Bush on the lack of WMDs- "what's the difference?" NSR

[dipstik]

Originally posted by Chronic

I believe the U.S. government knowingly misled the American people when they claimed Iraq had WMDs.

That brings up another interesting point, if they did know, and i'm not agreeing either way here, but if they did know that Iraq had no weapons, than what was the cause of our invasion? (Please don't say oil.) It's hard to believe that they would do it for the good of the people, so if they knew that there were no WMD's what was the reason for invading?

/ominous music

[Blurred Elevens]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
I can't because the media is owned by liberal brainwashers, like Rupert Murdoch at Fox, and General Electric over at NBC. Real liberal, anti-establishment group at GE.

Do you always resort to sarcasm and name-calling when you've run out of questions and foundations for your OPINIONS? Still waiting on that proof of the US KNOWING there were no WMD's.
Another case in point.

Stop making passes at Tuffy. Doesn't your institution have any man-love for you to find?

[Blurred Elevens]

Chronic-Saddam had a VERY long time to move (or destroy) any WMD's out of the country before we came in. I think he was smart enought to know that the US would look much worse if we invaded and found no WMD's, making Saddam a martyr, which is how the left percieves Iraq now.....hmmmmm.

[tuffy109]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
Stop making passes at Tuffy. Doesn't your institution have any man-love for you to find?

even with the ignore thing on, the idiocy still makes it through.

bill o'reilly is one liberal mofo, i'll give him that.

do we know what brett does for a living?

i'm off to make up useless facts on some other website.

[Chronic]

Blurred, I hear what you're saying, but I doubt that Saddam would willingly give up his wealth and power (and life?) just to make the U.S. look bad. I also doubt that he would send WMDs out of his control to another country. And if he did hide 'em, I think that with all the effort we've spent looking for the WMDs, and all the high-ranking Iraqis we've "interviewed" that we would have at least found a trace of WMDs by now. I think a more reasonable explanation is that he didn't have WMDs and was bluffing. I will gladly eat my words if we find WMDs.

Dipstik - I don't know why we invaded, but I suspect that there were multiple factors: oil, revenge, the belief that the U.S. needed to take some sort of action in the "war on terror", and the neo-con belief that a democratic Saddam-free Iraq would stabilize the entire region and promote U.S. security. And I just want to say that I love your avatar.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Maybe I can put this on my resume, 'Doing research for the mentally challenged'.

From the Daily Mirror, in England.


Wednesday 17 December 2003 09:03pm


THE BIG LIE Sep 22 2003


JOHN PILGER REVEALS WMDs WERE JUST A PRETEXT FOR PLANNED WAR ON IRAQ

John Pilger


EXACTLY one year ago, Tony Blair told Parliament: "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing.

"The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running now."

Not only was every word of this false, it was part of a big lie invented in Washington within hours of the attacks of September 11 2001 and used to hoodwink the American public and distract the media from the real reason for attacking Iraq. "It was 95 per cent charade," a former senior CIA analyst told me.

An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary Breaking The Silence, together with interviews with former intelligence officers and senior Bush officials have revealed that Bush and Blair knew all along that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

So here were two of Bush's most important officials putting the lie to their own propaganda, and the Blair government's propaganda that subsequently provided the justification for an unprovoked, illegal attack on Iraq. The result was the deaths of what reliable studies now put at 50,000 people, civilians and mostly conscript Iraqi soldiers, as well as British and American troops. There is no estimate of the countless thousands of wounded.

In a torrent of propaganda seeking to justify this violence before and during the invasion, there were occasional truths that never made headlines. In April last year, Condoleezza Rice described September 11 2001 as an "enormous opportunity" and said America "must move to take advantage of these new opportunities."

Taking over Iraq, the world's second biggest oil producer, was the first such opportunity.

At 2.40pm on September 11, according to confidential notes taken by his aides, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, said he wanted to "hit" Iraq - even though not a shred of evidence existed that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the attacks on New York and Washington. "Go massive," the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." Iraq was given a brief reprieve when it was decided instead to attack Afghanistan. This was the "softest option" and easiest to explain to the American people - even though not a single September 11 hijacker came from Afghanistan. In the meantime, securing the "big prize", Iraq, became an obsession in both Washington and London.

An Office of Special Plans was hurriedly set up in the Pentagon for the sole purpose of converting "loose" or unsubstantiated intelligence into US policy. This was a source from which Downing Street received much of the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction we now know to be phoney.

CONTRARY to Blair's denials at the time, the decision to attack Iraq was set in motion on September 17 2001, just six days after the attacks on New York and Washington.

On that day, Bush signed a top- secret directive, ordering the Pentagon to begin planning "military options" for an invasion of Iraq. In July 2002, Condoleezza Rice told another Bush official who had voiced doubts about invading Iraq: "A decision has been made. Don't waste your breath."

The ultimate cynicism of this cover-up was expressed by Rumsfeld himself only last week. When asked why he thought most Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of September 11, he replied: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe I could say that."

It is this that makes the Hutton inquiry in London virtually a sham. By setting up an inquiry solely into the death of the weapons expert David Kelly, Blair has ensured there will be no official public investigation into the real reasons he and Bush attacked Iraq and into when exactly they made that decision. He has ensured there will be no headlines about disclosures in email traffic between Downing Street and the White House, only secretive tittle-tattle from Whitehall and the smearing of the messenger of Blair's misdeeds.

The sheer scale of this cover-up makes almost laughable the forensic cross-examination of the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan about "anomalies" in the notes of his interview with David Kelly - when the story Gilligan told of government hypocrisy and deception was basically true.

Those pontificating about Gilligan failed to ask one vital question - why has Lord Hutton not recalled Tony Blair for cross-examination? Why is Blair not being asked why British sovereignty has been handed over to a gang in Washington whose extremism is no longer doubted by even the most conservative observers? No one knows the Bush extremists better than Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer and personal friend of George Bush senior, the President's father. In Breaking The Silence, he tells me: "They were referred to in the circles in which I moved when I was briefing at the top policy levels as 'the crazies'."

"Who referred to them as 'the crazies'?" I asked.

"All of us... in policy circles as well as intelligence circles... There is plenty of documented evidence that they have been planning these attacks for a long time and that 9/11 accelerated their plan. (The weapons of mass destruction issue) was all contrived, so was the connection of Iraq with al Qaeda. It was all PR... Josef Goebbels had this dictum: If you say something often enough, the people will believe it." He added: "I think we ought to be all worried about fascism (in the United States)."

The "crazies" include John Bolton, Under Secretary of State, who has made a personal mission of tearing up missile treaties with the Russians and threatening North Korea, and Douglas Feith, an Under Secretary of Defence, who ran a secret propaganda unit "reworking" intelligence about Iraq's weapons. I interviewed them both in Washington.

BOLTON boasted to me that the killing of as many as 10,000 Iraqi civilians in the invasion was "quite low if you look at the size of the military operation."

For raising the question of civilian casualties and asking which country America might attack next, I was told: "You must be a member of the Communist Party."

Over at the Pentagon, Feith, No 3 to Rumsfeld, spoke about the "precision" of American weapons and denied that many civilians had been killed. When I pressed him, an army colonel ordered my cameraman: "Stop the tape!" In Washington, the wholesale deaths of Iraqis is unmentionable. They are non-people; the more they resist the Anglo-American occupation, the more they are dismissed as "terrorists".

It is this slaughter in Iraq, a crime by any interpretation of an international law, that makes the Hutton inquiry absurd. While his lordship and the barristers play their semantic games, the spectre of thousands of dead human beings is never mentioned, and witnesses to this great crime are not called.

Jo Wilding, a young law graduate, is one such witness. She was one of a group of human rights observers in Baghdad during the bombing. She and the others lived with Iraqi families as the missiles and cluster bombs exploded around them. Where possible, they would follow the explosions to scenes of civilian casualties and trace the victims to hospitals and mortuaries, interviewing the eyewitnesses and doctors. She kept meticulous notes.

She saw children cut to pieces by shrapnel and screaming because there were no anaesthetics or painkillers. She saw Fatima, a mother stained with the blood of her eight children. She saw streets, mosques and farmhouses bombed by marauding aircraft. "Nothing could explain them," she told me, "other than that it was a deliberate attack on civilians."

As these atrocities were carried out in our name, why are we not hearing such crucial evidence? And why is Blair allowed to make yet more self-serving speeches, and none of them from the dock?

A special report by John Pilger, Breaking The Silence: Truth And Lies In The War On Terror, will be shown tonight on ITV1 at 10.45 pm.

[milkman]

Sill waiting for some sources Blurred. You always say your arguments are factual, but I have yet to see proof.....
Nice article Dexter. I read that a while ago......

[two_planks]

Originally posted by splat


splat- [hijack on] But a vote by representatives in Congress is not based in scientific fact, morality, common sense, or a profound care about American citizens. It's based on favors,cash, corporate influence, and the all-important re-election to office of the politician. I don't care what party he/she represents. They're all crooks in a system designed to be crooked and serve the unseen/unknown pullers of the strings[/hijack off]

[/B]

Up here we have bumper stickers that say

DEFEND THE WEST
NO kyoto
NO wheat board
NO gun control

But we are all a bunch of Red Neck Cowboys and don't know shit.

And another thing. I don't get it when people act like a politician is selling out because they do things that will get them votes. Doesn't getting votes require making the people that vote for them happy with their policies, etc. And isn't making their constituents happy their fucking job. If it gets votes then its making the people happy there for they are REPRESENTING the people who voted them into the House of REPRESENTATIVES.

[longrange]

everybody seems to be gettin kinda edgy in this place lately. Maybe its just that holiday feeling or maybe everyone could use a little more snow. That i think would do the trick

[milkman]

Originally posted by dipstik
That brings up another interesting point, if they did know, and i'm not agreeing either way here, but if they did know that Iraq had no weapons, than what was the cause of our invasion? (Please don't say oil.) It's hard to believe that they would do it for the good of the people, so if they knew that there were no WMD's what was the reason for invading?

/ominous music

One interesting article I've come across in the last year. Have more if you're interested. While I don't think oil was the only reason, it was a pretty big reason

The Looming War Is About Oil
by Robert Fisk
The Independent newspaper (UK) January 18, 2003


This looming war isn't about chemical warheads or human rights: it's about oil. Along with the concern for 'vital interests' in the Gulf, this war was concocted five years ago by oil men such as Dick Cheney
I was sitting on the floor of an old concrete house in the suburbs of Amman this week, stuffing into my mouth vast heaps of lamb and boiled rice soaked in melted butter. The elderly, bearded, robed men from Maan - the most Islamist and disobedient city in Jordan - sat around me, plunging their hands into the meat and soaked rice, urging me to eat more and more of the great pile until I felt constrained to point out that we Brits had eaten so much of the Middle East these past 100 years that we were no longer hungry. There was a muttering of prayers until an old man replied. "The Americans eat us now," he said.
Through the open door, where rain splashed on the paving stones, a sharp east wind howled in from the east, from the Jordanian and Iraqi deserts. Every man in the room believed President Bush wanted Iraqi oil. Indeed, every Arab I've met in the past six months believes that this - and this alone - explains his enthusiasm for invading Iraq. Many Israelis think the same. So do I. Once an American regime is installed in Baghdad, our oil companies will have access to 112 billion barrels of oil. With unproven reserves, we might actually end up controlling almost a quarter of the world's total reserves. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil?
The US Department of Energy announced at the beginning of this month that by 2025, US oil imports will account for perhaps 70 per cent of total US domestic demand. (It was 55 per cent two years ago.) As Michael Renner of the Worldwatch Institute put it bleakly this week, "US oil deposits are increasingly depleted, and many other non-Opec fields are beginning to run dry. The bulk of future supplies will have to come from the Gulf region." No wonder the whole Bush energy policy is based on the increasing consumption of oil. Some 70 per cent of the world's proven oil reserves are in the Middle East. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil?
Take a look at the statistics on the ratio of reserve to oil production - the number of years that reserves of oil will last at current production rates - compiled by Jeremy Rifkin in Hydrogen Economy. In the US, where more than 60 per cent of the recoverable oil has already been produced, the ratio is just 10 years, as it is in Norway. In Canada, it is 8:1. In Iran, it is 53:1, in Saudi Arabia 55:1, in the United Arab Emirates 75:1. In Kuwait, it's 116:1. But in Iraq, it's 526:1. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil?
Even if Donald Rumsfeld's hearty handshake with Saddam Hussein in 1983 - just after the Great Father Figure had started using gas against his opponents - didn't show how little the present master of the Pentagon cares about human rights or crimes against humanity, along comes Joost Hilterman's analysis of what was really going on in the Pentagon back in the late 1980s.
Hilterman, who is preparing a devastating book on the US and Iraq, has dug through piles of declassified US government documents - only to discover that after Saddam gassed 6,800 Kurdish Iraqis at Halabja (that's well over twice the total of the World Trade Centre dead of 11 September 2001) the Pentagon set out to defend Saddam by partially blaming Iran for the atrocity.
A newly declassified State Department document proves that the idea was dreamed up by the Pentagon - who had all along backed Saddam - and states that US diplomats received instructions to push the line of Iran's culpability, but not to discuss details. No details, of course, because the story was a lie. This, remember, followed five years after US National Security Decision Directive 114 - concluded in 1983, the same year as Rumsfeld's friendly visit to Baghdad - gave formal sanction to billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other credits to Baghdad. And this forthcoming war is about human rights?
Back in 1997, in the years of the Clinton administration, Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and a bunch of other right-wing men - most involved in the oil business - created the Project for the New American Century, a lobby group demanding "regime change" in Iraq. In a 1998 letter to President Clinton, they called for the removal of Saddam from power. In a letter to Newt Gingrich, who was then Speaker of the House, they wrote that "we should establish and maintain a strong US military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests [sic] in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power".
The signatories of one or both letters included Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, now Rumsfeld's Pentagon deputy, John Bolton, now under-secretary of state for arms control, and Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's under-secretary at the State Department - who called last year for America to take up its "blood debt" with the Lebanese Hizbollah. They also included Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defence, currently chairman of the defence science board, and Zalmay Khalilzad, the former Unocal Corporation oil industry consultant who became US special envoy to Afghanistan - where Unocal tried to cut a deal with the Taliban for a gas pipeline across Afghan territory - and who now, miracle of miracles, has been appointed a special Bush official for - you guessed it - Iraq.
The signatories also included our old friend Elliott Abrams, one of the most pro-Sharon of pro-Israeli US officials, who was convicted for his part in the Iran- Contra scandal. Abrams it was who compared Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon - held "personally responsible" by an Israeli commission for the slaughter of 1,700 Palestinian civilians in the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacre - to (wait for it) Winston Churchill. So this forthcoming war - the whole shooting match, along with that concern for "vital interests" (ie oil) in the Gulf - was concocted five years ago, by men like Cheney and Khalilzad who were oil men to their manicured fingertips.
In fact, I'm getting heartily sick of hearing the Second World War being dug up yet again to justify another killing field. It's not long ago that Bush was happy to be portrayed as Churchill standing up to the appeasement of the no-war-in Iraq brigade. In fact, Bush's whole strategy with the odious and Stalinist- style Korea regime - the "excellent" talks which US diplomats insist they are having with the Dear Leader's Korea which very definitely does have weapons of mass destruction - reeks of the worst kind of Chamberlain- like appeasement. Even though Saddam and Bush deserve each other, Saddam is not Hitler. And Bush is certainly no Churchill. But now we are told that the UN inspectors have found what might be the vital evidence to go to war: 11 empty chemical warheads that just may be 20 years old.
The world went to war 88 years ago because an archduke was assassinated in Sarajevo. The world went to war 63 years ago because a Nazi dictator invaded Poland. But for 11 empty warheads? Give me oil any day. Even the old men sitting around the feast of mutton and rice would agree with that.

[longrange]

^see what i mean

[Blurred Elevens]

That's fucking extreme left-wing garbage. Case in point-

This was the "softest option" and easiest to explain to the American people - even though not a single September 11 hijacker came from Afghanistan.

Granted, most of the 9-11 attackers were born in Saudi Arabia, BUT THEY TRAINED WITH AL-QAIDA in Afghanistan! We went there because the Taliban supported an enviroment conducive for the conduct of terrorist training camps!!! That remark right there shows the extreme left-wing slant of an article written by some chump no one has ever heard of, supported by NO facts.

Note that alot of his quotes are single and two words, probably taken out of context to prove his thought.

The ultimate cynicism of this cover-up was expressed by Rumsfeld himself only last week. When asked why he thought most Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of September 11, he replied: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe I could say that."

Although he's said this all along, for the sake of THIS article, it's "cynicism". In other arguements...well, you know.

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

I don't know where he got this quote, but how in the fuck did Iraq launch scuds at the beginning of THIS war if he was "unable to project conventional power against his neighbours"???

Powell was obviously ignorant at the time...This only furthers the weakness of this "article", which IMHO is garbage from a left-winged writer with an agenda.

Milk-I've only used about 1000 facts. Please tell me which facts you question, and I'll source them for you.

[milkman]

Just wondering were you get the bulk of your info from. You keep saying all your info is factual. Just saying it's factual doesn't make it so. Is everything Bush and Co say factual? No. Is everything the Left argues factual? No. I'm open to reading alternate views. Hit me with something....

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by Blurred Elevens

I don't know where he got this quote, [/B]

Of course you don't, but it's on videotape if you don't believe it.

but how in the fuck did Iraq launch scuds at the beginning of THIS war

He didn't, you ignorant fuck.

[splat]

Originally posted by two_planks
Up here we have bumper stickers that say

DEFEND THE WEST
NO kyoto
NO wheat board
NO gun control

But we are all a bunch of Red Neck Cowboys and don't know shit.

And another thing. I don't get it when people act like a politician is selling out because they do things that will get them votes. Doesn't getting votes require making the people that vote for them happy with their policies, etc. And isn't making their constituents happy their fucking job. If it gets votes then its making the people happy there for they are REPRESENTING the people who voted them into the House of REPRESENTATIVES.

How many constituents ponied up $100 million for campaigns to elect politicians to offices that pay $75,000 a year?
Or are corporations constituents? And if the corporations are constituents, would it then follow that whatever the corporations dictate makes everyone happy? And if everyone's happy with that, why even have democracies? We can just have one big corporate government. Then, to save money and further enrich the upper echelon of corporate executives, the REPRESENTATIVES of the corporation can do away with health care, civil rights, privacy, assembly, speech, and a few other things that might get in the way of doing business. After all, they'll be REPRESENTING the constituents.

[Blurred Elevens]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
Of course you don't, but it's on videotape if you don't believe it.



He didn't, you ignorant fuck.

I know you're an intellectually limited average frustrated chump, but could you please keep the euphenisms to a minimum? Thanks.

We might be able to progress this debate now. I'm going to go source some things now.

[milkman]

I'm outa here for now, but looking forward to some reading. All I'm saying is all facts can be disputed. Just because you read them somewhere doesn't necessarily make them true. I'm sure some of the sources you come back with will have an element of "right" bias. However, I'm willing to read both sides. University taught me that much.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Now that is pretty funny. The name calling is upsetting little Brett.
I'll watch the eupheminimenisms.

[Blurred Elevens]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
Of course you don't, but it's on videotape if you don't believe it.



He didn't, you ignorant fuck.

If you would apologize, I'd appreciate it. Here's the link saying HE DID, which pretty much blows your whole article out of the water.
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/...story92387.asp


As far as Powell goes, I basically said he did'nt know wtf he was talking about, which only strengthens my argument, and shooting down yours.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by Blurred Elevens
If you would apologize, I'd appreciate it. Here's the link saying HE DID, which pretty much blows your whole article out of the water.
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/...story92387.asp

I'll apologize for being right and looking beyond the Foxnews flash of the moment:

Iraq has launched Scud missiles at coalition forces and civilians in Kuwait.

As Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has recounted, in the early days of the war, it was widely reported that Iraq had fired Scud missiles into Kuwait -- a claim made by Kuwaiti government officials that was quickly given the veneer of fact in media accounts. If the missiles were Scuds, it would have been significant: Iraq is prohibited from possessing such missiles under disarmament agreements it has entered into since the Gulf War. However, the missiles launched at Kuwait were apparently not Scuds, as the military later admitted. While Iraq may still possess the banned weapons, there is no solid evidence that any of the missiles launched at Kuwait so far have been Scuds, nor have any Scuds been discovered by coalition troops in the current war. Instead, according to the Washington Post, "[t]he missiles being fired at Kuwait have not been definitively identified," but US commanders say eight were Ababil-100s, while "[a]t least two" were Al Samoud-2s, which the United Nations says are also banned under Iraq's 1991 disarmament agreement. Despite the inherent factual uncertainty of sketchy early reports, pundits like Mona Charen then rushed to condemn the alleged use of Scuds, bashing the "antiwar crowd" for the supposed failure of inspections to find the Scuds that were launched. She later corrected the record (as did others), but this was a major mistake.



The second thing you said didn't make any sense.

[milkman]

That was an article about what the US military SAID. Why does that make it true? All I'm saying it this article doesn't prove it's a hard fact. Also, no scuds were ever intercepted to date, not even in the first Gulf War. Any scuds that did not reach their targets actually malfunctioned. The CBC and BBC did a documentary on it not too long ago...

[Blurred Elevens]

So, that article states there is no direct confirmation that they could be "definitly identified", but that Saddam possessed and fired conventional weapons he was NOT supposed to have which was confirmed. Your article simply points out that Saddam POSSESSED weapons banned under Iraqs 1991 disarmament agreement.

How does this help your argument? It makes you look like a turd dude...sorry.

Milk-IT doesn't matter if the scuds were flying pieces of shit....That backs up what I've stated earlier..

[two_planks]

Originally posted by splat
How many constituents ponied up $100 million for campaigns to elect politicians to offices that pay $75,000 a year?
Or are corporations constituents? And if the corporations are constituents, would it then follow that whatever the corporations dictate makes everyone happy? And if everyone's happy with that, why even have democracies? We can just have one big corporate government. Then, to save money and further enrich the upper echelon of corporate executives, they can do away with health care, civil rights, privacy, assembly, speech, and a few other things that might get in the way of doing business. After all, they'll be REPRESENTING the constituents.

People vote for politicians not corporations, unless something has changed since I moved to Canada. Corporations may help fund the campaign of politicians but when it comes down to it the people vote for them and the people have the choice to vote a person back in to office or not.

[/hijack]I'm done talking about this shit, I thought this was a skiing board. If I wanted politics I would go some where else. Besides I'm just a redneck landscaper and I wouldn't know any thing about politics and such.

So who got some today. I wish i did, but Friday I'm gonna get me some[/hijack]

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by Blurred Elevens
So, that article states there is no direct confirmation that they could be "definitly identified", but that Saddam possessed and fired conventional weapons he was NOT supposed to have which was confirmed. Your article simply points out that Saddam POSSESSED weapons banned under Iraqs 1991 disarmament agreement.

No, that's not what it said. Learn to read.

How does this help your argument? It makes you look like a turd dude...sorry.

Yet you're the one covered in shit.

[Blurred Elevens]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
No, that's not what it said. Learn to read.



Yet you're the one covered in shit.

Let me repeat you dumb fucking idiot...maybe you should learn to read the SHIT you post you imbecile. HERE'S THE DIRECT QUOTE MORON-

"[t]he missiles being fired at Kuwait have not been definitively identified," but US commanders say eight were Ababil-100s, while "[a]t least two" were Al Samoud-2s, which the United Nations says are also banned under Iraq's 1991 disarmament agreement.

Maybe it's time for you to get hooked-on-phonics. This is EXACTLY what I just posted. I'm sorry if I gave you too much respect to comprehend this simple quote. If you don't see the logic here, you're obviously severly retarded and require medical attention immediately. If no one else here can see what a imbecile Dex is, than that just shows the IQ of the group.....I'm done with this complete IDIOT.