Report: Us has found over 500+ chemical munitions in IRAQ

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NuShrike @ Jun 23 2006, 06:31 PM) [snapback]276104[/snapback]</div>

Reread my last post I edited it while you were replying.

Wildkow

p.s. I agree but it's hard to see into the future therefore from this day forward no more aid to any Islamic country that isn't elected by the people. Oh wait that's about all of them ain't it?

 

This is a quote from Joyce Battle, who is a very respected Middle East analyst at the National Security Archive, George Washington University:

The documents that she mentioned are included in an extensive report on U.S.-Iraq relations during the Reagan administration, including Donald Rumsfeld's meeting with Saddam Hussein, at:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Unlike wildkow, I believe in supporting arguments with facts, not innuendo and insults. It is not surprising that he choses Karl Rove for an avatar- accusing someone who expresses disagreement with the Bush administration of "supporting terror" is a typical Rove tactic.

 

it never ceases to amaze me, the downright idiocy of some of the arguments within this thread... i swear, some people are so blind, the only burden of proof some people will be happy with is when the bomb goes off...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Jun 24 2006, 12:04 AM) [snapback]276169[/snapback]</div>

Ronald Reagan

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 24 2006, 12:07 AM) [snapback]276173[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jun 22 2006, 09:17 PM) [snapback]275187[/snapback]</div>

I do believe we supplied chemical weapons to Saddam, or assisted him in developing them. We also knew about and approved of his attack on his own people. Aren't there photos of Rumsfeld, et al, and Saddam together, when he was our poster child fighting the Islamicists in Iran? With such duplicitious bastards running this country, how could we be surprised that most of the rest of the world despises and mistrusts us?

And, before anyone jumps on me for being unpatriotic, why should it be considered "unpatriotic" to question our leaders and demand they be held accountable for their lies? We often criticize Germans for not questioning the Nazi leadership, so why should we hold ourselves exempt from the same responsibility?
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are more like leaders of Exxon/Mobil than they are of the American public.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bob Allen @ Jun 26 2006, 01:56 PM) [snapback]276896[/snapback]</div>

I also think Bush is supplying Iran with nuclear weapons technology. That is because the French and Germans and Russians and Chinese could not do it themselves.

I would leave the Nazi reference out of your future posts - it really shows a lack of understanding about the German situation - and their present conditions.

 

Umm.. it was a fact Chemical weapns were used in the Iran-Iraq war. What's the big revelation? Only to people who have no knowledge of hisory or current events. Perhaps if people would read before they speak....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 23 2006, 08:11 PM) [snapback]276154[/snapback]</div>

You wouldn't know a "Fact" if it reached up and bit you in the A$$ and since you can't find your own A$$ with both hands your a helpless cause. At least I have tried to respond with facts when challenged unlike you and your cronies that "Cut n Run" to another topic.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jun 26 2006, 03:58 PM) [snapback]276960[/snapback]</div>

I provide commentary from a respected Mideast analyst in an attempt to perhaps explain the subject, and all you can do is resort to your usual childish name-calling and insults. I don't think I've ever read one post by you that was not insulting to someone. You have nothing to contribute to any discussions, no ideas or thoughts, just insults. Oh you've "tried to respond with facts?" Let's review what Wildkow considers to be a fact: "They (larkinmj and IsrAmeriPrius) support terror, dicator's and despot's all the while tearing down America. Just more Bottom Feeding Scum from the Far Far Left." Yep, a lot of intellectual effort went into that statement.

Despite what windstrings implies, I am an astute judge of character, and I detect very little in you.

 

This reminds me of that fake pic MS showed with Michael Moore (I suppose the left's equivalent of Anne?) scratching Saddam's head... except this is a real picture (other than the text, which was added in... of course):

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jun 23 2006, 11:54 PM) [snapback]276164[/snapback]</div>

You are the one ignoring the evidence.


(NOTE: the image is is supposed to be connected with the first sentence, not after the MS quote... though it works this way too)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 26 2006, 03:18 PM) [snapback]277009[/snapback]</div>

First my reply to your post was not directed towards the commentary from the analyst. Which was chock full of innuendo as I point out below. Rather it was directed towards the very last part of your post as anyone can see, except you of course.

lairkin your commentary from the "respected Mideast analyst" was nothing but innuendo. The point in contention was begreen's assertion that the USA gave WMD's to Iraq. Which when asked to furnish proof he/she/it "Cut and Ran" just like you and IsrAmeriPrius do when challenged.
The analyst best evidence is that American companies sent chemical precursors to Iraq. What was the precursor? What was the class?!? All kinds of chemical's and chemical precursor's are shipped all over the world everyday and are probably still shipped to Iraq today. That's your proof?!? That some ambiguous type of chemical precursor was shipped to Iraq?!? Well? Oh never mind here it is right here in the article it was "phosphorus fluoride" Oh My! That’s a pretty dangerous chemical, yes sir! So dangerous it's used to fluoridate WATER!! True it can be used for other purposes but good grief man think of the children! In addition the article itself states that it was the US government that took steps to block those shipments. It was also the US government that discovered the use of WMD's by Saddam and led with the loudest voice the condemnation of there use. The picture of Rumsfield shaking Saddam’s hand was taken in 1983 two years before the first reported Poison Gas Attack by Iraq.

Wildkow

p.s. Your right not much intellectual effort went into that statement but considering the subject matter not much was needed.

 

The Rumsfeld picture I posted is a play on words to the so-called argument that Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jun 27 2006, 03:24 AM) [snapback]277266[/snapback]</div>

Well, Sec. of State Shultz believed that the Iraqis were attempting to procure it to manufacture chemical weapons, but you seem to be an expert on the use of chemicals so you're probably right- they just wanted to flouridate the water for the children's teeth (just in case the children actually had any running water.)

 

The justifications for the Iraq, based on the evidence presented in this thread, were merely pretense. That is the take-home message. Next time a President takes us to war, use the justifications they are aware of and see if there is support for it.

 

The gassing of the Kurds... sure, sounds like terrorism to me. But Saddam did not have significant nor credible links to Al Qaeda... you were lied to. That was another false justification for war. We were lied to.

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html