Jump to content

War in the middle east.


Recommended Posts

Black dog:

What "other Middle Eastern countries" are you talking about. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are among the worst of the lot, along with Syria and Iran. Yet the former pair are "good guys".

Lets compare them with and where would you plan your holidays.... Azerbaijan,Kazakhstan,turmenstan,uzbekistan,hell anything with stan on the end including pakistan...all have worse human right records than Egypt , or Saudi not to mention Syria, Iran,yemen,Jorden,Omen.

QUOTE

In most cases it does not make any difference....except when you mix in religion ie the mulsim faith ...or revenge as a cause...these make it a whole new ball game...enough to make them strap on plastic explosives and kill your self for the cause...

Again, I don't see how someone moivated to do violence by their faith (be it Islam, Christianity or Judaism) is any different from someone motivated by patirotism or lucre.

Ask a Canadian soldier to strap on explosives and to dentonate himself in a crowd of his enemies....and what will your answer be....

we continuly see the results when we ask a muslim to do the same act...it is not a random act it is a daily occurance in Iraq or palistine , or Isreal etc etc....

As for revenge, well, I read a lot of quotes from soldiers in Iraq saying they were there to get payback for 9-11 (which Iraq was not inolved with).

Talking and beating ones chest is one thing soldiers do that alot...doing the act is another....and it is against the geneva convention and is punishable war crime...

I'm well aware of the geneva convention and its provisions. I'm also well aware that those provisions are regularily flouted by various armed forces with out any consequenses.

perhaps you can explain that to a british SAS trooper who is being charged with Murder,over a shotting of a civilain Iraqi...the is also the US marine who is also charged with murder for shooting a wounded Iraqi insurgent....there are many more available on the US armed forces web sites also the british armed forces web site or any news paper most have carried lots of articles...

Ah yes...ooops, we did it again. So sorry. To me there's no difference between "accidental" civilian deaths and intentionally targetting civilians.

Dead is dead i know...but you are putting all the blame on the US soldiers ....who have no choice or say on any matters. but who are we going to blame right....

U.S. troops, by virtue of simply being there are putting civilian lives at risk and are therefore culpable.

Your right we should all go to our corners and mind our own business...let the Hilters,Stalins,Sadams,Kadafi's, and the many others reak havoc where ever they want....to slaughter whom ever they want for what ever reasons....to live our lives in fear not knowing if we are next....

In any case, wht defines an accident? For instance there's plenty of evidence that troops have adopted a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach as a result of the insurgencies tatics. But is killing a civilian that you thought was an insurgent to be considered an accident?

Yes, this is a war zone...not down town Victoria....people are going to die...innocent or not...an accident is just that an unplanned incident...you kill someone in a uncontrolable car accident does that mean you should be charge with murder...

Soldiers go to war when politions fail to solve thier problem like adults...War is not the fault of those that do the fighting but thier leaders. Blame them....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Lets compare them with and where would you plan your holidays.... Azerbaijan,Kazakhstan,turmenstan,uzbekistan,hell anything with stan on the end including pakistan...all have worse human right records than Egypt , or Saudi not to mention Syria, Iran,yemen,Jorden,Omen.

Frankly the whole regin is a snakepit of thugs. Incidentally, many of those states you named are also buddy-buddy with the U.S. in the "war on terror ", which kinda supports what I'm saying about democracy and freedom.

Ask a Canadian soldier to strap on explosives and to dentonate himself in a crowd of his enemies....and what will your answer be....

we continuly see the results when we ask a muslim to do the same act...it is not a random act it is a daily occurance in Iraq or palistine , or Isreal etc etc....

There's a reason for this: why would anyone blow themselves up when they can acall in a airstrike or use long-range weapons to accomplish the same task. We're not talking about some inborn or learned predilication for suicide bombing but a disparity in resources. I'm sure Hmas or the Iraqi resistance would be happier to fight on even terms with modern weapons than...but it's called asymetrical warfare for a reason.

Talking and beating ones chest is one thing soldiers do that alot...doing the act is another....and it is against the geneva convention and is punishable war crime...

Frankly, given their failure to sign on to the ICC, the abuses at Gunatanamo Bay, Abu Ghirab and elsewehere, as wella s accounts of atrocities in Iraq, I'm not putting much faith in America's adherence to the Geneva conventions these days.

perhaps you can explain that to a british SAS trooper who is being charged with Murder,over a shotting of a civilain Iraqi...the is also the US marine who is also charged with murder for shooting a wounded Iraqi insurgent....there are many more available on the US armed forces web sites also the british armed forces web site or any news paper most have carried lots of articles...

Sure, there are those who get caught (incidentally, the U.S. marirne who popped the Iraqi in the mosque was not charged). What I'm saying is that there are plenty that don't.

Dead is dead i know...but you are putting all the blame on the US soldiers ....who have no choice or say on any matters. but who are we going to blame right....

Well let me ask you this: who are the invaders?

Your right we should all go to our corners and mind our own business...let the Hilters,Stalins,Sadams,Kadafi's, and the many others reak havoc where ever they want....to slaughter whom ever they want for what ever reasons....to live our lives in fear not knowing if we are next....

Okay, Saddam was a beast, but absolutely no threat to anyone but his own people. He was contained. If anything, the west helped him (indirectly) stay in power as long as he did. They had the chance to take Saddam out in '91 when the Shiites rebelled at Bush 1's request. The west let Saddam massacre the rebel forces because they valued "stability" more than the lives of Iraqis.

The point I'm making is that these bad guys don't just pop up out of nowhere. More often than not, they are pawns in the geopolitical game sthe big powers play. If we want to keep these guys from committing crimes, we need to stop putting them in charge. I'd like to believe that the U.S. and others want to change tthe way they do business, but history doesn't give me much reason for optimism.

Soldiers go to war when politions fail to solve thier problem like adults...War is not the fault of those that do the fighting but thier leaders. Blame them....

I blam teh politicians first, make no mistake, especially the one's, like Bush and Cheney, who could have served their countries, but shirked their duties.

But ultimately, the reponsability lies with whoever pulls the trigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black dog:

Frankly the whole regin is a snakepit of thugs. Incidentally, many of those states you named are also buddy-buddy with the U.S. in the "war on terror ", which kinda supports what I'm saying about democracy and freedom.

So you would feel comfortable wearing a t-shirt with an american flag on it down town in pakistan......perhaps buddy, buddy would be to strong a word for that comparison...they co-operate because of favours exchanged....

There's a reason for this: why would anyone blow themselves up when they can acall in a airstrike or use long-range weapons to accomplish the same task.

Are you serious, what ever happened to planting the explosives IED for example...car bombs by remote...you telling me that they are not smart enough to engage thier enemy without strapping explosives on...

We're not talking about some inborn or learned predilication for suicide bombing but a disparity in resources.

Have you ever listened to any of these shaks surmons...it is a learned thing...they learn it in thier religous cermonies,at school,at home, from TV, from thier peers....

Sure, there are those who get caught (incidentally, the U.S. marirne who popped the Iraqi in the mosque was not charged). What I'm saying is that there are plenty that don't.

So you agree that there are those that have been charged....oh by the way you have to get caught to get charged... again you are saying that this is common practice to target civilians and yet to provide any proof..

Well let me ask you this: who are the invaders?

The US with good reason....

If anything, the west helped him (indirectly) stay in power as long as he did.

How did they do that...

They had the chance to take Saddam out in '91 when the Shiites rebelled at Bush 1's request. The west let Saddam massacre the rebel forces because they valued "stability" more than the lives of Iraqis.

That is not the reason why, the US and the coalition which include Egypt...agreed to eject Sadam from Kuwait that was it... the muslims in the coalition did not want US or any other foreign country in Iraq at the time. The rest of the world did not want the US to enter Iraq either which included most of europe....the US did not stop the massacre because the UN did not let them they were still debating the idea........

The point I'm making is that these bad guys don't just pop up out of nowhere. More often than not, they are pawns in the geopolitical game sthe big powers play. If we want to keep these guys from committing crimes, we need to stop putting them in charge. I'd like to believe that the U.S. and others want to change tthe way they do business, but history doesn't give me much reason for optimism.

Are you saying the US put sadam in charge...or for that matter Hilter, or stalin or what the leaders in Iran,jorden, any of those Stan countries.... No they did not ....i like to see a link on that....it might be a different story in central america....but you don't prop up a state that is openly hostile to your nation do you....

But ultimately, the reponsability lies with whoever pulls the trigger.

your right it does... some scared shitless pte is making those life and death decisions on the battle field and we are sitting here faulting him for it... while it is his efforts and blood that make the changes that are needed in this world....but don't worry we will forget about his deeds soon enough....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you would feel comfortable wearing a t-shirt with an american flag on it down town in pakistan......perhaps buddy, buddy would be to strong a word for that comparison...they co-operate because of favours exchanged....

Nosireee, I wouldn't. America is not popular in Pakistan. The peoplethere don't much like their government, which is propped up by the U.S.

Are you serious, what ever happened to planting the explosives IED for example...car bombs by remote...you telling me that they are not smart enough to engage thier enemy without strapping explosives on...

Some are, some aren't. It's still a tilted playing field. Even the "well-armed" insurgents are hopelessly out gunned. Naturally that will spawn some unorthodox practices.

Have you ever listened to any of these shaks surmons...it is a learned thing...they learn it in thier religous cermonies,at school,at home, from TV, from thier peers....

Again: you are generalizing about 1.5 billion people, the vast majority of whom are no different than you or I.

So you agree that there are those that have been charged....oh by the way you have to get caught to get charged... again you are saying that this is common practice to target civilians and yet to provide any proof..

On eman's account.

I was in charge of a platoon that consists of machine gunners and missile men. Our job was to go into certain areas of the towns and secure the roadways. There was this one particular incident -- and there's many more -- the one that really pushed me over the edge. It involved a car with Iraqi civilians. From all the intelligence reports we were getting, the cars were loaded down with suicide bombs or material. That's the rhetoric we received from intelligence. They came upon our checkpoint. We fired some warning shots. They didn't slow down. So, we lit them up.

Lit up? You mean you fired machine guns?

Right. Every car that we lit up we were expecting ammunition to go off. But we never heard any. Well, this particular vehicle we didn't destroy completely, and one gentleman looked up at me and said: "Why did you kill my brother? We didn't do anything wrong." That hit me like a ton of bricks.

Baghdad was being bombed. The civilians were trying to get out, right?

Yes. They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on them. It said, "Just throw up your hands, lay down weapons." That's what they were doing, but we were still lighting them up. They weren't in uniform. We never found any weapons.

You got to see the bodies and casualties?

Yeah, firsthand. I helped throw them in a ditch.

The US with good reason....

Which reason would that be? The non-existent WMD? The non-existent ties to Al Qaeda?

How did they do that...

Well, in Saddam's case, they helped him seize power.

Later, the US and Britain backed Saddam in the war against Iran, giving Iraq arms, money, satellite intelligence, and even chemical & bio-weapon precursors. As many as 90 US military advisors supported Iraqi forces and helped pick targets for Iraqi air and missile attacks.

Following Gulf War 1 (and the aforementioned Shite revolt, which he was allowed to crush under the West's nose), Saddam used a web of front companies and shadowy deals with foreign governments, corporations, and officials to amass $11 billion in illicit revenue in the decade before the US-led invasion. Through secret government-to-government trade agreements, Saddam Hussein's government earned more than $7.5 billion while also recieving $2 billion in kickbacks from foreign companies (including the Dick Cheney-helmed Halliburton, which was one of several American and foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000 by skirting U.S. laws and selling Iraq spare parts so it could repair its oil fields and pump more oil) that received oil or that supplied consumer goods.

That is not the reason why, the US and the coalition which include Egypt...agreed to eject Sadam from Kuwait that was it... the muslims in the coalition did not want US or any other foreign country in Iraq at the time. The rest of the world did not want the US to enter Iraq either which included most of europe....the US did not stop the massacre because the UN did not let them they were still debating the idea........

They were in Iraq. They controlle dteh airspace, yet allowwed Saddam to deploy helicopters which used chemical weapons against the rebellious areas.

In February 1991, still battling Saddam, President Bush twice called for Iraqis to rise up. "There's another way for the bloodshed to stop," he declared, "and that is for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and to force Saddam Hussein to step aside." The president's message was repeatedly broadcast across Iraq by clandestine CIA-backed stations and by millions of leaflets dropped by U.S. airplanes over southern Iraq. Meanwhile, the Kurds in the north were also rising up. Many in the military joined in the revolt.

But when it looked as if the revolt might actually succeed, Bush abruptly turned his back. He and his coalition partners wanted a neat military coup to replace Saddam, not an uncontrolled revolt that could lead to chaos and the collapse of Iraq as a state, extending the influence of Iran. In an Iraqi vacuum, Bush and his national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, wrote in "A World Transformed" in 1998, the United States "could conceivably" be drawn into becoming "an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." They wanted a regime change, nothing more: a malleable general to take the place of the mercurial Saddam.

The idea had been that a popular uprising would be another way of weakening Saddam's grip on power and allowing the Iraqi military to take over. Commenting on the U.S. tactic in an interview for the documentary, Thomas Pickering, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said, "All of the efforts to debilitate Saddam and to create problems for him in order to remove him from Kuwait were justified." I asked: "Even though the U.S. couldn't follow up afterwards to help the people who rose up?" He replied: "In war and love, all's fair."

So the United States stood by while Saddam's tanks and helicopters put down the Shiite revolt and then headed north to deal with the Kurds. When the peace treaty was signed at the end of Desert Storm, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf gave Saddam's generals permission to keep flying their helicopters. When they turned them against the Shiite and Kurdish uprisings with devastating effect, the Bush administration asserted that, unfortunately, its hands were tied by the peace agreement -- and made it very clear that the United States didn't want to become involved militarily in any way. On April 3, 1991, President Bush said: "I do not want to push American forces beyond our mandate. Of course I feel a frustration and a sense of grief for the innocents that are being killed brutally, but we are not there to intervene."

That was the case until CNN broadcast worldwide pictures of Kurdish refugees fleeing Saddam's vengeance in the north. Bush, on a golfing vacation, was obliged to react. He declared a no-fly zone in the north and ordered Saddam to cease his attacks. Saddam very quickly backed down. In the south, however, there was no such TV coverage and no U.S. reaction. The slaughter of the Shiites continued. A complete no-fly zone was established there only many months later.

The United States was not just a neutral bystander to the Shiite uprising. In Iraq this year, several survivors of the Shiite revolt told my colleague Despratx that U.S. troops blocked their attempts to march on Baghdad. Others asserted that American forces destroyed huge stocks of captured Iraqi arms rather than turn them over to the rebels. Former Special Forces officer Gonzalez confirmed that his unit repeatedly blew up caches of captured weapons that the insurgents were trying to obtain.

A history of complicity.

Are you saying the US put sadam in charge...or for that matter Hilter, or stalin or what the leaders in Iran,jorden, any of those Stan countries.... No they did not ....i like to see a link on that....it might be a different story in central america....but you don't prop up a state that is openly hostile to your nation do you....

Saddam wasn't always hostile, was he?

your right it does... some scared shitless pte is making those life and death decisions on the battle field and we are sitting here faulting him for it... while it is his efforts and blood that make the changes that are needed in this world....but don't worry we will forget about his deeds soon enough....

Think about it this way: you might forget the innocents who (accidently or otherwise) pay with their lives. But how does that look to the people you're supposed to be liberating? They won't forget, and they won't forgive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, Saddam was a beast, but absolutely no threat to anyone but his own people.

You have to be a troll. No one could possibly be so misinformed.

But what does one expect from someone who gets their info from radical sites like alternet.org?

So what if Saddam had WMD, ties to Al Qaeda, openly bragged about supporting international terrorism, broke a ceasefire, ignored 17 Chapter VII UN resolutions, constantly shot at coalition aircraft, and tried to assassinate a US president?

He was a threat to no one! :rolleyes::D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To liberals, "compassion" means giving less productive people the fruits of the efforts of more productive people. But real compassion means enabling less productive people to become more productive themselves. That way, the poor have not only more material things but also more self-respect, as well as more respect from others, and the society as a whole has a higher standard of living and less internal strife. -- Thomas Sowell"

Interesting, Montgomery. Have you actually read what Sowell wrote. Yes? Well, read it again. "...real compassion means enabling less productive people to become more productive themselves..."

Now, bone up on how well American administrations have been doing in this area and report back with your findings. I'll give you a clue. Start with education--the backbone of any society worth its salt. Introduce yourself to what goes on in American inner cities and identify what programs have helped to lift the born disenfranchised out of poverty and into a more productive life. Then as you gather momentum check to see where the majority of American taxpayers' money goes. Who are the major beneficiaries of these tax dollars? Don't forget to check out Uncle Sam's prison system and see how much money is being spent to rehabilitate inmates so that when they return to society they can make a solid contribution to society.

You've got a lot of catching up to do so the sooner you get at it the sooner we'll be able to have some kind of a meaningful dialogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to be a troll. No one could possibly be so misinformed.

But what does one expect from someone who gets their info from radical sites like alternet.org?

So what if Saddam had WMD, ties to Al Qaeda, openly bragged about supporting international terrorism, broke a ceasefire, ignored 17 Chapter VII UN resolutions, constantly shot at coalition aircraft, and tried to assassinate a US president?

He was a threat to no one!

You have to either be an idiot or be totally obtuse. Saddam didn't have WMD. Nor did he have ties to Al Qaeda. His military was decrepit. He was weak, he was contained, ergo, he was no threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to be a troll. No one could possibly be so misinformed.

But what does one expect from someone who gets their info from radical sites like alternet.org?

So what if Saddam had WMD, ties to Al Qaeda, openly bragged about supporting international terrorism, broke a ceasefire, ignored 17 Chapter VII UN resolutions, constantly shot at coalition aircraft, and tried to assassinate a US president?

He was a threat to no one!

You have to either be an idiot or be totally obtuse. Saddam didn't have WMD. Nor did he have ties to Al Qaeda. His military was decrepit. He was weak, he was contained, ergo, he was no threat.

Of course he had them, but the question is, where are they now. These reports have been popping up for a long time now. The russians have been in it up to their dirty rotton necks and saddams butchers have been running to syria to hide out from the beginning. Not to mention that syria has been used a door way for terrorists to enter iraq and has been supporting their efforts there. It's time to take out syria.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../2/230625.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he had them, but the question is, where are they now. These reports have been popping up for a long time now. The russians have been in it up to their dirty rotton necks and saddams butchers have been running to syria to hide out from the beginning. Not to mention that syria has been used a door way for terrorists to enter iraq and has been supporting their efforts there. It's time to take out syria.

That would back up David Kay's claim also:

Iraqi Chemical Weapons

In a briefing for journalists reported on October 29, 2003, the director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency said satellite images showed a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria just before the American invasion in March 2003. Retired Air Force Lieutenant General James Clapper Jr. said he believed "unquestionably" that illicit weapons material was transported into Syria and perhaps other countries. He said "I think people below the Saddam- Hussein-and-his-sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse. ... I think probably in the few months running up to the onset of the conflict, I think there was probably an intensive effort to disperse into private hands, to bury it, and to move it outside the country's borders."

In an exclusive interview with The Sunday Telegraph published on January 25, 2004, Dr. David Kay, the former head of the Iraq Survey Group, said there was evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before the start of the war to overthrow Saddam. "We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he had them, but the question is, where are they now.

If his possession of WMD is such common knowledge why have they found no evidence of any programs? The U.S's own Iraq Survey group reported that Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and did not have any programs to produce them? Are they lying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he had them, but the question is, where are they now.

If his possession of WMD is such common knowledge why have they found no evidence of any programs? The U.S's own Iraq Survey group reported that Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and did not have any programs to produce them? Are they lying?

You've got to stop letting facts and evidence (or lack thereof) getting in your way.

Bush was right, OK? That's all you gotta remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he had them, but the question is, where are they now.

If his possession of WMD is such common knowledge why have they found no evidence of any programs? The U.S's own Iraq Survey group reported that Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and did not have any programs to produce them? Are they lying?

No they never found any pointy things, but the lead investigator was on larry king one night saying they found plenty they weren't suppose to have. Factories for producing chemical weapons and the ingredients for making them. They flew tons of yellow cake or whatever it is, back to the US last year that was for restarting saddams nuke program. A program which was to be paid for from the money he was skimming off the oil for food scam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they never found any pointy things, but the lead investigator was on larry king one night saying they found plenty they weren't suppose to have. Factories for producing chemical weapons and the ingredients for making them. They flew tons of yellow cake or whatever it is, back to the US last year that was for restarting saddams nuke program. A program which was to be paid for from the money he was skimming off the oil for food scam.

Is that the yellowcake he bought from Niger? :lol:

Anyway, the IAEA WAS in Iraq from 1991

to 1998, and from November 2002 to March

2003. These and other, subsequent investigations found no evidence of any active Iraqi nuclear, chemical or bioweapons programs. So I'm curious as to where you're getting your information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black dog:

If his possession of WMD is such common knowledge why have they found no evidence of any programs? The U.S's own Iraq Survey group reported that Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and did not have any programs to produce them? Are they lying?

Could it have been possiable for Sadam and his merry crew to bury thier wpns?

And could it have been possiable to move them into another country ?

If the answer is yes, then there is a possiability that Sadam did gave WMD...Until the Iraq is dug up or new tech presents it self that would enable the US to find these WMD then there is always going to be that question of uncertainity....

By giving-up throwing up our hands and saying we did'nt find any WMD that the US lied to us about everything...We should return Sadam to power appoligize to the Iraqi people...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could it have been possiable for Sadam and his merry crew to bury thier wpns?

And could it have been possiable to move them into another country

Weapons programs would have left some trace. Documents, physical evidence etc. The UN, the U.S. the International Atomic Energy Agency have scoured the country from top to bottom and have come up with zilch.

What I'm wondering about is what evidence was there that he had WMD at the time of the war? We hd the "mobile bioweapons labs" which were never found, the aluminum tubes, which were another dead end, the Niger yellowcake, which was a hoax and so on.

If the answer is yes, then there is a possiability that Sadam did gave WMD...Until the Iraq is dug up or new tech presents it self that would enable the US to find these WMD then there is always going to be that question of uncertainity....

All evidence points to the conclusion that Iraq did not have any nuclear, chemical or biological weapons stocks, the facilities to produce them or the means to develop them. Yes, there was intent to do so at some undetermined point in the future, but this war was not prosecuted on those grounds.

I recomend this comprehensive overview: Iraq WMD: evidence and implicatons

Bear in mind too, that while the above pre-dates the Iraq Surevey Group's final report, the latter validates the former's findings.

By giving-up throwing up our hands and saying we did'nt find any WMD that the US lied to us about everything...We should return Sadam to power appoligize to the Iraqi people...

An apology? How about an investigation? Where did the U.S. get its intel? How did the U.S. intelligence apparatus get conned into thinking Iraq had WMD stockpiles? How did a small element within the government (the Office of Special Plans) become the sole clearinghouse for Iraq inteligence, and what were their interests? (If you want to read up on the OSP, try here, here, and here.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black dog:

Weapons programs would have left some trace. Documents, physical evidence etc. The UN, the U.S. the International Atomic Energy Agency have scoured the country from top to bottom and have come up with zilch.

And because the Iraqi people are not smart enough we should take the word of the above agencies that there was none....Look i believe that Sadam does have some WMD tuck away is some corner..can i prove it no ...can you prove me wrong no...we both have read the evidence (thank you for the sites by the way) ....and i'm still not convinced that a Man like Sadam would give away a powerful trump card like WMD...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And because the Iraqi people are not smart enough we should take the word of the above agencies that there was none...

That's kind of a non sequiter. It was the job of those organizations to dig deep and find weapons. In the case of the U.S.'s Iraq Survey Group, they had a case to prove. they found nothing.

Look i believe that Sadam does have some WMD tuck away is some corner..can i prove it no ...can you prove me wrong no...we both have read the evidence (thank you for the sites by the way) ....and i'm still not convinced that a Man like Sadam would give away a powerful trump card like WMD...

Thing is, we know he had WMD back in 1991. The question is, did his capabilities survive more than a decade of war, sanctions, bombings, inspections and scrutiny? the evidence says no. So its not a matte rof giving them away, but a matter of not having had them at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they never found any pointy things, but the lead investigator was on larry king one night saying they found plenty they weren't suppose to have. Factories for producing chemical weapons and the ingredients for making them. They flew tons of yellow cake or whatever it is, back to the US last year that was for restarting saddams nuke program. A program which was to be paid for from the money he was skimming off the oil for food scam.

Is that the yellowcake he bought from Niger? :lol:

Anyway, the IAEA WAS in Iraq from 1991

to 1998, and from November 2002 to March

2003. These and other, subsequent investigations found no evidence of any active Iraqi nuclear, chemical or bioweapons programs. So I'm curious as to where you're getting your information.

I don't no where they got it, but if you get your information from the main stream media they barely will mention any of it if at all. They're to busy making things up like dan rather or trying to figure out what they want you to hear. I read a story the other day where someone was likening them to a bunch of fith columists. Can't say i disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black dog:

Thing is, we know he had WMD back in 1991. The question is, did his capabilities survive more than a decade of war, sanctions, bombings, inspections and scrutiny? the evidence says no. So its not a matte rof giving them away, but a matter of not having had them at all.

So why did he risk going to war over not allowing inspectors into all areas of Iraq....if he had nothing to hide, was it Pride or stupidity,...Why starve his people if he knew he had nothing to hide....why not allow them access to everything then be done with it after they left begin all over again....be allow to sell your oil and reak the profits...with the US troops gone home ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Army guy; wake up; even the USA concedes that there were no viable weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Saddam DID allow the inspectors in. Iraq was still cooperating with the weapons inspectors. Iraq had no ties to the terrorists that attacked the WTC. On the other hand; Pakistan (The USA's ally) does have nuclear weapons; Pakistan's scientists sold nuclear technologies and parts to "rogue" nations (pardoned and allowed to keep their ill gotten gains) Pakistan did/does harbour many terrorist groups.

Note; Iraq was an invasion; no war was declared!!!!

The USA invasion of Iraq has only succeeded in bringing terroristic groups into Iraq.

Why was the USA able to turn over government power to the people in Afghanistan almost immediately despite the fact that the country is a hotbed of terrorist groups? Why did it take so long to do the same in Iraq. Wouldn't be because fghanistan had no viable resources to secure while Iraq has all the OIL????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't no where they got it, but if you get your information from the main stream media they barely will mention any of it if at all. They're to busy making things up like dan rather or trying to figure out what they want you to hear. I read a story the other day where someone was likening them to a bunch of fith columists. Can't say i disagree.

That's right: the sam emedia that brethlessly echoed every pre-war WMD allegation the administration made is now covering up evidence. In fact, this conspiracy even touches those charged with hunting for weapons in Iraq. It would surprise me if this bid to keep the overwhelming evidence of Iraq's WMD's (I hear they were also working on experimental giant robots and flying monkey suicide bombers) reaches all the way to the POTUS. :rolleyes:

So why did he risk going to war over not allowing inspectors into all areas of Iraq....if he had nothing to hide, was it Pride or stupidity,...Why starve his people if he knew he had nothing to hide....why not allow them access to everything then be done with it after they left begin all over again....be allow to sell your oil and reak the profits...with the US troops gone home ....

You got it: pride and stupidity. The Duelfer report includes a comprehensive analyisis of Saddam's regime and his intentions re: WMD. Among the findings were:

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion,

irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic

missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

• Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi offi cials considered Iran to be Iraq’s

principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and infl uence in the Arab world

were also considerations, but secondary.

• Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the

value of WMD. In Saddam’s view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during

the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks

on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred

Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role

in crushing the Shi’a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fi re.

• The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither

was there an identifi able group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants

understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent,

but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

It's a interesting look at the regime and its WMD aspirations, but its inescapable conclusion is that Sadam did not possess WMD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caesar:

You cease to amass me, getting-up from your lazy boy chair to slam me must be one of todays highlights. you seem to be pretty good at making false statements, but fail to respond when your asked to produce the truth.I'm refering to our last post.

even the USA concedes that there were no viable weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

It's funny because everything i've read said that there was none found period...not that there were none in Iraq or none existed ..

Saddam DID allow the inspectors in.

Yes, on again off again, only certain sites ...after threats of military action...

Iraq was still cooperating with the weapons inspectors.

How so by expelling some of them ...or was it when they lives were threatened....or when then said you can search this site but not this one....

Iraq had no ties to the terrorists that attacked the WTC.

Give me a break, today there is plenty of AL Qaida in Iraq....that new Shak that is leading the unrest south of Bagdad is reported to have connections with Al Qaida...

On the other hand; Pakistan (The USA's ally)

Pakistan is allied to the US only because of what the US pays it....that is not an allied its a resource...

Why was the USA able to turn over government power to the people in Afghanistan almost immediately despite the fact that the country is a hotbed of terrorist groups?

Again thanks for keeping -up with current events ...the Afgan goverment just took over power of it's countrymen...and the country is still full of terrorists ones that are very good at hiding....of course 25 years of combat will do that....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...