Kerrys Biggest Lie Yet

[TruthSpeak]

1. Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. His own investigators have said there were no WMDs. Lie, untruth, gross exaggeration - take you pick. Ps Ignorance should never be a justification for saying something is a fact when you do not know it to be true (as it wasn't).

What investigators said there were no WMD? What are you talking about??? Nobody knew for sure until we went in.

Bush, Clinton, Kerry, Hillary, and a slew of other democrats and republicans have told the united states Iraq had WMD. Are they all liars???????????

ITS CALLED INTELLIGENCE...its ASSUMED to be true based on EVIDENCE.

If Bush is a liar, my weatherman is a fucking liar when he tells me its going to rain and it doesnt. Right???

2. Re Hussein involved in September 11 - the fact that just before September last year a poll was taken by the Washington Post (not liberal by any stretch of the "fox news" imagination) into whether Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks. In the report (6 September 2003-use google to find it) the reporters said:

"Although that belief came without prompting from Washington, Democrats and some independent experts say Bush exploited the apparent misconception by implying a link between Hussein and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the months before the war with Iraq. "The notion was reinforced by these hints, the discussions that they had about possible links with al Qaeda terrorists," said Andrew Kohut, a pollster who leads the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. "

Bush never made the statement that Iraq was connected to 9/11. He made the suggestion that it might be possible, and told the american people that they were investigating.

After it was found that there was no link, Bush dropped that charge.

Stop spinning shit liberal.

3. The leader of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, has recently called this invasion of Iraq illegal. Given his position is a World position, not a subservient US backed position, I take his views with more credibility than your views.

Kofi Annan is worried about his fucking checkbook, not about our security. Any moron that believes what Kofi Annan and the U.N. has to say is a fucking moron. The U.N. is a useless organization who doesnt even enforce their own resolutions.

The war in Iraq was legal and justified by four seperate U.N. resolutions against Iraq. This is not debatable. You and Koffuckyourself are completely wrong, and its been proven over a hundred times.

Just because you have the most deadly military in history does not make everything you do correct (or incorrect). When you use force you should ensure you are right - not wrong. That is what scares the world.

Was 300,000 dead in mass graves right or wrong??

Were you going to wait until Iraq DID have nuclear or biological weapons and used them on us or israel???

Why do democrats always want to defend us AFTER we are dead.

USE YOUR HEAD!!!!!

You know damn well that if we hadnt gone to iraq, and saddam attacked us, the liberals would be crying that Bush ignored intelligence and ignored the lessons of 9/11...you fucking know it.

Your comment about the number of resolutions is a red herring. Most of the resolutions were based on Hussein getting rid of WMDs. The IAEA and weapons expectors could not find any before the war ... because there weren't any!

No, go read the fucking resolutions.

They called on Saddam to PROVE and PROVIDE EVIDENCE that he had destroyed his WMD (that he was given and that he had used on the kurds) and to prove that he had dismantled his WMD programs (which he admitted to having) - he provided NONE of this evidence.

It wasnt about him destroying the weapons, it was about him PROVING that they were destroyed and that the PROGRAMS were dismantled. He refused to do this. He didnt say he couldnt, he refused.

[quote]There was a comment earlier that the US should disband (or dismantle) the UN. I would be happy for the US to exclude itself from the world body, and give up its veto, as there is a perfectly good UN location in Switzerland. New York could even save on the wages of parking wardens. If you are not willing to work with the rest of the world then at the very least you should stop obstructing it.[/QUOTE

The rest of the world is not willing to work with common sense. Its not our fault. If the U.N. did any good for anyone, instead of corrupting its own programs and failing to back up its resoultions...then someone might respect it.

Remember...the U.S. IS one of only a few ACTIVE arms of the United Nations. We provide the most money to it, we act for it, and we are one of few countries to get anything done through it.

This is the same United Nations that puts China, Russia, Cuba, and others on the Human Rights committee.........you realize thats not a fucking joke right???

How about France, Germany, and Russia using their veto powr to stop us from invading Iraq BECAUSE they have open weapons contracts with Saddam????

Your U.N. is pathetic, pointless, limp dick, and has two kinds of cancer called idiocy and appeasment. Relying on the U.N. for anything is a joke, and shows serious signs of being a moron.

[Officer of Engineers]

Kofi Annan is worried about his fucking checkbook, not about our security. Any moron that believes what Kofi Annan and the U.N. has to say is a fucking moron. The U.N. is a useless organization who doesnt even enforce their own resolutions.

NOW, WAIT A GOD DAMNED SECOND! I've served with UNPROFOR. We did our jobs. And we did damned good. Despite what the CIA tried.

How about France, Germany, and Russia using their veto powr to stop us from invading Iraq BECAUSE they have open weapons contracts with Saddam????

Germany doesn't have a veto.

[Kipruss]

Truthspeak sounds reminiscent of George Orwell's book, 1984 (perhaps it is even a quote from it). You realise it was satire against the real communists for saying lies as though it was the truth and forcing everyone to believe in it (or else)?

I'm pretty sure George, however, was able to make his points without the angry and repetitive profanity.

The United Nations is full of brave people from 200+ countries who are trying to work together for the good of this world. That they are able to bring together such disparate groups and getting anything done is a testiment to them. They are not a government with their own army and income so need the help of their member nations. When the UN fails it is because of a failure of the member nations and maybe its structure that allows the "winners" of WW2 a veto. NZ was involved in the formation of the UN (having declared war on Germany in 1939) but argued against the veto.

As to the supposed veto (and the chap of course correctly stated that Germany does not have one) against Iraq, it was never used. The French rarely use it (about 20 times compared to the US' 80 odd times and the Russians/Soviets 120+ times).

The International Atomic Energy Agency and the various UN weapons inspectors had been in Iraq, on and off, for many years and found no new WMDs beyond those they destroyed after the first Iraqi war. Right up until the invasion they were saying to the world that Saddam did not have any WMDs despite the unsubstantiated claims of the "Intelligence" agencies in the US and Britain.

That Iraq was unable to prove it had destroyed all its WMDs does not justify the invasion or the lack of a recent "all necessary means" resolution.

Here is a link to some Americans more learned than I on the subject:

http://www.lcnp.org/global/iraqstatement3.htm

It might be good to mention the war to rid Kuwait of their Iraqi invaders showed the ability to bring nations together of the original Bush presidency. Unfotunately he did not teach his son diplomacy.

[Officer of Engineers]

The US is right on this.

an armed attack is launched, or is immediately threatened, against a state’s territory or forces (and probably its nationals);

The Iraqis were shooting at the USAF and the RAF for over 5 years.

Such a resolution is required for renewed use of force. It is the Security Council that has assumed responsibility regarding Iraq, and it must be the Security Council that decides, unambiguously and specifically, that force is required for enforcement of its requirements. Past Security Council resolutions authorizing use of force employed language universally understood to do so, regarding Korea in 1950 (prior to General Assembly action, Security Council Resolution 83 recommended that UN member states provide "such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area"), and Kuwait, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, and Bosnia in the 1990s ("all necessary means" or "all measures necessary"). In all these instances, the Security Council responded to actual invasion, large-scale violence, or humanitarian emergency, not to potential threats.

Wrong on this count. UNPROFOR did not need to go to the UNSC for combat authorization and things were pretty stable before Medac and Krajina (like Iraq) - didn't stop us from going into open combat in those events.

Afraid the precedent has been set by UNPROFOR.

[TruthSpeak]

Truthspeak sounds reminiscent of George Orwell's book, 1984 (perhaps it is even a quote from it). You realise it was satire against the real communists for saying lies as though it was the truth and forcing everyone to believe in it (or else)?

I dont quote anybody, and I havent read that book.

I'm pretty sure George, however, was able to make his points without the angry and repetitive profanity.

He wasnt speaking directly to morons.

The United Nations is full of brave people from 200+ countries who are trying to work together for the good of this world. That they are able to bring together such disparate groups and getting anything done is a testiment to them. They are not a government with their own army and income so need the help of their member nations. When the UN fails it is because of a failure of the member nations and maybe its structure that allows the "winners" of WW2 a veto. NZ was involved in the formation of the UN (having declared war on Germany in 1939) but argued against the veto.

The United Nations has some brave people, and it has some corrupt people, and it has some pussies.

You're right, they arent a government with their own army (there are U.N. soldiers though...they wear little blue hats and rarely do anything with their guns), their income comes mostly from the United States, and their failure is based on the countries that are allowed to be a part of the U.N.

As to the supposed veto (and the chap of course correctly stated that Germany does not have one) against Iraq, it was never used. The French rarely use it (about 20 times compared to the US' 80 odd times and the Russians/Soviets 120+ times).

Sorry, I was wrong on Germany's veto, but France and Russia didnt use their veto because they told us outright that anything we brough forth would be veto'd...so we didnt bother going. They would have used their veto power though, you know it.

The International Atomic Energy Agency and the various UN weapons inspectors had been in Iraq, on and off, for many years and found no new WMDs beyond those they destroyed after the first Iraqi war. Right up until the invasion they were saying to the world that Saddam did not have any WMDs despite the unsubstantiated claims of the "Intelligence" agencies in the US and Britain.

Look, you are the last person I'm going to say this to.

Thirty senior citizens wearing blue hats, riding around the desert in cars with U.N. written on the side in big white letters arent going to find ANYTHING that Saddam doesnt want them to find.

How many times did he kick out the inspectors? How many times did he make them provide lists of places they were going to search before they showed up? How many times did they tell stories of having to sit outside of warehouses for hours, banned from getting inside, while trucks drove up, loaded up unknown products and left? How many times did he just reject them from examining sites???

The inspections were NEVER going to work. Anybody with common sense could have seen that.

That Iraq was unable to prove it had destroyed all its WMDs does not justify the invasion or the lack of a recent "all necessary means" resolution.

The U.N. made the resolution authorizing force, not us. It was a unanimous vote. If you dont think it justified the invasion, you havent read it.

It might be good to mention the war to rid Kuwait of their Iraqi invaders showed the ability to bring nations together of the original Bush presidency. Unfotunately he did not teach his son diplomacy.

Yes you're right, he did have a awesome coalition for Kuwait didnt he? And guess who voted against that war?

JOHN KERRY.

Rock the vote.

[Officer of Engineers]

IYou're right, they arent a government with their own army (there are U.N. soldiers though...they wear little blue hats and rarely do anything with their guns), their income comes mostly from the United States, and their failure is based on the countries that are allowed to be a part of the U.N.

WRONG! There are NO UN soldiers. All blue beret troops are from member states. I wore a blue beret in Yugoslavia but there is no doubt that I was a Canadian soldier, not a UN soldier.

I got $10 a week from the UN. While that's not a hell of alot of money. It is the diffrerence for non-Western troops whether they buy bread for their family, that smoke, or that drink at the end of the week.

However, WHOOPEE DO, do you want a refund from me? I'll sign a cheque back to the Americans right now. Get off your high horse. I ain't impressed with your grandstanding especially when you have no idea how much your CIA and your Albright screwed us. Since when do you have the gall to stand so high and mighty when your CIA armed, trained, and advised Croat troops to fight us Canadians? We were and are your Allies. Your CIA passed satellite photos of our fortification layouts to the Croats and told them EXACTLY where and when to hit us.

I'm damned proud of my service with UNPROFOR and I'm damned proud of the people I've served with and that includes the British and French. Together with us Canadians, we were the 3 largest force contributors to UNPROFOR. The US was nowhere to be found on the ground.

I don't blame the American military. They have to answer to their political masters just as much as I do but know that your political masters wasn't exactly making it easy for us serving in UNPROFOR to do our jobs.

[Ray]

Truthspeak,

I have stayed away from this debate since it diorectly does not affect me or my country.

However, I am afraid your arguments are highly bigoted and without substance. Too emotional and partisan.

At the outset, without going into moralities, Bush is the better bet for my country.
Yet, I cannot be blind. Even with Bush being the what he is, he is still my bet since I don't care so long he does my country good. I am not only partisan but inspite of the facts. my vote goes for him because he is good for my country. I know he is all rhetorics (at least to most outside the US) but I say who cares?

Yet, I am not blind.

WMD has not been found. Period. Gassing over it, is of no use. If Blix was not given time to fish it out, then I don't think anyone can ask for quarters since none will be given. How long do you want? Upto Doomsday? Such weak arguments against muscled rhetortics of the earlier times and even now, is making the US a laughing stock. That ass who was to be smoked out is simply still under the smoke and laughing up his sleeve and using that freak Al Jaljeera to thumb a finger. Christ, do you think we want the US to fail? NO. Yet we want some concrete steps.

US stands alone. Sad. All because of misplaced arrogance. Yes, arrogance and most juvenile rhetorics. Blair was at least straight. The Birtish approach win friends and not enemies. Even in Iraq, the US is bearing the brunt. It is not that the UK is shirking or they are in a cool zone.

It is time to take the international community on board. Bush's rhetorics repels all.
it is time to take it easy, mend fences and get the acutal international community on board. Or else, this Iraq will be the biggest humiliation of the times!

Thirty senior citizens wearing blue hats, riding around the desert in cars with U.N. written on the side in big white letters arent going to find ANYTHING that Saddam doesnt want them to find.

Sad they didn't take young folks like you who are highly partisan and highly unqualified to comment.

[Trooth]

They called on Saddam to PROVE and PROVIDE EVIDENCE that he had destroyed his WMD (that he was given and that he had used on the kurds) and to prove that he had dismantled his WMD programs (which he admitted to having) - he provided NONE of this evidence.

It wasnt about him destroying the weapons, it was about him PROVING that they were destroyed and that the PROGRAMS were dismantled. He refused to do this. He didnt say he couldnt, he refused.

This isn't entirely true is it? Saddam provided thousands of pages of material and CD-roms etc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2557079.stm

Many people thought it was to try and obfuscate the situation. It could have been, but equally these are complicated subjects and they take a lot of documentation. If the idea was to obfuscate, it failed, because it was within these documents that the test results showing illegaly ranged missiles were found ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2562001.stm for a an overview of the contents and the final paragraph showing the above).

Equally the need to prove he didn't have them was a bolt on requirement, when it became clear the inspectors were struggling to find them.

[Confed999]

Equally the need to prove he didn't have them was a bolt on requirement, when it became clear the inspectors were struggling to find them.

Saddam's full cooperation with the inspectors has allways been required.

[Ray]

I think Saddam played a very wrong game that led to his doom. He acted cagey leading to suspicions. If he and his MInisters were forthright, I wonder if this situation would have come to pass.

[TruthSpeak]

Truthspeak,

I have stayed away from this debate since it diorectly does not affect me or my country.

However, I am afraid your arguments are highly bigoted and without substance. Too emotional and partisan.

At the outset, without going into moralities, Bush is the better bet for my country.
Yet, I cannot be blind. Even with Bush being the what he is, he is still my bet since I don't care so long he does my country good. I am not only partisan but inspite of the facts. my vote goes for him because he is good for my country. I know he is all rhetorics (at least to most outside the US) but I say who cares?

Yet, I am not blind.

WMD has not been found. Period. Gassing over it, is of no use. If Blix was not given time to fish it out, then I don't think anyone can ask for quarters since none will be given. How long do you want? Upto Doomsday? Such weak arguments against muscled rhetortics of the earlier times and even now, is making the US a laughing stock. That ass who was to be smoked out is simply still under the smoke and laughing up his sleeve and using that freak Al Jaljeera to thumb a finger. Christ, do you think we want the US to fail? NO. Yet we want some concrete steps.

US stands alone. Sad. All because of misplaced arrogance. Yes, arrogance and most juvenile rhetorics. Blair was at least straight. The Birtish approach win friends and not enemies. Even in Iraq, the US is bearing the brunt. It is not that the UK is shirking or they are in a cool zone.

It is time to take the international community on board. Bush's rhetorics repels all.
it is time to take it easy, mend fences and get the acutal international community on board. Or else, this Iraq will be the biggest humiliation of the times!

Thirty senior citizens wearing blue hats, riding around the desert in cars with U.N. written on the side in big white letters arent going to find ANYTHING that Saddam doesnt want them to find.

Sad they didn't take young folks like you who are highly partisan and highly unqualified to comment.

You are still wrong.

We found enough mustard and sarin gas to kill half a million people.

You need to read up on the times. We didnt find stockpiles but we did find banned weapons classified as WMD.

Get your facts straight before you comment.

[TruthSpeak]

This isn't entirely true is it? Saddam provided thousands of pages of material and CD-roms etc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2557079.stm

Many people thought it was to try and obfuscate the situation. It could have been, but equally these are complicated subjects and they take a lot of documentation. If the idea was to obfuscate, it failed, because it was within these documents that the test results showing illegaly ranged missiles were found ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2562001.stm for a an overview of the contents and the final paragraph showing the above).

Equally the need to prove he didn't have them was a bolt on requirement, when it became clear the inspectors were struggling to find them.

Saddam didnt provide the required information or evidence. Period. Ask any member nation of the U.N....they will confirm.

[Trooth]

Saddam, wasn't cooperating, its true. But he did provide information that incriminated himself. Therefore he was disclosing stuff. Perhaps he simply didn't have the proof the west required? I am firmly of the opinion that he couldn't have kept the US.UK satisfied because proving a negative is notoriously tricky, and also because we didn't really want him to succeed in this proof anyway, for reasons i have gone over in another thread.

Equally putting spies into the inspection team was something that no sovereign nation could tolerate. The US wouldn't if the Ruskiss tried it during the disarmament inspections, for example. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a calculated risk anyway with the flip side that if the inspectors were expelled from Iraq, the west would use that against Iraq - whatever the reason.

We found enough mustard and sarin gas to kill half a million people.

You need to read up on the times. We didnt find stockpiles but we did find banned weapons classified as WMD.

I have never seen those numbers quoted before, i must have missed it, can you provide some links please?

[Confed999]

I am firmly of the opinion that he couldn't have kept the US.UK satisfied

If he had opened up the country to the inspectors, heck at that point even spies, I believe he would still be there. It was his lack of cooperation that convinced me he had something to hide. Then when they started finding hidden, maintained shells I was sure of it. It didn't turn out to be true, but even his own troops were fooled, so I don't take it too hard.

I have never seen those numbers quoted before, i must have missed it, can you provide some links please?

I've heard it, but seen no evidence.

[Trooth]

If he had opened up the country to the inspectors, heck at that point even spies, I believe he would still be there. It was his lack of cooperation that convinced me he had something to hide. Then when they started finding hidden, maintained shells I was sure of it. It didn't turn out to be true, but even his own troops were fooled, so I don't take it too hard.

If you thin a country is gonna go to war against you, you aren't going to let their spies in! The thing about his troops being convinced is that they wanted to be. They really wanted to believe that Iraq had super weapons - because they knew they sure as hell didn't!