Ann Coulter's outrageous comments on 9/11 widows

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by mog

You are implying that these 'stockpiles' were usable, when in reality they have been buried without any protection or maintenance for many years and have degraded to the point that they are no longer a threat.

Watch the video and listen to the former UN weapons inspector in the clip's 2nd half.

There is no evidence to suggest they were actually hidden stockpiles destined for later use, and not just lost relics haphazardly strewn around.

That's why I said on another thread to pay attention to this excerpt from the Powerline Blog:

This is certainly significant, but what they're talking about is old munitions left over from, presumably, before the first Gulf War. This doesn't appear to constitute evidence that Saddam's regime had continued to manufacture chemical weapons in more recent years. What it does demonstrate is that the picture with respect to Iraq's WMDs is much more nuanced than the usual "he didn't have any" mantra. There is no doubt about the fact that Saddam had, and used, chemical and biological weapons. Nor is there any doubt about the fact that he eagerly pursued nuclear weapons. Further, the Iraq Survey Group report says that he had every intention of resuming his programs as soon as the coast was clear and the U.N. sanctions were behind him. Add to that the fact that hundreds of chemical weapons, at a minimum, were secreted in various locations around Iraq--as also shown by this document--and it is reasonable to conclude that, even though the CIA and nearly all other observers over-estimated Iraq's WMD capabilities, the fear that Saddam might use such weapons, or slip them to a terrorist group, was well-founded.

And now for the Rumsefeld Show!

[Sea Demon]

Hey Avon. All the evidence found, and everything you post here totally blows a hole in their "Bush lied, people died" nonsense. These people will simply ignore this evidence and continue on their fantasies.

The thing that truly matters here is that Saddam was lying about these weapons prior to the invasion and his removal. Saddam said he got rid of these weapons......and we now know he didn't. These weapons could have been used to do alot of harm. But still, these lefties/socialists/bush-haters/etc. will just ignore the truth to support the nonsense they have been telling themselves for the last 3 years. Facts be damned in their world.

[scandium]

Estimated cost for the war to date (based on Congressional appropriations): $290,000,000,000.00

Estimated cost per degraded sarin/mustard gas shell recovered (approx. 500) based on above: $590,000,000.00

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by scandium

Estimated cost for the war to date (based on Congressional appropriations): $290,000,000,000.00

Estimated cost per degraded sarin/mustard gas shell recovered (approx. 500) based on above: $590,000,000.00

I guess this is your new tactic? Yes, scandium, we know the war is expensive. It doesn't change the facts one bit.

[mog]

Originally Posted by August

No longer a threat?! Really? Would you care to take a sniff of them yourself? Maybe have some with your cheerios? Seriously, speaking of evidence do you have any saying these were just hapazardly strewn around?

These soldiers were hit by an IED blast from an old sarin gas shell and all they suffered was dilated pupils and a bit of nausea:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

That story also describes how US forces found a mustard gas shell just lying on the side of the road. These incidents occurred two years ago.

I recall a BBC story where half a dozen or so mustard gas shells were found under a few feet of dirt and silt, strewn about in an unorganised fashion along a river, however I can't find the link. I'll keep looking.

Conversely, do you know of any evidence that an organised stockpile was uncovered? If there existed such a stash, don't you think the Baathist insurgents would have used them at some point in the last 3 years?

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Watch the video and listen to the former UN weapons inspector in the clip's 2nd half.

He says that the mustard shells probably aren't a threat, but the sarin is worse.

hat's why I said on another thread to pay attention to this excerpt from the Powerline Blog:

This is certainly significant, but what they're talking about is old munitions left over from, presumably, before the first Gulf War. This doesn't appear to constitute evidence that Saddam's regime had continued to manufacture chemical weapons in more recent years. What it does demonstrate is that the picture with respect to Iraq's WMDs is much more nuanced than the usual "he didn't have any" mantra. There is no doubt about the fact that Saddam had, and used, chemical and biological weapons. Nor is there any doubt about the fact that he eagerly pursued nuclear weapons. Further, the Iraq Survey Group report says that he had every intention of resuming his programs as soon as the coast was clear and the U.N. sanctions were behind him. Add to that the fact that hundreds of chemical weapons, at a minimum, were secreted in various locations around Iraq--as also shown by this document--and it is reasonable to conclude that, even though the CIA and nearly all other observers over-estimated Iraq's WMD capabilities, the fear that Saddam might use such weapons, or slip them to a terrorist group, was well-founded.

Based on what evidence was available at the time, I think invading Iraq was the correct decision. I think it would have been reckless to leave Saddam Hussein in power after he had proven so many times that he couldn't be trusted and the UN couldn't touch him. However, I refuse to pretend that these relics are the WMDs that we claimed he had. I don't think that any party - not Iraq, the Coalition nor UNSCOM - would ever have denied pre-invasion that the unaccounted for weapons were still in Iraq somewhere. The question is whether they were servicable and whether Iraq knew where they were.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

I think you're right. I'm beginning to seriously believe that the left would rather see us fail horribly in Iraq just to justify their irrational hatred of the present administration.

"Would rather see fail us horribly"? Get up to date, you lag seriously behind.

290 billion is a little bit too much for the complete mess that got created. The stability and power balance of the region as well as we ourselves were better off with Saddam, than with what they and we do have now. The Israelis have voiced such thoughts first some months ago. Tariq Azziz said short before the war that maybe the regime could be removed - but only at the price of unleashing powers the West in no way were prepared to deal with. I said it back then, and I still think like that today: that was no attempted intimidation or gamble, that was simply the truth.

If Saddam was a threat - what will you people call it once the Shia orthodoxy have brought Iraq completely under their control? "XXXL-Megathreat, extra forte"? Iran is already teaching you lessons about your power position right now. Foreign forces already have no word anymore in most of Irak's great cities' districts. Their operations are as effective as street parades, cause even more hate, and do exactly the opposite of what they should acchieve. They shoot one terrorist, and three other pop up and vow revenge. Ultrafundamentalist orthodoxy is on the march, subjugating more and more of public life, of the streets, of everyday habits of the oridnary people. How many 290 billion dollars will it then be worth it for you to remove this even far bigger threat of two states in one, "Irakan"?

"Would rather see us fail horribly"? - Past, please. You already lost, years ago. And you were told that you will lose. You've been warned.

There is only one faction in this clash that is performing a successful hearts-and-minds-campaign. That is expanding Islam deceiving Europe.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by mog

Based on what evidence was available at the time, I think invading Iraq was the correct decision. I think it would have been reckless to leave Saddam Hussein in power after he had proven so many times that he couldn't be trusted and the UN couldn't touch him. However, I refuse to pretend that these relics are the WMDs that we claimed he had. I don't think that any party - not Iraq, the Coalition nor UNSCOM - would ever have denied pre-invasion that the unaccounted for weapons were still in Iraq somewhere. The question is whether they were servicable and whether Iraq knew where they were.

Your bottom line sounds like you're agreeing with the opinion I quoted from the Powerline Blog. If so, then what are we arguing about?

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

"Would rather see us fail horribly"? - Past, please. You already lost, years ago. And you were told that you will lose. You've been warned.

There is only one faction in this clash that is performing a successful hearts-and-minds-campaign. That is expanding Islam deceiving Europe.

I've said this before. I somewhat agree with you. We're certainly not winning but I don't know if the situation can be called losing either.

If the goal is the "win hearts and minds" , then yes, we lost a long time ago.

If the goal is to fight Islamic terror (or Islam itself IMO), then there are certain advantages to keeping it up. I've said before that I believe that the war in Iraq is attracting Islamic terrorists like a fly to honey and that had the US just gone in, got Sadaam, handed over Iraq to the Iraqis and left, the Islamic terrorists would have a lot of free time and tons more manpower on their hands to plot and carry out attacks in the west.

The leftist anti-US mass media is not reporting the hits on the enemy. They're too busy with coalition "milestone" numbers. Not all is well in Al Qaeda Mudville.

That being said, the west still is not ready to come to terms with exactly who or what they are fighting. And this alone just adds to the dangers of continuing the war with the wrong objectives in mind.

This is the beginning of a very long war.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

"Would rather see fail us horribly"?
"Would rather see us fail horribly"? -

Yes, Skybird you can quote me three times in a single post but I stil say that OUR left would rather see US fail horribly, just as they have in every situation, either foreign or domestic, since Bush first took office six years ago. It gives them something to complain about and claims that: "We could do better" (without of course actually supplying a plan on how they would).

What your left wants I neither know nor care. Besides why should we listen to Germanys advice, especially that of the left? Which of our two countries is in danger of being overrun by Muslims?

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by August

Which of our two countries is in danger of being overrun by Muslims?

Both.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Yes, Skybird you can quote me three times in a single post but I stil say that OUR left would rather see US fail horribly, just as they have in every situation, either foreign or domestic, since Bush first took office six years ago. It gives them something to complain about and claims that: "We could do better" (without of course actually supplying a plan on how they would).

What your left wants I neither know nor care. Besides why should we listen to Germanys advice, especially that of the left? Which of our two countries is in danger of being overrun by Muslims?

Yours will face the same misery like mine. Just a little bit later. America is Allah's land as well, you know. Muslim and especially Saudi economies are already very strong in the US, btw.

My point only was that you are talking about a thing of the past as if it still were to happen. No one waits to see you lose in Iraq, since you already have lost it. You are also about to lose Afghanistan again, too, and many people in your country do not even seem to realize it. I agree with AL when she said "That being said, the west still is not ready to come to terms with exactly who or what they are fighting. And this alone just adds to the dangers of continuing the war with the wrong objectives in mind." I also agree that the political left are living by serious illusions of that they can tame Islam while nursing it to take benefit of the voting power (in European countries, 75-90% of Muslims vote for the left, because they serve the purpose of Islam so well, and additonally give Muslims money, directly or indirectly).

One of the first things the Shias did after the return of Khomeni and the Iranian revolution: they hung all communists they could catch, whom were their close allies and supporters in the preparation of the regime's fall.

I disagree on Iraq being a honeytrap for terrorists. While it attracts a lot of attention, it more is a test-tube, a massive breeding program for terrorists fighters, and a training ground. It creates more terror fighters than it looses, and they will not always restrict their attention to Iraq. By now I am convinced that Iraq is doomed to fall, then it is theirs, and then they will search for new playgrounds. Irak increases the influence of the Shia orthodoxy, and Iran. And in Europe we already start to feel the fallout coming from that. We urge other Muslim countries to make the same mistake we did with Iraq, to open pandora's box, so to speak. Both in Egypt and Turkey, which are under western pressure to become more open and liberal and democratic - paradoxically not democracy and liberalism is spreading, but religious orthodoxy, hardcore Islam. Bastards like Saddam are like lids on a pressure pan that is boiling with Islamism. Lift it, and see the sh!t hitting the fan. So happened in Irakq. What Roosevelt once said, "speak with a soft voice and always have a strong club with you", is certainly the most appropriate way of doing diplomacy with Islam. With regard to Islamic countries I have abandoned my former position of arguing that it does not pay off to keep tyrants in place. Fact seems to be that we can't live without them as long as there is Islam, since we do not have the brutality and unscrupulousness anymore that is needed to keep Islam under control, and in stasis. The alternative is Islam advancing. A simple we-or-them scenario, and since I do not want to live in an Islamic country or in an Islamic world, I decide for "us", and against "them". I have not invited Islam to demand that all world shall be its' own. I have not created this sly and greedy ideology, designed to excuse and justify the craving for power, control and possession. I do encourage or force nobody to follow this path of intolerance and arrogance. This world is not a perfect world. Military ressources are limited, we do not have it available in large quantities, due to the high quality and specialisation. We should use our assets more wisely and carefully than we do in Iraq. Note that I speak of "we" here. Let's admit the mistakes, accept the defeat, pull out - and learn from these mistakes. Battle lost means the war goes on. a tournament consists of many matches, the last two we have messed up. there will be even more confrontations with islam in the future. Until they actually set down in place and location, we have time to try new technological developements and economical models to become independant from their damn oil as soon as possible. Without gaining independence from Muslim oil, we do not have any chance to win. Without stopping Muslim colonization in the West, and limit the influence of these colonies' influence in our society and on our legals and constitutional systems, we will get defeated from within. This clash of civilizations takes place on so many levels simultaneously. That'S why most people do not perceive it as the fight between cultures that it is.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

I guess this is your new tactic? Yes, scandium, we know the war is expensive. It doesn't change the facts one bit.

Correct, it doesn't change the facts one bit, and the facts speak for themselves. Iraq was a waste of blood, money, time, and international good will that could have been better put to use on finding Bin Laden and dismantling Al Qaeda. Saddam, who was no longer a threat to anyone outside Iraq, is a poor substitute and a pretty bad bargain.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by scandium

Correct, it doesn't change the facts one bit, and the facts speak for themselves. Iraq was a waste of blood, money, time, and international good will that could have been better put to use on finding Bin Laden and dismantling Al Qaeda. Saddam, who was no longer a threat to anyone outside Iraq, is a poor substitute and a pretty bad bargain.

Uh...no. The real facts are that Saddam lied about his possession of weapons and his weapons programs. He disregarded UN resolutions. He supported terrorist operations in Israel by paying the families of Islamic terrorists $10,000 USD per pop.

And then there's this:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...ticle/ShowFull

Can somebody please let the US military know that Al-Qaeda is not in Iraq?? (Sarcasm off)

I just wonder when people are finally going to stop listening to you people.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Yours will face the same misery like mine. Just a little bit later. America is Allah's land as well, you know. Muslim and especially Saudi economies are already very strong in the US, btw.

Yeah, well the Mexicans, Indians and several dozen other ethnic groups from the Chinese to the English say it's theirs first and they certainly wouldn't take kindly to the Muslims "cutting the line" so to speak.

What you have to remember is that, unlike formerly mono-cultural European nations who are dealing with a single troublesome ethnic group living in their midst and threatening to take over, America is a nation made up entirely of immigrants. Heck even the so called "Native Americans" are just the decendents of earlier waves to our shores. We'll just absorb them like we have every other group that has come here.

After all where else in the world do you have Italians, Irish, English, Scots, Germans, Indians (both kinds), Africans, Asians, Polynesians and every other ethnic group/nationality in the world living together in near perfect harmony?

Nope, we'll never fall to the Muslims. You people might, but not us. They don't call my country "The Melting Pot" for nothing...

[bradclark1]

The Anglo American is becoming a minority August. Start looking past Bush's portrait you have hanging in your living room.