| Author |
Message |
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
 Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:36 pm |
|
I challenge someone to deny that Saddam was an evil, ruthless, hateful murderer, with a special reserve of HATE for the U.S. Huh? Someone care to deny that? Would someone deny that he harbored terrorists and would LOVE to see the U.S. fall? Would you please rise and identify yourselves, so I can smack you over the head? 
Saddam. Was a threat. Always has been. He killed his own people. He committed atrocities. He did not. Deserve. Control. Of a country.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:38 pm |
|
| Exalya wrote: | I challenge someone to deny that Saddam was an evil, ruthless, hateful murderer, with a special reserve of HATE for the U.S. Huh? Someone care to deny that? Would someone deny that he harbored terrorists and would LOVE to see the U.S. fall? Would you please rise and identify yourselves, so I can smack you over the head?
Saddam. Was a threat. Always has been. He killed his own people. He committed atrocities. He did not. Deserve. Control. Of a country. |
EXACTLY. However, I know people that even say that Hitler wasn't evil but just PSHYCOTIC. What do you think they think about Saddam?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Dirt
Exercise Boy
Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 2086
Location: a tree
|
| Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:39 pm |
|
Clearly they just took pictures of their backyard and said "look WMD!" and the UN believed it Ok, that was a drastic statement of mine, to say your government made it up, they got wrong intel... that all these missiles are there but at the same time they are not
And sure saddam was a nasty dude, but there's more of those in the world. Why don't you go attack those too? But a threat nope, with what? His shoes?
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:41 pm |
|
He killed people, and he helped people who kill people. I don't call that such a domestic thing as 'shoes.'
And nobody wins with an insanity defense. You have to be insane to take a life to begin with.
|
|
|
Dirt
Exercise Boy
Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 2086
Location: a tree
|
| Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:47 pm |
|
Well, at least he had a more stable Iraq then it is now.  But the US is quite the distance from Iraq,
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:49 pm |
|
| Dirt wrote: | | Well, at least he had a more stable Iraq then it is now. But the US is quite the distance from Iraq, |
More stable? Bah. Iraq is more stable than you think, and when Iraq was "stable," it was under the rule of the devil.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Dirt
Exercise Boy
Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 2086
Location: a tree
|
| Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:50 pm |
|
Car bombs every day, people dieing... stable, yeah, sure, not, really, though At least he kept the ethnic groups apart.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:53 pm |
|
| Dirt wrote: | | Car bombs every day, people dieing... stable, yeah, sure, not, really, though At least he kept the ethnic groups apart. |
I said MORE STABLE THAN YOU THINK, not STABLE. And of COURSE people will die daily--this is a war against a determined enemy--evil in human form: the terrorists.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:56 pm |
|
However, mind you, things ARE stabilizing, but of course the terrorists will do ANYTHING to get in the way of that.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Wed Oct 06, 2004 11:20 pm |
|
| Dirt wrote: | | because they didn't find any you dummy, before the US government started saying "oh no, wmd!" nobody had an opinion about it, now all of a sudden you're all confinced it's there... it's crazy |
Don't call me a dummy, baby-killer.
| Dirt wrote: | | And sure saddam was a nasty dude, but there's more of those in the world. Why don't you go attack those too? |
Because maybe you haven't noticed but we aren't fighting with magical robots. We are fighting with a limited number of troops. It wouldn't be very smart to invade multiple countries at a time with a limited number of troops. Its hard enough to hold down a country where people kill themelves in the name of their religion. 
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Wed Oct 06, 2004 11:55 pm |
|
DUDE! Insults only makes your point look wrong because you have to resort to insults.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:42 am |
|
Oh I see.....his point isn't wrong even though he called me a dummy. But because I replied back with what he is I look wrong? Whatever....
|
|
|
Dirt
Exercise Boy
Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 2086
Location: a tree
|
| Thu Oct 07, 2004 5:32 am |
|
Sooooo, Afghanistan was filled with magical robots? Because I'm pretyt sure that fighting is still going on there quite fiercly
And if you'd actually read what I had said in that other topic you are refering to you'd know I'm not a baby killer, since it's not my personal view. And poor you being called a dummy, if you feel real hurt because of it then I'm truely sorry 
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Thu Oct 07, 2004 6:59 am |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Dirt wrote: | | THERE AREN'T ANY Wake up and smell the coffee, the US government made them up. |
Yeah lets all take your word for it.... |
Or we could take the expert's word for it. I realise that may be a difficult leap for you to make, but perhaps you should try.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Oct 07, 2004 7:25 am |
|
I don't think the U.S. made it wrong, I think they were generally mistaken at first. After all, it was their intelligence that told them there were WMDs. Intelligence agencies can be wrong.
However, continuing to insist that their own weapons inspector is wrong is beginning to make me doubt the coherent goals of their various agencies.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Thu Oct 07, 2004 7:44 am |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Dirt wrote: | | THERE AREN'T ANY Wake up and smell the coffee, the US government made them up. |
Yeah lets all take your word for it.... |
First, I don't see why it is so difficult for so many Republicans to just come out and admit that there were probably no WMD's in Iraq and Iraq wasn't as dangerous in that manner as we, and a list of other nations beleived. Secondly, the US was not the only country that had the false intelligence that led us to war, I beleive RM has provided a list before including quite a few other nations. Third, just because the Iraqi government wasn't handing weapons to terrorists left and right doesn't mean that the individual scientist weren't either. It is very possible that there could have been a terrorists among the many scientists slipping different things to terrorists. Either way...
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Thu Oct 07, 2004 9:08 am |
|
1) It doesn't matter in some ways if there was WMD or not if the intelegence said that there was. Bush cannot accept much blame if he was told there was. The intelegence services should. I know it would be nice to reverse the clock with hindsight (and how many times has that been wanted) but with the information at the time then it said there was.
In America as far as I can gather the case for war was rather that Sadam was a threat, rather than about the WMD. He might not have had them, but if he was giving equipment or information about building them to terrorists then it was right. Here in Britian the case was made that we went to war because there was WMD. This puts Blair in a difficult situation, but no doubt he will get out of it like the Hutton report and a number of other scandels the government seem to have whitewashed.
|
|
|
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
| Thu Oct 07, 2004 9:22 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | it was under the rule of the devil. |
Hey I would be happy to let you know I haven't left hell in awhile so it couldn't have been run by the devil .
I always thought the WMD didn't really exist after 91. Granted Husain (SP) was a bad person but there was better ways to get him than what we did.
-------signature-------
| ~Tony Montana wrote: | | You know what you need people like me people for you to snub your nose at and point at saying there is a bad man. Well guess what This bad man is leaving. Say goodnight to the BAD MAN! |
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Oct 07, 2004 11:37 am |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | 1) It doesn't matter in some ways if there was WMD or not if the intelegence said that there was. Bush cannot accept much blame if he was told there was. The intelegence services should. I know it would be nice to reverse the clock with hindsight (and how many times has that been wanted) but with the information at the time then it said there was. |
I agree that it was the intelligence services' initial fault. However, I think that now that we've established that there are probably not any WMDs in Iraq, the Bush administration should stop claiming that there were. In other words: blame it all on the scapegoats (the intelligence services)! 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Oct 07, 2004 4:41 pm |
|
| Kyre wrote: | | Founder wrote: | | Dirt wrote: | | THERE AREN'T ANY Wake up and smell the coffee, the US government made them up. |
Yeah lets all take your word for it.... |
Or we could take the expert's word for it. I realise that may be a difficult leap for you to make, but perhaps you should try. |
I think he was referring to the US government making it up thing.
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | Founder wrote: | | Dirt wrote: | | THERE AREN'T ANY Wake up and smell the coffee, the US government made them up. |
Yeah lets all take your word for it.... |
First, I don't see why it is so difficult for so many Republicans to just come out and admit that there were probably no WMD's in Iraq and Iraq wasn't as dangerous in that manner as we, and a list of other nations beleived. Secondly, the US was not the only country that had the false intelligence that led us to war, I beleive RM has provided a list before including quite a few other nations. Third, just because the Iraqi government wasn't handing weapons to terrorists left and right doesn't mean that the individual scientist weren't either. It is very possible that there could have been a terrorists among the many scientists slipping different things to terrorists. Either way... |
1. I HAVE said that there most likely were no WMDs, okay? It's on the record of these forums. HOWEVER, I believe that there are so many possibilities that they may show up.
2. Yes, we were NOT alone.
3. Yes, agreed.
| Jeremy wrote: | 1) It doesn't matter in some ways if there was WMD or not if the intelegence said that there was. Bush cannot accept much blame if he was told there was. The intelegence services should. I know it would be nice to reverse the clock with hindsight (and how many times has that been wanted) but with the information at the time then it said there was.
In America as far as I can gather the case for war was rather that Sadam was a threat, rather than about the WMD. He might not have had them, but if he was giving equipment or information about building them to terrorists then it was right. Here in Britian the case was made that we went to war because there was WMD. This puts Blair in a difficult situation, but no doubt he will get out of it like the Hutton report and a number of other scandels the government seem to have whitewashed. |
1. Actually, we went to war for multiple reasons:
A. (The primary reason) WMDs
B. Those weapons, in the hands of Saddam, made him incredibly dangerous
C. He could have given those to terrorists
D. The Iraqis needed to be freed.
2. I don't think that there is ANY conspiracy in the Blair administration. He was right and fine in what he said.
| Jeff Miller wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | it was under the rule of the devil. |
Hey I would be happy to let you know I haven't left hell in awhile so it couldn't have been run by the devil .
I always thought the WMD didn't really exist after 91. Granted Husain (SP) was a bad person but there was better ways to get him than what we did. |
1. He was an EVIL man. Are you denying that? And what I meant by that was that he is the "Devil," with quotes, in human form, as he was EVIL.
2. Actually, I think you are wrong in making that assumption this whole time.
A. ALL intel pointed to WMDs since then leading up to the war
B. Why would he throw out UN inspectors if he had nothing to hide?
C. He had the capacity/capability, the means, and the money (especially after Oil for Food) to do so, and so he VERY WELL could have made them. Dulcer (I believe his name was) also said in his 1500 page report & his testimony in Congress:
i. Saddam had the capability.
ii. Saddam had the intent.
iii. Saddam was getting money illegally for Oil for Food (was that why France, Russia, and China wouldn't help us?)
iv. Saddam would have made WMDs by 2003 and the situation would have deteriorated. I HEARD him say so on Laura Ingrham this morning.
Now, about Oil for Food:
We all know about that Scandal: Saddam was abusing the Oil for Food program, the UN did nothing about it, etc. Well, what really happened?
I think that because the UN, France, Russia, and China were also mooching off of the program and WORKING with Saddam is perhaps the reason why they wouldn't go into Iraq--economic gain. Huh? And there IS proof to back that up, too.
A. France, Russia, and China especially had gotten a large sum of money from the program and worked along with Saddam for that.
B. Saddam's money went from $7.8 Million US to $350 Million US FROM the program--and he never used it towards his people. Couldn't he have created WMDs from that?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri Oct 08, 2004 5:57 pm |
|
An Iraqi weapons program official that defected to the United States several years before the war perhaps said it best. "If there are any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you will never find them."
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:52 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | An Iraqi weapons program official that defected to the United States several years before the war perhaps said it best. "If there are any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you will never find them." |
GREAT point. Thank you.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:55 am |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | An Iraqi weapons program official that defected to the United States several years before the war perhaps said it best. "If there are any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you will never find them." |
You're right. The Democrats don't want to believe it. Why? It will prove them wrong. Even if this is exact qoute is shown from this man or woman's mouth. If it is proven they will simply say he is of the "Bribed and coerced."
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:07 am |
|
Well, as you all know, I was and am against the war, but I don't think we will ever be able to determine for certain if he had development programs going or not. So, until we have solid evidence one way or the other, I'm tempted to say that arguing the point is useless.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:17 am |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | An Iraqi weapons program official that defected to the United States several years before the war perhaps said it best. "If there are any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you will never find them." |
You're right. The Democrats don't want to believe it. Why? It will prove them wrong. Even if this is exact qoute is shown from this man or woman's mouth. If it is proven they will simply say he is of the "Bribed and coerced." |
And the Republicans don't want to believe that there aren't any WMDs. Why? It will prove them wrong.
It's a war of belief more than ever.
I agree with Zeke, it's hard to say either way and the point is probably moot. The coalition invaded, Iraq has been liberated, and Saddam deposed.
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
