Who's the worst leader?

[Mjolnirs]

Nice job luns101.

Again, what? Please explain to me how the kool-aid reference escaped me. Better yet, maybe you should tell me what you think the kool-aid reference is to you.

I think his Kool Aid reference was a reference to the Jim Jones cult. They all offed themselves, at Jimbo's command, by drinking cyanide laced Kool Aid in the late 1970's. I guess thinking that anyone in power could be anything but a lying scoundrel makes us both mindless sycophants who would rather deny our inmost desire for self preservation than embrace the obvious conspiracies in the world. But hey, you have to realize, I'm part of the right wing conspiracy and therefore can't be trusted so please disregard this message.

I can't see how you would have missed this reference. I mean you are over 35 aren't you.

43 and I completely got his reference, but he insinuated I didn't which is why I asked him to exlain what he was talking about. As evidence that I got his reference I corrected his use of Kool-aid and suggested he meant Flavor Aid which is what the Jim Jones' Peoples Temple drank when they committed mass suicide, not Kool-aid.

I too am right wing, have been since Reagan.

[unriggable]

I don't intend to convince Guiscard, Flashleg8, Unriggable, B.K. Barunt, or Stopper (sorry if I left any of the usuals out). To the few of you out there who are open-minded and don't just keep repeating "Bush lied and people died", I offer the other side.

We are all open minded in some ways, and very in denial in others. Don't generalize that way or I'll start linking you to the christianity thread

Anyways, do you have a link to show me what you are saying is true? I mean, I've seen facts that contradict each other presented in this thread, so I guess I have to start asking for references.

[CrazyAnglican]

43 and I completely got his reference, but he insinuated I didn't which is why I asked him to exlain what he was talking about. As evidence that I got his reference I corrected his use of Kool-aid and suggested he meant Flavor Aid which is what the Jim Jones' Peoples Temple drank when they committed mass suicide, not Kool-aid.

I too am right wing, have been since Reagan.

I stand corrected. Flavor Aid, hmmm, never heard that ..... cool.

[luns101]

I don't intend to convince Guiscard, Flashleg8, Unriggable, B.K. Barunt, or Stopper (sorry if I left any of the usuals out). To the few of you out there who are open-minded and don't just keep repeating "Bush lied and people died", I offer the other side.

We are all open minded in some ways, and very in denial in others. Don't generalize that way or I'll start linking you to the christianity thread:D

That is your privilege. I make no apologies for being a follower of Jesus Christ. Do what you need to do.

[Numia Kereru]

Boston George Jung is probably one of the worst dealers ever.

[Stopper]

Hoookay.

WMDs. We never found them. Umm, explain this to me, please?

1. United Nations Resolution 678 authorized the use of military force to eject Sadaam Hussein out of Kuwait after he killed and butchered their citizens. The United States along with a coaliton of countries used that force.

This is uncontentious.

2. United Nations Resolution 687 set the terms for the "cease-fire". It was not the end of the conflict, it was only a "cease-fire". 687 says that if Sadaam does not end his weapons of mass destruction program or attempts further hostilities, then 678 will be invoked again and military force resumed.

I can't check whether this is correct, but luckily this has no bearing on anything.

3. Sadaam Hussen tried to assasinate George Bush, Sr. in April of 1993 by using hidden explosives in a Toyota Landcruiser. The Kuwaitis recovered the Landcruiser. (I know, I know, "lefties", you don't believe there is any evidence to tie Hussein to that and it never happened, and even if it did...you would spout out something sarcastic like 'too bad they missed')

Highly contentious, but anyway irrelevant. Believe it or not, most people would not regard an old assassination attempt on an ex-president as a good reason to invade another country, what with the magnitude of death and destruction invading and failing to pacify a country entails.

4. George W. Bush went to the United Nations and presented his case against Sadaam Hussein's violations of UN Resolution 687. In addition to the U.S., the intelligence agencies of Germany, Russia, France, and England all said that Sadaam Hussein had WMD's. The United Nations passed Resolution #1441, which gave Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations". Hussein refused.

Most of this is uncontentious, except the bolded part. People keep repeating this, but I can't find anything anywhere to suggest that the intelligence agencies of Germany, Russia and France insisted he had weapons. We know, however, that British intelligence's opinion was heavily compromised by pressure by the government. I.e., it was bullshit, and was known to be at the time. Also, Hans Blix soon after went in to inspect for weapons, and found no evidence of any WMDs.

Oh, and 1441 was not a final ultimatum. It didn't give anyone legal authority to invade Iraq. This is why Britain was desperate to get another resolution passed before the invasion. It never got put forward, because it was known it would have been vetoed, which would have humiliated Britain.

5. The U.S. and a different coalition of countries "resumed" military force due to Hussein's non-compliance. We were victorious.

Not "resumed" but "started". And just because George W Bush went on an aircraft carrier wearing a silly flight suit to declare victory, does not mean that victory in any meaningful sense has been achieved.

6. Since the end of the 2nd use of major military force against Hussein over 500 chemical weapons have been found in Iraq containing sarin nerve agents and 'mustard' gas. Although these chemical weapons were not 'useable' they do prove that Sadaam Hussein was lying when he said he dismantled his chemical weapons program. I guess the UN inspectors aren't infallible.

Most people would say that having a chemical weapon that is 10 years past its best-before date is pretty much the same as dismantling it. They were useless. They did not constitute WMDs. My old spud-pellet gun is more dangerous.

7. Former Iraqi General Georges Sada tells how Sadaam Hussein transported WMD's from Iraq to Syria under the pretense of a humanitarian aid mission in 2002. (An irrigation dam collapsed in Zeyzoun, Syria in 2002).

Contradicted by the US's own Duelfer report.

8. Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, former southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia, has said that Sadaam Hussein gave logistical and material support to Palestinian militias. He also says that Hussein gave support to Al-Qaeda.

The bolded was contradicted by British and American intelligence very early on. British intelligence actually put the kibosh on it quickly, as I recall, because the idea that Saddam Hussein would give support to jihadists was so laughable that it might have undermined the case for war.

I think Saddam gave support to Palestinian militias, though. The USA gives a little bit more aid to Israel, though. Note the deliberate understatement in that last sentence.

9. We now know that the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, through satellite tracking, has said that WMD-related scraps have been tracked and shown to have been moved from June 2003 - June 2004 to countries such as Jordan. The UNMVIC stated that although Hussein's efforts to build unmanned ariel vehicles to deliver chemical/biological agents failed, he did attempt to contruct them.

Desperate clutching at straws.

10. The Iraq Survey Group concluded that although Iraq probably destroyed much of its WMD stockpiles, Hussein continued to research biological weapons by using human beings in the mid-1990's.

And what they didn't destroy, became unusable. I don't doubt Hussein authorised the use of human beings for biological research, I don't hold any brief for the man. He was a tyrant. Still, that didn't give the US the moral authority to invade Iraq, and cause even more death and destruction. 650,000 casualties!

Just admit it! The war was wrong - and the WMDs allegation was not a genuine mistake - it was an actual fabrication. The US (and British) governments misled everyone deliberately. The Press in both of these countries did not give these allegations the oversight that they should have received, and indeed, certain sections of the media just encouraged the jingoistic tub-thumping. The people in both of these countries have been lied to, duped and let down by their leaders. These leaders continue to make a bad situation worse. Stop supporting them!

[unriggable]

thank you, finally a voice of reason

No, it's just what you what to hear. Doesn't necessarily make Iraq invasion reasonable.

Even if all these US sanctions are true, that does not justify invasion. That would mean that we'd have to invade north korea and iran, because they didn't really cooperate with the UN either. Seriously, war is not the only option.

[Mjolnirs]

...the WMDs allegation was not a genuine mistake - it was an actual fabrication. The US (and British) governments misled everyone deliberately.

I absolutely do not agree with this and this is why many of us will never agree on this topic.

I was never a fan of Clinton, but when people accused him of launching the occasional air strike to get his “scandals” off of the front page, I never bought into it.

I just don’t have that governmental conspiracy bone.

[hendy]

mister steven harper hes a fag thats why

[unriggable]

mister steven harper hes a fag thats why

Oh! He likes men! That explains everything!

...douschebag.

[Guiscard]

mister steven harper hes a fag thats why

Oh yeh, homophobia, one of the many appropriate responses in a reasonably argued debate...

Can't believe we forgot that one guys!

[beezer]

Just admit it! The war was wrong - and the WMDs allegation was not a genuine mistake - it was an actual fabrication. The US (and British) governments misled everyone deliberately. The Press in both of these countries did not give these allegations the oversight that they should have received, and indeed, certain sections of the media just encouraged the jingoistic tub-thumping. The people in both of these countries have been lied to, duped and let down by their leaders. These leaders continue to make a bad situation worse. Stop supporting them!

Only in the world of left wing blogs, websites, chatrooms, and war protests could you possibly consider that Hussein didn't have WMD's. When all you hear every day is the constant negative drumbeat of "there were no WMD's" then when someone tries to tell you that we did find sarin and mustard gas, it's almost inconceivable.

It doesn't matter if they were "useable" or not. The fact is Hussein was violating the terms of the cease-fire and trying to build a nuclear program. Former Iraqi scientists have said as much.

When an agency or person testifies that WMD's were moved to other countries....they just can't simply bring themselves to even consider it. If they don't have "there were no WMD's" then what else do they have to fall back on?

[Stopper]

...the WMDs allegation was not a genuine mistake - it was an actual fabrication. The US (and British) governments misled everyone deliberately.

I absolutely do not agree with this and this is why many of us will never agree on this topic.

I was never a fan of Clinton, but when people accused him of launching the occasional air strike to get his “scandals” off of the front page, I never bought into it.

I just don’t have that governmental conspiracy bone.

Even if you refuse to believe that governments fabricate evidence to start wars - and that's hardly unprecedented - that still leaves you with the only other option - criminal incompetence.

[Guiscard]

Only in the world of left wing blogs, websites, chatrooms, and war protests could you possibly consider that Hussein didn't have WMD's. When all you hear every day is the constant negative drumbeat of "there were no WMD's" then when someone tries to tell you that we did find sarin and mustard gas, it's almost inconceivable.

It doesn't matter if they were "useable" or not. The fact is Hussein was violating the terms of the cease-fire and trying to build a nuclear program. Former Iraqi scientists have said as much.

When an agency or person testifies that WMD's were moved to other countries....they just can't simply bring themselves to even consider it. If they don't have "there were no WMD's" then what else do they have to fall back on?

Wow... you ignorant twat...

He really didn't have WMDs. I'll give you two OFFICIAL GOVERNMENTAL REPORTS... thats reports BY THE GOVERNMENTS WHO WOULD LIKE NOTHING MORE THAN TO PROVE THERE WERE WMDS AND SO VALIDATE THE WAR...

In the US, the Duelfer report (part of the Iraq Survey Group):

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."

And in the UK The Butler Report:

The Butler Review was published 14 July 2004.

he review was published on 14 July 2004. Its main conclusion was that key intelligence used to justify the war with Iraq has been shown to be unreliable. It claims that the Secret Intelligence Service did not check its sources well enough and sometimes relied on third hand reports. It criticises the use of the 45 minute claim in the 2002 dossier as "unsubstantiated", and says that there was an over-reliance on Iraqi dissident sources. It also comments that warnings from the Joint Intelligence Committee on the limitations of the intelligence were not made clear. Overall it said that "more weight was placed on the intelligence than it could bear", and that judgements had stretched available intelligence "to the outer limits".

It says that information from another country's intelligence service on Iraqi production of chemical and biological weapons was "seriously flawed", without naming the country. It says that there was no recent intelligence to demonstrate that Iraq was a greater threat than other countries, and that the lack of any success in the UNMOVIC finding WMDs should have prompted a re-think. It states that Tony Blair's policy towards Iraq shifted because of the attacks of September 11, 2001, not because of Iraq's weapons programme, and that the government's language left the impression that there was "fuller and firmer intelligence" than was the case.

Sounds like left-wing blogs and chatrooms to me...

Now ask yourself... can you think of any reason whatsoever why these government reports, both commissioned and accepted as truthful, well investigated and valid by both the Bush administration and the Blair government, would lie... Any reason at all... Our leaders are desperate to validate the Iraq war (and quite rightly), so why the hell would they 'hush up' any evidence of WMDs which was present?



(you can easily find the full reports online if you ant to educate yourself, but I severly doubt you will...)

[Stopper]

Only in the world of left wing blogs, websites, chatrooms, and war protests could you possibly consider that Hussein didn't have WMD's. When all you hear every day is the constant negative drumbeat of "there were no WMD's" then when someone tries to tell you that we did find sarin and mustard gas, it's almost inconceivable.

It doesn't matter if they were "useable" or not. The fact is Hussein was violating the terms of the cease-fire and trying to build a nuclear program. Former Iraqi scientists have said as much.

When an agency or person testifies that WMD's were moved to other countries....they just can't simply bring themselves to even consider it. If they don't have "there were no WMD's" then what else do they have to fall back on?

Rest assured, I didn't have an internet connection or active political contacts during the run-up to the war - I'm slow to move with the times, and didn't get a computer for quite a while. Reading the mainstream press was all I, and lots of other people, needed to smell bullshit.

As to the rest of what you're saying - look, you can give it up now. The Bush administration did, long ago. They don't need you to believe it anymore, so you can drop it.

[Backglass]

When all you hear every day is the constant negative drumbeat of "there were no WMD's" then when someone tries to tell you that we did find sarin and mustard gas, it's almost inconceivable.

Ah yes, the rusty old shells they found. Even the Defense Department themselves said "the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age", which they determined to be pre-1991. "We were able to determine that [the missile] is, in fact, degraded and ... is consistent with what we would expect from finding a munition that was dated back to pre-Gulf War".

But hey...ya found em! Thats objective #2 right? Remove Hussein (Check), eliminate WMD's (Check). WHY are we still there wasting lives and money?

BTW, we recently zoomed passed the $400,000,000,000.00 mark according to congressional appropriations. To give you an idea exactly how much that is, instead we could have provided over nineteen million students complete four-year university scholarships. http://www.CostOfWar.com

[luns101]

Only in the world of left wing blogs, websites, chatrooms, and war protests could you possibly consider that Hussein didn't have WMD's. When all you hear every day is the constant negative drumbeat of "there were no WMD's" then when someone tries to tell you that we did find sarin and mustard gas, it's almost inconceivable.

It doesn't matter if they were "useable" or not. The fact is Hussein was violating the terms of the cease-fire and trying to build a nuclear program. Former Iraqi scientists have said as much.

When an agency or person testifies that WMD's were moved to other countries....they just can't simply bring themselves to even consider it. If they don't have "there were no WMD's" then what else do they have to fall back on?

Wow... you ignorant twat...

Thanks for the support guys, but I think you're missing the point. The leftists here will never be convinced that anyone could be as evil as George W. Bush or another US republican president. By the way, Bill Clinton also said that Iraq had WMD's

Stop trying to convince the leftists here. They are totally committed to their cause of Bush-bashing. The next time a republican is elected as president of the US then that person will become the most evil leader in the world. The same stuff they tried against Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. Instead focus on the open-minded.

Beezer, when someone can't win an argument they resort to name-calling. You were called a "twat". In other threads here I was called a "racist" and "muppet" for disagreeing with them. So, just take it in stride.

[Guiscard]

OK I'll take back the Twat bit...

I'm not even arguing that the governments lied, or that its a wrong war...

Just that the official government reports (authorised and supported by Bush) have proved there are no WMDs.

Do you not believe them?

Was there any 'Bush-bashing' in my post? Quote some if you can find it... Just empirical fact.

I'm sure your not gonna swing over and believe that the war in Iraq is immoral and fraudulent, and I'm really not trying to prove that here, but I just don't understand why you won't accept the findings of these reports which are considered definitive and final by both governments.

[b.k. barunt]

Because they are open minded and we are close minded.

[CrazyAnglican]

Because they are open minded and we are close minded.

Naaw. More like we're naive and you're paranoid I don't think any of us can claim to be open minded. It's highly overrated anyway. Who would we argue with?

[Mjolnirs]

...the WMDs allegation was not a genuine mistake - it was an actual fabrication. The US (and British) governments misled everyone deliberately.

I absolutely do not agree with this and this is why many of us will never agree on this topic.

I was never a fan of Clinton, but when people accused him of launching the occasional air strike to get his “scandals” off of the front page, I never bought into it.

I just don’t have that governmental conspiracy bone.

Even if you refuse to believe that governments fabricate evidence to start wars - and that's hardly unprecedented - that still leaves you with the only other option - criminal incompetence.

I do think there was incompetence. I think the evidence gathered was flawed and that whatever agency or agencies gathered said information is at fault. Now, do I believe that Bush knew the intel was flawed? No. There is no way that any president or world leader can 100% validate everything he is told. They have to rely on their sources to provide them with the best information possible. I think this is what happened. Bush, Blair and everyone else acted on intel that was wrong and/or outdated, but at the time they were sure it was true.

If the undercover narcotic detectives inform the police chief that a particular house is a meth lab, and the police chief (having no reason to doubt this information) sends in the SWAT team, and the house is not a meth lab, who is at fault?

[unriggable]

I do think there was incompetence. I think the evidence gathered was flawed and that whatever agency or agencies gathered said information is at fault. Now, do I believe that Bush knew the intel was flawed? No. There is no way that any president or world leader can 100% validate everything he is told. They have to rely on their sources to provide them with the best information possible. I think this is what happened. Bush, Blair and everyone else acted on intel that was wrong and/or outdated, but at the time they were sure it was true.

Does the name Joseph Wilson sound familiar to you? If what you are saying is true, then you are saying that GWBush was never told Iraq did not have WMDs. He sent Joseph Wilson to find out. He came back with reports saying Iraq did NOT have WMDs. He ignored them. In fact, he went so far as to say that Valerie Plame, Joseph's wife, sent him there on purpose and told him to tell the white house that there were no weapons. You've definitely heard this before. Anyways, GWBush knew, or at least heard very often, that there were no WMDs.

[Guiscard]

I genuinely think Blair did think they had the WMDs and that the whole 45 minute claim was true. It was the intelligence service that was to blame in the UK in my opinion.

[Stopper]

I genuinely think Blair did think they had the WMDs and that the whole 45 minute claim was true. It was the intelligence service that was to blame in the UK in my opinion.

Eh? I have absolutely no doubt of the ability of Blair to convince himself of the truth of something he knows to be a lie - double-think is an essential requisite for a successful politician. I don't think I'm being cynical here - it's just human nature, and we get the politicians we deserve.

Still, I can't see how you can shift the blame onto the intelligence services - if you ask me, it was quite the other way around - the government pressured the intelligence services to give the conclusions (and dossier!) they wanted to hear.

[Mjolnirs]

I do think there was incompetence. I think the evidence gathered was flawed and that whatever agency or agencies gathered said information is at fault. Now, do I believe that Bush knew the intel was flawed? No. There is no way that any president or world leader can 100% validate everything he is told. They have to rely on their sources to provide them with the best information possible. I think this is what happened. Bush, Blair and everyone else acted on intel that was wrong and/or outdated, but at the time they were sure it was true.

Does the name Joseph Wilson sound familiar to you? If what you are saying is true, then you are saying that GWBush was never told Iraq did not have WMDs. He sent Joseph Wilson to find out. He came back with reports saying Iraq did NOT have WMDs. He ignored them. In fact, he went so far as to say that Valerie Plame, Joseph's wife, sent him there on purpose and told him to tell the white house that there were no weapons. You've definitely heard this before. Anyways, GWBush knew, or at least heard very often, that there were no WMDs.

I have heard of him and this, but to be honest I will have to go read up on time lines. While I try to keep up on current events, dates of events and such are not easily retained. Fair enough?