<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Aug 7 2004, 01:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Aug 7 2004, 01:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 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. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, the president cannot declare war. That's an act of congress. However, the president does have the power to initiate "police actions," which just about amount to undeclared, short-term war.
<!--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--> Origins: All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Aug 8 2004, 05:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Aug 8 2004, 05:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Aug 7 2004, 01:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Aug 7 2004, 01:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, the president cannot declare war. That's an act of congress. However, the president does have the power to initiate "police actions," which just about amount to undeclared, short-term war. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And funny thing was that Bush never asked Congress about declaring war, did he? He used his 30 day mandate to throw troops in, then pressured congress to give him the 'okay'.
And I thought we had passed this old new phase....I guess not.
I belive some of you have forgotten what Clinton had done when he was in office and had to deal with Iraq. Clinton's Administation and <b>U.N.</b> were concerned over Iraq's possiblities of achiving weapons of mass destruction.
With the urge of the U.S. inside the U.N, weapons inspectors were sent to Iraq. Saddam through only semi-coorperitive, refused to show all areas of his contries weapons to inspectors.
With this problem arising it seemed that Iraq was guilty of harboring weapons of mass destruction, and as a result the U.N asked the U.S to support them in urging Iraq to cooperate. Iraq still did not. The U.S and U.N task forces then raided Iraq and scatter bombed weapons factalities (as well as some hospitals and an asparian factory that the Clinton Administation had thought to be harboring chemical weapons).
After only a few days of battle, Iraq allowed inspectors to continue their search. It is to my knowalge that all the weapons that Iraq had at that time was standard and within their limits. They had not violated any U.N policies.
Now fast-forward to when Bush accused Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was actually cooperatvie. It was Bush's Administation (not Bush himself, because he was a dimwit and a puppet while **** Cheney took over infulencing others) that had presured the U.N to withdraw their inspectors from Iraq and allow the U.S. to bomb.
Because of that, Henz Blict was unable to complete his inspections. And to his knowleage, Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. However, he was given inatiquate time as the Bush Adminstation wished to rush to war for nothing more than oil (this is my own speculation but look who is in charge of the government an oil tycoon it is only right to assume).
Had the U.S allowed the U.N to continue it's inspections, it is speculated that the only possible weapon of mass destruction would be chemical. The Iraqy people did not have the military capasity to devolp deadly strains for diseases, so bio is out. And they didn't want to risk Nuclear so that's out. The only kind they could have made would have been chemical and most of the chemicals needed for them were used to devolp drugs (pharastical) in Iraq's privite business sector. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this in mind I can only assume that the Bush adminstation rushed their actions so that they could prove that weapons were their or that Iraq was dangous. Had the U.N found weapons of mass destruction...do you know what would have happened. They would have simply replaced the government (the U.N would over see an election to make sure it was fair... and protect the canadates), and taken over the weapons factalities. This would have been a much more peaceful experance.; however, the Bush Adminstation wanted gloy and oil. So this did not happen.
If I am less tried the next day I look over this post I will try to remember to post sources, but for the most part you can assume internet sites and the news during those times.
The abuses were pretty shocking, but it is important to remember that these crimes were exposed by a US soldier, were investigated by the US army, is being punished under US law and is deplored by the US President and all the Western press. Justice is beings served - lets not harp on it.
<!--QuoteBegin-^_^boy+Aug 11 2004, 02:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (^_^boy @ Aug 11 2004, 02:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Had the U.N found weapons of mass destruction...do you know what would have happened. They would have simply replaced the government (the U.N would over see an election to make sure it was fair... and protect the canadates), and taken over the weapons factalities. This would have been a much more peaceful experance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There goes a flight of fancy.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Aug 11 2004, 09:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 11 2004, 09:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The abuses were pretty shocking, but it is important to remember that these crimes were exposed by a US soldier, were investigated by the US army, is being punished under US law and is deplored by the US President and all the Western press. Justice is beings served - lets not harp on it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You are far too dismissive of the possibility that these abuse cases are widespread and systematic. Look at what evidence you have in front of you. Some of the prison guards are claiming that they were following orders in the abuse. There are allegations of abuse at other prisons, even Gitmo, which is not even in Iraq. We’ve only heard one side of this story, which comes from the GOP. Also, one cannot expect the democrats or the press to ask the hard questions to delve deeper into the issue and give us complete transparency. The pictures we have seen are only the most minor of offenses committed at the prison. Bush and co. still holds the evidence for the more serious charges of rape and murder, and is not willing to release them. Why? Who gains by not releasing that evidence? Surely not you or me.
The only reports of UK troops being involved that I heard about have been proven to be false. Until I see otherwise this is an American embarassment, but thus far NOT even close to what Saddam did... Just outrageous from our POV.
<!--QuoteBegin-othell+Aug 13 2004, 06:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Aug 13 2004, 06:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The only reports of UK troops being involved that I heard about have been proven to be false. Until I see otherwise this is an American embarassment, but thus far NOT even close to what Saddam did... Just outrageous from our POV. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There was a full page picture in TIME of a bleeding, beaten inmate tied up in an ally or a hallway with UK's finest standing over him peeing on him.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Aug 13 2004, 01:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Aug 13 2004, 01:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There was a full page picture in TIME of a bleeding, beaten inmate tied up in an ally or a hallway with UK's finest standing over him peeing on him. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yea those pictures were proven false, I think some newspaper photoshoped them or something. Anyway I know I've heard a from a couple places that they wern't real.
wrong. They were <i>thought</i> to be faked, but this was just accusation without any facts to back it up.
Strange that you label reports about coalition atrocities to be faked, whereas there have been numerous claims of Iraqi atrocities that were actually proven wrong
<!--QuoteBegin-eggmac+Aug 14 2004, 01:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Aug 14 2004, 01:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> wrong. They were <i>thought</i> to be faked, but this was just accusation without any facts to back it up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm assuming these are the ones you mean <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3716151.stm' target='_blank'>BBC</a> <a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119840,00.html' target='_blank'>Fox</a> <a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E1CC8E3E-7FD3-4BF4-90EA-97349D761D02.htm' target='_blank'>Aljazeera</a> <a href='http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14242612&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=sorry---we-were-hoaxed-name_page.html' target='_blank'>The Mirror</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Emsee+Aug 13 2004, 08:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Emsee @ Aug 13 2004, 08:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-eggmac+Aug 14 2004, 01:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Aug 14 2004, 01:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> wrong. They were <i>thought</i> to be faked, but this was just accusation without any facts to back it up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm assuming these are the ones you mean <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3716151.stm' target='_blank'>BBC</a> <a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119840,00.html' target='_blank'>Fox</a> <a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E1CC8E3E-7FD3-4BF4-90EA-97349D761D02.htm' target='_blank'>Aljazeera</a> <a href='http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14242612&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=sorry---we-were-hoaxed-name_page.html' target='_blank'>The Mirror</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> what scumbags
<!--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-->Bush and co. still holds the evidence for the more serious charges of rape and murder, and is not willing to release them. Why? Who gains by not releasing that evidence? Surely not you or me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And where do you get this conspirecy theory from Jamil?
<a href='http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4978939/' target='_blank'>http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4978939/</a> I personally watched the many press releases, where he repeated the same thing. It was just an attempt to make people believe that whatever was available to the public was the worst of abuse. It obviously worked since you and others don't seem to realize that people were beaten to death at Abu Ghraib.
And regarding the British abuse photos in question. Yes, they were a hoax. The creators of the photos have come out and claimed it was such. I believe it was a British paper called the Eclipse that first published the photos without proper fact checking.
However, there are other British abuse cases being investigated at this time.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jamil+Aug 14 2004, 06:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jamil @ Aug 14 2004, 06:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> From Donald Rumsfeld's mouth to your brain.
<a href='http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4978939/' target='_blank'>http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4978939/</a> I personally watched the many press releases, where he repeated the same thing. It was just an attempt to make people believe that whatever was available to the public was the worst of abuse. It obviously worked since you and others don't seem to realize that people were beaten to death at Abu Ghraib.
I'm not much for tin foil hats. They itch. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ...and we know these are more serious charges in these photos because....
IIRC, the brit photos were obviously faked because of the gun used (it wouldn't have been issued to anyone that could possibly have been there), but there were other issues as well.
Comments
Actually, the president cannot declare war. That's an act of congress. However, the president does have the power to initiate "police actions," which just about amount to undeclared, short-term war.
<!--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-->
Origins: All
of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, the president cannot declare war. That's an act of congress. However, the president does have the power to initiate "police actions," which just about amount to undeclared, short-term war. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And funny thing was that Bush never asked Congress about declaring war, did he? He used his 30 day mandate to throw troops in, then pressured congress to give him the 'okay'.
I belive some of you have forgotten what Clinton had done when he was in office and had to deal with Iraq. Clinton's Administation and <b>U.N.</b> were concerned over Iraq's possiblities of achiving weapons of mass destruction.
With the urge of the U.S. inside the U.N, weapons inspectors were sent to Iraq. Saddam through only semi-coorperitive, refused to show all areas of his contries weapons to inspectors.
With this problem arising it seemed that Iraq was guilty of harboring weapons of mass destruction, and as a result the U.N asked the U.S to support them in urging Iraq to cooperate. Iraq still did not. The U.S and U.N task forces then raided Iraq and scatter bombed weapons factalities (as well as some hospitals and an asparian factory that the Clinton Administation had thought to be harboring chemical weapons).
After only a few days of battle, Iraq allowed inspectors to continue their search. It is to my knowalge that all the weapons that Iraq had at that time was standard and within their limits. They had not violated any U.N policies.
Now fast-forward to when Bush accused Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was actually cooperatvie. It was Bush's Administation (not Bush himself, because he was a dimwit and a puppet while **** Cheney took over infulencing others) that had presured the U.N to withdraw their inspectors from Iraq and allow the U.S. to bomb.
Because of that, Henz Blict was unable to complete his inspections. And to his knowleage, Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. However, he was given inatiquate time as the Bush Adminstation wished to rush to war for nothing more than oil (this is my own speculation but look who is in charge of the government an oil tycoon it is only right to assume).
Had the U.S allowed the U.N to continue it's inspections, it is speculated that the only possible weapon of mass destruction would be chemical. The Iraqy people did not have the military capasity to devolp deadly strains for diseases, so bio is out. And they didn't want to risk Nuclear so that's out. The only kind they could have made would have been chemical and most of the chemicals needed for them were used to devolp drugs (pharastical) in Iraq's privite business sector.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this in mind I can only assume that the Bush adminstation rushed their actions so that they could prove that weapons were their or that Iraq was dangous. Had the U.N found weapons of mass destruction...do you know what would have happened. They would have simply replaced the government (the U.N would over see an election to make sure it was fair... and protect the canadates), and taken over the weapons factalities. This would have been a much more peaceful experance.; however, the Bush Adminstation wanted gloy and oil. So this did not happen.
If I am less tried the next day I look over this post I will try to remember to post sources, but for the most part you can assume internet sites and the news during those times.
There goes a flight of fancy.
That would never have happened.
You don't really believe such nonsense do you?
You are far too dismissive of the possibility that these abuse cases are widespread and systematic. Look at what evidence you have in front of you. Some of the prison guards are claiming that they were following orders in the abuse. There are allegations of abuse at other prisons, even Gitmo, which is not even in Iraq. We’ve only heard one side of this story, which comes from the GOP. Also, one cannot expect the democrats or the press to ask the hard questions to delve deeper into the issue and give us complete transparency. The pictures we have seen are only the most minor of offenses committed at the prison. Bush and co. still holds the evidence for the more serious charges of rape and murder, and is not willing to release them. Why? Who gains by not releasing that evidence? Surely not you or me.
There was a full page picture in TIME of a bleeding, beaten inmate tied up in an ally or a hallway with UK's finest standing over him peeing on him.
Yea those pictures were proven false, I think some newspaper photoshoped them or something. Anyway I know I've heard a from a couple places that they wern't real.
Strange that you label reports about coalition atrocities to be faked, whereas there have been numerous claims of Iraqi atrocities that were actually proven wrong
I'm assuming these are the ones you mean
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3716151.stm' target='_blank'>BBC</a>
<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119840,00.html' target='_blank'>Fox</a>
<a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E1CC8E3E-7FD3-4BF4-90EA-97349D761D02.htm' target='_blank'>Aljazeera</a>
<a href='http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14242612&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=sorry---we-were-hoaxed-name_page.html' target='_blank'>The Mirror</a>
I'm assuming these are the ones you mean
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3716151.stm' target='_blank'>BBC</a>
<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119840,00.html' target='_blank'>Fox</a>
<a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E1CC8E3E-7FD3-4BF4-90EA-97349D761D02.htm' target='_blank'>Aljazeera</a>
<a href='http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14242612&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=sorry---we-were-hoaxed-name_page.html' target='_blank'>The Mirror</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
what scumbags
<!--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-->Bush and co. still holds the evidence for the more serious charges of rape and murder, and is not willing to release them. Why? Who gains by not releasing that evidence? Surely not you or me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And where do you get this conspirecy theory from Jamil?
<a href='http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4978939/' target='_blank'>http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4978939/</a>
I personally watched the many press releases, where he repeated the same thing. It was just an attempt to make people believe that whatever was available to the public was the worst of abuse. It obviously worked since you and others don't seem to realize that people were beaten to death at Abu Ghraib.
I'm not much for tin foil hats. They itch.
However, there are other British abuse cases being investigated at this time.
<a href='http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4978939/' target='_blank'>http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4978939/</a>
I personally watched the many press releases, where he repeated the same thing. It was just an attempt to make people believe that whatever was available to the public was the worst of abuse. It obviously worked since you and others don't seem to realize that people were beaten to death at Abu Ghraib.
I'm not much for tin foil hats. They itch. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
...and we know these are more serious charges in these photos because....
<b>Rumsfeld warns of photos depicting worse abuses</b>
<a href='http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/08/MNG0G6IFJN1.DTL' target='_blank'>http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...MNG0G6IFJN1.DTL</a>