does this count as WMD?

[$tinkle]

reuters (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5166415)BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A small amount of the nerve agent sarin was found in a shell that exploded in Iraq, the U.S. army said Monday in the first announcement of discovery of any of the weapons on which Washington made its case for war.i'm new to this whole war thing, & why congress authorized the use of force, so someone help me make sense of this

[golgiaparatus]

Yeah its a WMD if it had Sarin in it, but I picture a rusty old corroded shell that someone found, not so much a small piece of a much larger arsenal that Saddam had stockpiled.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
Yeah its a WMD if it had Sarin in it, but I picture a rusty old corroded shell that someone found, not so much a small piece of a much larger arsenal that Saddam had stockpiled.

whew!

Good thing that's all you picture. We wouldnt want to wait and let any of those pesky facts get in the way.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
Yeah its a WMD if it had Sarin in it, but I picture a rusty old corroded shell that someone found, not so much a small piece of a much larger arsenal that Saddam had stockpiled. this was also troubling:He said he believed that insurgents who rigged the artillery shell as a bomb didn't know it contained the nerve agent, and that the dispersal of the nerve agent from such a rigged device was very limited.

everything nawlinz (http://www.nola.com/newsflash/international/index.ssf?/base/international-14/1084804766303550.xml)so kinda like a hot-stock, this'll get top billing among arms dealers in the region [155-mm shells].

edit: Officials in Washington said another shell -- this one containing mustard gas -- was found 10 days ago in Iraq.

cnn (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/17/iraq.main/index.html)why haven't we heard about this? Why was it buried in the 9th paragraph as a side-mention? Is our gubment covering up their own ability to find WMD?

[Silver]

One shell containing mustard gas is hardly the vast stockpiles of weapons that Bush and Co. asserted existed...maybe that has something to do with it?

[the law]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
whew!

Good thing that's all you picture. We wouldnt want to wait and let any of those pesky facts get in the way.

You got to be kidding. Next thing you will tell me that a single shell (or two) is constitutes a WMD arsenal or even a WMD program. Phew. All I can say is that some Bush supporters need to get their heads out of the sand and wake up to the cold hard reality that Bush is a crook. :D On another note, does anyone believe Pentagon's denial that Rumselfd did not authorize the torture of Iraqis? After all the so called "misstatements" I think it seems likely that Rumselfd did authorize them.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
One shell containing mustard gas is hardly the vast stockpiles of weapons that Bush and Co. asserted existed...maybe that has something to do with it? here's this too:the Iraq Survey Group and others concluded the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective."

They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. but this suggests (to me) there's more coming:It also appears some top Pentagon officials were taken by surprise by Kimmitt's announcement of the sarin discovery; they thought the matter was classifiedwill this & other "discoveries" get de-classified in an october "surprise"? I say out with it all now. I don't see any harm to come of full disclosure. Won't this win back int'l & domestic support?

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by the law
You got to be kidding. Next thing you will tell me that a single shell (or two) is constitutes a WMD arsenal or even a WMD program.
I totally agree! Finding one or two proves nothing. The UNMOVIC inspection reports on the other hand...

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by the law
You got to be kidding. Next thing you will tell me that a single shell (or two) is constitutes a WMD arsenal or even a WMD program. Phew. All I can say is that some Bush supporters need to get their heads out of the sand and wake up to the cold hard reality that Bush is a crook. :D On another note, does anyone believe Pentagon's denial that Rumselfd did not authorize the torture of Iraqis? After all the so called "misstatements" I think it seems likely that Rumselfd did authorize them.

WTF are you talking about? I just wait for the facts to come out before we start jumping to any conclusions. Bush is a crook?:rolleyes: Exactly how is he profiting from this?
Actually, nevermind: Youre going to come up with the same stupid crap everyone else does.

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
whew!

Good thing that's all you picture. We wouldnt want to wait and let any of those pesky facts get in the way.

:rolleyes: dude if it were something from an organized arsenal dont you think it would have actually worked or that there would be a widespred usage of such an arsenal... Also dont you think they wouldnt have called it a 'rigged device'.

[T-Dog]

Originally posted by the law
You got to be kidding. Next thing you will tell me that a single shell (or two) is constitutes a WMD arsenal or even a WMD program. Phew. All I can say is that some Bush supporters need to get their heads out of the sand and wake up to the cold hard reality that Bush is a crook. :D On another note, does anyone believe Pentagon's denial that Rumselfd did not authorize the torture of Iraqis? After all the so called "misstatements" I think it seems likely that Rumselfd did authorize them.

As a matter of fact, I do believe the denial. I find it very hard to believe that Rumsfeld would sanction all the sick things that happened.....and especially the picture taking. Interrogations, with techniques like sleep deprivation, isolation- maybe. Female soldier and dog leash with naked prisoner, glow sticks up the butt, forced masturbation, naked hooded prisoner pyramids, no.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
WTF are you talking about? I just wait for the facts to come out before we start jumping to any conclusions. Bush is a crook?:rolleyes: Exactly how is he profiting from this?
Actually, nevermind: Youre going to come up with the same stupid crap everyone else does. facts: bush is a moron bush is a crook bush is a liar bush has bin laden already & is waiting to announce his capture to steal -- err -- win the election bush was selected, not elected bush is a puppet bush was awol bush is on a mission from god to rid the earth of islamyou mean this stupid crap?

[the law]

Originally posted by T-Dog
As a matter of fact, I do believe the denial. I find it very hard to believe that Rumsfeld would sanction all the sick things that happened.....and especially the picture taking. Interrogations, with techniques like sleep deprivation, isolation- maybe. Female soldier and dog leash with naked prisoner, glow sticks up the butt, forced masturbation, naked hooded prisoner pyramids, no.

Of course he didn't say stick glow sticks up where the sun doesn't shine, etc. Here are the two aspects that I believe he knew about. First, he authorized the use of new and unconventional interrogation techniques. However, he did not make sure that these would (1) only be used by properly trained people (2) require other safeguards, particulalry given that the techniques authroized already meant to dehumanize people and thus made it more likely that abuse followed and (3) when the Pentagon became aware of the absuses they did nothing and insisted that U.S. soldiers wouldn't do such a thing. As the leader of the military he should have the honor to take responsibility for the actions of his men. If he refuses to take responsibility for his men is he really the man to lead them?

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by T-Dog
I find it very hard to believe that Rumsfeld would sanction all the sick things that happened.....and especially the picture taking.

Word... I think some of the things may have been approved... he may have said, break them down to get what you need out of them. I seriously doubt the man said, 'sexually molest them, that ought to do the trick, oh and dont forget to take som pictures for my home scrapbook'.

I think that whole thing is a result of giving too much power to people that simple can not handle it with responsibility. I'm sure if a high ranking officer had been involved and had witnessed the things that were going on there would have been a high degree of ass kicking. Anyway, thats where I think Rummy messed up... there should have been a Lt. Colonel running that place, not some underling. He may have not assigned the personnell, but he should have been aware of who was in charge of the prison.

[T-Dog]

Originally posted by the law
Of course he didn't say stick glow sticks up where the sun doesn't shine, etc. Here are the two aspects that I believe he knew about. First, he authorized the use of new and unconventional interrogation techniques. However, he did not make sure that these would (1) only be used by properly trained people (2) require other safeguards, particulalry given that the techniques authroized already meant to dehumanize people and thus made it more likely that abuse followed and (3) when the Pentagon became aware of the absuses they did nothing and insisted that U.S. soldiers wouldn't do such a thing. As the leader of the military he should have the honor to take responsibility for the actions of his men. If he refuses to take responsibility for his men is he really the man to lead them?

1. He DID take responsibility- in front of congress on national TV. Said it happened on his watch.

2. I don't think the authorized interrogation techniques were new and unconventional...sounded like they already used them (with results) in Cuba.

3. It also comes back to the chain of command....he has subordinates that are directly in control of the prisons and who is doing the interrogations. Plus, the CIA was involved, and they may not report to him as a matter of course.

[the law]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
WTF are you talking about? I just wait for the facts to come out before we start jumping to any conclusions. Bush is a crook?:rolleyes: Exactly how is he profiting from this?
Actually, nevermind: Youre going to come up with the same stupid crap everyone else does.

Look, the way I see it Bush started the war for personal reasons never fully disclosed to the public. Whether or not he is profitting financially from it or not is a different question. However, I believe that there are people close to the president who receive an indirect financial windfall from doing business in Iraq. The real reason I called him a crook is that he fought his war for personal reasons not in the interest of the American people. Maybe a more appropriate term would be a liar or deceiver. Interestingly enough, if you dig far enough back, I did believe that Iraq had WMD before the war. Now I am no longer convinced. On the contrary, I now believe that other than a few random remnants of WMD supplied by the western powers, (i.e. lost shells, etc.)there are no WMDs left. Do I think that a couple of shells indicate the existence of a WMD program? What does the existence of a few shells indicate? That at some point in time Iraq had WMD. That is undisputed. Do the shells indicate that he maintained WMDs? No! After all, every nation has some part of its former arsenal unaccounted for. Even more shocking is that the U.S. cannot even account for all of its plutonium. THE REAL QUESTION IS CAN YOU TRUST A PRESIDENT WHO LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? Anyway, those are my two cents. Take it or leave it.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by the law
Anyway, those are my two cents. Take it or leave it.

Hope you had fun typing that.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by the law
Look, the way I see it Bush started the war for personal reasons...
you're going to have to atleast try to substantiate that. Have you ever read PNAC? This administration without GWB has been planning on going into Iraq since 97. One could argue that they truly believe they're doing it in the best interest of the US.

Originally posted by the law
Interestingly enough, if you dig far enough back, I did believe that Iraq had WMD before the war. Now I am no longer convinced.
...
Do the shells indicate that he maintained WMDs? No!
how can you say that? Either the info you had back then was sufficient or it wasn't. If it wasn't, then why did you believe it? re-read UNMOVIC reports, they *did* have 'em. The only debate is how neutralized did Iraq become. Iraq continued to maintain their programs, but was beaten back often by UNMOVIC. There's zero doubt that without UN inspections, Saddam would've built the biggest WMD program he could've.

Originally posted by the law
THE REAL QUESTION IS CAN YOU TRUST A PRESIDENT WHO LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?
Every president lies. It's the good liars we trust the most.

[the law]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Hope you had fun typing that.

Yeah, sometimes I wonder why. I guess I was too optimistic when I thought reason could prevail. :D Seriously though, at least everyone here has given some thought to these issue, regardless of whether our ultimate position is clouded by partisanship. without sarcasm, I applaud the general willingness to at least entertain other perspectives on these issues.

[the law]

Originally posted by LordOpie
how can you say that? Either the info you had back then was sufficient or it wasn't. If it wasn't, then why did you believe it? re-read UNMOVIC reports, they *did* have 'em. The only debate is how neutralized did Iraq become. Iraq continued to maintain their programs, but was beaten back often by UNMOVIC. There's zero doubt that without UN inspections, Saddam would've built the biggest WMD program he could've.

No, what I believe is that the UN did such a good job that Iraq good rid of the WMDs during the decade after the first gulf war. Noone contests that Iraq had WMD at some time. The question is did he still have them when the war started? That a couple of shells were found does not indicate that he retained any WMD up to the second gulf war. On the contrary, the fact that a couple of shells were found indicate that he did not attempt to hide them. It is common sense that if there had been a program to hide WMD, they would not be hidden a round at a time. Thus more than a couple of shells should be found if any were found at all.

[T-Dog]

Originally posted by the law
Anyway, those are my two cents. Take it or leave it. [/B]

I'll leave it. Because with your assertion that Bush started the war for his personal reasons, and to enrich his friends means that he also managed to convince Colin Powell (a brilliant 4-star general) to lie in front of the United Nations and the world, and duped Condi Rice (an extremely intelligent lady) into backing him and lying also; and he also fooled most of the democrats in congress to vote for going in.
He (and his advisors) also must have thought "I'll use WMD's as an excuse, but when we don't find any, nobody will remember". So that either makes him a master manipulator, or talented hypnotist- pretty good for a "moron".

[the law]

Originally posted by T-Dog
I'll leave it. Because with your assertion that Bush started the war for his personal reasons, and to enrich his friends means that he also managed to convince Colin Powell (a brilliant 4-star general) to lie in front of the United Nations and the world, and duped Condi Rice (an extremely intelligent lady) into backing him and lying also; and he also fooled most of the democrats in congress to vote for going in.
He (and his advisors) also must have thought "I'll use WMD's as an excuse, but when we don't find any, nobody will remember". So that either makes him a master manipulator, or talented hypnotist- pretty good for a "moron".

You mean Condi ("Exxon Oil Tanker") Rice?

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by the law
You mean Condi ("Exxon Oil Tanker") Rice?
I love how you give half answers. What about Powell? What about PNAC? What about Congress? Charging that the PotUS started a war for personal reasons is a huge accusation. What articles, sources, info do you have to support even a hint of that?

[Ridemonkey]

Originally posted by $tinkle
facts: bush is a moron bush is a crook bush is a liar bush has bin laden already & is waiting to announce his capture to steal -- err -- win the election bush was selected, not elected bush is a puppet bush was awol bush is on a mission from god to rid the earth of islamyou mean this stupid crap?

"bush has bin laden already & is waiting to announce his capture to steal -- err -- win the election"

"bush is on a mission from god to rid the earth of islam"

Uh I'll agree with most of the statements but the two I quoted make you sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
...you sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
hahaha, that's $tinkle for you!

[the law]

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
"bush has bin laden already & is waiting to announce his capture to steal -- err -- win the election"

"bush is on a mission from god to rid the earth of islam"

Uh I'll agree with most of the statements but the two I quoted make you sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

I think he was being sarcastic and meant to say that none of the are correct.

By the way, look at this
Rumsfeld gave green light to torture (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040517/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_prison_abuse_rumsfeld_17)

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by the law
No, what I believe is that the UN did such a good job that Iraq good rid of the WMDs during the decade after the first gulf war. if this is the case, then why all the crying from the left about "let inspections work!". By your "reasoning", the inspectors had no more work left to doOriginally posted by the law
Noone contests that Iraq had WMD at some time. The question is did he still have them when the war started? That a couple of shells were found does not indicate that he retained any WMD up to the second gulf war. so, a couple of shells (containing WMD) being found does not indicate iraq had WMD? did i get that right?
Originally posted by the law
On the contrary, the fact that a couple of shells were found indicate that he did not attempt to hide them. It is common sense that if there had been a program to hide WMD, they would not be hidden a round at a time. Thus more than a couple of shells should be found if any were found at all. so, when i get busted by the IRS for tax evasion, i can just say, "because you found out my false deductions, that proves i wasn't hiding them", or howsa bout: "look officer, just because my bong was under my seat & you found it doing a routine traffic stop just proves i wasn't trying to hide it".

[bomberz1qr20]

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
"bush has bin laden already & is waiting to announce his capture to steal -- err -- win the election"

"bush is on a mission from god to rid the earth of islam"

Uh I'll agree with most of the statements but the two I quoted make you sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

I dunno...

He BARELY won the 2000 election, and there is a rising sentiment against him. I think he would need a sweet little October suprise to help him win.

This doesn't suggest he has anything to do with it of course. I don't think he's smart enough to come up with any of this - he's a frat boy retard along for the ride.

Bush is out to erradicate Islam? I doubt that he could spell Islam.

He just does what he's told.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by the law
I think he was being sarcastic and meant to say that none of the are correct.

By the way, look at this
Rumsfeld gave green light to torture (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040517/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_prison_abuse_rumsfeld_17) seeing how:Lawrence Di Rita issued a statement calling the claims "outlandish, conspiratorial, and filled with error and anonymous conjecture"this is a "he said, she said" & nothing more.

btw, nice sensationalism using the word "torture", which never appears in the article.

[T-Dog]

Originally posted by the law
No, what I believe is that the UN did such a good job that Iraq good rid of the WMDs during the decade after the first gulf war. Noone contests that Iraq had WMD at some time. The question is did he still have them when the war started? That a couple of shells were found does not indicate that he retained any WMD up to the second gulf war. On the contrary, the fact that a couple of shells were found indicate that he did not attempt to hide them. It is common sense that if there had been a program to hide WMD, they would not be hidden a round at a time. Thus more than a couple of shells should be found if any were found at all.

I always thought that Saddam's non-cooperation with weapons inspections was an indicator of still having WMD....
to use the cop analogy---you get pulled over and the cop who knows that you've had weapons in the past, asks to search your car.(something the judge in your last court appearance mandated- and you agreed to) You say no....or better yet, you want to let him search only certain areas of the car, but not under the seat or in the trunk. I'd say that would be probable cause. And if you resisted, or put up a fight, you'd probably be in for an ass-kicking.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
if this is the case, then why all the crying from the left about "let inspections work!". By your "reasoning", the inspectors had no more work left to do...
oh come now, you know that inspections would've been required for the duration of Saddam's reign.

[N8]

Interestingly enough Kerry isn't able to get any real *bump* out of all the anti-Bush crap the Media Wing of the Democratic Party is spewing out....


:confused:

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by T-Dog
I always thought that Saddam's non-cooperation with weapons inspections was an indicator of still having WMD....
to use the cop analogy---you get pulled over and the cop who knows that you've had weapons in the past, asks to search your car.(something the judge in your last court appearance mandated- and you agreed to) You say no....or better yet, you want to let him search only certain areas of the car, but not under the seat or in the trunk. I'd say that would be probable cause. And if you resisted, or put up a fight, you'd probably be in for an ass-kicking.
It was either a case of being rebelious or Saddam being a bit nutty. Rumors were that Saddam wasn't all there. But resistance doesn't mean guilt.

[N8]

When the President said to the nation:
"...the mission was to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program," was the president lying?

Was the President lying about Iraq's WMD program becoming an imminent when he said:
"And so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years."



Well...????

:monkey:

[the law]

Originally posted by $tinkle

btw, nice sensationalism using the word "torture", which never appears in the article.

Are you saying what happened wasn't torture?

[the law]

Originally posted by N8
When the President said to the nation:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...the mission was to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program," was the president lying?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



:monkey:

Yes!

[T-Dog]

Originally posted by LordOpie
It was either a case of being rebelious or Saddam being a bit nutty. Rumors were that Saddam wasn't all there. But resistance doesn't mean guilt.

Resistance on it's own doesn't--but coupled with past and present atrocities, use of WMD and suspected links to other terrorist organizations means there's a good chance of it.

[N8]

Originally posted by the law
Yes!


What were his motivations for making these statements then? Were they to deliberatly mislead the American public, unite them with the president and divert attention away from what was really happening..???

[Silver]

It's a matter of scale again, $tinkle. To use your IRS example, it's like the IRS audited you and claimed that you had $1,000,000 in false deductions and after the audit came back with a $5 hot dog that you expensed the full amount on, instead of just the $2.50 you were allowed to.

Technically, the IRS would be right, and you cheated on your taxes...realistically, you had an insignificant oversight.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by N8
When the President said to the nation:


Was the President lying about Iraq's WMD program becoming an imminent when he said:

Well...????

:monkey:
nope, absolute truth, BUT the inspections were working.

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by LordOpie
nope, absolute truth, BUT the inspections were working.

Seems like I remember the inspection teams getting pushed around and held up from making their rounds....:think:

Does that sound like everything was on the up and up? Inpectors couldn't inspect.....that is not something a country's leader should allow to happen when he was left in power under conditions that he cooperate with the UN and the inspections.....

AFTER HE INVADED KUWAIT (less we forget :rolleyes: ) along with everything else he is known to have done. I am sure I don't have to start listing the bad things over agian.....

His lack of cooperation with the UN and the resloutions that allowed him to stay in control of Iraq put the act of enforcing the resolutions on Iraq and Saddam in the lap of teh UN. The UN danced with Saddam for over a decade....they did not act.

BUT the ispections were working....;)

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Seems like I remember the inspection teams getting pushed around and held up from making their rounds....:think:

Does that sound like everything was on the up and up? Inpectors couldn't inspect.....that is not something a country's leader should allow to happen when he was left in power under conditions that he cooperate with the UN and the inspections.....

AFTER HE INVADED KUWAIT (less we forget :rolleyes: ) along with everything else he is known to have done. I am sure I don't have to start listing the bad things over agian.....

His lack of cooperation with the UN and the resloutions that allowed him to stay in control of Iraq put the act of enforcing the resolutions on Iraq and Saddam in the lap of teh UN. The UN danced with Saddam for over a decade....they did not act.

BUT the ispections were working....;)
I wouldn't say the inspections were perfect, without frustration or even 100% effective, just that they kept Saddam in check. As for him fvcking with the UN, that made him the UN's problem not ours (USA); however, I still agreed with the invasion. I also think we need to kick the UN in the testicles and tell 'em to do their job or walk.

[Lexx D]

Did you guys know myles rockwell got arrested for growing pot?







Sorry had to do it.:D

[zod]

man, we find WMD's and all the Bush haters start getting nervous :eek:

I do agree though that they need to find a motherload to sway public opinion....

[N8]

Originally posted by the law
Yes!


Well, let President Clinton know that then... cuz he's the one that spoketh the quoteth...

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by N8
Well, let President Clinton know that then... cuz he's the one that spoketh the quoteth...

Yawn.

Everyone knows Clinton was a lier. Anymore random thoughts N8?

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by the law
Are you saying what happened wasn't torture? "torture" would grab a broader viewership than "abuse", so perhaps the Associated Press would agree with me that this story is about aggressive interrogations that bleed into abuse. As i've stated in other threads, my threshold for torture is perhaps more liberal than most.

I don't see naked pig piles, making men masturbate, donning a dog-collar, being made to think you may be shot to find out where more pockets of killers of our troops are, scaring the piss out of inmates w/ german shepherds, sleep deprivation, loud noises, insults, and generally providing a less than accomodating environment to our guests torture.

i do classify electrocution, dismemberment, rape, acid baths, amputation, infestation with disease, exposure to nerve agents, and performing medical experiments as torture.

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Seems like I remember the inspection teams getting pushed around and held up from making their rounds....:think:

Does that sound like everything was on the up and up? Inpectors couldn't inspect.....that is not something a country's leader should allow to happen when he was left in power under conditions that he cooperate with the UN and the inspections.....

I have to agree with you for once Mr. Rhino. IMHO Saddam put himself in a position where it looked like he was hiding banned weapons and action was neccesarry because truth is, saddam looked guilty as hell. (no different than a drug dealer with a history of having drugs in his car refusing to be searched). There's no doubt about that, and I think the UN was dealing with it in a very weak manner, they should have enforced the treaty and gone in with forced inspections despite Saddam's rebelious attitude.

I think some US action was necessarry because the UN had dropped the ball. But I think the US action was overkill.

[Silver]

Originally posted by $tinkle

I don't see naked pig piles, making men masturbate, donning a dog-collar, being


Wow...so you'd be cool with male guards in a women's prison doing that to the inmates? Leading around with dog collars, making them masturbate for the amusement of the guards, even naked pig piles?

You're right, it wasn't torture. It was sexual abuse.

[the law]

Originally posted by N8
Well, let President Clinton know that then... cuz he's the one that spoketh the quoteth...

well try putting it in context. Besides, there were WMD during Clinton's times.

[N8]

Originally posted by the law
well try putting it in context. Besides, there were WMD during Clinton's times.


Yeeeah... and now they are all in Syria.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
Wow...so you'd be cool with male guards in a women's prison doing that to the inmates? Leading around with dog collars, making them masturbate for the amusement of the guards, even naked pig piles? i'm not just cool with it, i'd pay a nickel to watch!

however, the idea of making someone masturbate is just weird. You know the saying about leading a horse to water & all.

[Silver]

Originally posted by $tinkle
i'm not just cool with it, i'd pay a nickel to watch!

however, the idea of making someone masturbate is just weird. You know the saying about leading a horse to water & all.

You could always skip that part and sodomize them with a foreign object instead...

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
You could always skip that part and sodomize them with a foreign object instead... typical man - skipping foreplay

[Silver]

I didn't see any bottles of Astroglide in the photos from Iraq...

[Toshi]

However, a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.

He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained.
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722255.stm

what is the govt's official definition of wmds anyway? i think gwb was thinking "nucular weapons"...

[Silver]

Originally posted by Toshi
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722255.stm

what is the govt's official definition of wmds anyway? i think gwb was thinking "nucular weapons"...

At this point they'd settle for a bottle of Botox that Saddam was using...

[N8]

Saddam fears Iraqi torture
Philip Sherwell in Baghdad, May 17, 2004

CIA interrogators have seized on an admission by Saddam Hussein that he fears torture at the hands of his Iraqi enemies, and are threatening him with a quick handover to the new government in a renewed effort to break his silence.

They are also trying to exploit a new-found obsession of the former dictator with hygiene and careful food preparation to persuade him to begin giving information after five frustrating months of questioning.

Lengthy daily interrogation sessions have been structured around an apparent attempt to prepare Saddam to be handed over to the interim government that takes power after June 30.

The 67-year-old, who admitted that he feared torture soon after he was arrested last December, has been told his transfer will be delayed if he begins to co-operate with his interrogators.

Saddam is due to face trial at a war crimes tribunal in Baghdad after the transfer of sovereignty. Saddam has been held in solitary confinement since his capture.

He has good reason to fear that his Iraqi opponents might seek revenge for his brutal 24-year reign.

Many survivors of his prisons, and relatives of those who were killed by his regime, now hold positions in the interim governing council and a new Iraqi government is certain to introduce the death penalty for war crimes.

Saddam is said to be depressed and prone to angry outbursts during which he insists he is still the Iraqi president.

US officials are insistent that he has not been treated roughly. Washington is determined that he should not be able to claim he has been the victim of any abuse when he faces trial.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Toshi
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722255.stm

what is the govt's official definition of wmds anyway? i think gwb was thinking "nucular weapons"... cia's factbook: (http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm) delves into nukes, bio, cealis, chem, delivery systems. The usual fare.

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
I think some US action was necessarry because the UN had dropped the ball. But I think the US action was overkill.

I am not in total dissagreeance......:think: is that a word like irregardless? :D

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
You could always skip that part and sodomize them with a foreign object instead... looks like we can now add dirty sanchez (http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/392678|top|05-18-2004::14:44|reuters.html) to the list of offenses:"...said they had been forced to insert a finger into their anus and then lick it, and were forced to put shoes in their mouths, particularly humiliating in Arab culture."holy crap! i just read the rest of the link - look who's in charge:

"Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez"