Really Interesting List Of Quotes..
Zig
...I am Captain Planet! Join Date: 2002-10-23 Member: 1576Members
...I am Captain Planet! Join Date: 2002-10-23 Member: 1576Members
<div class="IPBDescription">regarding WMD's</div> Everyone knows that one of the chief arguments against the current establishment in the USA is that it went to war without proper evidence or motives, under false information of there being WMD's in Iraq.
I never really had much to say to that point, as I know that, as yet, we have not REALLY found "Weapons of Mass Destruction"... we HAVE found some chem/bio stuff here and there, but it's all very small-scale..
The following makes me VERY curious though, and gets my brain working... and "WMD's" don't seem so much like "Dubya's excuse" anymore.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
<span style='color:red'>"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." <b></span>- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), <span style='color:red'>John Kerry ( D - MA)</span>, and others Oct. 9, 1998 </b>
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building! weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 1! 9, 2002
<span style='color:maroon'>"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." </span>
<b>- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 </b>
<span style='color:blue'>"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." </span>
<b>- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 </b>
<span style='color:green'>"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." </span>
<b>- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 </b>
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
<span style='color:red'>"I will be voting to give the President! of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." </span>
<b>- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 </b>
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and an! y nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
<span style='color:blue'>"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." </span>
<b>- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 </b>
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec.! 8, 2002
<span style='color:red'>"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." </span>- <b>Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 </b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you guys think? I'm not trying to justify the war or anything here, but the above DOES lend me to believe that Dubya was, at one time, NOT the only person "claiming" that WMD's were in Iraq..
All the mindless arguers had me convinced that it was just him. I came upon this thread in another forum and it really got my brain working. If everyone thought there were WMD's... and these days it's like "GEORGE W YOU BASTARD LIAR!!!" What happened between then and now, and why is it wrong that GW went in looking for WMD's if everyone was so sure they were there? o_o
I never really had much to say to that point, as I know that, as yet, we have not REALLY found "Weapons of Mass Destruction"... we HAVE found some chem/bio stuff here and there, but it's all very small-scale..
The following makes me VERY curious though, and gets my brain working... and "WMD's" don't seem so much like "Dubya's excuse" anymore.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
<span style='color:red'>"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." <b></span>- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), <span style='color:red'>John Kerry ( D - MA)</span>, and others Oct. 9, 1998 </b>
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building! weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 1! 9, 2002
<span style='color:maroon'>"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." </span>
<b>- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 </b>
<span style='color:blue'>"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." </span>
<b>- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 </b>
<span style='color:green'>"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." </span>
<b>- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 </b>
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
<span style='color:red'>"I will be voting to give the President! of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." </span>
<b>- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 </b>
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and an! y nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
<span style='color:blue'>"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." </span>
<b>- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 </b>
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec.! 8, 2002
<span style='color:red'>"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." </span>- <b>Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 </b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you guys think? I'm not trying to justify the war or anything here, but the above DOES lend me to believe that Dubya was, at one time, NOT the only person "claiming" that WMD's were in Iraq..
All the mindless arguers had me convinced that it was just him. I came upon this thread in another forum and it really got my brain working. If everyone thought there were WMD's... and these days it's like "GEORGE W YOU BASTARD LIAR!!!" What happened between then and now, and why is it wrong that GW went in looking for WMD's if everyone was so sure they were there? o_o
Comments
I'm really getting tired of people treating Iraq as if they have the power to conquer the world, thats very ignorant.
If you look at all of the reports about 9/11 (including ones from other contries) then you see that Bush was misslead about there being WMDs, so, in Bush's mind the war was justified. If he should have looked into these things more carfeuly, or not acted so quickly, I don't know honestly.
Oh, and @ Commie:
No one ever claimed they had the power to conquer the world, just to kill lots of poeple.
nukes don't get used against military structures, simply because their radius of effect is to great.
Personaly? If the "intelegence" had been correct, I would have been glad that the WMDs were removed, after all I live n NYC, though 2 jet fuel bombs didn't directly effect where I lived, a nuke or a chemical weapon would have.
However, There is just to much grey area in the entire incident for me to make an honest choice.
In any case, many intellegent people were lead to believe that there were WMD's, and there must have been at least some "evidence" to make them think that. Where did that evidence go? - I don't know. But it probably still exists.
(hmm... he used the exact same listing of souces as well)
Me - 2002
It just goes to show that both parties are guilty of negligence and are unworthy of holding office. Just because these representatives are democracts does not mean that they are in opposiition to the republicans completely. They agree on a lot of platforms, particularly foreign affairs. *cough*Israel*cough*
To say that there is nothing without a full search (keeping in mind the former dictator's blustering, non-compliance with UN resolutions, and lack of cooperation with UN weapon inspectors for years on end) is folly.
Soon enough there will be low-flying planes with what is basically big metal detectors on them making passes over the iraqi desert. A bunch of stuff will turn up, and with that stuff there may or may not be caches of chemicals, munitions, ect. If there's not, personally, I'll be worried about where this stuff is now.
Now someone is going to make the counter-argument, "Well, Saddam hid some planes, who knows what else he would hide". A couple planes, sure you could hide that. A large scale WMD program? Uhhh....no.
Now someone is going to make the counter-argument, "Well, Saddam hid some planes, who knows what else he would hide". A couple planes, sure you could hide that. A large scale WMD program? Uhhh....no. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why use the weapons? That makes Bush look right, it makes the rest of the world realize what you were doing, and you're just prolonging the inevitable. Instead, hide the weapons, make Bush (and America) look like a fool for attacking an "innocent" country, etc etc. That seems more logical to me.
Hero:
The alternative is being forced out of power and being conquered by the US. Saddam does not usually stand on any ideological ground. He has been more of a power-hungry opportunist. So, rather than flex the might of his "large-scale chemical, biological and nuclear weapons program", he would rather crawl into a hole and hide for fear of his life , later to be forced out of power and most likely executed. You really think Saddam would make that kind of sacrafice?
The alternative is being forced out of power and being conquered by the US. Saddam does not usually stand on any ideological ground. He has been more of a power-hungry opportunist. So, rather than flex the might of his "large-scale chemical, biological and nuclear weapons program", he would rather crawl into a hole and hide for fear of his life , later to be forced out of power and most likely executed. You really think Saddam would make that kind of sacrafice? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He knew that unless he had a nuclear arsenal the size of Russia's, a few measily chemical bombs would <b>not</b> prevent him from losing.
Since losing was inevitable, he decided to try and win another way.
Anyhow, the quotes are interesting, to say to the least. Who is lying now, democrats?
The hypocracy is overwhelming.
EDIT: Missing an important 'not'
This much is what I'm getting at.
There's no contest. Even if Saddam decided to use chemical weapons, the US would have still won by a drastic margin and taken few casualties.
The US's troops were well prepared for chemical and biological attacks, maybe even hoping for them.
If Saddam had WMD's in his possession at the time, it would be far more intelligent a move to hide them via burying them or quickly shipping them to say...Syria... than to use them.
Either the US wins and has immediate hard evidence, or the US wins and is stuck with the chore of finding missing chemicals and munitions while taking a severely negative stigma from the world.
Knowing that the US citizens in general have a weak stomach for death, and knowing certain organizations will jump at the chance to kill Americans in an destablized post-war Iraq....I know that if I was Saddam I'd pick the second choice and hope they haven't enough backbone to take the shame and casualties until they lock the place down and have a chance to find something.
It's a gamble, but there's no third option really. Use them and pay the price or don't and hope to gain a "moral" victory. There's always the chance that there were none entirely, but I for one do not want assume too much when there's still a great deal of searching to be done.
Assumptions create too many meaningless emotionally based arguements, divide us all further, and blind us to reason.
Perhaps this will enlighten you in this debait:
<a href='http://www.newgrounds.com/collections/georgebushshow.html' target='_blank'>The George Bush Show</a>
This ace maker keeps releasing these and continueing the story, who knows where this will end up. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Compared to ours, yes.
He could probably only wipe out 1 million or so american's with his weapons. Nothing to scoff at, but it's certainly pathetic to our <b>6 billion</b><i>++</i> killing capabilites we got!
I never really had much to say to that point, as I know that, as yet, we have not REALLY found "Weapons of Mass Destruction"... we HAVE found some chem/bio stuff here and there, but it's all very small-scale..
The following makes me VERY curious though, and gets my brain working... and "WMD's" don't seem so much like "Dubya's excuse" anymore.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Last I checked, Senators didn't have their own branch of intelligence to use. They were all working off of what the CIA told them, and the CIA said that Iraq had WMD.
Yay for right wing propoganda bull ****.
Did you totally forget that they found paperwork between Saddam and his top weapon's program adviser talking about WMDs? Did you totally forget that in these papers, Iraq had been approached by TWO groups - one from Turkey and one from the Congo - about setting up a nuclear program? And did you totally forget what the response to these was? Saddam said that Iraq was under TOO MUCH INTERNATIONAL SCRUTINY to even risk considering a WMD program.
Funny how things like that just dissapear...
If you couldn't pick up on the simple point of the quotes here, it is that all the people criticizing Bush now were rooting for war <i>before</i> the Presidential campaign even started.
Wait a second...this would mean that the primary attack on Bush, and the very reason why Kerry has any type of strong movement behind him, would be null and void? Yep.
Yay, liberal hypocrisy FTW!
If you couldn't pick up on the simple point of the quotes here, it is that all the people criticizing Bush now were rooting for war <i>before</i> the Presidential campaign even started.
Wait a second...this would mean that the primary attack on Bush, and the very reason why Kerry has any type of strong movement behind him, would be null and void? Yep.
Yay, liberal hypocrisy FTW! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strange, much like taboofires, I can't find anything in there that says 'Let's get intelligence from the CIA and act on it without confirmation while ignoring our British allies who proved the same intelligence FALSE, invade Iraq following a massive bombing campaign, alinate our allies, waste nearly 100 billion rebuilding a country that hates us while committing warcrime atrocities in their own prisons, only to leave someday and watch as the Iraqi Shiites install another religious figurehead who will probably be just as oppressive as Saddam, all on the blood of hundreds of Americans, while telling everyone at home that we're fighting Terrorism despite the fact that none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi, despite the fact that we never DID find Osama, showing that we have had two inept military crusades in the middle east, both under Bush's rule.'
Yeah, I just see stuff about missile strikes.
As for 'Bush's Excuse', he's the Commander in Chief of the entire US armed forces. A senator cannot declare war and position troops, Bush can.
Overall though, it's sorta sad. If Saddam says "I have WMDs" the UN says 'Stop making them'. If Saddam says "I don't have any WMDs" everyone assumes he's lying. So what? He either has WMDs, or he has WMDs...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->warcrime atrocities in their own prisons<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hardly. Humiliation is not an atrocity, despite what our leftist media and the EU might want you to think. What they did was not right, but stop over exaggerating.
Maybe you wanted to go get Osama, but I believe that the people leading America had a larger picture and plan in mind. We've severely disrupted the Al Qaeda network, deposed two brutal regimes, at least one of which directly supported terrorism, and have not had another attack on American soil in almost three years.
Sure, Bush and friends would love to execute Osama Bin Ladin after giving him a trial, so don't worry about that. But you're quite misguided if you think that we went to Afghanistan just because of Osama.
I doubt Iraq will elect some insane religious leader, since the people know it is not in their best interests. The average Muslim does not hate America. Islamic fundamentalists do, but they are not Average Azil from Baghdad.
Last I checked, Senators didn't have their own branch of intelligence to use. They were all working off of what the CIA told them, and the CIA said that Iraq had WMD.
Yay for right wing propoganda bull ****.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, everyone was completely wrong and they were all liars, or everyone made a mistake and we should all carry on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and have not had another attack on American soil in almost three years. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have a coke can sitting on my desk. I say the coke can keeps tigers away. Obviously, it works because I don't see any tigers around.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's interesting to note that none of the quotes talk about invasion, but actions more along the lines of sending cruise missiles and bomber runs to take out facilities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd say the Kerry quote from 2003 is dancing along the lines of invasion. However, politicians are good at making open ended answers so they can be interpreted a few ways. In 2003, Kerry could say that quote meant he was for invasion. Now, it can mean that he only wanted us to shoot a few cruise missles. Lefts will say he was for shooting off a few missles, the right will say he was on board with the whole invasion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But you're quite misguided if you think that we went to Afghanistan just because of Osama. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? I thought that WAS the reason for going into Afghanistan. We told the Taliban, "Give us Osama." They said "...No." Then we started pummeling them into the ground. Then they said "Stop shooting us for Ramadan." We said "Haha...no." Then...that was it.
Hardly. Humiliation is not an atrocity, despite what our leftist media and the EU might want you to think. What they did was not right, but stop over exaggerating.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're disgusting.
Inmates were tortured, attacked by dogs, and MURDERED. Children were RAPED.
Inmates were tortured, attacked by dogs, and MURDERED. Children were RAPED.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you have any credible evidence of this? The key word there being <i>credible.</i>
Inmates were tortured, attacked by dogs, and MURDERED. Children were RAPED.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you have any credible evidence of this? The key word there being <i>credible.</i> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, Gen. Taguba's report.
Funny how things like that just dissapear... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
funny how you take a public statement by Saddam Hussein as truth before even considering the fact that it juuuuuuust might be a public relations stunt... MAYBE.. *rolls eyes so far into head that he can look at his brain*
Inmates were tortured, attacked by dogs, and MURDERED. Children were RAPED. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All I know of is humiliation through simulated sexual acts and degradation by the same means. Those are hardly atrocities. These things you are mentioning I know nothing of, and doubt that they happened. Therefore I'm not disgusting.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I have a coke can sitting on my desk. I say the coke can keeps tigers away. Obviously, it works because I don't see any tigers around.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Poor analogy. There are no tigers attempting to attack you or hunt you at this time, nor has a tiger attacked your home before.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why? I thought that WAS the reason for going into Afghanistan. We told the Taliban, "Give us Osama." They said "...No." Then we started pummeling them into the ground. Then they said "Stop shooting us for Ramadan." We said "Haha...no." Then...that was it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We wanted the entire terrorist network taken out. It wasn't just Osama, it was all of Al Qaeda that we wanted. Osama was icing on the cake, as it was what people wanted the most, but the government wanted every part of the cake. The Taliban said "no," and the cake got bigger.
Inmates were tortured, attacked by dogs, and MURDERED. Children were RAPED. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All I know of is humiliation through simulated sexual acts and degradation by the same means. Those are hardly atrocities. These things you are mentioning I know nothing of, and doubt that they happened. Therefore I'm not disgusting. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excerpted from General Taguba's report:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:
• Punching, slapping and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet.
• Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees.
• Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing.
• Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time.
• Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear.
• Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped.
• Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them.
• Positioning a naked detainee on a box [of meals ready to eat], with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes and **** to simulate electric torture.
• Writing "I am a Rapest" (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year-old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked.
• Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture.
• A male MP [military police] guard having sex with a female detainee.
• Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee.
• Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.
In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses:
• Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees.
• Threatening detainees with a charged 9-millimeter pistol.
• Pouring cold water on naked detainees.
• Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair.
• Threatening male detainees with rape.
• Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell.
• Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broomstick.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Electirically torturing someone by shocking them through their ****? Rape? Sodomization with chemical lights? Forced masturbation? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Seem like atrocities to me.
=======================
The fact is that all those quotes are working off the same intelligence source, so true, we can't construe all of poor Dubya's actions to the extent that M. Moore did in Farenheit 9/11, because hell, anyone could have made the same mistake, and they did, but the Bush administration's handling of Iraq is just sad. Sad and pathetic. They gave no thought to the process, and now people are suffering for it.