Aha Found It!

by **CrazyBri** » Mon May 17, 2004 5:10 pm

Originally posted by Colonel Savage
Can't claim to be an expert, but I have a few ideas:

1)Revenge for 9/11 - It's difficult to bring American style justice to individuals with no known address. But a nation, now that's a target. Iraq is something you can point to on a map and say, "we're going after this."

So what would Afghanistan be then?

2)Unfinished business - Bush Sr. had a chance to depose Saddam in 1991, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. But he didn't, despite an overwhelming amount of international support. And now daddy's cronies are back in power with Jr. at the helm, trying to fix what they left behind 12 years earlier.

ha

3)Oil - Probably not the primary reason, despite what liberal pitbulls might tell you. But it's in the top five, guaranteed.

Can't argue with that.

My question is, if all this stuff was found in Iraq, why on earth wouldn't the American government announce it to the world? You'd think that .......

But the article seems to be suggesting (if I read it right) that the US is sweeping these discoveries under the rug - to which I say, "Huh?"

And since I can't resist taking a jab at people who hold the rest of the world to a higher standard than themselves, read this little Wired tidbit:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60662,00.html

IF/When sufficient evidence is found they will definitely not hold back when it comes to the public being informed. That would make absolutely no sense whatsoever if they didn't. I agree.

Now based on that URL you posted, I wish you would clarify your "jab" statement. If you're comparing our delays with disposing chemical weapons to Saddam's handling of chemical weapons then that would be quite scary. No I don't think it's right that they are not meeting deadlines with the US chemicals but that doesn't make our country complete hypocrites for attacking Iraq based on their UN resolution failures and Saddam's track record. There's a big difference here.

by **shockwave203** » Mon May 17, 2004 5:12 pm

Ingus, here are the facts of the matter. Bush accused Saddam of many things, which he has yet to prove. finding old mortars which can't even test positive for blister agents doesn't justify his claims about WMD. Saddam's payments to the families of palestinian suicide bombers doesn't justify his claims of al-queda connections.

the accusations used to pursuade people to support this war have not been proven. is this hard to understand?

my problem is not with Bush, but with what Bush had done. you can't go around making accusations that were fabricated, or were a result of bad intelligence, because if the US can do it, what example are you setting for other countries?

the handling of the war was wrong. the war itself wasn't wrong, the handling was. the build up to it, including the reasons to invade (WMD, Al-queda connection) were not true, yet they were used to push this war through.

that is wrong, and that's all I'm saying. If you can't comprehend that....then oh well. no skin off my bakc.

by **AnimalCracka** » Mon May 17, 2004 5:13 pm

Political threads always end up like this. I think Shock is showing his age, but hey, thats just my opinion.

by **shockwave203** » Mon May 17, 2004 5:18 pm

Originally posted by AnimalCracka
Political threads always end up like this. I think Shock is showing his age, but hey, thats just my opinion.

actually, I think you're the first person in this thread to post anything resembling a personal attack.

This thread is civil. I think we should try to keep it that way, ok?

by **Colonel Savage** » Mon May 17, 2004 6:22 pm

CrazyBri,

Afghanistan falls under the same umbrella, I just didn't mention it because the question was specifically about Iraq, that's all.

As far as the Wired article goes - am I suggesting that the US would deploy chemical weapons on anyone? Of course not. Or at least, I sure hope they wouldn't.

But it would just go so much better for their cause if they could say to the world, "Look, we think chemical weapons are evil and unnecessary and nobody should have them - we've even destroyed ours!" instead of, "Look, we think chemical weapons are evil and unnecessary and nobody should have them - except us." It's more than a little arrogant and yes, hypocritical. Just enough to make me chuckle at the irony.

And in the "ask, and ye shall receive" category, it looks like the answer to my "why wouldn't they announce the discovery of any WMDs they find, no matter how trivial" question just popped up, courtesy of Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=4NPO2QUMOBYHKCRBAELCFFA?type=topNews&storyID=5166153

by **Evan** » Mon May 17, 2004 6:41 pm

Originally posted by Colonel Savage
CrazyBri,

Afghanistan falls under the same umbrella, I just didn't mention it because the question was specifically about Iraq, that's all.

As far as the Wired article goes - am I suggesting that the US would deploy chemical weapons on anyone? Of course not. Or at least, I sure hope they wouldn't.

But it would just go so much better for their cause if they could say to the world, "Look, we think chemical weapons are evil and unnecessary and nobody should have them - we've even destroyed ours!" instead of, "Look, we think chemical weapons are evil and unnecessary and nobody should have them - except us." It's more than a little arrogant and yes, hypocritical. Just enough to make me chuckle at the irony.

And in the "ask, and ye shall receive" category, it looks like the answer to my "why wouldn't they announce the discovery of any WMDs they find, no matter how trivial" question just popped up, courtesy of Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=4NPO2QUMOBYHKCRBAELCFFA?type=topNews&storyID=5166153

Then again, we don't have fanatical leaders who have (or will) gas a country just for the hell of it.

by **SavageParrot** » Mon May 17, 2004 7:02 pm

I always thought the U.N resolution argument was the weakest argument: So he defied a U.N resolution, so what? We've all done it, the US has defied countless resolutions on the subject of their illegal embargo on Cuba but nothing happend to them. Ultimately what the government did amounts to little more than exaggeration (IMO) and they seem to me only as culpable as the same media that is now trying to bring them to bear. How many journalists do you remember trying to argue against the existance of WMD's before the war, or questioning government 'intellegence'?. The press are a bunch of war mongering hypocritical whores, agian IMO.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Mon May 17, 2004 7:14 pm

Ah but I do understand what you are saying and there's the difference there Shockwave. I am also saying there is evidence out there that the things he said are true. Mind you I am not out to exonerate him. Thats not my job. But there is information out there that you can find if you want more than spoon feeding from an admittedly liberal media.

My reference to the Palestinians was in response to your Bush has not supplied evidence comment. Bush has also not come out and stated the sky is blue and the sun rises in the east. I didn't realize we needed confirmation from Bush on Saddam's ties to international terrorism when Saddam supplied it himself.

It just seems that until he goes on record you are going to ignore all that evidence.

You don't have to be accepting that there is more information out there than what you are willing to look at. Thats ok.... thats no skin off my back.

by **Colonel Savage** » Mon May 17, 2004 7:54 pm

Originally posted by Evan
Then again, we don't have fanatical leaders who have (or will) gas a country just for the hell of it.

No, but apparently they'll nuke one - twice.

by **TestMonkey#8** » Mon May 17, 2004 8:07 pm

You have got to be kidding me. Do you have any idea how man lives were saved by those 2 nukes. Why dont you read up on Japanese culture, and the Japanese military, and mabey google this word "deterence", then forget and relearn every detail of WWII. Then mabey just mabey you might be able to put down the kool-aid long enough to sober up.

by **Colonel Savage** » Mon May 17, 2004 8:09 pm

Please note the use of

- universally accepted as a sign of comedic intent. Sheesh, lighten up.

by **Evan** » Mon May 17, 2004 8:13 pm

OT:

We are doing the Vietnam in my US History class. The teacher called on a student to describe the practice of 'pacification'.

His answer: Nuclear bombs.

by **TestMonkey#8** » Mon May 17, 2004 8:18 pm

Canadians and me just dont mix. Had a Canadian Roomate for 2 years and it was all about the US does this the US does that, i realy dont care for the US hed say. Well then why the hell was he going to a US university, why are Canadians so concerned with how we are fighting our war. You dont hear me judging when Canada launches a military offensive.

by **cavalierlwt** » Mon May 17, 2004 8:19 pm

Conspiracy theorist will be putting an extra layer of tin foil on their head tonight tonight. I am no fan of Bush, but nothing annoys me more than conspiracy theorists. Convenient timing they'll say. They said it when Saddam was caught, I had no idea what was convenient about that particular month, or this particular month. Had bush found Saddam playing poker with OBL, sitting on a two ton stack of anthrax, yeah, that would be suspicious. finding this small amount was inevitable. Saddam had them at one time, and there's bound to be (at the least) pockets of them here and there. I believe Tariq Azziz (even though he's generally a liar too) when he says that Saddam lost most of his WMD when Clinton hit him, and quite a lot due to improper storage. I think Saddam kept up a bluff so the other countries around him would keep their distance, plus Saddam was facing possible conflict with Turkey (soon to be an EU member) over water rights. WMDs as a threat and a bargaining chip seem like a pretty big asset in that neck of the woods. Course it all backfired.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Mon May 17, 2004 9:23 pm

Gotta toss in two more cents with cavalier.

There's plenty of evidence that came to light after the invasion that Saddam was actively trying to pursue greater NBC capability but there was mass corruption and although there was all kind of traffic and documentation concerning the production of said weapons it was actually being embezzled.

This of course in no way negates the fact that we have found literally tons of chemical agents. Its just does not seem popular to western media to cover this little unimportant fact:roll:

Aha Found It!

Who is online