Official Report: No WMD in Iraq.

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by SLP CamaroSS, Oct 6, 2004.

  1. Do you realize that Saddam knew we were going to invade, and had 8 months to get rid of the weapons? Do you realize that David Kay (or whatever his name is) said that his weapons programs were probably moved to Syria?

    No shit they weren't there when we attacked. I'm not claiming what saddam would have done after the inspectors left, but more that it would be stupid to think that saddam heard we were going to attack and decided NOT to try to get rid of his weapons. If he had them, did you expect them to still be there?
     
  2. yeah thats right. Is that so bad?
     
  3. the creation of chemical, biological, and neuclear weapons (and keep in mind the aluminum tubes oo ooo o o oo o o o o o o o #$%#) leaves evidence, none of which can be found.
     
  4. #$%#n a. So we slaughtered a few thousand Iraqi civillians. So we lost 1100 good ole' American boys. Who cares, right?


    Bush mass murdered people off a stupid hunch. And in the process, Haliburton and Bush just got fatter pockets.
     
  5. WMDs were the only reason we went to Iraq? News to me.

    Saddam killed thousands upon thousands of Kurds, that's a fact, there's nothing to refute that. I'm not saying that WMDs was not the main reason, because it was, but that doesn't mean it was the only reason. Personaly, I think using WMDs in the past to kill kurds is worse than having some now and not using them. So to ammend your analogy:

    The guy on death row is responsible for killing some people with some guns (fact). We say we are going to come to his house to see if he still has the guns, 8 months later we go in and he doesn't have them (gee, he didn't know we were coming, did he?), so that means going to his house was a mistake and putting him to death was not justified.
     
  6. The Iraqi civilians were accidental deaths. I love your use of the word "slaughtered." Saddam killed more than ten times more civilians than we did, but he did it on purpose. Shame on us for taking this bastard out of power.

    Soldiers die in war? Hmmmmmm, that never happened before.

    If by "a hunch" you mean at least three countries had intelligence saying he had WMDs, then yes, it was a hunch. WMDs was not not the only reason we went to war either, there are reasons that you cannot refute. Again, mass murder is not the term to use to describe accidental civilian casualties.
     
  7. So you intend to vote Kerry, who said word for word "I fully agree with this administrations goal of a regime change in Iraq"?

    Way to think things out, slick.
     
  8. The definition of a slaughter, as defined in Webster's Dictionary is: killing of great numbers of human beings (as in battle or a massacre).

    I do believe we were in battle. My definition and grammatical use if the word slaughter is correct. And I suppose "accidental" civilian casualities are okay with you, right?

    Why then, did Hans Blix oppose this war? He, after all, is the man to make decisions to disarm a country through UN approval.

    Someday, maybe, someone you care about might die by the hand of someone else. I'm sure your feelings of an accident would then change.
     
  9. Killing is not accidental. It does not say the deaths of great numbers, it says killing. Wrong again.

    It's not okay, but it's part of war. And the number of accidental Iraqi deaths is still much less than Saddam killed on purpose, what do you have to say about this?

    Pick right now: 100,000 purposeful killings or 10,000 accidental deaths? Somehow you still think the 100,000 was the way to go, so obviously you don't give a shit about the deaths of innocents. Shut up.

    UN approval? You act like the UN is some awesome association. The UN is too scared to do anything, that's why they oppose any action. They would make more resolutions even after Saddam has broken all of the ones they already made, rather than enforce anything. If this is what you would do, then go ahead to support the UN.

    I have family members and friends in Iraq, and my girlfriend's best friend is there also. They all support Bush despite the fact that some of their friends have been killed in the Iraq war. My mom knows a family of kurds that lived in Iraq that now lives in the US. Some of their family is still in Iraq and they have suffered a few casualties, yet they are all voting for Bush and support the war. Lastly, our soldiers do not ask for our protection, it is their job to protect us. They just ask for our support.
     
  10. regarding your last sentence, I lost not one, not two, but three of my family members in a shooting murder over a divorce dispute. Did they not die at the hands of my uncle? they werent even AT war! they were at my grandparents home and my grandparents were trying to shield my aunt from my uncle, knowing he could do somethingl ike that. Dont tell me about loss.

     
  11. But unlike you, 19 GODFATHER 86 is capable of making valid, intelligent arguments. I've changed my position on the war. People who are fair and open-minded tend to do that sometimes.

    You, on the other hand, are full of nothing but senseless babble. You forfeited your right to be respected and heard the day you said NO war is justified, to include the war against Nazi Germany.
     
  12. I'm sorry to hear of your loss, but you come across very bitter. Exactly my point.
     
  13. You said, "It does not say the deaths of great numbers." WTF do you mean???
     
  14. Although I no longer support the actions we took in Iraq, I have to agree with you about "UN approval."

    Russia and China both have veto powers as perminent members of the UN security counsel. NATO conviniently circumvented UN approval before bombing the Serbs into the stone age... since it never would have passed. Nobody #%!@ed about it then. Not even France who also participated in the action.

    My problem with the war is the enormous cost vs bennefit. Our military personnel are constantly on deployment when they could be at home with their families. The cost of human life, not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars is not worth it. I do not believe we are any safer today than before Iraq.

    We went after the Taliban in Afghanistan because 3000 Americans died. We went into Iraq because of WMD that never existed, and 1100 (and rising) Americans have died. Many times that number have been maimed.
     
  15. I don't mean to get off topic, but can you post another pic of your mom? She's gorgeous <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/emoticons/tongue.gif"></A>
     
  16. At least he changed his opinion and supported with some really good arguments.
     
  17. in this report, saddam is described as a diminishing threat when the invasion occured. as recently as week, bush has called saddam a growing threat.
     
  18. She came out for a visit a few weeks ago. Me and my buddies took her out "clubbing." I couldn't believe having to fight the men off of my 47 year old mother.
     
  19. Is not that easy like "I've changed my position", soldier.

    Is because of stupid and bad informed people like you that a guy like Bush could invade Iraq based on lies. I've told you from the first day of the invasion that there were no WMDs in Iraq at that moment.

    How could I knew it? I'm a magician? No, I've just know how to read the news and the sources to trust. The WMDs case proved how brainwashed can be some US citizens like you.

    PS: About the wars, I've told you what's the best and easiest solution: "magnicide", that's why Count Claus Philip Maria Schenk von Stauffenberg was the true WWII hero.
     
  20. Bingo!

    WMD were one of a large number of reasons we went to war with iraq. Unfortuantely teh media got ahold of that reason and ran with it, as it made for sexy headlines. And unfortunatly, teh administration didnt' bother to correct them, as it helped people back teh war effort. But the fact is, the intelligence on WMDs (which the whole WORLD knew he had, INCLUDING Kerry) was conclusive beforehand, so it was a valid additional reason.

    But consider this (please read it, as it's long):

    We were only in a cease fire with Saddam. A cease fire which he violated numerous times. Just the fac tthat he was constantly shooting at our planes in teh no-fly zone was a valid reason to re-open teh Gulf war and finish teh job that had been started after Saddam invaded kuwait.

    Read that again: Saddam invaded Kuwait. We were already at war. We were at a cease fire. The UN made resolution after resolution against Saddam. He ignored ALL of them, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. THAT was enough to re-open the war with Saddam.

    In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more, Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition’s presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)


    But finally, even though there was no DIRECT evidence of Iraq and Al Qaeda *working in tandem* on any attack against the US, Al Qaeda was listed as an intelligence asset by the Iraqis. Saddam was offering to pay for the deaths of any Americans anywhere in the world. people working for him mixed the chemicals for the bombing of the World Trade Center, trined Alqaeda operatives, and more.

    Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000. Satellite photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en masse to a compound in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated openly in Baghdad and received medical attention at a regime-supported hospital in 2002. Documents discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal that Saddam's regime harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack...

    Yes, we have lost 1100 soldiers in Iraq. Soldiers who knew the risks. Same cannot be said for teh 300+ people that dies in teh WTC attacks, teh people that dies on the Cole, or in the original WTC bombings, or at the hand of Saddam while captive, or the hundreds of thousands of gassed Iraqi citizens.

    Please, before you argue about whether there are or are not WMDs NOW, realize that history with Saddam goes back before we went back to war with him in 2003.
     
  21. Very good, Chris V.
    Blame the media for the lies of your president.
     
  22. Nice cars, SC.net? <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/emoticons/PnutSpecial.gif"></A>
     
  23. Haha, thats awesome. So where's that pic? <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/emoticons/tongue.gif"></A>
     
  24. Innotech won 't see/admit the trutch even if it pisses on his feet.
     
  25. Innotech won 't see/admit the trutch even if it pisses on his feet. And, of course, he's getting as brainwashed as there can be.
     

Share This Page