Time to face the music and dance Mark and Headrock

[JoseDominguez]

Fact: Saddam is a tyranical despot with a penchant for mass murder and supporting terrorist atrocities. No one arguing with that yeah?

So why in the hell did anyone believe he had WMD? You can't have it both ways........if he's a lunatic then he would have used them if he had them. So...... nuts and unarmed or sane and packing nukes?

Catch 22.

(but either way not a good person to have running a country).


But I can think of a few countries with WMD who shouldn't really have them.


Start with France, have you seen Godzilla!!! is that what you want? 'cos that's what'll happen.

 

[headrock6]

Originally posted by crom-dubh

Ok the info I have on Somalia did not come from the movie. In fact the movie doesnt mention all of the bumbled missions before Mog.

Glad to hear your not a movie historian..Personally I didnt enjoy Black Hawk Down all that much..If I wanted to see 2 and a half hours of shooting I would have rented King Of New York

Originally posted by crom-dubh
I recall that Bush and Blair tried to tell us that Saddam had links to Al qaeda and that was one of the reasons going to war. I asked if they have proved that yet.

I dont know if thiers connections..Nothings been proved yet..I heard something of a judge in Baghdad being handed documents from an Iraqi intel officer that showed Al Qaedas link in Pakistan was also working with Uday Hussien..Not sure if its credible as ive only seen a few bits of it on CNN but who know..Weve only been there 2 months and fighting is still going on..Well see with time whether there was a link or not...

Originally posted by crom-dubh
Again Saddams WMD's were a threat to the US was another reason for going to war. I ask again how was this possible and have they found any proof to substansiate this claim.


The problem I have is that every time someone questions the original motives for going to war, no one wants to give a direct answer.

Over to you Headrock

I not too keen on exactly what Blair told you but in the Presidents State Of The Union he mentioned Iraqis suffering at the hands of Saddam...He mentioned WMD's and,terrorism and plenty of other things..If you'd bother to read my first reponse in this thread I openly admitted I was miffed that no WMD's were uncovered yet..But that doesnt mean I dont think this war was morally just..

Hes gassed his people,invaded another nation,tried to build nukes,threatened the whole region,shoots scuds at Israel in the first Gulf War,went to war with Iran and openly supports terrorism..If no WMD's are found then Saddam miffed the whole world,not just us..Its just we were the only ones willing to do anything about it which makes us look like the monster...

 

[headrock6]

Originally posted by JoseDominguez

So why in the hell did anyone believe he had WMD? You can't have it both ways........if he's a lunatic then he would have used them if he had them. So...... nuts and unarmed or sane and packing nukes?

The problem is the UN said he had all this wonderful stuff and Saddam said he dumped in in the sand..Now usually Id like to take Saddams word but this time I decided to believe what the free world said

Originally posted by JoseDominguez
But I can think of a few countries with WMD who shouldn't really have them.


Start with France, have you seen Godzilla!!! is that what you want? 'cos that's what'll happen.

We have em here in Maryland igniting under the ground where we buried em..Thats good for the population...Ever been to Maryland Jose ..Just a joke so please no yelling at me ..And screw Godzilla..Rodan kicks much more major ass than him yet against the French,Bambi could probably take Paris in no less than 3 days...

 

[Mark790.06]

Originally posted by duffistuta
I may be paranoid, but I'm not that paranoid.

So you believe all of this was according to their deception plans and they foresaw no one asking the questions you're asking now?

Originally posted by duffistuta
So you don't feel a little duped?

Not duped, just a little embarrassed. We should have made a better effort to seal off the Iraqi borders, put that 75th Exploitation task force into action earlier and closer to the frontlines, allocated more troops to secure government facilities to prevent looting, and worked things out with Turkey a little better than we did so that we could've used our own bases that we've been paying rent on for the past 30 years.

Originally posted by duffistuta
Or are you unbothered at the possibility of deception because you feel the end would justify the means?

If there was than it preceded Bush and Blair's ascendancy to power, and it wouldn't end with our leaders shrugging their shoulders at being asked where the WMD was located.

Originally posted by duffistuta
I said 'If' all along, and have continued to - I don't know what's going on over there, but here there is a serious climb-down going on and a lot of people are very, very pissed off at the rhetoric change.

And I said "they don't need any credible evidence...." JTMH may have been responding to you, but I was responding more to everyone of the deception ilk.

Originally posted by crom-dubh
Even if Iraq still have stockpiles of said weapons, then the great majority of them are well past their "sell by date"
Anthrax has a shelf life of about 3 years
Sarin and mstard gas has a shelf life of about 5 years.

Did the stuff about chem-bio labs escape you?
And regarding the shelf-life of anthrax: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1457035.stm

 

[pgaglio]

For those who insist that the whole WMD thing is/was a lie, could you please explain to me why Saddam would have foregone hundreds of billions of $$ in oil revenue (as a result of the UN embargo) if he wasn't attempting to hide something?

Saddam the a-hole was definitely crazy, but I don't think he was insane.

 

[crom-dubh]

Hes gassed his people,invaded another nation,tried to build nukes,threatened the whole region,shoots scuds at Israel in the first Gulf War,went to war with Iran and openly supports terrorism..If no WMD's are found then Saddam miffed the whole world,not just us..Its just we were the only ones willing to do anything about it which makes us look like the monster...

And most of the above was done with support from the US and the UK. In fact Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were directly responsible for Saddams rise to power in the '80s. Where was the outcry when Saddam used chemical weapons on an almost daily rate against the Iranians? He was a mad dictator then so why was it OK to at best turn a blind eye to Saddams deeds or at worst actively support him?

Some of the US' closest friends are mad dictators with appauling records of cruelty. Saudi for example.

The US is now forging links with former Soviet republics of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan which are all run by Stalin like figures who are not in the least interested in democracy or basic human rights for their people.

So the "get rid of evil tyrants" reason for going to war with Iraq doesnt wash with me either.

 

[headrock6]

Originally posted by crom-dubh
Hes gassed his people,invaded another nation,tried to build nukes,threatened the whole region,shoots scuds at Israel in the first Gulf War,went to war with Iran and openly supports terrorism..If no WMD's are found then Saddam miffed the whole world,not just us..Its just we were the only ones willing to do anything about it which makes us look like the monster...

And most of the above was done with support from the US and the UK. In fact Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were directly responsible for Saddams rise to power in the '80s. Where was the outcry when Saddam used chemical weapons on an almost daily rate against the Iranians? He was a mad dictator then so why was it OK to at best turn a blind eye to Saddams deeds or at worst actively support him?

Some of the US' closest friends are mad dictators with appauling records of cruelty. Saudi for example.

The US is now forging links with former Soviet republics of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan which are all run by Stalin like figures who are not in the least interested in democracy or basic human rights for their people.

So the "get rid of evil tyrants" reason for going to war with Iraq doesnt wash with me either.

Indeed America has made some glaring mistakes in the past..To wipe out one decrepit government we installed another one in the process but lets not sit here and say oh well America gave Saddam some Anthrax cultures so now were to blame..Funny thing how the Kurds really enjoy Americans and the removal of Saddam yet we were the ones who gave him Anthrax way back when..I dont remember Sarin or VX ever being loaded off to him from us..

True we have allegiances with some of the worst regimes on earth..But slowly were seeing a shift that were not gonna sit back and allow this anymore..Iran and Syria are having pressure put on them,Saudi Arabia looks to be making some dramtic shifts in the way they promote terror,and the Palestinian/Israeli crisis is at least moving..Im not sure to where but its moving...

Look, either removing Saddam was good thing or you'd rather have him back on his throne..Which is it??If you didnt support the war and removing a tyrant doesnt fly with you,then I assume that leaving him in power would have been a better option??I think most Iraqis would agree that thankfully hes gone whether we came for WMD's or not...So why are you so upset??

 

[Mark790.06]

[

Originally posted by JoseDominguez
Fact: Saddam is a tyranical despot with a penchant for mass murder and supporting terrorist atrocities. No one arguing with that yeah?

So why in the hell did anyone believe he had WMD? You can't have it both ways........if he's a lunatic then he would have used them if he had them. So...... nuts and unarmed or sane and packing nukes?

The only problem with that line of thinking is that Saddam was not nuts or a lunatic. Despotic tyrant? Yes. But crazy? No.

 

[crom-dubh]

Headrock

Dude you know I am argueing for the sake of it (joke)

All I am saying is that I have no problem with any government taking out Saddam, I have a problem with the reasons given. If Bush said that he was gonna invade Iraq because he wanted cheaper oil, to show the Arab world who was boss, he was pissed off that Saddam threatened his dad, to take the public from examining some of his other cock ups etc. then so be it.

All I have seen is the reasons for the war keep changing every week.

 

[headrock6]

Originally posted by crom-dubh
Headrock

Dude you know I am argueing for the sake of it (joke)

All I am saying is that I have no problem with any government taking out Saddam, I have a problem with the reasons given. If Bush said that he was gonna invade Iraq because he wanted cheaper oil, to show the Arab world who was boss, he was pissed off that Saddam threatened his dad, to take the public from examining some of his other cock ups etc. then so be it.

All I have seen is the reasons for the war keep changing every week.

I completely understand..Since WMD's have'nt been found yet they will use every other reason to justify it..But some are just as good as the other..But look at it realistically..A 24 member council chosen by the US from all the religious groups across Iraq has been installed..They have to set up a constitution by next year..After that,free elections..If they elect a tyranical despot ,so be it..We can only show them them the right door..We cant force em through it...Then nationalism will take over and we'll see how much oil they'll give us..****,we liberated Kuwait and they have'nt opened thier oil wells to us for some cheap rate so what make you think the Iraqi's will??

The truth is,the American people prefer to be isolated...Empire building has never been part of any of our goals..I hear people say were imperialistic and then **** on us for not making Afghanistan picture perfect..I hear reasons for war changing every week yet Ive been hearing hypocrisy for much longer...Its a no win situation..