Saddam may have been developing the ability to develop a WMD program

Originally posted by Seekerof
Your response proves my point....

If you were educated at all in what has been going on in Iraq during this war, I think you could tell the situation is a little more complicated than your (mis)understanding of it...please, do yourself a favor and just stop trying to defend these people who LIED to all of us about the real reasons for going into Iraq. It is worthless arguing with a person such as yourself...you will always be set in your ways, even when you know you are wrong. (At least for now there is nothing to back anything you say) But, continue to spread more lies, and create more misinformed people, I guess it is what you and those that you support do best, right?

Shoktek,

Using your logic OJ Simpson is an innocent man and had nothing to do with killing Nacole Brown. Just because he had gloves soaked in her blood, blood in his car, blood on a pair of socks in his bedroom, blood at the crime scene, blood in O.J. Simpson's driveway and in his house. doesn�t mean he did it. I laugh.

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by kinglizard]

Originally posted by kinglizard
Shoktek,

Using your logic OJ Simpson is an innocent man and had nothing to do with killing Nacole Brown. Just because he had gloves soaked in her blood, blood in his car, blood on a pair of socks in his bedroom, blood at the crime scene, blood in O.J. Simpson's driveway and in his house. doesn�t mean he did it. I laugh.

Please...it is not nearly this simple, try learning about what has actually been discovered since this war started, a good place would be a reliable news source. This is a war, it is the worst thing that governments have the power to do, and there better damn well be a good reason for going to war, and killing people. And all of these analogies don't have any place, if any of you actually read up about the situation. Do you people support the cause of this war, and believe in its purpose, enough that you would sacrifice your own life for the "cause"?

Actualy I just joined the Army National Guard, and i plan to go on to the active Army once I graduate from college,I would have joined before but circumstances did not allow. If asked I am willing to go to Iraq or any other place to protect my country from present and future threats as well as to kick out murderous tyrants like Saddam. I hold the ideal of human freedom above my own life, and if called I will sacrfice myself it in its defense, even for people I do not know living in a country I have never been to.

You said there where other places you would start instead of Iraq, the only country that come to mind in equal oppresion would be North Korea.

Maybe Bush exagerated the turth, hell maybe he lied, if so he will answer for it eventualy. But those people in Iraq are now much better off than they were, and a threat to the region and to our interests is now gone. Too many people gave their lives for others to say that it was all for nothing. Even if some of us did not agree with the action in Iraq or the reasons behind it, we owe it now to those soldiers and those civilians who paid the ultimate price to at least acknowledge that it meant something.

Yeah, you just stand there with your mind closed, whistling the national anthem, waving your American flag with your red, white, and blue flag tattoo proudly displayed across your chest, making excuses for the #ing idiot president and his corporate oil monger friends.

TheEXone;
There never was any threat. Tell me, before we attacked Iraq, did you feel threatened by them?

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Satyr]

I feel threatend everytime a man takes power through violence, and intimidation, sits 30 years on this throne of darkness torturing, raping, killing, and ploting to do it to even more people, and no one stands up and tries to stop him. I feel threatend when people think its more important to challenge a president who is no worse than any we have had in the last 40 years, than to fight for those with no voice, those who live in constant fear and suffering.

Again though, all that is irrelivant to people whose only concern is pushing an anti american political agenda. Go ahhead ignore the good, and focus on the bad im sure with that positive attitude you will go far in making the world a better place.

The Exone...what can you expect with someone saying:

If you were educated at all....

That same person/people do not even remember what happened before and during the war....

Saddam, did refuse to let the weapon inspectors go into factories, he denied them entrance until after the due date he was given to let them inspect those places.

Then he send a message saying, "now we can talk, I'll let the inspectors in now... When the president had already made a speech that our forces were already in Iraq attacking"

And all these people which seem to be in favour of a dictator can say is "if you were better educated...." after being shown proof over and over.

Presidents have to make decisions on intelligence based on "hearsay," sometimes that information is right, sometime it is not and because of this they have to decide what sort of information is more important. It is possible for a president to make mistakes.

We are "AT WAR" with terrorists no matter which president comes next.

All these people saying that we should investigate 9/11 and see why it happened...haven't you noticed that the "terrorists" are threatening on making more attacks?

Shouldn't we be concerned on that first? Future possible attacks?

Oh...wait...that's a ruse right?

Ya...9/11 didn't happen.... The bombings in Madrid were not real. And the last news from Madrid. Police in Madrid cornered three suspects who blew themselves up as they chanted in Arabic killing one police officer and injuring 11 more. That didn't happened either.... The government is using mind control machines to make everyone believe these things happened.....

I guess extremist terrorists are not real, they are just part of everyone's imagination.

Spain: Suspects chanted in Arabic as they died
A Spanish policeman was killed and 11 others injured when three suspected terrorists blew themselves up as police were closing in on them, Spanish Interior Minister Angel Acebes said. He added the suspects chanted in Arabic as they set off the explosion which ripped through an apartment block in a suburb of the Spanish capital on Saturday.

Excerpt taken from.
www.cnn.com...


Are you so dumb that you can't understand what is happening? Well, with your replies trying to insult the intelligence of anyone that does not agree with you tells me just as much.

BTW Thorfinn, if you would had read the report I posted from 1998 you would have seen that's exactly what the previous administration thought.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
of the
REPORT
of the
COMMISSION TO ASSESS
THE BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT
TO THE UNITED STATES

July 15, 1998

Pursuant to Public Law 201
104th Congress

Members of
The Commission To Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat
to the United States were nominated by the
Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives,
the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate and the
Minority Leaders of the U.S. Senate and the
U.S. House of Representatives

c. Iraq

Iraq has maintained the skills and industrial capabilities needed to reconstitute its long range ballistic missile program. Its plant and equipment are less developed than those of North Korea or Iran as a result of actions forced by UN Resolutions and monitoring. However, Iraq has actively continued work on the short range (under 150 km) liquid- and solid-fueled missile programs that are allowed by the Resolutions. Once UN-imposed controls are lifted, Iraq could mount a determined effort to acquire needed plant and equipment, whether directly or indirectly. Such an effort would allow Iraq to pose an ICBM threat to the United States within 10 years. Iraq could develop a shorter range, covert, ship-launched missile threat that could threaten the United States in a very short time.

Iraq had a large, intense ballistic missile development and production program prior to the Gulf War. The Iraqis produced Scuds, and then modified Scud missiles to produce the 600 km range Al Hussein and 900 km range Al Abbas missiles. The expertise, as well as some of the equipment and materials from this program remain in Iraq and provide a strong foundation for a revived ballistic missile program.

Prior to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Iraq could have had nuclear weapons in the 1993-1995 time frame, although it still had technical hurdles to overcome. After the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq began a crash program to produce a nuclear device in six to nine months based on highly enriched uranium removed from the safeguarded reactor at Tuwaitha. Iraq has the capability to reconstitute its nuclear weapon program; the speed at which it can do so depends on the availability of fissile material. It would take several years to build the required production facilities from scratch. It is possible that Iraq has hidden some material from U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspection, or that it could acquire fissile material abroad (e.g., from another "rogue" state.) Iraq also had large chemical and biological weapons programs prior to the war, and produced chemical and biological warheads for its missiles. Knowledge, personnel, and equipment related to WMD remain in Iraq, so that it could reconstitute these programs rapidly following the end of sanctions.

Excerpt Taken from.
www.house.gov...

Oh yeah...another lie you say?

If the government had the power to change this report from "1998" then don't you think Bush would have made all of what is happening now go away?

Scroll down to Iraq to see this in the link.

BTW Ocelot and whoever else thinks like him. When you get enough military experience to know what "intelligence" is and how it works, then get back to us.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by TheEXone
I feel threatend everytime a man takes power through violence, and intimidation, sits 30 years on this throne of darkness torturing, raping, killing, and ploting to do it to even more people, and no one stands up and tries to stop him. I feel threatend when people think its more important to challenge a president who is no worse than any we have had in the last 40 years, than to fight for those with no voice, those who live in constant fear and suffering.

Again though, all that is irrelivant to people whose only concern is pushing an anti american political agenda. Go ahhead ignore the good, and focus on the bad im sure with that positive attitude you will go far in making the world a better place.

He didn't "take" power. We gave it to him in the first place, remember? Our role is not worldly policeman. Look what policing the world has gotten us. The more we meddle in other countries' affairs, the more we're going to be attacked. Nice policy, eh? You seem to think this can be stopped by killing a bunch of already pissed off people, while pissing off even more. Well, that only works if you kill them all. I hope you're that committed, because that's what our wonderful administration has gotten us into. We don't need to make the world a better place. We need to make our country a better place. We can't be trying to live the flamboyant life of "world hero". There's far too much we need to do to repair our own system before we worry about trying to influence anyone else. We're not supposed to go around trying to Americanize people all over the world, or control their gov't. Not realizing this, could very well be the largest mistake this country has ever made.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Satyr]

Having read this thread, I'm with Seekerof and Mauddib on this one (Good job supporting your views, guys)

You can get into all the found em, haven't found em technicallities of it that you want. He was a cheeseburger eating SOB and the world is a better place with him not in power there.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Your response proves my point....


seekerof

What point? Circumstantial evidence does not convict a man as I'm sure you know, so your response proves ours. (don't get mad at me, I mean peace )

Originally posted by KingLizard
Using your logic OJ Simpson is an innocent man and had nothing to do with killing Nacole Brown. Just because he had gloves soaked in her blood, blood in his car, blood on a pair of socks in his bedroom, blood at the crime scene, blood in O.J. Simpson's driveway and in his house. doesn�t mean he did it. I laugh.

Yes, but you didn't see storm troopers breaking down his door and killing his arse anyway, did you? That's why we have laws, and these things have to be proved BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Q: Where's the beef fella's?
A: ...still looking for it....





seekerof

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Q: Where's the beef fella's?
A: ...still looking for it....





seekerof

hehehe, funny and I'm glad you've got a sense of humour about this, but a low blow. Boooh!

All I'm saying is, we shouldn't jump to conclusions and attack any countries without undisputable evidence. Wars should not be started based on paranoid hunches. Even if they do find WMD, the reasons for attacking Iraq are pure speculation. A bunch of politicians got together in a room and decided that they all agreed that it was a very good possibility that Iraq had WMD, and so it was labeled a reality, and a false campaign based upon agreed suspicion was launched.

This type of thing really bothers me. Following suite; let's say a bunch of cops get together and decide that you look like you might have drugs in your house. Maybe your hair is a bit too long. Furthermore, they know you had drugs at one time, because one of the undercover cops sold them to you. However, this was 10 years ago. So, they break into your house and take you to jail. No drugs were found, but they're sure that they'll find them if they look long enough. Is this the way we do things? Is this the American way?

What point? Circumstantial evidence does not convict a man as I'm sure you know, so your response proves ours. (don't get mad at me, I mean peace )

You mean you want peace through a "revolution"?

You want Americans to rise up and overthrow the goverment?

That's what I have been hearing you say. And you are saying noone should do this by force, but that's exactly what you want in the US.

Isn't this cynical?

BTW Saddam did attack Kuwait didn't he? And we "were attacked" by Islamic terrorists, Saddam was still funding some of those terrorist organizations.

So please, do not tell us Saddam was an innocent man, or have you forgotten the mass graves of several towns he had gassed in the past? If i recall we have "found" mass graves of over 600,000 people. The desert is pretty big, is possible we haven't foud them all.

Yes, there are places in Iraq where they don't want us, since "they are terorrists", like "Hell"ujah, and these people are/were loyal to Saddam, you can see by their actions also how Saddam was.



[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Satyr
All I'm saying is, we shouldn't jump to conclusions and attack any countries without undisputable evidence.

Mass graves of hundreds of thousands of people being killed by him. Known facts that he has helped terrorists and he has funded them up to the date he was taken from power.

Saddam addamantly denying access to factories to the weapons inspectors, which was part of the treaty ever since he invaded Kuwait, and buying time for some reason. Then "after" the president gave the speech that our forces were already attacking, Saddam said that "now we can talk, I will let the inspectors in those factories now."

The fact that we found some of the convoys trying to leave Iraq and going towards Syria, and we destroyed some of those convoys.

Civilian contractors working for the military finding satellite images of convoys having made it to "Syria".

Our coallition forces finding some scud missiles, which were banned by the treaty, also finding mobile chemical factories and containers to store chemical weapons. We also found catches of weapons and "suicide suits" full of explosives ready to be used against coalition forces.

I guess all of that is not enough evidence.

Wars should not be started based on paranoid hunches. Even if they do find WMD, the reasons for attacking Iraq are pure speculation.

"Even if they do find WMD"? So now you are changing your previous "statements"?

A bunch of politicians got together in a room and decided that they all agreed that it was a very good possibility that Iraq had WMD, and so it was labeled a reality, and a false campaign based upon agreed suspicion was launched.

This is how things are decided in every government, making decisions on intelligence data which could very well be based on rumors. The attacks on 9/11 were also rumors, the government probably decided that at that time the terrorists probably couldn't make such attacks.

Now terrorists are saying that they have nukes, it could be "dirty bombs" and other missiles which they will use against the US and others, but people want to dismiss this just as "a bluff." Could this be exactly what the government did? made a mistake thinking that it was impossible for 9/11 to occur and decided to follow other leads?

Now all these people that are yelling, that if the government had known from "rumors" of terrorists would attack, these same people want to forget the new threats made by terrorists as just "bluffing"?

This type of thing really bothers me. Following suite; let's say a bunch of cops get together and decide that you look like you might have drugs in your house. Maybe your hair is a bit too long. Furthermore, they know you had drugs at one time, because one of the undercover cops sold them to you. However, this was 10 years ago. So, they break into your house and take you to jail. No drugs were found, but they're sure that they'll find them if they look long enough.

Is this the way we do things? Is this the American way?

Totally different scenarios. One of the parts of the treaty (Made by the UN) was that he had to let weapons inspectors in all their factories and he broke this part of the treaty. He was acting like someone that has something to hide.

For the first time since I was eighteen years old, I am thinking about not exercising my "right" to vote.

I was a life-long Republican ("smaller Government"), but changed my party affiliation to "bi-Partisan" so I could vote in either Primary.

I actually voted for George W. I didn't think he was the sharpest crayon in the box, BUT, I figured he would surround himself with good people.

Oh, boy, my bad!

Besides, in live in Brother Jeb's state, you think my vote counts anyway?

Originally posted by Muaddib

You mean you want peace through a "revolution"?

No. I want my freedom back through revolution. Your point is...?

You want Americans to rise up and overthrow the goverment?

No. I want people who moan about wanting their freedom back to rise up and overthrow the government. ...and still your point is...?

That's what I have been hearing you say. And you are saying noone should do this by force, but that's exactly what you want in the US.

already proved wrong and no, it's not the same thing at all, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel here and embarrassing yourself in the process...still no point...

Isn't this cynical?

no. do you actually know what cynical means?

BTW Saddam did attack Kuwait didn't he?

...and? What's your point? Is there one?

And we "were attacked" by Islamic terrorists, Saddam was still funding some of those terrorist organizations.

debatable, not proof. Finding a copy of the Kuran and a flight manual in a van, now that's cynical. Get it yet?

there's got to be a point here somewhere...?

So please, do not tell us Saddam was an innocent man,

I didn't...still no point...? Oh I see, you just want to put words in my mouth, ok. Ohhhh, now I get it, you want to make me look like a Saddam sympathizer, or one of those damn commies you keep talking about...I'm starting to worry there is no point here...

or have you forgotten the mass graves of several towns he had gassed in the past?

No...nearly out of time and no point...

If i recall we have "found" mass graves of over 600,000 people. The desert is pretty big, is possible we haven't foud them all.

and...? What's that got to do with me...? Still no point...

Yes, there are places in Iraq where they don't want us, since "they are terorrists", like "Hell"ujah, and these people are/were loyal to Saddam, you can see by their actions also how Saddam was.

ahhh! So you didn't actually have a point, ok. Just go keep telling people with your ignorance that Revolution=Communism. That's right everyone, this guy actually did say that, hysterical isn't it? It gave me my biggest laugh this week. If you don't believe me check out here, you couldn't make this crap up.

I doubt I'll respond to any of your posts again as this is the third time you've wasted my time, and my time is precious.

What you say is the height of ignorance and I think you embarrass even most Republicans on this board, I cringe reading your posts. Just go searching for those scary commies that you think are waiting in the shadows to kill you, go back to the rest of the sheep little boy.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Muaddib]

[Edited for typos]

[Edited on 5-4-2004 by John Nada]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Mass graves of hundreds of thousands of people being killed by him. Known facts that he has helped terrorists and he has funded them up to the date he was taken from power.

Saddam addamantly denying access to factories to the weapons inspectors, which was part of the treaty ever since he invaded Kuwait, and buying time for some reason. Then "after" the president gave the speech that our forces were already attacking, Saddam said that "now we can talk, I will let the inspectors in those factories now."

The fact that we found some of the convoys trying to leave Iraq and going towards Syria, and we destroyed some of those convoys.

Civilian contractors working for the military finding satellite images of convoys having made it to "Syria".

Our coallition forces finding some scud missiles, which were banned by the treaty, also finding mobile chemical factories and containers to store chemical weapons. We also found catches of weapons and "suicide suits" full of explosives ready to be used against coalition forces.

I guess all of that is not enough evidence.

None of that has much to do with America being imminently threatened. While it may be justification for you, it's not for me. There are much worse things going on in this world, and they're none of our business either. Your mass graves were a long time ago, during a war with Iraq, correct? Why and how does that have anything to do with the present, and how is that a threat to the US? There's more to each of these stories you're pointing out. You only include just enough info to make it look as if it was that simple, and there were no underlying circumstances that led to any of those things...as if Saddam just said, "Dum de dum...I think I'll kill lots of people and help out some terrorists today. No particular reason. I just feel mean today."

I'm not buying that. No one does things like that without reasons. If you'll do some in depth research, you'll find that there is more to every one of those terror stories. Important details that are purposely left out to emphasize the importance of justification this war.

BTW, where are those satellite images? I haven't seen them. Have you?

"Even if they do find WMD"? So now you are changing your previous "statements"?

It's a bit late now, isn't it? Their fears are obviously null and void, since there was no stockpile of WMD. Anything they find now, will most likely be planted. I'd be extremely skeptical of the origin of the WMD, if they do find them now.

This is how things are decided in every government, making decisions on intelligence data which could very well be based on rumors. The attacks on 9/11 were also rumors, the government probably decided that at that time the terrorists probably couldn't make such attacks.

Sure, but you don't base wars on guesses.

Now terrorists are saying that they have nukes, it could be "dirty bombs" and other missiles which they will use against the US and others, but people want to dismiss this just as "a bluff." Could this be exactly what the government did? made a mistake thinking that it was impossible for 9/11 to occur and decided to follow other leads?

So then, why don't we just attack every country that has terrorists that say they have nukes, eh? Wouldn't that be the wisest thing to do?

Totally different scenarios. One of the parts of the treaty (Made by the UN) was that he had to let weapons inspectors in all their factories and he broke this part of the treaty. He was acting like someone that has something to hide.

Yep, and the US had also shut down Iraq's trade almost entirely, basically crippling their economy. Saddam wasn't going to cooperate unless they allowed them to resume trade. The US told him to get stuffed, so he told the US to get stuffed and ceased all cooperation. I can't say I blame him there. There's always more to these stories, that's conveniently left out. There are a lot of very one-sided rumors flooding the US these days. These types of rumors are dangerous. They attempt to rewrite actual history. Those who aren't ignorant enough to just buy these half truths, know that the real, full version has been previously documented. Most, or all, of the stories floating around today exclude all of the reasons why Saddam would have ever gotten mad at anyone, and we're led to believe he just killed for the sake of killing. That's ok, I'm sure they're telling the same half truths about America over there. It's a never-ending, vicious circle.

[Edited on 4-5-2004 by Satyr]