 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
so, where is everyone who said that iraq had WMDs? it is you guys who are unamerican. real americans distrust their government. it says so in the declaration of independance. unamerican traitors swallow everything that their politicans said. i think we should have a witch hunt and post the names of everyone in a thread who thought there were WMDs and shame them into admitting their were wrong. who is with me? because I am sick of being called unamerican, unpatriotic, a traitor, and guess what guys, you are reaping what you sowed. |
Well that group includes the Bush and Clinton administrations, the CIA, MI6, the Mossad, the Russian FSR as well as the German, French, and Jordanian intelligence services, solid majorities of the American population as well as majorities in most European countries and last (and probably least) a firm majority of people on this board. Even those who were less than convinced by the "proof" offered up by the intelligence services were at least suspicious because Hussein refused to cooperate with inspectors despite the huge toll that it had on his country and ultimately his regime.
As for your unpatriotic, unamerican and traitorous ways why don't you quit behaving like that or at least cut down a little? Maybe then people wouldn't characterize you that way.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:13
|
|
Most 'pro-war-in-Iraq' people stopped responding to this kinda threads because are valid arguments were never addressed anyway, and most 'anti-war-in-iraq' didn't come much further then "You stupid ***** suck big time there are no WMD" kind of argumentation.
I'll sum up my aguments again,
perhaps there's one intelligent anti-war guy or gal who can finally address them.
1. Sadam has had WMD, he's used WMD, he acted as if he stlil got WMD. He never proved he got rid of his WMD, not even when the UN (including Germany, Russia, France and China) told him to do. years long Sadam frustrated the inspections, somtimes by not letting the inspectors enter at all, sometimes by handling wrong information, and all the time by not cooperating at all. (eventhough the UN (including Germany, Russia, China and France) told him so.
If we know he has used them twice (Iran, Kurds) and we cannot be sure he doesn't have them, we cannot take the risk.
2. Sadam supported terrorism. We cannot be sure if there were bounds between Al Qa'ida and Sadam. Though there were contacts in the past, and we cannot be sure that these contacts may not be remade in the future. More since we are sure that Sadam supported terrorism in Israel by donating $25000 to the family of every suicide bomber.
For sure since we couldn't be sure about #1, #1 in combination with #2, for sure after 9/11, is a good reason to take away the risk.
3. Last year a CIA rapport was made about the WMD. The conclusion was indeed that there were no WMD left over in Iraq when America invaded it in 1993.
That's the passage all people focussed on.
Though the rapport said more, it said that Sadam was very eager to continue working on these programs as soon as the oil-for-food program would have ended and all UN resolutions would have stopped.
Therefor either we must chose to continue with these sanctions untill Sadam died (and most obviously would be succeeded by one of his sons), including the horrible concequentions for his people. Or we must indeed take away the UN resolutions, and face Sadam building new WMD again. If you embrace the part of the rapport that says there were no WMD, also embrace the part that says that Sadam had the very intention to build new weapons.
4. Another reason for Sadam to stop invading countries (Iran, Quweit) or the kurds since 1992 / 1993 is the presence of american and british troups in Saudi Arabia and both no-fly zones in Iraq. (there were no Russian, german, french or chinese troups to maintain peace for 12 long years!!!!)
We all know that the presence of the americans in Saudi Arabia (the holy land for muslims) was the #1 reason for Osama Bin Laden to attack america on 9/11.
It was no option to let the troups stay in Saudi Arabia untill Sadam died. Though removing these troups would most certainly result in new attacks on Sadam's neighbours.
A permanent solution was needed to end the agression of Sadam. Just placing troups and sanctions had to come to an end one day.
5. Nuclear weapons were not available for Sadam. Fortunately! Though, what do you want? Another Kim Jon Il as in North Korea? Did the world not learn to invade the maniac-country BEFORE it has these weapons, since when it has the weapons invading is no option anymore?
Not to mention that Kim most probably will only use these weapons if he feels threatened. Sadam may use them just for the sake of it. As he already invaded his neighbours in the past, and attacked Israel (unprovoced by Israel!) during the 2nd gulf war as well.
6. Sadam has killed between 500000 and 1000000 people during his 30+ years reign. How is that not a reason for any pacifist to remove him?
7. What's the alternative? Is there any other option? Do you guys really prefer Sadam in Iraq above a free Iraq?
How much better would things have been IF Russia, France, Germany would have participated. If the world could've acted TOGETHER against Iraq, instead of powerplay by France (if Chiraq's not in charge, he will not cooperate. Everyone knows that it's France who's the actuall wannabe-important one.) (how can anybody prefer Chiraq above Bush, that's a true riddle to me)
Neither can I understand how people are proud and happy to be in the same camp as China, Russia.....
Can't you see that Schroder was against the war only because he knew he would win the elections (germany 2003) that way?
Have all you anti-war protestors voiced strong against the French militairy action Coast d'Ivoire? The Chinese actions in Tibet? Their hostility agains Taiwan?
Did you guys protest against the Russian actions in Tsjetsjenie? Against the actions of Sadam himself?
Did you go to the streets with tens of thousands to protest against the muslim-leaders in the middle east?
No, you only wasted your energy to protest against GW Bush, a democratic president who'd rather spend money to free the people of Iraq then make himself popualair by trowing those hundreds of billions of dollars into his own economy.
Retreating the soldiers from the ME and SA would've been the populair thing to do. On short terms. It may have lead to a real rampage in the ME.
But now Syrie, Sudan and even Iran have chosen the more democratic way. The ME is becoming a better place right now. IT's not that perfect place indeed, though everyone can see that things are being solved right now that would've stayed huge problems otherwise for decenia.
I cannot see how these reasons are invalid.
I cannot understand how all you wanna-be smart guys always fail to address them though you still claim victory.
Though nothing will change. One or two of you will respond to 1 or 2 issues I raised with vague arguments. And most of my message will be ignored.
And in 2 weeks another thread will pop-up, ignoring all of our arguments.
CyberShy
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Max Webster
|
|
I think Cybershy and Mobius both have made some excellent points.
But I still think the the whole weapons thing was exaggerated to help grease the wheels of invasion.
Yes there are madman and terrible situations all over the world. But the difference with Iraq is that its sitting on one huge pool of a very valuable resource. Not to mention rebuilding Iraq is going to cost billions. I hope the people of Iraq get wealthy over this rebuilding process and not just a minority few, along with a bunch of foreigners.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
 |
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001
time: 06:13
|
|
quote:
Well that group includes the Bush and Clinton administrations, the CIA, MI6, the Mossad, the Russian FSR as well as the German, French, and Jordanian intelligence services, solid majorities of the American population as well as majorities in most European countries and last (and probably least) a firm majority of people on this board. Even those who were less than convinced by the "proof" offered up by the intelligence services were at least suspicious because Hussein refused to cooperate with inspectors despite the huge toll that it had on his country and ultimately his regime.
As for your unpatriotic, unamerican and traitorous ways why don't you quit behaving like that or at least cut down a little? Maybe then people wouldn't characterize you that way.
|
hard to quit behaving that way when any opposition to bush is unpatriotic, unamerican and traitorous. any questioning of the facts, and wavering of support of the government is unamerican. sounds like nazism, stalinism, or fascism. take your pick.
oh, and out of all your groups, why doesnt it include the UN weapons inspectors, guys who actually were there on the ground? the only unpartisan source out of all of those. but no, you are just a bunch of hacks who swallow everything spoon fed to you. well, it seems like you choked on this one eh.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-04-2005 08:03
- you only reveal such secrets under strict scrutiny of one or more highly educated shrink. 
Very well put.
, we were solely after the WMDs - because taking out Saddam solely on the grounds of regime change is illegal.
|