Does This Count As WMD???

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by Nash
"I could not provide actual links as I had enough of a time fitting into the text limits of this BBS a sit was. But I did provide you with the source information. "

hehe what kind of a reason is that?

Isn't it because the article where you lifted this from didn't provide those links?

LOL!
I didn't lift the article from there.  It was someplace else.  

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by Frogm4n

btw to the french for going into the congo.

The Congo was never a threat to France.  It's just redikulus!

[Frogm4n]

no im a bleeding heart liberal democrat that thinks if your going to go to war to stop people from being killed then dont just limit it to iraq.
of course i also believe that true democracy cannot be forced on a people but come from within if it is to survive.

wait wait correct me if im wrong but i thought the conflict diamonds were on the ivory coast of africa and not in some small village in eastern congo. i guess those uraguay troops are just rolling in diamonds as well. soon they will be the richest troops in the world!!!


"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

liar liar pants of fire!

[Frogm4n]

at least chirac isnt lieing about the reasons for being in there. thats more i can say about our president.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
yea democracy sucks!


its good sadam is gone but its bad that we were lied to about why we went to war. the longer we wait the more we learn about how our allies knew iraq didnt have the crap we claimed they had.

here is a question for ya, which is worse:
a: a lie about cheating on your wife which only affects you and your wife.
b: a lie about the reasons for going to war.


btw to the french for going into the congo.

If only his philandering and dishonesty were the only damage he did. Selling American technology for campaign contributions to a country diametrically opposed to our ideals is traitorous imo.

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by Lance
Yep, everyone knows that there are people out there that would like to see the U.S. fall.  But I couldn't disagree with you more that it is okay for us to err when overthrowing countries because of it.  I think now more than ever we need to be cautious as to where we direct our force, or we run the danger of becoming what those fanatical dip****s like Bin Laden say we are.

You're statements pretty clearly illustrate what is scary about this country now.  Because of 9/11, emotions have overrun rationality.  What would have a few years ago have been unthinkable aggression for the amount of justification presented is now accepted and embraced because it plays on those emotions.

You admit that there are people out there that would like to see the U.S. fall, so please share with us all your rational, as opposed to emotional, approach to the terrorist threat.  As for being scary, the only people that ought be scared are the terrorists, willing to slaughter inncocents to destroy this country and its allies.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Syzygyone
You admit that there are people out there that would like to see the U.S. fall, so please share with us all your rational, as opposed to emotional, approach to the terrorist threat.  As for being scary, the only people that ought be scared are the terrorists, willing to slaughter inncocents to destroy this country and its allies.

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with any approach to the terrorist threat Syz, no matter how many times you and whoever else keeps repeating it.

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by Nash
The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with any approach to the terrorist threat Syz, no matter how many times you and whoever else keeps repeating it.

I know, I know, it was War for Oil.  But, likewise, no matter how many times you and whoever else repeats that, it won't make it true.

Ahahahhahahahahaha!:D

Don't you just love internet arguments!

I enjoy your posts Nash, and your avatar too!  Keep it up.

BTW, I sent you an email about the source.
It wasn't what you think but I was impressed that you found what you found.  How'd you do that?

[Frogm4n]

bush is going to get killed in the debates if he dosnt find some WMD's by 2004. Using false documents to start a war is treasonable.

btw. akiron all those millions of dollars spent investigateing clinton and his administration went to waste. The best they could do was him cheating on his wife. All other accusations have proven false. while the current administration is looking like the most crooked one in modern history.

[Lance]

Heh! Lets see... Oh, I guess I would identify which countries directly supported terrorism against the U.S. and tried to stop them.  At first diplomatically, but failing that, militarily.  I would use tact in my diplomacy throughout the process so that I did not come off as a dick trying to push the world around.

What I would not do is act on shaky intelligence and use it to support presupposed conclusions.  I would not use shaky, unverified intelligence to sell the public on the idea that they are in danger and a war is necessary.  And based on the intelligence that we've seen, I would not have identified Iraq as a serious threat or supporter of terrorism against the U.S and certainly would certainly not have identified them as so much of a threat as to warrant all of the human, monetary and political costs of a unilateral, unsanctioned-by-the-U.N. war.  

But I guess the shoot-a-shady-looking-character-first-and-ask-questions-later technique is more rational though, eh?  Keep arguing that position, its pretty damn funny, Syasdaadfasnzasdf.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by GScholz
If the US really wants to rid the world of opressive dictators that kill thousands of their own people, start in Africa.

Been there, done that, will likely do it again. Of course when we do all the US haters just cry imperialism.

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by Lance
Heh! Lets see... Oh, I guess I would identify which countries directly supported terrorism against the U.S. and tried to stop them.  At first diplomatically, but failing that, militarily.  I would use tact in my diplomacy throughout the process so that I did not come off as a dick trying to push the world around.

What I would not do is act on shaky intelligence and use it to support presupposed conclusions.  I would not use shaky, unverified intelligence to sell the public on the idea that they are in danger and a war is necessary.  And based on the intelligence that we've seen, I would not have identified Iraq as a serious threat or supporter of terrorism against the U.S and certainly would certainly not have identified them as so much of a threat as to warrant all of the human, monetary and political costs of a unilateral, unsanctioned-by-the-U.N. war.  

But I guess the shoot-a-shady-looking-character-first-and-ask-questions-later technique is more rational though, eh?  Keep arguing that position, its pretty damn funny, Syasdaadfasnzasdf.

I too would like to live in a perfect world where you could, with absolute certainty, based on hard, indisputable evidence, identify the countries that directly supported terrorism before the terrorists they support can strike again.  Trouble is, I don't think that world exists.  

As far as your conclusion that it was shakey intelligence, I have to thank you for resolving the current highest level raging international debate on whether or not the intelligence that was acted upon was, indeed, shakey.  Please be sure to notify the media.


As far shooting first and asking questions later, I've never espoused anything of the sort, and neither has this administration to my knowledge.  Your otherwise nicely presented thoughts suffer for this digression into nanner nanner world.

An my name HAS NO VOWELS, EXCEPT FOR SOMETIMES Y.  OKAY?

j/k with the caps!:D

[Lance]

You are right, there is no way to be absolutely certain, and I am not asking for that.  What I would like, however, is to be beyond a reasonable doubt that a country poses a threat to the U.S. before we invade them and overthrow their government.  It is, after all, the governmental equivalent of an execution.  I personally wasn't anywhere near this regarding Iraq given what we (the public) were told.  Afganistan and the Taliban were a different story.

But most of the American public were in support of the Iraq war, and that is what disturbs me.  Despite no solid evidence that this foreign nation was a threat to us, a vast majority supported pre-emptively invading that country and deposing the government.  America has never been like that.  I probably am being too cynical when I say that fear is the root of it, though.  It really is trust.  Trust that, despite a lack of demonstrated evidence, their government would not mislead them into an unjustified war.

Regarding the intelligence that was used to provide the foundation for the war's justifications, I am going to have to consider it as being shaky until we actually uncover some hint of the hundreds (or was it thousands?) of tons of chemical and biological weapons that were claimed.  You are perfectly welcome to view it as rock solid, if you wish.