The Iraq / war on terror thread

[Rain]

So where are they? doesnt that bother anyone?

Never been there in the first place ? 

[shades]

are you high?
The man used them on his own people, and after invading Kuwait admitted to having them and was 'ordered' to destroy them. yet when asked to provide documentation proving he did, or allow U(seless)N inspectors to verify he did. We got a big fuck you.

And after playing the UN like a fiddle, thought he would get away with it.
WE, decided to err on the side of caution, with the alternative being to act like Clinton and do nothing.
Cant take that chance, 9/11 changed all that.
Bush has balls, great big balls. And thats the guy I want in charge of my safety.

[pilferk]

are you high?
The man used them on his own people, and after invading Kuwait admitted to having them and was 'ordered' to destroy them. yet when asked to provide documentation proving he did, or allow U(seless)N inspectors to verify he did. We got a big fuck you.

And after playing the UN like a fiddle, thought he would get away with it.
WE, decided to err on the side of caution, with the alternative being to act like Clinton and do nothing.
Cant take that chance, 9/11 changed all that.
Bush has balls, great big balls. And thats the guy I want in charge of my safety.

Incorrect, all the way around.

1)? We did get confirmation that the chemical and nuclear production facilities were dismantled.? This was after the first Gulf War.? Both the UN and the US verified they'd been dismantled.

2) We recieved reports LATER (as in, in the middle of the Clinton administration and during this administration) that he had started up production again (the much balleyhoo'd bad intelligence).? Saddam said they didn't exist.? He did fight UN inspectors coming back to Iraq, but eventually relented.? ?Now, granted, he wasn't the most accomodating host, to say the least, but even the inspectors on the ground at the time said they saw no evidence of WMD's.? None.? And they kept inspecting right up until WE ordered them to leave before the bombs dropped.?

[Rain]

Thank you wouldn't have said it better 

It's actually unbelievable how some people have a short memory ! 

[shades]

yea, you keep believing what you hear on CNN or reading in the Times and you will be smarterer....
Maybe even get an honorary degree.

Bottom line, I dont want to take that chance, all the sophisticated intelligence in the free world says hes hiding something, good enough for me.

I dont think yo realize the consequences of erring on the unsafe side.
luckily, the people in charge at the time do.

Now go enjoy a breath of anthrax free air and be thankfull instead of second guessing along political lines.
Its tireing.

[SLCPUNK]

yea, you keep believing what you hear on CNN or reading in the Times and you will be smarterer....
Maybe even get an honorary degree.

Bottom line, I dont want to take that chance, all the sophisticated intelligence in the free world says hes hiding something, good enough for me.

I dont think yo realize the consequences of erring on the unsafe side.
luckily, the people in charge at the time do.

Now go enjoy a breath of anthrax free air and be thankfull instead of second guessing along political lines.
Its tireing.

"sophisticated intelligence" there is an oxymoron.

The people who put anthrax in the air were domestic terrorists (ie American) and they were never caught.

Please read more.

[gilld1]

Everybody keeps forgetting that reagan and Bush Sr. were the ones who gave Sadam the wmd in the first place.  Iraq vs Iran and we chose the lesser of the 2 evils.  Reagan also armed Bin Laden and company.  So for all you Conservitive idiots that fault Clinton for not doing anything about these two, shut up, your heroes made this mess.

[pilferk]

yea, you keep believing what you hear on CNN or reading in the Times and you will be smarterer....
Maybe even get an honorary degree.

Bottom line, I dont want to take that chance, all the sophisticated intelligence in the free world says hes hiding something, good enough for me.

I dont think yo realize the consequences of erring on the unsafe side.
luckily, the people in charge at the time do.

Now go enjoy a breath of anthrax free air and be thankfull instead of second guessing along political lines.
Its tireing.

LOL.? Facts are facts, regardless of who reports them.? And EVERYONE has reported the sequence of events I described for you, on both sides of the ticket.? It's not conjecture, it's actual history! In any event...

Except, as has been made glaringly obvious, all the "sophisticated intelligence in the free world" DIDN'T say he was hiding something.? It wasn't conclusive, not remotely so.? There was a huge amount of contradicting evidence, and, as you can see in Powell's comments on the subject, there were people who KNEW (not suspected, KNEW) that the intelligence they were basing the decisions off of was weak, at best.

And what seems painfully obvious is that you don't understand the consequences of erring on what YOU think is the safe side (I would say the "safe side" should've been a whole lot safer), along with not having a great grasp on the events that have actually occured.

As for Anthrax free air...well, again, if you knew your history you'd know that, even had Saddam been producing chemical or bio weapons, there would be 2 problems with that statement:

1) Anthrax was not ever one of them.

2) He had no distribution method capable of delivering it anywhere near us.  Even the modified SCUD's that he had (and were destroyed) were only about 10 - 20 MILES over the limit the UN allowed them to be.

[SLCPUNK]

So where are they? doesnt that bother anyone?

Doesn't it occur to you that we were wrong?

Doesn't it bother YOU that thousands died and there were no WMD?

Of course not....and you are telling us to think...

[SLCPUNK]

are you high?
The man used them on his own people, and after invading Kuwait admitted to having them and was 'ordered' to destroy them. yet when asked to provide documentation proving he did, or allow U(seless)N inspectors to verify he did. We got a big fuck you.

Gassing the Kurds in 1989 was much different then the nuclear threat W outlined in his speech prior to going to war.

[shades]

Ill address all three above.

1. You think you need a scud to deliver Anthrax...I will not enter a battle of wit with an unarmed man:

2. Thousands died in 'the war on terror'.
Stableizing the region is the single most important step in intelligently eradicating the environment that hate and terror fester in.
The WMD argument was to get the UN on board and make it a world effort, a boat they missed....if you missed that when it was happening, Im sorry.

3. Gassing the Kurds was precisly the reason to get in there and get him, his capabilities and evil mind had no limits.
And I use the term 'HAD' emphatically.
He is one token tribunal away from execution and is no longer a threat to anyone... Mission Accomplished I say.

[pilferk]

Ill address all three above.

1. You think you need a scud to deliver Anthrax...I will not enter a battle of wit with an unarmed man:

He had no delivery method capable of delivering ANY chemical or bio weapon onto US soil.? Reported by every major media outlet on earth. Period.?

If you're referring to suicide attack, I'll concede it's possible if you'll concede that it would have been close to logistically impossible to actually pull off, for him or any of his agents, so not very plausible, all things considered (also discussed by many major media outlets, FYI).? He didn't have remotely the network in place to pull something like that off and...well...I'm assuming your next suggestion would be he might sell things to Al Queada. ERRR! Wrong.? We've already established he had no connections with them.

Of course, that ignores the fact he never used Anthrax, in the first place, and the bio and chem components he DID work on, a way back when, were too fragile or too cumbersome, for the kind of operation you're suggesting.? And it ignores the fact that...well..there wasn't anything there to "deliver" in the first place.

My, what a nice fantasy world you've constructed for this piece of your arguement.

It looks like you're the one not armed...I've had to give you history lessons on 4 or 5 occasions this afternoon.

[SLCPUNK]

1. You think you need a scud to deliver Anthrax...I will not enter a battle of wit with an unarmed man:

You change the defintion of the argument now. Bush's claim was WMD, ie "mushroom cloud", not anthrax.

2. Thousands died in 'the war on terror'.
Stableizing the region is the single most important step in intelligently eradicating the environment that hate and terror fester in.

True, and they were not in Iraq.


3. Gassing the Kurds was precisly the reason to get in there and get him, his capabilities and evil mind had no limits.

Yea, 16 yrs ago, and we sat by then and did nothing.

He is one token tribunal away from execution and is no longer a threat to anyone... Mission Accomplished I say.

He never posed a threat. His military was weaker now then it was in the first gulf, this is common knowledge.

[SLCPUNK]

WE, decided to err on the side of caution, with the alternative being to act like Clinton and do nothing.

Two terror attacks come to mind when Clinton was President.

And both of them had arrests and people sitting in jail now for their crimes against the country.

Guess you forgot that.

[shades]

look guys, we can go round and round on this forever probably.
What we can agree on no doubt is that fighting terrorism was a must, right?

So.. what would you propose we do.
Educate me.

[shades]

WE, decided to err on the side of caution, with the alternative being to act like Clinton and do nothing.

Two terror attacks come to mind when Clinton was President.

And both of them had arrests and people sitting in jail now for their crimes against the country.

Guess you forgot that.

don tget me started on that smuck..
hes the whole reason we were attacked on 9/11 to start with

[SLCPUNK]

look guys, we can go round and round on this forever probably.
What we can agree on no doubt is that fighting terrorism was a must, right?

So.. what would you propose we do.
Educate me.

Educate yourself.

[SLCPUNK]

WE, decided to err on the side of caution, with the alternative being to act like Clinton and do nothing.

Two terror attacks come to mind when Clinton was President.

And both of them had arrests and people sitting in jail now for their crimes against the country.

Guess you forgot that.

don tget me started on that smuck..
hes the whole reason we were attacked on 9/11 to start with

I thought you'd say something like that.

You bring up Clinton being soft, and I say the first person who bombed the WTC is in jail.

While Osama is free to plan more attacks USA.

Not to difficult to figure out who has done more is it?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Clinton had 2 chances to get Bin Laden and he decided not to due to the sensitivity of taking him out and being too busy covering up the affair with the fat chick in the white house.

[SLCPUNK]

Clinton had 2 chances to get Bin Laden and he decided not to due to the sensitivity of taking him out and being too busy covering up the affair with the fat chick in the white house.

Clinton did not want to kill civilians.

I know you guys like to call it collateral damage, but Clinton didn't think blowing up kids would be a good idea.

It's also easy to look back after 9-11 and see what could have been done. I am looking at the present and saying "we should not do it this way".

Also, you are ignoring the fact that Clinton did find, prosecute and jail the terrorist attacks that took place during his term, while Bush has not.