Welcome to PatsFans.com

Iraq Diplomat told US there was no WMD BEFORE War

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mikey, Mar 20, 2006.

  1. mikey

    mikey Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

  2. mgcolby

    mgcolby Woohoo, I'm a VIP!!! PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    5,606
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    Hmm.. I'll take a stab at this one. It couldn't be the fact that the Saddam regime had lied to the world for over a decade and did everything he could do to hide his WMD's from the weapons inspectors in the 90's! Just a shot in the dark on that one.
  3. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,318
    Likes Received:
    131
    Ratings:
    +242 / 9 / -26

    I do not know what the GEORGE BUSH apologists need before they realize that this whole thing is a sham and based on false information. Do not come back with the whole thing about how this country is better off and how bad Hussein was. We continue in Iraq and essentially have blinders on while there are worse regimes in the world. Maybe if Darfur had oil we would be involved there also.
  4. mgcolby

    mgcolby Woohoo, I'm a VIP!!! PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    5,606
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    WTF are you talking about? Not one nation on the security council, let me repeat that not one nation on the security council believed he destroyed all of his WMD's. His regime lied for over a decade and all of a sudden people are supposed to take a report that he destroyed them all serious? What I said had nothing to do with Bush or his percieved vendetta, it was based on those facts alone!
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2006
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,778
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    mgcolby, America still had credibility back then (thanks to Clinton) and the world assumed that if America said there were WMDs, then there were WMDs. No one knew then that Bush had change our highly competent government into one that used lies and misinformation to further its goals.
  6. mgcolby

    mgcolby Woohoo, I'm a VIP!!! PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    5,606
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    France, Germany, Russia, China, Canada and a host of others all believed the same thing. It had nothing to do with our credibility, it had everything to do with the intelligence gathered by all of those nations in most cases independent of each other. Kerry and Gore wouldn't have believed that report or Lieberman! Clinton wouldn't have believed it, as he is on record saying he is positive that Iraq had WMD's. But for some reason the libs choose to ignore such things.
    The left likes to bring up N. Korea a lot as well and their nuke capabilities, but they never talk about how they were able to develop such capabilities. Could it be because Clinton handed it to them? Our country gave nuclear fuel rods to N. Korea trusting that they would only use them for Nuclear power plants, but a little over 10 years later they still have massive blackouts, a good percentage of the country doesn't have power at all and miraculously they claim to have Nuclear missile capabilities, but we won't talk about that!
  7. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,701
    Likes Received:
    157
    Ratings:
    +496 / 2 / -9

    Hate, Get Bush--Hate, Get Bush--Hate, Get Bush--Get Bush--Get Bush :mad:
  8. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    It's not so much that I disagree with there being no WMD's in Iraq (I don't think there were any), but I have to take you up on your leap of logic. Wouldn't an Iraqi diplomat, working for Saddam, possibly lie if they DID have WMD's? I don't know that an Iraqi official is a credible source.
  9. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    AS I recall, Japanese diplomats told us the Japan would not attack us during WWII...WHY DID WE LISTEN TO THEM??
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,778
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    Well, Clinton obviously felt containment was good enough, so to the extent he believed that Iraq had WMDs, he did not believe they posed an immediate threat. Bush was very aggressive (good for him) with weapons inspections and those led more and more people to suspect there were no WMDs. The politicians as usual cow-towed to the office of the president and didn't raise much of a fuss even as Bush's hand-picked weapons inspector announced there was no evidence of WMDs.

    I'll talk about North Korea. Clinton had a strategy that pressed for dialog. Bush has a strategy that relies mostly on intimidation. Bush's biggest failure around the world is in deviating from proven strategies. Let's remember that even that conservative icon Ronald Reagan held fast to Carter doctrine when it came to Middle East politics. Had Bush continued Clinton's strategy with North Korea, we might be in a little better shape. As is, I don't think Bush has any strategy with that dangerous regime. Sometimes he threatens, sometimes he talks, sometimes he works with other countries -- but by and large his approach is about as incoherent as his command of English.
  11. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Lol, is that really true or are you just making it up?
  12. mgcolby

    mgcolby Woohoo, I'm a VIP!!! PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    5,606
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    He did not feel containment was enough, but he wouldn't have had much support for an invasion. He didn't have a 9-11 sized event to show the terrorists capabilities and make people wonder what they could do with a nuke. Clinton also would have caved to the French and the Russians who had backroom deals with Saddam that protected him for a long time. I won't go into the WMD debate as to whether or not he had them recent to our invasion or not.



    Giving them nuclear technology was a good strategy? Helping them develop a nuclear weapon was a good strategy? Does that strategy show lack of foresight or is it only Bush who can be crucified based on hindsight? Face it, it was a stupid decision that is now threating the entire left coast of our country. N. Korea didn't have a leg to stand on the threats it made in the 90's, other then invading S. Korea, now they can threaten to nuke us. Yeah that is a great strategy! Bush's strategy is to put the pressure on the N. Koreans through its allies, Russia and China, but Kimmy believes the only way he can get more free goodies is to bring the US to the table alone, a strategy that has reaped great rewards for him in the past. Russia and China don't want Kim creating issues with the US in their own back yard and Kim is getting p!ssy because he is not getting his way. But now we have the entirely new dimension of nuclear weapons (thanks to probably the worst decision Clinton made while in office) which we now have to contend with when we talk. Bush's policy has been clear on N. Korea, multilatteral talks that involve all of the major countries in the region and N. Korea refuses to do so and people like you blame Bush for it? Why not blame the crazy f*ck running N. Korea, the guy who is truly causing all of the problems. Next you are going to tell me that Chavez is some great leader and Bush is causing the problems with Venezuela!

    Look at the countries who were against us going into Iraq, Russia, Germany and France were the notable ones. Why were they against it? Was it because they believed that Iraq did not have any WMD's? No! It was because some influential people were getting rich off of Iraq.

    Lets look at the countries causing problems these days primarily N. Korea (not new), Iran and Venezuela all of whom have corrupt leaders and run socialist governmnets. Bush's policy scares them because they know that when he says we will do something we do it and stick to it. Unlike every President this country has had since the Vietnam war ended! People weren't afraid to attack us in recent years, especially the terrorists after Somalia. They truly believed (and were actually right to a degree) that if they caused enough bloodshed and hung in the fight that the American's would cut and run, because people like you Patters would be up in arms about it, putting pressure on us to quit and then they can claim victory only embolding their recruiting efforts. It is the bad people in the world that are scared and are trying to do anything to stay in power, you don't see the Prime Minister of Italy worried about us invading do you?

    If we don't take care of the terrorist problem now when will we?
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2006
  13. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,701
    Likes Received:
    157
    Ratings:
    +496 / 2 / -9

    They were in the White House telling us that on Dec 7, 1941.
  14. mgcolby

    mgcolby Woohoo, I'm a VIP!!! PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    5,606
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    I'll take harry's word on that one he probably read it in the newspaper the next day! :D
  15. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,778
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    I have no doubt that Clinton would not have gone into Iraq after 9/11. He would have concentrated strictly on defeating Al Qaida. Bush's war is about his father, oil, and military contracts, though for some it's also about neocon idealism--imposing American values on Iraq. The terrorists don't care about our military power. They logically cannot be defeated militarily anymore than can murderers in general.

    Bush dropped Clinton's strategy even during his first year while North Korea was sending out feelers trying to engage us. Bush went his own way and now we are paying the consequences. Had Clinton still been president, we would have done as we had always done, since Carter's summit with the North Korean leader, engaged them and made slow, but important progress. Bush did nothing, mgcolby. Look it up. You won't find much evidence that Bush paid attention to the North Korea problem. Even now, we only read about sporadic efforts.

    You like what Bush is doing now about North Korea? You think his strategy is working? It's the worst strategy in many years. It's doing nothing at all. Each President builds on the strategy of his predecessor. That's what treaties are about. Reagan followed Carter's approach to the ME. Clinton continued Bush I's approach to Iraq. Bush II goes his own way, and we pay the price:

    This is from Wikipedia. Go to the link and check the sources for their info, which are quite respectable:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_nuclear_weapons_program

    * On October 12, 1994, the United States and North Korea signed the "Agreed Framework": North Korea agreed to freeze its plutonium production program in exchange for fuel oil, economic cooperation, and the construction of two modern light-water nuclear power plants. Eventually, North Korea's existing nuclear facilities were to be dismantled, and the spent reactor fuel taken out of the country. All of the operative provisions of the accord relate to freezing the North's plutonium program and make no reference to uranium enrichment. Pyongyang scrupulously observed these provisions until the Bush administration stopped the oil shipments in December 2002. [3]
    * By October 1997, the spent fuel rods were encased in steel containers, under IAEA inspection. [4]
    * In October 2002 the United States confronted North Korea with the claim that it knew the North was developing gas centrifuge technology to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, and threatened to terminate the Agreed Framework. According to the U.S., North Korea confirmed its uranium program; according to North Korea, it replied that it is "entitled" to have such a program or "an even more powerful one" to deter a pre-emptive U.S. attack, unless the U.S. agreed to a non-aggression pact. [5] [6]
    * In December 2002, the United States took the first step to terminate the Agreed Framework, suspending fuel oil shipments, arguing North Korea's uranium program violated the "spirit" of the agreement. North Korea responded by announcing it would restart plutonium production and repeating its intention to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. [7]

    It's all about money on both sides. I'm not going to imply that Russia, France, and Germany are more altruistic than the U.S. Let's face it, the people who are getting rich off our troops are big companies with powerful connections in the White House. I think this war is mostly about money, and our soldiers are being killed to boost shareholder wealth.

    Well, we actually don't know if any of them are particularly corrupt. We know that North Korea is ruthless and dangerous; we know that Iran has an elected government that is radical right and dangerous; and I don't know what your complaints about Chavez are, except that he's doing the typical socialist thing and trying to shift more money into poor sections of the country, while fending off the American-backed capitalists. I'm not saying Chavez is a good man, but the jury is still out. So far, I like a lot of what Chavez is doing. I don't think his style works well here, but it might work well in Venezuela. The last I saw, the Venezuelan economy has been doing quite well.

    Bush's policies don't scare people anymore than those of his predecessors. His policies inflame people and stir up trouble that leads to American deaths. In fact, Bush's policies have made Iran and North Korea more bold. Meanwhile, in South America more and more socialists are getting elected. Bush's policies piss off people, and I am certain there are more radicals today planning attacks against American targets than there were before Bush was elected.

    They claim victory every time they kill an American soldier, and we deliver the American soldiers right to their battleground. Countries like Syria and Iran are playing things strategically. They know enough not to take us head on, but if you believe they're intimidated and thus doing nothing, then I think you're a little naive.

    You can't wipe out terrorists anymore than you can wipe out murderers. You have to address the underlying factors, and the fact is this war is creating angry parents, siblings, friends, and orphans, many of whom will grow up hating America for killing people they loved. We had much less terrrorism before Bush was elected.
  16. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,701
    Likes Received:
    157
    Ratings:
    +496 / 2 / -9

    Heard it on the radio that night, they srarted it we finished it.
  17. hodorkovskipavel

    hodorkovskipavel Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

  18. achetezviagraonline

    achetezviagraonline Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Viagra Bon Marche

    Comment devrais-je prendre le sildenafil?
    Produit de substitution GENERIQUE LE PLUS BON MARCHE VIAGRA
    bosentan
    certains medicaments utilises contre l'epilepsie tels
    que la carbamazepine, le phenytoin, et le phenobarbital
    des medicaments pour traiter des infections fongiques
    (fluconazole, ketoconazole, voriconazole)
    certains medicaments pour le traitement de
    l'infection par le HIV ou SIDA
    cimetidine
    cisapride
    clarithromycin
    diltiazem
    erythromycine
    jus de pamplemousse
    mibefradil
    nitroprussi
    rifabutin
    rifampin
    quinidine
    Certains medicaments pour le traitement des problemes
    de depression ou de trouble de l'humeur
    (exemples : fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, nefazodone)
    Verapamil
    Un comprimé de Viagra fonctionne dans les 30 minutes et pendant 4 heures.
    VIAGRA medicament GENERIQUE - Produit de substitution GENERIQUE LE PLUS BON MARCHE VIAGRA
    Sildenafil peut egalement interagir avec les medicaments suivants
    ACHETEZ VIAGRA GENERIQUE BON MARCHE
    ACHETEZ VIAGRA EN LIGNE meds BON MARCHE - Effets indesirables VIAGRA GENERIQUES
    Quel(s) medicament(s) peut interagir avec le sildenafil?
    Effets indesirables VIAGRA GENERIQUES
    Que devrais-je Ă©viter tout en prenant le tadalafil?
    BON MARCHE disent CIALIS wordpress
    Cialis est le dernier médicament pour le traitement de la dysfonction érectile approuvé par le FDA.
    cialis levitra GENERIQUE VIAGRA - ACHETEZ VIAGRA EN LIGNE LE PLUS BON MARCHE
    Quels sont les effets secondaires possibles du tadalafil?

    Ordre EN LIGNE GENERIQUE VIAGRA
    Vous pouvez prendre Cialis le matin et vous serez prĂȘt pour un rapport sexuel toute la journĂ©e, le soirĂ©e et mĂȘme le lendemain.
    cialis levitra GENERIQUE VIAGRA - ACHETEZ CIAL
    IS EN LIGNE BON MARCHE
    Devrais consulter mon médecin avant de prendre tadalafil
    VIAGRA GENERIQUE LE PLUS BON MARCHE
    Cialis est le seul médicament prescrit qui non seulement agit vite (il agit en 30 minutes) mais procure un effet de longue durée.
  19. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,953
    Likes Received:
    179
    Ratings:
    +402 / 5 / -2

    Wow, I was wondering how a thread from a year ago became current. It's the Viagra silly. Sheesh, in spanish too. You can't even come to a Pats fan forum without having to press 1 for english (that's a joke people, and a bad one too). Anyhow, what ever happened to Pujo? He was a regular that totally disappeared. Too bad. Ah, and Holy Diver too.
  20. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,701
    Likes Received:
    157
    Ratings:
    +496 / 2 / -9

    Pujo used to give me a lot of crap but I liked him, hope nothing happened to him.

    RW
    If I dissapear for more than a few months take your Girl Friend and go over to Revere Beach and throw a little bit of Chinese food in the ocean. when I was younger I was addicted to that stuff, I have spent thousands of dollars in Chinatown, I used to have Monsodium Glutimate seizures.

    My Ashes are going in the Ocean but I plan on floating down to Revere, I had some wild times down there when Revere Beach was in it's heyday.
    :bricks:

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>