# U.S. Ends Iraq WMD Search



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Where should the blame fall for the misinformation on WMD's? The threat of Iraq having them was the main justification that got us into the war. Now the white house has admitted to not finding any evidence of them who is to blame?

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/10620667.htm


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

The flaw in intelligence rests on someone's head, and they should lose it for their error.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT
I'm kind of an old guy you shouldn't make logical statements like that. It could be more than the old ticker can take.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I'm kind of an old guy you shouldn't make logical statements like that.


That was said in opposition to the Bush regime's failures thus far. They gave the guy who disbanded the Iraqi army the highest honor available to a civilian. People deserve to be held accountable, and judged for their mistakes, not given a medal.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant quotes Plainsman:


Militant_Tiger said:


> > I'm kind of an old guy you shouldn't make logical statements like that.
> 
> 
> That was said in opposition to the Bush regime's failures thus far. They gave the guy who disbanded the Iraqi army the highest honor available to a civilian. People deserve to be held accountable, and judged for their mistakes, not given a medal.


The full quote:


> I'm kind of an old guy you shouldn't make logical statements like that. It could be more than the old ticker can take.


What I meant MT was that you making a logical statement could stop my heart. It is so uncharacteristic.

You know our legal system is based on the belief that it is better that ten guilty men not be prosecuted, than to prosecute one innocent person. Now to get serious, I have no idea where the blame on this should fall, and neither do you. The difficult thing to understand is how so many nations could have thought the same thing. Even Putin told Bush they believed their were WMD's. Even though they have given up looking I think they existed at one time. They had to, he didn't kill thousands of Kurds with laughing gas. I suppose there is a possibility that he used up most of his gas killing people. I think an honest person if he or she searches their mind with no bias, putting aside partisanship, will have to agree we do not know how this mistake could have happened.

The blame goes way back to when the CIA lost funding in the 90's. I think many people, liberal and conservative, American and European, , and who knows who else are responsible for the intelligence failure. Can you deal with that as reality?


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

Matt Jones said:


> Where should the blame fall for the misinformation on WMD's? The threat of Iraq having them was the main justification that got us into the war. Now the white house has admitted to not finding any evidence of them who is to blame?
> 
> http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/10620667.htm


Whew..... plenty of blame to go around. We could point to the lack of good intelligence available to us at the time due to cuts made in intelligence expenditures over a couple of different administrations. Saddam certainly has to be blamed as he thumbed his nose at UN weapons inspectors and thwarted their efforts to examine high interest areas across Iraq. We could blame the occurance of 9/11. The stakes were too high not to invade Iraq. If Saddam had weapons and they were sold, or given, to those who would use them against our country the President would have been run out on a rail had he not taken action to try and neutralize the threat.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> The stakes were too high not to invade Iraq. If Saddam had weapons and they were sold, or given, to those who would use them against our country the President would have been run out on a rail had he not taken action to try and neutralize the threat.


As opposed to attacking the Saudis, who we knew supported 9/11, not just had suspicions that there might be weapons which might be sold to a group.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> The stakes were too high not to invade Iraq. If Saddam had weapons and they were sold, or given, to those who would use them against our country the President would have been run out on a rail had he not taken action to try and neutralize the threat.


As opposed to attacking the Saudis, who we knew supported 9/11, not just had suspicions that there might be weapons which might be sold to a group.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Perhaps we will will strike the saudies when the time is more profitable :thumb:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

mr.trooper said:


> Perhaps we will will strike the saudies when the time is more profitable :thumb:


You choose profit over the safety of your citizens? When will you get your priorities straight?


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

They do not need searching for WMD any more. Repubicans are in power, our prez is Bush and we are deep in Iraq. Who cares about WMD now? Accountability is over, Americans elected Bush and plenty of Republicans in both houses. This is quite a mandate for them. All this was done mainly because we wanted more ethics in stem cell reasearch, stop gay marriages and possibly curtail about abortion rights. Now, we should stop teaching evolution in our schools. Now watch a few Republicans, who take care of their future reelection and go against the trend.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

WOW...M_T still cant take a joke. AT ALL.

"abortion rights."

AND AS FOR YOU SEVENDOGS, Exactly where is the right to an abortion mentioned in the constitiution? I wish you could ask Benfranklin or Tomas jefferson whether THEY think a woman can kill her unbrn childredn, but we cant.

Whats next seven? your constitutional "RIGHT" to a drivers lisence :roll:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

"City Councilman Ejected From Radio Studio"

Theodore B. Bechtol, part time City Councilman from Midland, TX, 
was asked on a local live radio talk show the other day just what he thought of the allegations of torture of the Iraqi prisoners.

His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to thunderous
applause from the audience. His reply:

"If hooking up an Iraqi prisoner's scrotum to a car's battery 
cables will save one American GI's life, then I have just two things to 
say:

"Red is positive"

"Black is negative"


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> WOW...M_T still cant take a joke. AT ALL.


What kind of sick joke is it that you were making an attempt at? Is terrorism a joke to you?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

This is not a joke, this is a ******* talkin and we are experts in spittin contests. Whats the old American saying... Do Not Tread On Me... yeh thats it. 8)


----------



## pointer99 (Jan 16, 2004)

buckseye said:


> "City Councilman Ejected From Radio Studio"
> 
> Theodore B. Bechtol, part time City Councilman from Midland, TX,
> was asked on a local live radio talk show the other day just what he thought of the allegations of torture of the Iraqi prisoners.
> ...


 :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

pointer


----------



## Anas Strepera (Nov 10, 2004)

We can't attack the Saudis. They own too much of America. If they pulled their money out of our country we'd go into a recession. Which is why we have to leave them alone whether we like it or not. :run:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Anas Strepera said:


> We can't attack the Saudis. They own too much of America. If they pulled their money out of our country we'd go into a recession. Which is why we have to leave them alone whether we like it or not. :run:


Ain't that the truth, no one wants to hear it though.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

If we went to war with them we would confiscate every asset they had in this nation. That is what we did with terrorists, and that is what we do with any nation we would have a military conflict with. MT, if you really believe that why would you want us to attack Saudi Arabia? That is what you have advocated for many months.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> If we went to war with them we would confiscate every asset they had in this nation. That is what we did with terrorists, and that is what we do with any nation we would have a military conflict with. MT, if you really believe that why would you want us to attack Saudi Arabia? That is what you have advocated for many months.


The fundamental problem is THAT we rely on the Saudis for much of our oil and thus economy. It is because of this that we had to sacrafice national security. Change must be made such that we can attack those who attack us without the threat of an economic backlash.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I thought we went to war for oil. Are you saying that if we went to war with Saudi Arabia we wouldn't get even more oil? If the war in Iraq gets us more oil (which you say is why we went) then why would a war with Saudi Arabia, who has more oil, get us none. I'm not advocating war with Saudi Arabia, in fact I argue when you say we should, but your reasoning should remain constant shouldn't it?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> I thought we went to war for oil. Are you saying that if we went to war with Saudi Arabia we wouldn't get even more oil? If the war in Iraq gets us more oil (which you say is why we went) then why would a war with Saudi Arabia, who has more oil, get us none. I'm not advocating war with Saudi Arabia, in fact I argue when you say we should, but your reasoning should remain constant shouldn't it?


An unstable environment, such as one which would be caused by the invasion of the Saudis would not produce a hospitable enviornment for exporting oil. Because the Saudis harbor so many terrorists, oil derricks would not last long without a heavy force presence in the area, and we would lose massive amounts of troops.


----------



## the_duckinator (Jan 9, 2005)

How many of the hijackers of 9/11 were from Iraq? 0. There were no ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The government knew this, yet they deliberately lied to the American public saying that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were closely tied. Bush also lied to us (and Blair to England) saying that within 45 minutes of Saddam giving the order, they could launch some sort of WMD that could get all the way to England. This was a blatant lie and they knew it, yet they needed a reason to attack Iraq, and they knew that most people would believe them. When the search for WMD's ended, Bush made a small speech, which was kept very quiet by the media, only appearing in a few places, saying they had found no WMD's and they were wrong. Yet, over 59 million Americans over looked this, and everything else that the Bush administration has done that will hurt America. This includes his environmental policies, which, you as hunters and fishers should be very concerned about, which are absolutely terrible. But I digress, everyone needs to look more at the issues and the facts before they vote for president again.

Oh yes, Saudi Arabia. How many hijackers of 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia? 15. Why didn't we invade them? The Bush family has important buisness relations with the royal families, going back to Bush Sr. We wouldn't want to hurt Bush's family relationships with oil company owning terrorists, would we? Who cares if they want to kill us, Bush is making money through them.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

*"If hooking up an Iraqi prisoner's scrotum to a car's battery 
cables will save one American GI's life, then I have just two things to 
say:

"Red is positive"

"Black is negative"*

:withstupid:

Remember that statement someday when the prisoner in question is one of our soldiers. Everybody is going to be shocked and outraged at the brutality of the inquisitor questioning our troops, but its just fine to hook another countries soldiers balls up :eyeroll: . Just look how we get all up in arms and make movies about the treatment of Vietnam POWs. What comes around goes around boys and girls. By the way doesnt Bush have 2 military age children? I wonder what unit they are in.

This goes way against the Geneva Convention


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

:withstupid: ******** and towle-ban are not signers of the convention. How convenient for them to not play by the rules. In case you missed it they are chopping heads off people over there, thats pretty much against the convention too. Our men will fight to the death rather than get their heads chopped off.

Why has everyone forgotten most Vietnam Vets were drafted as in involuntary draft. These people today have volunteered to serve so it is their choice and they shouldn't be treated the same as the drafted Vietnam Vets


----------



## the_duckinator (Jan 9, 2005)

It's their choice to be in the military, but they're still Americans and they're over seas fighting for you and me. Are you saying we should not treat them well because they voluntarily joined the military? Some of the men and women in the military joined because they don't have enough money to go to college, and the government will pay for it after a certain amount of service. Buckseye, why don't you go over to Iraq and fight, and then come back and tell us that you still believe what you just said. :eyeroll:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

If you don't know the difference between volunteering and being forced theres not much I could say that would matter to you. :withstupid:

So you are another extremist who has a hard time recognizing middle ground. Your statement about treating people bad is out of your own mind not mine. I simply stated there is a difference between someone who wants to do something and somebody who doesn't. If you can't see the psycological difference between the two you are either very young or very naive.

If I voluntarily went to a war I wouldn't expect special treatment for my decision. I bet you would though!!! :roll:


----------



## the_duckinator (Jan 9, 2005)

I know the difference between volunteering and being forced. All I am saying is that if I chose to go into the military, and became a POW, I would like to be treated with a reasonable amount of respect, none of this "You decided to join its your own darn fault, now go buzz off" (not an actual quote). If that's the way you would want to be treated, then I understand your position.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

The middle east are not signers of the convention so our men will not expect humane treatment, thats as simple as it can be said.



> "You decided to join its your own darn fault, now go buzz off" (not an actual quote). If that's the way you would want to be treated, then I understand your position.


Is there any less extreme position I can be allowed to ponder, like for instance protocol.... :lol:


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

All I have to say is WOW what an idiot. The geneva convention governs all combatants and there are recourses. For that matter, we ARE a signer of the convention, We are bound to its rules. It is the same! Torture is Torture and an idiot is and idiot.

I was a soldier with 1st Ranger, Hunter Airfield, Ga. I am dam glad I didnt meet you spouting off like that back then. I would probably be in prison for tearing you apart. If I had been taken POW in iraq the first time or somalia, I would much rather not have been tortured because of a precedent that my own country set and was condoned by a bunch of *chickenhawks* such as yourself.

More later, Ive got other things to do


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

jdpete75

You must have read something into the previous posts that I didn't. I have not seen anyone condone torture. Some have said that the middle east did not sign the Geneva convention. Also I think that you stated all combatants are covered by the Geneva convention and that is not correct. Terrorists are not mentioned in the Geneva convention. Nor protected by it. Don't misunderstand that now. Because I said they were not covered doesn't mean I want to use that as an excuse to abuse anyone.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

JD thats a real grownup responce, you are quite the fighter and can even call people names. Whoopy ding! :lol:


----------



## the_duckinator (Jan 9, 2005)

> "If hooking up an Iraqi prisoner's scrotum to a car's battery
> cables will save one American GI's life, then I have just two things to
> say:
> 
> ...


Sounds like torture to me....

A few of you have talked about the Iraqi's torturing POW's. Have you seen or heard anything about what has happened at Abu Gharib? Sounds like torture to me, but maybe you have a different definition of torture.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Haven't you ever read or heard a sick joke before???? Sheez lighten up man!!! 8)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Duckinator

People love to hate the enemy, but if it comes right down to it no one on here would want to hurt another human. Exasperation leads to some of us looking at a post like the battery thing and joking about it. When we see our soldiers and hostages beheaded like animals we want to strike fear into the enemy. When it comes right down to it our soldiers are the most honorable in the world.

As for Abu Gharib I don't know what to think. It has become so polarized politically that I don't know how serious it was. Was it exaggerated for political gain? I don't know. Were our service people sacrificed ( not allowed to defend themselves for security reasons0? I don't know that either. All I am left with is questions.


----------

