One More Time

[Busyman]

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.

[Rat Faced]

He did have terrorist links... In Palestine.

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

[SeK612]

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]

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.

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.

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.

[Yogi]

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.

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.

Wow, here goes a first........

Well said, BM, very well said indeed.


Yogi

[vivitron 15]

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]

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.

[Busyman]

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


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.

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.

[vivitron 15]

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

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

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]

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?

Either way, Bush was wrong on Iraq. Period.

Evidence or lack thereof says so.

War Unjustified..............