How many WMD's need be discovered

[Colonel Ingus Profile]

Extremely good point Ralph.

Lets take a look at that last quote I posted:

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadlt arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Senator John Kerry, October 2003

It appears that no matter who you vote for in the upcoming election they BOTH believed that there were WMD's in Iraq AND that there was sufficient reason to go to war over it.

Funny isn't it?

[Murgatroyd]

Originally posted by TriX
you think 15 warheads justifies a war?

Yup.

Let's let one of those suckers loose in your neighborhood, then tell me you wouldn't have wanted to go to war to stop just that one.

[RCglider Profile]

Originally posted by TriX
well because 15 warheads with sarin isn't a big deal.

when bush made the original accusation he made it seem like there is hundreds of labs producing biological weapons like its cotton candy. reality is very different.

you think 15 warheads justifies a war?

i am not saying there won't be more found just basing things on facts.

wasn't there even talk of nuclear weapons being manufactured?

They were undeclared WMD's, just as Iraq was accused of doing. And those are the facts. He had many undeclared illegal materials, much of which was supplied by our "friends".

They had labs and were dismantled before the war. Just prior to the war, Iraq agreed to new inspections and even offered up some illegal rocket engines. They also played the shell game with inspectors, plus recall that Hussein had 5 years to do whatever he wished without any scrutiny.

I guess I find it hard to understand why people don't see the threat to us. Never before in history has there been the ability of a few fanatics to kill several thousand people should they acquire just small quantities of chemical/biological weapons.

It should be noted that Germany, unlike Japan, never attacked us prior to WW2. So why did we go to war with Germany?

And since when is it a prerequisite that we must be attacked on our soil before taking military action? If there is deemed to be a threat to our national security, it is within our best interest to respond, preemptively or not.

I beg the question again. How many WMD's need to be discovered to show Sadam Hussein did not declare them as required by the cease fire agreement in 1991?

[MMmmGood]

Originally posted by RCglider

It should be noted that Germany, unlike Japan, never attacked us prior to WW2. So why did we go to war with Germany?

It isnt fair to make this comparison to WW2 because WW2 was the last war this country fought for a true good reason. It was the last war where the enemy was clearly defined and a true threat not only to our Allies but to the entire world.

[Colonel Ingus Profile]

It isn't fair to make this comparison to WW2 because WW2 was the last war this country fought for a true good reason. It was the last war where the enemy was clearly defined and a true threat not only to our Allies but to the entire world.

You don't consider containing communism and the eventual defeat of the Soviet Union a true good reason? And that one involved the possibility of the depopulation of the entire planet.

And from what you wrote there I guess we can assume the original Gulf War wasn't for a true good reason? Invasion of a friendly power by an aggressor. Pretty much the whole world agreed that was a true good reason. There were troops from Iraq's neighbors such as Syria that participated in that war.

Would you rather wait until the next holocaust is actual happening before taking action? I wouldn't.

[Fat Bastard]

Originally posted by TriX
well because 15 warheads with sarin isn't a big deal.

when bush made the original accusation he made it seem like there is hundreds of labs producing biological weapons like its cotton candy. reality is very different.

you think 15 warheads justifies a war?

i am not saying there won't be more found just basing things on facts.

wasn't there even talk of nuclear weapons being manufactured?

Trix get a clue, there looking for these warheads in a country the size of California. Not to mention IT's hot as a MOFO over there, the sandstorms suck. Oh yeah they got people shooting at ya and blowing themselves up to kill you.

Lets say i hide a baseball bat in a my house and you have to find it while i get to shot at ya get the hint.

[ShellShock Profile]

Wow a bunch of rusted old artillery shells that may or may not have contained chemical weapons. Doesn't compare the the advance stocks of NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapons that countries like Iran and N. Korea possess.

[MMmmGood]

Originally posted by ShellShock
Wow a bunch of rusted old artillery shells that may or may not have contained chemical weapons. Doesn't compare the the advance stocks of NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapons that countries like Iran and N. Korea possess.

Exactly. Only attack the people who cant fight back.

And yes, WW2 was the last war the US fought for a good reason.

Dont you dare tell me that Korea/Vietnam/Gulf War were justified and had as much public support as WW2.

[smithpa68 Profile]

Originally posted by MMmmGood
Exactly. Only attack the people who cant fight back.

And yes, WW2 was the last war the US fought for a good reason.

Dont you dare tell me that Korea/Vietnam/Gulf War were justified and had as much public support as WW2.

There was a LOT of opposition to entering WWII. Japan finally pushed us over.

[Rule of Wrist]

Actually, WW2 (in hindsight) is considered the only just war in history. Seriously, what war before that was fought because Evil was going to take over the majority of the known world? Or even a significant portion of it?

Napoleonic wars? I wouldn't relish being ruled by the french, if I was in the position of the germans, polish and russians. But was Napolean considered evil? Or just an enemy? Would he be considered evil in comparison with Hitler? Napolean was considered a soldier and a general, first and foremost.

How about the hundred years war? Fought between England and France, and encompassing many smaller conflicts... Was england considered evil? How about france? They fought for a LONG time, but what was that all about really? Control, power, territory, money.

Most wars throughout human history have been fought over territory, money, power, religion, things of that nature. WW2 was fought to prevent evil men from taking over the world. And if you doubt that Japan was evil at this time, then you really need to read "Flyboys".... great book, and truly eye-opening....

Many historians have talked about one of the consequences of fighting WW2 is that future wars will almost certainly lack the moral clarity of that war.

After much evidence, I personally believe that the wahabbists are just as evil as the nazis, and possibly a bigger threat to the world... There is just as much moral clarity here to me, if people would only open their eyes and make a few judgements about what they see.

[Keekanoo]

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus


And from what you wrote there I guess we can assume the original Gulf War wasn't for a true good reason? Invasion of a friendly power by an aggressor. Pretty much the whole world agreed that was a true good reason. There were troops from Iraq's neighbors such as Syria that participated in that war.

Would you rather wait until the next holocaust is actual happening before taking action? I wouldn't.

I really don't like getting involved in these discussions as from what I can tell it is mostly lay-people standing on soap-boxes barking out the validity of some news source.

However, I couldn't let this one go by, Ingus. Let us not forget that Iraq was involved in a very long attrition battle with Iran (both sides were sold weapons by the United States and Saddam was put in place by the Americans to keep that whole thing going). During the tail-end of that battle, when Iraq was belaguered from a long war the Kuwaities started slant-drilling under their borders siphoning out oil from Iraqs deposits. Iraq repeatedly brought the matter to the UN where, low-and-behold, the United States repeatedly voted down any action being taken by the UN to stop the slant-oil-drilling. Iraq made a clear statement to the UN that if nothing was done about it through the UN then they would take matters into their own hands and retaliate with force. Which they did.

I'm no expert on the matter (I know folks who are), and I'm sure Saddam isn't a sweet kinda guy who wudgles babies' hair and plays soccer with the boy-scouts, but he did have fairly good rights to defend the soverign boundaries of his country in attacking Kuwait. The facts are there, nothing more.

[LordShard]

I find it wierd that we find the WMD but then the 9/11 commision says there were no WMD found. O_O

[Mighty Mazz]

Originally posted by Rule of Wrist
Actually, WW2 (in hindsight) is considered the only just war in history. Seriously, what war before that was fought because Evil was going to take over the majority of the known world? Or even a significant portion of it?

What about the American Revolutionary War? I for one consider the British evil. Oh and Braveheart cmon now!!

But seriously why is it that people get so hung up on this WMD thing. First off we gave Iraq enough notice to let them get any potential WMD off to a neighbor and they never really intended to put up a big fight so if I was a fascist ruler with no chance of winning a head on war, I hide my big guns and myself and rely on guerilla warfare tactics. Besides if 9/11 did teach us anything it should be that a crazy extrimist is just as deadly as a missle. And I'm pretty sure the government didn't try and mislead the public to gain support for the war.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Wow, Keekano comes to Saddam's defense. F those Kuwaitis he says. It's weird that the Kuwaitis' purported drilling into their neighbors' oil justifies an invasion, etc. I mean wouldn't that be, by definition, a war for oil? How can that ever be justified?

I think I figured it out: first you look at a given situation and determine which side the U.S. is on. Next, you determine whether there is a chance that a U.S. success might result in the spread of the much-hated ideals of western style democracy and free markets. Finally, just to be safe, you make sure your own country isn't directly threatened by whatever situation the U.S. is dealing with. After evaluating these situations, you jump to the defense of whoever is opposing the U.S.

[Colonel Ingus Profile]

smithpa pointed out already but there was a lot more against going into WWII than there was for the Gulf War.

Why do you think the rest of the world kicked it off without us and we waited almost three years before getting involved?

Because too many Americans were opposed to getting involved.

And don't go ascribing all kinds of patriotic "it was a good fight for just reasons" to our actions.

Hindsight sure made it look like good vs evil but no one at the time saw it that way. None of the poor doughboys that started out in Africa had an inkling of concentration camps. No Sailor or Marine at Coral Sea, Guadacanal, or Midway knew about the Bataan death march or Unit 735 doing Bio warfare in Manchuria. Which was one of the reasons we stayed out so long and it took something as drastic as Pearl Harbor to get us involved.

And there was virtually unanimous worldwide support for the first Gulf War. Like I pointed out we had Syrians, Egyptians, Saudi's..etc ad naseum. And correct me if I am wrong but didn't we go to the U.N. then, get a resolution, and enforced it? Almost exactly like what we did 12 years later.

And interestingly enough there is historical documentation to back up Kook's.. er Keek's point. actually there is tons of it but we will use one sterling example.

1930's Europe. Hitler's invasion of Alsace, Loirraine, Austria, Czechkloslovakia. He had good reasons every time. Protect Ethnic Germans! Much better than "they are slant drilling our oil" and in Britain and the France they thought it was acceptable. An interesting sidenote the only nation and person to oppose Hitler was Mussolini and the Italians in Czech.

So there you go Keek. You actually have history to back you up on viewpoints like that. Of course Hitler used people as an excuse for going to war and conquering his neighbors. Evidently you are justifying war, and invasion of a sovereign nation, based on Oil alone. That I must say is shocking.