Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

An invasion is only a pre-emptive strike if the invaded country was or
harbored a threat. Iraq was not and did not.

The invasion of Iraq was NOT a pre-emptive strike.



Right, Saddam ruled a magical kingdom that only wished the US well and in no
way harbored ill will for us kicking his ass out of Kuwait.

On Sep 5, 6:08 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



An invasion is only a pre-emptive strike if the invaded country was or
harbored a threat. Iraq was not and did not.

The invasion of Iraq was NOT a pre-emptive strike.

Right, Saddam ruled a magical kingdom that only wished the US well and in no
way harbored ill will for us kicking his ass out of Kuwait.

I disagree.

Saddam Hussein had no means with which to attack
the US, and knew from the bitter experience of the
Iraqi-Kuwaiti war that if he provoked us, the result would
be devastating. That is why when faced with imminent
invasion, he caved and allowed UNMOVIC full, unfettered
access, a level of cooperation characterized by Blix
as "unprecedented". Then we invaded anyhow.

What exactly do you think was pre-empted--a scud
missile attack on Chicago?

A threat to the US? He didn't even control the
Northern third of his own country! He couldn't
fly a military aircraft over or turn on a targetting
radar in two thirds of his won country without it
being shot down or blown up.

The worse he did outside of Iraq was promise
to pay some teenager's families if they went
over to Israel and blew himself up. That's pretty
foul but it pales in comparison to the actions
of the likes of Bashir.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

I disagree.

Saddam Hussein had no means with which to attack
the US, and knew from the bitter experience of the
Iraqi-Kuwaiti war that if he provoked us, the result would
be devastating. That is why when faced with imminent
invasion, he caved and allowed UNMOVIC full, unfettered
access, a level of cooperation characterized by Blix
as "unprecedented". Then we invaded anyhow.

What exactly do you think was pre-empted--a scud
missile attack on Chicago?

A threat to the US? He didn't even control the
Northern third of his own country! He couldn't
fly a military aircraft over or turn on a targetting
radar in two thirds of his won country without it
being shot down or blown up.

The worse he did outside of Iraq was promise
to pay some teenager's families if they went
over to Israel and blew himself up. That's pretty
foul but it pales in comparison to the actions
of the likes of Bashir.

FF

But he could have easlily moved some of those mobile labs of the type that
were found in Iraq and truck loads of WMD to Iran just as he bugged out most
of his air force during the '91 war.

In a previous article, Fred the Red Shirt said:
The worse he did outside of Iraq was promise
to pay some teenager's families if they went
over to Israel and blew himself up. That's pretty
foul but it pales in comparison to the actions
of the likes of Bashir.

And it's also something that our buddies the Saud Family also does.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
"Belligerent Design: The theory that life was put on this planet by an
external sentient force just to **** me off." - Lore Brand Comics

In a previous article, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net said:
But he could have easlily moved some of those mobile labs of the type
that were found in Iraq and truck loads of WMD to Iran just as he bugged

The only "mobile labs" that were found in Iraq were weather balloon launch
trucks.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
"Very sad life. Probably have very sad death. But at least there is
symmetry. Go, Go, Zathras take care."

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote

Any lingering doubt was gone by the time Baghdad fell. If Saddam
Hussein had any WMD, surely he would have used them by then.
What would he save them for, the next US invasion?

Perhaps he would not have used them because of the hinted threat that the US
might consider using tactical nukes if he did.
--
Jim in NC

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote

That is why when faced with imminent
invasion, he caved and allowed UNMOVIC full, unfettered
access, a level of cooperation characterized by Blix
as "unprecedented".

What? You mean delayed inspections, with truck convoys leaving the compound
before allowing the inspectors to enter?

That is full and unfettered access? Unprecedented cooperation.

Please.

That alone was enough for me to believe that he was hiding something. I'm
still not convinced that the WMD's didn't leave for neighboring terrorist
states.
--
Jim in NC

On Sep 5, 8:31 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:





I disagree.

Saddam Hussein had no means with which to attack
the US, and knew from the bitter experience of the
Iraqi-Kuwaiti war that if he provoked us, the result would
be devastating. That is why when faced with imminent
invasion, he caved and allowed UNMOVIC full, unfettered
access, a level of cooperation characterized by Blix
as "unprecedented". Then we invaded anyhow.

What exactly do you think was pre-empted--a scud
missile attack on Chicago?

A threat to the US? He didn't even control the
Northern third of his own country! He couldn't
fly a military aircraft over or turn on a targetting
radar in two thirds of his won country without it
being shot down or blown up.

The worse he did outside of Iraq was promise
to pay some teenager's families if they went
over to Israel and blew himself up. That's pretty
foul but it pales in comparison to the actions
of the likes of Bashir.

FF

But he could have easlily moved some of those
mobile labs of the type that were found in Iraq

The Vatican could also easily be hiding a massive cache of
WMD. There is no evidence for that, just like there is no
evidence that Iraq shipped WMD to Iran.

The mobile labs found in Iraq had nothing to do with WMD.
So it really doesn't matter if he moved any anywhere now
does it?

and truck loads of WMD to Iran just as he bugged out most
of his air force during the '91 war.

How did he make them, magic? How did he destroy the evidence
of their manufacture, magic? Why is it that we have Iraqi nuclear
scientists and rocket scientists who came forward with bits
and pieces leftover from Iraq's nuclear and missile programs
but not one person has produced any evidence of WMD being
made in Iraq in the ten years before the invasion?

And finally, although Saddam Hussein was not known for his
military brilliance, can you suggest why he would ship his
most fearsome weapons to an other country, putting them
out of his reach, on the eve of invasion when he was about
to need them more than ever?

Why not accept the simplest explanation consistent with the
facts?

--

FF

On Sep 5, 9:58 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote

That is why when faced with imminent
invasion, he caved and allowed UNMOVIC full, unfettered
access, a level of cooperation characterized by Blix
as "unprecedented".

What? You mean delayed inspections, with truck convoys leaving the compound
before allowing the inspectors to enter?

No, I do not.


That is full and unfettered access? Unprecedented cooperation.

Please.

Please tell us the DATE of the incident to which you refer.


That alone was enough for me to believe that he was hiding something. I'm
still not convinced that the WMD's didn't leave for neighboring terrorist
states.


--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Sep 5, 6:08 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

An invasion is only a pre-emptive strike if the invaded country was or
harbored a threat. Iraq was not and did not.

The invasion of Iraq was NOT a pre-emptive strike.

Right, Saddam ruled a magical kingdom that only wished the US well and in no
way harbored ill will for us kicking his ass out of Kuwait.

And it didn't try to assassinate an ex-president, either I suppose.
LOL.

I disagree.

Saddam Hussein had no means with which to attack
the US, and knew from the bitter experience of the
Iraqi-Kuwaiti war that if he provoked us, the result would
be devastating. That is why when faced with imminent
invasion, he caved and allowed UNMOVIC full, unfettered
access, a level of cooperation characterized by Blix
as "unprecedented". Then we invaded anyhow.

You have to stop getting your history from www.revisionist.com... ;-)

If you're REALLY interested in what UNMOVIC thought at the time of the
invasion, you should read their March 2003 report Not only does it
blow your "unfettered access" claim out of the water - errrr, air
(this is a flying ng, after all), but they stated that Iraq probably
had (among many other things) 10,000 liters of anthrax ready to
deploy... and the abilty to manufacture LOTS of WMD in short order in
one of their many "dual-use" facilities.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/docu...luster6mar.pdf

Of course, those whose "true religion" the above HISTORICAL FACTS
upset will get their knickers in a twist and call me names for having
the audacity to cite actual history instead of media spin.

What exactly do you think was pre-empted--a scud
missile attack on Chicago?

Read the report above.

A threat to the US? He didn't even control the
Northern third of his own country! He couldn't
fly a military aircraft over or turn on a targetting
radar in two thirds of his won country without it
being shot down or blown up.

The worse he did outside of Iraq was promise
to pay some teenager's families if they went
over to Israel and blew himself up. That's pretty
foul but it pales in comparison to the actions
of the likes of Bashir.

So if Iraq wasn't a threat, why did all the following people say:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17,
1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is
the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18,
1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser,
Feb, 18,1998

"[WE] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton,
signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D -
MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep.
Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright,
Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is
doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D,
FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D,
MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA),
Sept. 27, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John
F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10,
2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if
left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to
develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003