griff38 Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 As far back as his January state of the union adrress, president Bush stated as a fact, Sadam had and I quote, " Gone to great lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction." end quote. In his March 17 statement where he set the 48 hour deadline for Sadam to go, quote, "Sadam still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his ability to have more." end quote. Planning of the this invasion has included great resources dedicated to find these weapons, teams and mobile labs moving with the troops are scouring the place for any evidence. What have they found so far? The Marines dug up a school yard 50 miles east of the capital on a tip from a captive Iraqi, they found nothing. Someone reported a strange vial of white powder that turned out to be legal explosives. The most promising find so far were some large drums of a toxic substance that has turned out to pesticides. What if nothing is ever found? How can Bush ever explain away disrupting a legal " inspection process that obviously was working if no WMD is found? Splitting the Western alliance on false evidence? If Bush gets the credit for liberating Iraq, he should take responsibility for invading a nation on false and fabricated evidence. Of course they know this and are already preparing a defense. They will say Sadam snuck all the WMD out of the country. Then we can invade another nation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Yes, but what about the tortured prisoners, and all the bodies they found. I think the USA was premature for attacking Iraq too, but I also think Saddam was a sadist. True, no weapons of mass destruction were found, not yet. I honestly do not think he had any. Saddam had to go, but he was smart by staying below the radar, and avoiding investigation. However, he did need to go. The only thing that disturbs me, is that they are now without control or Government, what now? Also, Saddam is not the only dictator in the middle east. I hope Gee Dubya doesnt get a second wind and go after them too. I want those troops to just finish up and get the hell out of there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 If they do not find any WoMDs in Iraq, Bush has made war on false reasons, he has also lied to his people and to the whole world. If there is no WoMDs in Iraq, the only right thing for Bush to do would be to resign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ioshee Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Hypothetical Situation: There are two kingdoms. One is red and one is blue. The king of the blue kingdom knows that the king of the red kingdom is cruel to his subjects. The blue king also suspects with good reason that the red king is planning to attack the blue kingdom. So the blue king sends his knights over to the red kingdom and takes out the red king. The people in the red kingdom are soooo happy and grateful (even though they are prejudice against blue people.) However no evidence is found that the red king was going to attack. The people in the blue kingdom are furious because they never liked their king anyway so they crucify him. The people in the red kingdom are very surprised but they don’t really care because now they are free and they never liked the way the blue king looked anyway. Sorry I’m getting off into fairyland. My point is that people who never liked Bush are looking for any fault he has. They assume that he “lied” and “deceived” people so that he could invade Iraq. That doesn’t fit the situation because he has never been too concerned with public opinion about the invasion or proving to people that there is reason to invade. It’s more likely that he honestly believes there are (or was) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. People who don’t like Bush make him out to be this person who manipulated people into letting him invade Iraq. Why would he want to invade Iraq for no reasons whatsoever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daring dueler Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 thats actually a good point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Originally posted by ioshee Why would he want to invade Iraq for no reasons whatsoever? maybe to scare people. or maybe because he wanted to. also i think if they don't find WoMD that he will have some people sneak in some and claim them as Iraq's. I liked bush when he first started his election campaign in 98 he said some realistic things that were nice but then when he gave his arguments against gore i found him to be an utter and complete idiot with a huge ego and passion to kill/hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted April 13, 2003 Author Share Posted April 13, 2003 Iam still waiting, where are the tons of WMD? A few traces here and there is not going to cut it. Of course the excuses are already being prepared. 1rst they said, well maybe Sadam snuck the WMD out of the country while we were busy attacking. Sneaky bastard. Or the latest Rumsfeld excuse, "the looters are stealing the WMD and we never will find it!" Come On! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldritch Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Originally posted by griff38 Iam still waiting, where are the tons of WMD? North Korea. Bush may have just been using Iraq as a warm up. If so, we're in real trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Originally posted by Eldritch North Korea. Bush may have just been using Iraq as a warm up. If so, we're in real trouble. yeah. im gonna get a huge lead plated bomb shelter if bush declares war on korea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Well those 50 suicide vests they found in that school disturbs me even more. Kind of unrelated, but I did not vote for Bush. I don't believe I ever will. He was a horrible governer, and yes, he is brash and arogant, not the kind of person I look up too. And don't get me started on that Dick, Chaney... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Solar Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 You can say "dick" without it getting censored? Dick? DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK!! HAHAHA! ...DICK! *giggles* Umm.. so yeah..what am I, 5? Jesus.. Anyways.. like, where are the WOMD's? That was the reason for this whole war. I bet these weapons have been shipped into Syria, North Korea, Afganistan (come one..there's got to be something left to bomb there!), Cuba and... who else do we got? Russia and China? O.o. Seriously, I really hope they find huge amounts of WOMD's in Iraq. This war, all the killing, needs a reason. No matter what happens, this will remain a political disaster for the US, but.. man... if they don't find ANY weapons of mass destruction.. that would make 'em look really, really bad. DICK! *snicker* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 I just read on the plane back from Madrid that USA has found some evidence of chemical weapons during a routine check in an airport. It was something like 24 baseball-bat sized warheads which they suspected contained a nervegas. Still, it feels somewhat a hollow basis for going to war. Let's be frank here - how many middle east nations have got that few warheads just for protection? How many in the western world? Had he used them during the period from the end of the gulf war to this war, or even during this war I could have spotted the hazy justification that Bush used. But the moral high ground is looking like a muddy pile of compost dung to me, with recycled threats from a decade ago and homebrewed terror connections and documentation. Yet, for the time being, it's a solid humanitarian victory to see Saddam's brutal police state collapse. What remains is to see whether the people will actually be able to live in the democracy promised and what impact this war will have on the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Solar Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 BTW - what happened to that huge camouflaged factory of WOMD's in the desert? Any info about that? Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Originally posted by Luc Solar You can say "dick" without it getting censored? Well, it is his name isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Originally posted by Luc Solar BTW - what happened to that huge camouflaged factory of WOMD's in the desert? Any info about that? Anyone? A political joke. The British defense minister (I think) had to go out himself and say it was false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 You guys actually think that the sole reason for invasion was WMDs? How about removing a regime that should have been long gone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Solar Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 WOMD's. That's what it was all about. "No more time for the weapons inspectors! Saddam is lying and hiding the WOMD's! Saddam is a threat ot the US because he has WOMD's!" That's why the US attacked. The rest of the world said "You can't attack without proof. Let the weapon instructors do their job. etc. etc." How many countries in the world does not approve of the US goverment or Bush particularly? I'd guess about half of them. Do these 80 countries give the US an ultimatum "Get out, Bush..or we'll **** up your country!" No. You just don't do that. This is not a western, it's real life. You don't attack a country because you don't like it's leader, especially without the permission of a helluva lot of countries and the UN. The feeble basis of the whole operation was "disarming Saddam" because he "is a threat to the US". If we now find out that Saddam did NOT have any WOMD's, that Iraq was NOT a threat to the US.... oh boy. shame-shame... If all that I stated above was/is untrue or not the real reason then it's all the more disgusting. Oil? A personal disapproval of the president of Iraq? You don't slaughter tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people because of that. Seriously, dear Americans: IT'S NOT YOUR GOD DAMN BUSINESS! According to 100% of all international law experts, what the USA did was grossly illegal. Illegal and disapproved of by the UN and most countries (besides Afganistan, Israel and Ologa-Bologa-Island.) If Iraq was not a threat to you, what on earth are you guys doing there???? Some ulterior motive, perhaps? I'm so confused. About the camouflaged factory >> a pretty nice trick, I must say. An ANONYMOUS source from the Pentagon conveniently leaks this information at a crucial point of the war. I guess Bush felt like the war needed a justification so that at least some protestor would start thinking that he might be doing te right thing. Worked like a charm, didn't it? Bought the US a few more days to get their war going. Probably half of you Americans still think that they have found a WOMD factory totally proving that Bush was right all along. But we'll see.... who get's the contracts, who gets the money, who gets the oil, who appoints a nice, friendly US-biased goverment.. I hope I'm being way to cynical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zodiac Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast You guys actually think that the sole reason for invasion was WMDs? How about removing a regime that should have been long gone... That regime should've been long gone yes, I agree on you with that. But my main point now is: If THAT was/is one of the main reasons to go to war, then prepare for a future with coming decades of war, because that Iraqi regime isn't the only one on this planet that's evil. Now this might be a start of coming years of global warfare with the US army (with the help of others of course) ' freeing' all nations with such evil regimes, but it is scary to think of the consequences such future wars will have (eg. more death, nuclear warfare, chemical warfare, etc). Let me explain it like Ioshee's fairyland situation: Hypothetical Situation: There are two kingdoms. One is red and one is blue. The king of the blue kingdom knows that the king of the red kingdom is cruel to his subjects That is what ioshee wrote. Problem is that in the "real" world, the red kingdom isn't the only one with a king that is cruel to its subjects. There is also a purple kingdom, a pink kingdom, a green kingdom and a grey kingdom with kings who are cruel to their subjects. So if the blue kingdom decides to attack the red kingdom just because it has an evil king, why should blue only attack red? Are the red people more special than the other ones? I don't think so. Perhaps the blue king doesn't actually care much about the red kingdom's people, and the blue king only attacked red because of some natural resources the red country has... *cough*.. And if the Blue king says he attacked Red, because he thinks Red threatens him, then he's a bit unaware of the situation, because the Purple king is most likely a bigger threat with his newly built long range catapults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted April 13, 2003 Author Share Posted April 13, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast You guys actually think that the sole reason for invasion was WMDs? How about removing a regime that should have been long gone... Well, Bush didn't mention regime change until very late in the game. And to the best of my knowledge never said anything about "liberating" opressed people until the war was almost started. If this was the main reason or even secondary, why did they not say it from the begining? If Bush had said a year ago "the Iraqi people are opressed and need our help." Alot more of us would be supportive. I have never heard a single person say, "lets' keep Sadam!" Of course everybody with 2 brain cells to rub together is glad he is gone. But the Bush admin didn't ever use humanitarian concerns to invade untill the last moment. It is a total PR ploy. If Bush gave a damn we would have been better prepared to deal with the riots and unlawfulness that has always occured at the end of a war. We had tons of military MP's (military police) ready for such events in the Gulf war, why not this time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Weapons of Mass Destruction will be found in Iraq. Even if they weren't there during the war. If I were Darth Rumsfeld, I'd ship over some of our own WMD's that were scheduled for destruction and bury them in the desert. Then I'd have an Iraqi agent leak the location to BBC or some other press agency. Then assign a special ops group to accompany the reporters on "their" lead. This was never a war about WMDs. Nor was it about the oppressed peoples. It was, and is, about economic control of the region. The West has been attempting to control intrests in the Middle East for hundreds of years. Before oil, it was about trade routes. Today, it's probably both. If it were about oppression, we would have sent SOMEone into the Congo after nearly 1000 (that's a "1" followed by three zeros!) men, women and children were massacred in the span of a couple of hours. If it were about oppression, we would have stayed the course in Somalia, where warlords control the economy and people died, and are still dying, of starvation because of it. If it were about oppression, we would go into Chechnya and "liberate" the civilians there who are being denied medicine, food, shelter, clothing, and education by the Russians. If it were about oppression, we would pressure the corporations that exploit the labor of women and children in periphery nations and regions such as Indonesia to pay a minimum, FAIR wage with SAFE working conditions. If it were about oppression, we would assist the Zapatistas in Mexico, who are unable to defend themselves against death squads that call themselves "Peace and Justice" brigades. Then again.... maybe all these places are on the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Solar Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Originally posted by Zodiac So if the blue kingdom decides to attack the red kingdom just because it has an evil king, why should blue only attack red? And >> 1) What if the blue king thinks that the red kingdom worships a false god? 2) What if the blue king thinks that the red kingdom is not being fair by putting custom tariffs on blue products? 3) What if the red kingdom sells catapults to Gray kingdom but not to blue. 4) What if the red kingdom is not a democracy ruled by a king, but instead by some strange religious cult? Well... 1) The red kingdom must be crushed and their religion abolished. They're worhipping a wrong god and their evil thoughts have been getting followers in the blue kingdom as well. To protect what is Right and Our kingdom, we must attack! 2) The red kingdom is hampering the economic growth of blue kingdom. For the sake of our motherland we must attack and force blue kingdom to drop the tariffs. 3) The Gray kingdom becomes a threat 'cause they have catapults. To protect ourselves we must attack Grey Kingdom and steal..*cough* destroy the catapults. We must also attack red kingdom so that they'll never sell catapults or at least not to anyone but blue kingdom... oh yea: in order to protect our freedom. 4) A democracy ruled by a king is the only right way. Any other form of governance is just not right. The people of red kingdom must be oppressed because they don't have identical rights to ours. We must attack and appoint a new goverment that resembles ours and shares & enforces our values, because they're the only ones that can/should exist. We, the Blue Kingdom are the good guys. We are just doing what's right in the eyes of God. Just protecting our country, that's all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr116 Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Look, i could be stupidly optimistic in our government, but i am pretty sure that the US of A would not invade another foreign, sovereign country without just cause. First, there is no logic to it. There is no point to gain by taking down Iraq, unless they do (or did ) post a threat to the world. The people were living in a police state, for crying out loud! There were government rape-rooms!!! I think that the US is justified, regardless of whether there are WMD's or not... and I do think that there were, and i think it is perfectly possible that they are in syria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CagedCrado Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 They found plenty of dirty materials there, and plain and simply the opression of the people of iraq was definetly reason enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Originally posted by mr116 There is no point to gain by taking down Iraq, unless they do (or did ) post a threat to the world. There are other reasons for it too.... *cough*oil*cough* And of course, Dubya want revenge for the last war. The people were living in a police state, for crying out loud! Many people does. And some of these countries are even supported by USA. There were government rape-rooms!!! Do you really think there were? Think about it: Have you seen any footage of it? Have you seen any pictures of these rooms that can make sure these room are gov rape rooms? Or is the whole thing just something the media feeds you. They found plenty of dirty materials there, and plain and simply the opression of the people of iraq was definetly reason enough. They did find some pesticides, but I do not believe those are illegal according to UN . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Regardless of what is found, might have been found, or could be found, the point remains that there was NO evidence prior to the invasion. I see a lot of justification going on both with politicians and the citizenry who want to believe in their leaders. "Saddam was obviously a bad guy/evil dude/Hitler II/ etc. and the Iraqi people were oppressed/tortured/beaten/raped/robbed/tickled/what-have-you." The problem with these justifications is that they are valid for just about anything but invasion. They are valid reasons for embargo, sanction, inadmittance to world/regional organizations, and for not sending an invitation to the Christmas party. But you can't invade a nation for having a bad leader. If that were the standard (and it just may now be), then that would mean that the United States must now involve itself in every instance of equal or greater oppression. I certainly hope no one here thinks that Saddam was the most/only oppressive ruler of his time. There have been many of his caliber, there are some now, and there will be more in the future. Now, the U.S. government has analysts and think tank gurus that are aware of all this. They also realize that precedent of this type could be bad. They're obviously gambling that the world in general will buy the Bush admin.'s reason(s) for invasion (which, interestingly enough, appear to have evolved/morphed somewhat from 2001). In so doing, they will quietly forget to bring military attention to other oppressive regimes that could use some change. So what would be the payoff worth this type of gamble? Answer: "Economic control of the region." Oil. Does everyone really think it's coincidence that both the President and Vice-President have strong ties to the American Oil Industry. Dick was the CEO of Halliburton Oil. This same company stands to make almost $500 million in oil field work in Iraq after being awarded a contract that was "without competition" so says USA Today I'm not "bashing" the U.S. as some here have suggested in the past. Quite the contrary. But I am "bashing" Emperor Bush and Darth Rumsfeld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.