← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sertorius
Thread ID: 15254 | Posts: 3 | Started: 2004-10-08
2004-10-08 14:02 | User Profile
Nick of Time
Thursday, October 07, 2004
By John Gibson
For months I've been saying, Oh geez, Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction? (search) Well, then we got there just in time.
It makes sense to me. Based on the notion he would love to have WMD, he wanted to get WMD, he tried to get WMD, he wanted to hide WMD from us and he wanted to use WMD on us, then we got there just in the nick of time if we didn't find any actual stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
[color=red][Of course it does for you are an idiot. John, boy, why didn't Saddam use this unconventional ordinance during the first Gulf War when he had a lot more rounds than he had after the war? Come to think of it, why didn't he hand this mess over to terrorists during the '90s? The answer is that he didn't want these used against him. Being a secularist didn't exaxctly endear him with the Islamists.][/color]
I thought it was one big phew! And an illustration of the rule, I'd rather be lucky than good.
Well, silly me.
[color=red][No, Just your typical moronic neocon][/color]
The Bush opponents are making a huge noise about no WMD proves we did the wrong thing: There never should have been a war since there was no reason for war.
Well, Mr. Duelfer's report (search) makes a few important points:
No. 1: Saddam was bribing the United Nations Security Council (search) members with a billion dollars.
[color=red][This is probably true and needs to be looked into by people that will be honest. That rules out the neocons. Better yet let's save ourselves the trouble and just get out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.][/color]
No. 2: Saddam wanted the sanctions lifted and was close to getting it done.
[color=red][All the more reason that Saddam wouldn't have any dealings with al-Qaida.][/color]
No. 3: When those sanctions were lifted, he was going to get WMD again.
[color=red][Maybe so, but if you were to put down the Weekly Standard for a moment and view what the Center for Strategic and International Studies had on Iraq before the latest war you'd discover that Saddam needed not only spare parts for his armed forces, but modern equipment and modern doctrine as well. How in the hell is he going to deliver these weapons in mass? By camel? The point is that Saddam needed to attend to his conventional forces first before fooling with unconventional weapons. Despite what idiots like you believe, Saddam has a desire to live as verses a death wish by firing a few al-Salmoud missiles at Israel. If they want to worry about something that would be him trying to develop nuclear weapons. The naval blockade would have gone a long way to preventing that.][/color]
No. 4: I guess, the simple point that diplomacy is tough ââ¬â shall we say, impossible ââ¬â when the other side is buying off the United Nations.
[color=red][See No. 1][/color]
So once again, after you get past the headline, No WMD and we have no idea why Saddam wanted the world to think he did have WMD, then you get into areas where the threat is laid out in a real way which justifies action against Saddam Hussein.
[color=red][He was afraid of the Iranians. Saddam's use of chemical weapons was one of the things that prevented Iran from taking Basra.][/color]
If our friends the French, the Russians and the Chinese ââ¬â U.N. Security Council members with a veto ââ¬â weren't taking billions of dollars in bribes, maybe we could have counted on diplomacy and the rule of international law.
[Let's be specific here. Name names and back it up instead of making accusations. Either put up or knock the b.s. off.]
But since they were all corrupt and greedy thieves, we couldn't count on diplomacy and the rule of international law.
[color=red][Yes, they do take after people like Richard Perle, don't they?][/color]
I ask again: What is the logic behind the argument that Saddam posed no danger and we should have left him on his throne?
[Simply this, you chowderhead. By leaving him on his throne we wouldn't be over there now trying to put this humpty-dumpty state back together and as for how he treated his people I couldn't care less.]
That's My Word.
[color=red][Yep. It appears that John Gibson is doing everything he can to try to dethrone Sean Hannity as the most ignorant stupid fool on Fox News][/color]
é Associated Press. All rights reserved. Copyright é 2004 ComStock, Inc. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
[color=red][It might as well be here. No one else would waste time with it.][/color]
Copyright 2004 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes.
[url=http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,134811,00.html]http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,134811,00.html[/url]
2004-10-08 14:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius] No. 1: Saddam was bribing the United Nations Security Council (search) members with a billion dollars.
[color=red][This is probably true and needs to be looked into by people that will be honest. That rules out the neocons. Better yet let's save ourselves the trouble and just get out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.][/color]
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,134811,00.html[/url][/QUOTE]
I despise Fox and I hate Neocons. Look at the source!
All I can say about Saddam bribing Russia, China and France, is SO F*CKING WHAT. Or in other words WHO DIED from that?? Who was killed, mutilated or otherwise blown to pieces because of dodgy accounting and such in order to get food and sell oil?? I'm not condoning corruption, but only in the light of the New Order of Death created by Bush and the NeoCons, bribery in oil dealings is peanuts.
Furthermore, if Saddam is selling oil to World powers, wouldn't or couldn't that in fact mean that, in essence, Saddam was being contained. Like, if he was going to make a false move and start making weapons, wouldn't one of of allies warn us or take issue themselves? Maybe then, but now that Bush and the Jews have ruined our alliances, we don't know how far our allies would go to help us now. Was Saddam ready to switch to Euros for oil transactions? This question should be thoroughly explored. Maybe ask Saddam?
This report by Duelfer has a unilateral American face on it. There's tremendous bias in it. US companies and individuals were bribed too but can't be named. If the US blows up this story in order to put a legitimate face on our illegal invasion of Iraq while simultaneously casting stones at those countries (major players, too) who dealt with Saddam, the US is going to further polarize the entire world. The US and it's Neo Cons are drawing the lines in the sand; The US and Israel against the entire world.
Who'd win?
2004-10-08 23:44 | User Profile
Like a dog with a bone.