« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Worth Repeating  (Read 1816 times)

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Worth Repeating
« Reply #45 on: February 16, 2003, 01:40:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
So... if the record keeping wasn't thorough, they're screwed.


Not if you want to listen to the anti war demonstrators...
Logged

Offline blitz

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1007
Worth Repeating
« Reply #46 on: February 16, 2003, 01:41:17 PM »

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by blitz
We call that collateral damage, who cares about that little terrorists tulips anyways .

Regards Blitz

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



that explains alot. No wonder you don't want them liberated you think they are all terrorist and should die.

makes sense now.


__________________



UDIE,  you make me laugh :D


Regards Blitz


America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2003, 01:44:09 PM by blitz »
Logged

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Worth Repeating
« Reply #47 on: February 16, 2003, 01:57:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hortlund
Not if you want to listen to the anti war demonstrators...


It's difficult to argue that Iraq is a larger threat today than they were five years ago. Of course, the standard argument is that it's a different world today, after 911. Nevermind that terrorism has existed for decades and also nevermind the fact that not a single Iraqi was on board any of the hijacked planes.

I've yet to hear anyone state that they are supportive of Hussein and his regime. The big question is why is regime change in Iraq such a high priority?
Logged
sand

Offline Dnil

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 879
Worth Repeating
« Reply #48 on: February 16, 2003, 01:59:34 PM »
umm sand, WMD aren't grocery lists, you don't just misplace them.  You don't have screwed record keeping.


you don't just misplace tons of nerve gas,hmmm now where did i put that vx.  Especially when the ruler of the country is so paranoid of being overthrown he kills he own inlaws.
Logged

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Worth Repeating
« Reply #49 on: February 16, 2003, 02:05:37 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
It's difficult to argue that Iraq is a larger threat today than they were five years ago. Of course, the standard argument is that it's a different world today, after 911. Nevermind that terrorism has existed for decades and also nevermind the fact that not a single Iraqi was on board any of the hijacked planes.

I've yet to hear anyone state that they are supportive of Hussein and his regime. The big question is why is regime change in Iraq such a high priority?

5 years ago the US president was a *bites tounge again* a different type of person, with other priorities in life.

9-11 showed us two things
1) exactly how vunerable we are
2) exactly how much they hate us, what they are capable of.

Now I dont know what kind of future the anti-war crowd want to see for their children. But I sure as he** dont want to see a world where various suspect nations have wmds or where  terrorists have wmds.

It is as simple as that. Saddam has wmds, he supports terrorists=he must go.
Logged

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Worth Repeating
« Reply #50 on: February 16, 2003, 02:06:56 PM »
Yeah... I heard what Powell said. He rattled off the list of WMD items.

Still, Blix has stated that the U.S. is witholding evidence from the inspection teams. It would be nice if the U.S. would tell the U.N. what they should be looking for.
Logged
sand

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Worth Repeating
« Reply #51 on: February 16, 2003, 02:10:19 PM »
Didnt you read my previous post? The UN isnt supposed to look for anything. Iraq is supposed to prove that they have destroyed the weapons we know they had.

The US have no obligation to give any evidence to the UN, it would just be a waste of good intel. By the time the inspectors would get there, the stuff would be gone anyway.

Get this:
The UN inspectors dont want to find a smoking gun. The Iraqis would never let them find a smoking gun and live (tragically they were killed in a riot, the guilty ones will be punished etc).
Logged

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Worth Repeating
« Reply #52 on: February 16, 2003, 02:18:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hortlund
5 years ago the US president was a *bites tounge again* a different type of person, with other priorities in life.

9-11 showed us two things
1) exactly how vunerable we are
2) exactly how much they hate us, what they are capable of.

Now I dont know what kind of future the anti-war crowd want to see for their children. But I sure as he** dont want to see a world where various suspect nations have wmds or where  terrorists have wmds.

It is as simple as that. Saddam has wmds, he supports terrorists=he must go.


IMHO, removing Hussein isn't going to make us any less vulnerable.

Where do we stop? Do we conduct "regime change" operations in every country that doesn't like the U.S? After we've telegraphed the punch, do we then use their development of WMD as an excuse?
Logged
sand

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Worth Repeating
« Reply #53 on: February 16, 2003, 02:23:54 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
IMHO, removing Hussein isn't going to make us any less vulnerable.

Where do we stop? Do we conduct "regime change" operations in every country that doesn't like the U.S? After we've telegraphed the punch, do we then use their development of WMD as an excuse?


That's why as a french I'm very disturbed by the planned attack of Iraq.

Because we disagree with the US of A and worst we have working WMD !











In fact when thinking just a bit more ... we are as safe as Noth Korea.
Logged

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12325
Worth Repeating
« Reply #54 on: February 16, 2003, 02:29:25 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by straffo
That's why as a french I'm very disturbed by the planned attack of Iraq.

Because we disagree with the US of A and worst we have working WMD !

In fact when thinking just a bit more ... we are as safe as Noth Korea.



I'm sure you intend this to be deragatory Straffo. However, have no fear from the US. And by the way, don't run up the white flag before checking with us, we might still be willing to defend you again.
Logged
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Worth Repeating
« Reply #55 on: February 16, 2003, 02:36:01 PM »
oups ...
it was intended as a sarcastic joke but as usual I diddlyed on the smilley part.

I shouldn't post when I'm pissed because of another post ...
Logged

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Worth Repeating
« Reply #56 on: February 16, 2003, 02:47:12 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
IMHO, removing Hussein isn't going to make us any less vulnerable.

Where do we stop? Do we conduct "regime change" operations in every country that doesn't like the U.S? After we've telegraphed the punch, do we then use their development of WMD as an excuse?


Removing threats is always good.

Where do we stop? As I have been trying to say in several threads on this subject, it is the mad dictator+wmd combo that is priority one. That would make N Korea next after Iraq.

We are also after terrorist supporters. That would make Iran, Syria, Sudan, Somalia potential targets.

Does it stop Sandman? The terrorists are playing for keeps...
Logged

Offline Habu

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1905
Worth Repeating
« Reply #57 on: February 16, 2003, 03:16:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hortlund
Removing threats is always good.

Where do we stop? As I have been trying to say in several threads on this subject, it is the mad dictator+wmd combo that is priority one. That would make N Korea next after Iraq.

We are also after terrorist supporters. That would make Iran, Syria, Sudan, Somalia potential targets.

Does it stop Sandman? The terrorists are playing for keeps...


I see removing Saddam as setting a big example that the rules of changed.

Once that has happened everything will change.
Logged

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Worth Repeating
« Reply #58 on: February 16, 2003, 03:18:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Habu
I see removing Saddam as setting a big example that the rules of changed.

Once that has happened everything will change.

The rules you are referring to changed with the Kosovo war already.
Logged

Offline weazel

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1471
Still waiting on a source for this Hortie
« Reply #59 on: February 16, 2003, 03:43:39 PM »
Even FAUX News coverage doesn't try working this angle, it requires showing starving children and I haven't seen any.


"Ok, lets see, 30 000 Iraqi children starving to death every month due to Saddams policy of not giving up WMDs."
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up
« previous next »