Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty? - Page 2 - Cannabis.com Forums Message Boards - Medical Marijuana, Cannabis Club, Dispensary, News

8182KSKUSH · #26 (**permalink**) Jul-09-2008, 15:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by killerweed420

What Sadamm did was absolutely horrible. But we did the same in the name of freeing the Iraqi people.We used white phosphorus bombs and napalm the first couple of years and as usual a lot of civilians died.
Just one quote but there are numerous available.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | US used white phosphorus in Iraq
I think Americans get a little sanctimonious about everything we do is the right thing to do. I think a lot of times we are more wrong than we are right and history tends to prove it.

Just so we are clear, the fact the you are claiming "as usual lots of civilians died" is not supported anywhere in the link that YOU provided. Also not supported is YOUR claim that we used these legal weapons the FIRST COUPLE YEARS. It actually says the contrary. I am going to post the entire article you are siting so that someone can show me where it says "as usual lots of civilians were killed".
Did you even read this article?

US used white phosphorus in Iraq
US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.
The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.
BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.
Col Venable denied that white phosphorous constituted a banned chemical weapon.

White phosphorus is an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon
Col Barry Venable
Pentagon spokesman

Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians.
The US state department had earlier said white phosphorus had been used in Falluja very sparingly, for illumination purposes.
Col Venable said that statement was based on "poor information".
'Incendiary'
The US-led assault on Falluja - a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad - displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.
Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases.
"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

WHITE PHOSPHORUS
Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
Protocol III not signed by US

And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was a "conventional munition", not a chemical weapon.
It is not "outlawed or illegal", Col Venable said.
He said US forces could use white phosphorus rounds to flush enemy troops out of covered positions.
"The combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.
San Diego journalist Darrin Mortenson, who was embedded with US marines during the assault on Falluja, told the BBC's Today radio programme he had seen white phosphorous used "as an incendiary weapon" against insurgents.
However, he "never saw anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians", he said.
'Particularly nasty'
White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.
Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone."
A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.
But Professor Paul Rogers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.
He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people." When an Italian TV documentary revealing the use of white phosphorus in Iraq was broadcast on 8 November it sparked fury among Italian anti-war protesters, who demonstrated outside the US embassy in Rome.

Story from BBC NEWS:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | US used white phosphorus in Iraq

Published: 2005/11/16 11:25:36 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

So again, I fail to see how this supports yours, or anyone else's claim that we or that GWB is just as horrible as Saddam?
I do appreciate the lively debate, and the maturity that you have, it is far beyond the way most handle these discussions, so I applaud you for that. With all do respect though, you are dead wrong with what you are saying.

And nothing in this article supports what you are saying, it actually contradicts what you are saying.

8182KSKUSH · #27 (**permalink**) Jul-09-2008, 16:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

Big difference when you use weapons of that nature against hundreds of thousands of unarmed men, women, and children, as opposed to using them against armed, uniformed, soldiers that are actually fighting.
They are still finding mass graves and bodies, piles and piles of them.

So we are back where we started killerweed.

Big ass world of difference between us and them.

birdgirl73 · #28 (**permalink**) Jul-09-2008, 18:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

How could anyone state that Saddam didn't need to be removed? Well, I guess Obama and his supporters would.

Have a good one!

Your understanding of the issues at hand here isn't any deeper than that which led you to post a story that didn't even have its facts straight.

If you'll look back at news stories and voting records, you'll find that the actual events of history go against your ridiculous statement above. Dems have known since before the first Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was awful. Bush the First did and the opposing party members of the legislature acknowledged that during his administration. Clinton knew well that he was dangerous. No one on either side of the aisle has ever disputed that. Our allies in Israel and Jordan have known this for ages, too. Again, that was never in dispute, just like the existence of this yellowcake wasn't.

What Dems did dispute is what Dragonrider explained earlier--a war based on the lies about the obtaining of enriched nuclear material from Niger. On lies to damage the ambassador whose report denied the existence of stockpiled weapons (this yellowcake was moot in that inventory and we've been aware of it for years). On the Addington-Cheney-driven scramble to create intelligence that fostered circumstances under which we could go to war.

Read your history. Read about Kurdistan. Read something from a legitimate news source. Please. You'll be better prepared. And you'll see that no Dem with any understanding of these issues has ever believed anything else other than that Saddam Hussein was a crazy, murdering SOB. Was that justification for a war? Well, it hasn't been justification for a war against the countries in the hands of the other crazy SOB dictators of the world that the Bush administration has been fine to leave in place. So, logically, no, it wasn't justification, at least in the eyes of the Dems. Since there were vast amounts of oil at stake here, though, it had to be justified by the Repubs.

8182KSKUSH · #29 (**permalink**) Jul-09-2008, 19:46

I don't get it.
From what I know, there were multiple, multiple, reasons for invading, not just 1 single piece of intel. If this debate is framed in such a manner as to limit the reasons for going to war to just that 1 item then I guess you have a point. That was not the sole reason though. I could be wrong.
One point worth mentioning that is never brought up, invading, toppling the Saddam government has given a huge geo-political advantage in the mid east, which we can use as leverage against Iran. N. Korea has shown in recent days progress through diplomatic channels, (though how much who really knows).
How long was it after the fall of Saddam that the little tyrant in Libya(sp), I want to say Kadafi, basically threw up his hands and confessed to having WMDs himself simply out of fear. (I am sorry for some reason my memory is failing me at the moment so if anyone knows what I am referencing just jump in.)
But the point is, that would not have happened had we not invaded and conquered. Unless you believe it was just a coincedence.

Oil is a big deal you are right, for the world not just us. Yet as we speak I just filled up for 4.67 per gallon, so again I fail to see the benefits of all that oil we are getting.

Strategery!
We cannot be everywhere all at once, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything. If that's the argument (that we aren't taking on other evil doers so why did we go to Iraq?) That's kind of weak. So it would be ok to take out Saddam as long as we also toppled every other single government that was being ran by a tyrant. Somehow I don't think the left would support that, as well as the fact that it is not realistic. You have to choose your battles. How comfortable do you think the mullahs in Iran are right now, knowing that they now have a fledgling democracy forming next door. And that the influence of that alone may topple Iran as it is today.
Strategery.
We had a tyrant, whom had already demonstrated that he was willing to kill hundreds of thousands of his own innocent people with WMD's, and had expressed a desire to do the same to us. Not such a big deal until we are hit at home on 9/11 by terrorists. From that point on we have a situation where we have a world leader with the means to supply these terrorists with all sorts of nice things. We have a man that is paying 10s of thousands of dollars to people to blow themselves up in public places for the sole purpose of killing Jews, and bragging about it. Does anyone still think it was a needless military action, and that he couldn't do anything to us? Personally himself likely not, but I bet my last bowl that he would go way out of his way to help anyone else that wanted to kill infadels in America. Like I said, he was already doing it to Israel.
If we weren't justified in taking action, then what would it take exactly to justify taking action?
In closing, I challenge anyone that believes the world would be better off if we would have never gone in their to explain exactly how we would be better off. Not to mention the people that actually live in Iraq, how would they be better off today with Saddam in power still? I am sure they would strongly disagree.

killerweed420 · #30 (**permalink**) Jul-09-2008, 19:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

Just so we are clear, the fact the you are claiming "as usual lots of civilians died" is not supported anywhere in the link that YOU provided. Also not supported is YOUR claim that we used these legal weapons the FIRST COUPLE YEARS. It actually says the contrary. I am going to post the entire article you are siting so that someone can show me where it says "as usual lots of civilians were killed".
Did you even read this article?

US used white phosphorus in Iraq
US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.
The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.
BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.
Col Venable denied that white phosphorous constituted a banned chemical weapon.

White phosphorus is an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon
Col Barry Venable
Pentagon spokesman

Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians.
The US state department had earlier said white phosphorus had been used in Falluja very sparingly, for illumination purposes.
Col Venable said that statement was based on "poor information".
'Incendiary'
The US-led assault on Falluja - a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad - displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.
Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases.
"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

WHITE PHOSPHORUS
Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
Protocol III not signed by US

And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was a "conventional munition", not a chemical weapon.
It is not "outlawed or illegal", Col Venable said.
He said US forces could use white phosphorus rounds to flush enemy troops out of covered positions.
"The combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.
San Diego journalist Darrin Mortenson, who was embedded with US marines during the assault on Falluja, told the BBC's Today radio programme he had seen white phosphorous used "as an incendiary weapon" against insurgents.
However, he "never saw anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians", he said.
'Particularly nasty'
White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.
Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone."
A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.
But Professor Paul Rogers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.
He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people." When an Italian TV documentary revealing the use of white phosphorus in Iraq was broadcast on 8 November it sparked fury among Italian anti-war protesters, who demonstrated outside the US embassy in Rome.

Story from BBC NEWS:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | US used white phosphorus in Iraq

Published: 2005/11/16 11:25:36 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

So again, I fail to see how this supports yours, or anyone else's claim that we or that GWB is just as horrible as Saddam?
I do appreciate the lively debate, and the maturity that you have, it is far beyond the way most handle these discussions, so I applaud you for that. With all do respect though, you are dead wrong with what you are saying.

And nothing in this article supports what you are saying, it actually contradicts what you are saying.

The catch here is this is how many times the Pentagon says these chemicals were used. How often does the Pentagon tell the truth? The 100's of thousands of Iraqi civilians that have died are reported in numerous web sites. Of course no way to know how many really died because all the infrastucture was destroyed. Estimates are anywhere from 40,000 civilians to over a million.
Iraq Body Count
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dragonrider · #31 (**permalink**) Jul-09-2008, 19:57

Thanks for the reasonable and well-thought-out post, Birdgirl. It's always irritating and insulting when somneone implies that Deomcrats someohow favored Saddam Hussein or think the world would be better with him in it. Everyone knew he was a despicable tyrant who deserved death or worse, Democrats included.

Everyone knew that he was dangerous and yet not everyone agreed that it would be a good idea to go in and take him out by force given how hard the aftermath would be to manage. Bush senior, Powell, and Cheney all felt that way in '91 when we could have easily taken him out. A lot of people thought we should tke him out in '91, but Bush senior, Powell, and Cheney knew the aftermath would be a disaster and said so in '91. And look at where we are now that we went against that wisdom --- a disaster.

We had Hussein adequately bottled up and contained with sanctions and the no-fly zones. The fact that we could have easily defeated him at any moment meant we didn't actually have to go in and do it. He was smart enough to know we could take him out any time we wanted to, and he was not looking for a fight. In my judgement and the judgement of many others he was a contained threat.

It's insulting to say that because a person feels Hussein was adequately contained that somehow that person is in FAVOR of Hussein. It's stupid and unsupported.

8182KSKUSH · #32 (**permalink**) Jul-09-2008, 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by killerweed420

The catch here is this is how many times the Pentagon says these chemicals were used. How often does the Pentagon tell the truth? The 100's of thousands of Iraqi civilians that have died are reported in numerous web sites. Of course no way to know how many really died because all the infrastucture was destroyed. Estimates are anywhere from 40,000 civilians to over a million.
Iraq Body Count
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LMFAO
Shit man you are right! I am sure that "Iraq Body Count" the website which is hard left, I just gonna guess, George Soros funded, anti-American site is going to have better information than the pentagon, and our own military.

But just in case they don't, then there's always Wiki.

ok
Well since it is on the INTERNET it must all be true huh, at least since it reinforces your personally opinion that the war was unjust. Your opinion that the war was unjust is fair and perfectly fine really. I respect that. However I wouldn't go as far as to say you are really getting good solid info from either of those sources. Just do your due diligence and try to be as skeptical about the nature of the information that you get from those sources, as you are with the information our own military is giving you. Just because it reinforces what you believe doesn't make it true. My brother does this, he will dig and dig and dig and spend tons of time for any way to discredit anything that contradicts his limp wristed bed wetting liberal beliefs, but if moveon.org says it he just accepts it as the gospel because it reinforces what he has already been told to believe. I am not saying you are doing that in this case, but neither of those sources are worth a shit for any kind of relevant information. Just my opinion though.

Who knows maybe you are right and we are just killing people over there just for the fun of it, and it's all a big conspiracy to keep it covered up, and the people over at the Iraq Body Count site are just on the cutting edge of journalism. I kind of doubt it though.

dragonrider · #33 (**permalink**) Jul-09-2008, 20:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

I don't get it.
From what I know, there were multiple, multiple, reasons for invading, not just 1 single piece of intel. If this debate is framed in such a manner as to limit the reasons for going to war to just that 1 item then I guess you have a point. That was not the sole reason though. I could be wrong.

Well, I won't speak for Birdgirl, but personally I was trying to stick with the topic of the original post. The original post was about yellowcake and made some weak conclusion that, because of this well-known cache of yellowcake in Iraq, Bush had not lied about yellowcake in the runup to the war.

The only statement I can remember Bush making in regards to yellowcake before the war was his claim that Iraq had tried to illegally obtain yellowcake from Niger, and I am assuming that it is this statement that the article had been trying to prove was not a lie. The article did not prove this statement was not lie. Bush lied about Iraq trying to obtain yellowcake from Niger. The Niger lead had been followed up by multiple intelligence services and found not to have any truth, and Bush was aware of that fact. Yet he still presented this lie as one of the most important pieces of evidence that Iraq was violating the UN resolutions and attempting to restart his nuke program.

So, yes, this thread is about one of the many lies, mixed with many valid facts, that were used to justify the war.

8182KSKUSH · #34 (**permalink**) Jul-09-2008, 20:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Everyone knew he was a despicable tyrant who deserved death or worse, Democrats included. .

I know that you are speaking for yourself and birdgirl, but not only have libs on this forum stated that we would be better off today if Saddam were still in power, but major national liberal leaders have said the same as well. Careful, they are going to throw you out of the club if the hear you talking like that!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Everyone knew that he was dangerous and yet not everyone agreed that it would be a good idea to go in and take him out by force given how hard the aftermath would be to manage. Bush senior, Powell, and Cheney all felt that way in '91 when we could have easily taken him out. A lot of people thought we should take him out in '91, but Bush senior, Powell, and Cheney knew the aftermath would be a disaster and said so in '91. And look at where we are now that we went against that wisdom --- a disaster. .

What you are saying here isn't entirely factual dragon. Us not going in in 91 was not a decision that was made by us, that was done by the U.N., remember? I believe had they had it their way (Bush 1), they would have kept going, and if I remember correctly there was quite a debate over that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragonrider

We had Hussein adequately bottled up and contained with sanctions and the no-fly zones. The fact that we could have easily defeated him at any moment meant we didn't actually have to go in and do it. He was smart enough to know we could take him out any time we wanted to, and he was not looking for a fight. In my judgement and the judgement of many others he was a contained threat.

It's insulting to say that because a person feels Hussein was adequately contained that somehow that person is in FAVOR of Hussein. It's stupid and unsupported.

Really, tell that to the Jews that were murdered in public by homicide bombers that were being subsidized by Sadam. What else was he doing? That's not even mentioning what he was doing to his own people. Yeah he was sure contained, not harming anyone huh?

And it's not stupid, it's a fact. If you don't believe that we should have toppled him, then you must believe that he should have been in power. Explain where I am going wrong with that, how exaclty would he have been taken out of power without this war? I am all ears.
Sorry to insult anyone, that's not my intent, it is just a little bit confusing when anyone says that we should have never gone in, but they also think that Saddam should have been removed from power? Which is it? You can't really have it both ways, er, well I guess you can, it just doesn't make any sense. You either support him being removed from power or you don't. Unless you believe that we could have just talked him out of power?

That always works with sadistic homicidal dictators!

8182KSKUSH · #35 (**permalink**) Jul-09-2008, 20:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Well, I won't speak for Birdgirl, but personally I was trying to stick with the topic of the original post. The original post was about yellowcake and made some weak conclusion that, because of this well-known cache of yellowcake in Iraq, Bush had not lied about yellowcake in the runup to the war.

The only statement I can remember Bush making in regards to yellowcake before the war was his claim that Iraq had tried to illegally obtain yellowcake from Niger, and I am assuming that it is this statement that the article had been trying to prove was not a lie. The article did not prove this statement was not lie. Bush lied about Iraq trying to obtain yellowcake from Niger. The Niger lead had been followed up by multiple intelligence services and found not to have any truth, and Bush was aware of that fact. Yet he still presented this lie as one of the most important pieces of evidence that Iraq was violating the UN resolutions and attempting to restart his nuke program.

So, yes, this thread is about one of the many lies, mixed with many valid facts, that were used to justify the war.

O
Sorry
Guess I am off topic.

dragonrider · #36 (**permalink**) Jul-09-2008, 20:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

O
Sorry
Guess I am off topic.

Ha ha! Well, these discussions about that war always go that way, and there's probably nothing wrong with that, but all I was saying was you can't fault Birdgirl for sticking to the subject.

8182KSKUSH · #37 (**permalink**) Jul-09-2008, 20:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Ha ha! Well, these discussions about that war always go that way, and there's probably nothing wrong with that, but all I was saying was you can't fault Birdgirl for sticking to the subject.

No you are right, I am always thinking macro, even when the disscusion is a micro point. This is what happens when I don't have any kush.

My brain fails to work as well, I really believe that.

thcbongman · #38 (**permalink**) Jul-09-2008, 20:40

I don't understand these assertions that the Pentagon isn't telling the truth.

Just looking at Iraqi body count website, it seems like the data collection methods are vastly inconsistant. I looked at one incident.

k10305 :: Apr 25: Man and his wife shot dead in Palestine, east Mosul :: Iraq Body Count

All it states is man & wife shot dead in drive-by shooting.

No identities, no specifics of crime-scene. How is there any way to distinguish this even had any relation to the US military or terrorism vs a crime amongst Iraqis? I'm sure collected by the Pentagon undergoes far more vigirous process to be deemed acceptable statistical information.

I wouldn't trust iraqbodycount at all. Look at the actual data.