Bush Arrested In Canada for war crimes

First, the French government, and sometimes its people, have been idiots many times over, and not just about Iraq.Second, though we did not have COMPLETE proof (just a bunch of circumstantial evidence and very good liklihoods that they had WMD, as an inspector said, that almost everyone (countries) thought that Iraq had WMD, since Iraq gave that message) But we correctly went in to free the people from a torturing dictator, and what do ya know, WE FOUND WMD!(spelling corrected by PB)This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 12-11-2004 02:43 PM

Oh!! I thought that there was a rather study review of this conducted for the senate (or somesuch) that came to the opposite conclusion.What is your source for this information?

No, actually, we found an assload of conventional explosives - which we didn't bother to secure, btw, and as a result those same explosives are now blowing up our GI's - and a little can of sarin so old that the two guys who accidently got a face-full only missed duty for abut half a day.

quote:

---

First, the french gverment, and sometimes its people, have been idiots many times over, and not just about iraq.

---

The Bush administration, and sometimes its supporters, have been idiots many times over, and not just about Iraq.If you don't think this is true, why not? And, following from that, can you see why blank assertion doesn't mean anything?

quote:

---

But we correctly went in to free the people from a torturing dictator...

---

Really? When we went in, were we going in to free the people from a torturing dictator?

quote:

---

...and what do ya know, WE FOUND WMD!

---

News to me. What do you qualify as WMD?

quote:

---

Second, though we did not have COMPLETE proof (just a bunch of circumstanial evidence and very good likly hoods that they had WMD, as an inspector said,

---

Which inspector?Hans Blix was the head of the inspecion team and I never read a single thing about him saying that it was "very likely" that Iraq had WMD.Everything I read indicated that Blix told the Bush folks that Iraq's WMD program was successfuly eliminated at the end of the first Gulf war.That's probably why both Colin Powel and Condi Rice described Iraq in press conferences as "powerless and defanged" just before 9/11.

quote:

---

that almost everyone (contrys) thought that Iraq had WMD,

---

They did? which ones?

quote:

---

sence Iraq gave that message) But we correctly went in to free the people from a torturing dictator,

---

We did?I thought we went in because Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney said that Iraq was an imminent threat to US security.It was only after we were in Iraq for months and we did not find any WMD that their story changed and the NEW reason we invaded became "to free Iraq from Saddam".100,000+ dead civilian Iraqis sure aren't under Saddam's thumb anymore, that's for sure, eh?Oh, and there are dozens of "torturing dictators" who are responsible for much greater death and suffering than Hussein, as spychopathic as he is. Take Rowanda, or any of the many African dictators slaughtering millions of people as we speak.If we invaded Iraq to free it's people from a torturing dictator, why didn't we invade in Africa months before 9/11? We knew all of these things were going on there way back then?I'll give you a hint. Those African nations don't have the second largest oil reserve in the world. Take a wild guess which country does...

quote:

---

and what do ya know, WE FOUND WMD!

---

No we didn't. We found conventional explosives, not WMD.I have a question for you.What role did Saddam Hussein or Iraqi citizens play in the WTC bombing on 9/11?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-11-2004 12:44 PM

A sairin nerve gas shell, which by the way, worked and got several of our soldiers sick. I posted a link to the site on either a previouspage of this topic or in Bush is Back! part 2

Saddam may or may not have had anything to do with WTC, but we have found no released evidence that he did. However, he has given money to terrorists, and at least one of his advisors swore allegince to al Qaida.

No one argues that Saddman didn't once have WMD. Heck, the US sold them to him (or helped him get them). That some small bit was left over isn't a huge surprise. This is a joke!A single gas shell is hardly "mass" destruction. And if it had worked the soldiers would have been dead. Sarin is nasty stuff.

And where did a lot of money for Al Queda come from? Why didn't you attack the Saudi's then?

Easy, Saudi is not a threat to us and our allies because they are a allie, at least in some sence. I will have to check, but they might even be a part of NATO. I do not belive saudi has WMDSecondly, sarin is deadly in large doeses (though not as deadly as VX) but not if treated imedatly in small doeses

The hell they aren't. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. Saudi Arabia is the source of the sect of fundamentalist Islam that drives terror, and this sect is sanctioned by the Saudi government because it's easier than trying to fight them, or to deal with terror attacks their opposition would stimulate.They're way, way more of a threat to us than Afghanistan or Iraq ever were, but because of our oil ties and the close ties of the administration to the House of Saud we're not likely to address that threat anytime soon.

Bush Senior was instrumental in training Osama to be a terrorist in the first place, JF! Get a clue!

I'm getting cranky just by reading your posts. You tend not to be specific about anything. Saying "at least one of his advisors..." ain't specific. You made a claim earlier that we have found WMD in Iraq. I've been watching CNN since... forever and I haven't heard such news. Would you mind at least describe what kind of WMD did we find?I often do this to show people that your method of being so vague that noone can seriously debate with you can be used against you.I heard somewhere that you are a dork. I'm not saying that you are one, I'm just saying that I heard somewhere that you are one.I'm going to post a public apology after I have seen some kind of evidence from you. If you are right, which I have no doubt that you have no doubt, then it shouldn't be a problem for you to find some kind of evidence or specific explanation.

JFYou're young and so there is much you're not really supposed to know yet, but there is much too that you can learn.No Nation in history has done more to create, fund, aid, supply and train terrorists than the United States. We have done so regularly for over a century in places like Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, India, Pakistan, Celon, Cyprus, Angola, South Africa, Mozambique, Congo, Turkey, Chile, Peru, Mexico, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Greece, Argentina, Brazil, Philippines, Costa Rico, Dominican Republic, Columbia (Hell we stole a whole piece of their nation and created a whole new government and nation from it. See next entry.), Panama, Ireland, Haiti, Hondurus, Bolivia...There are more terrorists trained in the US than in any other Nation and more trained under US Military efforts than under any other form.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

First, saudi it's self is not likely to attack anyone, Iraq was, as it proved in 91. Second, if this was over bisness interests, atacking saudi would make bush way richer than attacking Iraq, because saudi gives us so much of our oil, the price would skyrocket. So attacking for buisness reasons is out. Besides, In bush taking Iraq, it has put out more oil, not less, cause saddaum did not take care of his pumps, meaning the price was going lower.