had a right to stay in their homeland.

My question to you is, is justice prejudice? Does justice apply only to modern times and not 'ancient' times? Apparently killing people in ancient history (in the past)compared to modern times differ greatly, how interesting! I'll have to think that through. It was OK to kill Indians in 'ancient' history but not in modern times, hmmmm some reasoning.

About Casino's and treaties, your way off base. Your so off base on this issue that you better go back and do some home work. If you knew the full story as why the government is allowing and permitting casino's on Indian reserves it would shock you. In fact, Time magaizine had a two part story about Native casino's and who's profiting. I'll give you a clue, the government gave a non-Indian women an Indian status so she can open a casino! The government is still pursuing their aim of assimilating the Indians.

Untaxed merchandise? Have you read the part in YOUR USA constitution that Indians are exempt from taxation? If the USA is a Christian nation then why are they not following Jesus words at Matt. 5:37, "Just let... your ...Yes mean Yes..." when it come to keeping treaties?

So killing isn't bad, its not 'pure' evil you say? I guess it all depends on who's doing the killing and what era, correct?

Guest 77

Yerusalyim

Guest,

I am comparing the size of a coke bottle and the ease of hiding it with the size of what Chem/Bio weapons can be stored in. The point being this stuff is EASY to hide...hard to find...which is why they haven't found them yet.

Guest 77

Yeru, it's obvious that rulers like Saddam are 'windbags' when it comes to a real fight. I really thought that Saddam had some evil tricks up his sleeve when it came to a war against the US, but he didn't. I envisioned him strategically planting these chemical devices underground and setting them off with a push of the button when the army trek into the periphery of the city.

Let's face it, if a war is inevitable, wouldn't these rulers use the best weapons on hand to defend themselves? I mean, he had tweleve years to prepare for any eventual war! Something is awry about this picture. He couldn't have been that cock-sure of himself, if he was, he's a lot dumber than I gave him credit for. Apparently, he only had 'ball's to use these weapons against his own people or other groups that he had advantage over except the US.

I have no qualms about removing dictators, in fact, were trying to get a few kick out of office in my home town and only next year's election results will determine who stays in or out. These people have only one interest - SELF!

Guest 77

Yerusalyim

If Saddam had WoMD why didn't he use them in a final blaze of glory against the Americans?

No command and control...big issue for military operations....and he got scared and ran.

imallgrowedup

Guest -

Why didn't Saddam use the chemicals against the US. I mean the US gave blankets to the Indians infested with smallpox! What justification do you have for the United States treating the Native American Indians as they did? How many treaties did the US keep with the Indians?

With all due respect, this argument appears to be what is called a "Red Herring", which means to raise an irrelevant issue to distract from the main argument. Would you please tell me how the alledged deed of giving blankets to the indians infested with small pox relates to Saddam not using chemical weapons against us?

growedup

freeman

Guest,

I think maybe you need to do a little more checking on your facts as regards the US giving infected blankets to Indians.

I?m not an expert on world history but I?m pretty sure that the incident you are referring to is attributed to a British general by the name of Amherst sometime around the 17hunderds, which incidentally is well before the discovery of germs by Pasteur a hundred or so years later.

Freeman

patio34

ImAllGrowedUp:

If Saddam didn't have WMD or had made a decision to not persue WMD, why did he throw the first group of Weapons Inspectors out of the country?

Euphemism:

Good question, growedup. The best guess I've heard is that he believed that the US would try to depose him for geopolitical and economic reasons, and he figured that making the US think that he had WMDs was his best deterrent against an invasion. A serious miscalculation, of course.

Well, according to what I read by British reporter Norman Solomon and other news sources, I'm not going to look them up as i'm at work and it doesn't matter to some here (it's almost like slinging scriptures, looking up news sources endlessly).

Anyway, my point is and i won't argue it because it's a waste of time any more in this polarized forum is that it seemed well-documented that the US was sending in spies on the UN Inspection Team and Saddam threw them out.

Now someone said, if he didn't have anything to hide....well, what country in its right mind would want an enemy country noting all its defenses, etc. It hardly needs to be asked, imo.

Pat

Guest 77

Besides Amherst, Freeman, try U. Grant the Money Barons and a train load of infested blankets. If I don't know my people's history, I'm in deep crap.

Guest 77

Senators Told Iraq Had WOMD & Delivery Capability

Share this