One last thing...

[StrayRogue]

I'm glad I don't pay your taxes...

The New York Times reported Thursday that a 400-member military team has been quietly withdrawn from the 1,400-member Iraq Survey Group (ISG) that has spent months scouring Iraq at a cost of nearly one billion dollars for evidence of WMD programs.

Oh yeah, they haven't found much yet.

[i remember halloween]

i'm glad you don't also

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
I'm glad I don't pay your taxes...

The New York Times reported Thursday that a 400-member military team has been quietly withdrawn from the 1,400-member Iraq Survey Group (ISG) that has spent months scouring Iraq at a cost of nearly one billion dollars for evidence of WMD programs.

Oh yeah, they haven't found much yet.

But I bet you are glad that those 400 poor bastards were away from family and loved ones while they looked for WMDs to protect your US bashing ass

[Ravenstorm]

http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/iraqintell/home.htm

I'm with Stray on this one. Bashing Bush != bashing America.

Raven

Maybe i'm blind but i don't see Bush mentioned at all here. I see a 400 member team of US citizens.

[Ravenstorm]

It's the lack of WMD that's significant, I would think.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=XU5SHAM310CLCCRBAEOCF FA?type=topNews&storyID=4107252

Raven

[Artha]

You're right. No WMD. Let's release Saddam and let him start chucking people in plastic cutters.

[StrayRogue]

Its not that at all. I am glad Saddam is gone etc. However, what most of you are forgetting is that this war was sold to you, me and all of us on one simple idea: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that threatens all of us. Now that their gamble hasn't paid off they are selling it as a mission of liberation. Well there are plenty of other countries whom are under tyrannical rule, why not go fight them?

Basically the point is they lied to us. And most of you have bought it, hook, line and sinker.

[i remember halloween]

or maybe we don't care?

[Rastaman]

Stray is right on as usual.

There was a great episode of the Daily Show on this topic. I don't remember the exact quote but Jon Stewart compared the invasion of Iraq because of the possibilty of WMD to the non-invasion of North Korea even though they admitted to having WMD.

Obviously the war wasn't about WMD otherwise the US would have invaded North Korea first. Iraq has no WMD, it was just an excuse. We all know the REAL reason was so Bush and his cohorts could make some money off oil.

Case in point: Halliburton Oil, $2.64 per gallon.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by i remember halloween
or maybe we don't care?

Thanks for proving my point Mr Sheep.

[Varsus]

(Basically the point is they lied to us. And most of you have bought it, hook, line and sinker. )

Yes alot of us (americans) are retarded when it comes to seeing what goes on up stairs, Not all of us, But It is sad to say Most.

Ill keep my personal thoughts out of it because Im sort of "on the edge" but It is sad.

(or maybe we don't care?)

You should.

-Varsus (Riddles Rangers Member Since '98)

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by i remember halloween
or maybe we don't care?

I know lots of people who care. Some of them are even Republicans. Not liking to be conned and lied to crosses party lines.

Raven

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Rastaman
Obviously the war wasn't about WMD otherwise the US would have invaded North Korea first. Iraq has no WMD, it was just an excuse. We all know the REAL reason was so Bush and his cohorts could make some money off oil.

Case in point: Halliburton Oil, $2.64 per gallon.

Yeah, it was a gamble. If they found WMD great! We, the public would have been pacified. However, when it dawned upon them they weren't or hadn't found any, the PR people switched the focus of the war. Instead of showing us what Anthrax can do to our neighbours, we start seeing how the Iraqi's are treated.

If you want suffering, rather you want to stop suffering like the American Government is claiming to have done in Iraq, why not go back to Afghanistan and clean up the mess you've left there? I bet it was a cold Xmas over there for the thousands now homeless.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Varsus
(Basically the point is they lied to us. And most of you have bought it, hook, line and sinker. )

Yes alot of us (americans) are retarded when it comes to seeing what goes on up stairs, Not all of us, But It is sad to say Most.

Ill keep my personal thoughts out of it because Im sort of "on the edge" but It is sad.

(or maybe we don't care?)

You should.

-Varsus (Riddles Rangers Member Since '98)

Wow, this is going pretty well. I'm not being called a Fag or a Nazi for hating the way this has gone about. Go me!

[Varsus]

MSU gets $10.5 million to find bioterror drugs -- fast

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2004/01/11/news/02msubzbigs.txt

Once again we are throwing tax payer dollers away. This to me is just another way of telling the public that we are "fixing the problem". While in reality the problem is here in the country, and so is the solution. Its just they have not paid off the right people yet.

-Varsus (I sell tires... work is bad so I go slash tires... now I have work)

[Artha]

The ends justify the means. I'd have supported it just as much had it been sold on humanitarian reasons.

[StrayRogue]

Does it not bother you that you've been lied to? They said they had evidence of WMD. They have lied. Surely that much effect you to know your Government lied directly to you. And you must also wonder, because I am sure Bush doesn't care one shit about the Iraqi people, why exactly DID he want you to go to war?

Lets discuss some facts Strayrogue.

1. The entire world believed that Iraq had WMD and was in violation of 17 UN resolutions. The issue was not whether or not they should be punished, but HOW they should be punished.

2. North Korea has not had the better part of the Decade to comply with requests, therefore we would not have invaded them first. Lets not forget how we knew Iraq had WMD's in the first place...you guessed it: they admitted it just like North Korea.

3. North Korea has put forth several major concessions in regards to its WMD program recently, I.e. Offers to completely dismantle the program with un oversight ETC in exchange for US aid and assistance. Iraq was *never* as forthcoming or willing to deal with the United States.

There could be several explanations for why they weren't, but in the end it doesn't matter. The US could not continue to show an inability to back up its words or proclaimations because its that very action that spurred on people like Osama bin laden.

You can talk about lying all you want, but in the end the US did the right thing in Iraq. That is what will stand the wheathering of time and nothing more.

(*note, the road of righteousness in Iraq is far from over and its imperative that we continue to work towards the good of the Iraqi people or else things will turn out bad for everyone involved.)

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Rastaman
There was a great episode of the Daily Show on this topic. I don't remember the exact quote but Jon Stewart compared the invasion of Iraq because of the possibilty of WMD to the non-invasion of North Korea even though they admitted to having WMD.

Not the episode in question, but another:

"Yes, after many months of searching, we've caught the man who had nothing to do with 9-11."

[Betheny]

Iraq under Saddam WAS a WMD.

[Fallen]

Didnt they just find shells in Iraq that contained blister agents? They are old, but they were supposed to have them all accounted for and destroyed/relinquished.

[StrayRogue]

Bottom line: Both our Governments lied to us. I'm quite galled and amused most you and my own people are buying it.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Maimara
Iraq under Saddam WAS a WMD.

How? They didn't own any actual WMD's, they didn't fund the al queda, they were invading any other country. If America wants to stick its nose into countries that have tyrants as figure heads, thats fine. Just do it to other countries as well. Why Iraq? Perhaps does it have to do with all that black gold? Hmmm, I think so yeah.

[HarmNone]

Actually, Stray, I think I know as many Americans who do not buy into the load of defecation we have been fed as those who do. ;)

HarmNone

[StrayRogue]

Then what are you or they doing about it?

[HarmNone]

I, personally, speak with my vote, Stray.

HarmNone

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Bottom line: Both our Governments lied to us. I'm quite galled and amused most you and my own people are buying it.


Weren't you just bitching in another thread because people were unwilling\unable to argue the facts with you? Hypocrite.

[StrayRogue]

I haven't seen you answer a single point of mine yet Ranger, so why I should get down to your pathetic level of name calling is beyond me.

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Bottom line: Both our Governments lied to us. I'm quite galled and amused most you and my own people are buying it.

Here is the first of many reports that will find banned items.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20040111/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mortar_shells_8

Now one of the main reasons we are in Iraq is to provide a convenient target. It is better for enemies of the U.S. to attack soldiers in Iraq than attack soft targets in the US

Unbelievable. I guess your just in the habit of ignoring shit you can't respond to. Well here it is again for you.

YOU:


However, what most of you are forgetting is that this war was sold to you, me and all of us on one simple idea: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that threatens all of us.

ME:


1. The entire world believed that Iraq had WMD and was in violation of 17 UN resolutions. The issue was not whether or not they should be punished, but HOW they should be punished.

Thats one. I'll let you conduct the exhausting search of this thread for the rest.

[StrayRogue]

Hmm, I can see that TOJ, though do you not perhaps think thats an ultra heroic thing to be doing? Perhaps too much so? While it may be true, has it indeed stopped terrorism?

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by RangerD1
Unbelievable. I guess your just in the habit of ignoring shit you can't respond to. Well here it is again for you.

YOU:


However, what most of you are forgetting is that this war was sold to you, me and all of us on one simple idea: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that threatens all of us.

ME:


1. The entire world believed that Iraq had WMD and was in violation of 17 UN resolutions. The issue was not whether or not they should be punished, but HOW they should be punished.

Thats one. I'll let you conduct the exhausting search of this thread for the rest.

Ok, hows this stand for you:
Both our governments said they had EVIDENCE saying that Iraq had WMD. Where are they?

[HarmNone]

I do not believe I was ever convinced that Iraq had WPD, nor were many of the people who share my political views. Most of us just did not buy it and still do not.

HarmNone

[StrayRogue]

Just found this to fight your "Facts":

Three leading non-proliferation experts from a prominent think tank charge that the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush "systematically misrepresented" the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.


In a 107-page report released Thursday, Jessica Mathews, Joseph Cirincione and George Perkovich of the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) call for the creation of an independent commission to fully investigate what the U.S. intelligence community knew, or believed it knew, about the true state of Iraq's WMD program between 1991 and 2003.


They say that the probe should also determine whether intelligence analyses were tainted by foreign intelligence agencies or political pressure. Cirincione told reporters, "It is very likely that intelligence officials were pressured by senior administration officials to conform their threat assessments to pre-existing policies."


The Carnegie analysts also found "no solid evidence" of a co-operative relationship between the government of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorist group, nor any evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD to al-Qaeda under any circumstances. "The notion that any government would give its principal security assets to people it could not control in order to achieve its own political aims is highly dubious," the report claims.


In addition the report, 'WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications', concludes that the United Nations inspection process, which was aborted when the agency withdrew its inspectors on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq last March, "appears to have been much more successful than recognized before the war".


The report, the most comprehensive public analysis so far of the administration's WMD claims and what has been found in Iraq, is likely to reinforce widespread allegations that Bush and his top aides deliberately misled Congress and the public into going to war.


Secretary of State Colin Powell's response has been to claim that he is "confident" of the claims that he presented to the U.N. Security Council last February. Powell says that his presentation represented the views of the intelligence community. "I was representing them," he said. "It was information they had presented publicly, and they stand behind it".


Media attention on the WMD issue has cooled since last month's capture of Saddam and a visible rise in the U.S. military's confidence in fighting the bloody insurgency. But the report is being released just as two congressional committees are resuming their own probes of U.S. pre-war intelligence on WMD, which were interrupted by the long Christmas recess.


The report also comes amid new indications that the administration itself has decided that its pre-war claims about Iraq's WMD were wrong.


The New York Times reported Thursday that a 400-member military team has been quietly withdrawn from the 1,400-member Iraq Survey Group (ISG) that has spent months scouring Iraq at a cost of nearly one billion dollars for evidence of WMD programs.


The withdrawal follows a previous cutback in mid-December, when ISG head David Kay had told his superiors at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) he planned to leave as early as the end of January. Kay, a former U.N. inspector who had long charged Saddam with holding vast supplies of WMD, submitted an interim report last October stating that no such weapons had been found. "I think it's pretty clear by now that they don't expect to find anything at all," said one administration official.


The Carnegie report comes on the heels of an extraordinarily lengthy article by Wednesday's Washington Post, which concluded that Iraq's WMD programs were effectively abandoned after the 1991 Gulf War. The article, which confirmed that Iraq was developing new missile technology, was based on interviews with the country's top weapons scientists and mostly unnamed U.S. and British investigators who went to Iraq after the war.


The Carnegie report is the most serious blow yet to the administration's credibility. The think-tank is the publisher of 'Foreign Policy' journal, and while its general political orientation is slightly left of center, it has long been studiously non-partisan, and also houses rightwing figures, such as neoconservative writer Robert Kagan. Carnegie President Mathews traveled to Iraq last September as part of a bipartisan group of highly respected national-security analysts invited by the Pentagon to assess the situation on the ground.


The report, which is based on declassified documents on Iraq filed by U.N. weapons inspectors and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), concedes that Iraq's WMD programs could have resumed and might have posed a long-term threat that could not be ignored. But, the authors write, "they did not pose an immediate threat to the United States, to the region or to global security."


Despite Vice President Dick Cheney's insistence early last year that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program, the Carnegie report concludes there was "no convincing evidence" that it had done so, and U.S. intelligence should have been aware of that fact. Similarly, with respect to Baghdad's chemical weapons, U.S. intelligence should have known that all facilities for producing them had been effectively destroyed and that existing stockpiles had lost their potency as early as 1991.


Uncertainties regarding Iraq's biological weapons program were greater, the report concludes. Dual-use equipment and facilities, however, made it theoretically possible for some limited production of both chemical and biological weapons to occur. As of the beginning of 2002, say the authors, the intelligence community was overestimating the chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, but had a generally accurate picture of both the nuclear and missile programs.


But in 2002, intelligence officials appear to have made a "dramatic shift" in their analyses. The fact that this change coincided with the creation of the Office of Special Plans (OSP) in the Pentagon – a still-mysterious group of intelligence analysts and consultants hired by prominent hawks to assess the U.S. intelligence reporting – "suggests that the intelligence community began to be unduly influenced by policymakers' views some time in 2002."


But beyond the failures of the intelligence community, the authors claim, "administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programs" in several ways. To begin with, they treated the three different kinds of WMD as a single threat when, in fact, they represented very different threats. Second, they insisted without evidence that Saddam would give whatever WMD he had to terrorists. Third, they routinely omitted "caveats, probabilities, and expressions of uncertainty present in intelligence assessments from (their) public statements".


In addition, the Bush administration misrepresented findings by U.N. inspectors "in ways that turned threats from minor to dire."


The strategic implications of the failure of U.S. intelligence to provide accurate information on Iraq, when there was no imminent threat, should call into question the administration's new national security doctrine of pre-emptive military action, say the authors. As applied in Iraq, the authors say, "(The) doctrine is actually a loose standard for preventive war under the cloak of legitimate preemption."

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Hmm, I can see that TOJ, though do you not perhaps think thats an ultra heroic thing to be doing? Perhaps too much so? While it may be true, has it indeed stopped terrorism?

This is harsh but it applies to stopping terrorism completely.

Kill all the bad guys and only good guys are left.

I dont have knowledge of how many attacks were averted because of the US led actions for all I know it could be several hundred but I do know none have happened.

[Ravenstorm]

60 minutes just had a rather interesting story about Bush's former Treasury Secretary. He states that within 10 days of entering office, Bush told his people to find an excuse to take out Saddam.

Raven

[HarmNone]

I did post an alternative point of view in your Cheney thread, Stray. There are many nuances in world politics, both governmental and business-related. Some are obvious and some are less so.

HarmNone

[StrayRogue]

I noticed HN, I am of the opinion that you and I, and those who hold our similar opinions are far from the majority however.

[HarmNone]

As frightening as it may be, I firmly believe that the Shrub wanted Saddam taken out purely as retribution for what Saddam did to the senior Shrub. It seems a petty thing over which to wage war, but I believe G. W. to be just that petty.

HarmNone

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
I noticed HN, I am of the opinion that you and I, and those who hold our similar opinions are far from the majority however.

I do not feel finding WMDs were the main reason we went as I already posted.

Besides the one I posted another, perhaps the main reason, is the relationship between GWB Sr and Hussein.

yeah what HN said

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by theotherjohn]

Ok, hows this stand for you:
Both our governments said they had EVIDENCE saying that Iraq had WMD. Where are they?

Its all in the presentation Strayrogue. Of course, i expect someone who has done exhaustive research into the matter to know more about this than me, some ignorant american who doesn't pay attention to current affairs. However, i'll still try my best to explain it to you.

The proof that Iraq had Weapons of Massive destruction were predominately from what the Iraqi's declared during the cease-fire agreements of the first gulf war.

Under those same agreements it was stipulated that Iraq provide substantial proof that the weapons were destroyed, through the us of UN weapons inspectors. Until this day there are a massive amount of weapons that can not be accounted for and Saddam has had a long history of deceiving the inspectors, I.e. The discovery of a renewed weapons program in 1996 is the best example.

Now, i admit there are discrepencies in what the Media has portrayed inside the little news blurbs and liberal websites you've mentioned, but if you actually read some of the conferences, UN resolutions, and so forth you would know what they were talking about.

Is the administration guilty of playing the political game, in that they stressed the good points and downplayed the bad? Probaly, but its not where near as nefarious as you'd make it out to be.

So why don't you do me, you and the rest of the boards a favor and start reading some of the actual facts instead of quoting some bullshit you heard on the BBC or wherever your getting your facts from.

[StrayRogue]

Erm I am quoting facts retard. And its you here thats making it personal. But hey, I better back off before you complain again, right?

Stray:

Do us both a favor and read the articles you are posting. That article says nothing other than "The bush administration might have overemphasized the threat of Iraq's WMD program."

Not "They lied about Iraq having them"

Remember the part of my post where i said the issue was not *if* they had them and were in violation but rather what was the appropriate response? Yea, i'm sure you do. And being the intelligent person you are i'm sure you'll be able to understand why that article is not in anyway contrasted to what i said.

[HarmNone]

I have always wondered, Stray, if the average Joe-on-the-street does not feel rather helpless against the powers that control his life. This helplessness converts to ennui, and an attitude of "What the hell can I do about it?" In frustration and confusion, these people just give up.

Then, there are those who will support whatever power is in control at the moment, because they do not want to take the time and effort to sort through the garbage and try to come up with their own thoughts and feelings on issues. This is the "Who cares?" school.

The rest of the Shrub's supporters are strict party-liners and people who believe, for the most part, in the Republican party's platform. Some of these may have some doubts, but will continue to support the representative of their party because they believe the good outweighs the bad. Some, I am sure, actually believe what they are told.

I will not denigrate anyone for standing up for what they believe in, whether or not their stance is compatible with mine. :)

HarmNone

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Erm I am quoting facts retard. And its you here thats making it personal. But hey, I better back off before you complain again, right?

Pasting an editorial is not "Facts" I dunno what the fuck they teach you in the United Kingdom.

As for me complaining? I suggest you get the full story before you try and talk shit.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by HarmNone
I have always wondered, Stray, if the average Joe-on-the-street does not feel rather helpless against the powers that control his life. This helplessness converts to ennui, and an attitude of "What the hell can I do about it?" In frustration and confusion, these people just give up.

Then, there are those who will support whatever power is in control at the moment, because they do not want to take the time and effort to sort through the garbage and try to come up with their own thoughts and feelings on issues. This is the "Who cares?" school.



I'd say most the people on these boards are in the Who Cares, I-can't-do-anything about-it, or Eat Up What Lord Bush Gives Me (like Ranger).

However, we live in an age of unprecidented information that is so readily and easily available that its quite easy to find out how things really are. While Television is still the primary brainwashing device employed by both our governments, as well as most forms of media, the internet has become the best way of finding out the truth.

But yeah, I suppose its ignorance on my part to think things will ever change. Most people do eat up the bullshit, then give their lives to protect it. Its their lives I suppose. However, I don't think anyone has any excuse, besides laziness, to feel like they can't find out about whats going on out there.

Your a fucking idiot. My feelings on what happened in Iraq have absolutely nothing to do with my feelings toward the current administration.

By assuming so, you jus tproved how much of an ass you are. Someone does not have to be "Ignorant", "powerless" or a "Zealot" to believe that an action is right.

So i'd suggest that both you and Harmnone try and come out from under your blanket statements and catch a grip of reality.

You can continue to talk about "Unprecendented information" and all this other bullshit, but until you actually read a resolution or an actual quote instead of some blurb from your favorite conspiracy theorist you are doing nothing but talking out of your ass.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you can say i'm "Lazy" when you probaly don't even know what resolution 1441 was and what it stated.

*edited Typo

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by RangerD1]

[HarmNone]

Umm, RangerD1, please re-read my post. Nowhere in it will you find a blanket statement. Throughout, I was speaking of "some" people, never of "all" people. I also said that I will never denigrate anyone for standing up for what they believe.

Perhaps, if we make an effort not to take what is said here personally, this kind of topic can be more easily and productively discussed. I may not believe as you believe, but I will always stand for your right to hold your beliefs and respect that you do, in fact, hold them dear. :)

HarmNone

[Scott]

Originally posted by RangerD1
Your a fucking idiot. My feelings on what happened in Iraq have absolutely nothing to do with my feelings toward the current administration.

By assuming so, you jus tproved how much of an ass you are. Someone does not have to be "Ignorant", "powerless" or a "Zealot" to believe that an action is right.

So i'd suggest that both you and Harmnone try and come out from under your blanket statements and catch a grip of reality.

You can continue to talk about "Unprecendented information" and all this other bullshit, but until you actually read a resolution or an actual quote instead of some blurb from your favorite conspiracy theorist you are doing nothing but talking out of your ass.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you can say i'm "Lazy" when you probaly don't even know what resolution 1441 was and what it stated.

*edited Typo

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by RangerD1]

I tried to go through this last time with some people.....

Not everyone who supports Bush or believe that what was done to Iraq was the right thing to do is an ignorant party follower. I think what we did in Afganistan and Iraq was a good thing. Do I still think Iraq has WMD. Yep. Do I think that that was the only reason that we went to war? Nope.

I think what the president is doing is fine by my book. I'm not a strict party liner. You have your own opinions, I have my own. Can people accept that not everyone has the same opinion....

[Scott]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Umm, RangerD1, please re-read my post. Nowhere in it will you find a blanket statement. Throughout, I was speaking of "some" people, never of "all" people. I also said that I will never denigrate anyone for standing up for what they believe.

HarmNone

That's certainly not how I read your post:


Then, there are those who will support whatever power is in control at the moment, because they do not want to take the time and effort to sort through the garbage and try to come up with their own thoughts and feelings on issues. This is the "Who cares?" school.

The rest of the Shrub's supporters are strict party-liners and people who believe, for the most part, in the Republican party's platform. Some of these may have some doubts, but will continue to support the representative of their party because they believe the good outweighs the bad. Some, I am sure, actually believe what they are told.

I take that as "If you believe in what Bush is doing you are either A. Stupid and don't know anything about the topic or B. You are strict party follower that does whatever the republican party says." That might not be what you meant, but it certainly sounded like it.

[HarmNone]

One can only wish that people could allow others to hold an opinion different than their own without automatically turning that other person into the devil incarnate, Sintik. Obviously, however, such is not the case. :(

HarmNone

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
I think what we did in Afganistan and Iraq was a good thing.

I think what we did in Afghanistan was a good idea as well. However, it is irrelevant where Iraq is concerned as the two are connected in no way at all, despite the innuendo touted to help sell the war to the public.

Had Bush come out and said he wants to invade Iraq to kill Saddam because of his father and their oil, I feel it is safe to say we would not be there now. So instead he told the lies about Al Quaeda and WMD.

But Afghanistan was still the right thing to do.

Raven

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[StrayRogue]

Hehehe, there always was a reason why I liked you HarmNone.

[HarmNone]

Nope, Sintik. In the second paragraph of your quote of my words I said..."Some of these may have some doubts, but will continue to support the representative of their party because they believe the good outweighs the bad. Some, I am sure, actually believe what they are told."...in addition to the sentence you bolded.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with supporting what you believe in. That was my final statement in the quoted post. :)

HarmNone

[CrystalTears]

::shrugs:: I just felt that Saddam was enough of a bad dictator that needed to be removed. I was in full support of the war, and I'm not a huge Bush fan either. And I'm still not convinced with the oil concept either. But that's just my opinion. I'm not terribly political but I know that Saddam was bad enough to be eliminated from power, and the US was able to do it.

[longshot]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Does it not bother you that you've been lied to? They said they had evidence of WMD. They have lied. Surely that much effect you to know your Government lied directly to you. And you must also wonder, because I am sure Bush doesn't care one shit about the Iraqi people, why exactly DID he want you to go to war?

First off, props to Stray for being civil in an area where historically he hasn't been. I know you and I butt heads occasionally, but I have to give you credit where credit is due.

Does it bother me that I was lied to?

Absolutely.

I was really for the war in the beginning. I was restrained by three friends from fighting anti-war protesters in Kyoto. I don't think I've ever felt my blood boil like that in my life.

I had no problem with the Japanese protesting, as they always end up paying for things and never getting any credit for it. (See Gulf War I). But, there were young Americans my age protesting in a foreign city. A "verbal confrontation" occured, and then the guy pointed at his sign, and then pointed at me in a "let's go" kinda way. If my friends weren't there I think I would have been deported.

I bring this up because that's how passionate I was about the war. I beleived that this was not a war of choice, but one of absolute necessity. I thought our government was courageous for acting alone in the face of a bunch of placating Arab loving Frogs.

To learn that there really was no immediate threat, and that this was a war of choice and not necessity, was a real heartbreak. If it was a war of choice we sacrificed far too much in terms of not only lives and money, but credibility in the world.

Like Toj said, the world is a better of place with a certain amount of the "bad guys" gone. I'm happy they got Saddam, of course, but there had to be a better way to do this. There just had to be. I never thought our government would lie to the entire world like that.

It's especially hard for me now, because I could give two shits about the Iraqi people. I could care less. That's putting it nicely. I wish we could pull out today.

[StrayRogue]

[i]Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Had Bush come out and said he wants to invade Iraq to kill Saddam because his of his father and their oil, I feel it is safe to say we would nto be there now. So instead he told the lies about Al Quaeda and WMD.

But Afghanistan was still the right thing to do.

Raven

That is exactly what I believe too. But of course you could attribute 9/11 to Bush as well, as its been documented that he was well aware it was going to happen. Had he taken action himself, those lives, tax payer's $$, and the war in Afghanistan may have been saved or averted.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Gemstone101
I think what we did in Afganistan and Iraq was a good thing.

I think what we did in Afghanistan was a good idea as well. However, it is irrelevant where Iraq is concerned as the two are connected in no way at all, despite the innuendo touted to help sell the war to the public.

Had Bush come out and said he wants to invade Iraq to kill Saddam because his of his father and their oil, I feel it is safe to say we would nto be there now. So instead he told the lies about Al Quaeda and WMD.

But Afghanistan was still the right thing to do.

Raven

Do you really believe that Iraq doesn't have weapons which they are not suppose to have? I mean you can certainly believe that, however I certainly don't. Iraq had plenty of time to hide their weapons. It's only a matter a time before we find something. Iraq is a large area, it's not like it would be impossible to hide the weapons in the large amount of time that they had......

Now my question to you is, if we are able to find WMD. Would your opinion change about the war? This goes to anyone who thinks it was a bad idea....

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by longshot
It's especially hard for me now, because I could give two shits about the Iraqi people. I could care less. That's putting it nicely. I wish we could pull out today.

Would you have been for the war, as Raven said, if he'd have come out with it and said exactly why it was going to happen, ie, because of his Father or the oil?

[longshot]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

I think what we did in Afghanistan was a good idea as well. However, it is irrelevant where Iraq is concerned as the two are connected in no way at all, despite the innuendo touted to help sell the war to the public.

Raven

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by Ravenstorm]

To try and relate the efforts, they have gone so far as to create a single battlefield distinction for "The war on terror". Soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan will recieve the SAME medal.

It think that's just fucking piss poor.

That is exactly what I believe too. But of course you could attribute 9/11 to Bush as well, as its been documented that he was well aware it was going to happen. Had he taken action himself, those lives, tax payer's $$, and the war in Afghanistan may have been saved or averted.

There you go with blurbs again. Since you are incapable of actually arguing facts (instead of posting blurbs) i'll just save my self the trouble: Your an idiot.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
Now my question to you is, if we are able to find WMD. Would your opinion change about the war? This goes to anyone who thinks it was a bad idea....

I think it was good to get Saddam out. It was good for the Iraqi people and it was good for the world. That won't change.

However, what the point of this thread was to put that Bush/Blair said they had evidence of WMD. Its clear they didn't. They lied to us. Now if they find actual weapons of mass destruction, good. However, they took a gamble and lost. It would be sod's law if they found anything now.

[longshot]

Originally posted by StrayRogue

Would you have been for the war, as Raven said, if he'd have come out with it and said exactly why it was going to happen, ie, because of his Father or the oil?

I don't know. I think definately "no" on the father issue, but maybe for the oil.

If he came out for a speech dressed like Russel Crowe from Gladiator on a chariot and said, "We need oil for the empire", I might feel a little better about it.

At least it's not saving the Iraqi people...

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
Now my question to you is, if we are able to find WMD. Would your opinion change about the war? This goes to anyone who thinks it was a bad idea....

It would certainly affect my opinion of the war in general. Whether it would change it or not depends on lots of things.

Is your opinion changing with the increasing amount of evidence that there are in fact no WMD there to be found?

Raven

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by RangerD1


That is exactly what I believe too. But of course you could attribute 9/11 to Bush as well, as its been documented that he was well aware it was going to happen. Had he taken action himself, those lives, tax payer's $$, and the war in Afghanistan may have been saved or averted.

There you go with blurbs again. Since you are incapable of actually arguing facts (instead of posting blurbs) i'll just save my self the trouble: Your an idiot.

Ah sorry, you didn't know Bush was aware of the threat of Osama? OK. Please go read the paper. I recommend the NY Times of May 15th 2002, and the Guardian May 19th, of which I will now quote:

"George Bush received specific warnings in the weeks before 11 September that an attack inside the United States was being planned by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, US government sources said yesterday. In a top-secret intelligence memo headlined 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the US', the President was told on 6 August that the Saudi-born terrorist hoped to 'bring the fight to America' in retaliation for missile strikes on al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998. Bush and his aides, who are facing withering criticism for failing to act on a series of warnings, have previously said intelligence experts had not advised them domestic targets were considered at risk. However, they have admitted they were specifically told that hijacks were being planned."

[StrayRogue]

Oh yeah, the CIA and numerous intelligence agencies across the globe also warned the US about this attack. It was also the second time Osama was to strike at the World Trade Centre too.

August 6th was a full month before Sept. 11th. Are you propsing that the US should have shut down until they could successfully locate Osama Bin Laden? Or are you neglecting to realize that the US had no agency capable safeguarding every single potential target for a terrorist activity (Which would have been every single metropolitan area, Every single plane flown between August 6th-Sept1th and so on and so forth.)

Edited to Add: The United States knew about Osama Bin laden and his plans agains the United States before bush even came into office. Do you remember the embassy bombings in Africa or the USS cole? I'm sure you do.

That alone does not equate to knowledge of a specific attack at a specific time on a specific plane going after a specific target.

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by RangerD1]

[Scott]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
It would certainly affect my opinion of the war in general. Whether it would change it or not depends on lots of things.

Is your opinion changing with the increasing amount of evidence that there are in fact no WMD there to be found?

Raven

Not really. I really do believe they are there. Iraq had a very long time to hide them and move them. We have found multiple labs, it's only a matter of time before we find the weapons.

[Ravenstorm]

Yes, 9/11 could probably have been prevented.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html

Bush could have taken steps. So could Clinton. The fault can't be laid solely at Bush's feet.

Raven

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Is your opinion changing with the increasing amount of evidence that there are in fact no WMD there to be found?


Nope, not mine.

[HarmNone]

I think what Raven is asking though, Sintik, is: would it change your feelings with regard to the war if no WMD are EVER found?

HarmNone

[CrystalTears]

From my understanding, every 6 months or so, even before Bush, the President has been told of a potential attack by Osama. What exactly did you want him to do anyway?

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Yes, 9/11 could probably have been prevented.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html

Bush could have taken steps. So could Clinton. The fault can't be laid solely at Bush's feet.

Raven

Hilarious, The steps that were proposed according to this article involved a pre-emptive military strike against Al'qaeada training camps and in effect the countries that hosted them.

Isn't that what your bitching about in Iraq?

Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to "eliminate the sanctuary" where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training cam

[HarmNone]

9/11 can be laid at the feet of several presidents and Congress. Terrorism has been a growing threat for a long time now. The World Trade Center went down, thousands of lives were lost, and Lo! Suddenly, we as a nation are scrambling to put into effect security measures that should have been there already. We had plenty of warning. Nothing was done.

HarmNone

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by RangerD1
[quote]
Hilarious, The steps that were proposed according to this article involved a pre-emptive military strike against Al'qaeada training camps and in effect the countries that hosted them.

Isn't that what your bitching about in Iraq?

Why no, it's not. Please quote me where I condemn Bush for failing to prevent 9/11. I did not. In fact, I was pointing out that Clinton could be considered just as much to blame for it if blame is to be assigned.

Raven

Touche

[Parkbandit]

If Iraq didn't have WMD:

1) What killed the Kurds in the North?
2) Why did we find stockpiles of gas masks, chemical suits and antidote?

All intelligence pointed to the fact that Iraq had WMD and that they would and did use them. Even Bill Clinton in October of 2003 was still convinced that there were such weapons in Iraq.

It's easy for us to sit back and see that there were no WMD found in Iraq and say that "Look at Bush.. he lied to us JUST to go to war!". Reminds me of that commercial with Brent Favre walking around being a Monday Morning QB.

These are the same people that would be the first to bitch if Iraq killed some of it's neighbors with WMD. "Damn Bush! You knew there was WMD there and you did nothing!"

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Erm I am quoting facts retard. And its you here thats making it personal. But hey, I better back off before you complain again, right?
Oh now Stray Stray Stray,

Are you picking fights again?

Why oh why do you love to push peoples buttons?


This High School bullshit bores me.

Because you know these things don't you, you fucking fool.


Whatever you say retard.



I haven't seen you answer a single point of mine yet Ranger, so why I should get down to your pathetic level of name calling is beyond me.

Wow, this is going pretty well. I'm not being called a Fag or a Nazi for hating the way this has gone about. Go me!

Bear in mind all of the above are from today in only two or three threads.

The funny thing is you are so willing to toss insults about yet you play as if its demeaning when others do.

I and others here have already shown our ability to debate you quite well yet you persist in your usage of sweeping derisive statements about the US population.

I can only assume you are either suffering from long term memory loss or that you CHOOSE to ignore certain aspects that do not fit with the image you seem to feel a need to perpetuate of all Americans.

The one who needs to grow up here is you and to realize that the world is a complicated place and using simple sweeping judgements as you do only serves to show your own lack of both experience and debating acumen.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by HarmNone
9/11 can be laid at the feet of several presidents and Congress. Terrorism has been a growing threat for a long time now. The World Trade Center went down, thousands of lives were lost, and Lo! Suddenly, we as a nation are scrambling to put into effect security measures that should have been there already. We had plenty of warning. Nothing was done.

HarmNone

Exactly. Your airport security was a joke before the attacks. Now? Its pretty harsh.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Skirmisher Stuff


Please quote where today, in this or my other thread where I have gone all out with the insults and not merely reacted to Ranger's name calling? I could call you a bitch for doing this, but nah, you in fact spurred this on. I feel I've kept my head in this argument. We've had a pretty good one, with the exception of Ranger calling everyone an idiot, including HN, Raven and myself, the previous two being members myself (and I know others do) hold in high regard, moral standing, sense and intelligence.

I've posted what I know to be the truth. Please show me a sweeping statement.

So little missy, where does it say in the TOS, or whatever bible you read, that a guy can't post how he wants? Am I not allowed to post constructively? Or shall I start flaming again?:flamed:

[Edited on 12-1-04 by StrayRogue]

[Skirmisher]

Don't hate me cause I use your own words to spank you Stray.

It makes me sad. :(

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Don't hate me cause I use your own words to spank you Stray.

It makes me sad. :(

I don't waste valuable emotions on someone who hasn't been able to prove or counter a single thing I've just said. I just laugh at them. Laughter is the best medicine.

[HarmNone]

Actually, all-in-all this thread has gone pretty well for a political discussion. Politics has always been a red flag in the conversation department. There is, too often, the tendency to take disagreement as disapproval, and make personal comments that are not meant to be personalized. :)

RangerD1 and I straightened out our misunderstanding in U2Us. If only the misunderstandings on this, our planet, could be settled as easily.

HarmNone

*edited because I got my media mixed*

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by HarmNone]

[StrayRogue]

Alright guys, Skirmisher has changed my mind again. I'm gonna start flaming away each and every post now. It seems I'm not allowed to post and discuss normally according to her. Kranar, prepare the ban, as I'm going to be VERY nasty, especially racist, incredibly sexist, mightily homophobic, and stupidly evil.

[Skirmisher]

I could get into this with you Stray If it had not already been done to death months ago.

I enjoyed a nice debate with Kranar and others on this very subject.

If you missed that or have employed your selective memory to black it out that is your issue to deal with, not mine.

Still waiting on some facts Stray.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Alright guys, Skirmisher has changed my mind again. I'm gonna start flaming away each and every post now. It seems I'm not allowed to post and discuss normally according to her. Kranar, prepare the ban, as I'm going to be VERY nasty, especially racist, incredibly sexist, mightily homophobic, and stupidly evil.

Wait, let me alert homeland security. :yawn:

[StrayRogue]

Not at all. It was YOU whose brought this matter up and YOU who has gone way off topic. So please, don't be a fucking pussy, say what you have to say. Or you gonna go complain again?

[HarmNone]

Stray, hon...do not allow the postings of any one person to affect how you present yourself. I am being serious here. You are capable of making a clear and honest presentation of your views without resorting to flaming and other silliness. I, for one, hope you continue to do so. It is that which makes these topics worthy of the time we spend on them. :)

HarmNone

*damned 'e'!*

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by HarmNone]

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by RangerD1
Still waiting on some facts Stray.

Go read that 107 page report.
Go read the two newspaper articles I posted.

Those would be considered facts.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Stray, hon...do not allow the postings of any one person to affect how you present yourself. I am being serious here. You are capable of making a clear and honest presentation of your views without resorting to flaming and other silliness. I, for one, hope you continue to do so. It is that which makes these topics worthy of the time we spend on them. :)

HarmNone

*damned 'e'!*

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by HarmNone]

Nah, it just pisses me off when retards have such double standards. I've tried to be atleast non-flamatory here (or inflamible) and have gotten shit from the very people who condemn me for being so...open and forward with my opinions. Fuck em. And their children.

Newspaper articles are not facts. In America they teach us that in school. :)

I've read the 107 page article.

Responded to it.

Its not what people make it out to be.

Of course you know that cause you've read it.

I've never given you shit for flaming. Like i said earlier: get the story straight before you start trying to call people out.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by RangerD1
Newspaper articles are not facts. In America they teach us that in school. :)

I've read the 107 page article.

Responded to it.

Its not what people make it out to be.

Of course you know that cause you've read it.

Well read the 107 page article. I doubt you can actually read that fast. I know I haven't read it, just the summary. As for the paper, that alludes to certain facts. Did Bush say or not say there were WMD's in Iraq? Did he or did he not say there was evidence to prove this? Has he found any of these supposed WMD's? The three answers that are history now, are my facts.

[HarmNone]

Yes, but...Stray, if you let them drive you into posting in the exact way they claim you always post, who is winning? Them, or you? You have the ability to stay above it. I know you do. I have seen it.

HarmNone :)

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by RangerD1
I've never given you shit for flaming. Like i said earlier: get the story straight before you start trying to call people out.

I do not think Stray was talking about you giving him shit for flaming, Ranger.

HarmNone

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by RangerD1
I've never given you shit for flaming. Like i said earlier: get the story straight before you start trying to call people out.

I do not think Stray was talking about you giving him shit for flaming, Ranger.

HarmNone

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by RangerD1
I've never given you shit for flaming. Like i said earlier: get the story straight before you start trying to call people out.

I do not think Stray was talking about you giving him shit for flaming, Ranger.

HarmNone

[HarmNone]

Yeesh. Three posts? I have gone beyond schizophrenic and into multiple personality disorder. ;)

HarmNone

Well read the 107 page article. I doubt you can actually read that fast. I know I haven't read it, just the summary.

Jesus christ Stray.

By the summary do you mean some newspapers interpretation of it?

The investigation is nothing new Stray. I guess its too hard for you to pick up on the clues that i've actually researched these things in the past. ::gasp::


Did Bush say or not say there were WMD's in Iraq?

So did the Iraqi's.

Do you even read posts?


Did he or did he not say there was evidence to prove this?


I guess declarations by the Iraqi government aren't facts nowadays.

I guess they should have written a newspaper article.


Has he found any of these supposed WMD's?


Did you read the article TOJ posted? So, i guess the answer is yes. I'll admit its not on the scale claimed, but then again IT IS A BIG FUCKING DESERT.

Yea he was Harmnone, he specifically mentioned me in the same regard earlier.

[StrayRogue]

Oh sure they did. But they also were warned to disarm, which is what they've seemingly done. I think Iraq v.1 kind of showed Saddam the world was serious. And again the "evidence" has been found to be false. THATS THE POINT.

[HarmNone]

Ahh. Sorry, RangerD1. I did not realize that, I guess.

I have been enjoying this topic and the varied opinions of the posters herein. I would love to see us be able to share our opinions without taking differing opinions personally.

We are talking about governments here, not individuals. The decision to go to war is not made by you, or me, or Stray. It is made by the governments of the countries of which we are citizens. If we can keep that foremost in our minds, we can all learn from one another. Our opinions may not change, but our viewpoints will broaden. That is never a bad thing.

HarmNone enjoys the opportunity to learn

Oh sure they did. But they also were warned to disarm, which is what they've seemingly done. I think Iraq v.1 kind of showed Saddam the world was serious. And again the "evidence" has been found to be false. THATS THE POINT.

Iraq made declarations as a part of the cease fire agreements for the first gulf war. BUT YOU KNEW THAT. If for no other reason than i said it earlier. (Do you read posts? seriously)

Also, it was not just Bush..it was the ENTIRE WORLD.

[Ravenstorm]

Just as a side note, I was also firmly behind Bush Sr. in the Gulf War. So I am hardly a 'peace-nik'.

Raven

[HarmNone]

Agreed, Raven. Although I am not a supporter of war for the most part, the Gulf War was a necessary evil, in my opinion.

HarmNone

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by RangerD1

Oh sure they did. But they also were warned to disarm, which is what they've seemingly done. I think Iraq v.1 kind of showed Saddam the world was serious. And again the "evidence" has been found to be false. THATS THE POINT.

Iraq made declarations as a part of the cease fire agreements for the first gulf war. BUT YOU KNEW THAT. If for no other reason than i said it earlier. (Do you read posts? seriously)

Also, it was not just Bush..it was the ENTIRE WORLD.

THEN yes. Do you read posts?

You lost me.

[Parkbandit]

I think we should have simply let diplomacy exhaust itself before going to war ...

I mean really... it was ONLY eleven years of diplomacy... what's another 20 or 30 in the grand scheme of things. So we take a big risk with a nutball as the head of Iraq... come on! Sure he's certifiable.. sure he doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone else but himself... sure he says one thing and does another.. sure he has misled the world community for 20 years... sure he has invaded neighboring countries... sure he has used WMD against his own people... big deal!

I'm more than willing to take the risk that he won't kill off a bunch of people around the world... I'm just glad I don't live in Israel, NYC, Washington DC, Turkey, Kuwait, Iran, Saudia Arabia, England, etc....

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I'm just glad I don't live in Israel, NYC, Washington DC, Turkey, Kuwait, Iran, Saudia Arabia, England, etc....
What's so bad about England?

[Drew2]

Is it sad that Stay cares more about American politics than I do?

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I'm just glad I don't live in Israel, NYC, Washington DC, Turkey, Kuwait, Iran, Saudia Arabia, England, etc....
What's so bad about England?

We have been targeted by terrorism before. Plus a number of al queda cells have been found and destroyed over here in the last year or two. Thankfully though, nothing on the level of 911 has been done, though a building about a mile down the road from me was blown up pretty nicely 3 years ago.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Tayre
Is it sad that Stay cares more about American politics than I do?

At your age I didn't know or care about shit. It either comes with age, a willingness to learn about how things are done, or it doesn't. Don't worry about it.

[Varsus]

Exactly. Your airport security was a joke before the attacks. Now? Its pretty harsh.

Ill try and word this so that It does not get taken the wrong way.

9/11 was a step in the right direction towards making our country a safer place.

by this I mean:

1) we now have the security we did not before, should we have had it? YES! We are a friggin world power here (im not bragging about it, but we are) and alot of people really do not like us.

2) I would like to think the events of 9/11 opened the eyes of alot of fools who like to keep them shut.

BUT that does not mean I am glad 9/11 happened, it would be nice if people would not need events like that to realize what is going on right in front of them.

I think it was a horrible act but one that was key in the evolution of this country.

On another note...

Weapons Of Mass Destruction... Did they find any? Were there any?

Ok, I personally think that they did have them, I do not know if they still do but If I had weapons of mass destruction and I was TOLD that people were coming to look for them, If I had a whole country to hide them in... they would not be found... If I was the leader of a 3rd world country with the ability to do inhumane things and get away with it... and I wanted my weapons to be lost forever (till i wanted them found) Id burry them in the desert than have every person who even knew someone who knew someone who knew there was sand in my country killed so that the weapons would not be found.... or I would just sneak them out of the country.

Did they have weapons? who knows... Did we find them? NO... Do I think we even had a chance of finding them when we told them ahaid of time we were coming to look? No

-Varsus (Debates are nice, but all that flaming I had to read through was dumb, lets just stop it.)

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Varsus

Exactly. Your airport security was a joke before the attacks. Now? Its pretty harsh.

Ill try and word this so that It does not get taken the wrong way.

9/11 was a step in the right direction towards making our country a safer place.

by this I mean:

1) we now have the security we did not before, should we have had it? YES! We are a friggin world power here (im not bragging about it, but we are) and alot of people really do not like us.

2) I would like to think the events of 9/11 opened the eyes of alot of fools who like to keep them shut.

BUT that does not mean I am glad 9/11 happened, it would be nice if people would not need events like that to realize what is going on right in front of them.

I think it was a horrible act but one that was key in the evolution of this country.



Oh I totally agree with this yes. You could say it was a harsh lesson to learn, but learn it we ALL did.

[Edited on 12-1-04 by StrayRogue]

[Hulkein]

I'll start off by saying I supported the war whole-heartedly because of humanitarian reasons. I don't like the thought that thousands of innocent families were killed under Saddam Hussein nor did I find it comforting that millions of innocent citizens had to live under the anxiety that today might be the day they are brutally tortured/murdered for a relatively stupid reason. That being said -

Originally posted by StrayRogue

Originally posted by Maimara
Iraq under Saddam WAS a WMD.

How? They didn't own any actual WMD's, they didn't fund the al queda, they were invading any other country. If America wants to stick its nose into countries that have tyrants as figure heads, thats fine. Just do it to other countries as well. Why Iraq? Perhaps does it have to do with all that black gold? Hmmm, I think so yeah.

Under Resolution 1441 it stated that if Saddam didn't allow complete access to all sights for the UN weapon inspectors, then he would be attacked and removed from power. Saddam continually got in the way and restricted or dragged his feet when it came to inspectors going where they want. This is a fact, he broke the resolution.

I'd also like to note that what the soldiers in Iraq have found are the foundation of WMD programs, which Saddam kept there so that once sanctions were removed/lightened (which they would've been a year or two down the road if people like Stray ran the world) he would go back to creating a stockpile of WMDs.

You can't say that the US or UK government lied to us because they truely thought that he stockpiles of WMD. Why did we think this? Becuase Saddam Hussein has been portraying that picture to us and the rest of the world. He was doing this to keep himself in power, and to keep the other nations in his area on edge.

He purposely mis-lead the world, and in essence what he was doing was seeing how many sanctions he could break, how many successions the League of Nation... I mean UN would make, and how much he could get while people with little testicular fortitude would allow it to happen (Take a lesson from WWII, Hitler did the same thing, taking what he could while England and France kept blinking until they realized he took so much and they were forced to attack, then it was too late.)

There is no doubt about it, had sanctions been lifted (which they would've been due to the ineptness of the UN, barring US, UK, and some other countries part of the coallition) then Saddam would have continued his WMD development.

[Czeska]

Originally posted by Varsus
[quote]
On another note...

Weapons Of Mass Destruction... Did they find any? Were there any?

Ok, I personally think that they did have them, I do not know if they still do but If I had weapons of mass destruction and I was TOLD that people were coming to look for them, If I had a whole country to hide them in... they would not be found... If I was the leader of a 3rd world country with the ability to do inhumane things and get away with it... and I wanted my weapons to be lost forever (till i wanted them found) Id burry them in the desert than have every person who even knew someone who knew someone who knew there was sand in my country killed so that the weapons would not be found.... or I would just sneak them out of the country.

Did they have weapons? who knows... Did we find them? NO... Do I think we even had a chance of finding them when we told them ahaid of time we were coming to look? No

Makes total sense to me. And no, I do not believe my government to be above lying to me.

Another thing that I think of, though, when I contemplate the war in Iraq, is what President Bush said in the 2002 State of the Union Adress:

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.


Basically, if you'll pardon my paraphrasing, after September 11th, 2001, the president got up at his podium and said, in effect, "Ok folks, we've had enough. If we even THINK you have the possibility of fucking with us, or helping those who already do, we're going to flatten you."

Right after thousands of our friends, family, and neighbors were gruesomely killed that day, it seemed just fine to everyone I know that we go ANYWHERE to knock down people who think terroristic tactics are ok.

Saddam fits that bill, WMD or no WMD.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by RangerD1
Hilarious, The steps that were proposed according to this article involved a pre-emptive military strike against Al'qaeada training camps and in effect the countries that hosted them.
Isn't that what your bitching about in Iraq?

Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to "eliminate the sanctuary" where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training cam

Exactly my point. Many people would be singing a whole different tune if in 10 years down the road Saddam decided to send some missiles filled with Anthrax and other chemical/biological weapons into Israel.

I'm sure if France and Britain pre-emptively attacked Germany then there would've been thousands bitching then that 'you have no right to attack, our government is lying to us, Germany doesn't have the means to take over most of Europe!'

[Hulkein]

Saddam Hussein's Iraq: A Terrorist Nest

Abu Abbas, the notorious terrorist leader behind the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro, in which the 69-year-old American wheelchair-bound passenger Leon Klinghoffer was shot and pushed in his wheelchair, into the Mediterranean Sea.

"Justice will be served," said U.S. Central Command spokesman Major Brad Bartelt. The capture "removes a portion of the terror network supported by Iraq and represents yet another victory in the global war on terrorism."

Abu Nidal, another well-known Palestinian terrorist died in Baghdad last year. Both terrorists had been living in Iraq under the protection of Saddam Hussein's government.

Also, US Marines have discovered a recently abandoned terrorist training camp south of Baghdad. The large camp, 20 permanent buildings on 25 acres, was operated by the Iraqi government and the Palestine Liberation Front, according to Marine spokesman Cpl. John Hoellwarth.

Many of the recruits were trained for suicide missions. Irak's government also paid about $35 million in rewards to families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Sources: New York Times, CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, April 16, 2003.

[Drew2]

Originally posted by Czeska

His post.



Quoting like this is completely unneccessary. Please select the text in which you wish to respond to to make it more user-friendly and not a pain in the ass to read.

[You're not helping.]

[Edited on 1/12/2004 by CrystalTears]