quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 They're in Syria now. Obviously, the US forces now must attack Syria to prove that the WMDs do exist. And if they don't find any there, that means they're moved to Iran or Lybia, or maybe even to North Korea. Who knows where they'll be moved after US attacks those countries. France? Russia? China? Or maybe each country in the world was given a single missile with antrax, so they all need to be attacked in order to prevent the horrible imminent attack on the US by some of those countries. Damn, whole world will soon be engaged in an anti-US conspiracy, so the only thing US can now do is to preemptively nuke it.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 They're in Syria now. Obviously, the US forces now must attack Syria to prove that the WMDs do exist. And if they don't find any there, that means they're moved to Iran or Lybia, or maybe even to North Korea. Who knows where they'll be moved after US attacks those countries. France? Russia? China? Or maybe each country in the world was given a single missile with antrax, so they all need to be attacked in order to prevent the horrible imminent attack on the US by some of those countries. Damn, whole world will soon be engaged in an anti-US conspiracy, so the only thing US can now do is to preemptively nuke it.

That's my guess...

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by fr0st I agree with you even the threat of WOMD is reason enough to remove him. We should have never even had a reason to begin with. If he would have been 100percent cooperative with the inspecters and the UN and the US none of this would have happened. Instead he wanted to keep fucking arround...

let me remind you to the fact that according to international law (and i imagine any democratic country), the one who accuses somebody has to come up with proof, not the one who is accused. in other words, it was wrong of the us to say sadam "you have weapons of mass destruction at your disposal, now prove us wrong!" in the first place.
besides, if the reason for going to war was a lack of cooperation from Irak, why was the operation called "iraqi freedom"? you must admit there are some flaws in US arguments..

___________________

quote:

Originally texted by Jakhira Out with the dog at the moment. Chicks love him, and I love chicks... The world is in harmony

LOL@drug_tito's comment

ok, lets say Syria took in Iraq's WMDs, aint there satellite imaging at the US military's disposal to check the transferring of such material did take place? I mean, its not something you can put into orange crates and drive along, they must be transported with great care.


And another question was, what exactly was Syria's relationship with Iraq prior to the war?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by tor8024 let me remind you to the fact that according to international law (and i imagine any democratic country), the one who accuses somebody has to come up with proof, not the one who is accused. in other words, it was wrong of the us to say sadam "you have weapons of mass destruction at your disposal, now prove us wrong!" in the first place. besides, if the reason for going to war was a lack of cooperation from Irak, why was the operation called "iraqi freedom"? you must admit there are some flaws in US arguments..

WOOORRRD!!!!

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

So some of Saddam's WMD were in Syria in the first place, but the Israeli and American Spec-Ops were active on the Iraqi-Syrian border to prevent them from entering Iraq. That's why those WMD were not used, and still remain in Syria

so if Syria is posing more of a threat with WMDs, why didnt the US attack them instead of Iraq?

___________________

- IM still asking myself, where are the weapons?!?! .. Didn't the US have the places allready as "there are the WMD"??...mmm looks like the politics of Bush tours the "war on terrorism" is far more then that.. crap people are blind, and Im just here sitting seen things evolve, it's just amazing. The Media is amazing too, and if you go back to "the days" .. there'll be sooo many things to bring up and prove everyone wrong.

.. DID YOU GUYS KNOW THAT THE US HELPED SADDAM HUSSEIN TAKE POWER ON IRAQ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! .. I guess you guys didn't eeehhh...

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX .. DID YOU GUYS KNOW THAT THE US HELPED SADDAM HUSSEIN TAKE POWER ON IRAQ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! .. I guess you guys didn't eeehhh...

Helped the baath party yes ... like I said before though, if you're surprised by this than perhaps you should read up on the reasons why. Cold war politics at its best.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Helped the baath party yes ... like I said before though, if you're surprised by this than perhaps you should read up on the reasons why. Cold war politics at its best.

- We were talking some of this on my class, jeez the CIA was involved in a lot of crap back then... then it came the Iran case.. interesting stuff eeh.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa The Debka news about Saddam's WMD in Syria are likely to be partly (or even completely) just propaganda. Debka is not a reliable website. Syria's own chemical WMD are hardly as big a risk as Saddam's potentially more sophisticated WMD. So the Neocons' concern about WMD in Syria is mainly just a pretext. Iraq was attacked first because it was the softest target to start long-term military operations in the core of the Middle-East (as proven by the news about American military bases to be set up in Iraq). Besides, Saddam's cruelty and his WMD were real concerns, so the Neocons had an excellent justification to rally many Western patriots behind the war (the Neocons' own war objectives in the PNAC document have not been discussed nearly as much in public). Moreover, the intelligence reports indicated that most Iraqis would not be willing to fight for Saddam, and anyway, the Iraqi military was still severely weakened from the First Gulf War and the economic sanctions, so the Neocons considered Iraq as an easy kill. My guess is that Hezbollah and Hamas are the Neocons' main targets in the Middle-East. These groups don't have WMD as far as I know, but the Neocons want to eliminate them to shape the region according to very small American and Israeli cliques, whose ideas have not been widely approved in either country. The Neocons are now in a hurry to mop up before the next Presidential Elections, so they may concentrate on Hezbollah and Hamas, and temporarily forget the WMD question. Even if the WMD may not be the most important thing on the Neocons' list, the US Government has been forced to send great numbers of its own inspectors to look for WMD in Iraq. This is because the US is apparently coming under some criticism to present the smoking gun to the Anti-War countries. My own guess is that Bush indeed can show Saddam's hidden WMD, which will silence the Anti-War Camp (unfortunately). Who knows ... the American soldiers may already have found WMD, and the US Government is just waiting for a suitable moment to release the news to the public. Keeping the suspense for some time (whether voluntary or not) will multiply their popularity, and humiliate the Anti-War Camp, who may be stepping directly into a trap when pressing the smoking gun issue.

Dude you fucking rock your post has to be one of the most intelligent unbiased post i have ever read....

___________________
"The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes"

quote:

Originally posted by fr0st Dude you fucking rock your post has to be one of the most intelligent unbiased post i have ever read....

Although I disagree with the conclusions reached ... agreed

___________________
Retro ...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vesa

Iraq was attacked first because it was the softest target to start long-term military operations in the core of the Middle-East (as proven by the news about American military bases to be set up in Iraq).

I agree 100% with your point. It all started with Afghanistan and this whole 'Crusades' will likely go on for a long time to come. Until someone wise replaces BUSH!. Hopefully the american people will come to their sense and not elect this foo!

And there were no WMD's.

My own guess is that Bush indeed can show Saddam's hidden WMD, which will silence the Anti-War Camp (unfortunately).

Keep guessing and keeping waiting. there will be no weapons of mass destructions. I heard on Rumsfeld talking at a press conference saying that they don't expect to find Any! WMD's. Only with the help of Iraqi people will they find those WMD's. hahahahaha...wat a load of crap! (btw i was watching CNN when i heard the news.)