Attention the BoS Political Forums of 2004, There is to be no WMD in the Iraq room (1 Viewer)

[teh winnar!]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&u=/ap/20040517/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_sarin_2&printer=1

but the question is, like the Iraqi-terrorism link with the beheading, will anyone care?

Originally posted by neo_o
*anticipates next response*

OMG BUSH YOU SET US UP THE BOMB

ARENT YUO THE SAME PERSON?

 

[George W. Bush]

Because, as we all know, SHELLS OF SARIN GAS COME IN SINGULAR FORM.


From what I've seen this is about 3L in total (will try to find link for this), which is capable of killing over a thousand people. That's pretty significant if you ask me.

But the point I was trying to make with this thread is that the media, especially the leftist SMH (which seemingly has a monopoly on the student market) isn't touching this story, which I'd think was at least worthy of reporting.

Just like they didn't report the mustard gas.
Just like they didn't point out the Iraqi-Osama link from the Berg videotape.

 

[Suney_J]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
what do you think is going to make it worth it?

Cause I would have thought removing Saddam was enough, but you don't seem to think so.

they got to do more than just remove saddam. Establishing an independent government which can provide security and stability and actually finding the WMD the US claimed he had, after that them you can say 'i told you so', cuz after all that is what they set out to do.

Originally posted by George W. Bush
OK then, assuming this war really is costly (which is crap, look at any other military conflict)

crap?? so you think its a cheap war, and you think that any military conflict will be more costly ?

 

[a little lost]

Quote from George W
Just like they didn't report the mustard gas.
Just like they didn't point out the Iraqi-Osama link from the Berg videotape. [/B][/QUOTE]

if there ever was any credible and significant evidence linking iraqi to osama then the adminstration and the aus gov't would be shoving it to the media on both countries by now and making sure that they report it. as that is currently not the the case. then i doubt the berg videotape whatever it shows is really that significant.

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by a little lost
as that is currently not the the case. then i doubt the berg videotape whatever it shows is really that significant. [/B]

Yeah I mean, al Queda members in the videotape just isn't that significant!

they got to do more than just remove saddam. Establishing an independent government which can provide security and stability and actually finding the WMD the US claimed he had, after that them you can say 'i told you so', cuz after all that is what they set out to do.

Firstly, this is your opinion of what would make the war worthwhile. Your, or my, opinion isn't the definitive measure of this conflict. Anyway, it's funny you should say the war was about finding Saddam's weapons and establishing a independant government, because I thought what the Coalition set out to do was fulfill international resolutions in the United Nations.

Sure, the above goals were important, but you can't say the war has failed because of the resistance in Iraq.

crap?? so you think its a cheap war, and you think that any military conflict will be more costly ?

It's definately towards the lower end of the scale in terms of life loss. Not leftist paradise Kosovo extreme low, where billions of dollars were wasted which could have saved more lives when spent on health or something, compared to the lives of soldiers that would have been lost in a ground invasion. But still quite low.


Anyway, like I said, the media coverage sucks.

 

[a little lost]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
Yeah I mean, al Queda members in the videotape just isn't that significant!



um u have to remember this is all happening post saddam in iraq where even american official have admited in the past that iraq is becoming a magnet for terriost from around the regoin. so how does something occuring post saddam in iraq justy the initial invasion where the american administration has so far failed to provide any credible proof to the public that sadam was linked to al Queda?

 

[George W. Bush]

No link between Saddam and al-qaida? Looks like someone forgot to tell al-Qaida, then. Al-Qaida terror planners seem to have kept meeting in Iraq. That's the overt connection, the only connection anyone official is claiming, before Berg.

 

[Suney_J]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
Anyway, it's funny you should say the war was about finding Saddam's weapons and establishing a independant government, because I thought what the Coalition set out to do was fulfill international resolutions in the United Nations.

oh yeah!, like the geneva convention on treatment of POW

Originally posted by George W. Bush
Al-Qaida terror planners seem to have kept meeting in Iraq. That's the overt connection, the only connection anyone official is claiming, before Berg.

so what?, thats no connection. im sure terror planners met in the US, Australia the UK

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by Suney_J
oh yeah!, like the geneva convention on treatment of POW

Which are currently being upheld. Do you like to make points, or just randomly reference documents.

so what?, thats no connection. im sure terror planners met in the US, Australia the UK

Oh really. See, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I don't think terrorist leaders would risk coming to the Western world, but would rather stay with a friendly government. But I'm sure you've got some specific examples to prove me wrong.

 

[CM_Tutor]

Originally posted by George W. Bush

Originally posted by Suney_J
oh yeah!, like the geneva convention on treatment of POW

Which are currently being upheld. Do you like to make points, or just randomly reference documents.

And of course, we have the word of the US for this. I am so reassured.

Oh really. See, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I don't think terrorist leaders would risk coming to the Western world, but would rather stay with a friendly government. But I'm sure you've got some specific examples to prove me wrong.

I wonder if that explains what they're doing in Iraq at the moment - forging links with the friendly Iraqi governing council - or is it with the friendly occupying powers?

 

[neo o]

I believe the head of the interim council was murdered - if it was done by terrorists (and not Iraqis) id say yes, they're kicking back with the local council in a manner of speaking.

 

[Suney_J]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
Which are currently being upheld. Do you like to make points, or just randomly reference documents

so you dont see the irony in sayin that the reason they're over there is to fulfill some international resolutions, but violate others

Originally posted by George W. Bush
Oh really. See, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I don't think terrorist leaders would risk coming to the Western world, but would rather stay with a friendly government. But I'm sure you've got some specific examples to prove me wrong.

i didnt say leaders, i said planners, maybe u should read the post first before replyin to it

and if you want examples just look at 9/11, something that well planned cannot of been done outside of the US

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by Suney_J
so you dont see the irony in sayin that the reason they're over there is to fulfill some international resolutions, but violate others

Why don't you point out to me which international resolutions the Coalition is violating (the recent scandels don't count, I'm talking about orders from the top)

i didnt say leaders, i said planners, maybe u should read the post first before replyin to it

Leaders=planners. You think they let the peons plan terrorist attacks?

and if you want examples just look at 9/11, something that well planned cannot of been done outside of the US

Well, it's funny that it COULD NOT have been done outside the US, because it WAS.

 

[Saddam Hussein]

There's a huge stockpile of WMD buried under a big 'T'

 

[George W. Bush]

Don't make me take your pants off.

 

[Suney_J]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
Why don't you point out to me which international resolutions the Coalition is violating (the recent scandels don't count, I'm talking about orders from the top)

you dont say what counts and what doesnt

Originally posted by George W. Bush
Well, it's funny that it COULD NOT have been done outside the US, because it WAS.

you seem to forget that the hijackers were training in florida, and the 'ringleader' or 'mastermind' of the attacks(Atta) was 1 of them

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by Suney_J
you dont say what counts and what doesnt

If it's not sanctioned by the leadership, you can't criticise the leadership for going over there.

you seem to forget that the hijackers were training in florida, and the 'ringleader' or 'mastermind' of the attacks(Atta) was 1 of them

Wow! So the hijackers were in America! I didn't know that!

Think about what you just wrote for a second. The hijackers were training to fly the planes they were going to hijack in America. That means the attack WAS ALREADY PLANNED. WTF are you talking about?

 

[Suney_J]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
If it's not sanctioned by the leadership, you can't criticise the leadership for going over there.

if its approved by military leadership you should expect critism

Originally posted by George W. Bush
Wow! So the hijackers were in America! I didn't know that!

my whole point, and the reason why we're talkin about this, is you saying that terror planners never come to western countries, so you just proved yourself wrong

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by Suney_J
if its approved by military leadership you should expect critism

Uhh, that's kinda like, what I just said, except I didn't have spelling errors.

my whole point, and the reason why we're talkin about this, is you saying that terror planners never come to western countries, so you just proved yourself wrong [/B]

Dear God, you are a fucking moron. I am saying that the leaders of al Qaida, who PLAN THE TERRORIST ATTACKS. ALLOW ME TO QUOTE, since you just fucking didn't get it the first time.

(in reference to al Qaida terror planners holding meetings in Iraq, with you saying you're sure [which would imply some sort of proof, moron] "planners met in the US, Australia the UK")
THIS IS WHAT I SAID

Oh really. See, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I don't think terrorist leaders would risk coming to the Western world, but would rather stay with a friendly government. But I'm sure you've got some specific examples to prove me wrong.

You seem to be mistaken between THE GUYS THAT CARRIED OUT THE FUCKING ATTACK and the guys that planned said fucking attack. Obviously there are some terrorist attack planners in the US, as not all terrorism comes from the Islamic world. But I'm thinking leaders of AL FUCKING QAIDA don't MEET TO PLAN ATTACKS in US, UK or Australia. Feel perfectly free to show me ANY DOCUMENTATION which contradicts this point.


Now, if you reply to this post, and I don't reply, it's not that you've won. It's not that I've quit. It's not that I'm just not visiting the site any more (well, maybe my Internet will be down but I digress). It will be because to me, there seems to be no furthur purpose in digitally conversing with you as you don't seem to understand anything I say, which is written (in most cases) perfectly clearly in the King's own English.

Capiche?

 

[Suney_J]

you obviously dont understand

atta was named by your beloved US government as one of the masterminds of 9/11, not just a hijacker (and he stayed in the US for quite a while under a visitor visa)

and dont forget willie brigette and the current trial of jack roche. ASIO said that Brigette was planning to do harm in australia

my whole point is that terror planners can and do visit western nations, which contradict your "theory" that they wouldnt risk it

you're an idiot if you think that terror planners never come to western nations