<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SENDITIN:
Xpanda,
Not sure how much of the Dem convention you watched, but it was 98% about Kerry's Vietnam record. He's the one who has made it the focal point of his campaign. Now that his war record and anti-war record are being spotlighted, the libs are crying foul. Tough sh_t. Let's ask Kerry about the war atrocities he SAYS he committed. Did he rape anyone? Did he kill any children? Which villages did he torch? All legit questions for someone running for President. Can you imagine if Bush served in Vietnam and had made those statements? It would be front page news for 6 months. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know this is the result of Kerry running on his Vietnam record, which I think is stupid to begin with. You'll recall that when everyone was losing it over Bush's AWOL allegations, that I said 'who gives a shit' then, too. Talk about it for a day, maybe have a little news program dedicated to the topic, then get on with it.
Real people with real lives are dying by American military hands, and war records are the topic of central focus. This is, you cannot argue, quite a feat to accomplish given the magnitude of what is riding on this election.
Xpanda,
Not sure how much of the Dem convention you watched, but it was 98% about Kerry's Vietnam record. He's the one who has made it the focal point of his campaign. Now that his war record and anti-war record are being spotlighted, the libs are crying foul. Tough sh_t. Let's ask Kerry about the war atrocities he SAYS he committed. Did he rape anyone? Did he kill any children? Which villages did he torch? All legit questions for someone running for President. Can you imagine if Bush served in Vietnam and had made those statements? It would be front page news for 6 months. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know this is the result of Kerry running on his Vietnam record, which I think is stupid to begin with. You'll recall that when everyone was losing it over Bush's AWOL allegations, that I said 'who gives a shit' then, too. Talk about it for a day, maybe have a little news program dedicated to the topic, then get on with it.
Real people with real lives are dying by American military hands, and war records are the topic of central focus. This is, you cannot argue, quite a feat to accomplish given the magnitude of what is riding on this election.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I really don't think I implied a right-wing conspiracy at CNN. What I was saying is that this swift-vet crap has hijacked any discussions about any issues that really matter, and every news outlet is falling for it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
John Kerry's personal credibility is a huge issue.
As you know credibility is an issue.They said the same thing about Clinton....What happened there?...He hamstrung his own presidency because he chose to be more like Scott Peterson than Abe Lincoln.
Love or hate GW and there are perfect reasons for both at least you know what your getting.
Don't forget Kerrys is for the war that your talking about.
John Kerry's personal credibility is a huge issue.
As you know credibility is an issue.They said the same thing about Clinton....What happened there?...He hamstrung his own presidency because he chose to be more like Scott Peterson than Abe Lincoln.
Love or hate GW and there are perfect reasons for both at least you know what your getting.
Don't forget Kerrys is for the war that your talking about.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I really don't think I implied a right-wing conspiracy at CNN. What I was saying is that this swift-vet crap has hijacked any discussions about any issues that really matter, and every news outlet is falling for it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
John Kerry's personal credibility is a huge issue.
As you know credibility is an issue.They said the same thing about Clinton....What happened there?...He hamstrung his own presidency because he chose to be more like Scott Peterson than Abe Lincoln.
Love or hate GW and there are perfect reasons for both at least you know what your getting.
Don't forget Kerrys is for the war that your talking about. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know that credibility is an issue, and I agree it should be an issue. However, recent history and actions should be a greater determinant of credibility than statements from 30 years ago, yes? I mean, the fact that Bush was once a drop-down drunk, his wife ran over someone, Bush may have helped a woman get an abortion, the fact that he was in the NG for what, nine days -- these things go against his credibility, too.
However, none of this comes even close to the credibility issues Bush has regarding Saddam/AQ connections and WMD which, you might recall, have occured during a presidency he wants you guys to give him another go at.
That Kerry voted for this war and wants to put more troops on the ground removes all doubt in my mind that this guy has true leftist leanings. He is a poor alternative to Bush, IMO, and might make it worse. But what he did or did not do in Vietnam is about as relevant as what Bush did or did not do in the NG. It has some bearing, but not enough to warrant talking about it ad nauseum for three weeks.
I would think 13,000 dead Iraqis and nearly 1,000 dead Americans might make centre stage. Guess not.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I really don't think I implied a right-wing conspiracy at CNN. What I was saying is that this swift-vet crap has hijacked any discussions about any issues that really matter, and every news outlet is falling for it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
John Kerry's personal credibility is a huge issue.
As you know credibility is an issue.They said the same thing about Clinton....What happened there?...He hamstrung his own presidency because he chose to be more like Scott Peterson than Abe Lincoln.
Love or hate GW and there are perfect reasons for both at least you know what your getting.
Don't forget Kerrys is for the war that your talking about. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know that credibility is an issue, and I agree it should be an issue. However, recent history and actions should be a greater determinant of credibility than statements from 30 years ago, yes? I mean, the fact that Bush was once a drop-down drunk, his wife ran over someone, Bush may have helped a woman get an abortion, the fact that he was in the NG for what, nine days -- these things go against his credibility, too.
However, none of this comes even close to the credibility issues Bush has regarding Saddam/AQ connections and WMD which, you might recall, have occured during a presidency he wants you guys to give him another go at.
That Kerry voted for this war and wants to put more troops on the ground removes all doubt in my mind that this guy has true leftist leanings. He is a poor alternative to Bush, IMO, and might make it worse. But what he did or did not do in Vietnam is about as relevant as what Bush did or did not do in the NG. It has some bearing, but not enough to warrant talking about it ad nauseum for three weeks.
I would think 13,000 dead Iraqis and nearly 1,000 dead Americans might make centre stage. Guess not.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>However, none of this comes even close to the credibility issues Bush has regarding Saddam/AQ connections and WMD which, you might recall, have occured during a presidency he wants you guys to give him another go at.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Security Council resolution 687 (1991) called for the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, inter alia, of all Iraq’s research, development, support and manufacturing facilities related to CW activity.
UNSCOM also estimated that based on unaccounted for growth media, Iraq’s potential production of anthrax could have been in the range of about 15,000 to 25,000 litres.
Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist.
In December 1998, there were over 20 spray dryers and 70 freeze dryers under inventory control including some of these items that could be used for the drying of bulk BW agent. In addition, there was evidence that Iraq was developing the capability of indigenously manufacturing spray dryers.
Iraq currently possesses the technology and materials, including fermenters, bacterial growth media and seed stock, to enable it to produce anthrax. Many of the skilled personnel familiar with anthrax production have been transferred to civilian industries.
Since Iraq produced more botulinum toxin than other agents and it still possesses the expertise and possibly the seed stock, material inputs (such as growth media), and equipment (fermenters), then production at least at the scale of its pre-1991 level could be rapidly recommenced.
The production and downstream processing equipment needed for Clostridium perfringens is available in Iraq in the civilian sector such as at vaccine plants.
Based on its estimate of the amounts of various types of media unaccounted for, UNSCOM estimated that the quantities of additional undeclared agent that potentially could have been produced were: 3,000 – 11,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 6,000 – 16,000 litres of anthrax, up to 5,600 litres of Clostridium perfringens, and a significant quantity of an unknown bacterial agent.
The assertion that aflatoxin was one of the agents investigated by Iraq in its BW programme is supported by the analysis of video tapes of field trials found in the Haidar Farm cache as well as documents and information provided by Iraq. There is little doubt that, as Iraq declared, aflatoxin was designated as agent C for the purposes of research, development and production.
Iraq has demonstrated the ability to manufacture both chemical and biological equipment, such as simple process equipment and fermenters.
While Iraq’s inventory of aerial chemical and biological bombs was presumably eliminated, its ability to reconstitute that inventory remains largely intact.
Iraq still had significant stocks of conventional 122-mm warheads and 155-mm projectiles similar to those previously modified for use with chemical agents. Iraq’s industries appear fully capable of modifying these conventional munitions for use with chemical agents as well as the indigenous production of most or all of their components.
Except for the artillery rocket and three aerial bombs filled with VX for corrosion and stability tests, Iraq declared that VX had not been weaponized. However, in April/May 1998, UNSCOM took remnants of missile warheads that had been unilaterally destroyed by Iraq for analysis. The analysis showed traces of VX degradation products, and a chemical known to be a stabilizer for VX.
There are 550 Mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for since 1998. The mustard filled shells account for a couple of tonnes of agent while the aerial bombs account for approximately 70 tonnes
Iraq is self-sufficient with respect to the availability of starting materials required for production of Mustard
It is known that Iraq had tested different types of aerial spray or other devices capable of disseminating Mustard agent.
Of concern is the more general question of Iraq’s intentions with respect to RPVs as CBW delivery systems and the relationship to the spray tank development.
Given Iraq’s history of concealment with respect to its VX programme it cannot be excluded that it has retained some capability with regard to VX.
Iraq’s account of the number of bombs and warheads filled with anthrax has changed on several occasions.
There has been a surge of activity in the missile technology field in Iraq in the past four years.
In attempting to acquire not only operational missiles but also the associated know-how and the means of production of a two-stage missile with a solid rocket motor and a liquid propulsion engine, Iraq had apparently sought to establish a sound technological basis for an industrial infrastructure capable of producing an advanced short-range ballistic missile (SRBM - up to 1000 kilometres range).
A number of areas of uncertainty regarding Iraq ballistic missile programmes still exist. Many of these relate to Iraq’s unilateral destruction of missile components and propellants. Other areas relate to imports, accountancy and material balance questions.
[NOTE: these statements were all made in Hans Blix' Unresolved Disarmament Issues report presented 2wks before the US invasion, and 12 years after Iraq agreed to the terms of the 1991 Cease-Fire] <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I would vote against Bush if he didn't go to Iraq based on this UN report...Thank You very much! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Security Council resolution 687 (1991) called for the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, inter alia, of all Iraq’s research, development, support and manufacturing facilities related to CW activity.
UNSCOM also estimated that based on unaccounted for growth media, Iraq’s potential production of anthrax could have been in the range of about 15,000 to 25,000 litres.
Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist.
In December 1998, there were over 20 spray dryers and 70 freeze dryers under inventory control including some of these items that could be used for the drying of bulk BW agent. In addition, there was evidence that Iraq was developing the capability of indigenously manufacturing spray dryers.
Iraq currently possesses the technology and materials, including fermenters, bacterial growth media and seed stock, to enable it to produce anthrax. Many of the skilled personnel familiar with anthrax production have been transferred to civilian industries.
Since Iraq produced more botulinum toxin than other agents and it still possesses the expertise and possibly the seed stock, material inputs (such as growth media), and equipment (fermenters), then production at least at the scale of its pre-1991 level could be rapidly recommenced.
The production and downstream processing equipment needed for Clostridium perfringens is available in Iraq in the civilian sector such as at vaccine plants.
Based on its estimate of the amounts of various types of media unaccounted for, UNSCOM estimated that the quantities of additional undeclared agent that potentially could have been produced were: 3,000 – 11,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 6,000 – 16,000 litres of anthrax, up to 5,600 litres of Clostridium perfringens, and a significant quantity of an unknown bacterial agent.
The assertion that aflatoxin was one of the agents investigated by Iraq in its BW programme is supported by the analysis of video tapes of field trials found in the Haidar Farm cache as well as documents and information provided by Iraq. There is little doubt that, as Iraq declared, aflatoxin was designated as agent C for the purposes of research, development and production.
Iraq has demonstrated the ability to manufacture both chemical and biological equipment, such as simple process equipment and fermenters.
While Iraq’s inventory of aerial chemical and biological bombs was presumably eliminated, its ability to reconstitute that inventory remains largely intact.
Iraq still had significant stocks of conventional 122-mm warheads and 155-mm projectiles similar to those previously modified for use with chemical agents. Iraq’s industries appear fully capable of modifying these conventional munitions for use with chemical agents as well as the indigenous production of most or all of their components.
Except for the artillery rocket and three aerial bombs filled with VX for corrosion and stability tests, Iraq declared that VX had not been weaponized. However, in April/May 1998, UNSCOM took remnants of missile warheads that had been unilaterally destroyed by Iraq for analysis. The analysis showed traces of VX degradation products, and a chemical known to be a stabilizer for VX.
There are 550 Mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for since 1998. The mustard filled shells account for a couple of tonnes of agent while the aerial bombs account for approximately 70 tonnes
Iraq is self-sufficient with respect to the availability of starting materials required for production of Mustard
It is known that Iraq had tested different types of aerial spray or other devices capable of disseminating Mustard agent.
Of concern is the more general question of Iraq’s intentions with respect to RPVs as CBW delivery systems and the relationship to the spray tank development.
Given Iraq’s history of concealment with respect to its VX programme it cannot be excluded that it has retained some capability with regard to VX.
Iraq’s account of the number of bombs and warheads filled with anthrax has changed on several occasions.
There has been a surge of activity in the missile technology field in Iraq in the past four years.
In attempting to acquire not only operational missiles but also the associated know-how and the means of production of a two-stage missile with a solid rocket motor and a liquid propulsion engine, Iraq had apparently sought to establish a sound technological basis for an industrial infrastructure capable of producing an advanced short-range ballistic missile (SRBM - up to 1000 kilometres range).
A number of areas of uncertainty regarding Iraq ballistic missile programmes still exist. Many of these relate to Iraq’s unilateral destruction of missile components and propellants. Other areas relate to imports, accountancy and material balance questions.
[NOTE: these statements were all made in Hans Blix' Unresolved Disarmament Issues report presented 2wks before the US invasion, and 12 years after Iraq agreed to the terms of the 1991 Cease-Fire] <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I would vote against Bush if he didn't go to Iraq based on this UN report...Thank You very much! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bush has said that even if he knew then what he knows now, he still would have gone into Iraq. In other words, even if he knew then that no 'stockpiles' would be found, he would go in. You have to ask yourself, Pat, did Bush give a rat's ass what WMD reports were written by the UN or the CIA or anyone else for that matter? Was WMD the reason or the excuse for invading Iraq? If WMD were the basis of his reasoning, he would not now say he would have mde the same decision. He would show some sign of regret, or confusion or something that indicated that he really did expect to find something there. Nothing remotely of the sort has occurred. Not one whit.
WMD is a ruse, was a ruse and apparently is still a ruse in some minds.
Bush lied to you about his reasons for this war. He didn't and doesn't care about WMD -- he had other reasons. Why did he not tell you about them at the time of the invasion? Why won't he tell you what those reasons are now? Why is he so unwilling to say this is a war to assert American dominance and nothing more?
And why, my god, are you not considering this to be a credibility issue of greater magnitude than Bush or Kerry's war record?
WMD is a ruse, was a ruse and apparently is still a ruse in some minds.
Bush lied to you about his reasons for this war. He didn't and doesn't care about WMD -- he had other reasons. Why did he not tell you about them at the time of the invasion? Why won't he tell you what those reasons are now? Why is he so unwilling to say this is a war to assert American dominance and nothing more?
And why, my god, are you not considering this to be a credibility issue of greater magnitude than Bush or Kerry's war record?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And why, my god, are you not considering this to be a credibility issue of greater magnitude than Bush or Kerry's war record? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is no evidence of this.Don't tell me your still stuck on this blood for oil stuff.
Speculation and conspiracy are not what I call credible issue.The people who have wanted to hang Bush the most including the NY Times have never come up with any hard or even soft evidence of your claims or Mike Moores.
There is no evidence of this.Don't tell me your still stuck on this blood for oil stuff.
Speculation and conspiracy are not what I call credible issue.The people who have wanted to hang Bush the most including the NY Times have never come up with any hard or even soft evidence of your claims or Mike Moores.
The law broken in this war is international, but there's nothing anyone can do since Bush did not ratify the ICC. Maybe he didn't ratify the ICC because he knew he'd be taking out Iraq, who knows.
What I do know is that Bush himself said that he never used the word 'imminent' or any of its synonyms ... well, according to international law, the lack of an imminent threat or self-defence qualifies as an illegal war. Preemption was once considered a big no-no until Bush came along. Bush will never be charged for this, of course, since he didn't ratify the ICC. But it doesn't make the war any less illegal.
And that should be a credibility problem for you. I don't give a rat's ass what evidence the NYT has or doesn't have, they're a newspaper for god's sake. The point is that Bush would do it all again even if he knew no stockpiles would be found -- there is simply no other way to interpret that other than: he did not consider WMD to be the main reason, or even a significant reason, for invasion.
There is no speculation or conspiracy involved here. There is no debate about blood for oil. There is only the direct knowledge that you were told you had to go to Iraq for self-defence, realised once you got there that there was nothing to defend yourselves from, and your President says he would do it all over again, knowing what he knows now.
13,000 dead Iraqis.
And you're going to vote for this piece of shit.
What I do know is that Bush himself said that he never used the word 'imminent' or any of its synonyms ... well, according to international law, the lack of an imminent threat or self-defence qualifies as an illegal war. Preemption was once considered a big no-no until Bush came along. Bush will never be charged for this, of course, since he didn't ratify the ICC. But it doesn't make the war any less illegal.
And that should be a credibility problem for you. I don't give a rat's ass what evidence the NYT has or doesn't have, they're a newspaper for god's sake. The point is that Bush would do it all again even if he knew no stockpiles would be found -- there is simply no other way to interpret that other than: he did not consider WMD to be the main reason, or even a significant reason, for invasion.
There is no speculation or conspiracy involved here. There is no debate about blood for oil. There is only the direct knowledge that you were told you had to go to Iraq for self-defence, realised once you got there that there was nothing to defend yourselves from, and your President says he would do it all over again, knowing what he knows now.
13,000 dead Iraqis.
And you're going to vote for this piece of shit.
X, thats OK I can respect your feelings on war anybody with a concience feels the same way including myself.But to me the only ones who disobeyed international law is the the UN (disregard for their own laws 17 resolutions) and Saddam for non compliance in the first place.Hopefully a few years down the road the justification will become clearer for all of us.
Don't you realise that they WANT you to give up Judge?
So just surrender, and make it easy for them...
Isn't what we have to deal with a teeny bit easier than running up a beach in Normandy or living in a Trench in Flanders?
Give it some perspective.
I know we're all spoilt, and by God, I want to stay spoilt.
Stay focussed dude.
So just surrender, and make it easy for them...
Isn't what we have to deal with a teeny bit easier than running up a beach in Normandy or living in a Trench in Flanders?
Give it some perspective.
I know we're all spoilt, and by God, I want to stay spoilt.
Stay focussed dude.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
X, thats OK I can respect your feelings on war anybody with a concience feels the same way including myself.But to me the only ones who disobeyed international law is the the UN (disregard for their own laws 17 resolutions) and Saddam for non compliance in the first place.Hopefully a few years down the road the justification will become clearer for all of us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Imagine if the US didn't have veto power at the Security Council. How many resolutions would it have broken by now? (The US did in fact disobey international law. Rove even admitted as much once. Thing is, there is nothing any of us can do about it.)
If you are still searching for a justification for this war, try these:
www.newamericancentury.org
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
They've written it down for us.
X, thats OK I can respect your feelings on war anybody with a concience feels the same way including myself.But to me the only ones who disobeyed international law is the the UN (disregard for their own laws 17 resolutions) and Saddam for non compliance in the first place.Hopefully a few years down the road the justification will become clearer for all of us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Imagine if the US didn't have veto power at the Security Council. How many resolutions would it have broken by now? (The US did in fact disobey international law. Rove even admitted as much once. Thing is, there is nothing any of us can do about it.)
If you are still searching for a justification for this war, try these:
www.newamericancentury.org
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
They've written it down for us.
