 |
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
hi ,
fact , sadman bought stuff in niger before , fact , the local trade rep had 231 sadman's working there , as " trade reps " , .... 
fact , sadman tried to get more uranium , .......
facts are facts , .....
have a nice day |
hi ,
fact , no womd (including sarin) have been found in iraq , ....
fact , no uranium has been found in iraq , ....
fact , the iaea dismissed the british report on the uranium connection , ....
fact , an intelligence officer who traveled to niger said it was highly unlikely that saddam tried to get uranium from niger , ....
facts are most definately facts , yet they are not on your side , ....
have a nice "Uranium.............from Africa" day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
hi ,
fact , no womd (including sarin) have been found in iraq , ....
fact , no uranium has been found in iraq , ....
fact , the iaea dismissed the british report on the uranium connection , ....
fact , an intelligence officer who traveled to niger said it was highly unlikely that saddam tried to get uranium from niger , ....
facts are most definately facts , yet they are not on your side , ....
have a nice "Uranium.............from Africa" day |
hi ,
fact , they have secured uranium , ........
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm playing down the threat of such weapon not because I'm an arse, but because they are, at best, merely equivalent to 'conventional' weapons, and usually a lot less effective.
The military effectiveness of BC weapons (nukes are completely different) is grossly overstated, which is where their political power comes from, and how the 'danger' of such weapons was used to trick people into accepting war. |
I have to disagree. While military applications of both are overstated, if targeted against a civilian population...They can be quite devistating if used effectively.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:30
|
|
I have to laugh at the pro-Bush people. They have now resorted to saying things like, "the left can't prove that WMD's don't exist".
Sorry fellas, we on the left don't have to prove anything. Those who promoted or supported the war need to provide adequate proof for their case - if they can't it follows that they acted in ignorance.
I suppose Tacitus was right that "Crime once exposed has no refuge but audacity."
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Itd be interesting to reverse it, and simply ask the Bush supporters questions, such as:
1) Was the Bush administration determined to go to war with Iraq from 9/11 onward? Yes or no? |
Yes. Otherwise how do you explain their pathetic performances at the UN and the dumbass dossier of doom (cribbed from an 11 year old thesis). Anyone with the remotest flickering of intelligence knew that all this was a fig leaf. Add to that, that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and co. have wanted this for years and it goes back further.
quote:
2) Did the Bush administration adequately demonstrate evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq as the basis for the war? If yes, then where are they and why have they not been discovered yet? |
No. They presented no arguments, they presented NOTHING... and they wanted to destroy Iraq, those criminals...
quote:
3) Did Saddam try to buy Uranium from Niger, or not? If not, then why the lie? |
This claim is quite simply unproven. Not one shred of evidence has been provided for it.
quote:
4) Are the aluminum tubes purchased even capable to be used for nuclear stuff, or no? |
Simply put, no. I heard they were for making rockets.
quote:
5) What evidence is there that Syria and/or Iran are now the guardians of Saddams stockpile of weapons? |
None has been presented.
quote:
6) How is the CIA responsible for administration misrepresentation of reports? |
Simple, they aren't.
quote:
7) How do you rectify the contradiction between the 6-months and Saddam can build a nuke with the IAEAs contention that no such report exists? |
You can't. The IAEA has vehemently denied this claim.
quote:
8) Where is the evidence of a continual Saddam/Al Qaeda link? |
There isn't any. There was a bunch of supposedly Al Quaeda connected bandits fighting the Kurds in the North. But there is no evidence that these people were connected to terrorism, or that they were anything more than an anti-Kurdish militia
quote:
9) Will the US leave Iraq if a democratically elected government orders them to? |
Can't tell/
quote:
10) How is the word terrorist or terrorist supporter defined by the administration, and why are the Saudis not on that list? |
I haven't heard any of them define it.
quote:
11) Is Al Qaeda crippled? If so, why are there reports circulating of their continuing activity? |
Because they are still active.
quote:
12) With the new security procedures in place, and the Department of Homeland Defense, are we, as a nation, significantly more prepared and protected against future attacks? |
No idea.
quote:
14) Was there, or was there not a detailed plan for rebuilding Iraq after the shooting stopped, and if so, why isnt it being followed? |
Either there was and it isn't working, or being followed; or there wasn't. No other conclusions are consistent with the evidence.
quote:
15) Have we succeeded in keeping the peace in iraq? Did we guard important historical sites? How many Iraqi civilians died in the war? |
No. Apparently not. 5-10000.
Come on all you Bushies, stop making yourselves look like total clowns and admit you have no case. Don't try to turn it around on people like Sava, he doesn't have to provide evidence that the claims are untrue, it is sufficient that they are unsupported to make his case. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:30
|
|
Facts, lies.. sure.. but how do you look at the facts is a different story. You see what you want to see. From the other extreme to the other. The trick is how to do the middle and be reasonable enough. I have said many times that I'm not a fan of W, but I'm not a hater either.
I believe his intentions are good. But how does that saying go 'good intentions pave the road to hell'? 
Anyway, you can process the information given by media in so many ways. I can write almost all of those 40 things in light, that looks good for W. It is very opiniated IMO.
About notes and plans.. so what? Everyone has plans, even against their own buddy nations. It was a bit shocking to see the info some years back how the US has planned to attack us if the time ever comes, and where the 2 nukes would fly. And we're not nuclear nation, and it was against US own rules. But so what? Everyone has plans. The most stupid thing IMO is not to be prepared, and not to have all options ready if situations heats too fast and everybody left their brains somewhere. It's better to have all options ready, even the ones against the rules. Like the situation where friends spy on each other. You don't like it when you hear about it, but it's a fact and everyone does it.
For example we're not supposed to have spies at all, and we don't even have an agency having spies.
But I visited spy museum, and it had a map where we had our spies in the last few decades, and they were everywhere. So what's the point? Everyone does everything. They are the unwritten rules.
The public don't know it because they don't need to know about it. This goes for every single plan that has anything to do with national security. Sometimes these notes and plans are leaked, but I don't see why people are shocked by them or disgusted. That's the way it goes, either accept it or don't, but no one should be surprised.
About people cooperating with the US intel, it's very hard to tell what information is real, what is up to date info, what is 100% correct. There are lots of people trying to mess up with the US intel for their own reasons.
Some want to use the US, give them wrong biased info on their enemies (doesn't have to be military... political.. who ever is that you don't like) and make it seem bad for the US and that there is a conflict of interest right there.
You can't always confirm it.
THere are people who want to tell outright lies, feed wrong information for the sake of their own security. They can back their lies with official documents and proof, provided from their own agencies. How can you tell the difference? You can't always confirm it with your own eyes.
But what ever happens, and what ever info you have, you always have to make a decision. In the case of the US, they ALWAYS has to make a decision. I bet that if they had bad intelligence, they'd be attacking every single country every other day because of the faulty information.
So, the point is, even when there is a failure somewhere, it doesn't mean it wasn't based on good effort and work and the right methods of getting and processing the data you have at hand.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2003 02:34
|