(http://tuftsjournal.tufts.edu/2008/12_1/images/fe2-1.jpg)
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr111/hlovett_2008/21nato1_span-articleLarge.jpg)
After 44 years, some things never change!
Yep, the super rich using the cops to beat up people. Since the first tribal leaders to the kings and the super rich. Nothing has changed. :wink: :smile: Total domination. :biggrin:
:no:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 21, 2012, 07:44:47 PM
:no:
Henry, did you see in the top picture the cop kneeing the guy in the nuts. Really fair play. How would you like me kneeing you in the balls. :biggrin: Now that I said that, that might be fun. :haha: :haha:
and those people were not doing anything wrong were they? just minding their own business, and the cops attacked them.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 22, 2012, 08:08:39 AM
and those people were not doing anything wrong were they? just minding their own business, and the cops attacked them.
Yep, the people were protesting, covered under the constitution and the cops attacked them. Henry you really missed a calling. You could have been a real asshole cop. :yes: :haha: :haha: :haha:
Quote from: The Troll on May 22, 2012, 08:41:07 AM
Yep, the people were protesting, covered under the constitution and the cops attacked them. Henry you really missed a calling. You could have been a real asshole cop. :yes: :haha: :haha: :haha:
Yes, they CAN do so, under our constitution...to do so PEACEFULLY.........these guys pushed their way, forward into the line, some hurling bottles and at one point a metal barricade at police.
The police did not just arbitrary start beating these guys like you have been brainwashed into thinking...and btw, protesters were carrying rocks, cans of spray paint, pry bars, urine-filled bottles and other "dangerous weapons."
You just LOVE the propaganda...don't ya.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-21/news/ct-met-nato-chicago-protests-0521-20120521_1_protesters-clash-hundred-protesters-andy-thayer
Quote from: Palehorse on May 21, 2012, 11:05:50 AM
After 44 years, some things never change!
Hardly a comparison....only 90 people were arrested this week with the protests, and most of them were released without charges being filed. In the 1968 protests there were 668 people arrested..with many injuries.
more propaganda.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 22, 2012, 09:30:39 AM
more propaganda.
Just because you learned a new word doesn't mean you have to use it in every post.
Quote from: Exterminator on May 22, 2012, 09:58:29 AM
Just because you learned a new word doesn't mean you have to use it in every post.
It seems to be the only appropriate word there is to explain some of the posts....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 22, 2012, 10:50:16 AM
It seems to be the only appropriate word there is to explain some of the posts....
Mostly your own. . . :razz:
That being said, please elaborate as to how my posting of this topic is propaganda. I merely pointed out that after 44 years, another major gathering results in the exact same results in Chicago.
After 44 years the methods and equipment have not changed very much at all. (With the exception of the addition of a visor to protect those administering a beating from blood-borne pathogens.)
Oh, and during the DNC in 1968 the Illinois National Guard was involved in inflicting a major portion of those injuries. . . All while carrying live rounds within the magazines of their weapons.
Quote from: Palehorse on May 22, 2012, 10:57:56 AM
Mostly your own. . . :razz:
That being said, please elaborate as to how my posting of this topic is propaganda. I merely pointed out that after 44 years, another major gathering results in the exact same results in Chicago.
After 44 years the methods and equipment have not changed very much at all. (With the exception of the addition of a visor to protect those administering a beating from blood-borne pathogens.)
Oh, and during the DNC in 1968 the Illinois National Guard was involved in inflicting a major portion of those injuries. . . All while carrying live rounds within the magazines of their weapons.
My point exactly...there is NO comparison between the two. Other than there was a protest, and one got a little rowdy and the other was nearly out of control.
Yet, you said some things never change. I think there IS quite a change. At least for the most part.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 22, 2012, 11:13:43 AM
My point exactly...there is NO comparison between the two. Other than there was a protest, and one got a little rowdy and the other was nearly out of control.
Yet, you said some things never change. I think there IS quite a change. At least for the most part.
Spin away. . . The visuals provide documentation that there are stark similarities. Cops, protestors, nightsticks, beatings, equipment, methods, etc, etc, etc.
Proving my position that you are socially conditioned to notice only differences instead of similarities; thusly possessing a pre disposal toward pessimism without first considering where there may be common ground.
Moreover, that one got "a little rowdy" and it resulted in the administration of beatings strikes me as a knee jerk reaction. Was that reaction based upon the failure to learn the lessons of the event 44 years ago, or just a result of machismo?
Quote from: Palehorse on May 22, 2012, 11:23:01 AM
Spin away. . . The visuals provide documentation that there are stark similarities. Cops, protestors, nightsticks, beatings, equipment, methods, etc, etc, etc.
Proving my position that you are socially conditioned to notice only differences instead of similarities; thusly possessing a pre disposal toward pessimism without first considering where there may be common ground.
Moreover, that one got "a little rowdy" and it resulted in the administration of beatings strikes me as a knee jerk reaction. Was that reaction based upon the failure to learn the lessons of the event 44 years ago, or just a result of machismo?
I'm not going to argue with you palehorse....the fact is this. 90 arrest vs. 668 arrests.
You can continue to put me down, as always. I'm done.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 22, 2012, 11:27:42 AM
I'm not going to argue with you palehorse....the fact is this. 90 arrest vs. 668 arrests.
You can continue to put me down, as always. I'm done.
:rolleyes:
Out comes the victim card. . . :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 22, 2012, 11:35:15 AM
:rolleyes:
Out comes the victim card. . . :rolleyes:
whatever.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 22, 2012, 12:11:25 PM
whatever.
Exactly. Whatever it takes to facilitate your skewed world view. I knew that already, so how about trying something new like thinking outside of the box your "counter-information" propagates?
I am astounded each and every day at the depths to which your methodology has sunk. You used to at least try to understand things once in awhile, but no more. Just the standard party line all the way. Even when the spin and fallacy of the words are proven to be false. . .
What do you think the police should have done, besides letting the protesters have free reign?
Quote from: Anne on May 22, 2012, 01:07:46 PM
What do you think the police should have done, besides letting the protesters have free reign?
They had 44 years to come up with something; Fail.
(As the pictures clearly demonstrate.)
I asked what you think they should have done, not what the police didn't do.
Quote from: Anne on May 22, 2012, 01:11:40 PM
I asked what you think they should have done, not what the police didn't do.
Does it say anywhere that I am a law enforcement professional? No. They are. That is what they get paid to do; find solutions that work within the laws of man and human-kind.
It's always easier to resort to brute force and corporal punishment as a means of beating human beings into submission.
Secondly, I will point out that I am not the one who took the topic down this path.
The pictures demonstrate the tactics have not progressed. That is not my fault, however the citizens of this country are quick to hold foreign countries accountable within a global venue for very similar treatment of their citizens. So, where is the accountability when we do it ourselves?
Quote from: Palehorse on May 22, 2012, 12:45:18 PM
Exactly. Whatever it takes to facilitate your skewed world view. I knew that already, so how about trying something new like thinking outside of the box your "counter-information" propagates?
I am astounded each and every day at the depths to which your methodology has sunk. You used to at least try to understand things once in awhile, but no more. Just the standard party line all the way. Even when the spin and fallacy of the words are proven to be false. . .
Palehorse, all I can do anymore is laugh. You have such a double standard. How am I wrong on this topic? What have I skewed?
I pointed out that there is 100% a difference between the two incidents. Sure both had cops with riot gear, but that is how they are supposed to address a rioting crowd. In 1968 there was hundred to thousands of cops and national guard. This time there was not. It was for the most part a fairly peaceful protest, with a handful of arrests.
I think PLENTY has changed over the last 44 years. I think it is YOU who has a skewed view. A few protesters started with some violence. What do you suggest the police should do, to handle these few, who had clear intentions of making a scene.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 22, 2012, 11:27:42 AM
I'm not going to argue with you palehorse....the fact is this. 90 arrest vs. 668 arrests.
You can continue to put me down, as always. I'm done.
The cop and authorities have arrested so many people it not a new thing. The people really don't care if they are arrested any more if they have a good cause. :4th3: It's a waste to time and the cops know it, that's why they love to beat and bloody the people up. I just love it how the cops will knee you in the balls if you try to brush by them. :rant:
What these people are protesting over is a good thing. you don't like it because they are after your super rich friends. :yes:
Quit crying :cry: Henry. If you want to continue to back all of your principals you just got to take the criticism. :biggrin:
Quote from: The Troll on May 22, 2012, 01:49:10 PM
The cop and authorities have arrested so many people it not a new thing. The people really don't care if they are arrested any more if they have a good cause. :4th3: It's a waste to time and the cops know it, that's why they love to beat and bloody the people up. I just love it how the cops will knee you in the balls if you try to brush by them. :rant:
What these people are protesting over is a good thing. you don't like it because they are after your super rich friends. :yes:
Quit crying :cry: Henry. If you want to continue to back all of your principals you just got to take the criticism. :biggrin:
tell me troll, how many did the cops "bloody" up? YOU don't have a clue. Do you? You just hate cops so you assume the worst.
when people start violence...throwing water bottles, rocks and urine........It is the polices job to secure the area, and restore peace.
Nobody told them to throw things......they did it on their own.
I will side with our men in blue ANYDAY over protesters who choose to throw rocks and bottles. If they get bloodied up...it is by their own choice. The did NOT have to throw things to demonstrate.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 22, 2012, 01:55:07 PM
I will side with our men in blue ANYDAY over protesters who choose to throw rocks and bottles. If they get bloodied up...it is by their own choice. The did NOT have to throw things to demonstrate.
Yet, as PH adeptly pointed out, you would be the first to criticize those who squashed the protests in Tiananmen Square.
Quote from: Exterminator on May 22, 2012, 02:47:29 PM
Yet, as PH adeptly pointed out, you would be the first to criticize those who squashed the protests in Tiananmen Square.
First Where did PH point out that I would be the first to criticize those who squashed the protests in Tiananmen Square?
Second, who in the hell is talking about Tiananmen Square?
All I did, was ONE thing. Point out that there is very little comparison between this years NATO protests and the 1968 DNC Protests.
I'm not critizing anyone except those who are throwing water bottles and urine at police then cry when they get hauled off to jail.
but, let's be clear here, I have said nothing for or against those who squashed the protests in Tiananmen Square.....lets not "skew" things here.
Quote from: Palehorse on May 22, 2012, 01:17:37 PM
...the citizens of this country are quick to hold foreign countries accountable within a global venue for very similar treatment of their citizens. So, where is the accountability when we do it ourselves?
Here and you're missing the larger point. Is there ever a time when it is justifiable or appropriate to elevate civil disobedience to violence? Be careful how you answer that.
Quote from: Exterminator on May 22, 2012, 03:52:06 PM
Here and you're missing the larger point. Is there ever a time when it is justifiable or appropriate to elevate civil disobedience to violence? Be careful how you answer that.
You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill.............AGAIN
I merely responded to the two pictures that ph posted...stating some things never change. It is my opinion that plenty has changed. The two events had different outcomes. The police kept things very civil...despite some honery protesters who threw things at them.
As far as you question, I like to think that violence is always a last resort for any reason....and it depends on who is justifing the situation.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 22, 2012, 01:55:07 PM
tell me troll, how many did the cops "bloody" up? YOU don't have a clue. Do you? You just hate cops so you assume the worst.
when people start violence...throwing water bottles, rocks and urine........It is the polices job to secure the area, and restore peace.
Nobody told them to throw things......they did it on their own.
I will side with our men in blue ANYDAY over protesters who choose to throw rocks and bottles. If they get bloodied up...it is by their own choice. The did NOT have to throw things to demonstrate.
How many of these terrible demonstraters have a helmet, a full face shield, a hard shield, bullet proof vest, shin guards, knee guards and steel toe storm trooper boots. Huhhhhhh? Plus being trained to use all of the deadly force there is. Huhhh?
Not many cops are injured compared with the people they come up against. :cry: :cry: :cry: for the Storm Trooper Cops. :cry:
Quote from: The Troll on May 22, 2012, 06:04:22 PM
How many of these terrible demonstraters have a helmet, a full face shield, a hard shield, bullet proof vest, shin guards, knee guards and steel toe storm trooper boots. Huhhhhhh? Plus being trained to use all of the deadly force there is. Huhhh?
Not many cops are injured compared with the people they come up against. :cry: :cry: :cry: for the Storm Trooper Cops. :cry:
then just be peaceful and don't throw shit .... and NOBODY gets hurt.
not ONCE did you have to worry about violence at a tea party
As an example of just how out of hand this cycle got after the 1968 DNC, jus under two years later in May (4th) of 1970, Ohio NG shot 13 protestors; killing 4 of them. And despite this slaughter and 8 guardsmen placed under charges, not a single person was convicted for it. Not one. And more followed.
And history is set to repeat itself. We've already seen the indications given the proclivity of law enforcement in this country toward pepper spraying peaceful occupy protestors. And now CPD bloodies and beat protestors, and some areas of the press have the audacity to say it provides a measure of redemption for the 1968 DNC?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 22, 2012, 10:10:03 PM
then just be peaceful and don't throw shit .... and NOBODY gets hurt.
not ONCE did you have to worry about violence at a tea party
Who in hell cares about the Tea Party. They are a farce, a group of radical nuts. :rant:
Have you notice how the Teabagger that the Tea Party elected have joined the other run of the mill Republicans. Hell, if you sent Jesus Christ to Washington DC he would joint the crooked Republicans to con the Americans out of everything they got in their wallet and give everything to the Super Rich. :trustme: :jc:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 22, 2012, 10:10:03 PM
not ONCE did you have to worry about violence at a tea party
That's because the fat, bald hillbillies that attend them don't want to get their last tooth knocked out. :biggrin:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 22, 2012, 10:41:51 PM
As an example of just how out of hand this cycle got after the 1968 DNC, just under two years later in May (4th) of 1970, Ohio NG shot 13 protesters; killing 4 of them. And despite this slaughter and 8 guardsmen placed under charges, not a single person was convicted for it. Not one. And more followed.
And history is set to repeat itself. We've already seen the indications given the proclivity of law enforcement in this country toward pepper spraying peaceful occupy protesters. And now CPD bloodies and beat protesters, and some areas of the press have the audacity to say it provides a measure of redemption for the 1968 DNC?
Write this down. If Romney and both houses of congress goes Republican and they raise the taxes of the middle class and the poor. Plus give tax cuts to the rich and cut food stamps, screw up Social Security and Medicare. You will see rioting in the streets, massive police response with killing and damage to the cities. Just like in Europe.
How else will the rich and the authorities keep control of the huddled masses. Killing of the copper workers, steel workers, auto workers, coal miners and union workers all over the world. We have had mass killing here in America by the police, national guard, factory owners, mine owners, in other words the Super Rich, the slave masters. :@#%&: Predatory Vulture Capitalist, Romney. :jc:
Quote from: The Troll on May 23, 2012, 10:57:50 AM
Write this down. If Romney and both houses of congress goes Republican
We will once again become a prosperous nation, with a thriving economy, low unemployment, higher incomes, and lower poverty. We will become a country that will be less dependent on foreign oil. Proving a free market will prevail over a liberal guided, socialistic ideology.
If the liberals gain control, it will only lead to a nation where the citizens becomes more and more dependent upon the existence of our government, and it will only be a short time until we will be in dire straits much like Greece, Italy and Spain are right now.
write THAT down.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 23, 2012, 03:24:04 PM
did you write that down Ex?
Yes but in looking over my notes all they say is, "bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric..." :biggrin:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 23, 2012, 11:10:34 AM
We will once again become a prosperous nation, with a thriving economy, low unemployment, higher incomes, and lower poverty. We will become a country that will be less dependent on foreign oil. Proving a free market will prevail over a liberal guided, socialistic ideology.
If the liberals gain control, it will only lead to a nation where the citizens becomes more and more dependent upon the existence of our government, and it will only be a short time until we will be in dire straits much like Greece, Italy and Spain are right now.
write THAT down.
:bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag:
:bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag:
:det:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 23, 2012, 11:10:34 AM
We will once again become a prosperous nation, with a thriving economy, low unemployment, higher incomes, and lower poverty. We will become a country that will be less dependent on foreign oil. Proving a free market will prevail . . .
. . .once President Obama is re-elected and the scoundrels currently in congress are tossed out on their asses!
(http://data.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/romneyworld.jpg)
Quote from: Exterminator on May 24, 2012, 01:27:28 PM
(http://data.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/romneyworld.jpg)
The whole Republican campaign is a farce based on fraud and on lies and fears. How in hell can Henry and "ME" who claim they are so smart and intelligent can believe all the the unadulterated shit that the Republican Party puts out. :doh:
There is not one Republican that is living that I would trust in anything they do or say. Liers everyone of them and the dumbass Sheeple who votes for the Republican Party can see it. :yes: What a frigging shame. :trustme:
Henry likes to drone on about how the national debt has increased by $5 trillion under Obama but he conveniently neglects to point out that the vast majority of that increase was due to a combination of revenue losses due to the 2008-09 economic downturn as well as Bush-era tax cuts and automatic increases in safety-net spending that were already written into law.
Obama's policies have reduced the growth of federal spending.
Quote from: Exterminator on May 24, 2012, 01:49:28 PM
Henry likes to drone on about how the national debt has increased by $5 trillion under Obama but he conveniently neglects to point out that the vast majority of that increase was due to a combination of revenue losses due to the 2008-09 economic downturn as well as Bush-era tax cuts and automatic increases in safety-net spending that were already written into law.
Obama's policies have reduced the growth of federal spending.
Boy are you being --------> :flurries:
Quote from: Exterminator on May 24, 2012, 01:49:28 PM
Obama's policies have reduced the growth of federal spending.
Name some policies that HE introdued that reduced federal spending.
Thankfully the Tea Party put enough pressure and logical republicans put the brakes on much of his spending.
I can say that SOME of his policies costed Americans, such as his energy policies...ie Solyndra, cost us a 1/2 billion that went backrupt.
IT is HIS policies by HIS EPA, with regulations that are imposing significant costs on utility companies, and that are forcing many power plants to close or forcing them to spend billions of dollars in order to comply. Now those are merely being passed on to us hard working "consumers" in the means of higher electric bills. We are going to lose MORE jobs, because these guys will start buying overseas.
so tell me what exacty has he done to reduce federal spending.
And he's black! LMAO!
Quote from: Exterminator on May 24, 2012, 03:04:42 PM
And he's black! LMAO!
that is always your response when you don't have a "REAL" answer..... L
MAO!
An answer to what, your feigned indignation over his "policies"?
Quote from: Exterminator on May 24, 2012, 03:32:54 PM
An answer to what, your feigned indignation over his "policies"?
to simply name some policies that HE introdued that reduced federal spending.
Do your own research...or remain ignorant...I don't care.
Quote from: Exterminator on May 24, 2012, 04:09:12 PM
Do your own research...or remain ignorant...I don't care.
Translation: I can't find anything and I'm hoping you'll come up with something. :wink:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 24, 2012, 02:46:09 PM
Name some policies that HE introdued that reduced federal spending.
Thankfully the Tea Party put enough pressure and logical republicans put the brakes on much of his spending.
I can say that SOME of his policies costed Americans, such as his energy policies...ie Solyndra, cost us a 1/2 billion that went backrupt.
IT is HIS policies by HIS EPA, with regulations that are imposing significant costs on utility companies, and that are forcing many power plants to close or forcing them to spend billions of dollars in order to comply. Now those are merely being passed on to us hard working "consumers" in the means of higher electric bills. We are going to lose MORE jobs, because these guys will start buying overseas.
so tell me what exacty has he done to reduce federal spending.
Henry you say the same old shit. Tell me what Romney and the Republican Party is going to do about clean air and carbon dioxide, job safety, job creation, get us off of oil. :confused:
It tickles me what he says he is going to do his first day. The truth is and he is lying, he can't do a damn thing with out the two house of congress. The man is full of lying bullshit. :yes: :yes: :rant:
What did Obama do to reduce federal spending. One on the biggest thing was STOPPING THE IRAQ WAR! Or did you forget about that war, the George W. started and we were there for over 6 years and 4500 of our young men and women were killed and thousands injured and maimed for life. What about that Henry. :doh: What a Snook! :haha: :haha:
Quote from: me on May 24, 2012, 04:11:31 PM
Translation: I can't find anything and I'm hoping you'll come up with something. :wink:
Nope.
Quote from: me on May 24, 2012, 04:11:31 PM
Translation: I can't find anything and I'm hoping you'll come up with something. :wink:
exactly!!!
It should be easy, since Obama has saved us from the pits of hell..........he must have serveral policies that are sheer genius, that reduced our federal spending.
Quote from: The Troll on May 24, 2012, 04:32:32 PM
What did Obama do to reduce federal spending. One on the biggest thing was STOPPING THE IRAQ WAR! Or did you forget about that war, the George W. started and we were there for over 6 years and 4500 of our young men and women were killed and thousands injured and maimed for life. What about that Henry. :doh: What a Snook! :haha: :haha:
You mean the war that was voted on by 100% of our congress?....the one the Obama said he would stop, but waited until election time to bring them home?....and the war in afghanistan that we are STILL sending troops too, that he said he would stop? THAT war?
Nice try, but nothing doing pal.
Tell me a policy that he has introduced that has reduced our federal spending. let me help yo......... Like axing our military?
Is there any other polocies he has done? surely this must be easy.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 24, 2012, 04:40:59 PM
You mean the war that was voted on by 100% of our congress?....the one the Obama said he would stop, but waited until election time to bring them home?....and the war in afghanistan that we are STILL sending troops too, that he said he would stop? THAT war?
Nice try, but nothing doing pal.
Tell me a policy that he has introduced that has reduced our federal spending. let me help yo......... Like axing our military?
Is there any other polocies he has done? surely this must be easy.
He did stop the Iraq war you can't stop a speed freight train on a dime. Just like the Afghanistan war that is just like a ocean liner traveling at top speed, you just can't step on the brakes and it stop on a dime.
I get so sick of the Republican saying that everybody vote to go to war. Yes, they did. Why, because George W. and Dick Cheney, Collin Powell and everybody else in the top of the Republican Party lied about it.
Remember those weapons of mass destruction, poison gas, atomic weapons that was presented by the Bush administration for the reason to go to war. Henry you have a very selective memory, all you Republican Chicken War Hawk have. Let's go to war with Iran like Romney want too. :rant:
Quote from: The Troll on May 24, 2012, 10:07:58 PM
Remember those weapons of mass destruction, poison gas, atomic weapons that was presented by the Bush administration for the reason to go to war. Henry you have a very selective memory, all you Republican Chicken War Hawk have. Let's go to war with Iran like Romney want too. :rant:
No Troll it is YOU who has a selective memory..............Clinton, Albright, several key democrats were the ones who origninal said Iraq had WMD's....they ALL stated that they have GOT to be stopped..........Bush had the exact same intelligence reporting to him......the problem was, the UN dicked around long enough for them to get rid of those WMD's............Bush took the fall for that.
We won't make that same mistake again.........No, I don't think we will go to war with Iran..........they may get the sh!t blown out of them some day by the US or Israel......but there will be no WAR.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
10 years and that bullshit still has wings. Same as the birth bullshit still flying 4 years later. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on May 25, 2012, 12:00:05 AM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
10 years and that bullshit still has wings. Same as the birth bullshit still flying 4 years later. . .
if must be that you lack the critical thinking skills to understand it....(http://theunknownzone.dailynuisanceproductions.com/Smileys3/default/rotfl.gif)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 24, 2012, 10:13:36 PM
No Troll it is YOU who has a selective memory..............Clinton, Albright, several key democrats were the ones who origninal said Iraq had WMD's....they ALL stated that they have GOT to be stopped..........Bush had the exact same intelligence reporting to him......the problem was, the UN dicked around long enough for them to get rid of those WMD's............Bush took the fall for that.
We won't make that same mistake again.........No, I don't think we will go to war with Iran..........they may get the sh!t blown out of them some day by the US or Israel......but there will be no WAR.
Clinton and Albright, are you kidding me. I watched everyday how George W. and Prick Cheney beat the drums of war. One day I told my wife, "that cocky son of a bitch is going to get us in a war." Sure enough he and the Republican Party did. A war against people who didn't have anything to do with the bombing of 9/11. All of it was lies, to prove he could beat his daddy. All lies, all lies. Republican the party of liars. :knife:
You got to he one of the most stupid guy in Anderson. You got your head up your ass breathing Republican shit. :wacko:
:zoners:
We'll take them one at a time. READ these guys, they are NOT fucking lies, these are REAL quotes....
Funny, how political you guys can get, just like today....when things don't go your way...you point fingers.
"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-Truth!This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.
"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-Truth!
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing."Iraq is a long way from USA 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-Truth!
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998-Truth!
This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.
"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, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-Truth!
According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman."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-Truth!
The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.
"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-Truth!
This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies."
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace 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, 2001Truth!
The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could find did not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it was signed nine other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman.
It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a 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-Truth!
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.
"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-Truth!
"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-Truth!
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.
"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-Truth!
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.
"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-Truth!
Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.
"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-Truth!
Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.
"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-Truth!
Senator Waxman's contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.
"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-Truth!
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.
"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-Truth!
In a speech to Georgetown University
Be careful HH you know what happens when someone presents the truth to them. :wink:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 22, 2012, 10:41:51 PM
As an example of just how out of hand this cycle got after the 1968 DNC, jus under two years later in May (4th) of 1970, Ohio NG shot 13 protestors; killing 4 of them. And despite this slaughter and 8 guardsmen placed under charges, not a single person was convicted for it. Not one. And more followed.
And history is set to repeat itself. We've already seen the indications given the proclivity of law enforcement in this country toward pepper spraying peaceful occupy protestors. And now CPD bloodies and beat protestors, and some areas of the press have the audacity to say it provides a measure of redemption for the 1968 DNC?
Quote from: me on May 25, 2012, 09:28:13 AM
Be careful HH you know what happens when someone presents the truth to them. :wink:
Every time I post this info me.....it gets ignored. It speaks for itself, and loudly!
There is NO dispute, what-so-ever as to WHY we went to war, and WHY they voted 100% to do so..........and only when patriot pride was over, was then when the democrats decided to go back to playing politics and start whinning and pointing fingers, and blaming others..........something they have become so very effect at doing. Especially this administration. Pass the buck, and do what they gotta do to BUY votes.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 26, 2012, 08:17:47 AM
Every time I post this info me.....it gets ignored. It speaks for itself, and loudly!
There is NO dispute, what-so-ever as to WHY we went to war, and WHY they voted 100% to do so..........and only when patriot pride was over, was then when the democrats decided to go back to playing politics and start whinning and pointing fingers, and blaming others..........something they have become so very effect at doing. Especially this administration. Pass the buck, and do what they gotta do to BUY votes.
It does seem awfully strange that they take the credit for all the good stuff that happens, whether they had anything to do with it or not, and blame all the bad stuff on someone else, like Bush or any conservative or person who disagrees with them. Hell Obama even tried to blame ATM's for part of the economic problems. You know, people who use them instead of bank tellers which costs jobs. :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on May 26, 2012, 08:29:07 AM
It does seem awfully strange that they take the credit for all the good stuff that happens, whether they had anything to do with it or not, and blame all the bad stuff on someone else, like Bush or any conservative or person who disagrees with them. Hell Obama even tried to blame ATM's for part of the economic problems. You know, people who use them instead of bank tellers which costs jobs. :rolleyes:
But, if we disagree with Mr. Obama, because of his lack of leadership..........WE are JUST Racists! Just another propaganda term to get their way back into office...........but I think Americans are getting sick of it..........and November is going to be the start of a new morning in America.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 26, 2012, 08:17:47 AM
Every time I post this info me.....it gets ignored. It speaks for itself, and loudly!
There is NO dispute, what-so-ever as to WHY we went to war, and WHY they voted 100% to do so..........and only when patriot pride was over, was then when the democrats decided to go back to playing politics and start whinning and pointing fingers, and blaming others..........something they have become so very effect at doing. Especially this administration. Pass the buck, and do what they gotta do to BUY votes.
Just where did you get the honest to god stuff what Republican blog did it come from. I sure would like to see were this so called information came from. But no weapons of mass destruction was found. No verifiable piece of any kind or weapons of mass destruction was found. One place George W. blew up, the thought was a gas plant was a milk factory. :haha:
Poison gas is not a weapon of mass destruction, Biological and Atomic weapons are considered weapon of mass destruction, Mind you not one mass destruction weapon was found. All lies by George W. and The Republican Party.
But the main question is, WHO STARTED THE DAMN WAR, I TELL YOU IT WAS GEORGE W. AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. :trustme:
Did you really say poison gas is not a weapon of mass destruction? Good grief! :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Troll on May 26, 2012, 02:52:51 PM
Just where did you get the honest to god stuff what Republican blog did it come from. I sure would like to see were this so called information came from. But no weapons of mass destruction was found. No verifiable piece of any kind or weapons of mass destruction was found. One place George W. blew up, the thought was a gas plant was a milk factory. :haha:
Poison gas is not a weapon of mass destruction, Biological and Atomic weapons are considered weapon of mass destruction, Mind you not one mass destruction weapon was found. All lies by George W. and The Republican Party.
But the main question is, WHO STARTED THE DAMN WAR, I TELL YOU IT WAS GEORGE W. AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. :trustme:
Troll every quote has a source to it....all of those was take from snopes or fact check....they all have who said it, when they said....they ALL knew Sadaam had WMD's....everyone of them.
The fact is, the dems played politics, plain and simple. Bush was the POTUS who went to war...but EVERY member of congress agreed....there was NO lies....this is fact, that cannot be disputed.
The UN dicked around long enough to get the wmd's out before our troops got there.
Now, I don't agree with Bush that we should have stayed there AFTER we got Sadaam........I think we should have left. But Colin Powell said we had to fix what we broke. So Bush did.
Quote from: Anne on May 26, 2012, 04:46:25 PM
Did you really say poison gas is not a weapon of mass destruction? Good grief! :rolleyes:
Poison gas is not a weapon of mass destruction unless it can be delivered massively. :biggrin:
That being said, I agreed with Troll that the Iraq conflict was a fool's foray that should have never been fought.
I hate to keep bringing this up insofar as lies are concerned, but remember The Office of Special Plans? :wink:
Quote from: me on May 25, 2012, 09:28:13 AM
Be careful HH you know what happens when someone presents the truth to them. :wink:
Now before you go to using the little :wink: excessively, since he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, why do you think he would have said that he did?
Quote from: Locutus on May 26, 2012, 05:41:08 PM
Now before you go to using the little :wink: excessively, since he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, why do you think he would have said that he did?
then explain...."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-Truth!
and
"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
and
"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
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 26, 2012, 06:14:40 PM
then explain...."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-Truth!
There is a difference between WMD and a WMD program. The program implies that WMD are desired and a program to develop or purchase them is being pursued.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 26, 2012, 06:14:40 PM
and
"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
and
"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
Obviously these guys were reading the very same faulty intelligence reports, that in hindsight proved to be more of a fairy tale than reality.
If you really want to know who/what created this trojan horse that was massively endorsed by congressional leadership from the top down, then you have to ask yourself the question; Who benefitted?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 26, 2012, 06:14:40 PM
then explain...."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-Truth!
and
"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
and
"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
And they talk about our reading comprehension problem??
Quote from: Locutus on May 26, 2012, 05:36:41 PM
Poison gas is not a weapon of mass destruction unless it can be delivered massively. :biggrin:
That being said, I agreed with Troll that the Iraq conflict was a fool's foray that should have never been fought.
I would say they found a way to deliver massive amounts of poison gas.
1988: Thousands die in Halabja gas attack
Thousands of people are reported to have been killed and many others injured in a poison gas attack on a Kurdish city in northern Iraq.
Up to 20 aircraft, said to include Iraqi Migs and Mirages, were seen overhead at around 1100 local time in Halabja.
According to experts, the chemicals dropped by the planes may have included mustard gas, the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX and possibly cyanide.
The attack on Halabja, which is about 150 miles (241km) north-east of the Iraqi capital Baghdad, is the latest in the Iran-Iraq war and follows its occupation by Iranian forces.
Iraq was said to be keen to avenge the fall of Halabja, which is seen as an important centre for Kurdish resistance in their struggle for autonomy.
The assault came after two days of conventional mortars, artillery and rockets from nearby mountains.
According to pro-Iranian Kurdish commanders in Halabja, there were up to 14 aircraft sorties, with seven to eight planes in each group.
The planes were believed to have concentrated their attacks on the city and all the roads leading out of it.
Eyewitnesses have told of clouds of smoke billowing upward "white, black and then yellow"', rising as a column about 150 feet (46 metres)in the air.
Most of the wounded, who were taken to hospital in the Iranian capital Tehran, were suffering from mustard gas exposure.
Those who escaped death have developed respiratory or visual problems from the cocktail of chemicals dropped on the city.
According to some reports, up to 75% of the victims were women and children.
The injured survivors seen by reporters showed the classic symptoms of mustard gas poisoning - ugly skin lesions and breathing difficulties.
Some residents survived by covering their faces with damp cloths and taking to the mountains around Halabja.
One resident, Abdul Rahman, 60, an employee at the city's mosque, said: "I do not know where my children are."
In Context
Most of the details about the Halabja killings only emerged a few days later. Reports from the city suggested that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's forces had launched the chemical gas attack.
Figures for the final total of dead range from 3,200 people to 5,000.
Between 7,000 and 10,000 are believed to have been injured in the massacre, which became known as "Bloody Friday".
Initially, the US Defence Intelligence Agency blamed Iran for the attack. Halabja is around eight to 10 miles (14km to 16km) from the Iranian border.
However, the majority of evidence indicates that the gas attack was an Iraqi assault against Iranian forces, pro-Iranian Kurdish forces and Halabja's citizens during a major battle.
Although there is some evidence Saddam Hussein's forces had used chemical agents before this date, the attack on Halabja is thought to be the first documented assault using chemicals.
Saddam Hussein's deputy - Ali Hassan al-Majid, or "Chemical Ali" - who is on trial charged with crimes against humanity over a campaign against Kurds in the 1980s
He is one of six defendants facing charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity during the so-called Anfal campaign that killed an estimated 100,000 people.
The tribunal dropped charges against the seventh co-defendant, Saddam Hussein himself, when he was executed on 30 December 2006 after being convicted in a separate case.
Quote from: me on May 26, 2012, 07:21:57 PM
And they talk about our reading comprehension problem??
That I had to reiterate what the "source" stated; well hell yes we talk about your reading comprehension skill set! :rolleyes:
Fact is the whole "validation" for going into Iraq stated that they HAD WMD. They did not. . .
Were they pursuing them? Most likely they were. But they didn't have them. . . We did not even find the traces that would have been there had they ever been there int he first place. Just the resources necessary to pursue the path. . .
Quote from: Anne on May 26, 2012, 10:30:00 PM
I would say they found a way to deliver massive amounts of poison gas.
1988: Thousands die in Halabja gas attack
Thousands of people are reported to have been killed and many others injured in a poison gas attack on a Kurdish city in northern Iraq.
Up to 20 aircraft, said to include Iraqi Migs and Mirages, were seen overhead at around 1100 local time in Halabja.
According to experts, the chemicals dropped by the planes may have included mustard gas, the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX and possibly cyanide.
The attack on Halabja, which is about 150 miles (241km) north-east of the Iraqi capital Baghdad, is the latest in the Iran-Iraq war and follows its occupation by Iranian forces.
Iraq was said to be keen to avenge the fall of Halabja, which is seen as an important centre for Kurdish resistance in their struggle for autonomy.
The assault came after two days of conventional mortars, artillery and rockets from nearby mountains.
According to pro-Iranian Kurdish commanders in Halabja, there were up to 14 aircraft sorties, with seven to eight planes in each group.
The planes were believed to have concentrated their attacks on the city and all the roads leading out of it.
Eyewitnesses have told of clouds of smoke billowing upward "white, black and then yellow"', rising as a column about 150 feet (46 metres)in the air.
Most of the wounded, who were taken to hospital in the Iranian capital Tehran, were suffering from mustard gas exposure.
Those who escaped death have developed respiratory or visual problems from the cocktail of chemicals dropped on the city.
According to some reports, up to 75% of the victims were women and children.
The injured survivors seen by reporters showed the classic symptoms of mustard gas poisoning - ugly skin lesions and breathing difficulties.
Some residents survived by covering their faces with damp cloths and taking to the mountains around Halabja.
One resident, Abdul Rahman, 60, an employee at the city's mosque, said: "I do not know where my children are."
In Context
Most of the details about the Halabja killings only emerged a few days later. Reports from the city suggested that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's forces had launched the chemical gas attack.
Figures for the final total of dead range from 3,200 people to 5,000.
Between 7,000 and 10,000 are believed to have been injured in the massacre, which became known as "Bloody Friday".
Initially, the US Defence Intelligence Agency blamed Iran for the attack. Halabja is around eight to 10 miles (14km to 16km) from the Iranian border.
However, the majority of evidence indicates that the gas attack was an Iraqi assault against Iranian forces, pro-Iranian Kurdish forces and Halabja's citizens during a major battle.
Although there is some evidence Saddam Hussein's forces had used chemical agents before this date, the attack on Halabja is thought to be the first documented assault using chemicals.
Saddam Hussein's deputy - Ali Hassan al-Majid, or "Chemical Ali" - who is on trial charged with crimes against humanity over a campaign against Kurds in the 1980s
He is one of six defendants facing charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity during the so-called Anfal campaign that killed an estimated 100,000 people.
The tribunal dropped charges against the seventh co-defendant, Saddam Hussein himself, when he was executed on 30 December 2006 after being convicted in a separate case.
You just pull all this out of your 6, or do you have a source for it?
Quote from: Palehorse on May 26, 2012, 10:55:33 PM
That I had to reiterate what the "source" stated; well hell yes we talk about your reading comprehension skill set! :rolleyes:
Fact is the whole "validation" for going into Iraq stated that they HAD WMD. They did not. . .
Were they pursuing them? Most likely they were. But they didn't have them. . . We did not even find the traces that would have been there had they ever been there int he first place. Just the resources necessary to pursue the path. . .
I would say tucked away in one of the thousands of underground tunnels and they haven't found it yet. With all the dicking around that was done they had plenty of time to get it moved.
Quote from: Anne on May 26, 2012, 10:30:00 PM
I would say they found a way to deliver massive amounts of poison gas.
1988: Thousands die in Halabja gas attack
Thousands of people are reported to have been killed and many others injured in a poison gas attack on a Kurdish city in northern Iraq.
Up to 20 aircraft, said to include Iraqi Migs and Mirages, were seen overhead at around 1100 local time in Halabja.
According to experts, the chemicals dropped by the planes may have included mustard gas, the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX and possibly cyanide.
The attack on Halabja, which is about 150 miles (241km) north-east of the Iraqi capital Baghdad, is the latest in the Iran-Iraq war and follows its occupation by Iranian forces.
Iraq was said to be keen to avenge the fall of Halabja, which is seen as an important centre for Kurdish resistance in their struggle for autonomy.
The assault came after two days of conventional mortars, artillery and rockets from nearby mountains.
According to pro-Iranian Kurdish commanders in Halabja, there were up to 14 aircraft sorties, with seven to eight planes in each group.
The planes were believed to have concentrated their attacks on the city and all the roads leading out of it.
Eyewitnesses have told of clouds of smoke billowing upward "white, black and then yellow"', rising as a column about 150 feet (46 metres)in the air.
Most of the wounded, who were taken to hospital in the Iranian capital Tehran, were suffering from mustard gas exposure.
Those who escaped death have developed respiratory or visual problems from the cocktail of chemicals dropped on the city.
According to some reports, up to 75% of the victims were women and children.
The injured survivors seen by reporters showed the classic symptoms of mustard gas poisoning - ugly skin lesions and breathing difficulties.
Some residents survived by covering their faces with damp cloths and taking to the mountains around Halabja.
One resident, Abdul Rahman, 60, an employee at the city's mosque, said: "I do not know where my children are."
In Context
Most of the details about the Halabja killings only emerged a few days later. Reports from the city suggested that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's forces had launched the chemical gas attack.
Figures for the final total of dead range from 3,200 people to 5,000.
Between 7,000 and 10,000 are believed to have been injured in the massacre, which became known as "Bloody Friday".
Initially, the US Defence Intelligence Agency blamed Iran for the attack. Halabja is around eight to 10 miles (14km to 16km) from the Iranian border.
However, the majority of evidence indicates that the gas attack was an Iraqi assault against Iranian forces, pro-Iranian Kurdish forces and Halabja's citizens during a major battle.
Although there is some evidence Saddam Hussein's forces had used chemical agents before this date, the attack on Halabja is thought to be the first documented assault using chemicals.
Saddam Hussein's deputy - Ali Hassan al-Majid, or "Chemical Ali" - who is on trial charged with crimes against humanity over a campaign against Kurds in the 1980s
He is one of six defendants facing charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity during the so-called Anfal campaign that killed an estimated 100,000 people.
The tribunal dropped charges against the seventh co-defendant, Saddam Hussein himself, when he was executed on 30 December 2006 after being convicted in a separate case.
My poison gas comment was meant in a "tongue in cheek" manner. ;D
However, I'm still waiting for someone to address the Office of Special Plans that I mentioned previously. Iraq posed absolutely NO threat to this country. ZERO.
The Bush administration drove this country down that pathway based on manufactured intelligence and inherent fear generated by the 9/11 attacks.
Quote from: Locutus on May 27, 2012, 01:37:57 AM
My poison gas comment was meant in a "tongue in cheek" manner. ;D
However, I'm still waiting for someone to address the Office of Special Plans that I mentioned previously. Iraq posed absolutely NO threat to this country. ZERO.
The Bush administration drove this country down that pathway based on manufactured intelligence and inherent fear generated by the 9/11 attacks.
So you're saying all of this is "manufactured evidence?"
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 25, 2012, 09:09:50 AM
We'll take them one at a time. READ these guys, they are NOT fucking lies, these are REAL quotes....
Funny, how political you guys can get, just like today....when things don't go your way...you point fingers.
"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-Truth!This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.
"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-Truth!
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing."Iraq is a long way from USA 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-Truth!
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998-Truth!
This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.
"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, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-Truth!
According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman."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-Truth!
The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.
"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-Truth!
This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies."
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace 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, 2001Truth!
The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could find did not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it was signed nine other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman.
It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a 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-Truth!
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.
"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-Truth!
"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-Truth!
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.
"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-Truth!
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.
"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-Truth!
Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.
"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-Truth!
Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.
"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-Truth!
Senator Waxman's contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.
"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-Truth!
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.
"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-Truth!
In a speech to Georgetown University
Quote from: me on May 27, 2012, 02:20:59 AM
So you're saying all of this is "manufactured evidence?"
"Manufactured
intelligence" is what he said. . .
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 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
So did the democrats Manufacture intelligence :confused:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 27, 2012, 10:50:18 AM
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 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
So did the democrats Manufacture intelligence :confused:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
let me put in my :2cents:, I was a member of the 316Th Chemical Corp. of the The United States Army. Gas warfare is not considered a weapon of mass destruction, no more that artillery, mortars or just plain airplane dropped dumb bombs. In fact gas warfare can be just as bad for a land force as the enemy force. All it need is a change in the wind and have the gas blown back of the using force. To really make gas warfare work effentily you need to have air superiority. After been taught the advantages of gas warfare it think it better than using destructive force. Gas just kill people and animals and leave everything else untouched. :wink: :smile:
It is amazing after we took over Iraq no huge stockpiles of nerve agent or other poison gas was found. All lies by George W. and Dick Cheney. No atomic weapons were found or laboratories were found. All lies by George w. and Dick Cheney. Just like the yellow cake bought from Africa for Iraq's atomic program and aluminum tubes was lies from George W. and Dick Cheney.
All of Iraq jet fighters that survived were flow to Iraq by scared Iraq pilots. It whole Iraq war was planned and staged by George W., Dick Cheney and the Republican Party.
Sure the the Congress voted to go to war if "NECESSARY" George W. Bush set it up, planned it with out enough troops and there we sat in a 6 year war, killing over 4,600 of our best and brightest American men and women and wounding thousand of them with indescribable pain and agony that will never heal. Because, so says George W. was because Iraq wanted to kill his daddy. :haha:
Thanks George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Two of the sickest son of bitches America ever had. :knife:
:zoners:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 27, 2012, 10:52:49 AM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
GREAT comeback!!! ;D
but the facts are presented to you..."emperically" that the democrats believed Iraq was a serious threat..........by their OWN intelligence.
I have deliverd FACTS on this but some continue to ignore...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 27, 2012, 11:18:03 AM
GREAT comeback!!! ;D
but the facts are presented to you..."emperically" that the democrats believed Iraq was a serious threat..........by their OWN intelligence.
I have deliverd FACTS on this but some continue to ignore...
When it comes down to hard and real facts, George W. Bush and with the nagging on of Dick Cheney. These two killer clowns :jester: :jester: declared the police action, not a signed and declared national war. These two killer clown murdered thousand of Iraqis and murdered thousand of our soldiers in an uncalled for and illegal war against Iraq.
What really get me Henry. After two mismanaged wars, collapse of the realestate business, stock market and bank failures, you voted for them twice and you want the Republican back in to do it to us again. What a dumbass. :rolleyes: :razz:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 27, 2012, 11:18:03 AM
GREAT comeback!!! ;D
but the facts are presented to you..."emperically" that the democrats believed Iraq was a serious threat..........by their OWN intelligence.
I have deliverd FACTS on this but some continue to ignore...
Strange how they ignore some facts to point the finger somewhere else...talk about spinmeisters.
Quote from: me on May 27, 2012, 11:56:36 AM
Strange how they ignore some facts to point the finger somewhere else...talk about spinmeisters.
You want to talk facts instead of spin? Or are you just really trying to "score points" in order to bury the lying incident?
. . .Take the case of a man codenamed "Curveball," an Iraqi who defected to Germany in 1999 and lived under the control of that country's intelligence service. When Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the United Nations in February of 2003 — six weeks before the war began — some of the key elements in his controversial presentation were the result of information provided by "Curveball."
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources," Powell told the U.N. gathering. "These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
Powell told the U.N. Security Council that Iraq had mobile labs that could produce anthrax and other deadly germs, enough to kill many thousands of people. At the time, Lawrence Wilkerson was Powell's chief of staff. He says Powell went to then-CIA Director George Tenet in advance to make sure everything in that presentation was accurate. "I remember being in that room with Secretary Powell and George Tenet, and I remember vividly the secretary turning to George and saying 'George, you stand by this? Right?'" recalls Wilkerson. He says the CIA director responded, "Yes."
But "Curveball" was not a credible source. The Los Angeles Times, in a story this week, reports that the CIA knew the informant was unstable and that he provided fabricated intelligence. U.S. officials had no direct access to him.
David Kay, a former U.S. weapon inspector, was astounded that the government used the type of flimsy intelligence provided by "Curveball" as a basis for war. "I was flabbergasted when I discovered that we'd had the secretary of state lay this story out, and yet no American official had ever talked to this individual or even been able to directly interrogate him as to what his views are and how he knew what he claimed to know," says Kay.. . .
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5024408 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5024408)
. . .The many official investigations and unofficial investigations carried out, plus the statements and speeches of former CIA officials defending themselves against charges of distortion, have established a few points beyond question. Most important, following Saddam Hussein's 1998 final expulsion of UN weapons inspectors from Iraq, very little new information fell into the hands of U.S. intelligence. Notable exceptions include data from Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, recruited as a CIA source (Note 2), and from Iraqi scientists clandestinely approached by the CIA under a covert program. (Note 3) Both these streams of information denied the existence of Iraqi WMD. On the other side were data from Iraqi exile sources that claimed all sorts of WMD and a set of fabricated documents alleging an Iraqi deal to buy uranium ore in Niger. The only concrete "find" was of a shipment of aluminum tubes being imported into Iraq, but analysts were divided over whether these tubes had anything to do with WMD at all. U.S. intelligence largely discounted the (accurate) details from Sabri and the scientists and—despite the CIA's expressed misgivings—made use of the exile data. This thin data conditioned the intelligence analysis. . . .
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB254/index.htm (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB254/index.htm)
. . .
Seven months before the invasion of Iraq, the head of British foreign intelligence reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that President Bush wanted to topple Saddam Hussein by military action and warned that in Washington intelligence was "being fixed around the policy," according to notes of a July 23, 2002, meeting with Blair at No. 10 Downing Street.
"Military action was now seen as inevitable," said the notes, summarizing a report by Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, British intelligence, who had just returned from consultations in Washington along with other senior British officials. Dearlove went on, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.". . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html)
. . .The intelligence to which Bush refers is contained in a top-secret document that was made available to all members of Congress in October 2002, days before the House and Senate voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq. This so-called National Intelligence Estimate was supposed to be the combined US intelligence community's "most authoritative written judgment concerning a specific national security issue," according to the Senate Intelligence Committee. The report was titled "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction."
Though most of the document remains classified, the "Key Judgments" section and some other paragraphs were cleared and released publicly in July, 2003. The most recent and complete version available to the public can be read on the Web site of The George Washington University's National Security Archive, which got it from the CIA under the Freedom of Information Act.
The NIE as declassified and released by the CIA says pretty much what Bush and his aides were saying publicly about Iraq's weapons - nearly all of which turned out to be wrong:
CIA Release of NIE, October 2002: We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions. If left unchecked it probably will have a nuclear weapon within this decade.
Chemical Weapons: The CIA document expressed no doubt that Iraq had large stocks of chemical weapons. "We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX," it said. "Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents – much of it added in the last year." ("CW" refers to "chemical warfare" agents.)
Biological Weapons: The document also said "we judge" that Iraq had an even bigger germ-warfare program than before the first Gulf War in 1991. "We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives," the report said. ("BW" refers to "biological warfare.")
Nuclear Weapons: The document also said "most" US intelligence agencies believed that some high-strength aluminum tubes that Iraq had purchased were intended for use in centrifuge rotors used to enrich uranium, and were "compelling evidence" that Saddam had put his nuclear weapons program back together.
On the matter of the tubes, however, the report noted that there was some dissent within the intelligence community. Members of Congress could have read on page 6 of the report that the Department of Energy "assesses that the tubes are probably not" part of a nuclear program.
Some news reports have said this caveat was "buried" deeply in the 92-page report, but this is not so. The "Key Judgments" section begins on page 5, and disagreements by the Department of Energy and also the State Department are noted on pages 5,6,8 and 9, in addition to a reference on page 84.
. . .. . .Vice President Cheney, for example, said this on NBC's Meet the Press barely a month before Congress voted to authorize force:
Cheney, Sept. 8, 2002: But we do know, with absolute certainty, that he (Saddam) is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.
As we've seen, that was wrong. Department of Energy and State Department intelligence analysts did not agree with the Vice President's claim, which turned out to be false. Cheney may have felt "absolute certainty" in his own mind, but that certainty wasn't true of the entire intelligence community, as his use of the word "we" implied.
Similarly, the President himself said this in a speech to the nation, just three days before the House vote to authorize force:
Bush, Oct. 7, 2002: We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases . And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
That statement is open to challenge on two grounds. For one thing, as we've seen, the intelligence community was reporting to Bush and Congress that they thought it unlikely that Saddam would give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists – and only "if sufficiently desperate" and as a "last chance to exact revenge" for the very attack that Bush was then advocating.
Furthermore, the claim that Iraq had trained al Qaeda in the use of poison gas turned out to be false, and some in the intelligence community were expressing doubts about it at the time Bush spoke. It was based on statements by a senior trainer for al Qaeda who had been captured in Afghanistan. The detainee, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, took back his story in 2004 and the CIA withdrew all claims based on it. But even at the time Bush spoke, Pentagon intelligence analysts said it was likely al-Libi was lying.
According to newly declassified documents, the Defense Intelligence Agency said in February 2002 – seven months before Bush's speech – "it is . . . likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers. Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest. . . . Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control." The DIA's doubts were revealed Nov. 6 in newly declassified documents made public by Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, a member of the Intelligence Committee.. . .http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html (http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html)
Your indictment of democrats is just as damning toward repugnicans, including the CIC and his administration.
Quote from: Palehorse on May 26, 2012, 10:56:12 PM
You just pull all this out of your 6, or do you have a source for it?
This is the article I read, and copied, you can also find essentially the same information in wikipedia and several other sites if you google it.
Didn't mean to upset you, I just couldn't believe Troll doesn't think poison gas can be a wmd.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/on this day/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/on%20this%20day/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_)
Quote from: Anne on May 27, 2012, 04:27:40 PM
This is the article I read, and copied, you can also find essentially the same information in wikipedia and several other sites if you google it.
Didn't mean to upset you, I just couldn't believe Troll doesn't think poison gas can be a wmd.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/on this day/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/on%20this%20day/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_)
If you took a 1000 bomber raid like we made on Berlin and Dresden all loaded with nerve agent and some of the other gases we now have, we could have kill everybody there and still had the cities undamaged. :yes:
That could be considered weapon of mass destruction, but so was all of the fire bombs and 500 pound bombs dropped by those 1000 bombers could be called weapons of mass destruction which killed thousands of people and blew and burnt up the cities. :yes: :4th5: