Tons Of Iraq Explosives Missing

by teejay 149 Replies latest social current

• 

  xenawarrior

  "and" it would include many more than just George W. Bush.

  What amazes me is that people will say that Bush is such an idiot and then in the same conversation credit him with the ability to deceive those they view as brilliant.

  Those "brilliant" people made the decisions they did based on the whole picture, including the history of the entire situation and intelligence from all over the world and from before GWB's entering office. Things aren't going as well as people would like over there now and so, instead of taking responsibility for their decisions, they claim they were hoodwinked by a moron and it's not their fault at all. To me that speaks volumes about their own abilities to govern in their own ways.

  And now some want to have it both ways. There were no WMD ! Now there were such dangerous materials with the ability to trigger nuclear weapons-OMG !! Why do they care? They used up their marker on the no WMD already-it's spent. And we cannot control weaponry and explosives that aren't there when we arrive. And it's speculation on anyone's part to use the facts that are out there to decide that they were there after the war started-period. So now we didn't get there soon enough and they were able to move explosives that SH wasn't even supposed to have in the first place but the UN allowed him to keep for mining purposes? Give me a break. The UN and the IAEA dropped the ball on that one. Those explosives were illegal under the treaty and he wasn't required to destroy them.

  And today there is a Major who was at the ammo dump and destroyed 250 tons of munitions before the fall of Baghdad and that the bunkers were not sealed when they got there-after the last time that the IAEA had been there.
• 

  hillary_step

  XenaW,

  "and" it would include many more than just George W. Bush.

  Of course it would XenaW *that* was my point in writing "and....?". Can you not understand that I do not care who, or what political party was responsible for the Iraq debacle, those who have the *major* responsibility should lose their jobs and offer apologies to those who have suffered due to their lack of competence.

  Can anything be understood here outside of Democratic / Republican Jello Wrestling?

  HS
• 

  dubla

  h.s.-
  

  backtracking and twisting words is not your normal habit.
  

  with all due respect, that isnt what you said. you said that the people believed saddam had wmds based on the evidence that the bush administration fed to them....

  No, you are quite wrong. re-read my post. I said that people *agreed on the need for war* based on what the Bush administration fed them.

  am i quite wrong? here are your exact words:

  Now, it is true that based on the evidence that he and his advisers fed the world, many people believed that Iraq did indeed hold weapons of mass destruction

  compare that with what i said and explain to me how they are different, if you would please:

  you said that the people believed saddam had wmds based on the evidence that the bush administration fed to them....

  you ALSO said:

  and on that basis agreed with the invasion of Iraq.

  they are two distinct statements in one sentence, are they not? ("and")

  as far as it goes, in order for the second part of your sentence to be true (that they agreed on the war based on bush admin. evidence), the first part would almost certainly have to be true as well (that they came to these beliefs about wmds based on bush admin. evidence). again, use me as an example. if you look back over my posts that date back before the war, you will see that i never based my beliefs about iraq on evidence produced by this administration. so, if thats true, and i also agreed on the war, how could that support possibly be based on anything other than prior beliefs? lets face it, the statements clinton made about iraq and the statements bush made are virtually identical.
  

  Seperate yourself from arguments based on party politics and look at the big picture. I have no emotions invested in either side of the the US presidential debacle and this allows for a viewpoint based on critical thinking, not on the desire to win partisan political points

  if thats true than why in the world do you refuse to agree that the majority of the information weve been fed about saddams weapons came from clinton way before it came from bush? you arent partisan, so surely you can see this is a logical conclusion....unless of course you think bush conned clinton into bombing iraq.
  

  This is not about whether there was a default benefit to invading Iraq.

  in order for your analogy to work, there would have to be no benefit to invading iraq, thats all. you were making the case that the person at the top should resign...and this isnt true if half the population still believes it was right to oust saddam. you may want his head on a platter, and you have every right to feel that way.....and others have every right to disagree with you......which is why this is about voting, not required resignations.

  aa
• 

  Double Edge

  Blah, blah, blah, blah .... "one side is bad, the other is soooo good", "you're wrong and I'm right", blah blah blah

  Put the shoe on the other foot and it's all the same....everyone has their own opinion:

  This is what is so dismal about the pro-Bush pro-Kerry contingent on this board. They see all criticism of their glorious leader as an assualt against truth and integrity. It does not matter how much you try to convince them that ones only objective is reason, any anti Iraq Kerry talk is seen as anti Bush Internationalism talk. It cannot filter through their fanaticism, that some of us have no vested interest in *any* of the parties invoved in this war, but that we can smell a dead rat when it is served up for breakfast.
• 

  hillary_step

  Double Edge,

  Your post is the gastronomic equivalent of mental chewing gum.

  HS
• 

  Realist

  double edge,

  a) you crossed out bush and replaced it with kerry not realising that this is contradicting the very essence of hillaries statement (which is she does not side with either team).

  b) just like with the JWs against the rest of the world...the truth lies out there and one side is closer to it than the other (MUCH CLOSER!)!
• 

  dubla

  realist-

  it is not surprising simon is loosing his temper.

  consider some of simons past comments:

  Unfortunately, it seems that people are unable or unwilling to debate or discuss the war and stay civil. People are accused of all sorts of extremes such as "advocating child torture and rape" if you are against the war or "being a mass murderer and war criminal" if you support it.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/22/48969/693459/post.ashx#693459

  hmm...would labeling any war supporter a "neo-con", and then saying youd like to kill all neo-cons fall into this area of "extremes"? is calling someone an ignorant asshole because you dont like what they had to say being "civil"?

  Also, there are far too many insults and personal attacks being made where people imply motives based solely on someones position.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/22/48969/693476/post.ashx#693476

  People have proved that not everyone is capable of discussing rationally and civily

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/22/50039/712147/post.ashx#712147

  I'm getting especially tired seeing some people making insulting and dismissive remarks

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/22/62193/948271/post.ashx#948271

  If any posts are made that contain insults or name calling then they will be deleted.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/66356/1.ashx

  bottom line is, i dont really care why simon is losing his temper.....if you cant avoid doing the things you are repeatedly accusing others of, what does that make you?

  aa
• 

  undercover

  Arguing over Bush and Kerry is kind of like arguing over who has the right religion....Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons.
• 

  hillary_step

  Dubla,

  Now, it is true that based on the evidence that he and his advisers fed the world, many people believed that Iraq did indeed hold weapons of mass destruction compare that with what i said and explain to me how they are different, if you would please:
  you said that the people believed saddam had wmds based on the evidence that the bush administration fed to them.... you ALSO said:
  and on that basis agreed with the invasion of Iraq.

  Yes, in re-reading my original post you are right and I apologize for the ambiguous way that I expressed myself. I think you can see where I am coming from from my follow up posts, which I hope clarify my point of view. It is a fact the the Bush and Blair administration's took the world to war on a premise based on misinformation. It is not of importance to me where this misinformation originated, as information never exists in isolation, what is important is that it was the Bush administration *not* the Clinton administration who used the information at hand to invade parts of the Middle East with resulting loss of life, destabilization of the world economy and loss of friendships on discussion boards.

  The issue where I am concerned is not one of who should win the presidential elections, but that incompetent politicians should be held to the same standards are incompetent industry leaders, and on that basis Blair, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and a few close advisors should resign immediately and that a thorough investigation as to why two of the most technically advanced nations on the planet should have been so easily duped over the matter of weapons of mass destruction.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  dubla

  h.s.-

  It is a fact the the Bush and Blair administration's took the world to war on a premise based on misinformation. It is not of importance to me where this misinformation originated

  fair enough.........the reason i challenged your orginal statement is that this notion of "bush convinced the world that saddam was a threat" is used repeatedly on this board, and i dont personally know anyone (who supported the war) that was convinced by bush......."saddam has wmds and is willing to use them" has been blasted all over the world way before bush ever ran for president. if it was a colossal deception, it sure wasnt bush that started it.

  aa