• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Am I the only one who doesn't care if they ever find "WMD"?

Conky

Lifer
May 9, 2001
10,709
0
0
Saddam supported terrorist suicide bombers in Israel. Paid millions to their families. This is not even a contested issue. I don't care what reason they used to sell you on taking that guy out.

Besides, when they do find these "WMD", all you Saddam lovers/Bush haters will say it was planted so there can be no real answer to satisfy you people anyway. Tell me I'm wrong.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Saddam supported terrorist suicide bombers in Israel. Paid millions to their families. This is not even a contested issue. I don't care what reason they used to sell you on taking that guy out.

Besides, when they do find these "WMD", all you Saddam lovers/Bush haters will say it was planted so there can be no real answer to satisfy you people anyway. Tell me I'm wrong.
You're wrong.
 

mrCide

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 1999
6,187
0
76
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Saddam supported terrorist suicide bombers in Israel. Paid millions to their families. This is not even a contested issue. I don't care what reason they used to sell you on taking that guy out.

Besides, when they do find these "WMD", all you Saddam lovers/Bush haters will say it was planted so there can be no real answer to satisfy you people anyway. Tell me I'm wrong.
you sound silly
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
1
76
I posted a thread like this similar a month or so ago. I don't care if they have it as well. I think having a liberated Iraq free of Saddam's tyrannical rule is reason enough....but then again I give a sh!t about innocent Iraqi's who used to get slaughtered daily...
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
A reason must be a legal reason, if you think the guy across the road from you is beating up his wife you just dont go in and kick the snot out of him. WMD's were the only legal reason.
 

tweakmm

Lifer
May 28, 2001
18,436
2
0
Originally posted by: Czar
A reason must be a legal reason, if you think the guy across the road from you is beating up his wife you just dont go in and kick the snot out of him. WMD's were the only legal reason.
After you beat the crap out of him you can always claim that he was pointing a gun at you getting ready to fire!
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: tweakmm
Originally posted by: Czar
A reason must be a legal reason, if you think the guy across the road from you is beating up his wife you just dont go in and kick the snot out of him. WMD's were the only legal reason.
After you beat the crap out of him you can always claim that he was pointing a gun at you getting ready to fire!
Yeah, and then never be able to produce the gun (smoking or otherwise).

 

DZip

Senior member
Apr 11, 2000
375
0
0
Crazyfool:

It looks like once again a question is answered by short sighted, narrow-minded people that don't like what America stands for. The only thing that will make them happy is to discredit President Bush and have America look bad. This president has made most Americans feel good about taking out a threat to free loving people around the world. If 100 Iraqi's are glad about U.S. intervention to destroy Saddam and 1 terrorist Muslim rebel hates America for giving Iraqis freedom to choose their destiny, the news reports cover the 1. These rebels that are attacking American soldiers are hoping they can muster support for America to withdraw and turn the power over to these militant Muslim groups. A new government should be tolerant of all religious groups; these religious groups do not show tolerance to other religious groups. They kill innocent people and claim it?s God's will. My God loves everyone, their God does not.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: DZip
Crazyfool:

It looks like once again a question is answered by short sighted, narrow-minded people that don't like what America stands for. The only thing that will make them happy is to discredit President Bush and have America look bad. This president has made most Americans feel good about taking out a threat to free loving people around the world. If 100 Iraqi's are glad about U.S. intervention to destroy Saddam and 1 terrorist Muslim rebel hates America for giving Iraqis freedom to choose their destiny, the news reports cover the 1. These rebels that are attacking American soldiers are hoping they can muster support for America to withdraw and turn the power over to these militant Muslim groups. A new government should be tolerant of all religious groups; these religious groups do not show tolerance to other religious groups. They kill innocent people and claim it?s God's will. My God loves everyone, their God does not.
omg wow, *faints*
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,425
1
0
Originally posted by: Czar
A reason must be a legal reason, if you think the guy across the road from you is beating up his wife you just dont go in and kick the snot out of him. WMD's were the only legal reason.
WMD weren't the only reason to go into Iraq. It's what was purported as the reason by the Bush admin in order to solidify support in the US and for a coalition of the willing. Myself, I don't care about WMD and never did, there were enough other reasons to take out Saddam. What I do care about is that the US administration apparently played the American public, and the world in general, for fools. Time will tell if this is true or not, and to what extent, but to some extent it is already obviously apparent.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: jjones
Originally posted by: Czar
A reason must be a legal reason, if you think the guy across the road from you is beating up his wife you just dont go in and kick the snot out of him. WMD's were the only legal reason.
WMD weren't the only reason to go into Iraq. It's what was purported as the reason by the Bush admin in order to solidify support in the US and for a coalition of the willing. Myself, I don't care about WMD and never did, there were enough other reasons to take out Saddam. What I do care about is that the US administration apparently played the American public, and the world in general, for fools. Time will tell if this is true or not, and to what extent, but to some extent it is already obviously apparent.
what other legal reasons were there?
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: DZip
Crazyfool:

It looks like once again a question is answered by short sighted, narrow-minded people that don't like what America stands for. The only thing that will make them happy is to discredit President Bush and have America look bad. This president has made most Americans feel good about taking out a threat to free loving people around the world. If 100 Iraqi's are glad about U.S. intervention to destroy Saddam and 1 terrorist Muslim rebel hates America for giving Iraqis freedom to choose their destiny, the news reports cover the 1. These rebels that are attacking American soldiers are hoping they can muster support for America to withdraw and turn the power over to these militant Muslim groups. A new government should be tolerant of all religious groups; these religious groups do not show tolerance to other religious groups. They kill innocent people and claim it?s God's will. My God loves everyone, their God does not.
What do you propose? Another "crusade" since only your God is worthwhile?

You people will have the entire planet looking like Israel and Palestine before you're through. Religious zealots - every one with God on their side. I wonder what God thinks of all of this?

 

magma

Member
Jun 6, 2003
26
0
0
Originally posted by: DZip
Crazyfool:

It looks like once again a question is answered by short sighted, narrow-minded people that don't like what America stands for. The only thing that will make them happy is to discredit President Bush and have America look bad. This president has made most Americans feel good about taking out a threat to free loving people around the world. If 100 Iraqi's are glad about U.S. intervention to destroy Saddam and 1 terrorist Muslim rebel hates America for giving Iraqis freedom to choose their destiny, the news reports cover the 1. These rebels that are attacking American soldiers are hoping they can muster support for America to withdraw and turn the power over to these militant Muslim groups. A new government should be tolerant of all religious groups; these religious groups do not show tolerance to other religious groups. They kill innocent people and claim it?s God's will. My God loves everyone, their God does not.
Quite honestly, I was laughing so hard my side hurts.
 

AnImuS

Senior member
Sep 28, 2001
939
0
0
well im caught between both sides. If WMD are not found and he lied then i will be pretty disappointed...
But morally i feel the war was the right thing to do...
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
71
Originally posted by: DZip
Crazyfool:

It looks like once again a question is answered by short sighted, narrow-minded people that don't like what America stands for. The only thing that will make them happy is to discredit President Bush and have America look bad. This president has made most Americans feel good about taking out a threat to free loving people around the world. If 100 Iraqi's are glad about U.S. intervention to destroy Saddam and 1 terrorist Muslim rebel hates America for giving Iraqis freedom to choose their destiny, the news reports cover the 1. These rebels that are attacking American soldiers are hoping they can muster support for America to withdraw and turn the power over to these militant Muslim groups. A new government should be tolerant of all religious groups; these religious groups do not show tolerance to other religious groups. They kill innocent people and claim it?s God's will. My God loves everyone, their God does not.
IMHO with that argument you've just given the green light for the US to militarily attack anyone whom they percieve as acting in an "unamerican" way. You are the judge, jury and executioner. Sure, we all hate Saddam - but what if a different more internationally ambiguous target is chosen? The end does not justify the means and this issue is much bigger than Iraq.

If Iraq were a threat to you then you'd have apoint over whether they should be invaded. Given that the evidence is not bearing that out right now - it's on shakey ground. I love the fact that the Iraqi people are free - but let's not pretend it's an open and shut case of "clear morality".

Andy
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: jjones
Originally posted by: Czar
A reason must be a legal reason, if you think the guy across the road from you is beating up his wife you just dont go in and kick the snot out of him. WMD's were the only legal reason.
WMD weren't the only reason to go into Iraq. It's what was purported as the reason by the Bush admin in order to solidify support in the US and for a coalition of the willing. Myself, I don't care about WMD and never did, there were enough other reasons to take out Saddam. What I do care about is that the US administration apparently played the American public, and the world in general, for fools. Time will tell if this is true or not, and to what extent, but to some extent it is already obviously apparent.
If you think Saddam was the worst tyrant on earth you're wrong. So what's our excuse for the next "regime change?"

Let's start a war with everyone until they're all states. I'm sure no one will mind.

No need to bring international law into the picture. We'll just choose the next victim by closing our eyes and throwing a dart at a world map.

 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Imagine there's no country
It's easy if you try
You'll all become Americans
Either that our you'll all die

With apologies to John Lennon.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Actually legality is rarely a concern for US foreign policy . . . but morality certainly should be. Anybody with a decent education and a hint of international knowledge could easily name 5 CURRENT regimes that deserve toppling more than Saddam . . . based purely on humanitarian reasons. Our country does not commit itself to such actions b/c we are inherently isolationist and self-serving.

It was quite possible that Iraq will have a brighter DISTANT future b/c Saddam is out of power, sort of. But the very morality that many Bush lovers/Saddam-infatuated people profess . . . has been non-existent during the first two years of Bush, the Lesser and certainly not reflected in the execution of humanitarian work (lack of direct support from US agencies and retardation of international/NGOs efforts). No doubt the favorite Roman god of this humanitarian cadre is Janus.
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,425
1
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: jjones
Originally posted by: Czar
A reason must be a legal reason, if you think the guy across the road from you is beating up his wife you just dont go in and kick the snot out of him. WMD's were the only legal reason.
WMD weren't the only reason to go into Iraq. It's what was purported as the reason by the Bush admin in order to solidify support in the US and for a coalition of the willing. Myself, I don't care about WMD and never did, there were enough other reasons to take out Saddam. What I do care about is that the US administration apparently played the American public, and the world in general, for fools. Time will tell if this is true or not, and to what extent, but to some extent it is already obviously apparent.
If you think Saddam was the worst tyrant on earth you're wrong. So what's our excuse for the next "regime change?"

Let's start a war with everyone until they're all states. I'm sure no one will mind.

No need to bring international law into the picture. We'll just choose the next victim by closing our eyes and throwing a dart at a world map.
Did I say he was the worst tyrant? No. Sorry, I don't keep a score card but maybe you can help out with that.

Did I say I wanted to start a war with everyone? No. Typical oversimplification and exaggeration by an opposing view.

If you're capable of anything thoughtful, feel free to post.

 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,434
84
91
Saddam was a threat to the U.S. Unlike the natural resource starved North Korea, he had unlimited sources of money and could fund whatever crap he wanted to get into. I for one am glad he is no longer in power.
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
heh heh it's so great so all these bush fans backpedaling, first it was we have to attack, iraq is an IMMINENT threat to us!, then it was ok great we've invaded successfully, now it's a just a matter of time before we find them, now it's, who cares if they dont find wmds? these are the unpatriotic citizens of our country that are just letting our government slide and slide further into muck.
 

bigdog1218

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2001
1,674
1
0
This is really funny, I mean Bush fanboys have been crying for years about Clinton lying about his affair, but then Bush lies to start a war and you're perfectly fine with it? I mean I don't even need an argument cause you hypocrites do perfectly fine destroying your own.

Saddam was a threat to the U.S. Unlike the natural resource starved North Korea, he had unlimited sources of money and could fund whatever crap he wanted to get into. I for one am glad he is no longer in power.
Of course, I mean Iraq didn't have missiles that could reach the US and an extensive nuclear program, Saddam was obviously the bigger threat.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,606
4,242
126
Well as usual I'll get right to the important issue:

What did you mean by this, Bali?:

"No doubt the favorite Roman god of this humanitarian cadre is Janus."

That's over my head.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY