quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Where in your posted quotes, does it say that Hussein POSSESSED WMD? Please show me, in your posts, where it states that Hussein in fact, possessed WMD. All your posts say is that Hussein was PLANNING to restart "WHEN" sanctions were lifted. I posted straight from the Key findings of the CIA website - in there, it quite plainly says that Hussein did NOT possess WMD; if you still think otherwise, you must be in denial;

There is no doubt he possessed them; the question was, where did they go, and why didn't he allow inspections? Duelfer answers that.

No - the report says quite plainly, that the WMD programs have been largely abandoned since the Gulf War in 1991 - I can repost, if you wish, but I shouldn't have to. The Duelfer report says Iraq was posing as if it had them to "look big" to Iraq. As for the alleged moving the WMD out of Iraq...don't think so (I even posted from your favorite website, Fox News):

From earlier this year:
"WASHINGTON — The final U.S. intelligence report on weapons of mass destruction (search) in Iraq is expected to address whether the banned armaments may have been smuggled out of the country before the war started.

Top Bush administration officials have speculated publicly that chemical, biological or radiological weapons may have been smuggled out, and the question is one of the unresolved issues on WMD. The report is due next month.

Intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never "a piece," said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.

The administration acknowledged last week that the search for banned weapons is largely over. The Iraq Survey Group's (search) chief, Charles Duelfer, is expected to submit the final installments of his report in February. A small number of the organization's experts will remain on the job in case new intelligence on Iraqi WMD is unearthed.

But the officials familiar with the search say U.S. authorities have found no evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (search) transferred WMD or related equipment out of Iraq.

A special adviser to the CIA (search) director, Duelfer declined an interview request through an agency spokesman. In his last public statements, he told a Senate panel last October that it remained unclear whether banned weapons could have been moved from Iraq.

"What I can tell you is that I believe we know a lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria. There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points," he said. "But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say."..."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144623,00.html

Later this year:

"Report Finds No Evidence Syria Hid Iraqi Arms

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 26, 2005; Page A01

U.S. investigators hunting for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have found no evidence that such material was moved to Syria for safekeeping before the war, according to a final report of the investigation released yesterday.

Although Syria helped Iraq evade U.N.-imposed sanctions by shipping military and other products across its borders, the investigators "found no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD." Because of the insular nature of Saddam Hussein's government, however, the investigators were "unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."


Free E-mail Newsletters
Today's Headlines & Columnists
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Breaking News Alerts
See a Sample | Sign Up Now

The Iraq Survey Group's main findings -- that Hussein's Iraq did not possess chemical and biological weapons and had only aspirations for a nuclear program -- were made public in October in an interim report covering nearly 1,000 pages. Yesterday's final report, published on the Government Printing Office's Web site ( http://www.gpo.gov/ ), incorporated those pages with minor editing and included 92 pages of addenda that tied up loose ends on Syria and other topics.

U.S. officials have held out the possibility that Syria worked in tandem with Hussein's government to hide weapons before the U.S.-led invasion. The survey group said it followed up on reports that a Syrian security officer had discussed collaboration with Iraq on weapons, but it was unable to complete that investigation. But Iraqi officials whom the group was able to interview "uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria," the report said.

The report, which refuted many of the administration's principal arguments for going to war in Iraq, marked the official end of a two-year weapons hunt led most recently by former U.N. weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer. The team found that the 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. sanctions had destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capabilities and that, for the most part, Hussein had not tried to rebuild them. Iraq's ability to produce nuclear arms, which the administration asserted was a grave and gathering threat that required an immediate military response, had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Investigators found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554.html

And, there is much more where this comes from. Now, if you STILL believe the WMD were moved, why, then, did Duelfer & the ISG call off the search, even for evidence of WMD moving across Iraq's border? Or were you on a deserted island, perhaps, when the search was called off?

quote:

Continuing from the aforementioned, I will ask it again: if you believe that, because Hussein may have been planning to restart his WMD programs after sanctions were lifted, do you believe we should invade these types of countries (of which there are many); over other countries that ACTUALLY HAVE WMD, and that were ACTUALLY LAUNCHING MISSILES into the Pacific, like North Korea, at the VERY SAME TIME we were planning to invade Iraq? I am not saying we should've invaded North Korea - I am just trying to understand the way you think. And please, answer the question.

Perhaps; can we count on your support if we do?

Answer the question, please.

quote:

Notice that those ex-presidents, countries who also BELIEVED Hussein had WMD - notice that they did NOT unilaterally invade Iraq - you know, like we did. Now you may think this is not a big difference, but to me, this is a glaring difference - one that has cost the Iraqi people 25,000 innocents dead and the loss of 1700+ of our best & brightest;

How does one not unilaterally invade? Is there such a thing as a mutual invasion? Of course one of those Presidents did commission a war against Iraq; the Gulf War in '91. This war was a continuation of that one.

Well, you know, a LARGE concerted effort like that of WWII. Not a very short list of countries that joined us, Spain, Italy, come to mind - then left us when they realized there were no WMD.

quote:

Don't you find it ironic that we supplied Hussein with biological, chemical weapons in the 1980's; that the US CIA funded bin Laden in the early 1980's? It is interesting how you ignored that in your post....

Actually, the US, Europe, USSR, China, and several middle eastern countries supplid him with weapons. As a matter of fact, everyone who used fossil fuels funded Saddam.

And, Europe, USSR, China & the mideastern countries were not part of our alliance in this ill-conceived war, were they?

I don't find it anymore 'ironic' then the fact that we allied with the Soviets and Chinese in WWII. Perhaps we created communism as well?

Again, Jack, WWII - there is NO COMPARISON between the Iraq war and the large concerted effort of WWII.

And the CIA didn't 'fund' Bin Laden; they supported the mujahadeen against the Soviets.

quote:

*Hands Dancre the Camo paint* less getem

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goodwill

lets remember that we are all (supposed to be) christians here so lets handle our selves like so...I love debate but hate arguing

quote:

5) Don't you find it ironic that we supplied Hussein with biological, chemical weapons in the 1980's; that the US CIA funded bin Laden in the early 1980's? It is interesting how you ignored that in your post....

quote:

And, there is much more where this comes from. Now, if you STILL believe the WMD were moved, why, then, did Duelfer & the ISG call off the search, even for evidence of WMD moving across Iraq's border? Or were you on a deserted island, perhaps, when the search was called off?

quote:

Answer the question, please.

quote:

Well, you know, a LARGE concerted effort like that of WWII. Not a very short list of countries that joined us, Spain, Italy, come to mind - then left us when they realized there were no WMD.

quote:

The CIA money got funnelled through Pakistan, and eventually into the hands of bin Laden:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

And, there is much more where this comes from. Now, if you STILL believe the WMD were moved, why, then, did Duelfer & the ISG call off the search, even for evidence of WMD moving across Iraq's border? Or were you on a deserted island, perhaps, when the search was called off?

I never said they were moved. I never said he had them when we invaded, I said he possessed them at one time, and we had no information what became of them because the inspectors were never allowed to make that determination. Duelfer confirms that and explains why we didn't know and why the intelligence we did have was wrong. We of course knew none of that until after the war.

Which is why my mother always told me - do not accuse (or in this instance, invade) unless you have the evidence, IN HAND. It was wrong to invade without evidence in hand.

quote:

Answer the question, please.

I did answer the question; perhaps. It's a determination that has to made on a case by case basis; not in the simplistic knee-jerk terms of the left.

Oh, ok. Or, better said, when there is oil involved: when there is some resource we want - some, well how did the State dpt phrase it back in the '80's, some, "interest"....

quote:

Well, you know, a LARGE concerted effort like that of WWII. Not a very short list of countries that joined us, Spain, Italy, come to mind - then left us when they realized there were no WMD.

Actually, we have more allies in this case then we did in WWII; and Spain and Italy weren't our allies then either.

I should have phrased better: Not a very short list of countries that joined us IN IRAQ, and at that - that now left us like Spain & Italy. And I mean, not just the small number or countries that joined us in Iraq - I mean the disproportionatly larger number of our troops involved compared to ANY other country that joined us. There is absolutely NO comparison to WWII and you know it.

And, Europe, USSR, China & the mideastern countries were not part of our alliance in this ill-conceived war, were they?

Actually we have receved support from a number of middle eastern countries, as well as European ones (last I checked, the UK was part of Europe). And USSR and China of course were part of the Oil for food scandal, which put them in the position of profiting from Saddams regime.

Germany, France and many others are not part of our coalition...and those few that are, are not NEAR at the number of troops that we have committed. And, perhaps those that didn't join, wanted to see ACTUAL PHYSICAL proof before joining - looks like they knew what they were doing. Pity the country that had the idea of invading did not.

quote:

The CIA money got funnelled through Pakistan, and eventually into the hands of bin Laden:

I never said Bin Laden didn't benefit from CIA funding (though Bin Laden is wealthy primarily through his family's money and other African interests, as well as funding from supporters) so the CIA didn't 'create Bin Laden', he just happened to be involved with one of the groups fighting the Soviets in Afganistan along with many other groups, some of whom are supporting the war effort against the Taliban now.

So to say the CIA 'funded' or 'created' Bin Laden is another example of hyperbole and simplistic analysis of a complex situation.

quote:

Which is why my mother always told me - do not accuse (or in this instance, invade) unless you have the evidence, IN HAND. It was wrong to invade without evidence in hand.

quote:

Oh, ok. Or, better said, when there is oil involved: when there is some resource we want - some, well how did the State dpt phrase it back in the '80's, some, "interest"....

quote:

I should have phrased better: Not a very short list of countries that joined us IN IRAQ, and at that - that now left us like Spain & Italy. And I mean, not just the small number or countries that joined us in Iraq - I mean the disproportionatly larger number of our troops involved compared to ANY other country that joined us. There is absolutely NO comparison to WWII and you know it.

quote:

Germany, France and many others are not part of our coalition...and those few that are, are not NEAR at the number of troops that we have committed. And, perhaps those that didn't join, wanted to see ACTUAL PHYSICAL proof before joining - looks like they knew what they were doing. Pity the country that had the idea of invading did not.

quote:

Heh?!You're saying the CIA, you know "intelligence", did not know where millions of dollars of their money was going?! Are you joking?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Which is why my mother always told me - do not accuse (or in this instance, invade) unless you have the evidence, IN HAND. It was wrong to invade without evidence in hand.

Saddam's unwillingmess to abide by cease fire agreements and his corruption of the Oil for food program, both 'evidence in hand' provide plenty of reason to remove him.

Was Hussein firing at us? Oh, no, that's right. At the very same time we were preparing to invade Iraq, it was North Korea that was ALSO throwing out UN nuclear inspectors, launching missiles into the Pacific & publicly threatening the US. And now corruption of a people - another thing that Kim Jong-il excels at. Seems pretty obvious to me, that unfortunately there were other, more threatening leaders out there at the same time. But, with all the aforementioned, you still think Hussein was more of a threat - obviously we disagree...

quote:

Oh, ok. Or, better said, when there is oil involved: when there is some resource we want - some, well how did the State dpt phrase it back in the '80's, some, "interest"....

It would have been easier to get oil the way France and Germany did; buy it illegally from Saddam.

Presqua from France has not held government jobs since the late 1990's - how this figures into the governments of France & Germany is beyond me. In the Duelfer report above, no political figures from France & Germany are named - the people that profited from this scandal were private companies, individuals. Again, there was no physical evidence of WMD. If anything, France & Germany had more at stake in invading Iraq than we did, living much, much closer than we to Iraq. Germany & France both were the settings of previous wars. They, along with their citizens, have see the ugliness of it. I would imagine, then, having lived through wars on their OWN turf, they are more likely to use war as the VERY last resort...too bad US policy does not see war as a last resort...too bad for the reported 25,000 innocent Iraqis who are now dead because we invaded Iraq and too bad for the the loss of 1700+ of our best & brightest.

quote:

I should have phrased better: Not a very short list of countries that joined us IN IRAQ, and at that - that now left us like Spain & Italy. And I mean, not just the small number or countries that joined us in Iraq - I mean the disproportionatly larger number of our troops involved compared to ANY other country that joined us. There is absolutely NO comparison to WWII and you know it.

It didn't need to be as large as WWII; Saddam didn't have the resources Hitler had. In fact, no war since WWII has been as big as that war was, praise God.

I know what you mean [:D] That's right, Sadam didn't even have resources, he didn't even have WMD! Maybe that's why Germany & France didn't join us, they figured, well, Hussein doesn't have the WMD, so, they don't need us! I think you may be onto to something there...[:D]

quote:

Germany, France and many others are not part of our coalition...and those few that are, are not NEAR at the number of troops that we have committed. And, perhaps those that didn't join, wanted to see ACTUAL PHYSICAL proof before joining - looks like they knew what they were doing. Pity the country that had the idea of invading did not.

Or perhaps they just enjoyed their illegal oil too much.

Presqua from France has not held government jobs since the late 1990's - how this figures into the governments of France & Germany is beyond me. In the Duelfer report above, no political figures from France & Germany are named - the people that profited from this scandal were private companies, individuals. Again, there was no physical evidence of WMD. If anything, France & Germany had more at stake in invading Iraq than we did, living much, much closer than we to Iraq. Germany & France both were the settings of previous wars. They, along with their citizens, have see the ugliness of it. I would imagine, then, having lived through wars on their OWN turf, they are more likely to use war as the VERY last resort...too bad US policy does not see war as a last resort...too bad for the reported 25,000 innocent Iraqis who are now dead because we invaded Iraq and too bad for the the loss of 1700+ of our best & brightest.

quote:

Heh?!You're saying the CIA, you know "intelligence", did not know where millions of dollars of their money was going?! Are you joking?

No, I'm saying Bin Laden was a small part of the Mujahadeen at that time, not the head of an international terrorist organization.

quote:

Was Hussein firing at us? Oh, no, that's right. At the very same time we were preparing to invade Iraq, it was North Korea that was ALSO throwing out UN nuclear inspectors, launching missiles into the Pacific & publicly threatening the US. And now corruption of a people - another thing that Kim Jong-il excels at. Seems pretty obvious to me, that unfortunately there were other, more threatening leaders out there at the same time. But, with all the aforementioned, you still think Hussein was more of a threat - obviously we disagree...

quote:

Presqua from France has not held government jobs since the late 1990's - how this figures into the governments of France & Germany is beyond me. In the Duelfer report above, no political figures from France & Germany are named - the people that profited from this scandal were private companies, individuals. Again, there was no physical evidence of WMD. If anything, France & Germany had more at stake in invading Iraq than we did, living much, much closer than we to Iraq. Germany & France both were the settings of previous wars. They, along with their citizens, have see the ugliness of it. I would imagine, then, having lived through wars on their OWN turf, they are more likely to use war as the VERY last resort...too bad US policy does not see war as a last resort...too bad for the reported 25,000 innocent Iraqis who are now dead because we invaded Iraq and too bad for the the loss of 1700+ of our best & brightest.

quote:

I know what you mean That's right, Sadam didn't even have resources, he didn't even have WMD! Maybe that's why Germany & France didn't join us, they figured, well, Hussein doesn't have the WMD, so, they don't need us! I think you may be onto to something there...

quote:

Presqua from France has not held government jobs since the late 1990's - how this figures into the governments of France & Germany is beyond me....

quote:

Oh, and this makes the Mujahadeen THAT less dangerous!?!?! You crack me up...thanks !

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Was Hussein firing at us? Oh, no, that's right. At the very same time we were preparing to invade Iraq, it was North Korea that was ALSO throwing out UN nuclear inspectors, launching missiles into the Pacific & publicly threatening the US. And now corruption of a people - another thing that Kim Jong-il excels at. Seems pretty obvious to me, that unfortunately there were other, more threatening leaders out there at the same time. But, with all the aforementioned, you still think Hussein was more of a threat - obviously we disagree...

Actually, despite it's ills (and I agree, N. Korea needs to be dealt with) N. Korea has never attempted to exceed it's borders since the the Koren war ended, and generally abided by the agreements that concluded the war; Saddam almost never did, and he was in a much more volatile region.

Oh, yeah, firing missiles into the Pacific, kicking out nuclear weapons inspectors & publicly threatening the US like North Korea did at the VERY same time we were planning to invade Iraq - that's less volatile than Hussein[:D] - Not!

quote:

Presqua from France has not held government jobs since the late 1990's - how this figures into the governments of France & Germany is beyond me. In the Duelfer report above, no political figures from France & Germany are named - the people that profited from this scandal were private companies, individuals. Again, there was no physical evidence of WMD. If anything, France & Germany had more at stake in invading Iraq than we did, living much, much closer than we to Iraq. Germany & France both were the settings of previous wars. They, along with their citizens, have see the ugliness of it. I would imagine, then, having lived through wars on their OWN turf, they are more likely to use war as the VERY last resort...too bad US policy does not see war as a last resort...too bad for the reported 25,000 innocent Iraqis who are now dead because we invaded Iraq and too bad for the the loss of 1700+ of our best & brightest.

Now you are going to defend the participants in the Oil for food scandal? Funny how you pick and choose from the Duelfer report.

Ok, Jack, show me in the Duelfer report where it states that governmental officials from Germany & France were involved - not that this would sway me - since we all know that there were no WMD.

quote:

I know what you mean That's right, Sadam didn't even have resources, he didn't even have WMD! Maybe that's why Germany & France didn't join us, they figured, well, Hussein doesn't have the WMD, so, they don't need us! I think you may be onto to something there...

So, first you say they didn't join because they were closer to Iraq and would have been more threatened, then you say it was because they 'knew' he didn't have WMD and wasn't a threat. The story changes as we go along...

When I stated this, I was just, um, well, trying to have a little fun with your logic...sorry.

quote:

Presqua from France has not held government jobs since the late 1990's - how this figures into the governments of France & Germany is beyond me....

Now you are just copying your own arguments.

quote:

Oh, and this makes the Mujahadeen THAT less dangerous!?!?! You crack me up...thanks !

You do realize (well, of course you don't or you wouldn't say these kind of things) that major factions of the former Mujahadeen opposed Bin Laden and the Taliban, and worked with the American invasion of Afganistan?

These are allegances we wouldn't have had had we not supported them in the '80s.

quote:

Oh, yeah, firing missiles into the Pacific, kicking out nuclear weapons inspectors & publicly threatening the US like North Korea did at the VERY same time we were planning to invade Iraq - that's less volatile than Hussein - Not!

quote:

Ok, Jack, show me in the Duelfer report where it states that governmental officials from Germany & France were involved - not that this would sway me - since we all know that there were no WMD.

quote:

When I stated this, I was just, um, well, trying to have a little fun with your logic...sorry.

quote:

This does not change the fact that we funded bin Laden back in the '80's, and he came back & bombed the World Trade Center - a very sad, sad fact. You know it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Oh, yeah, firing missiles into the Pacific, kicking out nuclear weapons inspectors & publicly threatening the US like North Korea did at the VERY same time we were planning to invade Iraq - that's less volatile than Hussein - Not!

Sometimes I don't think you actually read posts, so I'll say it again in case you missed it, because you never addressed what I actually said; "N. Korea has never attempted to exceed it's borders since the the Koren war ended, and generally abided by the agreements that concluded the war; Saddam almost never did". Are they a possible threat? Certainly; and we may need to deal with that threat someday. Hopefully when we do we will have a leader with more backbone than the ones currently produced by the Democratic Party.

Well, the Republican currently in the executive office certainly didn't "deal" with North Korea - and they were definitely a more imminent at the time. And, imagine that, North Korea didn't even bomb us!!!! Iraq was not near the threat to us: was NOT firing missiles at anyone - like North Korea did, was NOT publicly threatening the US - like North Korea did, invited weapons inspectors back in right before we invaded. Geeeez! North Korea kicked out nuclear weapons inspectors & did not back down. Imagine that, Jack: North Korea did IN FACT have WMD, was publicly threatening us, launching missiles into the Pacific - and they STILL did not even bomb us! We gave North Korea latitude - again. If weapons inspectors would have been allowed to finish their jobs in Iraq - like Kerry had said - the American people would have been allowed to see the truth - that there were no WMD in Iraq. Something tells me, there were those that didn't want us to see this.

quote:

Ok, Jack, show me in the Duelfer report where it states that governmental officials from Germany & France were involved - not that this would sway me - since we all know that there were no WMD.

Why would I bother to show you something when you already admit that facts don't affect your opinion? Nonetheless:

France

The French-Iraqi procurement relationship existed within a larger bi-lateral political relationship, which was turbulent and problematic throughout the 1990s up until OIF. From Saddam Husayn’s perspective, the relationship was built on Iraq’s hopes to influence a permanent membership on the UN Security Council against the United State and UK (see the Ministry of Foreign Affairs section).


Illustrating Iraq’s persistent efforts to curry favor in Paris, France, was one of the top three countries with companies or individuals receiving secret oil vouchers (see the Oil Voucher section). Iraq also awarded numerous short-term contracts under the UN OFF program to companies in France totaling $1.78 million, approximately 14 percent of the oil allocated under the UN OFF Program.

In 2001, Tariq Aziz characterized the French approach to UN sanctions as adhering to the letter of sanctions but not the spirit. This was demonstrated by the presence of French CAs in Baghdad, working to promote the interests of French companies while assisting them in avoiding UN sanctions.

Behind this political maneuvering, ISG has found evidence that French companies, after 1998, sought and formed procurement relationships with Saddam’s Regime. These relationships could have been renewed partnerships developed before 1991 when France was a major conventional arms supplier for the Iraqi Regime. These procurement transactions included offers and contracts for conventional weapons systems and negotiations for possible WMD-related mobile laboratories.


Recovered documents dated December 1998 and September 1999 indicate that the French company Lura supplied a tank carrier to the Iraqi MoD. A French expert, “Mr. Claude,” arrived in Iraq in September 1999 to provide training and offer technical expertise on the carrier.


By 1999, recovered documents show that multiple French firms displayed a willingness to supply parts for Iraqi conventional military items, mainly related to aircraft.


Documents from the Al-Hadhar Trade Company, dated November 1999, describe a delegation of French companies that had participated in an International Exhibition in Baghdad. One of the companies was willing to collaborate and supply spare parts for the French Mirage aircraft.

IIS documents dated from December 1999 to January 2000 show that the Deputy General Manager of a French company called SOFEMA planned to visit Iraq on 15 January 2000 on behalf of a number of French military companies to “seek possible trading between the two countries.” An accompanying top secret document from the GMID, M6 Section, corroborates this meeting and further ties the purpose to Iraqi air defense capabilities.

Another recovered letter, dated September 1999, illustrated the approval of a meeting by the GMID M6 Section with the Head of the Iraqi-French Friendship Society, Mr. William Libras. Libras offered to supply Iraq with western manufactured helicopters. This was followed with a letter indicating contact between Al-Hadhar Trade and the French suppliers stating that the French companies “have the ability to update the aircraft and add any system you request.”
ISG uncovered further conventional military trade in November 2002 when a French electronic warfare/ radar expert named “Mr. Cloud” (possibly Mr. Claude from the section above) met with representatives of the Al Kindi Research Facility. According to captured documents, the purpose of the visit was to facilitate military-related microwave, direction finding, and passive radar technology transfer. The recovered documents include military-related technology transfers and Iraqi contractual agreements with foreign manufacturers.

Beginning in late December 2002, the MIC initiated efforts to acquire replacement parts for the Roland II Surface to air missile system, valves for Iraq’s air defense system, and various other high technology items with military and battlefield applications. These efforts were underway with Majda Khasem Al-Khalil (a Lebanese female) who in turn met with the French Thompson Company representatives. ISG found evidence of coordination on this procurement up until 23 days before OIF.

Germanies Involvement was certainly less, but still significant: UN Probes German Companies in Oil for Food Scandal

Um, I asked to see where it pinpoints government officials that were involved in this, benefited from this - this talks of French COMPANIES, FIRMS.

quote:

When I stated this, I was just, um, well, trying to have a little fun with your logic...sorry.

It's getting hard to tell the serious posts from the less than serious ones...

[;)]

quote:

This does not change the fact that we funded bin Laden back in the '80's, and he came back & bombed the World Trade Center - a very sad, sad fact. You know it.

Are you suggesting that had we not funded the mujahadeen, Bin Laden would have loved us?

quote:

That response is hilarious. We may have gave them to him but dosen't that make it our responsibility to remove the threat?

quote:

All too often I have heard that argument by anti-war protesters. For me that is just one more reason to remove him. The same goes for Osama.

quote:

In a post a page or two back someone made a comment about Iraq being ruled by machine gun toteing American soldiers who can do what ever they want.

quote:

That commet was insulting to me and I'm sure many other soldiers. It was also extremely ignorant. Please learn what your talking about or sit quietly.

quote:

First of all in a squad of 9 only 2 carry a machine gun

quote:

y 2/9ths of the soldiers are toteing machine-guns. The rest have assault rifles.

quote:

have you ever heard of the Rules of Engagement? (ROE) do you have any idea what the ROE is for Iraq? Do you have any idea what the potential punishments are for violating the ROE? Contrary to your ignorant comment the soldiers may not "do anything they want"

quote:

Um, I asked to see where it pinpoints government officials that were involved in this, benefited from this - this talks of French COMPANIES, FIRMS.

quote:

Unbelievable - so you are advocating that this is GREAT foreign policy, that we give money, train these type of organizations again? Wow...isn't that like an open invitation of a repeat of 9/11? Please...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jipsah

quote:

That response is hilarious. We may have gave them to him but dosen't that make it our responsibility to remove the threat?

The threat to whom?
Apart from that, who decides which "threats" in the world need invading and which don't? Or is it just a random choice?

quote:

All too often I have heard that argument by anti-war protesters. For me that is just one more reason to remove him. The same goes for Osama.

And Kim Jong-Il, and whoever is in charge in China and Suadi Arabia and Syria and Iran and Cuba and a variety of other benighted places. We need to keep invading countries and removing rulers rigth up to the last dollar and drop of blood we've got! Hooah!

I was speaking specificaly about Osama and Saddam. All to many times I have heard that since we put them in place we can't remove them, obiously that is not true.

quote:

In a post a page or two back someone made a comment about Iraq being ruled by machine gun toteing American soldiers who can do what ever they want.

Sure did. True, isn't it?

No it isn't true

quote:

That commet was insulting to me and I'm sure many other soldiers. It was also extremely ignorant. Please learn what your talking about or sit quietly.

I reckon my son lied about his first tour there, then. (You been there?) He got beaten up himself because he jumped some of his "comrades" about roughing up Iraqi civilians who hadn't been charged with anything, stealing stuff off them (those few who have anything to steal, anyway), and generally behaving like thugs. And BTW, if those M-16 toting soldiers aren't in charge, who do you reckon is?

Spare me the posturing, OM.

I don't think he lied obiously he had a different experiance then I did. I won't question his military record please don't question mine.

quote:

First of all in a squad of 9 only 2 carry a machine gun

Sorry, in my mind a weapon what will do 3-round bursts is fully automatic. You're right, only one M249 per squad, hence the term "SAW".

quote:

y 2/9ths of the soldiers are toteing machine-guns. The rest have assault rifles.

Oh, well assault rifles, then. Big difference.

I was pointing out your ignorance there. There are significant differences between a machine gun and an assult rifle. I often see soldiers refered to as "machine gun toteing". This isn't always true but it is almost always an attempt to create a negative mental image (I assume thats what you were doing) Unfair emtional appeal and a logical fallacy.

quote:

have you ever heard of the Rules of Engagement? (ROE) do you have any idea what the ROE is for Iraq? Do you have any idea what the potential punishments are for violating the ROE? Contrary to your ignorant comment the soldiers may not "do anything they want"

Not legally, no. Kinda like the song line "In Jersey anything's legal as long as you don't get caught", and when you're are/i] the law... BTW, you done any LE patrols in Baghdad?

You ever been to Iraq, sarge?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Um, I asked to see where it pinpoints government officials that were involved in this, benefited from this - this talks of French COMPANIES, FIRMS.

So you are saying French companies were supplying Irag with military equipment, whithout the knowledge of the French government?

Jack, you stated in your previous post, that it was Germany & France that benefitted from, bought oil illegally from Iraq; like it was their governments. You can further see your accusation when you elude to this is why the respective governments of Germany & France did not support the US in the invasion of Iraq. Clearly, the Duelfer report makes no such claims as you do, and further, it only states that french firms, companies, individuals benefitted, bought oil from Iraq - it says NOTHING of any governmental employees of France benefitting, purchasing oil from Iraq. Now, given that there were no WMD, and that both countries that you have accused have seen the ugliness of war on their OWN TURF - I believe it is a bit irresponsible to make such accusations towards the governments of France & Germany.

quote:

Unbelievable - so you are advocating that this is GREAT foreign policy, that we give money, train these type of organizations again? Wow...isn't that like an open invitation of a repeat of 9/11? Please...

Where did I say that? It was, at the time, a reasonable foreign policy based on the existence of our greatest threat, the Soviet Union. And, as it turns our, this policy was part of the demise of the Soviets, causing tens of millions of people to be free of their dominance. So in that sense it was a good policy (particularly if you are an eastern european). Am I saying we should use the same policy in every instance? No, that is the overly simplistic and naive view of foriegn policy presented by the left.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil121

Goodness Gracious.....a lot of rancor in here, too[:D]

As far as the War in Iraq goes, I feel it is justified.

There is ample evidence that Saddam was seeking an alliance with Al_Qedea, and on that alone Bush was justified in invading and removing Saddam from power.