Originally posted by shots
Your contention was the reason for the first war was because they had WMDs and you were wrong on that part. The reason the went to war the first time with Iraq was not because they had WMDs that is my point. And yes invading another country would be a very good reason to go to war, just why that reason would stunn you is beyond me

Thats what I meant, Your justification for going to iraq the second time was old pre gulf war WMD. I didn't mean your justification for the first war. The first war is completely accurate. Im saying if you think going in for the pre first gulf war WMD was justifiable reason for the second gulf war then I am stunned.

Yes they did but that was the reason given for the current war not the first.

Yes as in they told us there were WMD or yes they told us they were pre first gulf war WMD? I am saying that going into the second gulf war for weapons that were mostly destroyed during the first gulf war is stupid.

But w/e talk to jsobecky, shes the one who said "we didn't get the job done" if the job was getting them out of kuwait then wasn't the job done?

[edit on 22-6-2006 by grimreaper797]

Originally posted by jsobecky
We were supposed to take their word for it?

I am talking about the government. They told us Iraq had WMD. If the Government had told us that these WMD were pre gulf war, no one in their right minds would have been for going to war. after 8-10 years of nothing happening with those weapons, the people wouldn't find them as much a danger.

If they made them (WMD's) before, why wouldn't they make them again?

Because we bombed them to hell first gulf war, destroyed their army, and what the hell am I doing, your suppose to prove they made them again not me proving why they wouldn't.

You cant go to war on the basis of THEY MIGHT. You cant say "they might do this, lets go to war. they might do that, lets get em." if you did that, everything would turn into one big war and before you know it nukes would be flying.

You need to prove they were capable of making WMD and they were, AFTER the first gulf war. We already know they made them before the first gulf war, and we beat their asses. We dont need to invade every country 10 years after a war because we forgot to blow up some of their weapons.

Its not like we could look at vietnam and go "hey we forgot to blow some of your weapons up that are potentially still dangerous." then invade vietnam. Not going to work.

Originally posted by MrPenny
Apparently I missed something. (I know, that's not news) I could swear the justification was based on Saddam's continued production of new WMDs. Remember Colin Powell's appearance before the U.N.? He displayed what was alleged to be current and ongoing processing capabilities. Remember the so-called centrifugal tubes for the modern uranium processing plant? How about the supposed attempt to purchase 500 tons of yellowcake ore? All indications of developing production capabilities.

I underlined and bolded the part that should explain our actions. Plus, he had many waiting customers for the WMD's.

As I have asked earlier, he built WMD's before, why wouldn't he build them again?

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Because we bombed them to hell first gulf war, destroyed their army, and what the hell am I doing, your suppose to prove they made them again not me proving why they wouldn't.

No we didn't "bomb them to hell". We chased them out of Kuwait, is all.

Maybe they made more, maybe they didn't. The fact is, they had made them before, so why wouldn't they make them again?

They certainly had plenty of customers...

You cant go to war on the basis of THEY MIGHT.

Oh yes you can. If the world had done that in 1939, we'd have a much different life. And the offspring of 6 Million dead would be alive to contribute to our world.

You need to prove they were capable of making WMD and they were, AFTER the first gulf war. We already know they made them before the first gulf war, and we beat their asses. We dont need to invade every country 10 years after a war because we forgot to blow up some of their weapons.

I'm sorry; what changed between 1991 and 2003?

Its not like we could look at vietnam and go "hey we forgot to blow some of your weapons up that are potentially still dangerous." then invade vietnam. Not going to work.

Please don't talk about Viet Nam.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
But w/e talk to jsobecky, shes the one who said "we didn't get the job done" if the job was getting them out of kuwait then wasn't the job done?

The name is JOHN. That should save the wear and tear on the / key on your keyboard.

the pre first gulf war

Huh???

The job would have been done if we had erased him in 1991. Then we would not have had to go back.

Originally posted by jsobecky
No we didn't "bomb them to hell". We chased them out of Kuwait, is all.

tell me, what was there military like before they invaded kuwait. Then tell me what it was like AFTER they were pushed back.

Maybe they made more, maybe they didn't. The fact is, they had made them before, so why wouldn't they make them again?

No your not playing that game, thats not a basis for war. You want to go to war, prove why. Your not leaving it up to us to prove why they wouldn't, thats by far the most idiotic logic. If a man stole once, can we arrest him everytime we feel like saying "he could steal again". No and that sounds extremely stupid. It sounds stupid because theres no basis for the arrest. Sure it would definately prevent crime if we arrested some one whenever we said "hey they could do it".

They certainly had plenty of customers...

and what does that prove? that they had pleanty of customers if they had made the weapons. Good now you can show the facts to prove they were building them. Then I will agree with you.

Oh yes you can. If the world had done that in 1939, we'd have a much different life. And the offspring of 6 Million dead would be alive to contribute to our world.

And if we had done that in 1950-1970, russia and the US would have nuked the planet on the basis that the other nation "might" nuke them. Sure we could have pre emptively went to war with hitler saying, "He might invade a country" but then again that would open the idea that "we can arrest him because he might commit murder." or "we can arrest him because he might steal a car."

No proof that he will do it, but your "maybe" is enough for you to go to war. If we did that, the world would have ended about 30 to 50 years ago during the cold war. You cant act just because there is the possiblity that something may happen. That continually seems to be your logic though. For catching terrorists, for justifying wars... the possibility of their actions is enough for you to go to war with them or arrest them. Well that will create a very dangerous society, not for staying alive, but for thinking and being free. Thinking and being free will be dangerous, because there is always that possiblity that you could do this or that. In that case you could be arrested regardless of whether or not you actually were going to do anything illegal, just the possibility you could is enough.

so so dangerous.

I'm sorry; what changed between 1991 and 2003?

try looking at their military. we crushed it to little pieces. They went from like top 5 to nothing army after we were done with them. To me thats one major change. Why dont you try looking it up, even if you think probable cause is enough reason to take any and every action against criminals *ahem* I mean terrorists. (whats the difference between a murderer and a terrorist jsobecky?)

Originally posted by jsobecky
The name is JOHN. That should save the wear and tear on the / key on your keyboard.

sorry, I really could have sworn you were she. I even remember in one thread reading and then some one called you she and I felt bad because I though I was calling you he when you were she. my bad.

Huh???

The job would have been done if we had erased him in 1991. Then we would not have had to go back.

The weapons would have still been there. the 500 we found would still be there, regardless of Saddam being there. Where is your arguement? Actually better yet...WHAT is your arguement?

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Originally posted by jsobecky
No we didn't "bomb them to hell". We chased them out of Kuwait, is all.

tell me, what was there military like before they invaded kuwait. Then tell me what it was like AFTER they were pushed back.

He had plenty of money. Why couldn't he rebuild?

Maybe they made more, maybe they didn't. The fact is, they had made them before, so why wouldn't they make them again?

No your not playing that game, thats not a basis for war.

See, that's where you're wrong, grimreaper. The argument may not play in the halls of academia, but it sure works in the real world.

If a man stole once, can we arrest him everytime we feel like saying "he could steal again". No and that sounds extremely stupid.

Talk to law enforcement about recidivism sometime.

Oh yes you can. If the world had done that in 1939, we'd have a much different life. And the offspring of 6 Million dead would be alive to contribute to our world.

And if we had done that in 1950-1970, russia and the US would have nuked the planet on the basis that the other nation "might" nuke them.

You're dancing, and trying to justify why pre-emption against Hitler would have been a bad thing. I just don't understand you.

That continually seems to be your logic though. For catching terrorists, for justifying wars... the possibility of their actions is enough for you to go to war with them or arrest them.

Now you're beginning to understand me. You go ahead and have tea with them, I'll keep an eye on them.

Well that will create a very dangerous society, not for staying alive, but for thinking and being free.

Uh, no, it's that very thinking that has kept us FREE for 300 years.

I'm sorry; what changed between 1991 and 2003?

try looking at their military. we crushed it to little pieces. They went from like top 5 to nothing army after we were done with them. To me thats one major change. Why dont you try looking it up, even if you think probable cause is enough reason to take any and every action against criminals *ahem* I mean terrorists. (whats the difference between a murderer and a terrorist jsobecky?)

I don't have to "look it up", grimreaper.

Let's just say, that in this world, there will be you, defending terrorists, and me, busting them. We'll see who wins.

What's the diffference between a murderer and a terrorist? Not enough to make any difference, not to me at least. Why, do you favor one over the other?

Originally posted by jsobecky
He had plenty of money. Why couldn't he rebuild?

I dont know why doesn't Bill Gates buy his own country and Build a nuclear weapon? He has pleanty of money. Just because they CAN do it doesn't mean they WILL do it.

Talk to law enforcement about recidivism sometime.

forget that I will just go talk to semperfortis about it in a couple minute (he counts too) lol.

You're dancing, and trying to justify why pre-emption against Hitler would have been a bad thing. I just don't understand you.

No I'm justifying why pre emptive action PERIOD is a bad thing. Understanding me is easy, you just have to understand self defense. Not some twisted logic of defense through pre emptive murder. If a person doesnt physically act to kill you, but you kill him, well you get the idea. If some one on the street was walking by you and said "I want to kill that person" would you be justified to up and kill them right there? No, because he has made NO physical action to do so. Now when he thinks that, THEN starts pulling a glock out of his coat pocket, by all means, shoot him down.

Now you're beginning to understand me. You go ahead and have tea with them, I'll keep an eye on them.

please stop looking at everything in black and white, its making me sick right now. Just because I believe in self defense in its REAL sense of the word, doesn't mean I suddenly want to be friends with the terrorists. There is this thing called the color spectrum, its not only physical, but political too. There is more then black and white.

Uh, no, it's that very thinking that has kept us FREE for 300 years.

No not really. Well actually, we slaughtered the native american pre emptively..so I guess your right there. But other then taking the country from the native people, since when has pre emptive murder kept up FREE for 300 years? It didnt keep us free, it made us imperialistic. Thats why we are from ocean to ocean, rather then 13 states...alot of innocent people murdered to get there... but its in the name of freedom so it was ok right? We will be free so long as we fight when the fight comes to us. Being free by fighting on your own land and being free and murders means your free both ways, just one side says "lets murder their innocent people so that our innocent people won't be in danger", in the end none of us are innocent anymore, because we all let these murders happen in our name.

Keep the fight at home where it belongs. The only fights that should occur off this land, are the fights where the enemy repeatedy tries to invade and take our land. something no country has done in probably 200 years.

I don't have to "look it up", grimreaper.

Let's just say, that in this world, there will be you, defending terrorists, and me, busting them. We'll see who wins.

your black and white attitude is never ending. I hope you can live with the 100,000 plus iraqi people killed over your pre emptive attitude. Just because you claim self defense when INVADING doesn't mean it is self defense. You want self defense, let them come in and try to take the land we live on, THEN you will see real self defense. When we shoot each and every foreign invader that steps foot on our soil, THAT is self defense. Im not defending the terrorists, Im defending self defense.
Your right though, in this world there will be you, defending the people who lost their innocence the day they started to kill the real innocent people in the name of self defense, and me, trying to own up to all the wrong you commited by your pre emptive actions. Because in the end of it all, your the one justifying killing innocent people, Im just trying to defend myself when attacked.

What's the diffference between a murderer and a terrorist? Not enough to make any difference, not to me at least. Why, do you favor one over the other?

And my point is made. Not enough to make any difference, exactly. So why are you treating them any different? You make seperate laws for terrorists and murders, yet you cant even tell the difference? If you cant see a difference, why should they be treated as different? Name one instance for me where we invaded 2 countries over a hand full of murderers. 20 hijakcers and osama bin laden. Nothing but murderers. Instead of treating them that way, we have gone to war with two nations.

Anyway if you cant tell the difference between a murderer and a terrorist, then how can the law tell the difference? If the law cant, then any person accused of murder can be treated as a terrorist. Our very system of innocent till proven guilty collapses right then and there because your pre emptive attitude. Just because you think they are guilty, doesn't mean they are.

I cant talk about this anymore because I know you cant understand what guilty even means. You think guilty is decided by who accused you and who/how many people they accused you of killing rather then it be decided in court. Thats what your doing, so I don't see anything to argue about. Your for guilty till proven innocent, I am for innocent till proven guilty. You can find one side in the constitution, I suggest you look.

I think you all are getting caught up in the details. Hussein said, under threat of Sec. Counc. 'action', the he had destroyed his chem weapons. Remember that table top covered with documents and cd-roms of data supposedly detailing their programmes and how everything was destroyed?

He was lying, directly to the UN and the US. He had been lying since after the first Gulf War, and he kept his people under crippling sanctions over these pitiful munitions.

He had, in effect, a secret chemical warfare programme, one that the inspectors, from right after the Gulf War to right up to the Iraq War, couldn't detect. He even had secret chemical manufacturing plants.

None of these materials would've ever been learned about if there weren't an Iraq War, and all of them, clearly, would've been 'reactivated' once the sanctions were lifted, which is precisely what people were calling for before the lead-up to war.

500 mustard gas cannisters are what we 've been looking for. It's a shame we had to kill 60,000 people but hell they should have just given them to us. Good work guys and all together now "can we go home now?". 5 years trapsing all over, too many people dead and i think the sheer mention of the find is insulting.

I don't know...should we really trust Fox News? That was the first thought that popped into my head when I read the headline.

This obviously seems like a psy-op to boost Bush's rapidly falling approval rating. I'm sure the media has had this story down for awhile and were just waiting for the right time to release it.

True, it is weird they find the mustard and Sarin Donald sold to Saddam when Bush's rating take a hit. Wait for the 2006 elections to get closer when OBL is found.

Kind of an interesting coincidence that this was released so shortly after that interview with Gaubatz. My question is was it really just a coincidence? Or is there more to this WMD thing than meets the eye?

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Kind of an interesting coincidence that this was released so shortly after that interview with Gaubatz. My question is was it really just a coincidence? Or is there more to this WMD thing than meets the eye?

of course theres more to it than meets the eye rick saniterium is almost 20% behind in the polls for his reelection bid.

WHY would they classify a report like this in the first place?! wmds is what the war was supposed to be about now they change topics to the insurgents and they classify the proof for the original excuse, the report that could help bush in the polls??????

im lost for words when it comes to american politics.

Originally posted by Yumi
Sorry, there is already a discussion uner War On Terror on ATS. I can't vote yes on this.

Also, they were old, ones sold to Saddam by Bush and Rumsfeld, can you sell Sarin to Mexico then invade them for having the Sarin gas you sold them?

Any evidence to back your claim?....

If you do, then post the evidence, and nothing from Alex jones please...