To all Pro-war people (WMD)

Homerpalooza · 05-13-2003, 06:31 PM

Couple of questions: Does the fact that no WMD's have yet to be found (and it looks less likely every day) change your opinion on the war? In other words, if you had known beforehand that there were hardly any WMD's in Iraq, would you have supported this war? Will this make you hesitant to support any future wars by this administration?

I've seen journalists (like Tom Friedman) say things like "it doesn't matter if we don't find WMD's, we freed Iraqis" and such, and I can't understand how they believe this. So, just curious how Netphoria felt.

Oh, here's an obligatory CTRL-V link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3018063.stm

US arms experts 'leaving Iraq'

The United States force directing the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is pulling out, according to The Washington Post.

The 75th Exploitation Task Force is dismantling its operations for a likely departure in June, says the newspaper, after the group failed to find any biological and chemical weapons.

Members of the team told the newspaper that they no longer expected to find such stocks, and that they had consistently found targets identified by Washington to be inaccurate, or to have been looted and burned.

The force will hand over to a new team, the Iraq Survey Group.

But, according to the Washington Post, the number of weapons experts in the new outfit has been significantly reduced and some units have already sent home as many as a third of their original complement.

"We thought we would be much more gainfully employed, or intensively employed, than we were," said Navy Commander David Beckett of the Defence Threat Reduction Agency.

Evidence 'important'

US President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair had used the alleged threat posed by Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for waging war.

Correspondents say that while the failure to discover such weapons may not matter to many Americans, in Europe - where many people strongly opposed the war - the issue is likely to become a political one.

Last week, the commander of UK forces in the Iraq conflict Air Marshal Brian Burridge said he had "no doubt" that evidence of the weapons would be found.

He accepted that it was "very important" that such proof was uncovered, in order to show the public the concerns that prompted the war were genuine.

However, Army Colonel Richard McPhee, who will close down the task force next month, told the Washington Post if Iraq thought of using such weapons, "there had to have been something to use. And we haven't found it".

"Books will be written on that in the intelligence community for a long time," he added.

Army Colonel Robert Smith, who leads the site assessment teams from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, said task force leaders no longer "think we're going to find chemical rounds sitting next to a gun." He added, "That's what we came here for, but we're past that."

US Central Command began the war with a list of 19 top weapons sites - only two remain to be searched.

Another list enumerated 68 top "non-WMD sites," without known links to special weapons but judged to have the potential to offer clues. Of those, the tally at midweek showed 45 surveyed without success.

"Why are we doing any planned targets?" said Army Chief Warrant Officer Richard L Gonzales, leader of Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha, reports the Washington Post.

"Answer me that. We know they're empty."

sleeper · 05-13-2003, 06:55 PM

what i was initially fearing before the war started was that it would be all to easy for the US to, for lack of a better term, 'plant' weapons. this was and still is a huge and completely rational possibility. but i think regardless of what is about to happen, this is a pretty large blow to their moral (and legal) arguement for the war. what i fear now is that its going to be forgotten easily. as in "who cares. its over. it was easy". this along with the media's willing shift to the "liberation" argument. but im optimistic that some attention will be drawn to the fact that their primary justification for the war proved to be false. which to a certain extent has been allready with the not-so-recent evidence supporting the notion that the US and britain were doctoring if not completely inventing evidence to support their claim. along with a zillion other point

Nimrod's Son · 05-13-2003, 07:11 PM

Actually, again that has been twisted. The main reason for calling on a vote in the UN Sec. Council for military action wasn't that Iraq had weapons or didn't. It was for obstructing the searches and disobeying and being in primary breach of a number of other UN resolutions. If Saddam had cooperated since 1991, there wouldn't have been any question.

Homerpalooza · 05-14-2003, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Actually, again that has been twisted. The main reason for calling on a vote in the UN Sec. Council for military action wasn't that Iraq had weapons or didn't. It was for obstructing the searches and disobeying and being in primary breach of a number of other UN resolutions. If Saddam had cooperated since 1991, there wouldn't have been any question.

President Bush sold this war to the American people by giving a clear message that Iraq's WMD's posed an immediate threat to the US. Regardless of what the "real" or "main" reason we invaded Iraq was, you have to admit that the war was greatly founded and legitimized by this message.

mercurial · 05-14-2003, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Actually, again that has been twisted. The main reason for calling on a vote in the UN Sec. Council for military action wasn't that Iraq had weapons or didn't. It was for obstructing the searches and disobeying and being in primary breach of a number of other UN resolutions. If Saddam had cooperated since 1991, there wouldn't have been any question.

oh the irony ...

05-16-2003, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Actually, again that has been twisted. The main reason for calling on a vote in the UN Sec. Council for military action wasn't that Iraq had weapons or didn't. It was for obstructing the searches and disobeying and being in primary breach of a number of other UN resolutions. If Saddam had cooperated since 1991, there wouldn't have been any question.

Oh Jesus fucking christ. Look past your voting card for one fucking second.

If you believe for one second that Bush Inc. didn't push this as a war against their ability to deliver WMD to terrorists or launch them against US interests and was only trying to hold Iraq to their UN obligation (which is ironic because our administration has spent tons of energy marginalizing the UN), then you are kidding yourself more than I thought.

The meat of Bush's state of the union address was a laundry list of Iraq's WMDs and how he was going to deliver them. If we're so concerned about the plight of the Iraqi citizen, then why are we not concerned about the Uzbeki, Sudanese or countless other citizens of oppressive regimes?

This was a business deal and we were firing Sadaam. That's all.

sleeper · 05-17-2003, 05:12 PM

its funny cause there actually is positive, good reasons for war, but none of them are the common ones you hear out of george or his bitches. all the arguements for war can just as easily be twisted against it. enforcing UN resolutions? fucking bullshit. the US alone is in contravention to numerous UN resolutions. freeing people? why iraq and not the other large amount of countries equally in need of freedom. and at that, american freedom? no. without getting into the whole iraq debate again, it doesnt matter who you are, you have to admit that it would be extremely helpful to the US's case to find the WMD they have been using as one justification for this war. the fact that they havent is regardless a blow to their "case". i laughed when i heard that "iraq's weapons might have made their way to syria". convincing in the worst possible way

Homerpalooza · 05-19-2003, 07:54 PM

Eh, I guess this board really is taking a hit.

Come on guys, I know there are some hawks here.

Nimrod's Son · 05-19-2003, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Homerpalooza
Eh, I guess this board really is taking a hit.

Come on guys, I know there are some hawks here.

Of course there is. You're hashing over old shit that's already been discussed before though.

Besides, our side won.

Homerpalooza · 05-19-2003, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Of course there is. You're hashing over old shit that's already been discussed before though.

Besides, our side won.

I don't remember anyone asking the questions I posted above. So if you would be so kind...

And yes, our side won

mercurial · 05-19-2003, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Homerpalooza

I don't remember anyone asking the questions I posted above. So if you would be so kind...

You see ... Nimrod's Son has already answered your question by saying that the actual WMD don't matter in so much as Iraq's opposition to weapons inspections/breach of UN regulations ...

To which the response has been made, and it was quite a good response at that ... and since he's not interested in arguing with the points made in rebuttal to his answer you can safely assume that ...

a) he has lost interest in the subject
b) he doesn't think it's relevant - the military action is justifiable anyway
c) as much as I'm trying to stay away from bieng incisive ... he has no rebuttal as his original contention was weak

I happen to think it's a very good question you posed, and you seem to have grasped the reason that it is a good question well.
You don't need me, or anyone else on this side of the fence, to come in and back you up or re-hash what you've said - it's pointless.

However, I shall assume that what you are wanting is some sort of reasoned response from those who do not agree with our viewpoints ... well Nimrod's Son tried - he missed the mark - and now he's going to leave debating the question because he loses interest when he can't win the argument outright - which is understandable.

And on this completely unrelated note - I'm off to lunch!

05-19-2003, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

Besides, our side won.

That remains to be seen.

Really. I mean that.

Nimrod's Son · 05-20-2003, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mercurial

Actually, it's been debated before in other threads. Here's the short and curlies of it.
Whether or not Iraq had WMD, I still think the war was justified because they were consistently in material breach of UN resolutions that lost all power because they were always given "more time."
I believe there are/were WMD in Iraq. Just because you can't find something right away doesn't mean it doesn't exist.. much like the whole "we can't find bin Laden" argument that people like to use as justification for why the US isn't fighting the war on terror correctly.
The country is basically one big sand trap, and we gave them tons of warnings as to when we were coming. They had plenty of time to dump the WMD. Don't tell me he wouldn't dispose of chemicals in an unsafe way. this is the same dictator that dumped so much oil into the gulf, he made the Valdez look like a Wesson spill.

mercurial · 05-20-2003, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

Your right, we have driven most of the issues into the grounds in other threads months ago, and I'm as loathe to go over the same ground as you are. Perhaps I could have been less facetious

Anyhow, while what you say is entirely plausible I think there is a danger of falling into the self fulfilling prophecy trap here. It seems equally likely, based on weapons inspection reports (or what snippets I was privvy too through the news media), and the failure to find any of the large stockpiles of wmd that Tony Blair insisted would be deployed within 45 minutes etc etc, that there just weren't any weapons there to begin with. DeviousJ talked about how effective the weapons inspections had been in some of the previous posts.

This article is a little old, but it talks about the withdrawl of the current weapons inspections team and what they have found so far ... worth a read, it's quite short.

The second issue is that of breaching the UN resolution 1441 ... or was it the orginal gulf war resolution (421? I can't be sure if that was it ... need to do some reading and refresh my memory). I'm all for the enforcement of the international law, and the I think the UN has an important role to play. However I am not in support of the "might is right" argument, or that the US has some sort of mandate above and beyond that of the UN to act as it sees fit to do in any given situation. Instigating this war is illegal under international law, there are no two ways about it. If it is justifiable that 4-5 thousand odd civilians be killed as a result of a countries refusal to comply with UN resolutions ... then surely it would be justifiable to start bombing American soil as well -

After all the US spent 7 years in technical non-compliance with 1993 chemical weapons convention, and it still is years behind schedule in destroying its own stockpile. Evidence was presented only a few months ago that it was conducting a chemical weapons research and development program in violation of international arms control law. (I'm kicking myself for writing that sentence now as the website that I read that on has gone down ... bah!) You live by the sword etc etc

Anyhow, I'll leave it there ... I'm certain this has not been a post that will change your mind - but you gave me a decent reply, so I felt I owed it to you to respond in the same way.

righto then

sleeper · 05-21-2003, 05:56 PM

nimrod's point is dull and stinks. this coming from the self-proclaimed intellectual who never loses a debate? if we were all willing to seriously engage in this debate, part II, id be all for you. but what i dont like is in-the-middle on-off caring and concern for it. so while i can refute, im not, and i wont. mercurial has covered some points, or enough so to warrant a mutual end to this topic. and more than enough to go back to homer's.

mercurial · 05-21-2003, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sleeper
nimrod's point is dull and stinks. this coming from the self-proclaimed intellectual who never loses a debate? if we were all willing to seriously engage in this debate, part II, id be all for you. but what i dont like is in-the-middle on-off caring and concern for it. so while i can refute, im not, and i wont. mercurial has covered some points, or enough so to warrant a mutual end to this topic. and more than enough to go back to homer's.

I thoguht he made fairly valid points ... ah well nm

Mooney · 05-22-2003, 06:24 PM

could the WMD's not have been destroyed or shipped off to another country?

crescentfresh · 05-22-2003, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mooney
could the WMD's not have been destroyed or shipped off to another country?

IMPOSSIBLE!!!

Nimrod's Son · 05-22-2003, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mooney
could the WMD's not have been destroyed or shipped off to another country?

George Bush is way too evil for that to be true!!!!!!

sleeper · 09:35 PM

to argue this on one level, and rather childish one: to argue that point, your basically arguing that he could have used them and didnt. now from a simple logical viewpoint, if my country and my regime was facing destruction, if i was about to be exiled from my own country, if i have a well known and documented history of ignoring the basic laws of humanity why would i not use whatever it is i have at my disposal to prevent this? especially with all the spurious bullshit flying about how he might sneak attack with chemical weapons, or that he'd use htem the first minutes of the war. no wait, he'd wait till when they were close to baghdad. no wait, when they captured baghdad. no wait, hed sneak attack a US base with them after they set up their military installations! now, without getting into the nitty-gritty and playing it on your level, isnt it logical to assume that he didnt have said weapons? after 9 years of debilitating and effective inspections, months more of so with new, better, and updated inspection teams, 1 month of war, 1 month of the US themselves personally searching around, and not a single credible, realistic, valid shred of evidence to be found? now its so easy to play this game of "he hid them well" or "its a big country, its easy to hide the shit" or "theyre in _____(fill in the blank with country you want to invade) ". now itd be stupid to argue that he never had weapons that would justly be classified as WMD or that he is incapable of ever producing them, but the fact of the matter is these things leave a trace, a rather huge one. with the technology they employed then and now, there is no excuse to come up with the results they have and still make the enourmous claims they were. people have this fantasy of them being tiny watermelons that uncle ahkbar can hide in his doghouse or send of in a van to syria. im sorry but even on a impartial level, logic dictates otherwise. and what the fuck are you doing showing you face around here, nimrod? i suggest you stay the out of, you clearly displayed that you have absolutley no idea what the fuck your talking about. bow out now before you make a bigger fool of yourself, you ape.

guz · 05-23-2003, 12:35 AM

Nimrod's Son · 05-23-2003, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sleeper
to argue this on one level, and rather childish one: to argue that point, your basically arguing that he could have used them and didnt. now from a simple logical viewpoint, if my country and my regime was facing destruction, if i was about to be exiled from my own country, if i have a well known and documented history of ignoring the basic laws of humanity why would i not use whatever it is i have at my disposal to prevent this? especially with all the spurious bullshit flying about how he might sneak attack with chemical weapons, or that he'd use htem the first minutes of the war. no wait, he'd wait till when they were close to baghdad. no wait, when they captured baghdad. no wait, hed sneak attack a US base with them after they set up their military installations! now, without getting into the nitty-gritty and playing it on your level, isnt it logical to assume that he didnt have said weapons? after 9 years of debilitating and effective inspections, months more of so with new, better, and updated inspection teams, 1 month of war, 1 month of the US themselves personally searching around, and not a single credible, realistic, valid shred of evidence to be found? now its so easy to play this game of "he hid them well" or "its a big country, its easy to hide the shit" or "theyre in _____(fill in the blank with country you want to invade) ". now itd be stupid to argue that he never had weapons that would justly be classified as WMD or that he is incapable of ever producing them, but the fact of the matter is these things leave a trace, a rather huge one. with the technology they employed then and now, there is no excuse to come up with the results they have and still make the enourmous claims they were. people have this fantasy of them being tiny watermelons that uncle ahkbar can hide in his doghouse or send of in a van to syria. im sorry but even on a impartial level, logic dictates otherwise. and what the fuck are you doing showing you face around here, nimrod? i suggest you stay the out of, you clearly displayed that you have absolutley no idea what the fuck your talking about. bow out now before you make a bigger fool of yourself, you ape.

Ha. Nice.

You forget one point, jackhole. Hussein knew he was going to lose the war. He talked tough, but he knew. Now, if you knew you were going to lose, going to attempt to flee in exile, wouldn't it be easier to seek refuge in another country if you didn't use WMD against a country that you knew was going to beat you? Saddam has always been about Saddam. That was by far his best move.

sleeper · 05-24-2003, 01:31 PM

like i said there is many levels you can argue it on, and many levels you can argue specific things on, but there is no point operating this on the level were playing at now. its all hypothetical and goes nowhere. what i do know is that the time will tell, and in 10 years when we all have our heads out of our asses, it'll be very clear. its embarrasing hearing some of the arguments boths sides are using, especially so when theyre derived from ignorant conclusions or weak sources

sawdust restaurants · 05-27-2003, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Hussein knew he was going to lose the war. He talked tough, but he knew.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The man is a lunatic--he's brilliant, but he's also quite obviously been drunk on power for upwards of 20 years now, and at this point, for all we know, he might well have descended into complete derangement. I wouldn't be entirely shocked if Saddam's refusal to let weapons inspectors into the country was all brazen bravado and if Iraq's weapons program wasn't as advanced as intelligence sources say it is. It's not likely at all, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that Iraq might not be harboring what we think it is and that Saddam might have thought we were going to win the war.

Nimrod's Son · 05-28-2003, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The man is a lunatic--he's brilliant, but he's also quite obviously been drunk on power for upwards of 20 years now, and at this point, for all we know, he might well have descended into complete derangement. I wouldn't be entirely shocked if Saddam's refusal to let weapons inspectors into the country was all brazen bravado and if Iraq's weapons program wasn't as advanced as intelligence sources say it is. It's not likely at all, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that Iraq might not be harboring what we think it is and that Saddam might have thought we were going to win the war.

He was an ego maniac for sure, but I'm pretty confident that he knew the end was nigh.

mercurial · 05-29-2003, 10:09 PM

This article in the independent might be of some interest you may however want to pick up the issue of Vanity Fair that it refers to get a complete picture of what was said.

sleeper · 05-30-2003, 11:01 AM

yeah i reasd that today in the paper and actually laughed out loud. you know its so funny. its so unbelievable, and i wished i had a hard record of all the times i told people to "mark my words" when i gave predictions and thoughts before and during the war. i think almost a year ago i said in a discussion tha iraq had no weapons or no considerable weapons to be concerned about, and half the fcking forum laughed at me. if this isnt evidence that iraq doesnt posses the weapons they were accusing them of, it is at least proof they actively and willingly lie and decieve their people to acheive their ends. i hate even discussing htis war on this immature level of the goverment line. theres no use discussing the worth and validity of the public reasons for the war, because most of which should instantly be dismissed as bullshit. whats the point of discussing how the war is for freeing the people? that obviously has no weight at all. i keep saying time will tell, and although this article it self isnt much, it is to be a brief snippet of the idea. that in time it will all be very clear and one side is going to have a lot of "i told you so"s to give

05-13-2003, 06:31 PM	#1
Homerpalooza Pledge Location: san jose, ca Posts: 242	To all Pro-war people (WMD) Couple of questions: Does the fact that no WMD's have yet to be found (and it looks less likely every day) change your opinion on the war? In other words, if you had known beforehand that there were hardly any WMD's in Iraq, would you have supported this war? Will this make you hesitant to support any future wars by this administration? I've seen journalists (like Tom Friedman) say things like "it doesn't matter if we don't find WMD's, we freed Iraqis" and such, and I can't understand how they believe this. So, just curious how Netphoria felt. Oh, here's an obligatory CTRL-V link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3018063.stm US arms experts 'leaving Iraq' The United States force directing the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is pulling out, according to The Washington Post. The 75th Exploitation Task Force is dismantling its operations for a likely departure in June, says the newspaper, after the group failed to find any biological and chemical weapons. Members of the team told the newspaper that they no longer expected to find such stocks, and that they had consistently found targets identified by Washington to be inaccurate, or to have been looted and burned. The force will hand over to a new team, the Iraq Survey Group. But, according to the Washington Post, the number of weapons experts in the new outfit has been significantly reduced and some units have already sent home as many as a third of their original complement. "We thought we would be much more gainfully employed, or intensively employed, than we were," said Navy Commander David Beckett of the Defence Threat Reduction Agency. Evidence 'important' US President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair had used the alleged threat posed by Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for waging war. Correspondents say that while the failure to discover such weapons may not matter to many Americans, in Europe - where many people strongly opposed the war - the issue is likely to become a political one. Last week, the commander of UK forces in the Iraq conflict Air Marshal Brian Burridge said he had "no doubt" that evidence of the weapons would be found. He accepted that it was "very important" that such proof was uncovered, in order to show the public the concerns that prompted the war were genuine. However, Army Colonel Richard McPhee, who will close down the task force next month, told the Washington Post if Iraq thought of using such weapons, "there had to have been something to use. And we haven't found it". "Books will be written on that in the intelligence community for a long time," he added. Army Colonel Robert Smith, who leads the site assessment teams from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, said task force leaders no longer "think we're going to find chemical rounds sitting next to a gun." He added, "That's what we came here for, but we're past that." US Central Command began the war with a list of 19 top weapons sites - only two remain to be searched. Another list enumerated 68 top "non-WMD sites," without known links to special weapons but judged to have the potential to offer clues. Of those, the tally at midweek showed 45 surveyed without success. "Why are we doing any planned targets?" said Army Chief Warrant Officer Richard L Gonzales, leader of Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha, reports the Washington Post. "Answer me that. We know they're empty."

05-22-2003, 06:24 PM	#17
Mooney Socialphobic Location: halifax Posts: 14,821	could the WMD's not have been destroyed or shipped off to another country? __________________

05-22-2003, 09:32 PM	#20
sleeper Minion of Satan Posts: 8,801	to argue this on one level, and rather childish one: to argue that point, your basically arguing that he could have used them and didnt. now from a simple logical viewpoint, if my country and my regime was facing destruction, if i was about to be exiled from my own country, if i have a well known and documented history of ignoring the basic laws of humanity why would i not use whatever it is i have at my disposal to prevent this? especially with all the spurious bullshit flying about how he might sneak attack with chemical weapons, or that he'd use htem the first minutes of the war. no wait, he'd wait till when they were close to baghdad. no wait, when they captured baghdad. no wait, hed sneak attack a US base with them after they set up their military installations! now, without getting into the nitty-gritty and playing it on your level, isnt it logical to assume that he didnt have said weapons? after 9 years of debilitating and effective inspections, months more of so with new, better, and updated inspection teams, 1 month of war, 1 month of the US themselves personally searching around, and not a single credible, realistic, valid shred of evidence to be found? now its so easy to play this game of "he hid them well" or "its a big country, its easy to hide the shit" or "theyre in _____(fill in the blank with country you want to invade) ". now itd be stupid to argue that he never had weapons that would justly be classified as WMD or that he is incapable of ever producing them, but the fact of the matter is these things leave a trace, a rather huge one. with the technology they employed then and now, there is no excuse to come up with the results they have and still make the enourmous claims they were. people have this fantasy of them being tiny watermelons that uncle ahkbar can hide in his doghouse or send of in a van to syria. im sorry but even on a impartial level, logic dictates otherwise. and what the fuck are you doing showing you face around here, nimrod? i suggest you stay the out of, you clearly displayed that you have absolutley no idea what the fuck your talking about. bow out now before you make a bigger fool of yourself, you ape. Last edited by sleeper : 05-22-2003 at 09:35 PM.

05-13-2003, 06:55 PM	#2
sleeper Minion of Satan Posts: 8,801	what i was initially fearing before the war started was that it would be all to easy for the US to, for lack of a better term, 'plant' weapons. this was and still is a huge and completely rational possibility. but i think regardless of what is about to happen, this is a pretty large blow to their moral (and legal) arguement for the war. what i fear now is that its going to be forgotten easily. as in "who cares. its over. it was easy". this along with the media's willing shift to the "liberation" argument. but im optimistic that some attention will be drawn to the fact that their primary justification for the war proved to be false. which to a certain extent has been allready with the not-so-recent evidence supporting the notion that the US and britain were doctoring if not completely inventing evidence to support their claim. along with a zillion other point

05-13-2003, 07:11 PM	#3
Nimrod's Son Master of Karate and Friendship Location: in your butt Posts: 72,943	Actually, again that has been twisted. The main reason for calling on a vote in the UN Sec. Council for military action wasn't that Iraq had weapons or didn't. It was for obstructing the searches and disobeying and being in primary breach of a number of other UN resolutions. If Saddam had cooperated since 1991, there wouldn't have been any question.

05-17-2003, 05:12 PM	#7
sleeper Minion of Satan Posts: 8,801	its funny cause there actually is positive, good reasons for war, but none of them are the common ones you hear out of george or his bitches. all the arguements for war can just as easily be twisted against it. enforcing UN resolutions? fucking bullshit. the US alone is in contravention to numerous UN resolutions. freeing people? why iraq and not the other large amount of countries equally in need of freedom. and at that, american freedom? no. without getting into the whole iraq debate again, it doesnt matter who you are, you have to admit that it would be extremely helpful to the US's case to find the WMD they have been using as one justification for this war. the fact that they havent is regardless a blow to their "case". i laughed when i heard that "iraq's weapons might have made their way to syria". convincing in the worst possible way

05-19-2003, 07:54 PM	#8
Homerpalooza Pledge Location: san jose, ca Posts: 242	Eh, I guess this board really is taking a hit. Come on guys, I know there are some hawks here.

05-21-2003, 05:56 PM	#15
sleeper Minion of Satan Posts: 8,801	nimrod's point is dull and stinks. this coming from the self-proclaimed intellectual who never loses a debate? if we were all willing to seriously engage in this debate, part II, id be all for you. but what i dont like is in-the-middle on-off caring and concern for it. so while i can refute, im not, and i wont. mercurial has covered some points, or enough so to warrant a mutual end to this topic. and more than enough to go back to homer's.

05-23-2003, 12:35 AM	#21
guz El Gringo Mexicano Location: I'd rather just have dome anyway Posts: 8,599	.

05-24-2003, 01:31 PM	#23
sleeper Minion of Satan Posts: 8,801	like i said there is many levels you can argue it on, and many levels you can argue specific things on, but there is no point operating this on the level were playing at now. its all hypothetical and goes nowhere. what i do know is that the time will tell, and in 10 years when we all have our heads out of our asses, it'll be very clear. its embarrasing hearing some of the arguments boths sides are using, especially so when theyre derived from ignorant conclusions or weak sources

05-29-2003, 10:09 PM	#26
mercurial $ W▲ G Posts: 6,576	This article in the independent might be of some interest you may however want to pick up the issue of Vanity Fair that it refers to get a complete picture of what was said.

05-30-2003, 11:01 AM	#27
sleeper Minion of Satan Posts: 8,801	yeah i reasd that today in the paper and actually laughed out loud. you know its so funny. its so unbelievable, and i wished i had a hard record of all the times i told people to "mark my words" when i gave predictions and thoughts before and during the war. i think almost a year ago i said in a discussion tha iraq had no weapons or no considerable weapons to be concerned about, and half the fcking forum laughed at me. if this isnt evidence that iraq doesnt posses the weapons they were accusing them of, it is at least proof they actively and willingly lie and decieve their people to acheive their ends. i hate even discussing htis war on this immature level of the goverment line. theres no use discussing the worth and validity of the public reasons for the war, because most of which should instantly be dismissed as bullshit. whats the point of discussing how the war is for freeing the people? that obviously has no weight at all. i keep saying time will tell, and although this article it self isnt much, it is to be a brief snippet of the idea. that in time it will all be very clear and one side is going to have a lot of "i told you so"s to give