It's final: US admits Iraq held no illegal weapons,everyone surprised

[ajcrowley]

US 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.

Although Syria helped Iraq evade United Nations-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".

The Iraq Survey Group's main findings - that Saddam'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. The final report, covering nearly 1000 pages, was released on Monday.

US officials have held out the possibility that Syria worked with Saddam's regime to hide weapons before the US-led invasion. The 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. Iraqi officials who 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 Bush Administration's principal arguments for going to war in Iraq, marked an official end of a two-year weapons hunt led most recently by former UN weapons inspector Charles Duelfer. The team found that the 1991 Gulf War and subsequent UN sanctions had destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capabilities and, for the most part, Saddam had not tried to rebuild them.

Mr Duelfer also recommended that the US release some of the scientists and technocrats who are being held captive in Iraq strictly because of their work on Iraq's weapons programs.

The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, again defended his decision to commit troops to the invasion of Iraq as the war emerged for the first time as a leading issue in his re-election campaign.

At a news conference on Monday, he suggested that he would never persuade his detractors to accept his version of events but that he had no regrets about committing British troops to fight in the war.

"I am not sorry about it. I think I did the right thing," he said.

Meanwhile, a US military investigation has cleared American troops of wrongdoing in the killing of an Italian intelligence agent at a US checkpoint in Iraq last month, officials said on Monday.

Both governments hoped to agree on the investigation's wording before results are publicly released.

The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-admits-Iraq-held-no-illegal-weapons/2005/04/26/1114462041409.html

[iaidoka]

*warning* *warning*
Impending Nodbugger Justification Illogic
*warning* *warning*

[Nodbugger]

WMD was never the only reason.

[Canalien]

Only reason they told us about!

(real reason was oil; damn noddy you're half way to admitting it!)

[kré]

Only reason they told us about!

uh...no.

[Kez]

WMD was never the only reason.

What were the others mentioned before the impending sodomisation of Iraq?

*que cricket noise here*

Their only reason before going into Iraq was that "Sodamninsane had WMD's" Then afterwards bush changed his reasoning to some bullshit like "I sent troops to Iraq to free the Iraqi people, to gang rape them in our prisons, and to touch their little children".

Please, fill me in with the devine wisdom that the Fox news network has briefed you with :).

[btwong]

come on noddy, please tell us the other reasons?

[Blink]

WMD was never the only reason.

So lets summarise shall we?

Reason 1: Iraq has WMDs
Turns out to be complete BULLSHIT

Reason 2: Iraq was actively supporting al'qaida
Turns out to be complete BULLSHIT

Reason 3: We need to pick on someone to finance the defense sector and stop our economy going into a tail-spin. Preferably an old enemy who has lots and lots of oil.

[Directed]

The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but [...] there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two.[...] The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation.

source:
http://peacefuljustice.caltech.edu/0630/5.shtml

George W Bush speaking to the UN, 13 September 2002:

To suspend hostilities [in 1991], to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear to him and to all, and he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations...

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge, by his deceptions and by his cruelties, Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2948068.stm

There was more than one reason. But the weapons of mass destruction was one of the major concerns. Saddam went to great lengths to make it appear he had a weapons of mass destruction program. Apparently he thought it would be a deterrent to invasion. He has a history of making severe miscalculations, and this was one of them. It was never on the U.S. to prove he had WMD, it was up to him, according to Security Council resolutions to prove he didn't have them. Which he refused to do.

[Nodbugger]

What were the others mentioned before the impending sodomisation of Iraq?

*que cricket noise here*

Their only reason before going into Iraq was that "Sodamninsane had WMD's" Then afterwards bush changed his reasoning to some bullshit like "I sent troops to Iraq to free the Iraqi people, to gang rape them in our prisons, and to touch their little children".

Please, fill me in with the devine wisdom that the Fox news network has briefed you with :).


The other reasons where mentioned every single time. You know what they are. And you know they were a given. You cannot mention Saddam's name without calling him an asshole. It is impossible to do. Everyone knew he was fucked up, everyone knew he was a scum bag. Everyone knew he had no business running a country. Everyone knew he treated his people like shit. Everyone knew he has killed millions of Iraqis. Everyone knew he had used chemical weapons. Everyone knew all of these things. The only thing Bush had to say to me was that he wanted Saddam gone and I would have been with him. If you didn't support the removal of Saddam you don't deserve life.

[Nodbugger]

I would also like to say the title is misleading and the person who wrote it intentionally did that. That report does not say Iraq never had wmd. It says at this point in time there are none.

Mr Duelfer also recommended that the US release some of the scientists and technocrats who are being held captive in Iraq strictly because of their work on Iraq's weapons programs

And I don't get this, how can you say there were no wmd programs, then say that we shouldn't hold the scientists working on them.


Either way it was proven Saddam would have started them up if he could. Which is not a chance a president should take.

[Scumbag]

Saddam went to great lengths to make it appear he had a weapons of mass destruction program. Apparently he thought it would be a deterrent to invasion. He has a history of making severe miscalculations, and this was one of them. It was never on the U.S. to prove he had WMD, it was up to him, according to Security Council resolutions to prove he didn't have them. Which he refused to do.


From what I recall, in the leading months up to the invasion, Saddam was making public statements on television admitting he had no weapons of mass destruction, he even challenged GWB to go on live television with him head to head to discuss the matter. GWB refused like the little pussy he is.


it was up to him, according to Security Council resolutions to prove he didn't have them. Which he refused to do.

I also recall Saddam giving UN weapons inspectors full access to all military installations in Iraq prior to the war. Several Scud missiles were found and dismantled and that was all.


You remember a guy called Hans Blix ? He outlined the real reason perfectly:


Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said that oil was one of the reasons for the US-led invasion of Iraq, a Swedish news agency reports.

"I did not think so at first. But the US is incredibly dependent on oil," news agency TT quoted Blix as saying at a security seminar in Stockholm.

"They wanted to secure oil in case competition on the world market becomes too hard."

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=4124

[Nodbugger]

From what I recall, in the leading months up to the invasion, Saddam was making public statements on television admitting he had no weapons of mass destruction, he even challenged GWB to go on live television with him head to head to discuss the matter. GWB refused like the little pussy he is.




I also recall Saddam giving UN weapons inspectors full access to all military installations in Iraq prior to the war. Several Scud missiles were found and dismantled and that was all.


You remember a guy called Hans Blix ? He outlined the real reason perfectly:




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=4124


And where was Saddam after the war? In a freaking hole.

Seriously, if he had nothing he should have turned up at the UN. Not making videos. probably wasn't even him. He just wanted to save his ass.

There is no justification for not removing Saddam from power.

The UN inspectors were removed from Iraq because of hostilities. Which is why Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998, it was called Operation Desert Fox. Would Clinton , of all people, bomb a country who is cooperating? I think not.

I wouldn't trust Hans Blix, I wouldn't trust anyone at the UN. Oil was not a reason. there is no proof. Iraq fell, Saddam fell, Baghdad fell, the only thing that didn't fall was oil prices. Why do you think he wants Saudi Arabia to up its production? I mean according to you he has all he wants in Iraq.

You are retarded, it is as simple as that.

[berserk]

It was never on the U.S. to prove he had WMD, it was up to him, according to Security Council resolutions to prove he didn't have them. Which he refused to do.
Proving something doesn't exist is like proving God, impossible.

[Scumbag]

And where was Saddam after the war? In a freaking hole. Where did you expect him to be ? On top of a mountain ?

Seriously, if he had nothing he should have turned up at the UN. Not making videos. probably wasn't even him. He just wanted to save his ass. He had no reason to. He had a spokesman at the UN representing him, just like every other member of the UN.


There is no justification for not removing Saddam from power.

Howabout "removing Saddam from power will kill 100,000 innocent people and turn the country to shit, and drive ordinary people into US hating terrorists" ?

I wouldn't trust Hans Blix, I wouldn't trust anyone at the UN. So why demand that Saddam turns up at the UN if you dont even trust them ?


Why do you think he wants Saudi Arabia to up its production? I mean according to you he has all he wants in Iraq. Perhaps because he didnt expect the country to go to shit once his cavalry rolled in ?

[Nodbugger]

Where did you expect him to be ? On top of a mountain ?

He had no reason to. He had a spokesman at the UN representing him, just like every other member of the UN.




Howabout "removing Saddam from power will kill 100,000 innocent people and turn the country to shit, and drive ordinary people into US hating terrorists" ?

So why demand that Saddam turns up at the UN if you dont even trust them ?


Perhaps because he didnt expect the country to go to shit once his cavalry rolled in ?


I can only sigh in disgust.

[JediKnight]

Mr Duelfer also recommended that the US release some of the scientists and technocrats who are being held captive in Iraq strictly because of their work on Iraq's weapons programs .
And I don't get this, how can you say there were no wmd programs , then say that we shouldn't hold the scientists working on them.
Learn to read Noddy. The original sentence said "Iraq's weapons programs" not "Iraq's WMD programs". Iraq did build (though i'm not sure how much they built themselves) and buy conventional weaponry.

[Nodbugger]

Learn to read Noddy. The original sentence said "Iraq's weapons programs" not "Iraq's WMD programs". Iraq did build (though i'm not sure how much they built themselves) and buy conventional weaponry.

non-NBC categories are normally not talked about as weapons programs. As you do not need an entire program to develop them as you do an NBC weapon.

[JediKnight]

non-NBC categories are normally not talked about as weapons programs. As you do not need an entire program to develop them as you do an NBC weapon.
Quick, better tell that to the US Air Force. Just think how stupid they'd feel once they find out their JSF program (http://www.jsf.mil/, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/jsf.htm) isn't actually a weapons program by your definition.

[Nodbugger]

Quick, better tell that to the US Air Force. Just think how stupid they'd feel once they find out their JSF program (http://www.jsf.mil/, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/jsf.htm) isn't actually a weapons program by your definition.

That is not a weapons program. It is a JSF program.
It is not as I said, conventional weapon.
It wasn't a for a tank, or a new plane. Especially when you are talking about Iraq. If you are saying Iraqi weapon program it IS a NBC program. end of discussion. You, yet again, took one little piece of information out of context. Stop being an asshole.

[Enos]

You remember a guy called Hans Blix ?

You spelt it wrong, it's Hans Brix.

[JediKnight]

That is not a weapons program. It is a JSF program.
It is not as I said, conventional weapon.A fighter plane isn't a weapon?

It wasn't a for a tank, or a new plane. Especially when you are talking about Iraq.You're right. I don't remember the specifics (been quite a while since i read up on it), but Iraq did build various missiles and other conventional weapons.

If you are saying Iraqi weapon program it IS a NBC program. end of discussion.Are you saying that whoever wrote this article is lying when they claim such programs didn't exist when Iraq was invaded?

[Kez]

The other reasons where mentioned every single time. You know what they are. And you know they were a given. You cannot mention Saddam's name without calling him an asshole. It is impossible to do. Everyone knew he was fucked up, everyone knew he was a scum bag. Everyone knew he had no business running a country. Everyone knew he treated his people like shit. Everyone knew he has killed millions of Iraqis. Everyone knew he had used chemical weapons. Everyone knew all of these things. The only thing Bush had to say to me was that he wanted Saddam gone and I would have been with him. If you didn't support the removal of Saddam you don't deserve life.

a. I know Saddam was an arsehole, dont bother pointing that out to me.
b. Why did you go on an endless rant about Saddam being an arsehole? Where did I say he wasn't an arsehole? I said he had no WMD's, not that he was not an arsehole. You are the only arsehole in this situation.
c. I'm aware of the fact that he treated the people of Iraq like your parents treat you.
d. I never said I didn't support the removal of Saddam :), I'm glad he's gone, as he was a lunatic, but the point of this debate here is to say that the U.S' original reason to go into Iraq was that he had WMD's, which turned out to be false.
e. I dont think you deserve life, you're utterly stupid, and have gone on about something that was irrelevant to the fact that the Bush administration's reasoning to go into Iraq was that they had WMD's.

Hence again, your statements are useless and insignificant in this debate. You should watch CNN or something that has a half un-biassed view about the War on Iraq.

Or get a root, something that will put life into an unbiassed perspective for you.

[Kez]

Seriously, if he had nothing he should have turned up at the UN. Not making videos. probably wasn't even him. He just wanted to save his ass.

One more thing, I've never heard of Bush being at the UN meetings... so in effect, that statement is also retarded and utterly idiotic.

Face the fact's Nerd, your country is heavily dependant on oil, and Saddam was whacking of on a country full of it, and your administration got jealous, just like Daddy Bush got jealous in the Gulf War, and sent your army over there on a reason that would sound nice to the rest of the world, to get oil.

Oil, oil, oil. :)

[s3raph]

Dammit Noddy you've once again missed the point completely. It doesn't matter that we have a good outcome, we're pissed off that they LIED to the world, and if they didn't lie, then they made a severe miscalculation, that has cost US taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars, and the lives and health of thousands of Americans and Iraqi civillians.

Not to mention the fact that they endangered the future of the UN by refusing to abide by their international diplomatic obligations.

Oh and don't even think about trying to justify this by saying that Iraq is now free, before the invasion they were safe and able to go about their lives without a suicide bomber blowing them to bits when they go to church. You say that it was justified because Saddam is now gone? I ask you where your bleeding heart, and trillion dollar warchest is for the countless other nations who have to live under a dictator, or non-democratic government.

[Nodbugger]

A fighter plane isn't a weapon?

You're right. I don't remember the specifics (been quite a while since i read up on it), but Iraq did build various missiles and other conventional weapons.

Are you saying that whoever wrote this article is lying when they claim such programs didn't exist when Iraq was invaded?


You are completely detached from military terminology. in the military anything that goes boom is a weapon. This allows things to go boom, therefor it is not a weapon. It becomes a type of weapons platform.

Yes they did, everything Russian and nothing new was going to be developed by Iraq, they didn't want conventional weapons.

Yes they are lying, because they don't know.

[Nodbugger]

Dammit Noddy you've once again missed the point completely. It doesn't matter that we have a good outcome, we're pissed off that they LIED to the world, and if they didn't lie, then they made a severe miscalculation, that has cost US taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars, and the lives and health of thousands of Americans and Iraqi civillians.

Not to mention the fact that they endangered the future of the UN by refusing to abide by their international diplomatic obligations.

Oh and don't even think about trying to justify this by saying that Iraq is now free, before the invasion they were safe and able to go about their lives without a suicide bomber blowing them to bits when they go to church. You say that it was justified because Saddam is now gone? I ask you where your bleeding heart, and trillion dollar warchest is for the countless other nations who have to live under a dictator, or non-democratic government.


You are a hypocrite.


You are saying yes Saddam is an asshole, but we don't want to get rid of him for that reason. No matter what reason they would have given it would have ended up the SAME exact fucking way. You don't fucking understand that. You are just such a fucking asshole that you don't want to admit American did something good. You are a selfish bastard.

As for the UN, fuck the UN. The UN should have been a temporary thing after world war 2. the only thing they have done since then is sit and complain about the UN, why don't they go sell some medicine.

And this is also where you get hypocritical. You are saying we shouldn't have attacked Iraq, but if attack Iraq we should attack everyone else. Well have you ever heard of the statement every little bit counts?

[Sagacious]

Thee is none so blind as he who cannot see for the flag waving in his eyes

[SOC]

As for the UN, fuck the UN.?
I think the UN should vacate New York before Noddy learns it's based there and decides to go and blow it up.


Ooops, the cat's out of the bag now...

[JediKnight]

You are completely detached from military terminology. in the military anything that goes boom is a weapon. This allows things to go boom, therefor it is not a weapon. It becomes a type of weapons platform.

"goes boom"?

My fault, I should've realised that I have to talk to you as if I were talking to a 6 year old.

[Juice Biscuit]

I think the UN should vacate New York before Noddy learns it's based there and decides to go and blow it up.


Ooops, the cat's out of the bag now...


What ever you do, don't tell him that the UN doesn't actually have its own Military but is made up of Military from member states. http://home.exetel.com.au/myfiles/eek.gif

[s3raph]

You are a hypocrite.

You are saying yes Saddam is an asshole, but we don't want to get rid of him for that reason. No matter what reason they would have given it would have ended up the SAME exact fucking way. You don't fucking understand that. You are just such a fucking asshole that you don't want to admit American did something good. You are a selfish bastard.

And this is also where you get hypocritical. You are saying we shouldn't have attacked Iraq, but if attack Iraq we should attack everyone else. Well have you ever heard of the statement every little bit counts?
You're the last person who should talk about hippocracy. For the record its great that that fucker saddam is finally going to get whats coming to him, but the US government LIED or are extremely incompetent. Either way they are not fit to be the leaders of a superpower. And now they try to cover their mistake by saying that they went in to save the Iraqi people while they ignore the plights of countless millions? I don't care that Iraq was invaded, what I care about is that the most powerful people on Earth either lied, or made a trillion dollar mistake. And if they did that they could do it again, except the next time they do it, it could be my home which is getting bombed, because they made a mistake, or they lied, trying to subvert the democratic process which is designed to keep things like this from happening.

[STallingU]

I havnt read any of this thread, but I thought I might just add.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
That is all. You may all continue on with what you where doing.

[Ins0mniac]

There was more than one reason. But the weapons of mass destruction was one of the major concerns. Saddam went to great lengths to make it appear he had a weapons of mass destruction program. Apparently he thought it would be a deterrent to invasion. He has a history of making severe miscalculations, and this was one of them. It was never on the U.S. to prove he had WMD, it was up to him, according to Security Council resolutions to prove he didn't have them. Which he refused to do.

What are you on about?

He repeatedly told the world he didn't have them. At the time Bush declared war, the U.N weapons inspectors were being allowed access. How else was he supposed to prove he didn't have them?

How do you PROVE you DON'T have something for fuck's sake?

[s3raph]

Well the way I hear it, everyone was telling Saddam he had them, and embezzling the funds, so he thought he had them, was denying inspectors access to certain places, and then finds out he doesn't have any weapons after its all gone to shit.

[The Cunt]

"goes boom"?

My fault, I should've realised that I have to talk to you as if I were talking to a 6 year old.

Albeit a retard 6 year old.

Just smile at him and say "Who's a clever Noddy!".

And make sure the chin strap is secure on his stack hat.

[Ins0mniac]

You are a hypocrite.


You are saying yes Saddam is an asshole, but we don't want to get rid of him for that reason. No matter what reason they would have given it would have ended up the SAME exact fucking way. You don't fucking understand that. You are just such a fucking asshole that you don't want to admit American did something good. You are a selfish bastard.

Speaking of hypocracy, do you think it's hypocritical of the U.S to be allied with places like Saudi Arabia which are pretty much dictatorships and aren't democratic at all.

See I don't think it nessessarilly makes the U.S "fucking idiots" to be allies or at least not go to war with a country because it's not a democracy. Because in the REAL world, blowing everything up you don't like, as much as we'd like to, isn't always strategically in anyone's best interest. This is because even the U.S doesn't have a magic wand to make everything intstantly better. IE. Iraq is still just as fucked only with thousands of dead U.S soldiers and Billions of dollars spent.



Saying Saddam is bad, which he was, isn't reason to go to war just as we don't automatically go to war with all bad people because sometimes it's strategically or morally a bad idea overall.

[Ins0mniac]

Bush listened to a bunch of people running away from Saddam. They hated Saddam. They were going to tell Bush whateer the fuck they thought it would take to make him go to war with their enemy.

So they told him all this bullshit that Bush believed without question.

[Ins0mniac]

And where was Saddam after the war? In a freaking hole.

Seriously, if he had nothing he should have turned up at the UN. Not making videos. probably wasn't even him. He just wanted to save his ass.

There is no justification for not removing Saddam from power.

The UN inspectors were removed from Iraq because of hostilities. Which is why Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998, it was called Operation Desert Fox. Would Clinton , of all people, bomb a country who is cooperating? I think not.

I wouldn't trust Hans Blix, I wouldn't trust anyone at the UN. Oil was not a reason. there is no proof. Iraq fell, Saddam fell, Baghdad fell, the only thing that didn't fall was oil prices. Why do you think he wants Saudi Arabia to up its production? I mean according to you he has all he wants in Iraq.

You are retarded, it is as simple as that.

It doesn't matter what happened in 1998. The inspectors were there doing there job when Bush decided to go to war.

And Saddam didn't turn up to the U.N because doing so wouldn't have proven shit anyway and nobody asked him to turn up.

[s3raph]

It doesn't matter what happened in 1998. The inspectors were there doing there job when Bush decided to go to war.

And Saddam didn't turn up to the U.N because doing so wouldn't have proven shit anyway and nobody asked him to turn up.
Well that and Iraq wasn't a member state.

[Sagacious]

Q: What did Saddam Hussein and Little Miss Muffet have in common?
A: They both had curds (Kurds) in their whey (way). :ha:

[asskickergod]

From what I recall, in the leading months up to the invasion, Saddam was making public statements on television admitting he had no weapons of mass destruction

And we should have believed him because Saddam is such a trustworthy guy.

[Arcane1]

Q: What did Saddam Hussein and Little Miss Muffet have in common?
A: They both had curds (Kurds) in their whey (way). :ha:

I haven't been awake that long yet, and that was a serious assault on my consciousness. I'm not sure whether to laugh until I puke or puke until I laugh.
:barf: :ha: :barf: :ha: :barf: :ha: :aah:

[DOGG]

WMD linky (http://www.google.com.au/search?num=20&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=%22The+United+States+edited+out+*%22&meta=)

[Scumbag]

And we should have believed him because Saddam is such a trustworthy guy.


As opposed to Colon powell and his painfully embarrassing "mobile anthrax labs" speech he pulled off at the UN... :rolleyes:


He was on par with the Iraqi Information minister with that stunt!

[asskickergod]

As opposed to Colon powell and his painfully embarrassing "mobile anthrax labs" speech he pulled off at the UN... :rolleyes:


He was on par with the Iraqi Information minister with that stunt!

It's bad enough that we have to endure the smell of the constant bullshit that you constantly spew out of your gaping maw so I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd refrain from adding to the already rancid scent by throwing in red herrings to rot on the lawn.

[asskickergod]

You got pwned!

I guess it's far easier for you to just unilaterally claim victory in a comment then actually try to debate in a subject for which you obviously don't have a clue. Of course you could have at least made a comment that wasn't as puerile as one that you'd expect from a 12 year old wanna be script kitten.

[Ins0mniac]

And we should have believed him because Saddam is such a trustworthy guy.

No, instead we should assume all Saddam's exiled political opponents are telling the truth about him currently having WMDS (because of course they wouldn't be biased).


Then we should invade his country just in case he's lying.

Turns out OMG he was telling the truth.


Knobheads.

[asskickergod]

No, instead we should assume all Saddam's exiled political opponents are telling the truth about him currently having WMDS (because of course they wouldn't be biased).

And this makes Saddam a trustworthy person how?

[Z-Man]

No, instead we should assume all Saddam's exiled political opponents are telling the truth about him currently having WMDS (because of course they wouldn't be biased).


Then we should invade his country just in case he's lying.

Turns out OMG he was telling the truth.


Knobheads.

Now I am not saying that there are WMDs but just because we did not find any does not mean they aren't there.

We are talking about a vast fucken desert with where anything can be hidden just about anywhere. It cann't all be searched.

My only complaint about the entire invasion is that we did it without UN support. I think we should have waited a bit longer and made sure we had UN support before invading. That would have helped avoid the cluster fuck that it turned into.

[Nodbugger]

You're the last person who should talk about hippocracy. For the record its great that that fucker saddam is finally going to get whats coming to him, but the US government LIED or are extremely incompetent. Either way they are not fit to be the leaders of a superpower. And now they try to cover their mistake by saying that they went in to save the Iraqi people while they ignore the plights of countless millions? I don't care that Iraq was invaded, what I care about is that the most powerful people on Earth either lied, or made a trillion dollar mistake. And if they did that they could do it again, except the next time they do it, it could be my home which is getting bombed, because they made a mistake, or they lied, trying to subvert the democratic process which is designed to keep things like this from happening.

No. no. no.

1. For you to say they lied is wrong, you do not know and neither does anyone else. For them to lie they must have had known what they were saying was false. And that clearly wasn't the case. Not only did they believe what they were saying, but what they did say cannot be confirmed.

2.How did they subvert the democratic process? Congress voted, we went to war. How hard is it for you to understand. The US government said it was ok to go to war. We don't let the UN determine these things. That is wrong to think they should.

3. Yes freeing the Iraqis was always a reason. Like I said, if you didn't immediately think "We need to get rid of this asshole Saddam because I know he has done horrible things" , then you have been living a fucking hole your whole life.

[Nodbugger]

Speaking of hypocracy, do you think it's hypocritical of the U.S to be allied with places like Saudi Arabia which are pretty much dictatorships and aren't democratic at all.

See I don't think it nessessarilly makes the U.S "fucking idiots" to be allies or at least not go to war with a country because it's not a democracy. Because in the REAL world, blowing everything up you don't like, as much as we'd like to, isn't always strategically in anyone's best interest. This is because even the U.S doesn't have a magic wand to make everything intstantly better. IE. Iraq is still just as fucked only with thousands of dead U.S soldiers and Billions of dollars spent.



Saying Saddam is bad, which he was, isn't reason to go to war just as we don't automatically go to war with all bad people because sometimes it's strategically or morally a bad idea overall.


Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, correct. But as you said become their enemy is not in anyones bests interests. They provide a strategic location to get into other countries that have already jumped off into the deep end. Saudi Arabia still savable. The people can change like they want to in Iran and Lebanon.

And that last little tid bit is crap. Of course it is a good enough reason to go to war. If it wasn't the world would be seriously messed up and there would be even more places like the old Iraq. If no one is going to stop you from doing something you might as well do it. If there isn't a country willing to fight to stop these types of countries then they will just keep going and getting worse.

How about we make a deal, we will give Saddam a small Island to be in charge of. Everyone who was against the war can go live under Saddam. Sounds fair right?

[Nodbugger]

That would have helped avoid the cluster fuck that it turned into.

May I ask how? The only thing I could see making any difference is that no one could call the US evil, but we would still be the major presence there and we would still get blamed for everything.

[Nodbugger]

Bush listened to a bunch of people running away from Saddam. They hated Saddam. They were going to tell Bush whateer the fuck they thought it would take to make him go to war with their enemy.

So they told him all this bullshit that Bush believed without question.


And why were they running away?

[Nodbugger]

Well that and Iraq wasn't a member state.


They were when we invaded.

[Arcane1]

Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, correct. But as you said become their enemy is not in anyones bests interests. They provide a strategic location to get into other countries that have already jumped off into the deep end. Saudi Arabia still savable. The people can change like they want to in Iran and Lebanon.

And that last little tid bit is crap. Of course it is a good enough reason to go to war. If it wasn't the world would be seriously messed up and there would be even more places like the old Iraq. If no one is going to stop you from doing something you might as well do it. If there isn't a country willing to fight to stop these types of countries then they will just keep going and getting worse.

How about we make a deal, we will give Saddam a small Island to be in charge of. Everyone who was against the war can go live under Saddam. Sounds fair right?

When I saw that Noddy was the last poster in this thread, I just HAD to read it. Certainly, there was no lack of a chuckle from doing so, which is just what I needed about now. Between the grammar, spelling and logical skills, I nominate Noddy as the "Most Humorous Poster" of the site.

I especially like the part about all the detractors of the Iraq invasion going to live under Saddam. That would be funny, as there would be a whole lot of WWII vets and Vietnam vets (remember, Bush didn't show up) moving to that island paradise. Heck, even Colin Powell would have to go! What a hoot! Go Noddy!

[Nodbugger]

When I saw that Noddy was the last poster in this thread, I just HAD to read it. Certainly, there was no lack of a chuckle from doing so, which is just what I needed about now. Between the grammar, spelling and logical skills, I nominate Noddy as the "Most Humorous Poster" of the site.

I especially like the part about all the detractors of the Iraq invasion going to live under Saddam. That would be funny, as there would be a whole lot of WWII vets and Vietnam vets (remember, Bush didn't show up) moving to that island paradise. Heck, even Colin Powell would have to go! What a hoot! Go Noddy!


Actually, no they probably wouldn't. Bush did show up, his national guard unit was never activated. So I guess all the people who were never sent to Vietnam are also draft dodging cowards?


BTW, I had no spelling or grammar mistakes.

[Arcane1]

Actually, no they probably wouldn't. Bush did show up, his national guard unit was never activated. So I guess all the people who were never sent to Vietnam are also draft dodging cowards?


BTW, I had no spelling or grammar mistakes.

Oh, Noddy, let me count the ways.

Nodbugger: Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, correct. This is a fine example of a dangling participle. But as you said become their enemy is not in anyones bests interests. The verbs 'said' and 'become' are not in the correct tense, should be 'becoming' also, 'anyones interest' should be 'anyone's interest' They provide a strategic location to get into other countries that have already jumped off into the deep end. This is a run-on sentence Noddy, and 'They' is not clearly defined as to whom 'They' are. Saudi Arabia still savable. This sentence makes no sense Noddy. Saudi Arabia still davable? From? By? To? Clearly an example of an incomplete sentence written by a complete idiot. The people can change like they want to in Iran and Lebanon. 'The people can change like' This is an improper use of 'like' in this sentence without further defining 'like'.

In order to cease wasting my time, unless you would like to pay me hourly to tutor you in grammar and english skills I shall stop here. I recommend a grade 9 English class, or, less statements about not making grammar mistakes in your senseless babbling.

[Nodbugger]

Oh, Noddy, let me count the ways.

Nodbugger: Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, correct. This is a fine example of a dangling participle. But as you said become their enemy is not in anyones bests interests. The verbs 'said' and 'become' are not in the correct tense, should be 'becoming' also, 'anyones interest' should be 'anyone's interest' They provide a strategic location to get into other countries that have already jumped off into the deep end. This is a run-on sentence Noddy, and 'They' is not clearly defined as to whom 'They' are. Saudi Arabia still savable. This sentence makes no sense Noddy. Saudi Arabia still davable? From? By? To? Clearly an example of an incomplete sentence written by a complete idiot. The people can change like they want to in Iran and Lebanon. 'The people can change like' This is an improper use of 'like' in this sentence without further defining 'like'.

In order to cease wasting my time, unless you would like to pay me hourly to tutor you in grammar and english skills I shall stop here. I recommend a grade 9 English class, or, less statements about not making grammar mistakes in your senseless babbling.


I guess that means I win. None of those are right, one was a typo and the rest where completely wrong on your part. Picking at my spelling has made it final, I win.

[amj]

I guess that means I win. None of those are right, one was a typo and the rest where completely wrong on your part. Picking at my spelling has made it final, I win.


o_0 wtf. You win because he proved you wrong? Oh wait, Nodbugger is NEVER wrong! God, what was I thinking....

[Nodbugger]

o_0 wtf. You win because he proved you wrong? Oh wait, Nodbugger is NEVER wrong! God, what was I thinking....

He didn't prove me wrong, he attacked something totally away from the topic, basic discussion tactics, he lost now he tries to divert my attention.

[Arcane1]

I guess that means I win. None of those are right, one was a typo and the rest where completely wrong on your part. Picking at my spelling has made it final, I win.
OMG Noddy! You HAVE to go into comedy. That is the absolutely most psychotic comment that I have heard in a long time. You are a real case Man... absolutely a case.

BTW- The definition of psychotic is someone having a viewpoint that is totally disjointed from reality and continues to maintain it regardless of proof to the contrary.

w00t!

[Nodbugger]

OMG Noddy! You HAVE to go into comedy. That is the absolutely most psychotic comment that I have heard in a long time. You are a real case Man... absolutely a case.

BTW- The definition of psychotic is someone having a viewpoint that is totally disjointed from reality and continues to maintain it regardless of proof to the contrary.

w00t!


Ad Hominem

[Scumbag]

I guess it's far easier for you to just unilaterally claim victory in a comment then actually try to debate in a subject for which you obviously don't have a clue. Of course you could have at least made a comment that wasn't as puerile as one that you'd expect from a 12 year old wanna be script kitten.


Debate what ? Your previous comment was nothing but a petty insult.

[Scumbag]

Now I am not saying that there are WMDs but just because we did not find any does not mean they aren't there.

We are talking about a vast fucken desert with where anything can be hidden just about anywhere. It cann't all be searched.


See this is what I dont understand, if he did have Weapons prior to the invasion, why wouldnt he have used them ?


Whats the point in even having weapons if youre not going to use them when your entire country gets invaded by some of the most evil forces on earth ?

My only complaint about the entire invasion is that we did it without UN support. I think we should have waited a bit longer and made sure we had UN support before invading. That would have helped avoid the cluster fuck that it turned into.

Agreed.

[Nodbugger]

See this is what I dont understand, if he did have Weapons prior to the invasion, why wouldnt he have used them ?


Whats the point in even having weapons if youre not going to use them when your entire country gets invaded by some of the most evil forces on earth ?



Agreed.

Stop saying America is evil, fucking retard.

Because, if he had used them you would be saying, along with every other human being, that going into Iraq was correct.

If he doesn't use them he makes the US look really bad, and this forum is my proof of that statement. Would you have supported the war if Saddam had used wmd?

[Scumbag]

Would you have supported the war if Saddam had used wmd?


As long as there was over a million American casulties, then sure, why not ?

[Bostonmess]

The inspectors were there and Bush thought: "Quick, lets attack before they realise they don't have anything."?

The UK's reason for attacking Iraq (apart from being up Bush's arse) was that they were a real and credible threat part of which reasoning meant they could launch WMD within 45 minutes.

[Bostonmess]

WMD linky (http://www.google.com.au/search?num=20&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=%22The+United+States+edited+out+*%22&meta=)

Fucking hell! Is that true?

[Sagacious]

Fucking hell! Is that true?
Must be true it's been reported..and even if it turns out not to be it is for the moment because (and the whole WMD and liberating Iraq thing was a glowing testament to this) perception is reality

[Sagacious]

Apparently the coalition of the willing (or wtf they are now calling themselves) are so desperat to turn up any evidence of WMD's whatsoever that they are turning to most ridiculous iterpretations of that concept.

For example they stopped a high school teacher carrying a protractor and a slide rule and interrogted her for hours about hte Weapons of Maths Instruction she was carrying before they realised they fucked it up. I mean the pressure on those guys must be huge no wonder they crack up and shoot civilians.

[DOGG]

Fucking hell! Is that true?

yep... and i thought i created a thread for this when the issue was first raised. but i can't seem to locate it.

[s3raph]

Stop saying America is evil, fucking retard.

Because, if he had used them you would be saying, along with every other human being, that going into Iraq was correct.

If he doesn't use them he makes the US look really bad, and this forum is my proof of that statement. Would you have supported the war if Saddam had used wmd?
So you're saying that Saddam sacrificed his freedom, power, and life, just to make the US look bad?

[dwarfthrower]

So you're saying that Saddam sacrificed his freedom, power, and life, just to make the US look bad?

It worked, didn't it?

[s3raph]

Thats not the point, he didn't hate the US passionately enough to die so that people would like them a bit less. I think Bush is a fucktard, but I still drink coke, eat macdonalds, and watch hollywood films.

[Scythe]

It worked, didn't it?

Whether it worked or not is pretty irrelevant. Saddam fits almost precisely the clinical definiton of a sociopath (http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/sociopath), and one of the characteristics of sociopathy is complete self-centredness. He wouldn't have set all this up, because he simply wouldn't be willing to give up everything he had simply for the sake of revenge.

[dwarfthrower]

I know... it was a joke. I didn't put a ;) at the end of it.


mea culpa ;)

[Scythe]

I know... it was a joke. I didn't put a ;) at the end of it.


mea culpa ;)

I realised it was a joke, but there's no smiley for "I got the joke, but there's people out there who may actually believe it, so in the interests of education I might as well point out why it almost certainly isn't true."

+rep for anyone who can design one, though.

[Juice Biscuit]

+rep for anyone who can design one, though.



http://punkesito.com.ar/caritas/giggle.gif

[Scythe]

http://punkesito.com.ar/caritas/giggle.gif

Not bad, but it lacks that condescending edge that says "I know more than you and to prove it i'm going to explain things as if you're suffering from frontal lobe damage".

Maybe if it had a mortar-board hat?

[Nodbugger]

Whether it worked or not is pretty irrelevant. Saddam fits almost precisely the clinical definiton of a sociopath (http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/sociopath), and one of the characteristics of sociopathy is complete self-centredness. He wouldn't have set all this up, because he simply wouldn't be willing to give up everything he had simply for the sake of revenge.

Do you think he would be alive right now if he had used wmd?

[s3raph]

Well yeah, its important to the US to show him having a legitimate trial. Besides if he thought that the war wasn't going to go his way, he had plenty of opportunities to run, I remember a neighbouring nation offering him and his family sanctuary at one point before the war.

[Scythe]

Do you think he would be alive right now if he had used wmd?

I think that since every rational authority on the planet now seems to be in agreement that he never had any WMDs in the first place, the issue of whether or not he would have used them when invaded and what the consequences would have been seems pretty irrelevant.

[Juice Biscuit]

Not bad, but it lacks that condescending edge that says "I know more than you and to prove it i'm going to explain things as if you're suffering from frontal lobe damage".



http://www.mainzelahr.de/smile/genervt/taetschel_.gif

[Ins0mniac]

Now I am not saying that there are WMDs but just because we did not find any does not mean they aren't there.

We are talking about a vast fucken desert with where anything can be hidden just about anywhere. It cann't all be searched.


Dude, pre war the U.S government was talking about factory upon factory producing WMDS and they said they knew EXACTLY where these factories were. They specifically stated they knew where they were

Now we're expected to believe they CAN'T find any evidence at all?

How did Saddam (while under direct attack from U.S forces) hide factories full of WMDS that the U.S knew ALL about, in the desert sands?

And even if he could do this impossible task. Wouldn't he just use them on U.S forces, seeing as he was just itching to use them at the slightest chance according to the U.S gov?


If he wasn't willing to use WMDs while on the brink of defeat then when the hell WAS he going to use these weapons of mass destruction that he supposedly had?

[dwarfthrower]

http://www.mainzelahr.de/smile/genervt/taetschel_.gif
winner

[SOC]

America is evil
America is evil
America is evil
America is evil
America is evil
America is evil
America is evil
America is evil
America is evil
America is evil
America is evil
America is evil

At long last, Noddy says something that actually makes sense :p

[Ins0mniac]

Do you think he would be alive right now if he had used wmd?

He still might as well be dead now.

Of course I don't give a shit about Saddam.

[darns]

Dude, pre war the U.S government was talking about factory upon factory producing WMDS and they said they knew EXACTLY where these factories were. They specifically stated they knew where they were

Now we're expected to believe they CAN'T find any evidence at all?

How did Saddam (while under direct attack from U.S forces) hide factories full of WMDS that the U.S knew ALL about, in the desert sands?

And even if he could do this impossible task. Wouldn't he just use them on U.S forces, seeing as he was just itching to use them at the slightest chance according to the U.S gov?


If he wasn't willing to use WMDs while on the brink of defeat then when the hell WAS he going to use these weapons of mass destruction that he supposedly had?

I think Saddam farted when the marines pulled him out of that hole.

[Scythe]

winner

I concur. Sadly, I am unable to +rep Pinger, so I encourage others to do so in my stead.

[Ins0mniac]

And this makes Saddam a trustworthy person how?

Of course he's not trust worthy. Did I ever say he's trust worthy?

But does that mean we should automatically assume everything he says is a lie?


Even though there is absolutely no proof of WMDS and there are currently weapons inspectors in place?

If you're going to assume he's lying why bother asking him in the first place.

And if a person has proven untrustworthy, you can't assume the opposite of everything he says is the truth. It's a bit simplistic and childish to go about world politics like that.

[dwarfthrower]

I concur. Sadly, I am unable to +rep Pinger, so I encourage others to do so in my stead.

I have the same inability... which means that I repped him earlier for something he didn't really deserve, and will probably do so again in the future to make up for not repping him now.

[Juice Biscuit]

I concur. Sadly, I am unable to +rep Pinger, so I encourage others to do so in my stead.


http://imagehost.biz/ims/pictes/209129.gif



My rep page says that you haven't coughed up since before the 17/3/05 as that's as far as it goes.




http://imagehost.biz/ims/pictes/209034.gif

[Ins0mniac]

And why were they running away?

Because he was an arsehole of course.

Nobody here ever denies this.

[Scythe]

http://imagehost.biz/ims/pictes/209129.gif



My rep page says that you haven't coughed up since before the 17/3/05 as that's as far as it goes.




http://imagehost.biz/ims/pictes/209034.gif

I suspect it's because i'm a miserly bastard and give out rep so infrequently. I promise to rep people tomorrow or on the weekend just so I can rep you again, so don't get your lace panties in a knot.

[asskickergod]

Debate what ? Your previous comment was nothing but a petty insult.

My comment was an insult because your post about Colin Powell had nothing to do with my original assertion that Saddam is not trustworthy. I said your post was a red herring, but obviously you failed to get the connection. Maybe I shouldn't have assumed that you would know what a red herring is, seeing as how you have the debating skills of any random piece of paper on my desk, but it's not my fault you're a complete fucking idiot. Here, I'll walk you through it. I said Saddam Huesain is not a trustworthy person. You made some retarded comment about Colin Powell, as that is the exact moment where you lost the debate, probably because it's the first point where you were called upon to actually think. You see even if Colin Powell is a complete liar it doesn't magically mean that Saddam is a trustworthy person, ie. your post was a red herring. So instead of just repeating myself or getting sucked into your clap trap of unboundless stupidity I choose to simply point out your obvious logical fumble.

[asskickergod]

Of course he's not trust worthy. Did I ever say he's trust worthy?

By trying to compare him to people that the US did show trust in, yes you did.

[Nodbugger]

Because he was an arsehole of course.

Nobody here ever denies this.

So what is the big fucking deal? We got rid of an asshole, that is a good thing.

[s3raph]

Because Noddy, the ends do not justify the means. Politicians pursuing their own agenda's or making mistakes is not a good thing. I mean would America be any worse off with Saddam still in power? He would be stewing away, putting funds into WMD porgrams, his underlings would be pouring those funds into their personal swiss bank accounts, and giving reports on non-existent arsenals, and America would be several hundred billion dollars richer, more popular, and with about 20 000 more able-bodied soldiers.

This is one of those situations where its all about the principle dammit. You would not be saying "well there weren't any WMD, but we got rid of a dictator" if there were 20,000 casualties, and a country completely ravaged by warfare because of your politicians mistake.

[Nodbugger]

Because Noddy, the ends do not justify the means. Politicians pursuing their own agenda's or making mistakes is not a good thing. I mean would America be any worse off with Saddam still in power? He would be stewing away, putting funds into WMD porgrams, his underlings would be pouring those funds into their personal swiss bank accounts, and giving reports on non-existent arsenals, and America would be several hundred billion dollars richer, more popular, and with about 20 000 more able-bodied soldiers.

This is one of those situations where its all about the principle dammit. You would not be saying "well there weren't any WMD, but we got rid of a dictator" if there were 20,000 casualties, and a country completely ravaged by warfare because of your politicians mistake.

My reason for going into Iraq to begin with was to get rid of Saddam. I have always said that.

[s3raph]

Well then, I respect your stance on human rights, but your government went in there telling everyone that Saddam could mobilise weapons of mass destruction, and send them into Israel in 45 minutes, and had been channeling funds into Al Quaeda. Those claims have been proven false, meaning that they either lied, or made a major fuck up.

My point here is that although in this particular lie or fuck up, we had a decent outcome; the downfall of a madman. What if next time they lie or make a major fuck up America starts an enormous war, costing tens of thousands of lives?

Just because we got lucky this time, doesn't mean it'll happen every time.

[Nodbugger]

Well then, I respect your stance on human rights, but your government went in there telling everyone that Saddam could mobilise weapons of mass destruction, and send them into Israel in 45 minutes, and had been channeling funds into Al Quaeda. Those claims have been proven false, meaning that they either lied, or made a major fuck up.

My point here is that although in this particular lie or fuck up, we had a decent outcome; the downfall of a madman. What if next time they lie or make a major fuck up America starts an enormous war, costing tens of thousands of lives?

Just because we got lucky this time, doesn't mean it'll happen every time.

An enormous war with who?

[s3raph]

Its hypothetical Noddy, its just a better way of saying an enormous mistake, that would cost your nation, and the rest of the world dearly.

[Nodbugger]

Its hypothetical Noddy, its just a better way of saying an enormous mistake, that would cost your nation, and the rest of the world dearly.


I'd like to see a plausible example.

[s3raph]

Noddy there doesn't need to be a plausible example, you should see that if they made a mistake this big once, they could do it again, and that the next time you would end up with an outcome that you couldn't just sweep under the rug saying "well it turned out ok in the end".

I know that you at least have an idea of what I'm saying here, so I'll try it this way:

Instead of the Iraq war going the way it did, imagine this. Upon mounting the invasion Saddams generals implemented innovative guerilla tactics destroying bridges, and using suicide bomber speedboats to cripple US ships in the persian gulf. Instead of mounting resistance against the main invasion, they burn the oil wells, and then leave the main bulk of their forces to defend the larger cities, and US forces take a heavy toll. Of course Iraq falls, but it takes 18 months to finally clear out all of the cities, and US forces take a heavy toll, with a war budget that went into the trillions(after pensions for dead troops families, and damaged/destroyed equipment and property). Then the investigations begin, finding that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and that 25,000 US troops had died for nothing, and that now the US taxpayer was committed into paying trillions for the reconstruction of Iraq. Iraq, not posing a serious threat, had now cost the US many soldiers, and a LOT of money. How would you feel about the mistake then?

Oh and incidentally the scenario I described isn't particularly far-fetched either, wargames with a US general playing as the head of Iraqi forces exacted those kinds of results.

[haiironezumi]

My reason for going into Iraq to begin with was to get rid of Saddam. I have always said that.

*You* went into Iraq to get rid of Saddam? On your own, or with the military? Did you just, like, walk up to the door of his mansion and stand outside asking to see him? I hear this gets a good response over in the states, especially if you bring your suitcases with you and sit them beside you.

[Nodbugger]

wargames with a US general playing as the head of Iraqi forces exacted those kinds of results.

That may be the reason right there.

[Z-Man]

I ADMIT TO NOTHING......nothing!

[berserk]

I ADMIT TO NOTHING......nothing!http://forums.zgeek.com/gallery/data/media/1/schultz.jpg
How is the war going?

[Sagacious]

http://forums.zgeek.com/gallery/data/media/1/schultz.jpg
How is the war going?
I cannot tell you that we have found no Weapons of Mass Destruction because if I did I would be sent to the Eastern front......

.......HOGAN!

[s3raph]

That may be the reason right there.
Well the US doesn't lay claim to all the worlds brilliant military minds. The exercise just went to show that with a good leader, the Iraqi's could really have given the US a run for their money, but most importantly give you your plausible example.

[Nodbugger]

Well the US doesn't lay claim to all the worlds brilliant military minds. The exercise just went to show that with a good leader, the Iraqi's could really have given the US a run for their money, but most importantly give you your plausible example.

Well it seems they didn't have a good leader.

[s3raph]

I know, but they could have, besides we're moving away from the real issue here. The issue at hand was that the Bush administration's either lies, or massive mistake, could have cost the nation far more dearly than it did.

[Sagacious]

I know, but they could have, besides we're moving away from the real issue here. The issue at hand was that the Bush administration's either lies, or massive mistake, could have cost the nation far more dearly than it did.
It probably doesn't even acknowledge the existence of ulterior motives on the part of the Bush administration.

Consider this...perhaps Bush was trying to fulfill daddy's legacy and push all the way to baghdad the way his old man couldn't/wouldn't/didn't

if you accept that then it is just a kid proving himself against his old man's legacy.

[s3raph]

It probably doesn't even acknowledge the existence of ulterior motives on the part of the Bush administration.

Consider this...perhaps Bush was trying to fulfill daddy's legacy and push all the way to baghdad the way his old man couldn't/wouldn't/didn't

if you accept that then it is just a kid proving himself against his old man's legacy.
Well yes, but considering we have absolutely no proof of any alterior motives or conspiracy theories, I figure I'll just keep things simple here.

[Sagacious]

Well yes, but considering we have absolutely no proof of any alterior motives or conspiracy theories, I figure I'll just keep things simple here.
I see your point but you have to admit that old man Bush must have had some effect on poor Dubyah's thought processes (such as they were or may have been) I mean we can't discount the possibility that the whole show wasn't just a father son pissing contest... but you are right that would be mere speculation....just thought I'd mention it though, you know to add flavour to the conversation.

[s3raph]

I don't like the way things have been going with the US lately, but I give them enough credit to say that I don't think that they could go to war for no other reason than Bush jr wanting to prove his manhood to dear old dad.

To believe something like that is terrifyingly ludicrous.

[Sagacious]

I don't like the way things have been going with the US lately, but I give them enough credit to say that I don't think that they could go to war for no other reason than Bush jr wanting to prove his manhood to dear old dad.

To believe something like that is terrifyingly ludicrous.

FTR I didn't say it was the reason Uncle Sam strapped on the big boots and waded into another gulf war but lets face it the CIC is only human and to outdo daddy would certainly have been a nice little bonus for him which could have shaped some of his decision making.

Terrifying certainly but ludicrous I'm not so sure...well not certain enough to completely discount it.

Bush Jnr is as human (possibly more human) as the avverage joe in the street I mean he has battled with booze and bankruptcy all his adult life it just so happens that daddy had a good job and George Jnr enjoyed the privileges that daddy's status brought with it.

[Arcane1]

*You* went into Iraq to get rid of Saddam? On your own, or with the military? Did you just, like, walk up to the door of his mansion and stand outside asking to see him? I hear this gets a good response over in the states, especially if you bring your suitcases with you and sit them beside you.
Now, now, please don't hold Noddy to normal intelligible writing standards. Unless he really is George W. Bush in disguise. Hmmm... There is a theory that almost makes sense, why else could the posts be so lacking in English skills, intelligent logic and all the while be so rife with half-baked Republican rhetoric?

That's it! Noddy is G.W. Bush incognito! To further bolster the theory, Bush has his declared residence in Chicago, like Noddy says. What a releif! There really aren't 2 people in the US that are so incompetent.