codeorama Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Originally posted by riggo-toni One point, Code: In the case of Iraq, they have used chemical weapons as offensive weapons in the Iran Iraq war, inasmuch as Iraq started the war, then used Chemical weapons to to turn the tide of the war after they started losing. Now, I'm sure you could split hairs and say that even though Iraq started the war, they didn't use Chems until Iran started penetrating Iraqi territory, but I still think that goes beyond purely defensive purposes. Of course, there's the chems used against the Kurds, but you probably want to disqualify that as being an internal matter. As I've stated previously, I think this war wasn't really about Chemical weapons anyway, nor was it about oil. Good points, I would only say that Iraq was using the chem weapons that we gave them because we wanted them to use them against Iran to make sure they won. We had some responsibility there. And I will also admit, I don't really totally understand the reasons/basis for their relationship with the Kurds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 rd.. I would never be one of those that kept saying.. "no, that's not enough, no that's not enough" etc... What I have been waiting for is for the Bush Admin or the military to hold a press conference and say "here it is". That has not happened to this point. The only proof so far is false positives from CNN, Fox and MSNBC that have each been countered with the truth and obscure web links... To this point, the military has ONLY commented that NO WMD have been found... So should I assume the military is lying to me? I understand what everyone is saying about Saddam giving WMD to terrorists... I am merely saying that terrorists probably have easier sources of getting WMD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Wop Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 What I have been waiting for is for the Bush Admin or the military to hold a press conference and say "here it is". That has not happened to this point. The only proof so far is false positives from CNN, Fox and MSNBC that have each been countered with the truth and obscure web links... To this point, the military has ONLY commented that NO WMD have been found... So should I assume the military is lying to me? I understand what everyone is saying about Saddam giving WMD to terrorists... I am merely saying that terrorists probably have easier sources of getting WMD. Points well take. I to want these weapons to be found and acknowledge, that if they are never found that the administration and Britan are going to have alot of answering to. And I to was rather pissed about the News reports, but I know that we are really just entering the major investigation phase of finding weapons (the US did call in a 1000 man team yesturday to really get it going) and hopefully we can put this issue to bed sooner then later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Originally posted by rdogblue Points well take. I to want these weapons to be found and acknowledge, that if they are never found that the administration and Britan are going to have alot of answering to. And I to was rather pissed about the News reports, but I know that we are really just entering the major investigation phase of finding weapons (the US did call in a 1000 man team yesturday to really get it going) and hopefully we can put this issue to bed sooner then later. I totally agree with you there.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Looks like we need to plant a couple of actual warheads to make sure it's taken seriously. I wonder if we can make them French warheads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted April 18, 2003 Author Share Posted April 18, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Why do we need proof? We've found mobile chemical labs. What else could those things be used for other than to produce chemical weapons? I think we will find them, but I rest easier knowing that we got rid of regime that was actively trying to/ and succeeding at producing them. Credibility. Concrete proof- will lend to Bush original arguement. If not, then it will undermine him. Give fuel to the anti-war side and also put a distrust of Bush that could led to his defeat in 2004. No it won't change the world opinion but it could give more fuel to those who opposed this war and the formation of a new anti-American alliance lead by Russia, China, France and Germany. They will stop assisting us on the war on terror and could actually help the terrorists in attacking us, to weaken the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted April 18, 2003 Author Share Posted April 18, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 DINGDINGDING> That's all the proof we need. He wasnt allowed to make them, so even attempting to do so created a threat. If we dont find any, that means we got to him before he succeeded. PERFECT in my book. The new doctrine is one of pre-emption. It works. Why aren't we at war with Syria then? They have weapons. What about Iran- their nuke reactor is about to go online. What about Pakistan? What about North Korea? What about china- who is secretly building weapons to hit the us-courtesy of our own technology. If your going to preempt- then why haven't we declared war against all the other more leathal threats. What about our old enemy Russia? They are a threat to us-since they can nuke us. Frankly I think the Iraqi threat was overstated. Iraq quickly fell- yes they are pockets of fighting but IRaq didn't present much of challenge. Bush feared Saddam had these weapons and would us them against us. Also he did have that score to settle for Saddam trying to kill Pappy. Syria has long been a sponsor of terrorism- why aren't we marching to Damscus? Some of Iraq's people and weapons could be there. Also Iran is about to go nuclear- and they have been a long time sponsor terrorism. Once they have nukes- don't you think terrorists will have those nuclear material and use them against us? If you're going to be consistent- then Bush should be at war with those countries before they can strike us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 It is better if they find the smoking gun, so to speak. As I said before, if Iraq goes through relatively little turmoil and the US doesn't have to take the role of imperialist or peace keeper for too long, then it really won't matter. The evil of Sadam will be removed and the people of Iraq's approval will speak volumes loud enough to make up for the missing evidence. Besides, all the major players and most of the protestors believe that he had these weapons stashed somewhere. There was just disagreement whether the existance of these weapons was enough, preemptive war is a pretty hard pill to swallow. It could easily become justification for too many atrocities on the parts of others. I mean what is the threshold for reaching pre-emption? That's a scary road to begin traveling down when other nations, less scrupulous ones begin using it as their justification for military engagement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Why aren't we at war with Syria then? They have weapons. What about Iran- their nuke reactor is about to go online. What about Pakistan? What about North Korea? What about china- who is secretly building weapons to hit the us-courtesy of our own technology. If your going to preempt- then why haven't we declared war against all the other more leathal threats. What about our old enemy Russia? They are a threat to us-since they can nuke us. Frankly I think the Iraqi threat was overstated. Iraq quickly fell- yes they are pockets of fighting but IRaq didn't present much of challenge. Bush feared Saddam had these weapons and would us them against us. Also he did have that score to settle for Saddam trying to kill Pappy. Syria has long been a sponsor of terrorism- why aren't we marching to Damscus? Some of Iraq's people and weapons could be there. Also Iran is about to go nuclear- and they have been a long time sponsor terrorism. Once they have nukes- don't you think terrorists will have those nuclear material and use them against us? If you're going to be consistent- then Bush should be at war with those countries before they can strike us. One sh!thole at a time, my friend. You can bet your a$$ neighboring terrorist sponsoring countries are VERY nervous right now, as well they should be. If it's one thing arabs respect is force and/or a boot up the a$$. They will either start acting like they have some damn sense, or they won't be around very long. Hence, syria is suddenly keen to give up some of saddams government officials that aren't in their country. As for china, you can thank bubba for the technology transfer that brought their rocket program from the late 50's to the 90's. They want a piece of us, but they know they can't do it yet. Some time in the future, they will try to take Taiwan. Hopefully, we will have the Middle East settled down by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted April 18, 2003 Author Share Posted April 18, 2003 Originally posted by Air Sarge As for china, you can thank bubba for the technology transfer that brought their rocket program from the late 50's to the 90's. They want a piece of us, but they know they can't do it yet. Some time in the future, they will try to take Taiwan. Hopefully, we will have the Middle East settled down by then. don't though love Bubba?:laugh: China will attempt to retake Tawaiin in 2009. Once the afterglow of the 2008 Bejing Olympics fades- china will launch their attack. Also china is developing a space program. Wonder why? For love of space? Or is it to perfect delivery techonology that can strike us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 I submit that we have already destroyed their most deadly WMD. The regime itself. Were they not responsible for countless of thousands of murders, rapes, tortures, starvations, etc... And does anybody really think they would have just stopped by themselves? Hell no. Is this any less lethal than Anthrax? I couldn't care less if they don't find any of the other WMD. I know there are a lot of people who need it to happen to justify in there minds somehow that we were right to go in in the first place. Once we find them I'm sure the argument will become "well they didn't find enough to warrant an invasion". These anti-Bush people will NEVER be satisfied. And for those who say that there is no connection to al Qaeda I say this. A terrorist, is a terrorist, is a terrorist. And the only way to stop them is to find'em and kill'em. All of'em. However long it takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.