2004 Election

talk
81

Man oh man, this stuff just keeps on going.

Evil, oppressive nations have no business having POWER. Iraq had POWER, they had the ABILITY to create WMDs and they were an oppresive evil nation. That pretty much spells it out for me, what’s to argue? They would not allow REAL inspections of their weapons, who would? You think Noth Korea or Libya or any of the other ones are going to open their doors and say hey come on in, and don’t forget to look under the doormat? Tell me this; If your neighboor was cooking crack with their children running around and selling it to little kids, would you complain about the cops busting down their door and taking their kids away from them and putting them into a home that loves and cares for them?

82

I agree. If our actions help some people out there who had no hope of a bright future, then the struggle was worth it. Other countries may be content in letting the rest of the world suffer (and occassionally carrying rice to them in breadbaskets), but that’s them. Real reform takes more than a few people in the UN talking about how to seem decisive while at the same time not doing anything about it :wink:

Now I understand that there are different ways of going about the reform. Until another country offers a better solution besides sitting back and twiddling their thumbs, the current situation will continue. Diplomacy only works up to a point. Diplomacy, for example, did not prevent the slaughtering in Darfur or any random location in Africa.

83

if the world had to decide:
http://www.betavote.com/
:love:

84

Looks like Kerry’s got the lead

85

they had the ABILITY to create WMDs and they were an oppresive evil nation.

Again, no basis in reality. They did NOT have the ability to create WMD’s, no proof at all.

86

RB, although we agree on most things, this is not one. They have created WMD and used them in the past. That means they could create them later, they did have the technology and ABILITY (namley scientitsts) to create WMD during the last 12 years of Baathist rule. We know the prior for certain and the later is still hard to DISprove with the size and resources of the Iraqi empire. They had ample time to clear out what they created too. Also, there were several incidints of discovery to support the continued production of WMD.
I hope you won’t make seek out these ref’s but I am sure there are several here who can account these things as well.

Again this is not the question anymore. You KNOW what Uday and Quassay have done and were capable of doing, you KNOW Saddams regime was EVIL, and POWERFUL (not the peasents of course) so come on a little (just a little) support of the good done… just for the resulting FREEDOM… please… :smirk:
BTW: I don’t mean nuclear WMD, or as W puts it: new-cue-lar, just some cross party haha’s, remember I am Libertarian :thumb:

87

Yes I completley agree with you on the aspect of the crack explanation but I beleive that the government shouldnt hold stuff back tell us why we are going to war our family and friends are risking their lives to “liberate” Iraq the least they deserve is to know why. Opressive nation or not it is not our place to go around country to country preaching democracy. The simple truth is there are no good canidates both have there flaws and they both are pretty major.

88

The simple truth is there are no good canidates both have there flaws and they both are pretty major.

Brilliantly put and right back on topic! Vote Libertarian :rambo:

89

When French, Russian, English, and I think German intelligence, in addition to our own intelligence agencies, tell the President that Iraq has the ability to make weapons of mass destruction, I’m pretty sure it’s ok for him to make a decision on that. It’s his job to protect us from those things, and it’s those intelligence sources’ job to supply accurate information…and overall we should be able to make decisions based on information like that.

They did have the facilities, they did have the materials, they had the scientists, they had the funding, heck they even had a method of hiding it.

I would rather hear that information and go in, be proven wrong - as to just sit by and let it slide under the table.
NOT TO MENTION YOU KNOW THE IDEA OF SAVING A PEOPLE FROM AN EVIL DICTATOR AT THE SAME TIME.

As far as the world and the kerry poll, I’m glad the world isn’t an American citizen :wink: Polls like that are a waste of time.

If one of your kids friends came up to you and told you that they think your child is doing drugs, that they saw the paraphenalia, you did your own investigating, saw some of the paraphenalia as well, but never actually saw your kid doing drugs… would you approach your kid? or would you just let it be because “you didn’t see them do it.”

Also how many people have been in a fight at school where someone punched you, and you punched them back, the administrator breaks the fight up - tells you that you have detention for punching another student…you try your hardest to explain that the other kid punched you first, but the administrator says “well I didn’t actually see it.” You say it was self-defense and they say “all i saw was YOU punching THEM, now get to detention.” I don’t recall too many people agreeing with the administrator in that situation…especially if you had actually been in a situation like that yourself.

I hope you all read those last two paragraphs.

90

:slight_smile: pr> I don’t understand those last 2 paragraphs. There’s a huge difference between raising your kids and waging war on another country. The analogy, for all it is worth, is badly chosen. You’re actually saying that the US are acting like caring parents to the world, with Iraq being its child? Please. On the other hand, the UN was investigating about WMDs and whatnots, told the US that they found NO WEAPONS WHATSOEVER but the US still went in. (To rephrase your analogy), so you believed the kid’s classmate, but you didn’t believe any of the parents from that class who all told you that 1) your kid didn’t do drugs 2) that other child is a liar… A case of bad parenting??

Now, about the punching. I don’t get it. Are you implying that Iraq punched the US without anyone seeing it first? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? This is some serious misinformation.

About the other paragraphs in your post (btw, way more interesting… :love:) …

When French, Russian, English, and I think German intelligence, in addition to our own intelligence agencies, tell the President that Iraq has the ability to make weapons of mass destruction, I’m pretty sure it’s ok for him to make a decision on that. It’s his job to protect us from those things, and it’s those intelligence sources’ job to supply accurate information…and overall we should be able to make decisions based on information like that.

Firstly, English and Russian sources did say that Saddam MAY have WMDs. French and German sources didn’t. It wasn’t in their interest (while it was in the interests of England and Russia) to say that Saddam actually had wmds. But you remember that MI6 report on Iraq right? Copied right off a thesis on the ME by a Californian student. That’s intelligence if you ask me… Come on!!
Now, let’s say those agencies still told Dubya that Saddam could (aka: has the ability to) be making WMDs. Who gives you the right to preventively jump in, kill 10 000 people and say: “Zorro here says you’re toast”. Lets say those same agencies told the Iranian President that, say, Israel can develop WMDs (which they not only can, but HAVE) and that his country is threatened by them. Has he any right to go in Israel and attack (not to mention freeing their muslim brothers from the tyranny of the Jewish oppression - sarcasm people, don’t jump on your high horses)?

I would rather hear that information and go in, be proven wrong - as to just sit by and let it slide under the table.

“Oops, I’ve made a doodle, I’ve just killed thousands, spent billions of dollars, but hey, we were trying to be preventive.” Please. America ****ed up and no one will admit it?

Now, about that “international poll”, anyone attending a Statistic 101 class will tell you that given the numbers of participants, it’s pretty accurate (though some will say that it only concerns the so-called ‘internet-population’). You know what makes a country strong? Its allies. If all your allies start thinking differently, the only way one can stay on top is being despotic.

91

Firstly, English and Russian sources did say that Saddam MAY have WMDs. French and German sources didn’t. It wasn’t in their interest (while it was in the interests of England and Russia) to say that Saddam actually had wmds. But you remember that MI6 report on Iraq right? Copied right off a thesis on the ME by a Californian student. That’s intelligence if you ask me… Come on!!

Sorry Pomme. Wrong again. Let me count the ways, now that I’m sober.

  1. The intelligence communities of every major country were confident that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before 2003. These include the United States, Canada, France, the United Nations, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Australia, Japan, even Iran and a slew of others. It was a working assumption that such WMD was in Iraq, so much that I never heard accusations that it wasn’t true until the political war heated up in March, 2003.

  2. Colin Powell’s presentation at the UN in February 2003 proved that Iraq was deceiving UN inspectors. What is there to hide?

  3. In 1995, a high-ranking Iraqi defector proved Iraq was building WMD despite the UN restrictions. After this was revealed, Iraq admitted it had violated UN restrictions. Why should we believe Iraq was in compliance with the UN today, when Saddam hasn’t in the past?

  4. As shown in the Kay interim report, there were thousands of items that Saddam had that could be used in WMD programs. These are usually dual-use items—items that have an apparently “civilian” use and are bought as such, but then when coupled with other items, can make WMD goods. If Saddam violated sanctions, as we know for a fact, why should we believe he had respect for other UN demands? And why would he violate such sanctions to gain such items?

  5. As shown in the Kay interim report, why was such an enormous amount of material not declared as required by the UN?

  6. Much of the suspected WMDs can fit in a package the size of a palm of a hand. Together, almost all of the WMDs could fit in a two-car parking garage. Why do people expect us to find such items already? Saddam has had 12 years to make programs to deceive Western intelligence, and 4 years to do so without ANY Western interference. And only recently, Coalition forces found fighter jets under the desert sand. If we just recently found huge fighter jets, how can people complain we haven’t found WMD yet?

  7. After Iraq admitted producing a certain amount of WMD, disarmament by the UN began. How come a large portion was not disarmed by the UN and Iraq first admitted that it was not disarmed, only to later say they destroyed them “unilaterally”? Why didn’t the Saddam regime just destroy them with UN supervision like the rest of them?

  8. There has been lots of evidence that Iraq infiltrated UN inspection and intelligence teams. Why are people surprised the UN didn’t find any WMD?

  9. The UN recognized that Iraq was engaged in illicit activity and was not disarming by passing 18 resolutions demanding that Iraq did so. Are we going to believe Saddam Hussein over the world community?

  10. With extensive business interests in Iraq, why are people surprised that countries like Russia, France and Germany opposed war with Saddam Hussein’s regime?

  11. Bill Clinton is the one who originally put the focus on Saddam Hussein’s WMD possession and links to terrorists. How come when he bombed Iraq in 1998 for four days, there wasn’t such a political outcry that he may be wrong about WMD?

  12. It is obvious that weapons would be hidden in the Sunni triangle, the most loyal area to the regime. Today, this area is still not pacified to the extent that would allow a full-fledged search in civilian homes and such. Without the most suspect area fully pacified, why are people jumping to the conclusion that WMDs are a lie?

92

*claps :love:

precisely what I’ve been saying all along…

(Pomme as far as the stats - stuff yes that big of a sample proves validity, but why should the world give such a stat?)

93

hmm… nice post but no.

I want to see all your sources.

  1. Colin Powell’s presentation at the UN in February 2003 proved that Iraq was deceiving UN inspectors. What is there to hide?

It didnt prove anything! The evidence looked like place mats. It wasnt remotley convicing. Colin Powell took the evidence composed from decades of US looking down Iraq and gave us nothing.

The intelligence of the Communities didn’t agree, especaily France, Germany and Russia. If they agreed they would have supported the war. The didn’t agree because there was no proof. None! There was a ALOT of speculation, tons of speculation, but nothing concrete.

The US, strongest Power in the world, stronges military, best intelligence, technology that makes the rest of the world look like stone men. For a decade has control around a backwards country under sanctions, daily reconaisance planes, weapon inspectors, enough satelites to walk across iraq comes up with evidence that is not even remotley convicing, (personaly I love the one with the two Iraqis talking about “the thing”)

There was no proof contecting Saddam to sep 11. From the Gulf War 1 experiece everyone knew you couldn’t trust Iraq conffession because they always said what we wanted to hear. Now suddenly these experts pop-out of nowhere, and suddenly now that we are there we don’t hear from them because we are not finding weapons. Coicidence? No!

  1. Much of the suspected WMDs can fit in a package the size of a palm of a hand. Together, almost all of the WMDs could fit in a two-car parking garage. Why do people expect us to find such items already? Saddam has had 12 years to make programs to deceive Western intelligence, and 4 years to do so without ANY Western interference. And only recently, Coalition forces found fighter jets under the desert sand. If we just recently found huge fighter jets, how can people complain we haven’t found WMD yet?

No, the WMD’s are NOT that small, I don’t know where you get this information. For Chemical weapons you need large amounts to desperce over vast areas because they are so ineffective. Or you need them within conventional munition like mortar rounds, or arty shells. Other WMD’s like nuclear weapons need huge containment chambers to work with, unless of course its a aready pre-made tactical nuclear weapons but those not even the phony experts even said he could make. And what about the chemical labs? All those mythical labs that roam Iraq? Poof just disapeared in the face of the worlds biggest Blizkreig?

And now that we are there OVER a year, we find NOTHING. Even old supporters of the war are swithching stands and arguing for the war for other reasons. There is no weapons, all the intelligence we had we found were CHICKEN FARMS, Aspirin factories, nothing to do with weapons.

And Why didn’t the UN weapon inspectors said there was no weapons! The people on the ground doing the research said that there was no weapons. Right we can all speculate and say the didn’t get access to anything, but they are not stupid! They could have said that they didn’t have enough evidence to make a decision they could have said that their visits were restricted so there could be weapons, they could have said that, but NO they said there was no weapons!

It is obvious that weapons would be hidden in the Sunni triangle, the most loyal area to the regime. Today, this area is still not pacified to the extent that would allow a full-fledged search in civilian homes and such. Without the most suspect area fully pacified, why are people jumping to the conclusion that WMDs are a lie?

Thats a journalist generated falacy, Sunni triangle is also the place where most of the attempted coups again Saddam also orginiated!! The Sunni’s were fighting Saddam more that any other group.

And last of all, if Saddam and now the Insurgents have or Had WMD’s… why didn’t they use them yet?

94

applauds

quote:

  1. The intelligence communities of every major country were confident that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before 2003. These include the United States, Canada, France, the United Nations, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Australia, Japan, even Iran and a slew of others.

not so… there was a massive scandal in the UK about the documents that claimed WMD could be armed in 45 minutes…

the government was accused of ‘sexing up’ the evidence dossier and it is now widely accepted that the British public were mislead over the intelligence that led to the Iraq war…

I am pro-war but i do not believe it is possible to justify Iraq as a legal war. There is no doubt that they infringed on US sanctions (enough for action to be taken) but the legality is questionable due to the lies fed to us over what Saddam actually had.

i find it an insult to my intelligence that Bush and Blair think i will believe some **** and bull story about weapons factories in the back of HGVs, roaming Iraq. You couldnt make up half the stuff Powell said in his speech to the UN council.

Sadly, this affair is a throw back to the Nixon style of government, where decisions are made and then evidence is found to justify decision making.

AND why on Earth did we figure that Iraq would be ready for a western style democracy based on Christian values???

that is what puzzles me more than anything!

95

It was not just President Bush and the UK saying Saddam had WMDs. Russia said it, the UN said it, John Kerry even said they had it… Let me ask a question to those who say Iraq was an illegal war… What would we be talking about right now if President Bush had preemptively attacked Afganistan and 9/11 never happend because we took action first? We would be having the same argument only saying that Afganistan is an illegal war. The point is that we cannot sit by and wait for another attack.

96

blindlizard> I’m tired of saying the same old argument, but it’s one that stands quite strongly. What gives you the right to act violently before being violented first? That is what nationalist and imperialist coutries do. “We’ll take over before you even have a change to think about it”. Can I go around kicking my next door neighbor’s butt because he has a knife in his kitchen and he COULD be the one killing me? Naaaaah. You’re argument is fallacious…;

where decisions are made and then evidence is found to justify decision making.

Yup, that’s why I’m all against preemptive actions. Let’s attack, we’ll find a reason once we win. Or Iran should attack the US, as preemptive action. Cause if they don’t act, they’re probably the next one on the list. Or maybe they’re not the next ones on the list, but no one is ever so sure…let them take preemptive action.

[edit] The world gives kerry vs. bush stats because, whether you like it or not, the world cares. They know that the president of the United States plays a strong role in world geopolitics and economy. It’s crazy to think that there’s no political/economical impact every 4 years on the rest of the world when it comes to Americans choosing a president. Whether you like it or not, your (american) choices have an impact on the world’s population. [/edit]

97

Billy - I don’t think Iraq will be a traditional democracy like what the UK and US are accustomed to. It’ll probably be something like a council system where elected representatives elect an overseeing leader as opposed to having the people directly vote for the head of state who would have a lot of power.

Also, Saddam did not give the UN inspectors enough of a chance to search for WMDs. Most of the inspectors stated that they were denied access to inverview key scientists, denied access to certain facilities, and they also stated that there was a lot of people/equipment movement prior to their “suprise” visits. During this time, Saddam would occassionally lob a few surface-to-air missiles at allied aircraft flying near the no fly zone. In my view, these repeated offenses are enough to get rid of Saddam. Others may have a higher threshold, so it’s just a matter of personal choice for us noncombatants :slight_smile:

Saddam did not act like, for example, Libya whose leaders gave the UN inspectors near-total access to their nuclear facilities after the capture of Saddam.

98

for sure, if concrete evidence exists then go to war…

we will live in a very dangerous world if everyone starts wars in a pre-emptive fashion…

99

Also, Saddam did not give the UN inspectors enough of a chance to search for WMDs. Most of the inspectors stated that they were denied access to inverview key scientists, denied access to certain facilities, and they also stated that there was a lot of people/equipment movement prior to their “suprise” visits.

Its easy to speculate, but none of us, or even the heads of state have been there. Only the weapons inspectors, and don’t you think they know when they are being restricted. Remeber, they could have said that they don’t have enough information. They could have said that they didn’t have enough access. But they didn’t.

100

It was widely reported (during Clinton’s term) for a while that UN Inspectors were unable to perform their jobs because of delays and other tactics orchestrated by Saddam or another higher-up.

Here are a few links I found:

Time:

The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in December 1998, after obstruction by officials there rendered their work pointless. It is generally agreed that Saddam Hussein has not been behaving himself in their absence.
[size=1]([/size][size=1]http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020513/weapons.html[/size][size=1])[/size]

USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-12-04-iraq-disclosure-usat_x.htm

Clinton’s Speech:

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

“Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors,” Clinton said.
[size=1]([/size][size=1]http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/[/size][size=1])[/size]

Iraq recruited U.N. inspectors as informants and learns in advance which facilities will be searched, giving Saddam advance warning that enables him to play “rope-a-dope in the desert,” according to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.
[size=1]([/size][size=1]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30731[/size][size=1])[/size]

Hans Blix admitted that Saddam has been slowing the inspectors down, but I only heard them on TV news. Either way, the UN Inspectors did not leave, re-enter, leave, and re-enter Iraq because they were getting work done. Many were upset that they were not making progress. Everytime they complained, the UN sent Iraq a nice UN Resolution, Iraq would delay/ignore, and nothing really would happen.

:cons: