Bush US: Hypocrisy Personified & Astounding

[Andy]

Oh, and by the way, it is not up to me to prove there are no WMD in Iraq - you cannot prove a negative. It is up to people like you and the US Government to prove that there were WMD in Iraq especially as they went to war on the basis that there was.

If I prove there were WMD, would you stop lying about it? I wager not... nevertheless, I'll prove this sorry excuse for an argument wrong.

Dave Gaubatz, however, says that you could not be more wrong. Saddam’s WMD did exist. He should know, because he found the sites where he is certain they were stored.

‘They explained in detail why WMDs were in these areas and asked the US to remove them,’ says Mr Gaubatz. ‘Much of this material had been buried in the concrete bunkers and in the sewage pipe system. There were also missile imprints in the area and signs of chemical activity — gas masks, decontamination kits, atropine needles. The Iraqis and my team had no doubt at all that WMDs were hidden there.’

There was yet another significant piece of circumstantial corroboration. The medical records of Mr Gaubatz and his team showed that at these sites they had been exposed to high levels of radiation.

Not enough?

Moreover, many of Saddam's own tapes and documents concerning chemical and biological weapons are ambiguous. When read together as a mosaic whole, Saddam's secret files certainly make a persuasive case of massive WMD acquisition right up to a few months before the war. Not only was he buying banned precursors for nerve gas, he was ordering the chemicals to make Zyklon B, the Nazis favorite gas at Auschwitz. However odious and well documented his purchases in 2002, there is no direct evidence of any CW or BW actually remaining inside Iraq on the day the war started in 2003. As stated in more detail in my full report, the British, Ukrainian and American secret services all believed that the Russians had organized a last minute evacuation of CW and BW stockpiles from Baghdad to Syria.

Still not enough?

That the United States has uncovered some 12 hours of Saddam Hussein palace audiotapes – since authenticated by FBI methodology – with discussions by familiar voices like Tariq Aziz and others including Saddam himself about what to do with their WMD stockpiles and resources.

That two different former high-ranking Iraqi military officers – Gen. Georges Sada, the No. 2 ranking officer with the Iraqi Air Force, and Ali Ibrahim, another Iraqi commander – both assert that that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD and transported them out of Iraq by converted 747 passenger jet and by land to be hidden inside Syria.

Let me guess... now that you have a keen view of truth and reality as it is... you are going to be all for the war and Bush and everything, and come off your silly anti-america crusade.... no no no...

You are going to stick your fingers in your ears, and shout 'la la la bigoil blaw... la la la oil baron blaw' like all the rest of the looney-left tinfoil-hat montana-shack people. Right?

Go read and learn something. Perhaps then you'll come up with less ignorant theories.

 

[Libsmasher]

The US attacked Iraq because it had a large pool of oil and could not fight back.

Total BS from you. Euroweenies and russia made sure iraq was LOADED to the gills with weaponry, and it had an army of at least a million men, one of the world's largest. It had IRBMs and advanced jet aircraft and one of the world's most advanced air defense systems. It had the advantage of fighting on it's own turf. For years, the coalition kept running across huge armament and ordinance depots. Practically everyone with a pulse had an AK-47.

There are lots of countries with bad leaders where the US does not 'regime' change them.

We do what we can, meanwhile getting virtually no help from the euroweenies for 63 years, (except a small bit from the UK) most of whom never met a dictator they didn't like, and are mainly upset we disrupted their lucrative business deals with Saddam.

There are lots of countries with WMD and let's be real - we are talking about nuclear weapons. The chemical argument is ridiculous. But the US isn't regime changing them.

Unlike Saddam, they didn't attack three neighboring countries, make the first use of IRBMs since WWII, and the first use of chemical weapons since WWI. Get a clue.

The US did not intervene in Darfur or Congo where millions were massacred.

Neither did anyone else.

It is an international bully and its standing in the world is at an all time low.

F--k the brazenly hypocritical "world", and the notion of "bullying" a megakiller dictator is a preposterous contradiction in terms.

Another whimpery anti-american rant fizzles to an end.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

If you think America is the lone superpower you must be living in a hole.

There are plenty of leaders much worse than Saddam Hussein.

take Pinochet who the US installed in Chile because they didn't like the democratically elected left wing leader.

In the Congo 4Million people were macheted by the right wing dictator that the US helped to power to oust the left wing Government.

Oh and BTW the US helped Saddam into power.

Like they armed the Mujar Hadim in Afghanistan.

The US did nothing about N Korea having nuclear weapons because they are terrified of China.

I think you might want to, how do you say, wake up and smell the bull****.

 

[Andy]

The US attacked Iraq because it had a large pool of oil and could not fight back.

Stupid theory again. We didn't get their oil, so oil obviously wasn't the point. Yeah we went there for oil, to not get the oil, which was the motivation for going. Stupidity in writing.

There are lots of countries with bad leaders where the US does not 'regime' change them.

There are lots of countries with WMD and let's be real - we are talking about nuclear weapons. The chemical argument is ridiculous. But the US isn't regime changing them.

Really, if we were talking only about nuclear weapons, we'd say nuclear weapons. Why say WMD if we mean Nuclear weapons and only nuclear weapons? That's not logical, like every argument you've made.

The US did not intervene in Darfur or Congo where millions were massacred.

That is because it likes to attack countries with oil that can't fight back.

It is an international bully and its standing in the world is at an all time low.

Bush will be written up as the worst president in history.

But as you guys bought the story about the cowboys being the good guys and the Indians bad I don't expect you to accept this for another 30 years at least.

Banjo time.

Yeah, Darfur can't fight back either. In fact, unlike Iraq which was the worlds 3rd largest military at the start, Darfur is nothing. Worse yet to your lame theory, Sudan (darfur is a part of) is a oil exporter, and currently 80% of Sudan's exports are now oil. Well crud... it looks like if Oil was a major motivator, we would go get Sudan which would be far easier to conquer, far easier to control, far easier to confiscate the oil from, than Iraq.

Hmmm... I wonder why we didn't... maybe... IT WAS NOT ABOUT OIL!

 

[Libsmasher]

If you think America is the lone superpower you must be living in a hole.

Yeah - there's always uh uh ......... Argentina!

There are plenty of leaders much worse than Saddam Hussein.

None of which any euroweenies or the the rest of "the world" ever did anything about.

take Pinochet who the US installed in Chile because they didn't like the democratically elected left wing leader.

Pinochet was a small-time dictator who although he was a B--tard, saved his country from communism. The hypocritical "world" bravely ran after him with judicial processes, while butt-kissing the Chinese regime which is responsible for scores of millions of dead chinese. Meanwhile, "the world" abandoned the republic of china.

In the Congo 4Million people were macheted by the right wing dictator that the US helped to power to oust the left wing Government.

Total fiction.

Oh and BTW the US helped Saddam into power.

Uber-simplistic historical duncehood.

Like they armed the Mujar Hadim in Afghanistan.

Yaaaaa - skip the part about the soviet invasion.

The US did nothing about N Korea having nuclear weapons because they are terrified of China.

You lunacy is getting more fevered by the minute.

I think you might want to, how do you say, wake up and smell the bull****.

I just got a HUGE whiff of it in your post.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Oh so putting Pinochet in Chile and killing the democratically elected leader was a good thing???/

say no more

 

[Andy]

If you think America is the lone superpower you must be living in a hole.

There are plenty of leaders much worse than Saddam Hussein.

take Pinochet who the US installed in Chile because they didn't like the democratically elected left wing leader.

More stupidity in writing. Pinochet was already on the move by the behest of the other people in government. They knew that the other idiot was a communist wannabe getting support from the Soviets. Worse, because of his socialist policies, Chile was being destroyed. The CIA came back with a report that the native effort to kick out the Soviet puppet was already underway, and that they wanted to stay out of it, and they did.

If you knew ANYTHING about history, and this issue, you'd know that. Clearly this is not the case.

In the Congo 4Million people were macheted by the right wing dictator that the US helped to power to oust the left wing Government.

At the time we supported him because he was against the Soviets. We had no way of knowing he'd turn out that way. I note how when you lose an argument completely, you start changing the subject. I accept you're defeat.

The US did nothing about N Korea having nuclear weapons because they are terrified of China.

The US did nothing because Clinton was a left wing fool who helped Korea and China. If we had a decent leader in office, both would have been handled very differently.

I think you might want to, how do you say, wake up and smell the bull****.

I've been smelling that with every post you've made. Stop dumping the bull**** on this forum, and maybe it won't stink so bad in here.

 

[Andy]

Oh so putting Pinochet in Chile and killing the democratically elected leader was a good thing???/

say no more

We didn't put him there. We had nothing to do with it. He didn't kill him. He committed suicide. Do you know ANYTHING AT ALL about this topic? You just blow junk all over the net and hope know one is educated about history?

BTW, the people supported Pinochet. He was overwhelmingly popular. Most people even to this day, credit him with saving all of Chile. Again... do you know ANYTHING about this topic?

Go read a book, or read even wiki some, and learn something.

I'm starting to realize you have absolutely zero, as in not a shred of credibility on this topic, and most of the topics you discuss. If you told me it was sunny where you live, I'd have to check the weather channel to believe you. Almost nothing you've said has been true. You just pose one false theory, and when it's shot down, move on to another false theory until it's shot down. I would have a better time getting reliable information from Forest Gump on Vietnam.

 

[Libsmasher]

Oh so putting Pinochet in Chile and killing the democratically elected leader was a good thing???/

say no more

"The world" butt-kissing the chinese regime that has killed maybe 40 million people is a good thing? say no more.

 

[Libsmasher]

He didn't kill him. He committed suicide. Do you know ANYTHING AT ALL about this topic? You just blow junk all over the net and hope know one is educated about history?

BTW, the people supported Pinochet. He was overwhelmingly popular. Most people even to this day, credit him with saving all of Chile. Again... do you know ANYTHING about this topic?

Go read a book, or read even wiki some, and learn something.

Dawkinsucks only knows the standard anti-american cartoonish fake history published by the left. Don't expect him to read any ACTUAL history books.

 

[Andy]

Dawkinsucks only knows the standard anti-american cartoonish fake history published by the left. Don't expect him to read any ACTUAL history books.

He's been amazing! It's like he assumes everyone is an inner city public school student, and has never seen or heard of a thing called a "text book" or "history book". Does he really expect that blowing methane all over the forum is going to go unnoticed?

Hello!!! If I can prove you wrong with no more difficult a source than Wiki... ... give up... just stop. You are wasting time!

 

[Shadow]

He's been amazing! It's like he assumes everyone is an inner city public school student, and has never seen or heard of a thing called a "text book" or "history book". Does he really expect that blowing methane all over the forum is going to go unnoticed?

Hello!!! If I can prove you wrong with no more difficult a source than Wiki... ... give up... just stop. You are wasting time!

this is way off topic, and derailing the thread. Are personal attacks the only debate tactics the two of you know ???


If you have NOTHING to add to the original topic.......then leave this thread alone.

Otherwise : If you think the Bushie US is not a world class LYING HYPOCRIT....... please support that view with substance.

thanks . & have a nice day.

 

[top gun]

You are almost right.

If Kuwait ha't been oil rich the USwould not have committed money, troups, lives.

At that time they could not live with the idea of Saddam controlling that much oil.

Fact.

Second war on Iraq was to steal oil.

It was planned before 9/11. 9/11 was organised to win support from a crazed nation who easily get blinded by patriotism.

And what a tragedy that it worked.

Oil is the denominator in both Iraq wars though.

I'm sure the fact Kuwait was oil rich was an incentive to drive Hussein back out. We certainly aren't doing it for Darfur.

It's been widely reported Bush was looking for a reason to invade Iraq from the first day he took office. I have no doubt that the fact Iraq was a big oil country played a huge part of that too. I personally wouldn't say all... but no doubt a very large part.

 

[Andy]

this is way off topic, and derailing the thread. Are personal attacks the only debate tactics the two of you know ???

There was no personal attack. I attacked the stupidity of the argument. A statement of fact about the quality of claim given is not a personal attack.

If you have NOTHING to add to the original topic.......then leave this thread alone.

Otherwise : If you think the Bushie US is not a world class LYING HYPOCRIT....... please support that view with substance.

thanks . & have a nice day.

False. It was Dawkin that brought up all the other topics because he realized his support of your points where completely destroyed and unsupportable. Blame him for topic shift. I merely responded the the spewage on the thread.

I have already complete supported, and proven that 'bushie' (slurring names is a clear indication of a failed argument) did not lie. Thank you & have a nice day.

 

[BigRob]

I'm sure the fact Kuwait was oil rich was an incentive to drive Hussein back out. We certainly aren't doing it for Darfur.

It's been widely reported Bush was looking for a reason to invade Iraq from the first day he took office. I have no doubt that the fact Iraq was a big oil country played a huge part of that too. I personally wouldn't say all... but no doubt a very large part.

Maybe you missed the memo that said Sudan does indeed have a lot of oil. In fact they have been signing oil deals left and right with China.