WMD just a convenient excuse?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

June 3rd, 2003, 02:41 AM
vercetti

FIrst of all, Im antiwar and never believed that Iraq had WMD. IMO, if that's the reason we went after Saddam ,then North Korea would have been a clearer, more urgent target.
And now that the combat is over, and Iraq is Under American Protectorate, and if Iraq had in fact WMD, wouldn't it make sense for The US to have already found those Weapons?
And about the claim that they may have been smuggled to Syria, I don't think it's substential. The USAF controlled the Iraqi airspace within hours of the start of the war and with the high-level of surveillance equipment available, I think it's easy to spot a cargo of chemical And biologicaql weapons.
And ZOnewalker, "after all if the next few months are handled properly the Iraqi's end up with a country they are proud to be able to call their own. ", please read Powertoad's signature.
Peace
June 3rd, 2003, 04:41 AM
Dr Toker

My only problem with the War on Iraq, is the fact it is about 20 years too late. He should have been taken out of power as soon as he gassed the Kurds, killing thousands. More than 9-11 killed. We should have jumped on his evil doing ass along time ago, if we wanted to be the "Sacred Holy Police of the World".

Also, that should have been our main point. Not the WMD. Cause We know he killed all those people for sure. We know how horrible of a dictator he is. That should have been our cause. I bet the UN would have agreed to that. I mean shyt, he's killed more people than Osama Bin Laden.

Quote:

Originally posted here by vercetti
And about the claim that they may have been smuggled to Syria, I don't think it's substential. The USAF controlled the Iraqi airspace within hours of the start of the war.

This is true. But how long did he have to get them out when we were dealing with the UN? He knew we were coming, regardless. If they were ever there, he had MORE than enough time to get them out. Thanks to the UN, and everyone of those Anti-War Utopians, I mean Americans..
June 3rd, 2003, 05:03 AM
powertoad5000

Quote:

This is true. But how long did he have to get them out when we were dealing with the UN? He knew we were coming, regardless. If they were ever there, he had MORE than enough time to get them out. Thanks to the UN, and everyone of those Anti-War Utopians, I mean Americans..

The satellites didn't go up yesterday - regardless of what had been happening with the UN the US was no doubt watching Iraq and its borders, even more so because of the heightened chance of the weapons being removed from the country and safeguarded or distributed.
June 3rd, 2003, 08:11 AM
darkes

Quote:

Originally posted here by Dr Toker
We know how horrible of a dictator he is. That should have been our cause. I bet the UN would have agreed to that. I mean shyt, he's killed more people than Osama Bin Laden.

You are completely wrong over this. We all know, or should know, how the UN works, and France (and possibly Russia as well) would have vetoed any decision to interevene in Iraq, because of the economic interests that both these countries had in Iraq.

To accuse the US of intervening over oil (from France) seems very two faced to me.
After all, which country did the most trade with Iraq apart from Russia?
I'll give you a clue, it starts with 'F'
June 3rd, 2003, 01:57 PM
Zonewalker

vercetti

Quote:

And ZOnewalker, "after all if the next few months are handled properly the Iraqi's end up with a country they are proud to be able to call their own. ", please read Powertoad's signature.
Peace

I'm not quite sure I understand this comment..... I've read powertoads signature... and I agree with the sentiment expressed... it's pretty much what I've already said i.e. if it's handled correctly in the next few months i.e. the USA doesn't go and totally strip Iraq of every natural resource it has (Note: I'm not commenting upon if I think this is right or wrong!) then as I said they should end up with a country they can proudly call their own or

Quote:

Your wealth has been stripped of you by unjust men. ... The people of Baghdad shall flourish under institutions which are in consonance with their sacred laws.

What did you think I was saying??

z
June 3rd, 2003, 02:30 PM
bballad

Quote:

Originally posted here by Dr Toker
My only problem with the War on Iraq, is the fact it is about 20 years too late. He should have been taken out of power as soon as he gassed the Kurds, killing thousands. More than 9-11 killed. We should have jumped on his evil doing ass along time ago, if we wanted to be the "Sacred Holy Police of the World".

Umm we where supporting him and supplying him with the chemicals and biologicals 20 years ago...why would we want to go after him he was our guy.

As for sneaking out the nonconventional weapons during the buildup for war...if you don’t think we had spy satellites and planes covering every inch of their boarder then you are far to naive to enter into a political discueesion.
June 3rd, 2003, 10:55 PM
Dr Toker

Im not nieve. Thats the last thing that I am. I know what we were doing during and before the reagan administration. And Its public knowledge that we had spies, and spy satellites for a long time. I mean Colin Powell showed photos from these satellites. But that cant catch everything.

And as for the UN not going for the toppling of Saddams Regime, thats fine. I can deal with that. But, Saddam is an evil dictator should have been our just cause. He supports Terrorism...ect...not things unknown. Thats my point. We should have listed the 100 other horrible things we KNOW FOR SURE about him as justification for ending his regime. Instead of the thing we FEARED, and were uncertain about.
June 4th, 2003, 12:32 AM
vercetti

Zonewalker, my point was that what We are telling the Iraqi people exactly what the British told them almost a century ago, and you saw what happened: their wealth was stripped again from them, maybe to an even greater degree, they never did flourish, and I don't think the Arab Race rose again and probably never will.
June 4th, 2003, 02:11 PM
bballad

Quote:

Originally posted here by Dr Toker
Im not nieve. Thats the last thing that I am. I know what we were doing during and before the reagan administration. And Its public knowledge that we had spies, and spy satellites for a long time. I mean Colin Powell showed photos from these satellites. But that cant catch everything.

And as for the UN not going for the toppling of Saddams Regime, thats fine. I can deal with that. But, Saddam is an evil dictator should have been our just cause. He supports Terrorism...ect...not things unknown. Thats my point. We should have listed the 100 other horrible things we KNOW FOR SURE about him as justification for ending his regime. Instead of the thing we FEARED, and were uncertain about.

First who every just hit me with the 30 point hammer, leave antipoints out of cosmos.

So what about all of the other evil dictators we support or have supported around the world, should we go after Pakistan, they support terrorists a lot more then Iraq (facts that we are conveniently forgetting, Al Queda hated Sadam more then they hate us. The terrorist camp broken up in northern Iraq was ant-Sadam not pro and funded by Iran. Hessian tried to support Palestine terrorists but they refused his aid.). Remember Hessian was a secular ruler, all of the terrorists are fundamentalists...they hate him. So those things we "know" about him are lies...sure he gassed the Kurds...is that any different then the atrocities this country has committed? Sure he kept food from his people to make himself rich is that any different from the kuaty leaders or the Saudis. If we went to war because he is evil why are we not going into Africa there is far grater evil happening there...or in the Balkans.

Was what Sadam did in Iraq evil..yes. Is it the reason we went to war, is it even a reason to go to war...no. We waged this war to hand gifts out to some powerful groups (Halliburton, the Saudi royalty).
June 4th, 2003, 02:58 PM
Ghostdog

Quote:

Darkes said

You are completely wrong over this. We all know, or should know, how the UN works, and France (and possibly Russia as well) would have vetoed any decision to interevene in Iraq, because of the economic interests that both these countries had in Iraq. ...

The economic interests? So why France was in the 1st war against Saddam in 1991? Do you really think that Iraq is the first exportation country for France ?

Quote:

... To accuse the US of intervening over oil (from France) seems very two faced to me. ...

US have oil but for how many times? EU use 16%, US 26%. A valuation say that in the next 10 years the USA will have exhausted all their known deposits. And something like 40 years for the world wide, so in a near future a country with oil will be a king.

Quote:

After all, which country did the most trade with Iraq apart from Russia?
I'll give you a clue, it starts with 'F'

Falkland Island ? Faroe Island ? Fiji ? Finland ?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page