Thread: Quagmire....

The point of providing a link is to evaluate the proof. Without no link there's no merit to the allegation (unless it's common knowledge in which case there's no link required...such as 2+2=4). You're arguing on the internet, not in Bob's Bookstore. Provide a link or don't make the accusation.

Bush? Crippled. Lame. Duck. You want that duck crispy or steamed?

Originally Posted by surasak

The point of providing a link is to evaluate the proof. Without no link there's no merit to the allegation (unless it's common knowledge in which case there's no link required...such as 2+2=4). You're arguing on the internet, not in Bob's Bookstore. Provide a link or don't make the accusation.

Bush? Crippled. Lame. Duck. You want that duck crispy or steamed?

Utter bullshit ... total bollox. Don't ever tell me one needs a link to state their opinion or interpretation.

You need to stick to running your little Mom & Pop store for the next ten years.

It's too much to ask.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Utter bullshit ... total bollox. Don't ever tell me one needs a link to state their opinion or interpretation.

You made the accusation of a fact. Not an opinion.

Let's go over this again for the class, shall we?

Fact: Iraq had nuclear weapons.

Opinion: Iraq could have been dangerous with nuclear weapons.

The former requires a link. The latter does not.

Call me confused:

North Korea, probably the most isolated and poverty stricken nations on earth with little resources manages to scrap together a program and build and explode a bomb.

Iraq, with billions and billions and billions of dollars, a nation that can't even get Scud missiles to fly properly, supposedly was only a single ingredient away from making a bomb?

DefenseLINK News: DoD News Briefing, Tuesday, 08 Oct 2002 - 1:00 pm

Evaluation. The facilities of al-Qaim, Iraq's only uranium extraction facility based 400 km to the west of Baghdad and near the Syrian border, were destroyed in 1991. A number of journalists have since visited al-Qaim and have found it in a state of disrepair. Paul McGeough, the much-respected Middle East correspondent of the Sydney Morning Herald, wrote on 4 September 2002 that the site appeared to be a "near-vacant lot [...] as the result of a clean-up supervised by the [IAEA]". Reuters reporters have confirmed the same impression.

Results of UN inspections. Inspectors from the IAEA visited al-Qaim on 10-11 December 2002, and reported on their on-going monitoring of the destroyed plant. A further inspection took place on 7 January 2003.

"ElBaradei was more forthright in his update to the Security Council on 27 January 2003 (paras.65 and 71):"

"In the first eight weeks of inspections, the IAEA has visited all sites identified by it or by States as significant. No evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities at those locations has been detected to date during these inspections, although not all of the laboratory results of sample analysis are yet available. Nor have the inspections thus far revealed signs of new nuclear facilities or direct support to any nuclear activity."

"The IAEA expects to be able, within the next few months, barring exceptional circumstances and provided there is sustained proactive cooperation by Iraq, to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme."

President Bush, 7 October 2002: "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past."

"The remains of the three reactors destroyed in 1981 by the Israelis, and then a decade later in the Gulf War, by the Americans, have been left by the Iraqis. [....] Officials were keen to show the supposedly clandestine construction which so alarmed Mr Blair. They appeared to be no more than a few sheds. Nor were there overt signs of the infrastructure needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. "

- From "Inspectors Find Only Mushrooms Amid Ruins Of Bombed Reactor", The Independent (5 December 2002).

"Secretary Powell, 26 January 2003: "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium..."

On 7 March 2003, ElBaradei revealed to the Security Council that the allegations were centred around "documents provided by a number of States that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the sale of uranium between 1999 and 2001." After reviewing the evidence extensively - including "correspondence coming from various bodies of the Government of Niger" - and "compar[ing] the form, format, contents and signatures of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation", ElBaradei gave his assessment of the reliability of this information:

"the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded."

State Department, 12 September 2002, p.9: "Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb. In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes which officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium."

UK dossier, 24 September 2002, p.26: "Iraq has also made repeated attempts covertly to acquire a very large quantity (60,000 or more) of specialised aluminium tubes. The specialised aluminium in question is subject to international export controls because of its potential application in the construction of gas centrifuges used to enrich uranium, although there is no definitive intelligence that it is destined for a nuclear programme."

"the IAEA has conducted a series of inspections at sites involved in the production and storage of reverse engineered rockets, held discussions with and interviewed Iraqi personnel, taken samples of aluminium tubes, and begun a review of the documentation provided by Iraq relating to contracts with the traders. While the matter is still under investigation, and further verification is foreseen, the IAEA's analysis to date indicates that the specifications of the aluminium tubes sought by Iraq in 2001 and 2002 appear to be consistent with reverse engineering of rockets. While it would be possible to modify such tubes for the manufacture of centrifuges, they are not directly suitable for it."

Two of three ingredients? Do we really have to keep rehashing this lie?

Weapons Inspection Program - Global Policy Forum - UN Security Council

More abductions: 4 Yank Contractors.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Fourteen security contractors, including four Americans, were abducted Thursday when a supply convoy was ambushed in southern Iraq, a U.S. military spokesman told CNN.
Coalition troops were searching for the victims after the incident in Nasiriya, the spokesman said. He provided no other details.
A military spokesman in Baghdad confirmed the abductions occurred at a checkpoint.
ABC News, citing U.S. defense officials, reported up to 14 people working for Crescent Security Group were kidnapped.

Link: Americans among contractors abducted in Iraq - CNN.com

Well at least the Iraq War is going to be a great inspiration for years to come for Hollywood studios.

Would you really want to go see a movie based on the Iraq war? At least the Vietnam era had some decent tunes.

Do you really wanna see a movie about U.S. military gangbangers raping and killing Iraqis to the tune of "Oops.... I Did It Again?"

Come on, there are some bad apples in every basket.

Even some Muslims resort to torturing captives, - no gang-rapes though, apparently.

I'm just stunned that soliders involved in these atrocities are allowed to cop plea bargains when they rape, torture, and kill innocent people in other countries. Maybe it's a reflection on having lower standards in order to fill Army billets.

One poster is getting lonely. Soon it might be just him....all alone.

U.S. approval of Bush Iraq policy drops
The State WASHINGTON - Americans' approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq has dropped to the lowest level ever, increasing the pressure on the commander in chief to find a way out after nearly four years of war. The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found just 31 percent approval on his handling of Iraq, days after voters registered their displeasure at the polls by defeating Republicans across the board and handing control of Congress to the Democrats. The previous low in AP-Ipsos polling was 33 percent in both June and August.

Link and entire: U.S. approval of Bush Iraq policy drops - Worldnews.com

Originally Posted by surasak

I'm just stunned that soldiers involved in these atrocities are allowed to cop plea bargains when they rape, torture, and kill innocent people in other countries. Maybe it's a reflection on having lower standards in order to fill Army billets.

Iraqi suspected of some 'terrorist activity' - incarcerated for unspecified period without charge nor trial, 'interrogated' with waterboarding etc.

US soldier proven guilty of rape and murder - 18 months bed & breakfast in a US prison?

Still wondering why they prefer to abduct and punish themselves?

"Al Qaeda recently issued a statement that it has 12,000 fighters in Iraq. If we were not accomplishing important strategic goals there, why would al Qaeda be deploying so much of its resources to Iraq? It would be nice to know everything, like the folks at the Times, Seymour Hersh, Bill Maher, Michael Moore and the long list of left-biased journalists and academics. Unfortunately, they are unschooled bufoons with respect to this question, and their views are, well, dumb."


Democracy Project: Democracy Project

From Sk's link:

One of the interesting questions that is facing America is whether it is capable of facing up to a realistic military threat, or whether the media and liberal establishment are committed enough to anti-Americanism and a chimerical belief in world citizenship that they will ultimately succeed in tearing apart the nation by crippling our sense of citizenship.

We've been through all this bs before.
No further comment...

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

"Al Qaeda recently issued a statement that it has 12,000 fighters in Iraq. If we were not accomplishing important strategic goals there, why would al Qaeda be deploying so much of its resources to Iraq? It would be nice to know everything, like the folks at the Times, Seymour Hersh, Bill Maher, Michael Moore and the long list of left-biased journalists and academics. Unfortunately, they are unschooled bufoons with respect to this question, and their views are, well, dumb."


Democracy Project: Democracy Project

Why is AQ there? We know whAy. As DNI reports.

As for journalists and pseudo-journalists, I have more confidence in what the generals say.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

"Al Qaeda recently issued a statement that it has 12,000 fighters in Iraq.

They wouldn't be there if the invasion hadn't taken place.
The invasion far from reducing the risk of terrorism, has increased it.
It's as that British general said. Iraq is now a "cause celebre" for extremists.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Why is AQ there? We know why. As DNI reports.

Because Saddam invited them ?

You believe what the Generals say ? General Powell said there were WMDs there didn't he ?

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Because Saddam invited them ?

Ah, so they were asked by the Iraqi gov to come and help, just as the US was asked by South Vietnam to help.
So you're implying they are there on an official, legitimate mission?

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Because Saddam invited them ?

Ah, so they were asked by the Iraqi gov to come and help, just as the US was asked by South Vietnam to help.
So you're implying they are there on an official, legitimate mission?

I guess that makes about as much sense as me to imply that you supported Saddam Hussein and therefor supported torture ?

Saddam Hussein was a secular leader. He persecuted islamists.
There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Powell's UN speach is a mess. Everyone admits that

He even apologized privately to representative of the UN security council for his speech, as he knew it was all bogus. He was forced to, and like a good soldier, he did. He would have been a terrible politician and this is the end of his political career. Good riddance. Like McCain, he has no spine.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Saddam Hussein was a secular leader. He persecuted islamists.
There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.

Other than there were Al Queda training camps within the borders of Iraq before 9/11 and that Saddam was harboring one of Bin Laden's sons...