I guess the evidence is in.

[Plane]

<<You are not reading Osamas own words , he wants to establish a big empire on Earth , a Caphilate.>>

So how does that make him similar to Saddam, similar enough that you can predict what Saddam would do based on what Osama has done?

<<Saddam was less religious  . . . >>

Bullshit.  Saddam wasn't religious at all.  He wasn't "less religious," he was non-religious.  He allowed the pubic consumption of alcohol, women in Western dress, equal educational opportunities for women - - every fucking thing that Osama and the Taliban opposed.  What are you doing, just making stuff up as you go along?  You're talking nonsense.


<< . . but the two of them were just useing diffrent means to the same end. >>

Oh that's just more  total bullshit.  A caliphate was a religion-based empire of Muslims and Saddam was a member of the Ba'ath Socialist Party.  He had no intention of establishing a Caliphate.  Anybody who wanted to establish a Caliphate would have been tortured to death if Saddam ever got his hands on him. 

Don't you see how your own mind is so crippled by racism that you can't even conceive of these guys differing? 
"They're Arabs so they gotta think the same."  You gotta get out of that box, plane!

I am in awe of the superior ability you have.


I cannot compare two Arabs who have made similar career choices without makeing myself a racist.
Yet some seem able to state the mind set of a whole region full of them without any such problem.


A Caphilate is an Empire and an Empire is a Caphilate in all of the respects that concern me .

There may be interesting details and diffrences in the various sorts of tyrany , but they are pretty much equally objectionable .


Saddam was a gambleing sort , with a long history of bold moves and biteing off more than he could chew.

Osama shared this trait , but levened it with scripture.

I don't count the addition of scripture to tyrany as a significant improvement.

[Plane]

Re: Evidence that Saddam had WMD

"The entire global community REJECTED this bullshit and wanted more time,..."




Oh?

[Michael Tee]

<<In this reality, they ALL claimed that Saddam posed a distinct threat, to both the region and to America, with his stockpike of WMD.  Your biggest beef is that Bush actually did something about it.>>

I guess on YOUR planet, sirs, there is no distinction between saying that a country is potential threat and saying that the threat is so great that action cannot be put off and there must be an invasion.  But on THIS planet, sirs, that is a BIG distinction.  And not just for semantic reasons - - because 600,000 people died as a result of that distinction.  It's really too bad that Bush DIDN'T restrict himself to saying what all the others had been saying.

<<So, in that entire rant of a paragraph, not so surprisingly, my question never got answered.  Just your nonverifiable conclusions of Bush being able to strongarm everyone else to follow his lead.  Priceless>>

A little slow in the reading-for-comprehension field, are we?  <<Bush tried to peddle his laughable, childish "intelligence" to the UN, and to most of the Western countries he wanted on-board.  . . .  And nobody was buying.>>  THAT'S basically where your question got answered, sirs.  Bush's "intelligence" failed to convince a lot of foreign leaders, sirs.  Most of them in fact.

<<Reading for comprehension issues again?  The paragragh supports the continued notion that we act BEFORE Saddam's WMD gets in the hands of a terrorist group, and then DOES become an immediate/imminent threat>>

Oh, don't worry, sirs, I GOT your childish and foolish idea that you had to act before Saddam could transfer his WMD to terrorists.  What I  - - or any other reasonably sane and normal individual - - found ludicrous was the very concept that Saddam would ever transfer nuclear or any other WMD to a terrorist group, effectively surrendering control over some very powerful weaponry for no conceivable advantage and with a downside that would include utter and instant anihilation of himself, his family and his nation.  An idea that even some certifiable paranoids would find bizarre.

<<Yea, and..............?  I'm not the one implying that they're all lying.  That'd be you big guy>>

More reading for comprehension issues, I see.  My point had nothing to do with Democrats lying or being mistaken, it had to do with the motivations of a bipartisan committee to cover up where both Republicans and Democrats (in your version of events) both had the exact same thing to be covered up.

<<I love the way you're able to rationalize how agenda driven books, by folks who could EASILY be shown to have an axe to grind, and who also are innoculated from any repercussions of their writings must be gospel . . . >>

As opposed to an oil-industry "President" and Vice-President and an AIPAC-supported Congress have NO agenda driving them, NO axe to grind and no real fear of any kind of criminal prosecution for anything except taking bribes.

<<but Bi-Partisan committees, who were required to look at the facts, must be discounted, because they dare stray from the pre-disposed mindset of how evil and a lying bastard Bush has to be.......because.....he just has to be.  It's Bush>>

Well, I gotta admit, you finally got me there, sirs.  How foolish I have been.  Imagine me thinking that a bipartisan Congressional committee would whitewash Democrats and Republicans.  Who ever heard of a Congressional committee whitewashing anything?

[Plane]

"Oh, OF COURSE.  The logic is unassailable.  If they can use boxcutters as weapons, they shouldn't have any problem deploying atom bombs.  Once you're qualified on box-cutters, man, you're qualified on any weapons system imaginable."


I see this as an insight of great profundity.


Is it more difficult to slash a man to death with a tiny blade , or is it more difficult to press a button that will cause a flash on the horizon.

Is it more difficult to travel the USA for months seeking a vunerable target and pretending frendship as you meet and learn from your intended victims , or is it more difficult to cross the border in a truck loaded with a wepon that makes all targets vunerable.

[sirs]

Re: Evidence that Saddam had WMD

"The entire global community REJECTED this bullshit and wanted more time,..."
Oh?

As we're all aware, the notion that the Global community wanted more time, is arguably accurate.  But to combine it with the notion that they rejected their own intelligence conclusions that Saddam did still posess WMD continues to be demonstrated as the lie that it is, by the lack of any evidence supporting the claim.........Oh wait, this is Tee making the claim.  I forgot, lack of evidence is proof of evidence.  My bad      

[Plane]

Maybe on YOUR planet, sirs, but on mine it was only Bush who claimed that the threat was so great that an invasion could not be put off.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm



  "Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,

Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations


Holding Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a “final opportunity to comply” with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).



By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days,..."

[sirs]

<<In this reality, they ALL claimed that Saddam posed a distinct threat, to both the region and to America, with his stockpike of WMD.  Your biggest beef is that Bush actually did something about it.>>

I guess on YOUR planet, sirs, there is no distinction between saying that a country is potential threat and saying that the threat is so great that action cannot be put off and there must be an invasion.  But on THIS planet, sirs, that is a BIG distinction.  

Actually the only distinction is one of action, as the rhetoric was nearly identical

<<Bush tried to peddle his laughable, childish "intelligence" to the UN, and to most of the Western countries he wanted on-board.  . . .  And nobody was buying.>>  THAT'S basically where your question got answered, sirs.  Bush's "intelligence" failed to convince a lot of foreign leaders, sirs.  Most of them in fact.

You keep parading that opinion as continued fact.  FACT remains that their OWN intelligence agencies, made their OWN conclusions, that mirrored that of the U.S. intel's conclusions.  Now, show us, as that was your claim, where they rejected THEIR own intelliegnce gathering

What I  - - or any other reasonably sane and normal individual - - found ludicrous was the very concept that Saddam would ever transfer nuclear or any other WMD to a terrorist group, effectively surrendering control over some very powerful weaponry for no conceivable advantage and with a downside that would include utter and instant anihilation of himself, his family and his nation.  An idea that even some certifiable paranoids would find bizarre.

Well, you continue, as ususal, in failing to grasp the concept that not only were their both direct and indirect ties with terrorist organizations, but that no matter how much dislike Saddam may have with religious fundamentalists, the U.S. & Israel provided a mich greater common enemy.  and as Saddam himself has shown, has no problem taking wild gambles, and would have no problem gambling that terrorists could do some major physical and political destruction with some of his WMD.  Perhaps enough to give him more latitude to break out of the boundries he was made to follow.  Only speculation at this point, but grounded in much greater logic than your effort

My point had nothing to do with Democrats lying or being mistaken, it had to do with the motivations of a bipartisan committee to cover up where both Republicans and Democrats (in your version of events) both had the exact same thing to be covered up.

You keep ignoring the conclusions I & most rationally minded folks have made, that since there was no mass effort for all congressional critters to lie about what Saddam had, there was no need to cover up anything.  So, the ball falls in your court to demonstrate how they all knew Saddam had WMD, but lied about it, thus requiring the need to "cover up" their dastardly deed

<<I love the way you're able to rationalize how agenda driven books, by folks who could EASILY be shown to have an axe to grind, and who also are innoculated from any repercussions of their writings must be gospel . . . >>

As opposed to an oil-industry "President" and Vice-President and an AIPAC-supported Congress have NO agenda driving them, NO axe to grind and no real fear of any kind of criminal prosecution for anything except taking bribes.

LOL.  The hole just keeps getting deeper & deeper

<<but Bi-Partisan committees, who were required to look at the facts, must be discounted, because they dare stray from the pre-disposed mindset of how evil and a lying bastard Bush has to be.......because.....he just has to be.  It's Bush>>

Well, I gotta admit, you finally got me there, sirs.  How foolish I have been.  Imagine me thinking that a bipartisan Congressional committee would whitewash Democrats and Republicans.  Who ever heard of a Congressional committee whitewashing anything?

Ahhh, more of that lack of evidence as proof of evidence, yet again.  Priceless        And I didn't realize the Butler commission was working for Bush as well.  Pretty smart moron we got there, to pull that off

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually the only distinction is one of action, as the rhetoric was nearly identical>>

Well, the consequences of bullshit that goes no further than bullshit are pretty benign.  The consequences of someone who uses the bullshit to justify action are, as you see, 600,000 dead.  As between two lying bullshitters, some of us prefer the kind who don't get anyone killed over the kind who get 600,000 killed.  Not all bullshitters are created equal, not by a long shot.

<<You keep parading that opinion as continued fact.  FACT remains that their OWN intelligence agencies, made their OWN conclusions, that mirrored that of the U.S. intel's conclusions.  Now, show us, as that was your claim, where they rejected THEIR own intelliegnce gathering>>

Well, if you are saying that the French, German, Russian, Chinese, Canadian, etc. and U.S. intelligence services all came up with the same conclusion, indicating the same need for immediate action, the same impossibility of waiting any longer, then the failure to join the U.S. attack on Iraq was a rejection of that intelligence by the French, German, Russian, Chinese, Canadian, etc. governments.  Each of the governments, according to you, was then rejecting the "intel" of its own intelligence service as well as intel from the French, German, etc. and U.S. government intelligence services.

<<Well, you continue, as ususal, in failing to grasp the concept that not only were their both direct and indirect ties with terrorist organizations . . .  >>

That's another lie right there, there was no proof of direct ties to terrorist organizations, and the indirect ties are the same intelligence-gathering contacts that every government has or tries to have with lots of groups just to keep tabs on them.

<< . . . but that no matter how much dislike Saddam may have with religious fundamentalists, the U.S. & Israel provided a much greater common enemy. >>

Really?  And you know that because Saddam drew up a numbered enemies list and showed it to you?  Or was it because Israeli agents in Iraq were trying to convert the population to Judaism? 

If the U.S. was a greater enemy to Iraq than the religious fundamentalist government in Iran, how did it happen that the U.S. government sided with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, and why did Saddam bother to ask the U.S. ambassador, April Glaspie, to greenlight his invasion of Kuwait?  And how was it that his "greater enemy" stood aside while he massacred his Shi'ite fundamentalist "lesser" enemies in Southern Iraq instead of pressing their attack on his armies after their retreat from Kuwait? 

You really don't know what the fuck you are talking about, do you?

<<and as Saddam himself has shown, has no problem taking wild gambles, >>

Oh?  Wild gambles like getting the U.S. on-side before attacking Iran?  Like asking for an American green-light before invading Kuwait?  Like pulling his army out of Kuwait without engaging the American army there?  Yeah, that Saddam is some wild and crazy guy alright.  A real gambler, as you say.

The rest of your drivel seems to be more of the same-ol'-same-ol', so I am just going to pass on it.  Oh, by the way - - the Butler Commission was British.  It wasn't a whitewash of Bush, it was a whitewash of the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

[sirs]

Well, if you are saying that the French, German, Russian, Chinese, Canadian, etc. and U.S. intelligence services all came up with the same conclusion, indicating the same need for immediate action ...

Never said such.  I defy you to show me where I did.  I've been consistent in simply demonstrating the FACT that the intel conclusions that Saddam still possessed stockpiles of WMD were present with all these other countries.  You're the one that keeps trying to combine the intel conclusions with we "had to immediately invade".  No one else has made that claim.  That's your lie, all to your own

You really don't know what the fuck you are talking about, do you?...Oh, by the way - - the Butler Commission was British.  It wasn't a whitewash of Bush, it was a whitewash of the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

Projection, at its finest.  Oh, and I realize that the Butler commission was British.  the point being there were multiple commissions, and according to you, they were all apparently lying as well, and obviously in cahoots with Bush.  I guess the only honest fella around is Saddam.  Poor guy, getting railroaded so harshly.  And you'll get back to us when you've come across the other leaders rejecting their own intel conclusions, k?  We'll be waiting patiently

[Michael Tee]

 <<I've been consistent in simply demonstrating the FACT that the intel conclusions that Saddam still possessed stockpiles of WMD were present with all these other countries. >>

Actually, you can stop congratulating yourself on your "consistency" in "demonstrating the FACT" that all the other countries' intelligence services had come to the same conclusions about Saddam's WMD.  The fact is you never demonstrated it at all, I just didn't bother to challenge you on this ridiculous bullshit.  Even if they did all agree there were stockpiles, which I wouldn't admit for a moment, there was obviously wide disagreement as to the significance of the stockpiles and the immediacy of the threat that they posed.

<<the point being there were multiple commissions, and according to you, they were all apparently lying as well, and obviously in cahoots with Bush. >>

"Multiple" my ass.  There was a British commission which whitewashed the British PM and an American commission or maybe two which whitewashed the "President."  You make it sound like Commissions were multiplying like rabbits.

[sirs]

Actually, you can stop congratulating yourself on your "consistency" in "demonstrating the FACT" that all the other countries' intelligence services had come to the same conclusions about Saddam's WMD.  The fact is you never demonstrated it at all, I just didn't bother to challenge you on this ridiculous bullshit. 

The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with "high confidence" was that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions."

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel and--yes--France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix--who headed the U.N. team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past--lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:  The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km [105 miles] southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

Yea, best not try challenging me

Even if they did all agree there were stockpiles, which I wouldn't admit for a moment, there was obviously wide disagreement as to the significance of the stockpiles and the immediacy of the threat that they posed.

Agreed, that was a judgement call that each individual country had to make on their own.  If it weren't for the events of 911, and his failure to comply fully with UN 1441 we'd likely still be watching Saddam take pot shots at our planes over the no-fly zones

"Multiple" my ass.  There was a British commission which whitewashed the British PM and an American commission or maybe two which whitewashed the "President."  You make it sound like Commissions were multiplying like rabbits.

Show me a bi-partisan commission that didn't.  Show me a bi-partisan commission that looked at all the facts and concluded, yea, that Bush, one lying sack of *#^$

[sirs]

People talk.  Explosions leave residues.  Residues can be matched to other residues.  Samples can be collected from various sites for comparison purposes.  Investigators investigate.  Scientists seem to be pretty confident of their ability to figure out stuff like that.  I believe they can.  HOW they find out after isn't anywhere near the issue of WHETHER they will find out at all.  

All of course missing the point of it having been detonated and having killed thousands if not tens of thousands of innocent civilians.  Again, the point is to prevent it from happening in the 1st place

If you were Saddam, and your life and the life of your country depended on it, you'd have basically two choices:

1.  Give the terrorists what they want and hope that the U.S. would never find out about it.  That's a pretty big gamble to take.  What's in it for Saddam?  
2.  Second choice:  Just say no.  Saddam was not afraid of terrorists or Islamic fundamentalists.  

And given Saddam's frequent propensity for gambling, incl that of his country, option 1 is perfectly reasonable

this whole concern about Saddam maybe giving nukes to terrorists is just ONE BIG FRAUD.  ONE MORE BUSH LIE.  It's so asinine only a moron could believe in it, but apparently in America there is no shortage of morons....it's quite a stretch to call the invasion of Iraq "pro-active."  Just because some lying bastard SAYS he is acting pro-actively does not make the act pro-active.  In fact, there's another Bush lie right there, and thank you for bringing this up.  The invasion was "pro-active" against an event that didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening, and Bush must have known that.

Well, that's another egregiously flawed opinion, but have at it

[Michael Tee]

<<All of course missing the point of it having been detonated and having killed thousands if not tens of thousands of innocent civilians.  Again, the point is to prevent it from happening in the 1st place>>

That might have been the point of Bush's policy (it wasn't really, but it's what his supporters claim was the point) but the point of my argument was that Saddam wouldn't have given the bomb to terrorists in the first place because of the retaliation that would likely follow.  What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that for Saddam, or anyone else, anihilation is anihilation - - equally to be avoided whether or not it has happened to somebody else.  I was making the point that Saddam just wouldn't give away the WMD to a bunch of unpredictable and unreliable flakes for a number of reasons, one being that it could get him and his country blown off the face of the earth.   You missed that point completely.  If you still don't get it, I'll be happy to elaborate further.

<<And given Saddam's frequent propensity for gambling, incl that of his country, option 1 is perfectly reasonable>>

First, Saddam doesn't have a "frequent propensity for gambling" and second, nobody has ever gambled where the stakes were total anihilation of self and country by nuclear attack.  Stronger countries than Iraq have never taken that gamble  Hitler, who was a real gambler (unlike Saddam) wouldn't even gamble with poison gas.

[sirs]

<<All of course missing the point of it having been detonated and having killed thousands if not tens of thousands of innocent civilians.  Again, the point is to prevent it from happening in the 1st place>>

That might have been the point of Bush's policy (it wasn't really, but it's what his supporters claim was the point)

Oh, and of course, the almighty Tee can read minds.     

but the point of my argument was that Saddam wouldn't have given the bomb to terrorists in the first place because of the retaliation that would likely follow.  What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that for Saddam, or anyone else, anihilation is anihilation - - equally to be avoided whether or not it has happened to somebody else. 

A) pure speculation on how it would be supposedly tracked back to Saddam
b) Military dictators like Saddam, have no problem gambling the lives of their people, so long as they might survive

I was making the point that Saddam just wouldn't give away the WMD to a bunch of unpredictable and unreliable flakes for a number of reasons, one being that it could get him and his country blown off the face of the earth. 

If the price were right, I don't think he'd blink an eye.

You missed that point completely.  If you still don't get it, I'll be happy to elaborate further.

Naaaa, your illogic is quite well recorded

<<And given Saddam's frequent propensity for gambling, incl that of his country, option 1 is perfectly reasonable>>
First, Saddam doesn't have a "frequent propensity for gambling" and second, nobody has ever gambled where the stakes were total anihilation of self and country by nuclear attack.  Stronger countries than Iraq have never taken that gamble  Hitler, who was a real gambler (unlike Saddam) wouldn't even gamble with poison gas.

Ahhh, Tee, and the breathtaking mind reading ability, yet again.  Tapping in to that of a madman.  Impressive         Saddam shooting poison gas at our military, during the initial invasion would absolutely be a death sentence to him and his nation.  Terrorists detonating some chemical device in Boston, is hardly a tag item that could be placed on Saddam, just like that.  A few degrees of seperation there, I'm afraid Tee.  and all the while, the deaths caused by that detonation keep being counted

[Michael Tee]

<<Oh, and of course, the almighty Tee can read minds.>>

No, he can connect the dots.  To someone who's incapable of connecting the dots, it just looks like reading minds.

<<A) pure speculation on how it would be supposedly tracked back to Saddam>>

That's speculation but the idea that Saddam would give away his nukes to terrorists is inescapable logical deduction.

<<b) Military dictators like Saddam, have no problem gambling the lives of their people, so long as they might survive>>

By what magical cloak of invulnerability would Saddam survive if the US came to the conclusion that the nuke exploded on its soil came from Iraq?

<<If the price were right, I don't think he'd blink an eye.>>

Right, so the guy's sitting on the second biggest proven oil reserves on the planet but he's so hard up for cash that he'll sell nukes to some crazy bunch of terrorists and hope desperately that word doesn't get out - - but (and here's where sirs displays his hard-won knowledge of the world) - - only "if the price were right."   sirs, you're hilarious. 

<<Ahhh, Tee, and the breathtaking mind reading ability, yet again. >>

oy.

<<Tapping in to that of a madman.  Impressive >>

Uhh, that would be you, sirs.   Letting us in on Saddam's gambling habits, and what they'll drive him to.  Letting us in on Saddam's insatiable thirst for cash, and what he'll do for it.  Comparing the gambles of other dictators (which in your truly monumental ignorance you happen to know absolutely nothing about, but that's another story) - - your "logic," BTW, is also hilarious - -  kinda like: well, my cousin Joey's a singer and Willie Nelson's a singer, and they both gamble, so if Willie bet $50,000 on a hand of poker, that means my cousin Joey would bet his life, his wife's life and his kids' lives that he could climb into the ring with a world heavyweight champion and beat the living shit out of him.  I mean, it's so fucking stupid that I don't even know where to start on it.  I'll just leave you with the analogy and leave it to you to figure out where you fucked up.

<<Terrorists detonating some chemical device in Boston, is hardly a tag item that could be placed on Saddam, just like that.  A few degrees of seperation there, I'm afraid Tee. >>

Right, sirs.  Of course.  Forgive me.  I had forgotten what impressive qualifications you possess in the means and techniques of investigating nuclear explosions and their residues, of intelligence gathering and criminal investigation.  And - - remind me again sirs - - those qualifications are . . . ?

<<and all the while, the deaths caused by that detonation keep being counted>>

Uhh, and in terms of Saddam's trying to decide whether or not to give a few nukes to those pesky terrorists, this would enter into his decision-making process how?  or where?He would figure it was OK if the US anihilated him and his country AFTER Boston had been nuked, but not before?  And even though that kind of anihilation avoidance wouldn't make sense to any of us, it would make sense to Saddam because, why?  Gee, sirs, we sure are lucky that you can provide such brilliant insights into Saddam's mind.  Why, YOU must be a mind-reader, sirs.  AND a genius.