You lie!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R13

Iraq is better without Saddam of course, that's a given. But you got to look at why we went over there, the original excuse wasn't to take Saddam down. It was WMD's, then Saddam, then terrorist and rebuilding. It would have been a lot better if Bush had come out and said he wanted to take Saddam out, but he lied or was "misinformed". And as horrible of a person he was, it's bad for the middle east, he was a good "buffer" for the Middle East. And I'm sure you know there are plenty of leaders just as bad and worse than he ever was, but we are a no-show if there isn't anything in it for us. We are a great country, but we're far from the heroes of the world that we pretend to be.

---

Not arguing that everything is peaches and cream, just pointing out that the truth nearly always lies in a gray area between black and white (left and right). The left and right are equally hypocritical.

We don't "no-show" because there is nothing in it for us. We no-show for political reasons, both national and international. But to suggest that it is wrong to have gotten involved in Irqa while ignoring other dictators is not one based it logic. They are not connected issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sup-rbeast

Uhh...Any link between Al Queda and Iraq's government is yet to be proven...just like all those WMD's that we were supposed to find over there...CNN and every other news outlet reported about those too..and they're still looking for 'em. As far as fighting along with the Russians goes, they weren't a rival of ours until AFTER WWII...the Cold War really began in the wake of WWII as well. Just because we were taught to "Hate the Commie" in the 60's, 70's, and 80's doesn't mean it was always so. If you look closer at your link there, you'll notice those stories are about terrorist acts in Iraq perpetrated by Al Queda. So, using that to say Al Queda had ties to Saddam's government is about the same as saying it had ties to the US government because 911 happened..cuz that was an attack on our soil. Al Queda wasn't active in Iraq until we invaded...then they came there to fight.

---

Those mysterious WMD's did exist at one time at least. They used them on the Kurds among others. So are we to believe Saddam followed his UN orders like a good little boy and destroyed them? Or is the scenario that is more likely is them still existing in Syria? IMO the first option flies in face of common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gotch

Those mysterious WMD's did exist at one time at least. They used them on the Kurds among others. So are we to believe Saddam followed his UN orders like a good little boy and destroyed them? Or is the scenario that is more likely is them still existing in Syria? IMO the first option flies in face of common sense.

---

I never said they didn't exist at one time. The thing is, Saddam gassed the Kurds in the 80's..and at the beginning of that decade we were helping him finance, and fight the Iranians. So, there's a pretty good chance that gas was either in part or fully paid for with US dollars. Now, fast forward to 2003...just because he had WMDs in the 80's, doesn't mean he had 'em 20 years later...after all, in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm no WMDs were used. The US invasion then prolly would have saw the use of WMDs if Saddam had em. But, I don't think after the Iranian War he had many left...cuz I think if he did have them, he would have attacked other ethnic groups the same way he did the Kurds...but he didn't...even when he invaded Kuwait The same goes for the invasion in 03. And, BTW, the US has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world. We have enough chemical weapons to kill every individual in the world 400 times...and many of the weapons we have were developed with intelligence developed by the Nazis in WWII. So, IMO, it's awfully hypocritical to point fingers at another country for having chemical and biological weapons. But, with our stockpile, who cares? Furthermore, some folks will attempt to link any WMDs found in the Middle East, whether its now or 50 years from now, to Iraq in an attempt to justify our invasion...which IMO is still unjustified.

Quote:

---

And, BTW, the US has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world. We have enough chemical weapons to kill every individual in the world 400 times...and many of the weapons we have were developed with intelligence developed by the Nazis in WWII. So, IMO, it's awfully hypocritical to point fingers at another country for having chemical and biological weapons.

---

And how likely are we to use them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBeast

And how likely are we to use them?

---

With this administration, not likely. With the last administration, I had my doubts.

Agree or disagree--that's fine, that's just my personal opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sup-rbeast

I never said they didn't exist at one time. The thing is, Saddam gassed the Kurds in the 80's..and at the beginning of that decade we were helping him finance, and fight the Iranians. So, there's a pretty good chance that gas was either in part or fully paid for with US dollars. Now, fast forward to 2003...just because he had WMDs in the 80's, doesn't mean he had 'em 20 years later...after all, in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm no WMDs were used. The US invasion then prolly would have saw the use of WMDs if Saddam had em. But, I don't think after the Iranian War he had many left...cuz I think if he did have them, he would have attacked other ethnic groups the same way he did the Kurds...but he didn't...even when he invaded Kuwait The same goes for the invasion in 03. And, BTW, the US has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world. We have enough chemical weapons to kill every individual in the world 400 times...and many of the weapons we have were developed with intelligence developed by the Nazis in WWII. So, IMO, it's awfully hypocritical to point fingers at another country for having chemical and biological weapons. But, with our stockpile, who cares? Furthermore, some folks will attempt to link any WMDs found in the Middle East, whether its now or 50 years from now, to Iraq in an attempt to justify our invasion...which IMO is still unjustified.

---

Actually the UN found and destroyed large amounts of chemical weapons and weapons making materials after the Gulf War. A number of other fallacies in there, but I'm in the middle of sale and will have to wait to point them out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBeast

And how likely are we to use them?

---

I, for one, never have and never will trust the government. And, in the eyes of the world, our country isn't trusted by half its population. So, it's not relevant how likely we are to use them. It's the fact that we have them and try to destroy others who have them or try to have them. To ourselves, we like to think of ourselves as the good guy...to the rest of the world, they think of themselves as being in the "right". And who is to say that one day we wouldn't use our WMD's? Under Bush we broke many international treaties and laws...and that doesn't make us look very trustworthy to the rest of the world...and certainly not trustworthy enough to be armed to the teeth with those kinds of weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gotch

Actually the UN found and destroyed large amounts of chemical weapons and weapons making materials after the Gulf War. A number of other fallacies in there, but I'm in the middle of sale and will have to wait to point them out.

---

And that lessens the chance even more that Saddam had a large stockpile of WMDs prior to 2003's invasion.

Well, not too sure that is a logical conclusion. To start with it contradicts your earlier assessment that he had already used what "few" he had, second the UN let it be known that the ones they found had been hidden in most cases and that his government obstructed them in every way possible.

So....are we to believe he just gave up on them at that point?
That makes no sense what so ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gotch

Well, not too sure that is a logical conclusion. To start with it contradicts your earlier assessment that he had already used what "few" he had, second the UN let it be known that the ones they found had been hidden in most cases and that his government obstructed them in every way possible.

So....are we to believe he just gave up on them at that point?
That makes no sense what so ever.

---

I never said he "used the few he had"...I'm just saying 1.)what he had, we most likely bought for him 2.)If he had an entire arsenal we'd have seen them in Desert Storm and 3.)IMO the UN got 99% of what was left of em after Desert Storm. It's not that I don't think there could possibly be a few WMDs..It's just that I don't think they had anywhere near an arsenal, or nowhere near what the Bush Administration tried to get us to believe..Thus, nowhere near enough to justify a war based on lies.