 |
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Blackcat, even the UN said there were WMDs based on their inspections that were stopped in 1998. |
That might be, but not what I recall. Nevertheless, I feel fine with the argument that there might be WMD's as an argument.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
now youre just making **** up. |
I'm just as suspicious as you about Ned's claim, but even if he should happen to be right, then it doesn't matter. The claim has never been that Saddam HAD WMD's, just that he MIGHT have them. and that is all the reason needed.
That is why the claim that it is all based upon a lie is so redicolous. Actually, it's the lie claim that is a lie.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
the claim was the saddam was an imminent threat to the US. |
And where is the lie in this ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:13
|
|
Yeah but now Saddam is gone, isn't that worth anything these days?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
the claim was the saddam was an imminent threat to the US. |
The president didn't use those words. He said that Saddam was a grave and growing danger, etc. Bush was told that Saddam had Anthrax and nerve gase, was working on long range missles, and also was working on Nukes. There is nothing in this that is an imminent threat -- except if he gave the bio weapons to terrorists.
However, he was said by the Brits to be able to launch a strike within hours of his giving the orders. I don't recall Bush every saying that, however.
As to the UN in 1998, the UN had listed stockpiles of Antrax, mustard gas, nerve gas and their ingredients that they had not verified were destroyed. If Saddam did destroy them or they were destroyed by US bombs and missles, Saddam provided no documentation that was verifiable in any way that the stockpiles were destroyed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:13
|
|
Are you for real CyberShy?
You can't be.. can you?
quote:
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. |
Actually, most of them stopped because they were thoroughly owned and were ashamed of how badly they got punk'd by Bush and Blair. Those bastards bullshitted you all the way to the bank and you lot fell for it.
No wonder you get laughed at.
quote:
I'll sum up my aguments again,
perhaps there's one intelligent anti-war guy or gal who can finally address them. |
If they're as intelligent as you, it will take them hours to get their mum to write it for them. 
quote:
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 s |
This argument fails completely: the United States was illegally using the inspections to spy on Iraq ? we know this: it is a documented fact.
Hence Saddam was perfectly justified in acting in bad faith because the inspectors were.
quote:
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. |
This is just retarded. There is no real risk. Chemical weapons are battlefield weapons: just another kind of artillery. Many nations in the area ? including Iran, Syria and Israel ? have them. They aren't really weapons of "mass destruction" at all since the kill ratio is about 2 enemy soldiers per shell.
And bioweapons just don't work - so complaining about them is just silly.
As for nuclear weapons: no sane person (and not even US Intelligence when they were doing their job properly) suggested that Saddam was anywhere near having a usable nuclear weapon. Even if he did, it would be useful only to deter others from attacking him ? the only thing such weapons are good for.
quote:
2. Sadam supported terrorism. |
He made payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers as a means of making himself look good. Other than that and some other small time stuff, he really had little to do with terrorism.
quote:
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. |
We can be as certain as anyone, since co-operation between Saddam Hussein, a secular Arab socialist, and Al Qaeda, militant Islamist organization devoted to the overthrow of secular Muslim governments is unthinkable.
Jesus... it's more likely that the NAACP would provide support to the Klan.
Your comment shows that you know nothing about Al Qaeda and its aims. Iraq rebuffed Al Qaeda's offers in any case (obviously). Try reading some of the comments OBL has made about Iraq.
quote:
More since we are sure that Sadam supported terrorism in Israel by donating $25000 to the family of every suicide bomber. |
As a PR stunt. This still left him probably the least worrying sponsor of terrorism in the area (compare the Saudis for ****'s sake).
quote:
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. |
This argument is risible. You could use similar reasoning to justify an attack on almost anyone.
quote:
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. |
You're missing the elephant in the corner of the room. Even if Saddam had chemical and bioweapons he was a threat to no-one. Certainly, it would have made it slightly more difficult for the world community to roll over him if he had attacked anyone else, but only to the tune of making the war extend for the period of time it took coalition troops to put on protective suits.
quote:
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. |
No. The sanctions should have ended years ago. The United States and its allies used the inspections to spy on Iraq and thus rendered them illegitimate.
And we know the sanctions just caused misery: in fact the people responsible for them should simply be shot as war criminals.
quote:
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. |
It doesn't matter if he did. He knew as well as anyone what would happen if he tried to attack anyone again. He only invaded Kuwait because he was dumb enough to think that the world wouldn't care. He knows better now.
In any case, even if he made more chemical weapons, his neighbours have their own. But they're useless except in battlefield conditions, so who cares.
WMDs were a smoke screen. They weren't even a danger to his neighbours. The right harped on and on about them when it simply didn't matter either way. You can rave on all you like, but your argument has no merit at all, since it is undercut by the facts about the WMDs he would have been likely to have had.
This is why you're so wrong. You've bought a story that is in essence meaningless, since it ignores the elephant in the corner of the room ? that in any realistic scenario Saddam's WMDs were not a threat to anyone else.
quote:
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!!!!) |
The reason that Saddam would have stopped invading other countries is because he knew, as well as anyone else, that another move like that would have forced the international community to invade Iraq to remove him. He didn't want that. His whole strategy for the 12 years after 1990 was to preserve his own skin to get rid of the sanctions (in that order).
The reason the Americans stayed was as much for their own purposes as anyone else's.
quote:
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. |
No.
9/11 occurred because Al Qaeda wanted to provoke the US into an indiscriminate attack on a Muslim country (probably Afghanistan). This was supposed to provoke outrage in the Muslim world and help Islamist organizations lead popular rebellions against the likes of Mubarak and Saddam Hussein and expel American influence from the area.
OBL believes that he defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and this caused the downfall of communism. He believes that it is God's will for the same to happen against America. Hence his desire to goad the US into an attack on a Muslim country. A hare brained scheme ? but the only analysis that really makes any sense.
quote:
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. |
This is simply absurd..
With what? He had no army of any consequence left.
And this would just bring the international community down on his head again, and it would have been the end of him.
quote:
A permanent solution was needed to end the agression of Sadam. Just placing troups and sanctions had to come to an end one day. |
It was already done. 1990 made clear to him what would happen if he displeased the powers that be. He's not that stupid.
quote:
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. |
Isn't that the same reason as everyone else who has them?
quote:
Sadam may use them just for the sake of it. |
Why? What planet do you live on? Iraq would be nuked out of existence if it dared to use whatever paltry arsenal it could muster.
quote:
As he already invaded his neighbours in the past, |
Twice: once with the connivance of the US. The other time he got his ass kicked so badly it ruined his prospects for life.
quote:
and attacked Israel (unprovoced by Israel!) during the 2nd gulf war as well. |
 That was a ham fisted attempt to drag Israel into the war so as to weaken the position of the Arab governments who had lined up against him. Their people would not have stood for the west in league with Israel attacking an Arab country.
But the Israelis were smart and the ploy didn't work.
quote:
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? |
I'm guessing that counts the Iran Iraq war and the suppression of the rebellions in 1991. If so who cares? What was he supposed to do in either case?
quote:
7. What's the alternative? Is there any other option? Do you guys really prefer Sadam in Iraq above a free Iraq? |
Get rid of the sanctions. Slowly admit Saddam back to the international community (which he desperately wanted BTW), making it clear that he's on his last warning.
Hey presto - he dies in 10-15 years and there are no more wars.
quote:
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) |
Are you mad?
The entire world apart from the US, Israel and UK was against the invasion. In most countries (even Spain which participated) 80-90% of the population were opposed to it.
The French were no different in this respect than anyone else. It just suited the knuckle dragging bigots in the US media to pick on them.
quote:
Neither can I understand how people are proud and happy to be in the same camp as China, Russia..... |
Because they were right, and you were wrong.
quote:
Can't you see that Schroder was against the war only because he knew he would win the elections (germany 2003) that way? |
If he'd gone in, he would have been thrashed.
quote:
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? |
Taiwan is part of China. Only Americans and a few other people pretend otherwise. I don't like the Tibet thing. France wasn't looting the Ivory Coast.
quote:
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? |
Does this matter? Did you protest against Reagan's support of genocidal maniacs in Latin America? Did you protest when the United States supported Saddam Hussein and sold him WMDs?
Thought not...
quote:
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. |
You're kidding right?
Protesting against a nutbar who wants to undermine the fragile international system which is the only hope we have of preventing the slippage back into the bad old days of war.
quote:
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. |
Iraq sure is a wonderful place to holiday right now.
quote:
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. |
Because your arguments are patently ridiculous.
You're ignoring the context.
Facts:
(1) Bush's advisers wanted to bowl over Iraq long before 9/11 and were planning to do so. Ergo it has nothing to do with Al Qaeda and terrorism (as if Saddam would help his mortal enemies the Islamists).
(2) The WMDs were a smoke screen: no one, not even Saddam's neighbours were really scared any more.
(3) The whole thing is an attempt to extend US power into central Asia and provide military dominance over the world's most economically important resource. Why? Because China is on course to outpace the US and the Bush administration has made it a national policy that the US should be militarily dominant until the end of time (they've said this ? join the dots, dude).
(4) The idiot Americans are undermining the UN. Sure, it's far from perfect (although far from a failure), but it, or something like it, is the only hope we have of replacing the rule of force with the rule of law. We can only hope that they stop before the damage is irreparable and the world slips back into the alliances and power blocks that have caused such trouble in the past.
Get a clue man...
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-04-2005 03:01
) or that he would give those WMD's to Al Qaeda who wanted Saddam dead. The other lie is Bush & Fuax News kept telling people that Saddam, not Al Qaeda, was behind 9/11. That was a complete 100% lie that never had anything to do with reality.
|
|