What To Do With Troops In Iraq

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1226874' date='Apr 2 2007, 12:39 AM']I noticed that you refused to quote bush insisting that there were no WMD, his sources saying that there were NO WMD. I'd quote it but it wouldn't do no good with someone like you. Bill O'reilly can admit it, you should atleast try. Its great that you like to try and use these conspiracy theories as to why your sources are credible then the President of the United States, but you're beginning to sound more like Michael Moore, then the moderate middle.

Reza[/quote]


The quote was to prove to you that your statements claiming Bush and/or his sources did not believe Iran and Syria support the Insurgents in Iraq, wrong. You were wrong about that, I post the quote to show you. That was its only purpose. I can not help others do not believe the truth, I can not doubt facts and reality.

Edited April 2, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1226902' date='Apr 2 2007, 02:08 AM']Whats more ignorant? To believe falsified reports that havn't been proven to be official documents or trusting the president of the united states, and those that have relatives in Iraq?

Reza[/quote]
When you mention President of the USA, do you mean...
The first President Bush? President Clinton? President GW Bush?
They all saw Iraq as a threat.
Clinton was the one who made "regime change" in Iraq a policy issue.

What's falsified? Tell us.
The mass graves?
The plastic shredders?
The deaths at Saddam's hands? His son's hands?
Saddam's financing Islamofascism?
The WMD's?

Good job, Reza - in sticking up for Islamofascism

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]The above news article is base on an official document from the National Ground Intelligence Center.[/quote]Have you yourself seen these so called "official documents"? Probably not... you littering this board with these propaganda articles is no different then Budge doing so with anti-Roman Catholic Articles. You can get websites that say whatever you'd like and 10,000 others that disagree with you but again I ask the questions

1.) Have you ever been a soldier
2.) Do you have relatives that are Iraqis?

[quote]You were wrong about that, I post the quote to show you[/quote]

I wasn't wrong, Bush's sources [and Bush himself] has proclaimed that there were NO WMD. In regards to "insurgents", of course Mr. Bush isn't going to agree with me, that wasn't the point that I'd made, Mr. Bush is still trying to win approval for the war but again among Bush's tactics to win approval, isn't that Iraq had WMD because even he admits that there were none and everyone else that suggests that there were is wrong.

[quote]When you mention President of the USA, do you mean...
The first President Bush? President Clinton? President GW Bush?[/quote]Do you read my posts? I'd clearly said Mr. Bush [and the context pointed to G.W.Bush].

[quote]They all saw Iraq as a threat.[/quote] We weren't talking pre-war, we're talking post-war that there were NO WMD.

[quote]Clinton was the one who made "regime change" in Iraq a policy issue.[/quote]Why do I care about Clinton? Since when did I ever mention Clinton, I'm against his strategies too. What does dropping random bombs in Iraq do for the Iraqi people? What did the sanctions do for Iraq? Did the sanctions really penetrate Saddam? What the sanctions against Iraq did do is cause over a million people to die, most were babies and little children. Most died before their minds could grasp the concept of being Iraqi, being born Iraqi and dying because of being Iraqi. The sanctions never ever influenced Saddam's mind, for the least bit but its a horrible policy that was made, that hurt the children of Iraq and I'd never support such an action, so you should think twice about me ever supporting Billary Clinton and their policies.

[quote]What's falsified? Tell us.[/quote] Those same so called "documents" that Mr. knights propaganda is based upon, has been struct down by the Bush administration themselves and is only used by the Neo-republicans to justify their actions. Mr. Bush isn't claiming it, just those that don't know how to justify such a war and would rather ignore everything against it.

[quote]The mass graves?[/quote]You shouldn't be talking about "mass graves" in regards to Saddam until you understand the full situation. Do you really know much about the imposed war? Do you even know what the imposed war is? Let me give you a history lesson since I'd family members in Iran during the imposed war. The US backed Shah of Iran, was rejected by the Iranians because of his militant approach towards modernization. He'd put the western agenda above those of his own country. He'd women that desired to dress modestly [hijab] persecuted, he'd made laws against refering to Iran as "persia", his respect for the people was gone. After those in Iran had denounced the western puppet government, the west retaliated, giving Saddam Weapons of Mass Destruction to fight Iranians with, in which Sadddam's reward was a piece of land that had better access to the Persian gulf.

SADDAM HAD THE UNITED STATES GOV APPROVAL TO USE WMD AGAINST IRANIANS. I'm talking about women and children, that were murdered by Saddam with poison gas that was given to him by the United States. The United States was angry at Iran but that gives them no right to go giving Saddam WMD and telling him to use them against Iran. How would you feel if that was your child, who's tiny lungs were filled with toxic gases? Over a million Iranians were killed during that war, in which Saddam didn't prevail, despite having WMD. Do you really want to talk about a "mass grave"? Because that mass grave of Iranians killed is on the Regan Administrations hands, it's on Donald Rumsfeilds hands, and everyone else that was involved in the mass genocide of Iranians. Even after Saddam killed thousands of Kurds in Iraq, guess who didn't condemn his actions but promised loyalty to him? You guessed it, the United States.

[quote]Saddam's financing Islamofascism?[/quote] The United States gave billions of dollars to Osama Bin Laden, so why is it alright for the Regan and Bush 41 administrations to give financing to such groups but not Saddam? That's a completely contradiction. Who's put the Regan Administration and the Bush 41 Administration on trail for their war crimes?

[quote]Good job, Reza - in sticking up for Islamofascism[/quote] As others pointed out in the other thread, you attempt to slander everyone that doesn't go along with your political agenda.

Reza

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]The above news article is base on an official document from the National Ground Intelligence Center.[/quote]Have you yourself seen these so called "official documents"? Probably not... you littering this board with these propaganda articles is no different then Budge doing so with anti-Roman Catholic Articles. You can get websites that say whatever you'd like and 10,000 others that disagree with you but again I ask the questions

1.) Have you ever been a soldier
2.) Do you have relatives that are Iraqis?

[quote]You were wrong about that, I post the quote to show you[/quote]

I wasn't wrong, Bush's sources [and Bush himself] has proclaimed that there were NO WMD. In regards to "insurgents", of course Mr. Bush isn't going to agree with me, that wasn't the point that I'd made, Mr. Bush is still trying to win approval for the war but again among Bush's tactics to win approval, isn't that Iraq had WMD because even he admits that there were none and everyone else that suggests that there were is wrong.

[quote]When you mention President of the USA, do you mean...
The first President Bush? President Clinton? President GW Bush?[/quote]Do you read my posts? I'd clearly said Mr. Bush [and the context pointed to G.W.Bush].

[quote]They all saw Iraq as a threat.[/quote] We weren't talking pre-war, we're talking post-war that there were NO WMD.

[quote]Clinton was the one who made "regime change" in Iraq a policy issue.[/quote]Why do I care about Clinton? Since when did I ever mention Clinton, I'm against his strategies too. What does dropping random bombs in Iraq do for the Iraqi people? What did the sanctions do for Iraq? Did the sanctions really penetrate Saddam? What the sanctions against Iraq did do is cause over a million people to die, most were babies and little children. Most died before their minds could grasp the concept of being Iraqi, being born Iraqi and dying because of being Iraqi. The sanctions never ever influenced Saddam's mind, for the least bit but its a horrible policy that was made, that hurt the children of Iraq and I'd never support such an action, so you should think twice about me ever supporting Billary Clinton and their policies.

[quote]What's falsified? Tell us.[/quote] Those same so called "documents" that Mr. knights propaganda is based upon, has been struct down by the Bush administration themselves and is only used by the Neo-republicans to justify their actions. Mr. Bush isn't claiming it, just those that don't know how to justify such a war and would rather ignore everything against it.

[quote]The mass graves?[/quote]You shouldn't be talking about "mass graves" in regards to Saddam until you understand the full situation. Do you really know much about the imposed war? Do you even know what the imposed war is? Let me give you a history lesson since I'd family members in Iran during the imposed war. The US backed Shah of Iran, was rejected by the Iranians because of his militant approach towards modernization. He'd put the western agenda above those of his own country. He'd women that desired to dress modestly [hijab] persecuted, he'd made laws against refering to Iran as "persia", his respect for the people was gone. After those in Iran had denounced the western puppet government, the west retaliated, giving Saddam Weapons of Mass Destruction to fight Iranians with, in which Sadddam's reward was a piece of land that had better access to the Persian gulf.

SADDAM HAD THE UNITED STATES GOV APPROVAL TO USE WMD AGAINST IRANIANS. I'm talking about women and children, that were murdered by Saddam with poison gas that was given to him by the United States. The United States was angry at Iran but that gives them no right to go giving Saddam WMD and telling him to use them against Iran. How would you feel if that was your child, who's tiny lungs were filled with toxic gases? Over a million Iranians were killed during that war, in which Saddam didn't prevail, despite having WMD. Do you really want to talk about a "mass grave"? Because that mass grave of Iranians killed is on the Regan Administrations hands, it's on Donald Rumsfeilds hands, and everyone else that was involved in the mass genocide of Iranians. Even after Saddam killed thousands of Kurds in Iraq, guess who didn't condemn his actions but promised loyalty to him? You guessed it, the United States.

[quote]Saddam's financing Islamofascism?[/quote] The United States gave billions of dollars to Osama Bin Laden, so why is it alright for the Regan and Bush 41 administrations to give financing to such groups but not Saddam? That's a completely contradiction. Who's put the Regan Administration and the Bush 41 Administration on trail for their war crimes?

[quote]Good job, Reza - in sticking up for Islamofascism[/quote] As others pointed out in the other thread, you attempt to slander everyone that doesn't go along with your political agenda.

Reza

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1226943' date='Apr 2 2007, 03:30 AM']Have you yourself seen these so called "official documents"? Probably not... you littering this board with these propaganda articles is no different then Budge doing so with anti-Roman Catholic Articles. You can get websites that say whatever you'd like and 10,000 others that disagree with you but again I ask the questions[/quote]

The NGIC report can be downloaded directly and viewed [url="http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/DNILetter.pdf"]here[/url]. NOTE DIRECT DOWNLOAD LINK TO ORIGINAL DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENT ON HOUSE.GOV, thats the United States House of Representatives, Reza. The Wallstreet Journal is now in the propaganda business wow, I had no idea. Budge doesn't post things from credible sites, The Wallstreet Journal is a credible site, I'm sorry you dont understand that. If 10,000 people dont believe the truth, that doesn't make the untruth true, the fact remains WMD's have indeed been found.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1226943' date='Apr 2 2007, 03:30 AM']1.) Have you ever been a soldier
2.) Do you have relatives that are Iraqis?[/quote]


1) Irrelevant
2) Irrelevant, and of none your business.



[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1226943' date='Apr 2 2007, 03:30 AM']I wasn't wrong, Bush's sources [and Bush himself] has proclaimed that there were NO WMD. In regards to "insurgents", of course Mr. Bush isn't going to agree with me, that wasn't the point that I'd made, Mr. Bush is still trying to win approval for the war but again among Bush's tactics to win approval, isn't that Iraq had WMD because even he admits that there were none and everyone else that suggests that there were is wrong.[/quote]

Yes you were wrong. You just change your argument when your proved wrong.

[color="#8B0000"]Anomaly: Is it really a civil war when it's other Countries sending in arms and fighters? [b]Or is it really outside opportunists that are attempting to take advantage of the transition from Sadaam to Iraqi self-rule?[/b][/color]
[color="#FF0000"]
Reza: If you're not aware, [b]its not fighters from other countries[/b], rather it's Sunni and Shiites that are both Iraqi citizens.[/color]

And the NGIC is part of the Bush administration, they proclaim 500 WMDs have been found. Whether Bush himself proclaims the fact that WMD's have been found or not, doesn't change the fact they have been found.


[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1226943' date='Apr 2 2007, 03:30 AM']We weren't talking pre-war, we're talking post-war that there were NO WMD.[/quote]

US Intelligence does not agree with this, WMDs have been found.


[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1226943' date='Apr 2 2007, 03:30 AM']Those same so called "documents" that Mr. knights propaganda is based upon, has been struct down by the Bush administration themselves and is only used by the Neo-republicans to justify their actions. Mr. Bush isn't claiming it, just those that don't know how to justify such a war and would rather ignore everything against it.[/quote]

Your mixed up, these documents have never been "struck down" by the Bush administration. Sounds like your making up a conspiracy theory "Knights posting propaganda from the WSJ and neo-cons are falsifying iraqi documents"...


More propaganda from the Neo-republicans of the BBC. And US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, is part of the Bush administration.

[b][url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm"]US reveals Iraq nuclear operation[/url][/b]


The US has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month.

"This operation was a major achievement," said US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a statement.

He said it would keep "potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists".

Along with [b][size=4]1.77 tons of enriched uranium[/size][/b], about 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" were also removed.

The material was taken from a former nuclear research facility on 23 June, after being packaged by 20 experts from the US Energy Department's secret laboratories.

It was flown out of the country aboard a military plane in a joint operation with the Department of Defense, and is being stored temporarily at a Department of Energy facility.

The United Nations nuclear watchdog - the International Atomic Energy Agency - and Iraqi officials were informed ahead of the operation, which happened ahead of the 28 June handover of sovereignty.

'Dirty bomb'?

The explosion of a so-called "dirty bomb" in a city by a terrorist group is a major concern of Western intelligence agencies.

Rather than causing a nuclear explosion, a "dirty bomb" would see radioactive material combined with a conventional explosive - probably causing widespread panic and requiring a large clean-up operation.

US troops look down on the facility at al Tuwaitha
Iraq's biggest nuclear complex was the Tuwaitha site south of Baghdad

Uranium would not be suitable for fashioning such a device, though appropriate material may have been among the other unidentified "sources".

Mr Abraham added that the operation had also prevented the material falling into the hands "of countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons".

The 1,000 "sources" evacuated in the Iraqi operation included a "huge range" of radioactive items used for medical purposes and industrial purposes, a spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration told AP news agency.

Bryan Wilkes said much of the material was "in powdered form, which is easily dispersed".

The IAEA has been among organisations which have warned that many countries have lost track of radioactive material.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]The NGIC report can be downloaded directly and viewed here. NOTE DIRECT DOWNLOAD LINK TO ORIGINAL DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENT ON HOUSE.GOV, thats the United States House of Representatives, Reza. The Wallstreet Journal is now in the propaganda business wow, I had no idea. Budge doesn't post things from credible sites, The Wallstreet Journal is a credible site, I'm sorry you dont understand that. If 10,000 people dont believe the truth, that doesn't make the untruth true, the fact remains WMD's have indeed been found.[/quote]Who says the wall street journal is a credible site? The Washington Post has said the opposite, yet is the washington post less credible? Notice also that the full document isn't at the link that you gave, rather it gives a few titles, it doesn't talk about their historic nature, nothing. This doesn't prove a single one of your claims, except for the fact that there are a few titles that appear to be alarming, but the whole document isn't declassified.

As I'd mentioned previously, Mr. Bush has even declared that WMD isn't and wasn't in Iraq, that was an intelligence failure. Until you can give the full document, not just these select three pages, it's pointless. I'm not sure if you're aware, but "official documents" aren't this simplified, EVER! There are dates, details and are very informative, this page doesn't tell much of anything. This could be a document discussing Operation Desert Storm, in which the only date given is when it was released to the public, not when the findings occured. We do know that Bush's own team of researchers found nothing though, that's a fact confirmed by the Bush Administration.

[quote]1) Irrelevant
2) Irrelevant, and of none your business.[/quote]

I guess it's pretty obvious that you've never been a soldier/aren't a soldier and you don't have relatives of Iraqi decent. You could have just said so, but then again that would be "discomforting" for you.

[quote]Yes you were wrong. You just change your argument when your proved wrong.

Anomaly: Is it really a civil war when it's other Countries sending in arms and fighters? Or is it really outside opportunists that are attempting to take advantage of the transition from Sadaam to Iraqi self-rule?

Reza: If you're not aware, its not fighters from other countries, rather it's Sunni and Shiites that are both Iraqi citizens.

And the NGIC is part of the Bush administration, they proclaim 500 WMDs have been found. Whether Bush himself proclaims the fact that WMD's have been found or not, doesn't change the fact they have been found.[/quote]I never said that Mr. Bush proclaimed that there was a civil war in Iraq, rather I'd said that Mr. Bush of course was saying that they were "insurgents" but also later [more reciently] made statements about Muqtadir Al-Sader's private Militia [the Mahdi Army], and that the country is being torn apart from him and others. I'm not sure if you're aware but Muqtadir Al-Sader isn't an insurgent. What I'd said is that Mr. Bush proclaimed that WMD aren't in Iraq.

[quote]Your mixed up, these documents have never been "struck down" by the Bush administration.[/quote] Sure they did, there were lots of rumors sponsored by media propaganda that WMD were found after the invasion of Iraq, later the record was set straight by miltary officials and the Bush Administration that NO WMD WERE FOUND! You're just trying to retrieve false information and pretending that it's new information. I'm very much liking your BBC article, since when was the BBC credible? Even Bill O'reilly has said that the BBC isn't credible, you're fishing for whatever you can find that supports your agenda aren't you?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1226953' date='Apr 2 2007, 05:06 AM']Who says the wall street journal is a credible site? The Washington Post has said the opposite, yet is the washington post less credible? Notice also that the full document isn't at the link that you gave, rather it gives a few titles, it doesn't talk about their historic nature, nothing. This doesn't prove a single one of your claims, except for the fact that there are a few titles that appear to be alarming, but the whole document isn't declassified.[/quote]

The document states...

"--Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

--Despite many efforts to locate and destory Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

And it continues I suggest other readers to read it, decide for yourself.

Anyone reading the document knows it backs my claims and counters yours. Not enough for you? Tough its still an official document which states reality, WMD have been found in Iraq and are still believed to be in Iraq.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1226953' date='Apr 2 2007, 05:06 AM']As I'd mentioned previously, Mr. Bush has even declared that WMD isn't and wasn't in Iraq, that was an intelligence failure. Until you can give the full document, not just these select three pages, it's pointless. I'm not sure if you're aware, but "official documents" aren't this simplified, EVER! There are dates, details and are very informative, this page doesn't tell much of anything. This could be a document discussing Operation Desert Storm, in which the only date given is when it was released to the public, not when the findings occured. We do know that Bush's own team of researchers found nothing though, that's a fact confirmed by the Bush Administration.[/quote]

Its an partly unclassified official document of the United States, which states 500 WMD have been found. Three pages are all that is needed, you say no WMD were found, The United States Government/Army/NGIC Intelligence says otherwise. And the Bush Administration, claims 1.77 tons of enriched uranium have been found in Iraq, enriched uranium is an WMD.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1226953' date='Apr 2 2007, 05:06 AM']I guess it's pretty obvious that you've never been a soldier/aren't a soldier and you don't have relatives of Iraqi decent. You could have just said so, but then again that would be "discomforting" for you. [/quote]

And I [b]know[/b] this is irrelevant, and [b]none[/b] of you business. But, you know nothing of me, or my family. You should not make a claims [b]when you know nothing[/b], and it being irrelevant.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1226953' date='Apr 2 2007, 05:06 AM']I never said that Mr. Bush proclaimed that there was a civil war in Iraq, rather I'd said that Mr. Bush of course was saying that they were "insurgents" but also later [more reciently] made statements about Muqtadir Al-Sader's private Militia [the Mahdi Army], and that the country is being torn apart from him and others. I'm not sure if you're aware but Muqtadir Al-Sader isn't an insurgent. What I'd said is that Mr. Bush proclaimed that WMD aren't in Iraq.[/quote]

But you did said referring to insurgents "its not fighters from other countries", that was wrong, in reality many of the insurgents are from and support by Iran and Syria. I continue to say Bush's sayings do not override reality, WMD have been found.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1226953' date='Apr 2 2007, 05:06 AM']Sure they did, there were lots of rumors sponsored by media propaganda that WMD were found after the invasion of Iraq, later the record was set straight by miltary officials and the Bush Administration that NO WMD WERE FOUND! You're just trying to retrieve false information and pretending that it's new information. I'm very much liking your BBC article, since when was the BBC credible? Even Bill O'reilly has said that the BBC isn't credible, you're fishing for whatever you can find that supports your agenda aren't you? [/quote]


Propaganda this propaganda that blah blah blah, I aint fishing honey, I show documents and news articles that quote US officials which state WMDs have been found, all you can do is state your opinion, the opinion of others, and charge and cry propaganda!

1.77 tons of enriched uranium have been found in Iraq, enriched uranium is an WMD. Bill O'reilly? So what, more opinion on your part.

Edited April 2, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

Also Reza even if Bush did say WMD's have been found and/or still in Iraq, you wouldnt believe him anyway. It would just be more propaganda.

Edited April 2, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1226960' date='Apr 2 2007, 04:49 AM']The document states...

"--Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

--Despite many efforts to locate and destory Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

And it continues I suggest other readers to read it, decide for yourself.

[b]As I'd mentioned it's not an "official document" as the full document hasn't been declassified. As a matter of fact it doesn't state the nature of the document or even what the document was [memo, briefing, etc]. You don't know what the full document says, as only 3 pages have been declassified.[/b]

Anyone reading the document knows it backs my claims and counters yours. Not enough for you? Tough its still an official document which states reality, WMD have been found in Iraq and are still believed to be in Iraq.

[b]It's not an official document and you don't even know what the full document says. The bush admin declassified a document title during the 9-11 commission, under oath [it was Condi Rice to be exact] that said "Bin Laden Determined to attack inside of the united states". Most read that article as "oh carp, this was an official FBI warning" but as Condi Rice pointed out, it was a historical memo that didn't suggest that the Bush admin do anything. Now there are those that use that to suggest that the bush admin was given warning but did nothing, there are others that suggest it was historical information, there are others that don't jump to conclusions because the full memo hasn't been declassified, just the title [as just a few titles on your document have been declassified]. It doesn't prove nothing.[/b]

Three pages are all that is needed, you say no WMD were found, The United States Government/Army/NGIC Intelligence says otherwise. And the Bush Administration, claims 1.77 tons of enriched uranium have been found in Iraq, enriched uranium is an WMD.

[b]No, as I'd pointed out above, you don't have the full document, don't know the nature of the document and don't know what kind of document it was [as the inital page says that it was a request by somebody], so you don't know if it proves your point or not. It doesn't prove a single thing, except that it could be fact or it could be assumption, it could be lots of different things. Given that you don't have experience in the military, its obvious that you'd jump to such a conclusion. As Bush has readdressed over and over and over again, as has his admin, NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND IN IRAQ.[/b]

And I [b]know[/b] this is irrelevant, and [b]none[/b] of you business. But, you know nothing of me, or my family. You should not make a claims [b]when you know nothing[/b], and it being irrelevant.

[b]It is my business, as your posts reflect your lack of knowledge on both grounds.[/b]

But you did said referring to insurgents "its not fighters from other countries", that was wrong, in reality many of the insurgents are from and support by Iran and Syria.

Surely I'd said that those causing problems in Iraq aren't insurgents, what's your point? General Abizaid [the leading general in Iraq for most of the war] said the same thing. Does that mean that General Abizaid was lying? Does that mean that you know more then those that have Iraqi relatives and more then the generals in Iraq? General Abizaid [during his testimony before congress] even said that every general handling the situation in Iraq agrees with him, as he'd spoken to them personally. Insurgents are those that are foreign, Iran doesn't need to send foreign fighters, they have 1/3rd of the country with them [the shiites]. Iran has Muqtadir Al-Sadr, Ayatollah Sistanti and others, they don't need to send "insurgents". As I'd mentioned, of that 1/3rd most shiites have family in Iran, therefore that doesn't make their family "insurgent" but participats in a civil war.

I continue to say Bush's sayings do not override reality, WMD have been found.

[b]What reality? A reality that you don't know what you're talking about? That you quote media sources primarily and document titles that are less then even remotely declassified. Three pages of a possible 900+ pages and you think it proves your point? No it doesn't, if it did prove WMD [as you claimed that this "evidence" came from the Bush Administrations files], Mr. Bush would be using it to boost his aproval rating, as not to go down as a bad president.[/b]

Propaganda this propaganda that blah blah blah, I aint fishing honey, I show documents and news articles that quote US officials which state WMDs have been found, all you can do is state your opinion, the opinion of others, and charge and cry propaganda!

[b]No you do word searches on google and other search engines to find whatever you can to go along with your agenda.[/b]

1.77 tons of enriched uranium have been found in Iraq, enriched uranium is an WMD. Bill O'reilly? So what, more opinion on your part.

[b]The point is that everyone but you can accept that NO WMD WERE FOUND IN IRAQ. Mr. Bush, nearly every conservative talk show host, and everyone else that can accept reality. Keep doing your word searches as long as you'd like, it doesn't prove nothing. Quoting a half an article is what got the US involved in Iraq to begin with, if they hadn't had used such false evidence, this war wouldn't be going on right now.[/b]

Also Reza even if Bush did say WMD's have been found and/or still in Iraq, you wouldnt believe him anyway. It would just be more propaganda.

[b]You'd be surprised, I'd believe him if credible evidence was provided, not just random sentences that could be put in any context. I'm sure that if Mr. Bush found the smoking gun, we'd all know about it and the evidence would be proven true, so what would there be not to believe?[/b][/quote]

Edited April 2, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Anomaly]

Reza,
I just wanted to repeat that you are not the only one with family in Iraq. I had mentioned that earlier, but you seem to have missed that. They seem to have a different opinion then you do.

[Red Knight]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1225558' date='Apr 1 2007, 03:58 AM']I would also like to add
Saying that there are WMD is to still assume the theories of "the yellow cake" and "aluminum tubes" [/quote]

I have spoken with an individual, who will remain nameless due to continuing operations, who has personally seen WMD in Iraq. This was as early as 2003.

There WAS WMD in Iraq and it was found by US Soldiers.

Why this wasn't headline news illustrates a certain bias in the media.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1226973' date='Apr 2 2007, 06:30 AM']Reza,
I just wanted to repeat that you are not the only one with family in Iraq. I had mentioned that earlier, but you seem to have missed that. They seem to have a different opinion then you do.[/quote]

You're saying that you have family in Iraq?

[quote]have spoken with an individual, who will remain nameless due to continuing operations, who has personally seen WMD in Iraq. This was as early as 2003.[/quote] So you're saying that the top generals in iraq and Mr. Bush don't know about this? That's weird.

Edited April 2, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1226953' date='Apr 2 2007, 05:06 AM']As I'd mentioned it's not an "official document" as the full document hasn't been declassified. As a matter of fact it doesn't state the nature of the document or even what the document was [memo, briefing, etc]. You don't know what the full document says, as only 3 pages have been declassified.
[b]
It is not an unofficial document, its an official document partly declassified by the US government, the 3 pages counter your flawed claim and opinion that no WMD's have been found.[/b]


It's not an official document and you don't even know what the full document says.
[b]
I know it says the 500 WMDs have been found which were from the pre-gulf war era, filed and unfiled. [/b]

The bush admin declassified a document title during the 9-11 commission, under oath [it was Condi Rice to be exact] that said "Bin Laden Determined to attack inside of the united states". Most read that article as "oh carp, this was an official FBI warning" but as Condi Rice pointed out, it was a historical memo that didn't suggest that the Bush admin do anything. Now there are those that use that to suggest that the bush admin was given warning but did nothing, there are others that suggest it was historical information, there are others that don't jump to conclusions because the full memo hasn't been declassified, just the title [as just a few titles on your document have been declassified]. It doesn't prove nothing.
[b]
None of that proves that the official document partly declassified by the US government/NGIC is not official, your points are off topic, the document you speak of is not the NGIC document it does not prove it to be unoffical. [/b]

No, as I'd pointed out above, you don't have the full document, don't know the nature of the document and don't know what kind of document it was [as the inital page says that it was a request by somebody], so you don't know if it proves your point or not. It doesn't prove a single thing, except that it could be fact or it could be assumption, it could be lots of different things. Given that you don't have experience in the military, its obvious that you'd jump to such a conclusion. As Bush has readdressed over and over and over again, as has his admin, NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND IN IRAQ.

[b]Whats there says 500 WMDs have been found both "filed and unfiled [u]pre-Gulf War[/u] chemical munitions" This gives the nature of what kind of WMDs were found, and what date they come from, the pre-Gulf war era when Saddam was ordered to destroy them, which were weapons that were "filed", which he did not destroy, even "unfilled" weapons were found which Saddam did not file.[/b]

It is my business, as your posts reflect your lack of knowledge on both grounds.

[b]The hell it is, and again [u]you know nothing[/u]. Do not make this another personal debate. Your wasting time, you will never know, what you know on this is nothing, nothing at all, and that is how it will remain.[/b]

Surely I'd said that those causing problems in Iraq aren't insurgents, what's your point? General Abizaid [the leading general in Iraq for most of the war] said the same thing. Does that mean that General Abizaid was lying? Does that mean that you know more then those that have Iraqi relatives and more then the generals in Iraq? General Abizaid [during his testimony before congress] even said that every general handling the situation in Iraq agrees with him, as he'd spoken to them personally. Insurgents are those that are foreign, Iran doesn't need to send foreign fighters, they have 1/3rd of the country with them [the shiites]. Iran has Muqtadir Al-Sadr, Ayatollah Sistanti and others, they don't need to send "insurgents". As I'd mentioned, of that 1/3rd most shiites have family in Iran, therefore that doesn't make their family "insurgent" but participats in a civil war.

[b]Your statement I quoted was wrong, lets move on...[/b]


What reality? A reality that you don't know what you're talking about? That you quote media sources primarily and document titles that are less then even remotely declassified. Three pages of a possible 900+ pages and you think it proves your point? No it doesn't, if it did prove WMD [as you claimed that this "evidence" came from the Bush Administrations files], Mr. Bush would be using it to boost his aproval rating, as not to go down as a bad president.

[b]Would he? Or would he be force to debate it every day with people like you that refuse to believe reality? Which would not boost his approval rating, Bush doesnt care about his approval rating anyway, his on record on that matter. There would just be a continued drum beat that he is a lier.
[/b]


No you do word searches on google and other search engines to find whatever you can to go along with your agenda.
[b]
You accuse everything that does not agree with your flawed opinion as being propaganda. Thats nice and all, what does that mean? Are these reporters lying? Are the US officials which are quoted lying too? Either the reporters and US officials are telling the truth, or they are lying when they state 1.77 tons of enriched uranium have been found it iraq.[/b]



The point is that everyone but you can accept that NO WMD WERE FOUND IN IRAQ. Mr. Bush, nearly every conservative talk show host, and everyone else that can accept reality. Keep doing your word searches as long as you'd like, it doesn't prove nothing. Quoting a half an article is what got the US involved in Iraq to begin with, if they hadn't had used such false evidence, this war wouldn't be going on right now.

[b][u]Again ether US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, the reporters, the NGIC, and other US officals are lying or they are telling the truth.[/u][/b]

You'd be surprised, I'd believe him if credible evidence was provided, not just random sentences that could be put in any context. I'm sure that if Mr. Bush found the smoking gun, we'd all know about it and the evidence would be proven true, so what would there be not to believe?

[b]My point exactly, if the president stood by the evidence we have now, which you refute, you would not believe him. Any reasonable person which reads this debate and the NGIC report, and news articles knows they refute your claims. The smoking gun is 1.77 tons of enriched uranium.[/b][/quote]

Edited April 2, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1225621' date='Apr 1 2007, 07:36 AM']Sorry pal, I do have family living in Mosul and Bagdhad right now, and have been living there for genertaions. My sister married into an Iraqi famil before the first Gulf War. Quite frankly, I consider your comments and opinions quite biased, myopic, and without reason or logic.[/quote]

[ironmonk]

[quote name='T-Bone' post='1223533' date='Mar 31 2007, 01:14 AM']Three options.[/quote]

There are more than three options.

It seems that many people are quick to forget, and it's understandable why because of the media and their agenda.

We helped Iran in the 70's... Iran was a free democracy and we left.... what happened? The current madmen took over because we pulled out early. Establishing a country with a military to take care of itself takes ten to twenty years. Men must be trained.

Also, we need a strong foothold in the Middle East. Just like with South Korea and in Germany. We must learn and know our history, or be doomed to repeat it's follies.

Saddam openly supported terrorism on innocent people. Saddam had WMDs.

People need to stop being closed minded, pay attention to the facts, and read the articles.

The Iraq people need us... It is unholy to use their lives as a political tool as many in office and on TV are doing. These people have it worse than the poor living on our streets. Those of you who are against helping some of the poorest on our planet to have better lives, with some sense of security from terrorists who want to rule over them, keep screaming 'pull out'.


Saddam openly paid the parents of suicide bombers $10,000 U.S., and then near the last few years of his terror he increased the payments to $25,000 - if Jews or Americans where killed... he openly made these offers on television and had been making them for years.

[url="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1602317/posts"]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1602317/posts[/url]

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm[/url]

[url="http://newsbusters.org/node/7335"]http://newsbusters.org/node/7335[/url]

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/18/hussein.tapes/index.html?section=cnn_latest"]http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/18/...tion=cnn_latest[/url]

[quote]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein told his Cabinet in the mid- 1990s that the U.S. would fall victim to terrorists possessing weapons of mass destruction but that Iraq would not be involved, tapes released Saturday at an intelligence summit reveal.

Hussein also can be heard speaking with high-ranking Iraqi officials about deceiving United Nations inspectors looking into Iraq's weapons program, which his son-in-law, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, oversaw.

The tapes, which U.S. officials have confirmed are authentic, are part of a much larger cache of information on the nation's weapons programs. Six translators listened to the recordings for CNN. ([url="http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/18/hussein.tapes/index.html?section=cnn_latest"]Watch how the tapes show Hussein discussed terrorism with Cabinet -- 2:46[/url])[/quote]

[url="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml?s=lh"]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...3023.shtml?s=lh[/url]
[url="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/20/85636.shtml?s=ic"]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/...5636.shtml?s=ic[/url]
[url="http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf"]http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/docume.../s-2004-435.pdf[/url]
[url="http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6705"]http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6705[/url]

[url="http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/650/documentid/2563/history/3,2359,650,2563"]http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.htm...3,2359,650,2563[/url]

The issue is not if Saddam had WMD's... the issue is where are the WMD's.


Please people, stop being so close minded to the facts, millions of innocent Iraqi's depend on us....

[b]Proverbs 31:8 [/b]
Open your mouth in behalf of the dumb, and for the rights of the destitute;
[b]9 [/b]Open your mouth, decree what is just, defend the needy and the poor!

[b]CCC 1927 [/b]
It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society. The common good of the whole human family calls for an organization of society on the international level.

[b]CCC 2267[/b]
"If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."

Our troops are in Iraq for the common good. Our troops in Iraq are not on the offensive, the war is over and has been over. Our troops in Iraq are trying to help train people who cannot defend themselves to be able to defend themselves. Our troops are in a defensive mode. Non-military means [b]are not [/b]sufficient to defend human lives. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Our troops are saving more lives than the number of lives that were dying before they entered Iraq.


God Bless,
ironmonk