• 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."

Daddy, why did we attack Iraq?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,054
0
71
How in hell do you bypass the Taliban (at the time) which runs the country's alledged government ?

You just walk around over there handing out cash to whoever you feel like ? Don't think so.
Give it to corrupt Warloards of the regions for safekeeping until they find the rightful recipient ?
Buy the Poppies direct from the florist ? You couldn't bypass the Taliban, they were everything.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
How in hell do you bypass the Taliban (at the time) which runs the country's alledged government ?

You just walk around over there handing out cash to whoever you feel like ? Don't think so.
Give it to corrupt Warloards of the regions for safekeeping until they find the rightful recipient ?
Buy the Poppies direct from the florist ? You couldn't bypass the Taliban, they were everything.
Well... how else can you make the point without changing the parts that don't fit.

 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
I was going to try to enter this discussion, but unfortunately, I went to public school and they don't teach reading comprehension there anymore. I would probably have trouble making it through any important information.

:p

Now I won't bother to inform the mods because I'm not that sort of low life, scum sucking weasel that has to go crying to them over a few words from someone like you.
What did you say you were...a low...err...ohhh...sorry...you said I'm not...darn lack of reading comprehension makes it tough sometimes...;)

:)
 

AEB

Senior member
Jun 12, 2003
681
0
0
Im sorry i came in late on this thread. Whereas the father son thing may seem cute to some it really avoids the problems. Iraq was a threat. Most people forget Iraq has used WMD before on its neighbors. The whole big thing was after the first gulf war until present they never proved to us that they deystroyed the WMD.
We also know that iraq is using thier oil to buy things from countries like russia and france. There is recored of them buying plutonium from the french. I think thats the main thing. We are in a bad situation with North Korea because they have nukes, Bush took steps to prevent Iraq from getting that technology.

That said the war will never be over unless something drastic happens. All of the arab leaders convince their people America is evil, so they attack us. If we attack them it seems true. But we can't stand by while genocide is commited. Think of WWII. Hitler convinced all the german people jews were evil millions died. Same as in iraq, except the people live in fear instead of amazement. Now its mainly the religous groups causing the problems.

Do i think the war in Iraq was needed? YEs
Was it justified? Yes (hans blix just released his final statment saying he belive WMD were still in Iraq)
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: AEB
Im sorry i came in late on this thread. Whereas the father son thing may seem cute to some it really avoids the problems. Iraq was a threat. Most people forget Iraq has used WMD before on its neighbors. The whole big thing was after the first gulf war until present they never proved to us that they deystroyed the WMD. ---- (Proove they didn't destroy them by finding them)
We also know that iraq is using thier oil to buy things from countries like russia and france. There is recored of them buying plutonium from the french. I think thats the main thing. We are in a bad situation with North Korea because they have nukes, Bush took steps to prevent Iraq from getting that technology. ---- (now we must find plutonium? Well no one else would sell em arms... heck it is hunting season there and sling shots don't bring down those big birds flying overhead.)

That said the war will never be over unless something drastic happens. All of the arab leaders convince their people America is evil, so they attack us. If we attack them it seems true. But we can't stand by while genocide is commited. Think of WWII. Hitler convinced all the german people jews were evil millions died. Same as in iraq, except the people live in fear instead of amazement. Now its mainly the religous groups causing the problems. ---( the Jesuits are at it again... when will they calm down ... of course we're evil... who else invades a sovereign nation and expects applause from the crowd?)

Do i think the war in Iraq was needed? YEs
Was it justified? Yes (hans blix just released his final statment saying he belive WMD were still in Iraq)
I suggest Iran, Syria, Northern Ireland, North Korea, China be the next sovereign nations we invade and in that order.

Not all the german people followed The Party line.

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.

A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.



Q: Did the inspectors know they still had unaccounted for WMD?

A: Yes, that is why they were continuing inspections.

Q: So we know they had them, we just didnt know where they were.

A: Exactly, Saddam agreed to provide proof and never could.

Q: So there are tons of nerve agents and thousands of liters of anthrax we absolutely knew existed and have no idea where they are?

A: Yes, that's true, but it was obvious they were not going to be produced after so long.

Q: Why did they want to wait longer and do more inspections?

A: They knew there was much still unaccounted for and they hoped they could find it in time.

Q: Did we talk to people that worked in their programs and get informatiopn from them?

A: Yes, one of the former WMD scientists described mobile bio weapons labs that were unreported and whose existence was unknown to the UN and built after sanctions started.

Q: Did we ever find one of these banned, post sanctioned produced, mobile bio weapons labs?

A: We found two as far as I know.

Q: Are there really people who think Iraq did not have WMD?

A: Not anyone who made it past the new IQ birth screenings..................
 

Phuz

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2000
4,349
0
0
So, Iraq might have had 'WMD'.
Good thing they're the only country that has em'

So, Iraq is rulled by an evil dictator?
Yep, and Iraq is the only country ruled by a dictator or general. (ever!)

Opressed people?
Yep, they're only in Iraq.

Don't worry though, it only cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and your governments credibility!
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.

A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.



Q: Did the inspectors know they still had unaccounted for WMD?

A: Yes, that is why they were continuing inspections.

Q: So we know they had them, we just didnt know where they were.

A: Exactly, Saddam agreed to provide proof and never could.

Q: So there are tons of nerve agents and thousands of liters of anthrax we absolutely knew existed and have no idea where they are?

A: Yes, that's true, but it was obvious they were not going to be produced after so long.

Q: Why did they want to wait longer and do more inspections?

A: They knew there was much still unaccounted for and they hoped they could find it in time.

Q: Did we talk to people that worked in their programs and get informatiopn from them?

A: Yes, one of the former WMD scientists described mobile bio weapons labs that were unreported and whose existence was unknown to the UN and built after sanctions started.

Q: Did we ever find one of these banned, post sanctioned produced, mobile bio weapons labs?

A: We found two as far as I know.

Q: Are there really people who think Iraq did not have WMD?

A: Not anyone who made it past the new IQ birth screenings..................

Alistar, you seem to leave out the fact that the weapons may have been destroyed, but without the proper documentation. Also, before they were pulled out of the country because we needed to attack immediately, the inspectors were testing the sites the Iraqi's claimed the WMD were destroyed at.

As for the mobile labs, I have seen no credible evidence that they were definately used for bio weapons, nor any proof they have been used even remotely recently. The two labs I have read about lacked many of the things needed to not only make biological agents, but to weaponize them..like equipment to dry bacteria like Athrax as well as the capacity to make much at all. It has been speculated that they were used for hydrogen production for weather ballons used for targetting conventional artillery. Without trace of any biological or chemical agents, it's really hard to say exactly how they were used. Your comment about IQ is also somewhat amusing. Are you saying that anyone that doesn't think Iraq still has any WMD have a low IQ, or people who think they never have? I am quite sure they had them in the past. However, I am not even remotely convinced they had them leading up the war.

By your rationale, they had tons, hid them, and refused to use the one weapon that would give them some sort of advantage when we attacked, and also managed to keep them hidden for months after they were beaten and still to this day.....gotcha.


Don't you find it the least bit hypocritical of us to say we needed to attack as soon as possible because Iraq posed a imminent threat with their WMD's, but now that we control the country and haven't been able to find anything for months, the line from the administration is "be patient and give us more time"?

I guess all those articles in major magazines and papers talking about how bad it looks that we have found squat yet are just a bunch of low IQ types...
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,709
5
0
Originally posted by: etech
BOBDN
etech

You're condescending attitude is becoming annoying. Just because someone doesn't agree with your version of events doesn't mean their reading skills are lacking. Perhaps they're having a hard time swallowing the pill you're giving them.

The USA gave money to NGOs to aid Afghanistan? Did the money go to Afghanistan? Was the Taliban ruling Afghanistan at the time? Does the Bush administration support a policy of non-governmental entities providing aid in lieu of government aid? You bet your A$$ it does. So allowing aid to flow into Afghanistan while the Taliban ruled the nation was tantamount to aiding the Taliban, wouldn't you agree?

For instance, what would you be saying if say..........the French had provided aid to Afghanistan through NGOs during the Taliban's rule?

Excuses, excuses. I'm tired of the excuses people make for the Bush administration. They change their story to fit the circumstances. Makes them look disingenuous. No credibility.
If you had bothered to read the links and knew what was happening in Afghanistan at that time than perhaps you would not have a reason to be annoyed.

You are trying to equate the humanitarian aid to Afghanistan with aid to the Taliban.

Text: Powell Reveals $43 Million in New Aid to Afghans

"We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations. We provide our aid to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan's warring factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it. We hope the Taliban will act on a number of fundamental issues that separate us: their support for terrorism; their violation of internationally recognized human rights standards, especially their treatment of women and girls; and their refusal to resolve Afghanistan's civil war through a negotiated settlement."

Now why was the US trying to help the Afghan people?
Taliban tanks and artillery fire on Buddhas
"...
The Taliban's obsession with implementing their Islamic edicts comes at a time when more than a million of the country's 22 million people face starvation. For the past few weeks the Taliban, who have banned television pictures and photography, have allowed foreign cameramen to film the plight of more than 100,000 starving and freezing refugees in Herat in western Afghanistan. The pictures have been accompanied by appeals for aid.

Some 300 people, mostly children, have died in Herat. About 300,000 refugees are scattered around the country, with 150,000 more recently arriving in neighbouring Pakistan. Many Afghan farmers are selling their daughters to stay alive. Western countries are unlikely to respond to appeals for aid until the Taliban curb their excesses.
..."

Perhaps in your spin you would rather that the US not aided those people since in your mind it could be construed as "helping the Taliban" even though Powell said it would bypass them. Perhaps you would rather the US just let them starve?

I'm sure France aided the people of Afghanistan some, I can't find any specific references but it is clear that even before 9/11 the US was doing the most for them.
Ok so maybe the U.S. didn't
directly fund the Taliban with that 43 million, but saying so is the typical kind of rhetoric our government uses quite frequently. So now let's say you have 'disproven' a small part of his post, does that mean the whole thread is now illegitimate? If so, let me ask you this then: One of Bush's great pieces of 'evidence' for reason to attack Iraq was those aluminum tubes ordered from Niger. Since that is now debunked (well actually, it was debunked before the war started but the Administration refused to acknowlegde it until now) does that make the war on Iraq illegitimate?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Alistar7 - Q: Did the inspectors know they still had unaccounted for WMD?

A: Yes, that is why they were continuing inspections.

Q: So we know they had them, we just didnt know where they were.

A: Exactly, Saddam agreed to provide proof and never could.


Aaaargh!! Why won't this guy come up for air and realize that unnaccounted for does not equal proof of existence?

Ok, let's try a different approach at convincing Alistar7 that his logic is faulty. How many of you, no matter which side of the issue you hold to, agree with Ali that unnaccounted for equals proof of existence? Raise your hand.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.

A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.



Q: Did the inspectors know they still had unaccounted for WMD?

A: Yes, that is why they were continuing inspections.

Q: So we know they had them, we just didnt know where they were.

A: Exactly, Saddam agreed to provide proof and never could.

Q: So there are tons of nerve agents and thousands of liters of anthrax we absolutely knew existed and have no idea where they are?

A: Yes, that's true, but it was obvious they were not going to be produced after so long.

Q: Why did they want to wait longer and do more inspections?

A: They knew there was much still unaccounted for and they hoped they could find it in time.

Q: Did we talk to people that worked in their programs and get informatiopn from them?

A: Yes, one of the former WMD scientists described mobile bio weapons labs that were unreported and whose existence was unknown to the UN and built after sanctions started.

Q: Did we ever find one of these banned, post sanctioned produced, mobile bio weapons labs?

A: We found two as far as I know.

Q: Are there really people who think Iraq did not have WMD?

A: Not anyone who made it past the new IQ birth screenings..................

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

A: Because Bush and his neocon pals needed an easy target in the middle east so they used WMD as an excuse.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.

A: That's true because there weren't any so Bush and Co. said Iraq was hiding them.

Q: Did the inspectors know they still had unaccounted for WMD?

A: They couldn't find any WMD but Bush kept telling them he had conclusive intelligence proving there was unaccounted for WMD - intelligence Bush refused to share with the inspectors.

Q: So we know they had them, we just didnt know where they were.

A: Well, if you believe the story Bush and Co. were telling, but even after months of unhindered inspections by our troops none have been found.

Q: So there are tons of nerve agents and thousands of liters of anthrax we absolutely knew existed and have no idea where they are?

A: Well, tons of nerve agents and liters of anthrax can't be made invisible so if they exist they should be able to be found. Bush did say clearly "thousands of tons" of chemical and biological weapons.

Q: Why did they want to wait longer and do more inspections?

A: Because there was no imminent threat and inspections were sanctioned by the UN. The inspections were keeping Saddam in check and avoiding a war that would cost thousands of civilian lives and billions of dollars.

Q: Did we talk to people that worked in their programs and get information from them?

A: We talked with people but didn't get any conclusive information from them.

Q: Did we ever find one of these banned, post sanctioned produced, mobile bio weapons labs?

A: No. The Bush administration rushed to report 2 trailers they found were mobile weapons labs but just like all the other stories they used to start this invasion the report proved to be false.

Q: Are there really people who think Iraq did not have WMD?

A: Yes. People who look at the evidence and don't believe every false report Bush and Co. release prematurely to use as an excuse for their invasion of Iraq know there is no WMD in Iraq.

Q: But Daddy, if Iraq really has NBC in the quantities that have been stated why haven't we found any in Iraq yet even after the "war" and unhindered inspections by specialists?

A: Because it didn't exist. Bush lied about national security issues to start a war. If there is any fairness left in government he and his entire administration will be impeached.

Q: Daddy, are there any people who still believe there are WMD in Iraq?

A: There are a few people without out the ability to use cognitive reasoning who are so blinded by partisanship they can't see the truth that believe there is still WMD in Iraq.


P.S. Alistar, your line about birth screenings fits right into the conservative mindset. You people would LOVE to control birth but you're against birth control. How ironic.

You sound like some nazi scientist trying to build the "master race." A freudian slip? Maybe. I think you'd actually like to see the form of "birth control" you suggested implimented. Do you see anything wrong with your idea?
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,469
1
76
Since fuzz did not want to link

link


Hilarious read. What's even more hilarious is the number of morons that believe everything they read on the internet.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Ok so maybe the U.S. didn't directly fund the Taliban with that 43 million
Let me ask a simple question. If an authoritarian government like the Taliban, a government with COMPLETE control over everything in their country down to what women can wear, knows there is $43 million in aid don't 'ya think maybe they could get their hands on it? Who was gonna' stop 'em? Funding anyone in Afghanistan while the Taliban ruled was like funding the Taliban. Which the USA did while they were fighting the USSR. Which is the point. You can't selectively jump into bed with whoever suits your current needs. They may turn out to be the Taliban, or Saddam Hussein or any of the myriad dictators the USA has aided over the years for short term political gain that come back to bite us on the A$$.

Short term thinking does little good in foreign affairs. Foreign affairs is long term.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Since fuzz did not want to link

link


Hilarious read. What's even more hilarious is the number of morons that believe everything they read on the internet.

What's even more hilarious is the number of morons that still believe everything they hear from Bush.
 

AEB

Senior member
Jun 12, 2003
681
0
0
keep in mind presidents rarely make a descison alone. So in some off chance we dont find WMD in iraq the intellegence community would be art to blame.
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Let me ask a simple question. If an authoritarian government like the Taliban, a government with COMPLETE control over
everything in their country down to what women can wear, knows there is $43 million in aid don't 'ya think maybe they could
get their hands on it?
the taliban never acquired complete control over the whole of afghanistan. the northern alliance controlled the northeast
corner of the country, and the alliances which the taliban struck with numerous warlords gave them only nominal control,
and not complete control. the vast majority of the taliban's military victories were secured without a single shot being fired.

Funding anyone in Afghanistan while the Taliban ruled was like funding the Taliban
wrong. massoud was not in the taliban's pocket. a savvy intelligence service like the pakistani i.s.i. could have split the
taliban faction if they chose to swing their favor and largess to another camp. the taliban could never convince multinational
companies (like unicol) of their ability to form a legitimate government and maintain internal order. they remained an invention
of the i.s.i. that ran amuck.


. . . was like funding the Taliban. Which the USA did while they were fighting the USSR.
you're clueless. the taliban never fought the u.s.s.r.

the taliban coalesced in and around 1994-95, primarily funded by the i.s.i.

many of the individual pathans who formed the taliban commands did fight in the afghanistan war (1979-1989), but
so did many of the tajiks, uzbeks, and hazaras who were mortal enemies of the taliban. massoud fought against
the soviets, yet he was never aligned with the taliban. the monies the u.s. funneled to afghanistan went through
the i.s.i.

smart or not, the cia is said not to have had a single operative on the ground in afghanistan over the course of the
entire soviet conflict. they allowed all fiscal decisions to be made by the i.s.i., and in keeping with their islamist bent,
they favored the more rigid parties, like mullah omar and gulbuddin hekmatyar(aka 'mr blowback').

They may turn out to be the Taliban, or Saddam Hussein or any of the myriad dictators the USA has aided over the
years for short term political gain that come back to bite us on the A$$.
the u.s. aided the afghan combatants to stem the communist tide. how is that 'short term political gain' ?

the only error which foresight could've predicted, and which the cia concedes, is they allowed the i.s.i. unquestioned
control over the dispersal of u.s. tax dollars. the u.s. intellgience people thought the area to alien for their direct
intervention, and with a willing partner in pakistan why become embroiled further ? fight a proxy war instead. that
way everybody is happy. the afghans, who want to do the fighting, especially if it saves them from any overt 'foerign
assistance', and the pakistans, who keep their hands clean by deploying only a few logistical officers.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: syzygy
Let me ask a simple question. If an authoritarian government like the Taliban, a government with COMPLETE control over
everything in their country down to what women can wear, knows there is $43 million in aid don't 'ya think maybe they could
get their hands on it?
the taliban never acquired complete control over the whole of afghanistan. the northern alliance controlled the northeast
corner of the country, and the alliances which the taliban struck with numerous warlords gave them only nominal control,
and not complete control. the vast majority of the taliban's military victories were secured without a single shot being fired.

Funding anyone in Afghanistan while the Taliban ruled was like funding the Taliban
wrong. massoud was not in the taliban's pocket. a savvy intelligence service like the pakistani i.s.i. could have split the
taliban faction if they chose to swing their favor and largess to another camp. the taliban could never convince multinational
companies (like unicol) of their ability to form a legitimate government and maintain internal order. they remained an invention
of the i.s.i. that ran amuck.


. . . was like funding the Taliban. Which the USA did while they were fighting the USSR.
you're clueless. the taliban never fought the u.s.s.r.

the taliban coalesced in and around 1994-95, primarily funded by the i.s.i.

many of the individual pathans who formed the taliban commands did fight in the afghanistan war (1979-1989), but
so did many of the tajiks, uzbeks, and hazaras who were mortal enemies of the taliban. massoud fought against
the soviets, yet he was never aligned with the taliban. the monies the u.s. funneled to afghanistan went through
the i.s.i.

smart or not, the cia is said not to have had a single operative on the ground in afghanistan over the course of the
entire soviet conflict. they allowed all fiscal decisions to be made by the i.s.i., and in keeping with their islamist bent,
they favored the more rigid parties, like mullah omar and gulbuddin hekmatyar(aka 'mr blowback').

They may turn out to be the Taliban, or Saddam Hussein or any of the myriad dictators the USA has aided over the
years for short term political gain that come back to bite us on the A$$.
the u.s. aided the afghan combatants to stem the communist tide. how is that 'short term political gain' ?

the only error which foresight could've predicted, and which the cia concedes, is they allowed the i.s.i. unquestioned
control over the dispersal of u.s. tax dollars. the u.s. intellgience people thought the area to alien for their direct
intervention, and with a willing partner in pakistan why become embroiled further ? fight a proxy war instead. that
way everybody is happy. the afghans, who want to do the fighting, especially if it saves them from any overt 'foerign
assistance', and the pakistans, who keep their hands clean by deploying only a few logistical officers.
It's short term political gain because the US goal to "stem the communist tide" blinded us to the other consequences of our policy in Afghanistan (and many other nations over the years). The enemy we helped the Taliban defeat in Afghanistan was replaced with the enemy we aided and thereby helped create for that purpose - the Taliban. We all know where that led. Taliban - bin Laden - Al Qaeda - 9/11 etc.

Fighting proxy wars leaves us in the same or worse condition. Getting in bed with Musharaf is getting in bed with Hussein twenty years later. Ditto the warlords in Afghanistan. The USA is jumping in bed with every dictator or power broker that will advance whatever immediate goals we are pursuing at the moment at the sake of long term goals.

What do you call a person who jumps in bed with everyone they meet if it will advance their immediate goals?

Can you apply that name to a nation that does the same?

That and the lie about WMD (and others) is why we have no credibility.
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
It's short term political gain because the US goal to "stem the communist tide" blinded us to the other consequences of our policy in Afghanistan (and many other nations over the years). The enemy we helped the Taliban defeat in Afghanistan was replaced with the enemy we aided and thereby helped create for that purpose - the Taliban. We all know where that led. Taliban - bin Laden - Al Qaeda - 9/11 etc.
yeeees, now, 14 years after the conclusion of the conflict, you see the whole truth
such prescience.

so 'stemming the communist tid' was not unwise, in your estimation, and would not qualify as short-term political gain ?!?! BUT
what does qualify as such is what we could not foresee ?? this is logical ? ?

you still cannot swallow basic facts about the afghan-soviet conflict; namely, that we did not directly fund these numerous factions nor
did we choose which of these afghan factions the pakistani intelligence services should favor. we may have expressed our concern, if
we knew better, but to have known better would've brung us into the illogical puzzles only nostradamus could solve.

even if we ignore your oversights i'm still left with how you can blame the u.s. for the conduct of the factions themselves ? yes, they
were a bit zealous at the time, but this is good. we want freedom fighters to be a little crazy, passionate, and all that, otherwise we
would have flower children trying to put daisies into the mouths of kalishnikov rifles, an image of yore that must still warm an old hippie's
heart.





 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
0
0
Q: Daddy, why did we attack the Saddam regime?

A: Because it was sponsoring terrorism and couldn't provide proof that it had actually destroyed the weapons of mass destruction it had, silly.

Q: Makes sense to me. Want to go play catch instead of having a three hour discussion on politics from a short-sighted liberal perspective?

A: Sounds great.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Q: Daddy, why did we attack the Saddam regime?

A: Because it was sponsoring terrorism and couldn't provide proof that it had actually destroyed the weapons of mass destruction it had, silly.

Q: Makes sense to me. Want to go play catch instead of having a three hour discussion on politics from a short-sighted liberal perspective?

A: Sounds great.
We were just discussing the short sighted conservative prespective.

It's short term political gain because the US goal to "stem the communist tide" blinded us to the other consequences of our policy in Afghanistan (and many other nations over the years). The enemy we helped the Taliban defeat in Afghanistan was replaced with the enemy we aided and thereby helped create for that purpose - the Taliban. We all know where that led. Taliban - bin Laden - Al Qaeda - 9/11 etc.

Fighting proxy wars leaves us in the same or worse condition. Getting in bed with Musharaf is getting in bed with Hussein twenty years later. Ditto the warlords in Afghanistan. The USA is jumping in bed with every dictator or power broker that will advance whatever immediate goals we are pursuing at the moment at the sake of long term goals.

What do you call a person who jumps in bed with everyone they meet if it will advance their immediate goals?

Can you apply that name to a nation that does the same?

That and the lie about WMD (and others) is why we have no credibility.


 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Since fuzz did not want to link

link


Hilarious read. What's even more hilarious is the number of morons that believe everything they read on the internet.

What's even more hilarious is the number of morons that still believe everything they hear from Bush.

or the morons who think Bush was the only person in history to suggest Saddam had WMD, or cant accept the fact that all the information given came not from Bush, but from US and british (45 mins to use WMD was from a UK report) intelligence, the UN, and even information Saddam himself gave to the UN.

"Aaaargh!! Why won't this guy come up for air and realize that unnaccounted for does not equal proof of existence?"

Ok Gaard, proof of existence is KNOWN, proof of destruction was never provided. Do we know Saddam existed? Yes. Do we know where he is? No? So much like WMD even though we know he existed at one point, we cant find him now, so he never existed, thats your "funny" logic about WMD......

Unlike Insane's claim the UN was never given access to sites to determine if WMD were destroyed there, maybe at the very end with the al-samouds that were offered as a herring, but that was far too late.


do we have to go into the terror sponsorship or the brutal oppression and genocide of the people of Iraq were subject to or are we just here to bash Bush? Maybe someday we will be lucky and have a leader like Saddam.....
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Since fuzz did not want to link

link


Hilarious read. What's even more hilarious is the number of morons that believe everything they read on the internet.

What's even more hilarious is the number of morons that still believe everything they hear from Bush.

or the morons who think Bush was the only person in history to suggest Saddam had WMD, or cant accept the fact that all the information given came not from Bush, but from US and british (45 mins to use WMD was from a UK report) intelligence, the UN, and even information Saddam himself gave to the UN.

"Aaaargh!! Why won't this guy come up for air and realize that unnaccounted for does not equal proof of existence?"

Ok Gaard, proof of existence is KNOWN, proof of destruction was never provided. Do we know Saddam existed? Yes. Do we know where he is? No? So much like WMD even though we know he existed at one point, we cant find him now, so he never existed, thats your "funny" logic about WMD......

Unlike Insane's claim the UN was never given access to sites to determine if WMD were destroyed there, maybe at the very end with the al-samouds that were offered as a herring, but that was far too late.


do we have to go into the terror sponsorship or the brutal oppression and genocide of the people of Iraq were subject to or are we just here to bash Bush? Maybe someday we will be lucky and have a leader like Saddam.....
We might in just two more years.

 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Alistar7 - <<Ok Gaard, proof of existence is KNOWN, proof of destruction was never provided. Do we know Saddam existed? Yes. Do we know where he is? No? So much like WMD even though we know he existed at one point, we cant find him now, so he never existed, thats your "funny" logic about WMD......

Unlike Insane's claim the UN was never given access to sites to determine if WMD were destroyed there, maybe at the very end with the al-samouds that were offered as a herring, but that was far too late.>>



Excuse me? Are you so insecure in your 'logic' that in order to defend it's accuracy you have to put words in my mouth. Where/when did I ever say never existed when talking about WMDs? Face it Ali, you're wrong. You, me, everyone on this planet can say "We think he has them" and there'd be nothing wrong with that statement. But if we were to say "I KNOW he has them", not only would that be an inaccurate statement, it would also be a lie.

Regarding your oft stated comment about naming any country who didn't think Iraq had WMD...there is a difference between saying "I think that Iraq has WMD" and "I am absolutely positive that Iraq has WMD". The opposite can be said, also. How can a country state "I am absolutley positive that Iraq doesn't possess WMD" when they don't know one way or the other. IOW, sure there were lots of countries that stated that they thought Iraq possessed WMD, but how many stated that they KNEW Iraq possessed WMD?

Regarding your claim that the UN was never given access to certain sites. I may be wrong, it's my understanding that they were allowed access to wherever they wanted to go. Like I said, I could very well be wrong, but could you please provide a link so that I can understand why you say what you say about the UN not given access to some sites?
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Alistar7 - <<Ok Gaard, proof of existence is KNOWN, proof of destruction was never provided. Do we know Saddam existed? Yes. Do we know where he is? No? So much like WMD even though we know he existed at one point, we cant find him now, so he never existed, thats your "funny" logic about WMD......

Unlike Insane's claim the UN was never given access to sites to determine if WMD were destroyed there, maybe at the very end with the al-samouds that were offered as a herring, but that was far too late.>>



Excuse me? Are you so insecure in your 'logic' that in order to defend it's accuracy you have to put words in my mouth. Where/when did I ever say never existed when talking about WMDs? Face it Ali, you're wrong. You, me, everyone on this planet can say "We think he has them" and there'd be nothing wrong with that statement. But if we were to say "I KNOW he has them", not only would that be an inaccurate statement, it would also be a lie.

Regarding your oft stated comment about naming any country who didn't think Iraq had WMD...there is a difference between saying "I think that Iraq has WMD" and "I am absolutely positive that Iraq has WMD". The opposite can be said, also. How can a country state "I am absolutley positive that Iraq doesn't possess WMD" when they don't know one way or the other. IOW, sure there were lots of countries that stated that they thought Iraq possessed WMD, but how many stated that they KNEW Iraq possessed WMD?

Regarding your claim that the UN was never given access to certain sites. I may be wrong, it's my understanding that they were allowed access to wherever they wanted to go. Like I said, I could very well be wrong, but could you please provide a link so that I can understand why you say what you say about the UN not given access to some sites?
You just don't get it and I don't think you even possess the ability to get it so I'm probably wasting my time. But here goes anyway.

Everybody knows he had them if for no other reason than he admitted to having them and actually used them. The burden of proof was not on anybody to prove he had them...it was on him to prove that he didn't.

I can only assume you're in such a blinded liberal haze over anything Bush-related that you refuse to look at this scenario reasonably, but I only wasted two minutes of typing trying to get through to you so no big loss.

Go on and throw a red herring and ask me why this or that and ignore the logic.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Because he failed to prove that he didn't have any doesn't prove that he did. Can you understand this? Are you just a kid and haven't learned about such things as proof and logic yet, or are you an adult and simply lack the knowledge that there are differences between possibilities and certainties?

You can be fairly certain of the existence of WMD all you want, but you can't know for a fact of their existence...unless you're privy to evidence that the rest of us aren't aware of.

BTW, do you agree with Ali that the fact that something is unaccounted for is proof of it's existence?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY