Saddam Captured

[Mr Farrius]

Good points guys. But Fairyus will be unmoved. He hates freedom, hates the West and wants Terrorism to win. I suggest he go join Dean and the Hate America party down south.

Hussein was found in a very small hole by chance. That small hole would hide about 1 tonne of WMD.

Imagine burying WMD. I have seen pictures of 7 tonnes of WMD being destroyed in 1997 by the UNO. The Hole would have fit in a back yard and it was deep [they were blowing up the chemicals] but to hide 100 tonnes would require 10-15 large holes.

In sparse territory this is easy to hide. Without inside help from regime members it will be a VERY LONG time before WMD is found.

But keep blabbing Libs, apparently you have been wrong on every single issue so far in this war.

Like I've said before, we'll wait and see before the WMDs are found. Until then, only you right wingers are wrong. In fact, it was you right-wingers that kept preaching the existence of WMDs in Iraq. It was the liberals who kept asking where they were, which is certainly a legitimate question to ask, is it not? If there are no WMDs found (for a while now) then I shall proceed to laugh in your faces!

Presently, I shall continue to realize that you people are making excuses and validating what is not found. I didn't hear any of you reasoning the difficulty of actually finding WMDs just when the war started. What's going on now? Saddam being caught was to be expected. If he wasn't, that would be been utterly pitiful, considering the number of troops stationed in Iraq. The real challenge as you people seem to finally realize, is finding the WMDs, one of the main reasons Bush pulled us all to war.

[KrustyKidd]

Like I've said before, we'll wait and see before the WMDs are found. Until then, only you right wingers are wrong. In fact, it was you right-wingers that kept preaching the existence of WMDs in Iraq. It was the liberals who kept asking where they were, which is certainly a legitimate question to ask, is it not? If there are no WMDs found (for a while now) then I shall proceed to laugh in your faces!

Farris, even your hero Michal Moore says they are there;

We liked Saddam because he was willing to fight the Ayatollah. So we made sure that he got billions of dollars to purchase weapons. Weapons of mass destruction. That's right, he had them. We should know -- we gave them to him!

He even breaks it down, like he knows. Unless you are going to tell us that he doesn't know a thing and is only a raving tub of sour cream in a drool stained t shirt.

We allowed and encouraged American corporations to do business with Saddam in the 1980s. That's how he got chemical and biological agents so he could use them in chemical and biological weapons. Here's the list of some of the stuff we sent him (according to a 1994 U.S. Senate report):

* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.

* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.

* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.

BTW, it's easy to see how the braindead get their philosophy from, this guy spews some pretty entertaining anti Bush, wait, was that US or anti war? I mean he spews some anti republican tripe or what exactly is he trying to say? He hates everything American? There is not one good thing in America or that he is just enteretaining like his Fat Buffoon opposite Limbaugh?

I saw that Bowling for Columbine and I would have loved to be that K Mart lady or whatever when he brought those bullets back for a refund. I would have told him "first, we don't take back merchandise without a reciept, second for a refund it must be in it's origional packaging and for an exchange it must be unused." You have to stand your ground against shock idiots like these.

MOORE'S AN IDIOT

Are the WMD there or not? He says they are.

Actually Farcus, I thought that WMD would be discovered too. I am not as certain that they will be found as otherS are but really I don't care one way or the other. Saddam was believed to have them. By every leader on the planet. Koffe Anon, Jaques Chirac, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and more. The fact that they have not been found is meaningless. The threat of Iraq under Saddam has been destroyed. Period. No more invading Kuwait, Saudi, Iran. No more trying to gain an edge through building WMDs like he was. All gone now. In it's place is what will be a stable Iraq, a beacon for democracy and justice in the heart of the Middle East.

It's pretty hard for Iraq's nieghbors to have a thrieving democracy right next dorr to their starving dictatorship. See how long it lasts with Syria and the rest before they start making democratic reforms.

Of course you will still be asking where the WMDs are. Did Saddam fake us out? Even the inspectors thought they were there so why would you think Bush (whom you consider of sub human intelligence) would not think the same?

As for the freeing of Iraq, what the heck is your problem with this?

[Mr Farrius]

I have no problem with the liberation of Iraq. Seeing as many of its citizens are rejoicing at the deposement of their former tyrant, the war was justified in that sense. Overall, I do agree, the war was for the good. Nevertheless, it is never wrong to question and reflect back on the events leading up to the war.

[KrustyKidd]

I have no problem with the liberation of Iraq. Seeing as many of its citizens are rejoicing at the deposement of their former tyrant, the war was justified in that sense. Overall, I do agree, the war was for the good.

I don't have a problem either.

Nevertheless, it is never wrong to question and reflect back on the events leading up to the war.

OK, now that you see that it was all worth it and how mistaken so many were about how we should not go in, does it become clear now that every justification had to come to bear to ensure we did this?

Does it not become clear that most of the 'questioning' you speak of was not simply questioning but rather 'attacking' the principles, the integrity and honor of the President and every soldier who went to free Iraq. This wasn't curiousity and trying to steer the country's path, it was all out and out vicious attacks on the President, the USA and an attempt to change the course of history to their point of view by distorting facts, slinging inuendo and rumors in the face of truth, everytime.

Like where is the WMDs dude?

Answer, probably in the two thirds of the country that has not been inspected man. Remember, Saddam has scuds. A canister of chemical in a nose cone = WMD. Are these people so sure there is not a canister of chemical agent in Iraq and a warhead of some kind? I think not, but scince they risked squat, unlike Bush who laid his reputation and carreer along with all the others of the administration they just fire this crap. That's all it ever was, crap. Like a rabid lap dog they yapped. I remember who they were.

[Mr Farrius]

Well first of all, you cannot deny that one of the main reasons America went to war was that Saddam posed an immediate threat to the security of the United States. Without WMDs, Saddam poses no threat at all. But Iraq isn't the only country in the world that has WMDs and hates the U.S. What about say for instance, Libya, which gets WMDs from North Korea all the time and hates the U.S. with a passion? That's not a threat?

[righturnonred]

No one is denying the right of the left to disagree with the policies of the Bush Administation. It's the motive and method that is reprehensible.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to recognize that the Democrats are motivated purely by political considerations. You can bet that if it were Bill Clinton executing a campaign to depose Hussein, free the Iraqi people, build democracy in the middle east, and protect America from Islamo-facist terrorism, that the left would be absolutely gung ho on board with this.

Instead we have Dem congressmen like Ted Kennedy who claims that Bush and company concocted the war in Texas. Don't forget ex-congresswoman Cynthia McKenney who lost reelection for actually proposing publically that Bush knew about 9-11 before it happened and did nothing to prevent the murder of nearly 3,000 Americans. Now we have the front runner for the Dem nomination, Dean, indicating that he thinks the Bush/9-11 conspiracy is "the most interesting possiblity" he's heard! COME ON, these people are absolutely out of there minds. They're fanatical,... and dangerous.

These people are willing to sacrifice the national security of the United States for political gain and it's wrong. Don't buy into their sh*t. They'd lie to you about the color of the sky if they thought it would get them elected.

[KrustyKidd]

  But Iraq isn't the only country in the world that has WMDs and hates the U.S. What about say for instance, Libya, which gets WMDs from North Korea all the time and hates the U.S. with a passion? That's not a threat?

Gaddaffi and Lybia did not have the right combination to make it a candidate for democracy seeding. That is what this is about, not WMDs, not terrorist associations. His geographical location, the fact that Iraq had enough oil to facilitate a quick and sucessful transition into democracy, the fact Saddam had invaded other countries and was a threat to same who would not miss him, the people would be happy to see him go and would co-operate with the occupying power. US security from Iraq itself was pretty low on the priority scale.

If Saddam had turned over all his WMD material the US would have faced a fork in the road. Invent another reason to take him out or move to Syria. BTW, did you notice the sudden shift from WMD to 'Regieme Change?' Lybia is not in the heart of anything and once occupied did not provide a springboard for further seeding as required so probably would not be taken over.

[righturnonred]

Good points Krusty. The left is consumed with the legal justifications for this war in similar fashion to how a criminal defense lawyer attempts to exonerate an obviously guilty party. It's sickening.

The Left have no grasp of what this battle in the war on terror is all about. Dominated by their blind hatred for King Bushy, they'll find every opportunity to do the wrong think during the defining moment.

You can beat your head against a brick wall, or better yet beat their heads against a brick wall, but it's doubtful it would do any good. The poisoning of minds on the left has reached the stage of necrosis and is probably irreversible. For them, a perverted world view and a corrupt sense of moral relativism is the name of the game.

Browse through this site called Deviant Art to observe the psychosis of the left in a particularly disturbing form.

Deviant Art

As you can see, crude effigies, comparisons to Nazism, and depictions of a godlike UN abound. It's difficult to fathom that this is how the left actually perceives the world. Radical liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

[Mr Farrius]

That's funny. I always believed that radical conservatism was the disorder. But then again, I'm the one that's deluded right? The fact that hard-core right wingers shift from one phase to another as the leaders of this country change from liberal to conservative only shows hypocrisy and ignorance. For instance, this statement:

You can bet that if it were Bill Clinton executing a campaign to depose Hussein, free the Iraqi people, build democracy in the middle east, and protect America from Islamo-facist terrorism, that the left would be absolutely gung ho on board with this.

You can also bet that if there's a Republican president, the right-wing would also "be absolutely gung ho on board with this." You can also bet that the very allegations you right-wingers accuse us of (hating America, anti-freedom/anti-war) will be flipped in your faces if there was a Democratic president in office right now. Stop treating liberals like criminals.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to recognize that the Democrats are motivated purely by political considerations.

Anyone with half a brain cell would realize that so are Republicans. It's called politics people.

[righturnonred]

I always believed that radical conservatism was the disorder.

You're probably right. But I suspect your problem here is your definition of a "radical conservative". So, according to you, what is a radical conservative anyways and how big of a threat do you think they pose to America?

According to this conservative, I don't think you'll find any radical right-wingers on this forum for example.

The problem with those on the left is that they believe they're centrist *cough*, when in fact they're far from it. Ofcourse this has the intended consequence of attempting to maginalize typical stunch conservatives such as myself, Craig, Krusty, Hugo, and others. Generally speaking, many liberals are simply in denial about their own radicalized nature. The media is a perfect example of liberals in denial. I've stated several examples of people who fit in this category in previous posts, some of them elected officals.

I'm not denying that radicals exist on the right. But the critical difference is that the leadership on the left are among the radicals themselves. You may consider Bush to a radical for example, which is silly ofcourse. The reason lefties claim such absurdities is because they themselves are radicalized and hence possess a perverted view of the world around them.

Look, when people on the left start throwing out ridiculas conspiracy theories, and talking about socialist revolutions and such bullsh*t, they look like fools, pure an simple, OK? People who adopt a "blame America first" mentality are embracing radical ideology.

I know this will go in one ear and out the other as my single post on this forum in incapable of reversing years of liberal indoctrination, but you'd do yourself a favor in life to brake the bonds of the liberal victim mentality.

It's a long road ahead but I wish you good luck.