PDA

View Full Version : One More Time



Busyman
10-25-2004, 07:05 PM
Please just let me say this one more time.

The assumption that Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction in Iraq does not mean that he did not have them. Nor does it mean he did not have control over them, or their deployment.

The UK does not store or position all of it's weapons in the UK, I suspect that a lot of other countries have weapons outwith their own borders, both overtly and covertly. That does not mean that they do not exist.

If it were true that he had terrorist links, which seems almost certain, then one would expect him to employ at least some of their tactics. In this case to dissipate some of his armaments, in order to avoid their confiscation.

I for one would be stunned if he kept everything in Iraq.
What makes you think that he had terrorist links?
And I mean not just knowing some terrorists but actually having real terrorists at his employ or disposal.

It does make sense that he would keep some weapons elsewhere but...where?

Why was it necessary to "say this one more time"? Just curious. :huh:

Rat Faced
10-25-2004, 07:31 PM
He did have terrorist links... In Palestine.

Just not the ones that certain Governments try to spin it too....

SeK612
10-25-2004, 10:00 PM
As I see it the coalition screwed up. I thought the "45 minute" claim our government tried to push on us seemed ridiculous (the way it was reported this was a threat to the UK which has since been rubbished). I agree Saddam Hussain was a nasty guy but some of the stuff to come out of Iraq since then (just yesterday 49 unarmed Iraqi trainees were stoped by a fake road blockage and shot dead and their bodies dumped on the street) dire.

It seems by attacking Iraqi it has given the nuts that are desperate to cause the west harm a playground to run around to the detrement to the Iraqi inhabitants :(

Busyman
10-25-2004, 10:58 PM
It wasn't necessary, I just felt like doing it. I had assumed that would be OK.

I felt like doing it because I have read a myriad of posts indicating that it was now decided that he had no weapons of mass destruction. Based on the fact that to date none had been found in Iraq.

I felt it might be useful to point out that he may have them elsewhere. Indeed it seems likely to me that he would have.

With regard to the terrorist links thing, I simply said that he would apear to have had them. As such, in my view he may have employed tactics used by terrorists.

I feel no need to justify "And I mean not just knowing some terrorists but actually having real terrorists at his employ or disposal." as I didn't actually say it, that was you. I did not say that he had any in his employ, or at his disposal.
Well as far as justifying it, you just did. Nice going. :dry:

No one said it wasn't OK to post it so who knows what you're on about there.

I had a question about your "Please just let me say this one more time", as if it was a huge thing that you have been bantering about but again you've justified it. Thanks. ;)

Back on topic:
Whether he had may have had them or not

Whether he had terrorist links or not

It makes little difference.

He is in custody
Him having them and being an iminent threat wasn't proven
Saddam backing a 911 plot is far fetched at best

As far as Saddam having weapons, he didn't until it's proven. :dry:

The theories of him moving, storing, or hiding them elsewhere have always been a possibility just like the one that Osama had nothing to do with 911.

However, I wish we weren't at war over a shouldacouldawoulda. :(

Next time get approval from me before posting Fugs. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yogi
10-26-2004, 08:19 AM
Well as far as justifying it, you just did. Nice going.

No one said it wasn't OK to post it so who knows what you're on about there.

I had a question about your "Please just let me say this one more time", as if it was a huge thing that you have been bantering about but again you've justified it. Thanks.

Back on topic:
Whether he had may have had them or not

Whether he had terrorist links or not

It makes little difference.

He is in custody
Him having them and being an iminent threat wasn't proven
Saddam backing a 911 plot is far fetched at best

As far as Saddam having weapons, he didn't until it's proven. :dry:

The theories of him moving, storing, or hiding them elsewhere have always been a possibility just like the one that Osama had nothing to do with 911.

However, I wish we weren't at war over a shouldacouldawoulda. :(

Next time get approval from me before posting Fugs. :lol:Wow, here goes a first........:blink:

Well said, BM, very well said indeed.:01: :D


Yogi

vivitron 15
10-26-2004, 11:53 AM
i think that something which needs to be remembered in this whole "was the war justified" issue is that SH wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraw beforehand. This meant that there was the threat of WMD. It is this threat which lead to our going in.

Im sure that everyone agrees that we as a public, see relatively little of the evidence the GBush etc see. If they were to tell us everything, then we would indeed be in trouble. So, many important people, such as military chiefs and logistical experts will have collaberated to decide the degree to which we should think that he has them. Based upon military intelligence, it was decided that it is most likely he does have them.

GBush didnt wake up one morning and toss a coin, i can assure you of that. In fact, I would very much doubt that he had a great deal of say in the issue.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is this:
say there are no weapons, and we go in and remove SH - we are certain that we have eliminated an evil dictator from the world, and we are sure that there are no weapons which can be used against us.
say there are no weapons and we dont go in - well then we live under the constant threat of weapons, we will never know. so we spend billions on trying to find out, whilst the Iraq people suffer under his regime.

say there are weapons and we dont go in - well lets just say SH is having a bad day, and decides to have a huge fireworks party
say there are weapons and we go in - we get rid of the weapons, free the Iraq people and get rid of SH.

The way I see it, the threat was sufficient to go in, as it means that other countries know that the chances of us giving in to their "we wont let the inspectors in" are pretty slim. It is the same as where we dont give in to hostage takers, else everyone would do it.

Busyman
10-26-2004, 12:54 PM
I never mentioned the atrocity at the WTC. Neither did I mention Osama Bin Laden.

Terrorism and terrorist organizations do exist elsewhere. It is not just the USA which is affected.
Never said you did.

It's an example like you pose of shouldawouldacouldamaybepossiblyjustmighthowever

I point out that everytime someone merely says there were no weapons of mass destruction does not necessitate a preface of "there may have been weapons and they were moved." It's nothing new just like the PA flight could have been shot down and not forced down like the government says.

Some actually may have heard that one before.

:dry:

Busyman
10-26-2004, 01:05 PM
i think that something which needs to be remembered in this whole "was the war justified" issue is that SH wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraw beforehand. This meant that there was the threat of WMD. It is this threat which lead to our going in.

Im sure that everyone agrees that we as a public, see relatively little of the evidence the GBush etc see. If they were to tell us everything, then we would indeed be in trouble. So, many important people, such as military chiefs and logistical experts will have collaberated to decide the degree to which we should think that he has them. Based upon military intelligence, it was decided that it is most likely he does have them.

GBush didnt wake up one morning and toss a coin, i can assure you of that. In fact, I would very much doubt that he had a great deal of say in the issue.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is this:
say there are no weapons, and we go in and remove SH - we are certain that we have eliminated an evil dictator from the world, and we are sure that there are no weapons which can be used against us.
say there are no weapons and we dont go in - well then we live under the constant threat of weapons, we will never know. so we spend billions on trying to find out, whilst the Iraq people suffer under his regime.

say there are weapons and we dont go in - well lets just say SH is having a bad day, and decides to have a huge fireworks party
say there are weapons and we go in - we get rid of the weapons, free the Iraq people and get rid of SH.

The way I see it, the threat was sufficient to go in, as it means that other countries know that the chances of us giving in to their "we wont let the inspectors in" are pretty slim. It is the same as where we dont give in to hostage takers, else everyone would do it.
So sum it all up....

Shouldawouldacoulda

and

If we think you aren't flying straight, we'll come up with a reason to fuck you up
:huh:

There could be biological agent about to released on the populace by China so we should invade.

North Korea may have a missile that can reach us and we should cream them.

Iran may have terrorists there with dirty bombs to bring over here. Bomb them.

If we go off half-cocked like The President did we will have bombed half the world because of justmightpossiblies.

Maybe the intelligence should be better.

Maybe instead of having soooooooooo many billion dollar aircraft we could hire more folks that speak Arabic. :blink:

Maybepossiblehoweverconsequently it seems.

I say, it you are the President, and want to risk troop's lives on a groiund war, you better damn sure you are right....and furthermore, fire who was wrong after the fact. :dry:

vivitron 15
10-26-2004, 01:54 PM
If we think you aren't flying straight, we'll come up with a reason to fuck you upwell no, its more, if you actively give us cause to believe you have the weapons, as SH did, then we'll come and make sure you dont


There could be biological agent about to released on the populace by China so we should invade.
North Korea may have a missile that can reach us and we should cream them.
Iran may have terrorists there with dirty bombs to bring over here. Bomb them.no, again this is out of context. International laws state that countrys have to let inspectors in in order to ensure that there are whatever weapons we have to declare we have. The US, undoubtably has WMD of its own, but we (governments) know about them - other countries too have them, but they are relatively open about this. this ensures that noone is harbouring enough to blow the earth from the solar system.


If we go off half-cocked like The President did we will have bombed half the world because of justmightpossiblies.yes, and if we dont act, then maybe we'll allow one country to release a nuclear holocaust on the planet, just because of a maybenot.possiblynot.shouldbeok


Maybe the intelligence should be better.

Maybe instead of having soooooooooo many billion dollar aircraft we could hire more folks that speak Arabic.
I say, it you are the President, and want to risk troop's lives on a groiund war, you better damn sure you are right....and furthermore, fire who was wrong after the fact. hahaha - you really think thats what intelligence is? its a tad more than that. if it were possible to be sure either way, then don't you think we would have acted accordingly? Of course, had SH played ball in the first place, and allowed inspectors in, then we would have been able to gather better evidence, and we would have been in a better position to act. as it was, we had to "play the odds" - weigh up the loss of a couple hundered servicemen against the loss of our planet.

Busyman
10-26-2004, 02:07 PM
well no, its more, if you actively give us cause to believe you have the weapons, as SH did, then we'll come and make sure you dont

no, again this is out of context. International laws state that countrys have to let inspectors in in order to ensure that there are whatever weapons we have to declare we have. The US, undoubtably has WMD of its own, but we (governments) know about them - other countries too have them, but they are relatively open about this. this ensures that noone is harbouring enough to blow the earth from the solar system.

yes, and if we dont act, then maybe we'll allow one country to release a nuclear holocaust on the planet, just because of a maybenot.possiblynot.shouldbeok

hahaha - you really think thats what intelligence is? its a tad more than that. if it were possible to be sure either way, then don't you think we would have acted accordingly? Of course, had SH played ball in the first place, and allowed inspectors in, then we would have been able to gather better evidence, and we would have been in a better position to act. as it was, we had to "play the odds" - weigh up the loss of a couple hundered servicemen against the loss of our planet.
Explain North Korea and Iran then. You can't. Bilateral talks. Uh-huh.

It seems the President is either doing what he should have done with Iraq or is running scared. Where's this ground war for Iran then? :huh:

Either way, Bush was wrong on Iraq. Period.

Evidence or lack thereof says so.

War Unjustified.............. :dry:

Busyman
10-26-2004, 02:13 PM
There's the point. He refused to comply with an order, made by the UN. Bearing in mind that this was after he had invaded another country. Not to depose it's leader, to steal it's resources.

Had he allowed proper access then there would have been no reason to invade. I'm glad he didn't in a way, because it allowed for him to be taken from power. The man was and is a murderous butcher.
So the fuck what?

Not complying with an order does not justify an entire ground war.

"Why did your son lose his life"

"Well he didn't let the inspectors in."

:dry:

"Oh well now that we are in there was nothing there. Sorry, you have other kids don't you?"

Amazing.

If I had a hair for every butcher................

Iraqi's are alot better off though. :lol: :dry: :(

vidcc
10-26-2004, 02:26 PM
no, again this is out of context. International laws state that countrys have to let inspectors in in order to ensure that there are whatever weapons we have to declare we have. The US, undoubtably has WMD of its own, but we (governments) know about them - other countries too have them, but they are relatively open about this. this ensures that noone is harbouring enough to blow the earth from the solar system.
I disagree with so much of your post but we have done the deed to death, however this one is reasonably untouched.

The USA has weapons programs as you suggest...but we don't even allow inspections of our power plants for "security" reasons.

do you think if Saddam had said he has these weapons the need for war would vanish?...as you said other countries have to declare them.

btw. china and the usa do have enough to blow up the earth.

manker
10-26-2004, 02:45 PM
To me this whole situation reeks of double standards.

It has been suggested that because of a UN resolution to check to see if any WMD were being produced wasn't complied with, the invasion is justified. Yet there was not a resolution made to invade. The coalition did it anyway and ignored the UN while using it to justify the actual invasion. That strikes me as odd.

Also if this obstruction to inspect is a legitimate reason for invasion then, as Busyman says, why isn't the coalition invading N. Korea - who have practically jumped up and down like a petulant child to tell the world that they want, and allude to already having, nukes.

I do agree with the initial point of this thread, it is conceivable that they didn't look in the right places. However to use this as a basis to justify the invasion of Iraq is nonsense.

vidcc
10-26-2004, 03:08 PM
I'm sure if Saddam was the kind of man that felt he needed to pass a "world test" in his actions he could come up with a few reasons for kuwait. The question is would we accept them ?

manker
10-26-2004, 03:20 PM
I don't think I'm missing that point. To invade Kuwait was wrong and he was dealt with appropriately at that time. I do not have an argument there.

Perhaps he was a threat because he wouldn't let the inspectors do their job, maybe he did have WMD. Perhaps he was hiding something. I can see that point of view.

What I fail to understand is why it was considered necessary to invade there and not to invade other countries where more overt threats are in evidence.

As a side note, I believe I do, in fact, understand the political and logistic reasons for not invading Iran and N. Korea, however to invade one threatening country because it's a 'soft target' and to let the others carry on as they were because they might put up more of a fight doesn't sit well with me. It's double standards.

vivitron 15
10-26-2004, 04:34 PM
wow - JP, i have never before agreed with you on a subject such as this!

anyhow, the point that there are other countries who are also a threat is true - though we don't know entirely what is going on - we may have intelligence one way or another. and when someone mentioned overt plans of weapons, then thats what im saying, it makes life much easier when you know what someone has - if they tell you, then its likely you know, whereas somone keeps it all schtum, then you just never know...

vidcc
10-26-2004, 04:41 PM
All this debate about why we went in is all well and good but the fact remains that we have so far been proven to have made a mistake on the reasons we gave..... please don't use the reasons thought up after the event, they don't count.

vivitron 15
10-26-2004, 05:04 PM
but at the end of the day, was it a mistake?

in that, given the choice over, would it be repeated? - im sure anyone here would make the same choice, based upon the info GBush had. at the end of the day, he would have wanted to avoid war, but the threat was clearly too strong.

ruthie
10-26-2004, 05:05 PM
I believe Bush knew alot more then he will ever admit. He has had an Iraq agenda for a long time.

Rat Faced
10-26-2004, 05:45 PM
He never stopped the original Inspectors doing their Jobs, although he did make it difficult for them... Im sure any other Government would too. I mean the US, for example, wont allow Inspections at all...

When the American Spy was discovered, he also stated that he would allow no Americans to be amongst the inspectors.. perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.

The UN (under pressure from the US and UK) then withdrew the other Inspectors... he didnt throw them out. His only condition was "No more Americans".. The only Inspectors he "Threw Out" were the Americans.. for spying. He would have been within his rights to execute them for spying, yet gets fucked for letting them go... Guy just cant win, can he?

:lol: :lol:

manker
10-26-2004, 06:19 PM
I do see your point, JP, as I've said. But with respect to his previous I have to say it matters little in the reasoning for invasion. In fact it was never mentioned until the search for the WMD started to look futile.

Weapons inspections were not the sole method employed to ensure that Saddam didn't become a threat. It also helps that we, and other countries, were not selling big guns and other war tools to him anymore. Sanctions would also ensure that he couldn't build up a serious force with which to invade anyone.

Even Saddam, manical despot as he is, wouldn't have thought that this time he would succeed where he failed all those years ago. He was a threat to no-one except the Iraqi people - and that wasn't mentioned by the US authorities until the search for WMD began to look futile, either.


and when someone mentioned overt plans of weapons, then thats what im saying, it makes life much easier when you know what someone has - if they tell you, then its likely you know, whereas somone keeps it all schtum, then you just never know...Yes. Thank the good lord that North Korean Dictators are of such sound character and always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

We haven't a clue what N. Korea and Iran are doing, they won't let us see. Exactly the same as Saddam wouldn't.

Busyman
10-26-2004, 06:26 PM
but at the end of the day, was it a mistake?

in that, given the choice over, would it be repeated? - im sure anyone here would make the same choice, based upon the info GBush had. at the end of the day, he would have wanted to avoid war, but the threat was clearly too strong.
Uh..yes it was.

Especially in hindsight. :blink:

Ignorance is bliss. Ignorance in light of truth is pure stupidity. :dry:

I'll say also that you saying what George Bush wanted smacks of some sort of either bias or mind reading. Are you an X-man?

The point is perception.

Other countries may be perceived as a threat, he however demonstrated it by invading his neighbours. To say nothing of the mass murder of Kurds.

To use an analogy. Big man standing in front of you may be perceived as a threat. He may even be a threat to your safety, but it's only a feeling.

Big man standing in front of you, killing his own brother. Then going over and killing someone else. Much more of a threat in my book. To you and to everyone else.

Police stop him killing people, then decide to search him for more weapons to prevent him from killing anyone else. He just says no, not letting you.

Police then use force.
The problem Big man did this like years ago.(Kuwait) :dry:

vidcc
10-26-2004, 06:40 PM
but at the end of the day, was it a mistake?

in that, given the choice over, would it be repeated? - im sure anyone here would make the same choice, based upon the info GBush had. at the end of the day, he would have wanted to avoid war, but the threat was clearly too strong.
But we are not talking about the same info...we are talking about the info we have now

lynx
10-26-2004, 07:50 PM
and when someone mentioned overt plans of weapons, then thats what im saying, it makes life much easier when you know what someone has - if they tell you, then its likely you know, whereas somone keeps it all schtum, then you just never know...
And when someone keeps schtum about their WMD because they don't have any, we should assume they have them? :blink:

Rat Faced
10-26-2004, 07:57 PM
I think we better Start our invasion plans for Mauritious immediately, they are obviously a clear and present danger... as they say they dont have WMD
:unsure:

However, we can forget about USA, UK, France, Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, South Africa and Iran.... they're safe coz they say they have them :rolleyes:

vidcc
10-26-2004, 08:00 PM
However, we can forget about USA, UK, France, Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, South Africa and Iran.... they're safe coz they say they have them :rolleyes:
And those weapons kept the peace all this time ... nobody would dare attack us because we have them :rolleyes: :lol:

Rat Faced
10-26-2004, 08:02 PM
You ever eaten in Mauritious?

They definatly have WMD...

Busyman
10-26-2004, 08:02 PM
And those weapons kept the peace all this time ... nobody would dare attack us because we have them :rolleyes: :lol:
Mutually Asurred Destruction.

MAD

lynx
10-26-2004, 08:10 PM
You ever eaten in Mauritious?

They definatly have WMD...
I hear those Dodo's are pretty tough. :unsure:

vidcc
10-26-2004, 08:33 PM
You ever eaten in Mauritious?

They definatly have WMD...
I must admit for the adventurous cuisine enjoyer the food is a WAD...weapon of ass destruction :lol: