WMD

[Tehsin]

So, now they tell us that they may have goofed. That makes how many goofs so far ? Is anyone even keeping count ?

I used to think BD politicians are dishonest. They are like chichke chors next to the putul shomrat and his court jesters.

[Arnab]

Don't tell me you believed these people in the first place.

[Orpheus]

Yes apparently the war was based on a lie but you can't really blame the people though. There is no way they can tell whether the administration is lying or not. Who you gonna believe? Saddam via Al-jazeera?

But taking Saddam out was both good for Iraq and America though. You can't deny it. Americans actually feel safer. The target for the war was Saddam's regime.... so the findings of WMDs here is inconsequential if you look at the bigger picture. But yes the war was based on a lie. No doubt!

[Arnab]

Who is blaming the people?

There is no way they can tell whether the administration is lying or not. Who you gonna believe? Saddam via Al-jazeera?

Didn't I tell you that it's lie before the war started? There are other "neutral" and logical news sources in the world than Fox and Al Jazeera.

Americans actually feel safer.

Americans also felt that Bush was telling the truth. Maybe it's time to feel the dick up their *** for a change.

[Edited on 10-1-2004 by Arnab]

[Orpheus]

yes you did tell me and so did all the muslims and pacifist ppl in the whole world. Most of the people made up their mind about the war regardless of whether or not there were sufficient proof of WMDs. Even if there were significant evidence that Iraq possessed WMDs, those ppl would still go against the war because they FEEL the war is not right. Same went for people that supported the war. Few ppl such as yourself bothered to find the "truth". Even if you are looking for truth, your feelings on the war prior to it contributed in selecting the news that you felt was neutral. (yes I did read few articles here and there from the other side). In any case, You think it would be wise for me to choose my stand on the war based on some posts on the messageboard? NO. Was it wise for me to have my stand based on American news channel. NO. Do I have time and evergy to seek the truth .. NO! Am I brainwashed? NO because I do realize that something is wrong here ... which I wouldn't have if I was. It's a fact that we are just being bombarded by the wrong info everywhere.

By the way, you and every other person were blaming the American people for supporting the war .... (actually most ppl were silent anyway ... perhaps confused or just didn't care - I probably fall into that category). Even knowing that there are no WMDs, I still don't feel that the war was wrong or precisely put : Saddam was removed. But does that mean I wanna see Bush for 5 more years? NO but I wouldn't move to Canada like one of my friend jokinly said if Bush is elected again. Bush isn't that bad. Think about it... this country went through a lot and Bush handled it quiet nicely.. and not throw one missile from distance in reply to bombings at US Embassy during Clinton's administration.

[Orpheus]

The last I was referring to was this pasted bottom. Apparently if Clinton was aggresive like Bush, sept 11 probably would have never happened.

After al Qaeda nearly leveled two American embassies in Africa in 1998, Clinton responded militarily, but with two inconsequential cruise-missile attacks. One was against a probably mistaken target in Sudan. The other was against a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. "We used kid gloves after the embassy bombings," retired Gen. Wayne Downing, former commander of U.S. special forces, told me. "Cruise missiles — that's the coward's way out."

And why attack just one Afghan training camp? Mike Rolince, former chief of the international terrorism division of the FBI, explained to me: "We never went back to the camps and dismantled the neighborhood where these people were allowed to train, test chemicals, recruit, plan operations. On a regular basis, we saw intelligence that documented what they were, where they were, how big they were, how many people were going through there, and the administration lacked the political will to go in there and do something about it."

Amazingly, the Clinton administration didn't even designate Afghanistan a state sponsor of terror. That would have been too bellicose. By 2000, various government reports had recommended what were consensus measures to address the terror threat, from squeezing state sponsors of terror, to cutting off funding, to tightening visa policy, to loosening restrictions on the CIA and FBI. Clinton did none of it.

He was, fundamentally, the do-nothing president about terrorism, although he knew — as he tells us now — the grave nature of the threat. It was Bush who could have told Clinton a few things about how to respond to terror in their exit interview, since his instincts were so much sounder. After the al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole in October 2000, Bush as a candidate said that "there must be a consequence." Common sense, right? Not for Clinton. He let the attack go unanswered.

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/...0310170939.asp

[Arnab]

Let me point out the key sentences in your post.

Do I have time and evergy to seek the truth .. NO! Am I brainwashed? NO

You are brainwashed (or SLOW brained, whatever title you like) precisely because you don't spend the time and energy to seek the truth...

On the other hand, American people seem to have PLENTY of time and energy to sit in front of the boob tube all day and watch "reality shows" on MTV or compare the sizes of those jugs on the tuhwins in that coors lite ad. Like the dumb McDonald's ad, they're "lovin' it"....up their ***. And it's well-lubed too.

[Hasib]

There was a show on Australian TV last night, which makes fun of international news. You know like how the Us was doing a health check up on Saddam? Well they were saying they were searching for WMDs on him. They said the tonsil looked highly suspicious :duh:

[Arnab]

Clinton-Bush-Gore-Cheney, who the hell gives a damn? It's all the same **** every four years. They all serve the same interest. Some are sweet tongued with a hint of sexual misdemeanor, like Clinton. Some are pretzel chokers with a hint of lobotomy, like Bush.

[Orpheus]

You are brainwashed (or SLOW brained, whatever title you like) precisely because you don't spend the time and energy to seek the truth...

haha.. right everyone in America is stupid except you are because you spent your time searching for the "truth". Did anyone give the **** about your findings smart guy? Did you make any difference with your findings?

Your last post manifests all your great intelligence here. Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy, Roosevelt - they are all **** right? America is on top because everyone served for their own interest..

You obviously didn't get the point of the Clinton story. Being aggressive prevents a lot of things. Clinton didn't act against the alqaida. That pussy! But Bush is acting. Saddam is not 2003 problem that Bush just made up. Bush just took care of it. It doesn't matter whether there was any WMDs or not.. Saddam was the issue. The only wrong thing that was done (which I am admitting) is that the reason they showed was WMDs - that's all!

Anyways, there is no point of this... peace!

[Orpheus]

by the way, when you don't seek the truth.... it makes you lazy or simply you don't give the damn... it doesn't make you brainwashed or slow-brained. But then again you are entitiled to your opinion

[Arnab]

Did you make any difference with your findings?

Haha! Yes I did. I get to make fun of people like you. I like putting down dumb people. It's my personal fetish.

Look in the long run, you or I don't have any substantial power in America. Unless we ultimately become CEOs of some big corporations by virtue of every dirty trick in the book. Voting is a farce in ANY democratic country in the world. In America, it's the corporate lobbying that makes the laws. Do you know how many millions of dollars corporations spend each year to get laws written in their favor? And you think they're gonna let this stupid democratic ritual called "voting" get in their way?

----------

If you were a logical person, you would ask these questions regarding Iraq:

WHY did they lie about the WMDs in the first place? WHY did I believe them? Just because they told me so? Look what a moron I have turned out to be for believing them.

Then they said Saddam had ties with Al-Qaeda. I believed them. But now they're saying there's no connection.

So now they're saying it was about "regime change" for the people of Iraq? But why would I believe them again? What's the possibility that they're not lying this time too?

And who is profiting the most from all this? Halliburton, Bechtel, corporations that has lobbies in Washington and ties with Cheney and others?

Have I been duped all this time?

Gosh, WHY do I keep trusting the same lying people again and again? Am I brainwashed? Braindead? Just plain retarded?

------------------------

And these are VERY elementary questions. Any 10 year old can come up with these logical questions. "duye duye char milano". Instead of asking all these logical questions in your head, you are just parotting everything that comes out of Fox TV or Newsmax or whatever right-wing news source you're reading from. They keep changing the story and keep spewing new justifications for bald-faced lies after lies and you keep swallowing them like a two bit whore sucking an old man's d****. Is it the protein content in the jizz that makes it so delicious and nutritious?

[Edited on 10-1-2004 by Arnab]

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by chinaman : Moderation]

[Arnab]

OK to compensate my harsh tone in the last post, let me present to you the most extensive research on this WHOLE WMD issue, what the administration REALLY did.

Download it from here:

http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/Iraq3FullText.pdf

It's a massive report. Make sure to thoroughly read all of it.

[oracle]

Arnab: On this thread I would concur with what you have said.
Orph: I have a small nagging question:

But taking Saddam out was both good for Iraq and America though. You can't deny it. Americans actually feel safer. The target for the war was Saddam's regime.... so the findings of WMDs here is inconsequential if you look at the bigger picture. But yes the war was based on a lie. No doubt!

Could you enlighten us as to how americans feel "safer"?

[Arnab]

I would like to respond on behalf of him.

Americans feel safer because the media informed them that they feel safer. They are basically on a hypnotist's show. If the media tell them to dangle a ton of bricks from their penises and let it hang out from a balcony and say it's safe to do so, they will probably do it. I know what you're thinking. NO, Americans are not THAT stupid. They won't let you do that for free, even when they're hypnotized. You MUST make sure they can watch the latest episode of their favorite MTV show, "Jackass" before you can sell your idea. By the way, you also have to make sure that when some pitiful souls point out that they might lose their penises in the process, they have to be labeled "anti-americans". Anti-americans have no business whatsoever what "true" Americans do with their dicks.

[Nasif]

Link: Reuters Report: Bush Planned Iraqi Invasion Before Sept. 11

[fab]

Well, this whole sordid affair has at least brought one thing to light - that as individuals we are insignificant and can do jack all if we disagree with what our government does. I used to think that in this day and age of educated proleteriats it would be difficult to achieve the same level of brainwashing that the Nazis achieved early last century.

What a bitter awakening it as been.

[Orpheus]

Originally posted by nasif
Link: Reuters Report: Bush Planned Iraqi Invasion Before Sept. 11

So what? September 11 had nothing to do with Iraq and its weapons. There is nothing wrong with planning an invasion ahead of a tragedy. Lately anti-bush ppl are going a bit out of hand too.

Recently I read few chapters of Michael Moore's "Dude where is my country" book (actually it was read to me - an audio book). I really respect this man's views since I watched "bowling for columbine" and some of his interviews. That respect is fading away. This fat dude in the book even went to the extent of accusing bush for "plotting" sept 11. What a joke.

By the way Arnab, you don't have to give me any links. I am a neanderthal, no doubt but I can search too

Disclosure: I own shares of Halliburton!

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by Orpheus]

[Arnab]

Orpheus:

"There is nothing wrong with planning an invasion"

WTF? Where did you get that? Mein Kampf?

[Pundit]

Arnab, while I agree with you 100% on this debate, your incessant knack of peeling of incomplete sentences from other people's paragraphs and presenting them as quotes to allow you to respond, at the least can be considered as taking things out of context - ironically, isn't that the greatest flaw with American journalism itself. Which is - just because what one says could be truthful, does not make it truthful.

Anyway, I greatly like your responses, but sigh, what can we do but rant !!!

When the Nazis came to haunt us, we knew we had the Americans, when the Japs came to murder us, we knew we had the Americans, when the commies came to plunder us, we knew we had the Americans...but....

[Nasif]

Originally posted by Orpheus
There is nothing wrong with planning an invasion ahead of a tragedy. Lately anti-bush ppl are going a bit out of hand too.

That was shocking! Really it was. Can't argue with that.

[oracle]

WTF? Where did you get that? Mein Kampf?

Arnab. Clap clap...What can I say. Now, please check your U2U on article.