WMD's and Democracy

[-HaVoC-]

Were we not told that WMD's and weapons programs existed in Iraq? Have we found a significant amount of these items? Where are the mobil bio/chem labs? Were is the nuclear program? Were are the missles that violated the UN resolutions.

I don't know about you, but I've heard nothing on the corporate owned American news channels concerning these so called weapons of mass destruction. It would seem the UN had him somewhat in check.

Now we come to the big question. Now we are being told that Saddam is a bad man and that the Iraqi people are better off without him. But I ask you, are our sons and daughters lives worth this Iraqi freedom?

I think not. I think we performed a pre-emptive strike on a foreign state without the support of our our major allies.

I think we are sacrificing American lives for a war the Iraqi people should have fought. I feel that now all we have done is to make the bullseye on our backs quite a bit bigger.

Your thoughts?






I ask you to find another instance in history when a country declared war against muslim terrorists. This country was attacked in a major city of there's by terrorists. Then they decided under this threat to preemptively invade another country... and another and another.

Survey says!

[Jim0322]

I think Rumsfeld acknowledged that there is no link between Saddam and 9-11. There was a speech Bush made before the war that said Iraq had many WMD and that might also include nukes too. In the last few months Bush has given up on finding WMD but instead talks about WMD "programs" because there are no WMD. When the war first started I predicted that we would find WMD whether they were there or not but that did not occur to my surprise.

Saddam is an evil man. He has killed many Iraqis and used chemical weapons on the Kurds. The Iraqi people need to decide what to do with him. I think we should get our troops out of there ASAP as I do not think it is worth the sacrifice.

Jim

[-HaVoC-]

Yes he used gas on the Kurds. Gas we gave him when we were fighting Iran along with training and other weapons.

[LeVar Burton]

I respect your opinion, Havoc, but I think a little more time is warranted in this situation to search for WMD. Like I said before, if it took this long to find a human being it is understandable if it takes a little longer to find inanimate objects. Also, the process might be sped up now that we have in custody the man that might know their location. Even if we don't find WMD, I don't think U.S. action is completely in the wrong. If democracy succeeds in Iraq, there is hope that for once that region can enjoy peace. As much as I hate the expression, the ends may justify the means.

[-HaVoC-]

I ask you to find another instance in history when a country declared war against muslim terrorists. This country was attacked in a major city of there's by terrorists. Then they decided under this threat to preemptively invade another country... and another and another.

[LeVar Burton]

I can't recall another example in history, but then again I can't recall another time where a handful of terrorists killed thousands of Americans on U.S. soil and destroyed two of our most famous landmarks in the process. To me, it was a unique problem that needed a unique solution.

[-HaVoC-]

The answer is Germany in the late 1930's. They named the homeland security division the SS.

We really needed to act in unison with our allies with this. A preemptive strike to overthrow a soverign nation is serious business.

Originally posted by -HaVoC-
The answer is Germany in the late 1930's. They named the homeland security division the SS.

We really needed to act in unison with our allies with this. A preemptive strike to overthrow a soverign nation is serious business.

The man has a point.

We did act with a host of allies. Great Britain has been our strongest ally over the years, and many other nations, such as Japan, supported us as well... as many notable countries supported us as went against us IMO... The ones that went against made more noise though, and a couple were part of the UN security council's permanent members, so that got a lot of attention, compared to the countries who came with us...

As far as what is being reported, the only things I see reported are american casualties. Everything else takes a back seat... but admittedly, I haven't been paying that close of attention to the news in the last few months...

As far as history... Islamic terrorism is a fairly new phenomenom. There aren't too many examples of successful terrorism as you go back in history because up until a few hundred years ago, people didn't put up with that shit.

Imagine if the palistinians tried to use terrorist tactics on the Roman Empire. The romans would gather up however many troops it took, and exterminate anybody who was a terrorist, any of their friends, anybody who looked like them, and their dogs.

From what I've read about Caesar, he didn't play around. One gallic tribe was giving him problems when he first started to govern gaul... to set an example, he hunted down every member of that tribe that he could find and killed them... any women, children, old men, or whatever were sold into slavery. No more tribe, ever... gone. That was how it was done... not very nice, but pretty effective.

As far as comparing the Dept of Homeland Security to the SS... I think that's a little extreme... we aren't rounding up political dissidents and then shooting them without trial... any american citizens accused under the new anti-terror laws will go through the entire legal system of due process... like that kid they captured with the taliban...

This is a good subject, and you bring it up with class and civility Havoc

(

Originally posted by Rule of Wrist


This is a good subject, and you bring it up with class and civility Havoc

He has good point. Nice way of expressing your opinion w/ patience and contemplative response. . I do Have to agree w/ you Havoc in many subjects including the fact that WMD's have not been found, but as LeVar has noted. Iraq has a very rough terrain and with this vast ground needing to be covered it would take time. No doubt, Bush was in the wrong in having gone unilaterally in such a serious global complication. The only excuse (if any at all) I can give you is that as a fellow Texan; we tout our guns before giving a damn of what others think. (Joking of course). Too many lives sacrificed is indeed nothing to laugh about.... but I'll have to get back to you w/ that one b/c is nothing easy to talk about.

In regards to your historical notation, I must say. You CAN NEVER expect history to repeat itself, the situation will ALWAYS have a concrete difference between what occurs. Times have changed and technology has created a world where one push of the button by a mentally handicapped leader can destroy all of civilization. It's a pretty frightful idea with so much truth behind it. In regards to the SS. Can you really, I mean really letting go of all your biases Compare Bush to Hitler?

Once again Havoc, I appreciate your mature questioning:beer:

[RCglider]

Originally posted by -HaVoC-
Yes he used gas on the Kurds. Gas we gave him when we were fighting Iran along with training and other weapons.

No, we did not supply gas to Iraq, sorry. That is urban legend, just like the rest of the kook's conspiracy theories. France, Germany and Russia however did supply Iraq with the technology and weaponry. That is why they were so against us; they had great financial interests in Iraq, most of which was illegal (in violation of Gulf War treaty). That is not urban legend. Canada? Well, our friends north of the border evidently don't have much to fight for, since the US does it all for them, including being their financial lifeblood. Their contribution is allowing known terrorists to reside in their country.....political correctness run amuck. What do these same countries want now after they stabbed us in the back? More handouts from the US.

So it is said Iraq has no terrorist links? By definition Iraq was a terrorist nation. Would it be accurate to say Syria is not a terrorist nation as well? Do you know what Party controls Syria? Do you know the similarities between the two countries? Hmm, it can't be possible Syria conspired with Iraq on WMD's now can it? I would suggest you start here, just interesting facts, no politics:
http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/19927.php

The now evacuated camps (boy scout maybe?) in Iraq, such as the one with the empty jetliner, was used for what, flight attendant training?

As for Iraq having no relationship with international terrorism, do you keep track of the news outside the left leaning media (ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR etc.)? Maybe you haven't heard?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr114.xml

I'm interested in knowing what the same critics of the Iraq war thought of the Bosnian campaign. What threat did Milosevic pose to the US? BTW, Wesley Clark is an idiot.

As for Saudi Arabia, I will agree we have no business doing business with them as they definitely have ties to terrorism around the world. That is not arguable. They are not our friends.



Are you familiar with the term 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'? Understand the middleeast Arab culture, and you may then understand how seemingly diametrically opposed leaders can still have a common enemy. Osama Bin Laden and Sadaam Hussein have a common enemy despite their secular/religious differences. The same for Iran and others.

Believe it or not, there really are some radical factions out there that want to kill you and your family by whatever means attainable. Maybe the next 9-11 will convince the naive we can't afford to sit around and wait to be attacked by a "soverign" nation. What "sovereign" nation was responsible for 9-11? It's called state sponsored terrorism; no uniforms, no standing army attacking militarily, but an attack just as if they did send planes, ships, missles, tanks, and soldiers. No rules, no Geneva Convention.....but it's still a war.

This is World War III, get over it.

[RCglider]

Originally posted by Jim0322
I think Rumsfeld acknowledged that there is no link between Saddam and 9-11. There was a speech Bush made before the war that said Iraq had many WMD and that might also include nukes too. In the last few months Bush has given up on finding WMD but instead talks about WMD "programs" because there are no WMD. When the war first started I predicted that we would find WMD whether they were there or not but that did not occur to my surprise.

Saddam is an evil man. He has killed many Iraqis and used chemical weapons on the Kurds. The Iraqi people need to decide what to do with him. I think we should get our troops out of there ASAP as I do not think it is worth the sacrifice.

Jim

No, Rumsfeld did not state that.
What makes you think there were no WMD's? Because Sadaam Hussein says so?
Who lost the Gulf War in 1991? What does unconditional surrender mean?
What is a resolution? What are 17 resolutions? What is a treaty? Who agreed to the resolutions? Who violated the resolutions? Who failed to act on the violation of the resolutions?
Who finally had the guts to do something about it?
What countries were in bed with Hussein after the Gulf War that had a vested interest in the US not going to war with Iraq?
Who was supposed to get free and unfettered access to all locations in Iraq according to UN resolutions? Who did not allow that? Who was tipping off the Iraqis of impending inspections? What international organization is completely impotent?

What about Afganistan? Was that worth the sacrifice? Why or why not?

Now I ask, at what point would you say is worth the sacrifice? Another 9-11? You may not have to wait too long.

BTW, they found this guy in the hole with Hussein...

[JimmyTango]

Originally posted by Rule of Wrist


This is a good subject, and you bring it up with class and civility Havoc

No, it isn't. Never mix politics or religion into a forum.

There is already a picture posted that will piss of one side.

[RCglider]

Originally posted by JimmyTango
No, it isn't. Never mix politics or religion into a forum.

There is already a picture posted that will piss of one side.

LOL, that coming from the ECGN Civility Prize laureate.
The whole subject is political in nature, it's obvious by the Bush bashing. Let's not be shy about it.

[JimmyTango]

See, it will continue to more and more personal.

RCglider, do not think your shit, or other peoples shit, doesn't stink.