• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How the US Foreign Policy is Spreading WMDs

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: RobCur
Originally posted by: ElFenix
we wouldn't invade NK even if they didn't have WMDs.
Click to expand...

tell me why cows are domesticated? anyone who can't defend themself are going to be eaten alive...it's in the law of conservation, the strong shall rule over the weak, the weak shall die slowly and painfully. need I say more?

I won't even bother wasting more of my time reasoning with someone who think it's a good jolly world, we're a peace loving nation who loves war in the name of freedom, lmao. everytime we attack someone, it's all in the name of freedom! and they hate freedom, we love freedom, we are freedom fighter. we're liberator or more like we kick their butt so their pushed back into the stone age and become history.
Click to expand...

Do you know how close North Korea is to Seoul?

30 miles.

NK can just lob conventional weapons and obliterate the capital of South Korea, effectively knocking out the hub of SK. Nukes or not, NK is in a very good bargaining position. I highly doubt the US would EVER attack NK, which would result in the destruction of SK.


 
Originally posted by: Alistar7

I gave you one that proved I was right on track, the fact that sanctions were still in effect, that proves the UN (quite a few countries represented there BTW) firmly believed he still had WMD capabilites.
Click to expand...

There's another reason why the sanctions were still up. The US threatened to veto any attempt to lift the sanctions.
 
South Korea is a big ally of ours and we have a lot of troops on the ground there. It is a very fortified area. South Korea is probably hoping that one day they can be able to speak to their relatives in North Korea. For South Korea, it would be like killing their brothers and sisters. If you think we can get North Korea to do anything through diplomacy you are sadly mistaken. North Korea would let everone in their country starve to death first.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Take Iraq and take North Korea. North Korea is the bigger threat to the US and to its neighbors. Iraq, after a decade of sanctions, was powerless. Who did the US attack? Iraq. Why didn't the US attack North Korea. Because they might have sent a nuke somewhere. We never started wars with the Soviet Union or China. Why? They had WMDs.

If you are a rational non-nuke country who is being targetted by the US, say Iran, what is your only way to ensure your survival? What is your only way to protect yourself from a hyper-aggressive US? Develop WMDs. This is part of the reason that Iran is attempting to get WMDs right now and why North Korea isn't backing down.

The lesson you learn from US foreign policy is that if you are weak you will be mercilessly attacked by the US (see long list of weak countries meddled with or straight up attacked by the US) even if it is wrong. If you have nukes, you run less risk of being attacked. Hence, US foreign policy is promoting the spread of WMDs.
Click to expand...

I sorta agree with this. But what are you proposing we do about it? That we should have attacked North Korea first?
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: conjur
Deterrents work. Makes one wonder if Bush really thought Iraq had WMDs. Why invade a country with the risk of WMDs being used against our troops or that country's neighbors?
Click to expand...
Bush, along with the UN and every other western intel agency firmly believed Saddam still had WMD. Unless of course you have anything that shows they publicly stated otherwise. Maybe he invaded because he felt Saddam was a legitimate threat to the US, hhhmmmm, why would he think that....
Click to expand...
Wow...the Kool-Aid is strong in this one! The only people that firmly believed Saddam had WMDs were the Bush administration and the PNAC neocons in the OSP. Even then, though, I'm sure Feith knew the truth but just managed to scrub the doubts from the reports before submitting them to the administration.
Click to expand...

IIRC, every country on the UN SC stated their was a strong chance Iraq had a WMD program, with the single exception of Syria.
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: conjur
Deterrents work. Makes one wonder if Bush really thought Iraq had WMDs. Why invade a country with the risk of WMDs being used against our troops or that country's neighbors?
Click to expand...
Bush, along with the UN and every other western intel agency firmly believed Saddam still had WMD. Unless of course you have anything that shows they publicly stated otherwise. Maybe he invaded because he felt Saddam was a legitimate threat to the US, hhhmmmm, why would he think that....
Click to expand...
Wow...the Kool-Aid is strong in this one! The only people that firmly believed Saddam had WMDs were the Bush administration and the PNAC neocons in the OSP. Even then, though, I'm sure Feith knew the truth but just managed to scrub the doubts from the reports before submitting them to the administration.
Click to expand...
IIRC, every country on the UN SC stated their was a strong chance Iraq had a WMD program, with the single exception of Syria.
Click to expand...
And that's why they all voted to invade Iraq.




Oh wait....
 
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
What the hell is this therad ?

All Alistar-7 - all the time ?

Wasting bandwith, as usual.
Click to expand...

A side-effect of being presented with something that doesn't fit into his worldview perhaps?
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: conjur
Deterrents work. Makes one wonder if Bush really thought Iraq had WMDs. Why invade a country with the risk of WMDs being used against our troops or that country's neighbors?
Click to expand...
Bush, along with the UN and every other western intel agency firmly believed Saddam still had WMD. Unless of course you have anything that shows they publicly stated otherwise. Maybe he invaded because he felt Saddam was a legitimate threat to the US, hhhmmmm, why would he think that....
Click to expand...
Wow...the Kool-Aid is strong in this one! The only people that firmly believed Saddam had WMDs were the Bush administration and the PNAC neocons in the OSP. Even then, though, I'm sure Feith knew the truth but just managed to scrub the doubts from the reports before submitting them to the administration.
Click to expand...
IIRC, every country on the UN SC stated their was a strong chance Iraq had a WMD program, with the single exception of Syria.
Click to expand...
And that's why they all voted to invade Iraq.




Oh wait....
Click to expand...


Keep changing the direction, conjur.

Let's go back to your statement...

The only people that firmly believed Saddam had WMDs were the Bush administration and the PNAC neocons in the OSP.
Click to expand...

Do you really want to stand by that statement?
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Ah, Alistar7 is back to his old tricks. Did you train CsG in the art of diversion? I do remember your old tactics of browbeating people with repeated questions when it was you that needed to provide answers.

Go on avoiding proving your claims. I'm done with you.


*plonk*
Click to expand...

Oh the irony(and hypocrisy) is strong in this ^^^^ post.😛

Keep bleating away conjur...

CsG
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: bamacre
IIRC, every country on the UN SC stated their was a strong chance Iraq had a WMD program, with the single exception of Syria.
Click to expand...
And that's why they all voted to invade Iraq.




Oh wait....
Click to expand...
Keep changing the direction, conjur.
Click to expand...
Who's changing direction? You're the one talking about programs, not WMDs themselves. The war was about the known existence of stockpiles of WMDs, not about programs or program-related activities.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: bamacre
IIRC, every country on the UN SC stated their was a strong chance Iraq had a WMD program, with the single exception of Syria.
Click to expand...
And that's why they all voted to invade Iraq.




Oh wait....
Click to expand...
Keep changing the direction, conjur.
Click to expand...
Who's changing direction? You're the one talking about programs, not WMDs themselves. The war was about the known existence of stockpiles of WMDs, not about programs or program-related activities.
Click to expand...

Well, considering your response, I'll just assume you don't want to stand behind your statement...

The only people that firmly believed Saddam had WMDs were the Bush administration and the PNAC neocons in the OSP.
Click to expand...

...and that's the only statement I was calling you on. It's just not true, conjur.
 
Originally posted by: JackStorm
Originally posted by: Alistar7

I gave you one that proved I was right on track, the fact that sanctions were still in effect, that proves the UN (quite a few countries represented there BTW) firmly believed he still had WMD capabilites.
Click to expand...

There's another reason why the sanctions were still up. The US threatened to veto any attempt to lift the sanctions.
Click to expand...

But it would hve put people on record.

The US has always threaten to veto items against Israel, however, the items keep coming forward.

By forcing the veto, you at least show where you stand on an issue.

 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: bamacre
IIRC, every country on the UN SC stated their was a strong chance Iraq had a WMD program, with the single exception of Syria.
Click to expand...
And that's why they all voted to invade Iraq.




Oh wait....
Click to expand...
Keep changing the direction, conjur.
Click to expand...
Who's changing direction? You're the one talking about programs, not WMDs themselves. The war was about the known existence of stockpiles of WMDs, not about programs or program-related activities.
Click to expand...
Well, considering your response, I'll just assume you don't want to stand behind your statement...

The only people that firmly believed Saddam had WMDs were the Bush administration and the PNAC neocons in the OSP.
Click to expand...
...and that's the only statement I was calling you on. It's just not true, conjur.
Click to expand...
It's absolutely true. I was responding to a troll's post. A troll who never responded, btw.
 
Originally posted by: Passions
Originally posted by: RobCur
Originally posted by: ElFenix
we wouldn't invade NK even if they didn't have WMDs.
Click to expand...

tell me why cows are domesticated? anyone who can't defend themself are going to be eaten alive...it's in the law of conservation, the strong shall rule over the weak, the weak shall die slowly and painfully. need I say more?

I won't even bother wasting more of my time reasoning with someone who think it's a good jolly world, we're a peace loving nation who loves war in the name of freedom, lmao. everytime we attack someone, it's all in the name of freedom! and they hate freedom, we love freedom, we are freedom fighter. we're liberator or more like we kick their butt so their pushed back into the stone age and become history.
Click to expand...

Do you know how close North Korea is to Seoul?

30 miles.

NK can just lob conventional weapons and obliterate the capital of South Korea, effectively knocking out the hub of SK. Nukes or not, NK is in a very good bargaining position. I highly doubt the US would EVER attack NK, which would result in the destruction of SK.
Click to expand...

no sh!t, what world are RobCur and infohawk living in?
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: bamacre
IIRC, every country on the UN SC stated their was a strong chance Iraq had a WMD program, with the single exception of Syria.
Click to expand...
And that's why they all voted to invade Iraq.




Oh wait....
Click to expand...
Keep changing the direction, conjur.
Click to expand...
Who's changing direction? You're the one talking about programs, not WMDs themselves. The war was about the known existence of stockpiles of WMDs, not about programs or program-related activities.
Click to expand...
Well, considering your response, I'll just assume you don't want to stand behind your statement...

The only people that firmly believed Saddam had WMDs were the Bush administration and the PNAC neocons in the OSP.
Click to expand...
...and that's the only statement I was calling you on. It's just not true, conjur.
Click to expand...
It's absolutely true. I was responding to a troll's post. A troll who never responded, btw.
Click to expand...


I responded with the facts that prove your statement to be absolute crap, as others have pointed out.
So comical for you to suggest I didnt respond, if you look above the post I made RIGHT BEFORE you ranted about me not proving my claims you will find the proof I offered yet you seem to claim was not forthcoming.

"The only people that firmly believed Saddam had WMDs were the Bush administration and the PNAC neocons in the OSP. " - Conjur

Youre the troll, you make comments like that and offer NOTHING to back them up, I, on the other hand pointed out that the UN itself did not even have that firm belief as evidenced by the fact sanctions and inspections were still in effect. You find one country yet that stated they believed otherwise?
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
What the hell is this therad ?

All Alistar-7 - all the time ?

Wasting bandwith, as usual.
Click to expand...

A side-effect of being presented with something that doesn't fit into his worldview perhaps?
Click to expand...

I havent been presented with any facts to back up Conjurs claims, maybe you can help him out.
I hardly think refuting conjur's blatan misreprsentations about the war in Iraq as "wasting bandwith".
I have not seen one other member who stated what I posted was not true, however, there are those saying exactly that about Conjur.

"...and that's the only statement I was calling you on. It's just not true, conjur." - bamacre

 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Sorry, doesn't work like that. *You* made the claim. *You* need to provide the proof that "Bush, along with the UN and every other western intel agency firmly believed Saddam still had WMD."
Click to expand...

You made the claim, back it up.

Even the 9-11 commision will disagree with you on this one.

UN didnt think he was WMD free. If they did they would have lifted the sanctions. Sounds to me like this is a bogus claim by you.
Click to expand...

Theres another calling conjur out, and agreeing with what I presented and he ignored, as usual.
What did your post contribute Captnkirk?

"What the hell is this therad ?

All Alistar-7 - all the time ?

Wasting bandwith, as usual."

Nothing, as usal.

 
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
What the hell is this therad ?

All Alistar-7 - all the time ?

Wasting bandwith, as usual.
Click to expand...

A side-effect of being presented with something that doesn't fit into his worldview perhaps?
Click to expand...

I havent been presented with any facts to back up Conjurs claims, maybe you can help him out.
I hardly think refuting conjur's blatan misreprsentations about the war in Iraq as "wasting bandwith".
I have not seen one other member who stated what I posted was not true, however, there are those saying exactly that about Conjur.

"...and that's the only statement I was calling you on. It's just not true, conjur." - bamacre
Click to expand...

Well, in Conjur's defense, Syria believed Iraq had no WMD. :roll:
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
What the hell is this therad ?

All Alistar-7 - all the time ?

Wasting bandwith, as usual.
Click to expand...

A side-effect of being presented with something that doesn't fit into his worldview perhaps?
Click to expand...

I havent been presented with any facts to back up Conjurs claims, maybe you can help him out.
I hardly think refuting conjur's blatan misreprsentations about the war in Iraq as "wasting bandwith".
I have not seen one other member who stated what I posted was not true, however, there are those saying exactly that about Conjur.

"...and that's the only statement I was calling you on. It's just not true, conjur." - bamacre
Click to expand...

Well, in Conjur's defense, Syria believed Iraq had no WMD. :roll:
Click to expand...


LOL, of course, they had probably taken delivery of everything useful that was left.....

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top