|
Iraqi WMD trucks turn out to be hydrogen-production facilities (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
Please define "Neoconservative".
thanks(no sarcasm):D |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
The true dumbass in all of this is Saddam ... why put up all the initial barriers when he had nothing? He should have just told the weapons inspectors to strip his country bare and demanded more inspectors. Why even get to the point where resolution 1441 was necessary ... something that was to be expected of a madman. |
Ok, i understand how this can be partially Saddam's fault for not just coming out and telling the truth, but can you say it wasn't Bush's fault as well? Come on man, if Bush was half as intelligent as he thought he was he'd know that Saddam didn't have those weapons. If Saddam did have those weapons, why hadn't he used them? Why hadn't he attacked Israel or Iran? These are all things that Bush should have figured, but he's just a Republican war-monger. Plain and simple. |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| Haha war-monger. :D |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
It also might be worthy to note that upon visiting Hitler in the 1930's, Winston Churchill concluded that he was a pretty harmless man who posed no immediate threats...shortly after Hitler invaded Poland and not to soon after that over 6 million Jews had been destroyed in manners not to dissimilar from some of the things Saddam did to his own people. Did you happen to read about the man who lived in a false wall hideout for 22 years for fear of Saddam?? 22 friggin years, man! He was 27 when he went into hiding and now is 49 and all of his teeth have fallen out! This says nothing good about Saddam Hussein and the ruthless regime he led. Do not allow yourself to be deceived by the media. Read the information, glean the pertinent facts, and come to the logical conclusions.
Here's a link to the article about the Iraqi:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/3942304.html |
It was Chamberlain who wanted to compromise with Hitler, not Churchill.
Anyway, comparing Hitler to Saddam is rediculous since Hitler was in charge of probably the most powerful country in the world at the time, while Saddam's Iraq was a sort of little thorn in the side country which just babbles a lot but can't do anything.
As far as that guy goes, I knew about him, he was on TV, but nothing is being said about why he was under death threat from Saddam. The only thing it said was that he was a member of a shiite group, which coud very likely mean he was an islamic terrorist (Oh wait, aren't Saddam and islamists cooperating?). Anyway, the humanitarian issues weren't the primary cause for the war, because if that was the case, the US forces would have intervened in most of Africa prior to turning to Iraq. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Oh, and Vesa, thanx a lot for backing up my arguments. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
Ok, i understand how this can be partially Saddam's fault for not just coming out and telling the truth, but can you say it wasn't Bush's fault as well? Come on man, if Bush was half as intelligent as he thought he was he'd know that Saddam didn't have those weapons. If Saddam did have those weapons, why hadn't he used them? Why hadn't he attacked Israel or Iran? These are all things that Bush should have figured, but he's just a Republican war-monger. Plain and simple. |
You heard wolfowitz ... wmds were one of many reasons to remove him from power, the administration simply picked this issue since it had some claim to legitimacy to it. The administration more or less knew that Iraq would not use his weapons in the current situation (who knows about in the future however). But how could the administration have justified war if 1441 were satisfied? That there was no dispute at all that Iraq didn't have wmds ... Saddam is a dumbass for actively putting up barriers such that Blix could not conclusively determine whether Iraq had wmds or not. In the eyes of many, it simply looked like Saddam was stalling for time and only agreed to additional concessions at the last minute. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| Why the heck did the Americans looked upon Iraq in the first place...they should just stick their ass on searching for Al Quaeda. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
Why the heck did the Americans looked upon Iraq in the first place...they should just stick their ass on searching for Al Quaeda. |
Because the administration always had a hard on for Iraq. Probably a combination of a lot of things. Openly hostile dictatorship, possible terrorist financing, continual attacks against american and brit planes enforcing the no fly zone, a stabilization of the region and ultimately a removal of the massive number of troops in Saudi Arabia/Kuwait. Unlike Vesa, I sincerely doubt that force would be used in Iran. I posted news sources a while back which stated that Rummy ultimately wanted an extremely reduced presence in the region. And although the administration may be preaching a lot of anti-Iranian rhetoric, any breakthrough in achieving a revolution will be achieved from within rather than externally.
What's my main reasoning for this? Simple, Iraq was a very secular country with many religous persecutions as well as persecutions in general. Despite it being an Arab country, I'm sure a lot of neighboring countries secretely supported and wished for Saddam's downfall. Iran however, is an entirely different geopolitical climate. One that is based on a religous fundamentalist government. First, Iran has maintained relatively normal, peaceful relations with neighboring countries. Second, any attack from abroad upon Iran would be easily seen by the Muslim world as an attack against muslims or an attack against religion. Thus I really do not think that there will be any hostile use of force against Iran. And like I told Vesa ... I'm betting my hat on that one. |
|
|
| Shakka |
When this is all said and done (and who knows how long it will take), several of us will be proven wrong, and several of us will be proven to have been correct. If I am ultimately wrong, I will gladly admit it, however I fear that when and if the WMD's are finally found and/or accounted for, there will be an equal amount of BS rhetoric from opposition groups claiming evidence was planted/falsified or simply created for political and financial gain.
One of many things that bothers me as of late is how skeptical and critical people can be about the U.S. administration while at the same time casting such non-critical and trusting opinions of countries like Iraq and people like Saddam Hussein. What good can be said about a brutal dictator? What has history taught us about dictators? Certainly not much positive. At least Bush has to answer to the people, congress, and his cabinet. Hussein didn't have to answer to anyone. Let's say I'm Hussein--I have my own country. I call the shots, I can do whatever I want within the confines of my country without any fear of reprocussions for my actions--until someone else steps in. Why would a man have a nuclear reactor built in the 3rd most oil rich country on the face of the Earth?? The man always had ambitions for WMD's and factually posessed them when he kicked inspectors out in '98. Are we to believe that he proceeded to destroy said weapons after he kicked out the inspectors? Remember that Hussein pretty much answered to no one. I think it's far more foolish to believe he simply destroyed the weapons instead of perhaps suggesting that he concealed them VERY WELL once there were no inspectors there to monitor what he was doing? And let's also not forget (even though it's minor IMO) that the Al Samoud missiles he posessed violated UN sanctions as well and alone were a material breach.
Like I said, if I end up being wrong, then I'll admit that I was wrong, but at this point I'm not ready to say there aren't WMD's in Iraq. I think that as more and more of the higher ranking "deck of cards" members are found, we'll get closer and closer to the truth. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Iran however, is an entirely different geopolitical climate. One that is based on a religous fundamentalist government. First, Iran has maintained relatively normal, peaceful relations with neighboring countries. Second, any attack from abroad upon Iran would be easily seen by the Muslim world as an attack against muslims or an attack against religion. Thus I really do not think that there will be any hostile use of force against Iran. And like I told Vesa ... I'm betting my hat on that one. |
well I hope you are right man,but it seems like this Bush Administration isnt afraid of using milatary forces,but hopefuly they wont make that mistake,since there is alot of countries specially alot of European countries wont be happy if the Americans use forces against Iran,and that could make the US and Eu relations even worst. |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
You heard wolfowitz ... wmds were one of many reasons to remove him from power, the administration simply picked this issue since it had some claim to legitimacy to it. The administration more or less knew that Iraq would not use his weapons in the current situation (who knows about in the future however). But how could the administration have justified war if 1441 were satisfied? That there was no dispute at all that Iraq didn't have wmds ... Saddam is a dumbass for actively putting up barriers such that Blix could not conclusively determine whether Iraq had wmds or not. In the eyes of many, it simply looked like Saddam was stalling for time and only agreed to additional concessions at the last minute. |
Bah! Wolfowitz is a conservative . Some claim to legitimacy?:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
During this war, the Anti-War Camp joined forces with both American and European supporters of secular Realpolitik (that's how I became Anti-War ;) ). Realpoliticians know that Saddam has been a deceiver and a potential future threat. They don't hesitate to play dirty themselves, and approve the use of Machiavellian methods when necessary. The problem for them has not been that the US Administration exaggerated the WMD situation. The main problem for them was Neocons' goal of an irresponsible American Hegemony.
|
Ahhhh a fan of Bismarck are we vesa? I'm starting to like you more and more every day :) |
|
|
|
|
