OT: Pictures of Weapons of Mass Destruction

[Hulk]

Originally posted by politeagression
war

saddam?

kids

a perspective

these are informative

From the "Peoples Republic of California."



As I've said before weapons of mass destructions have move the bar for actively disarming the threat of a roque nation in violation of 17 UN resolutions, that invaded it's neighbor, gassed it's own people, and continues to threaten the world.


Also, only one person is responsible for the suffering in Iraq, Saddam Hussain. He can stop the suffering right now.

Think about it.

Do you blame the FBI when a kidnapper kills his victim and says, "you made me do it!" Of course not. Same situation here, Saddam is holding his country hostage with his military.

[Marshmallowman]

Hacker:
1. at the end of the gulf war iraq agreed to disarm and cleannup its act. which may have been the reason why the USA did not got in and take sodom out......sodom has reneged. He was provided an escape route to stay in power but he has fecked that. G. Bush senior SHOULD have done the job properly in the first place!!! A lot of Iraqis who who wanted to kick sodom out and establish a more *enlightened/democratic* country were pretty much setup a big fall.

While I think this is not an entirely justified occasion for GW to rectify past wrongs(lack of action in the past), I can not see one reason to defend sodom, as sodom appears to be a genuine prick.

3.As to China and tibet....China has pretty much anexed and destoyed an ancient culture and people...I find it quite disgusting how what has happened in tibet has been ignore by ALL western countries(sadly including my own Australia)

6.(a)no, I would quite happily say communism is good but was never implemmented equitably, I want DEMOCRATIC COMUNISM.
But if you even suggest I support terroism I would try to have you hung drawn and quarterd...no offense

(b) no parallel, Al Qaeda actions have killed to many innnocent people in an attack that can no way be attributed to any legitamate miltary action.

7.Ogg vorbis rules, better than MP3 and no BS strings attached

[Hulk]

I think that if Bush 41 had continued to Bagdad, the world community would have been more up in arms than they are now. After Iraq was forced out of Kuwait, they surrendered unconditionally.

That's when the disarmament resolutions were introduced. If Saddam had followed them we wouldn't be talking about any war now.

This is one reason why people walking around with "give peace a chance" shirts seems misinformed to me. We gave peace a chance by NOT continuing to Bagdad in 1991. That being said, I still appreciate the sentiment.

Then we gave it 17 more chances over the last 12 years. It STILL has a chance now, if Saddam wants to end this.

Sadly, you cannot have peace if one side does not want it.


Democratic Communism? Interesting oxymoron.

[Ted222]

1 - 6 Blah blah blah...."high moral ground"......blah blah blah.....

7 AC3

[politeagression]

Get off the UN thing we are not the international police and the UN does not fully support this WAR, also liberation what we call liberation has turned Afghanastan into a lawless wasteland, we only supply 3% of what we promissed, as our troops move on.

Still just righteous explanations, we have so much more to do with this, than simply trying to implement UN resolutions.

We friggin supported him and were his ally when he did the gassing that keeps getting brought up.

and peace is unconditional, thats why you feel it misinformed.
cause even people like me who are informed know that no amount of information can allow War.

There is alot more to this, alot of politics involved here.
Honestly I hope everyone goes and researches this I left links to make it easier. Spend time and read the pages and pages of info it takes to understand what kinda role the US has really plays here. Find out about our foreign relations. You may still support the war afterwards. Do your own searches find out you support this, find out you don't whatever just find out for yourself.

[Hulk]

I have done my research and came to the conclusion that the UN decided that Iraq must disarm, but the UN will not follow through, it's been 12 years of giving peace a chance.

You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.

The main difference is that I trust the information coming out of Bush, Powell, and Rumsfield.

You have the right to your opinion and I have the right to mine.

My mind is made up, my efforts are now directed at supporting the troops that are risking thier lives to protect my family.

-Mark

[Ted222]

I noticed that the Iraqi Foreign Minister thanked all those (twice) who have supported Iraq's stance in all of this by pushing the "peace not war" stance.....I hope all those people can take heart in such a sincere "thank you" from Soddam's representative to the international community........he really must be a really nice guy on the inside.......

When Iraq launches a few of the "thousands" of warheads they have stashed in Lebanon against Israel......you can take comfort in your High Moral Stance...and...continue to know that the world would be a better place, if only more people felt the way you do.

Ted

Oh and I notice that "politeaggression" has no profile in this forum...why is that?

[Ray Austin]

Originally posted by Hulk
This is one reason why people walking around with "give peace a chance" shirts seems misinformed to me. We gave peace a chance by NOT continuing to Bagdad in 1991. That being said, I still appreciate the sentiment.

Gee that's odd, I thought we bombed the hell out of Bagdad in 1991 and a time after that.

[Hulk]

Ted,

I hear you.

Unfortunately, the fact that,

-Iraq invaded Kuwait was forced to surrender

-and agreed to disarm and still has not

-after 12 years and 17 UN resolutions

-and that C. Powell has demonstrated strong terroristic connections

-and that Saddam kills and tortures his own people to stay in power

-and continues to this day to hide his weapons of mass destruction

Is not enough evidence for some people to understand why he must be disarmed NOW! 12 years, enough.

-Mark

[Hulk]

Originally posted by Ray Austin
Gee that's odd, I thought we bombed the hell out of Bagdad in 1991 and a time after that.

Fair question, here's the answer.

We bombed Bagdad WHILE the Iraqi's were still in Kuwait. Are you saying you were also against the Gulf War? Defeating the Iraqi's and driving them out of Kuwait required Command and Control in Iraq being dismantled.

Now, after Iraq was driven out of Kuwait, we stopped the attack when we could have easily continued to Bagdad and finished Saddam's regime as we should have. Unfortunately, the short-sighted UN was against it. Hindsight shows they were wrong, just as they are now.


Now, after 1991, I do remember Clinton lobbing in some cruise missiles. . .

-Mark

[Chief_Inspector]

I don't think anyone is against Saddam getting removed. What ever happened to the good ole days where the cia/mossad, etc would send in snipers to take someone out?

All this stuff about Iraq violating UN sanctions is fine, but as I said before, Israel has also defied UN sanctions. Will the US attack them? Yes or No?

How can Iraq be an iminant threat right now when compared to NK who went on record stating that they will launch nukes to the states if they try to do the same to them?

Do you guys have any idea what kind of chaos your country will be in if Bush starts going after all or most Arab countries and not do a thing about Israel?

Tonite, some actress went on crossfire and starting talking about a plan that Dick Cheney had outlined a few months before 9/11 which was about what America has to do in order to take over the world.

Anyone know anything about this?

PS: Congrats for keeping this civil.

CI

[Hulk]

"I don't think anyone is against Saddam getting removed. What ever happened to the good ole days where the cia/mossad, etc would send in snipers to take someone out?"

That would be nice. The problem is unless whoever replaced Saddam would still have to come clean with the WMD.


"All this stuff about Iraq violating UN sanctions is fine, but as I said before, Israel has also defied UN sanctions. Will the US attack them? Yes or No?"

As soon as Israel invades it's neighbor, is attacked by UN forces, surrenders, disobeys 17 UN resolutions, gasses it's own people, etc... they will also be attacked. We're not talking about the Israeli-Palestine conflict right now.


"How can Iraq be an iminant threat right now when compared to NK who went on record stating that they will launch nukes to the states if they try to do the same to them?"

There is no way the US would launch a first strike nuke attack on NK. Iraq is imminent becauseof the 17 UN violations. If we drop the Iraq issue right now, and attend to NK, then when NK settles down and Iraq acts up some more, just as we're about to deal with NK everyone will say, "what are you doing in NK, Iraq is NOW the real threat." Let's be serious, we're going to finish what was started 12 years ago with Iraq. Hussain has choosen the path of war time after time. He has counted on world support to bail him out time and time again. No more. And realistically, just like China and Russia don't see Iraq as a major threat, we don't see NK as a major threat. You'll see, China and Russia will take care of NK. It's just a Democratic talking point right now, NK, that is. Again, this is about Iraq, not Israel or NK.

I used to debate often, it's an old trick, you broaden the argument when you are losing the narrow argument. Let's try to keep to the facts of this situation.


"Do you guys have any idea what kind of chaos your country will be in if Bush starts going after all or most Arab countries and not do a thing about Israel?"

The Iraqi's will be waving American flags in the streets after they are liberated. MANY free Iraqi's in the states have said this. We abandoned them in 1991 when they rose up after the Gulf war. Not this time. Don't you worry, the Arabs know the threat of Saddam, their protests are only enough to make them seem viable.


"Tonite, some actress went on crossfire and starting talking about a plan that Dick Cheney had outlined a few months before 9/11 which was about what America has to do in order to take over the world."

That's funny.


"Anyone know anything about this?"

Nonsense.
PS I think NJ is getting Columbia, mmmm good weed!


"PS: Congrats for keeping this civil."

Hey, it's a place to think and have a intelligent dialog.

[Ted222]

Mark,

Montana will toss you for Columbia.......mmmmm good coffee too.

If you are gonna move this discussion into the "intelligent" arena, then I guess this maybe my last post......my I.Q. ain't high enough for that.....

Mark, I wish I could express my views as plainly and you are doing. I like your posts....lots of deep thought there...nice work.

thanks,

Ted

[Ray Austin]

Originally posted by Hulk
Fair question, here's the answer.

We bombed Bagdad WHILE the Iraqi's were still in Kuwait. Are you saying you were also against the Gulf War? Defeating the Iraqi's and driving them out of Kuwait required Command and Control in Iraq being dismantled.

Now, after Iraq was driven out of Kuwait, we stopped the attack when we could have easily continued to Bagdad and finished Saddam's regime as we should have. Unfortunately, the short-sighted UN was against it. Hindsight shows they were wrong, just as they are now.


Now, after 1991, I do remember Clinton lobbing in some cruise missiles. . .

-Mark

Yes, the reason I posted that was to add light to the fact that we have not bombed Iraq with peace in the last 12 yrs.

However, I did not say our actions then or now are unwarranted.

My main point as it has been from the beginning, is that we are the top dog. How many people go to pick on the low dog?

Some news caster asked Bush about his arrogance about our military. I can see it, I don't think he means it the way he comes off, but I am sure many other nationalities see this. That is what I am fearful for.

I am not saying we should roll over tho'.

As far as our plans to rule the world.... hahaha... we practically do already where have you been??? If we weren't there to police the world, there is no way the world would be in as good of shape as it is, even tho' it's still not quite perfect. [If we had our way it would be U.N.A.] "United Nations of America"

The Israel situation, is different in that they have enemies on all sides of them. The USA will always protect the underdog. Just like we did with Kuwait.

[Chief_Inspector]

"As soon as Israel invades it's neighbor, is attacked by UN forces, surrenders, disobeys 17 UN resolutions, gasses it's own people, etc... they will also be attacked. We're not talking about the Israeli-Palestine conflict right now."

Bush is using the excuse that Saddam has violated UN sanction 1441 period. Israel has also done the same. Whether one has violated 17 resolutions and the other violated 1 resolution is not the issue. They both violated a certain sanction. Israel is continuing to violate them by putting up settlements. Turning a blind eye to this is going to catch up.

"I used to debate often, it's an old trick, you broaden the argument when you are losing the narrow argument. Let's try to keep to the facts of this situation."

I'm not here to win anything nor am I posting here to make people change their minds.

The Iraqi's will be waving American flags in the streets after they are liberated. MANY free Iraqi's in the states have said this. We abandoned them in 1991 when they rose up after the Gulf war. Not this time. Don't you worry, the Arabs know the threat of Saddam, their protests are only enough to make them seem viable.

Iraq is not the Arab world. They are just a small part of it. Yes their people will be kissing everyone's feet for freeing them. However, your reply doesn't really address what I said.

"That's funny."

Yes it is.

Here's the transcript of the show I was talking about. Scroll down to
GAROFALO.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/07/cf.00.html

Here's a quote from that transcript about America taking over the world stuff:

GAROFALO: Actually, I think that there are two things. One is called "The Project for a New American Century," which is a paper from 1997, I believe, that was worked on by Wolfowitz, Perle, Libby, Abrams (ph), I think maybe Cheney, which talks about going into dominate the Gulf region for the resources and also for the geopolitical dominance in a post Cold World War world. The Gulf region is very valuable.

Then there's a paper that James Baker worked on called "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century" that he gave to Dick Cheney five months before 9/11 saying that we should go into Iraq.

"As far as our plans to rule the world.... hahaha... we practically do already where have you been???"

There are enough non americans on this board who are thinking the same as what I'm thinking about your statement., so I'll just bite my lip.

"The Israel situation, is different in that they have enemies on all sides of them. The USA will always protect the underdog."

Palestine is the underdog to Israel. Oh let me guess, every single Arab nation is secretly helping Palestine to fight Israel, that's why you think Israel is the underdog eventhough 1 side throws rocks and the other steam rolls over the people.

CI