Kerry Caught in yet Another Lie

[seinfeldrules]

Defeated who in a week? As far as I know, Marines are still dying in Iraq from resistance fighters.

This reminds me of the whole "Home before Christmas" promise during the Great War.

The main Iraqi army. They are currently dying to terrorists, many of whom are Al Qaeda terrorists.

 

[falconwind]

The main Iraqi army. They are currently dying to terrorists, many of whom are Al Qaeda terrorists.

Well, if there is one thing I know about the US Military, it's that it can take on any conventional military in the world and win.

Guerillas/terrorists, however, are a completely different story.

 

[hasan]

AFK in CS terms? lol. well, in CS terms, marines are being pwned

They are currently dying to terrorists, many of whom are Al Qaeda terrorists.

The resistance is mainly made up of Iraqi resistance fighters.

 

[fizzlephox]

What about China people!!! The RED THREAT!!! Does no one see it?

 

[Neutrino]

The main Iraqi army. They are currently dying to terrorists, many of whom are Al Qaeda terrorists.

There is a difference between insurgents and terrorists, though many people like to gloss over that.

Many of the terrorists are coming in from elsewhere anyway.

 

[seinfeldrules]

There is a difference between insurgents and terrorists, though many people like to gloss over that.

Many of the terrorists are coming in from elsewhere anyway.

Again, I would rather deal with them in Iraq when we are prepared for them, then in NYC where regular police must deal with them.

AFK in CS terms? lol. well, in CS terms, marines are being pwned

Man, you really arent doing too good of a job keeping up on current events. I'm sure if you put the figures side by side, Marines are, by far, 'pwning' the terrorists.

 

[Neutrino]

Again, I would rather deal with them in Iraq when we are prepared for them, then in NYC where regular police must deal with them.

Ah, I see. So you're for dumping your own problems in the laps of other people then?

We don't want to fight them in our backyards, but it's just fine and dandy if we fight them in Iraqi's backyards, right?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Ah, I see. So you're for dumping your own problems in the laps of other people then?

We don't want to fight them in our backyards, but it's just fine and dandy if we fight them in Iraqi's backyards, right?

Where we have the proper people do deal with them. Think of it as a three way race: Saddam, the US, then the terrorists. We followed Saddam in, and then the terrorists followed us. We would have been quite content dealing with the aftermath of Iraq if it werent for the terrorists (Al Zarqawi being #1). Saddam also funded terrorism (noitce not specifically Al Qaeda), so it isnt like it was a new thing over there.

 

[falconwind]

Man, you really arent doing too good of a job keeping up on current events. I'm sure if you put the figures side by side, Marines are, by far, 'pwning' the terrorists.

You have to admit, though, the insurgents are presenting quite a challenge for the largest, most advanced, highly trained, well funded, and feared militaries in the world.

 

[seinfeldrules]

You have to admit, though, the insurgents are presenting quite a challenge for the largest, most advanced, highly trained, well funded, and feared militaries in the world.

If we wanted, we could end it in a week. We still havent launched a major assault against Fallujah or any of the other strongholds. The thing is, civilian casulties would be too high for such an action to be performed.

 

[falconwind]

If we wanted, we could end it in a week. We still havent launched a major assault against Fallujah or any of the other strongholds. The thing is, civilian casulties would be too high for such an action to be performed.

Ah, yes, the other thing that gives the insurgents an edge. They don't have to conform to the Rules of Engagement and international treaties and such.

As I said, against a conventional military, the US Military would easily prevail. Against insurgents and terrorists, they're forced to fight with the gloves on.

 

[sublidieminal]

Seinfeld, im am still waiting for a rebuttal for my satement directed towards you on page seven.

 

[gh0st]

snip

another uker lecturing us on our economy, telling us how bad it is. you dont live here, you dont know shit. maybe you know what the anti-bush register tells you, but not a whole lot else. at least i dont pretend to know anything about your country. i cant wait for the day when foreign nations (especially canada and the uk) mind their own business. you elect your own leaders, we elect ours.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Seinfeld, im am still waiting for a rebuttal for my satement directed towards you on page seven.

I'm sorry, I cant read asterik. Must have missed the lesson on it in first grade.

 

[CptStern]

Ah, yes, the other thing that gives the insurgents an edge. They don't have to conform to the Rules of Engagement and international treaties and such.

the US has repeatedly broken the geneva accords as well as international law before, during and after the war

As I said, against a conventional military, the US Military would easily prevail. Against insurgents and terrorists, they're forced to fight with the gloves on.

14,000 dead iraqi civilans isnt pulling punches

 

[sublidieminal]

Whats that supposed to mean? Asterik?

 

[seinfeldrules]

the US has repeatedly broken the geneva accords as well as international law

Oh please, if we were as blatant and as disrespectful as you claim then our casualty figures would be down 90%. The US military is trained to follow these 'accords' as much as possible.

14,000 dead iraqi civilans isnt pulling punches

And again, you assume that the US killed all these civilians.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Whats that supposed to mean? Asterik?

You and your ****ing ***ing news. **** this. HOW IRONIC I WONT RESPOND TO A POST WRITTEN LIKE THIS!!! AHHHHH **** you all. ****ers


That is what I mean.

 

[gh0st]

And again, you assume that the US killed all these civilians.

no, the civilian dead is caused "as a result of the invasion" not what would have happened if saddam was still in power, diggin those shallow graves. its always better to blame the US than bloodthirsty dictators. its the european way!

 

[sublidieminal]

Oh haha, you mean asterisk? Yeah sorry about that... forum rage. Actually it's that president that makes me like that.

 

[falconwind]

another uker lecturing us on our economy, telling us how bad it is. you dont live here, you dont know shit. maybe you know what the anti-bush register tells you, but not a whole lot else. at least i dont pretend to know anything about your country. i cant wait for the day when foreign nations (especially canada and the uk) mind their own business. you elect your own leaders, we elect ours.

As the foremost remaining superpower on the planet, your business is our business.

 

[seinfeldrules]

no, the civilian dead is caused "as a result of the invasion" not what would have happened if saddam was still in power, diggin those shallow graves. its always better to blame the US than bloodthirsty dictators. its the european way!

Ah yes, it must have slipped my mind. Now allow me to go attend my tea time. Jollio good neighbor!

 

[CptStern]

Oh please, if we were as blatant and as disrespectful as you claim then our casualty figures would be down 90%. The US military is trained to follow these 'accords' as much as possible.

you know nothing. It's the not the individual soldiers I'm talking about it's the US government: illegal detention of individuals with no charges, illegal use of weapons ..here read this

And again, you assume that the US killed all these civilians.

yes, directly or indirectly they are responsible for all 14,000+

 

[gh0st]

As the foremost remaining superpower on the planet, your business is our business.

no ones a super power anymore, we all have nukes, we all have a say.

you know nothing. It's the not the individual soldiers I'm talking about it's the US government: illegal detention of individuals with no charges, illegal use of weapons ..here read this

dont post things we have to register for, you should know that you need to sign up for the washington post.

 

[seinfeldrules]

yes, directly or indirectly they are responsible for all 14,000+

Indirectly, you are my father!


Ill respond to the rest later (SOX TIME)

 

[sublidieminal]

Okay, I honestly need some insight here seinfeld. I really want to know what you have to say. I apologized. Can we be friends?

 

[falconwind]

no ones a super power anymore, we all have nukes, we all have a say.

If that were true, the US would be in a LOT of trouble.

 

[clarky003]

its the european way!

and if it was the 'American' way at the moment, we'd be shooting ourselves, through created terrorist paranoia, or complete lack of understanding of the way some people think, without really knowing what people want, or how the economy works at the top (I dont proffess to know, but i know its corrupt as hell) see.. I can be self richous too .

 

[CptStern]

Indirectly, you are my father!


Ill respond to the rest later (SOX TIME)

more to the point: you are an idiot. You cant tap dance around every issue, what's the sense of debating if you just ignore all the facts. Name one fact to support your case, and I'll shoot it down, not because I'm more intelligent but because the facts are stacked against you. Only the very patriotic and the foolish are in the "the war was right" camp, thankfully your numbers are dwindling

 

[CptStern]

no ones a super power anymore, we all have nukes, we all have a say.


dont post things we have to register for, you should know that you need to sign up for the washington post.

damn it doesnt work for some reason

here's the article:

look down the list for this title: Memo Lets CIA Take Detainees Out of Iraq (washingtonpost.com)

 

[falconwind]

more to the point: you are an idiot. You cant tap dance around every issue, what's the sense of debating if you just ignore all the facts. Name one fact to support your case, and I'll shoot it down, not because I'm more intelligent but because the facts are stacked against you. Only the very patriotic and the foolish are in the "the war was right" camp, thankfully your numbers are dwindling

I'm detecting a bit of hostility there.
Don't worry, Seinfeldrules, I'll protect you. I'm dressed for it

CptStern: You don't help the cause by attacking people, my brother. Insults weaken you credibility. Eventually, people will not listen to you anymore if you do this kind of thing.

I know that your opponents often call you names and insult you, but to don't stoop to their level.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I'm detecting a bit of hostility there.
Don't worry, Seinfeldrules, I'll protect you.

CptStern: You don't help the cause by attacking people, my brother. Insults weaken you credibility.

Thanks man! I guess he didnt realize that I was joking because I have to watch my Sox now. No time for debating left. Didnt I mention that though...

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I'm going to have to side with Stern here. (not so harshly, but still.)

I gave up on reasoning with seinfeld ever since he decided that Bush had great pre-war intelligence, based purely on the assumption that Bush couldn't be mistaken.

Not an idiot, but frustratingly difficult to reason with? I'd say yeah.

 

[falconwind]

I'm going to have to side with Stern here. (not so harshly, but still.)

I gave up on reasoning with seinfeld ever since he decided that Bush had great pre-war intelligence, based purely on the assumption that Bush couldn't be mistaken.

Not an idiot, but frustratingly difficult to reason with? I'd say yeah.

I just don't like it when threads degenerate into a flame war. I wanted to nip this in the bud, in case it got out of hand.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I'm going to have to side with Stern here. (not so harshly, but still.)

I gave up on reasoning with seinfeld ever since he decided that Bush had great pre-war intelligence, based purely on the assumption that Bush couldn't be mistaken.

Not an idiot, but frustratingly difficult to reason with? I'd say yeah.

hahahahaha there we go again. Bush had awful pre- war intel. I've said that all along. But then I ask? Was he supposed to question Russia's intel agency, the CIA, and MI5? (all with the same information). Clinton believed it as well, so did Kerry.

 

[sublidieminal]

I'll just assume you'll respond after the Sox win.

 

[CptStern]

I'm detecting a bit of hostility there.
Don't worry, Seinfeldrules, I'll protect you. I'm dressed for it

CptStern: You don't help the cause by attacking people, my brother. Insults weaken you credibility. Eventually, people will not listen to you anymore if you do this kind of thing.

I know that your opponents often call you names and insult you, but to don't stoop to their level.

seinfeld and I have a history of butting heads ..although I tend to butt the wall more than his actual head ...Mecha's got it right ..it's like talking to a person while they're sticking their fingers in their ears yelling "nah nah nah" so they cant hear you.


btw: el Chi is back! ..all hail el Chi

 

[Neutrino]

hahahahaha there we go again. Bush had awful pre- war intel. I've said that all along. But then I ask? Was he supposed to question Russia's intel agency, the CIA, and MI5? (all with the same information). Clinton believed it as well, so did Kerry.

No doubt there was an intelligence failure. However, there is debate on what Bush did with that intelligence and what his true motivations were.

I've found this to be one of the more comprehensive looks at some of the aspects of this issue:

Justification for war:
http://www.newsaic.com/f911chap6-1.html
http://www.newsaic.com/f911chap6-2.html

Intelligence and WMD's:
http://www.newsaic.com/f911chap6-5.html
http://www.newsaic.com/f911chap6-5.html#table

Both articles are worth a read, but here are a couple interesting excerpts:

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush and Dick Cheney did give some signs of taking a harder approach towards Saddam Hussein. Once in office, according to at least one insider, the Bush administration quickly began discussing ways to accomplish Hussein's removal from power.

"From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country. And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way do to this,'" former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill is quoted as saying in Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty, a book written closely with O'Neill's support.

While Bush had suggested stronger measures against Iraq before the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred, Bush does not appear to have decided on a military course of action by that time. Moreover, immediately after September 11, Bush rejected arguments by at least one official, Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, to use the attacks to justify military action against Iraq.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration did begin taking its first steps towards war by late 2001. Even as action continued in Afghanistan, Bush reportedly asked the military to begin revising invasion plans in late November 2001 and the military revised these plans several times over the next few months. Publicly, the Bush administration began focusing attention on Iraq's non-compliance with weapons inspections in early 2002 and built the case for war over the course of 2002 and early 2003, with what arguably was only a detour into the United Nations and inspections process in late 2002 and early 2003.

The Bush administration's initial goal of removing Hussein was rooted in the belief that a post-Hussein Iraq would allow for a reshaping of the Middle East and would send a message to other states that were considering developing weapons of mass destruction.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, removing Hussein was recast somewhat as a way of removing an ally or sponsor of terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda. This was something that had not been discussed much if at all beforehand. While the State Department had long considered Iraq to be a state sponsor of terrorism, it had also noted that Iran, not Iraq, was the most active such sponsor and that Iraq's support of terrorism was directed only towards Iran and Israel, not against the United States. "The regime has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 in Kuwait," the report released in April 2001 noted.

and

Iraq quickly agreed to "deal with" the U.N. resolution and to allow inspectors into the country, even while criticizing the resolution's "iniquitous contents" and the "bad faith" of the United States and Britain in seeking it. Iraq did not explicitly say it would grant inspectors full access, and indicated that it would supervise inspectors' conduct to ensure that it would be "lawful and professional." It then submitted a 12,000-page declaration on December 7, and allowed weapons inspectors back into the country for the first time since 1998.

The Bush administration immediately cast doubt on Iraq's cooperation and on the ability of weapons inspectors to prove compliance with disarmament obligations. Even as weapons inspectors began their work and gave reports indicating some cooperation and indicated that their work could prove successful with time, the Bush administration continued to make its case for war and gathered its forces in the Middle East.

Bush outlined a case for war with Iraq in his 2003 State of the Union address, in which he said Hussein had shown "utter contempt" for the United Nations in terms of his cooperation with weapons inspectors and that the United States would take action to disarm Saddam Hussein if he did not fully do so.

Secretary of State Colin Powell then made a presentation on February 5, 2003 to the United Nations about what Powell called clear signs of Iraq's non-compliance and non-cooperation with inspectors. "My colleagues, we have an obligation to our citizens. We have an obligation to this body to see that our resolutions are complied with. We wrote 1441 not in order to go to war. We wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace. We wrote 1441 to give Iraq one last chance. Iraq is not, so far, taking that one last chance," he said.

Such efforts did not manage to sway over some longtime allies in the Security Council, such as France, Germany and Russia, which announced on March 5 that they would oppose any new Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Such efforts also did not stop worldwide protests against the impending war.

Weapons inspectors reported for what would be the last time on March 7 that Iraq had been cooperating more fully, that even immediate cooperation would take months to verify, and that they had found no indication that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program or had attempted to import uranium.

In apparent recognition that Resolution 1441 had not authorized the use of force, the United States and United Kingdom pushed for a new Security Council resolution that would authorize the use of force against Iraq. But given the clear opposition by other Security Council members, Bush decided to withdraw the resolution from the United Nations and issued an ultimatum on March 17, 2003, calling for Hussein to step down as leader or face military action.

"Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it," Bush said.

Two days later, the United States initiated military action against Iraq with a massive bombing attack.

and

The Congressional resolution did not mean that such force ultimately would be appropriate but left it to Bush to make that decisionand gave him more bargaining power. In an October 7 speech before the resolution was passed, Bush said that "approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something." In signing the resolution into law on October 16, Bush himself noted that force had been authorized but not ordered, and that he hoped that force would not become necessary and would be used as a "last resort."

and

Such reports apparently were the basis for the Bush administration's new stance on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. These reports were not definitive on their own but could be interpreted as signs that Iraq posed a more likely threat than before and do seem to have been the basis of some of the Bush administration's statements in 2002 as it began making its case for military action against Iraq.

In January 2002, President George W. Bush included Iraq in what he called an "axis of evil" whose members "pose a grave and growing danger" in that they "could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States."

Specifically, Bush said of Iraq that "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world."

As Bush continued his push for action against Iraq, he and other members of the administration made statements that strongly suggested that Iraq had or soon would have weapons of mass destruction. For example, Vice President Cheney said that "many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon" on August 26, 2002, and Condolleeza Rice said on September 8, 2002 that Iraq had acquired aluminum tools "that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs."

Such statements became more definitive over time. Bush said that Iraq "has" weapons of mass destruction on September 19, 2002, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said on September 26, 2002 that "we know they have weapons of mass destruction. We know they have active programs. There isn't any debate about it."

and

In the face of the Bush administration's statements and with the Bush administration pushing for authorization of military force, several members of Congress asked the intelligence community in September 2002 to produce a National Intelligence Estimate as to Iraq's WMD programs. The intelligence community began working on such a NIE on September 12, 2002, completed it on October 1, 2002, and then presented it to members of Congress. Based on such information, Congress then overwhelmingly voted to give Bush authorization to use military action against Iraq if he deemed necessary.

This NIE marked a dramatic departure from previous assessments and was much more conclusive than before. It began with definitive judgments that Iraq "has continued" its WMD programs and that Iraq "has" chemical and biological weapons and "probably will have a nuclear weapon" by 2010 "if left unchecked." For example:

"Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

Baghdad hides large portions of Iraq's WMD efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

and

The NIE has been criticized as overstating the status of Iraq's WMD programs, especially given the lack of success in finding such weapons after the Iraq war. A July 2004 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that most of the major key judgments in the NIE were overstated or not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting.

Note in this last one that this is the intelligence provided to congress. Bush was was pushing for war and when congress receieve this new report containing conclusive yet misleading reports is when they agreed to allow Bush to use force.

 

[Neutrino]

Oops, ran out of time. This one too:

Facing pressure from the United States and the United Nations, Iraq did take steps to disclose more information about its compliance with disarmament obligations in late 2002. As the Bush administration pushed for Congressional authorization to use military force in September 2002, Iraqi's Minister of Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri wrote a letter to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan that Iraq would allow the return of weapons inspectors "without conditions." The United Nations Security Council then approved Resolution 1441, which gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply with disarmament obligations and which ordered Iraq to make a "full, accurate and complete" declaration of all its weapons of mass destruction in order to avoid "serious consequences."

Iraq then agreed on Nov. 13 that it would "deal with" the U.N. resolution and would allow inspectors into the country, despite the resolution's "iniquitous contents" and the "bad faith" of the United States and Britain in seeking it. Weapons inspectors began their first inspections since 1998 on November 27 and Iraq provided to the United Nations a 12,000-page declaration on December 7.

Even as inspections continued, the Bush administration questioned the inspectors' work and pushed for military action. Bush laid out the case for military action in his State of the Union address in January 2003, and Powell spoke before the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003 to re-iterate Iraq's failure to reach sincere disarmament and to share additional information possessed by the United States. Powell played audio tapes and satellite images that he said showed Iraqi forces moving and hiding equipment in November 2002 just before inspectors re-entered the country.

In what would be the final report before the United States began military action, weapons inspector Hans Blix said on March 7, 2003 that Iraq had been providing more cooperation, though cooperation had not been immediate and that there were still difficulties getting documentation and interviews with key personnel outside the presence of Iraqi government observers. As of that time, the UNMOVIC agency had conducted more than 550 inspections covering about 350 sites. Blix called for more time, noting that even if cooperation was immediate, it would take months to disarm and verify such disarmament. Similarly, IAEA head Mohamed Elbaradei reported that the IAEA had conducted 218 nuclear inspections at 141 sites and had found no evidence that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program. IAEA inspectors also concluded that there was no evidence that Iraq's efforts to obtain aluminum tubes were meant for developing fissile material and that the claim that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from 1999 to 2001 was unfounded.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Care to post the quotes that show Clinton claiming what a threat Saddam was and how dangerous he was with his WMD.