You cant kill a feeling Options

[Genocide Junkie]

Sure man. I enjoy discussing most anything. Just have a hard time putting it all down in these forums. It gets tedious to actually put together a response that has fact rather than just an opinion or supposition. I tend to post a good bit too and probably drive some people nuts. Oh well

Junkie

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

.............
Enough of this I'm getting a headache. Time to go shoot some people on the aim server.

Junkie

To me, the whole fiasco would have been averted if Sadam simply let in the Inspectors to show nothing was amiss. Instead his 'game of bluff' has been catastrophic. My whole point in this thread of Noodle's is reminding some respondants that the ongoing Afghanistan War was in direct response to 9/11. With the exception of Cheney even most repubs in Bush administration stated that . Like you, I think that it's about time to stop those ongoing misconceptions.

Anyways Junkie I hope we get to chat in a future topic

I disagree with that, because Saddam did eventually let them in and despite 6 months of intrusive inspections and the UN inspectors begging for more time to finish the job, the war went ahead. It did not matter what inspectors said or did, the Bush administration was ignoring every one of their discoveries and recommendations. If the UN had come out and said definitively there were no WMD's, it looks pretty obvious to me the Bush team would have just said those dumb inspectors were too dumb to find them and attacked anyway.

Oh, and one more point. Saddam didn't kick inspectors out. they left when the US did it's frst bombing campaign in 1998, back when the US inspectors who worked for the UN were arguing Saddam was hiding stuff, which we now know he wasn't. Saddam didn't let them back in, but is that much of a surprise when you get bombed anyway, and there wasn't anything being hidden?

Saddam was a bad guy, but on this WMD situation, he could not win. One cannot prove a negative. One cannot prove that one does not have something. That's why the WMD was used as the excuse for the war. No matter what happened, you could launch it by claiming Saddam's WMD's just had not been discovered yet, which is exactly what happened. In the end, he had nothing. He had nothing in 1998, and nothing in 2003. But even in this little debate, GJ can still express his doubt and voice concern that Saddam MUST have been up to something, just because that was his nature. But just because something could happen, or because someone would have liked something to happen, does not mean it did happen.

Anyway, I congratulate you both on a respectful debate.

This post has been edited by M@ster of Dis@ster: 12/28/06 5:55pm

[Barkmann]

You think that Saddam would just have WMD just hanging around just waiting for the UN to find them. I bet you he knew ahead of time and moved them.

[Major.Pain]

Just an observation, but wasn't Bill Clinton president in 1998?

-Pain

[Genocide Junkie]

Yes Clinton was pres in 1998 and MOD some of what you said is incorrect. I will post tomorrow with info showing why and documentation for the sources.

Junkie

[Hellfighter]

I disagree with that, because Saddam did eventually let them in and despite 6 months of intrusive inspections and the UN inspectors begging for more time to finish the job, the war went ahead. It did not matter what inspectors said or did, the Bush administration was ignoring every one of their discoveries and recommendations. If the UN had come out and said definitively there were no WMD's, it looks pretty obvious to me the Bush team would have just said those dumb inspectors were too dumb to find them and attacked anyway.

O...............
Anyway, I congratulate you both on a respectful debate.

Actually not really the case- I'm just going by memory here,
but there was a definate reason the UN couldn't give a definitive 'all clear' declaration.
The whole issue was balanced on the edge of a knife. If the inspections were allowed to have full access to wherever was considered a suspected wmd site, the US would have had no reason to go to war on the basis of wmd threats- which ties in with Barkmanns opinion.
Sadam would not let Inspectors in certain areas he deemed intrusive- like his array of huge Palaces... which only added more doubts to the thoroughness of former UN 'all- clear' Inspections.

This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 12/29/06 3:30pm

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

I disagree with that, because Saddam did eventually let them in and despite 6 months of intrusive inspections and the UN inspectors begging for more time to finish the job, the war went ahead. It did not matter what inspectors said or did, the Bush administration was ignoring every one of their discoveries and recommendations. If the UN had come out and said definitively there were no WMD's, it looks pretty obvious to me the Bush team would have just said those dumb inspectors were too dumb to find them and attacked anyway.

O...............
Anyway, I congratulate you both on a respectful debate.

Actually not really the case- I'm just going by memory here,
but there was a definate reason the UN couldn't give a definitive 'all clear' declaration.
The whole issue was balanced on the edge of a knife. If the inspections were allowed to have full access to wherever was considered a suspected wmd site, the US would have had no reason to go to war on the basis of wmd threats- which ties in with Barkmanns opinion.
Sadam would not let Inspectors in certain areas he deemed intrusive- like his array of huge Palaces... which only added more doubts to the thoroughness of former UN 'all- clear' Inspections.

No, that's not true. In the last 2-3 monthes they had full, complete access, even the palaces as I remember it.

Just read some "timeline" stuff on lead-up to war. The problem was Britian and the US's conditions were that Saddam "give up his weapons". Blair even had a lit of 6 conditions that included Saddam going on TV and admitting he had WMD. You see, that is a classic "no win" situation. He had to admit he had weapons he didn't have then give up weapons he didn't have!

Also, Blix was giving Iraq a hard time for a long time because documents they produced were no different than what they produced 12 years ago. But since they hadn't produced anything in 12 years, that meant they were completely accurate! LOL

I remember a commentator at the time, a guy who actually was in the US military and worked in the Middle East, said that all they were going to find in Iraq were a few "old cans of musterd gas buried in the desert". In other words, a few relics, but that Saddam has absolutely bupkiss. The other 3 experts acted like he had horns in his head, but in the end he was bang-on right. There were several experts that were bang on right, but at the time way too many people were just going by the assumption that since Saddam was more evil than Bush, and Iraq was more evil than the US, then everything Iraq said had to be a lie. But even evil people running evil regimes can tell the truth, and generally good counties with democratically elected leaders can lie. That why those counties have elections, so they can kick those leaders when caught lying.



This post has been edited by M@ster of Dis@ster: 12/29/06 5:41pm

[Genocide Junkie]

I disagree with that, because Saddam did eventually let them in and despite 6 months of intrusive inspections and the UN inspectors begging for more time to finish the job, the war went ahead. It did not matter what inspectors said or did, the Bush administration was ignoring every one of their discoveries and recommendations. If the UN had come out and said definitively there were no WMD's, it looks pretty obvious to me the Bush team would have just said those dumb inspectors were too dumb to find them and attacked anyway.

Hans Blix (the chief inspector) said on Feb 14 2003 (less than a month before the war) that "Such cooperation, as I have noted, requires more than the opening of doors. In the words of Resolution 1441, it requires immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament, either by presenting remaining proscribed items and programs for elimination or by presenting convincing evidence that they have been eliminated. "

He further stated that

"Another matter, and one of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for. I must not jump to the conclusion that they exist; however, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

And Finally

"I referred, as examples, to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX, and long-range missiles, and said that such issues -- and I quote myself -- "deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside," unquote. The declaration submitted by Iraq on the 7th of December last year, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions. This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions."

Is this what you are refering to as being ignored? He says clearly here that Iraq had not been forthcoming in presenting proof that they were in compliance. Again, the burden was not on inspectors to find proof that the weapons are still there. If anything Iraq had to present proof that if they were not there anymore where did they go?

In addition to what the weapons inspectors were saying I have pointed out in my previous post there were confirmations of the US intelligence by at least two other intelligence agencies (see quotes from France and Germany).

Oh, and one more point. Saddam didn't kick inspectors out. they left when the US did it's frst bombing campaign in 1998, back when the US inspectors who worked for the UN were arguing Saddam was hiding stuff, which we now know he wasn't. Saddam didn't let them back in, but is that much of a surprise when you get bombed anyway, and there wasn't anything being hidden?

While Sadam may not have "kicked" them out he anounced that he would not cooperate with inspectors. Actually he did kick them out but then let them return after we sent an armada towards him. This is a quote from Bill Clinton about this Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM.

Clinton also said this regarding Iraq:

"Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection."

You can read the rest here:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq....pt.1/index.html



Saddam was a bad guy, but on this WMD situation, he could not win. One cannot prove a negative. One cannot prove that one does not have something. That's why the WMD was used as the excuse for the war. No matter what happened, you could launch it by claiming Saddam's WMD's just had not been discovered yet, which is exactly what happened. In the end, he had nothing. He had nothing in 1998, and nothing in 2003. But even in this little debate, GJ can still express his doubt and voice concern that Saddam MUST have been up to something, just because that was his nature. But just because something could happen, or because someone would have liked something to happen, does not mean it did happen.

So was Clinton a lying Warmonger as well? You say they didn't have any WMD's in 1998 but we attacked them then. If they had the weapons to use against Iran and the Kurds and they never handed these over to be destroyed before 1998 (or submited proof they were destroyed) what makes anyone think Sadam got rid of these of his own accord without inspectors in the 4 years following 1998? Especially since he did his best to impede the inspectors and destroyed evidence and moved things in advance of inspectors coming. In the 4 years following these strikes I'm sure as I said earlier he was knitting us a quilt of peace. One thing I found from one of the inspectors (at least I believe he was an inspector) Ritter was his name I think. He said out of one side of his mouth that we destroyed everything and that there was nothing left. Then out of the other side would say that (one example among many) with VX gas (a deadly nerve agent) that Iraq said they had no program. Then they found a lab with the precursors. So they said they had a program but couldnt make it stable. Well guess what? You got it they found stable VX gas. So they said they couldnt weaponize it. Well guess what again? Yes you win the prize!!!! Munitions found with VX gas in them. It still was not an issue of can we find something to go after them about. It was an issue of they were NEVER forthright about disarming. This was a program that was continued until at least 1995 when they first found it. Another program regarding biological weapons was undeclared and was not found until around the same time. My point is that Sadam not only did not declare, disable, or destroy his weapons. He CONTINUED TO DEVELOP THEM. This is while inspectors were in Iraq. I've even shown you where at the last chance Iraq still was not forth coming (see quote from Hans Blix). In fact the report Iraq filed with the UN had sections that were copied verbatim from an earlier report the UN had given to Iraq.

I'm not really interested in if we were right or wrong to go into Iraq. What more bothers me is the common view that Bush lied and that the concervatives pushed us into war. I also tried to point out that the reasons we did not have international backing had as much with political and financial negatives to our "allies" as the threat did. I also gave you a link to see a transcript from Bill Clinton that basically calls for Sadam to be deposed. Had he not been neck deep in other self made problems he might have done more at the time to achieve this. You've demonstrated how popular belief has been influenced by what you hear and see in the media by saying that concervatives said Sadam was linked to 9/11 and that Bush lied about the intelligence we had. This is a common misconception because you've been beaten over the head with it. Had the media spent any of their time and effort covering any of the success that the US has achieved you might have a different outlook. I know one thing for a fact. The Iraqi people have one thing they didnt have when Sadam was in power. That is a chance at freedom and personal liberties they have never known.

Enough again. Time to go shoot some more ppl

Enjoyed the debate!

Junkie

[Hellfighter]

Well good things about a debate are various opinions being heard and actual facts made clear... lol, I must've been fixed on the Palace situation of 10 years ago and overlooked mistakingly as you folks pointed out, the actual recent realities. Anyway I found this timeline link as a good read to actual factual events leading up to the outbreak of war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmam...eline_2001-2003

This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 12/29/06 9:30pm

[Cero]

my thoughts is simple. NOT TO OFFEND ANYONE, but kill them all. At a young age, they teach there children that we are the bad people and i agree that religion is a big part of it. A friend of mine in the army was telling me a story of how a bunch of them became friends with the kids, giving them candy and toy's. One day one of the kids come to them and throws something, turns out it was a nade. What pissed him off the most was they tnew his parents and his teacher but still, was trying to kill them, he was no older then 7. It kind of reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers i saw. It said: If you could read this, thank your teacher, if you could read english, thank the military.

[-priority(+)target-]

Remember that press and wikipedia isn't free from bias or agenda. Timeline accuracy sure! Please don't ever give up the opportunity to form your own opinnion in lieu of a wikipedia article.

[Hellfighter]

Remember that press and wikipedia isn't free from bias or agenda. Timeline accuracy sure! Please don't ever give up the opportunity to form your own opinnion in lieu of a wikipedia article.

You miss the point of why I put that timeline link there then. I clearly stated that post was only posted as an interesting read through - FREE of any opinions; As you should see I deliberately never based an opinion for or against that link. It's ONLY a factual article - Do you see THAT Wikpedia article as biased or with an agenda? And in reading through the thread from start to finish you'll see opinions were concisely given by myself and others-using links at times to back up statements- and in seeing some of the fellow opinions supported with their links, I did change a few of my initial opinions/viewpoints based on those unarguable facts.

Cero Posted Yesterday, 9:39 PM
my thoughts is simple. NOT TO OFFEND ANYONE, but kill them all. At a young age, they teach there children that we are the bad people and i agree that religion is a big part of it. A friend of mine in the army was telling me a story of how a bunch of them became friends with the kids, giving them candy and toy's. One day one of the kids come to them and throws something, turns out it was a nade. What pissed him off the most was they tnew his parents and his teacher but still, was trying to kill them, he was no older then 7. It kind of reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers i saw. It said: If you could read this, thank your teacher, if you could read english, thank the military.

How old are you? What do you mean by 'they teach'? A 7 year old in your opinion can't be easily manipulated or know if he's being tricked or not, or has a real awareness of the concept of life and death, killing. You have to wonder if the heinous individual who manipulated that kid into tossing that nade had a 'kill them all' attitude to the brave, well-meaning troops over there. That 'kill them all' attitude by disturbed people/groups have all over the world against entire groups of people is indeed 'simple thoughts'. Geez, why would some of 'they', 'think' WE are the bad people when they read how some of WE wants to 'kill them all'.
I wonder if you like this bumper sticker too ...
"I'm looking for the right pedestrian to run over."

This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 12/30/06 11:13am

[Cero]

just and opinion, and if your wondering, soon the be 27. im not going to say all of them are bad, but i would rather them killed before they hijack another plane or bring a dirty bomb. you see hamma coming with the heavy over the hill on kursk, you going to take him out or wait till he gets set up. oh, and i drive a truck for a living so that bumper stick made me chuckle, not bad.

This post has been edited by Cero: 12/30/06 3:28pm

[Hellfighter]

just and opinion, and if your wondering, soon the be 27. im not going to say all of them are bad, but i would rather them killed before they hijack another plane or bring a dirty bomb. you see hamma coming with the heavy over the hill on kursk, you going to take him out or wait till he gets set up. oh, and i drive a truck for a living so that bumper stick made me chuckle, not bad.

I have quite a few good friends who are Iraqi and they all have family they are worrying about over there- people trying to live a normal life like the majority of normal people everywhere else in the world -it's sad to hear anyone pick on any group as a whole and fantacize THEY are ALL conspiring 24/7 to destroy civilization. 99% of THEY are just trying to get by day-to-day -just like us. So now -Tell me who these Iraqis are who are plane hijackers or are bringing dirty bombs over here- or even threatening to?


Put it this way if me and Hamma are both ruskys and I see him in the Elephant coming over the hill I wouldn't pester him by being a noob and start shooting at him because I want to make him an enemy just because he's in an enemy tank. Next match he might change sides and then you'd be sorry......If you get my parralel.

This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 12/30/06 4:29pm

[Cero]

stupid me, i like being on the other side and trying to kill hamma, bit of a challenge. Hellfighter, im not trying to argue with you, you make very good points and I understand what your trying to say. Maybe i missled you. no, not all iraq's are bad, not all are good, and that goes for every country. I read another post where you were talking about the terrorist and getting them out, alqida(can't spell) thats what im talking about. im not in the military, i play way too much video games, do i wish for world peace, sure, and i also wish for a million bucks. Peace isn't going to happen until either everone is killed or armageddon witch we probably won't see in a million years. Yea, war sucks, especially when we have soldiers coming home in body bags, but that is war if im not misstaken. Civil war, family members killing family members, i just wonder if it was talked about back then like war is today(granted different time frame). In all seriousness, what are you thought on them hanging Sadam today, i would be interested to read your thoughts on it.