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

Author Topic: Bush v UN  (Read 1472 times)

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Bush v UN
« Reply #30 on: September 24, 2003, 12:48:02 PM »
The IRA were not terrorists, they were glorious freedom fighters battling for their liberty against the tyrannical rule of Margaret Thatcher!!!! :rolleyes:
Logged

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Bush v UN
« Reply #31 on: September 24, 2003, 12:54:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hussein... no WMD to be found... :rolleyes:


Hussein...  no evil dictator to be found... :rolleyes:

You think just because they haven't been found that neither existed?  You must to be consistant.

Neither.... niether...  let's see i before e except after c or in sounding like a as in neighbor and weigh, on weekends and holidays and all through May....
« Last Edit: September 24, 2003, 12:56:57 PM by Holden McGroin »
Logged
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
Bush v UN
« Reply #32 on: September 24, 2003, 12:58:37 PM »
I still like nice boobs better than plowing snow.
Logged

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Bush v UN
« Reply #33 on: September 24, 2003, 01:11:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Hussein...  no evil dictator to be found... :rolleyes:

You think just because they haven't been found that neither existed?  You must to be consistant.

Neither.... niether...  let's see i before e except after c or in sounding like a as in neighbor and weigh, on weekends and holidays and all through May....



Hussein = evil dictator  - okay
Hussein = evil dictator developing WMD - prove it.
Logged
sand

Offline muckmaw

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3874
Bush v UN
« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2003, 01:23:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by miko2d
muckmaw: Evidence: 5000+ Dead Kurds in the North, gassed. You want to watch the tape again? How many dead Iranians. Gas.

 That is a lie long since refuted. Few hundred kurds died during the battle for Halabja between Iraqi and Iranian armies. Both used chemical mortar rounds but the dead kurds were mostly the victims of Iranian gas.
 Human Rights Watch, CIA and United States Defense Intelligence Agency confirm that. Just read the papers.

United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

 As for fighting teocratic regime in Iran, US were his allies in that war.

 miko


Miko-

I stand corrected, and for this I thank you.

However, the point of my message remains the same, as you quoted:

"Few hundred kurds died during the battle for Halabja between Iraqi and Iranian armies. Both used chemical mortar rounds"

"The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja."

Sandman-

There can be no proof for you. You know as well as I do that Iraq HAD Wmds before 1991. We both know there was an active weapons program up until 1998. Whether or not he had them when we invaded in 2003 is doubtful. You see, this is the difference between you and I. I can and will admit when my beliefs are wrong, and proved so. I have no problem conceding a debate. You on the other hand remind me of the kid who would run around with his fingers in his ears going "La la la la I cannot hear you" whenever something is said to dispute what you believe.

If you cannot see the truth in what I've written above, you truly have the right name. You live with your head in the sand.
Logged

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12772
Bush v UN
« Reply #35 on: September 24, 2003, 01:36:06 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by miko2d
As for fighting teocratic regime in Iran, US were his allies in that war.

 miko


The US did not fight Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. Calling us allies is a stretch.
Logged
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Bush v UN
« Reply #36 on: September 24, 2003, 01:46:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by muckmaw
There can be no proof for you. You know as well as I do that Iraq HAD Wmds before 1991. We both know there was an active weapons program up until 1998. Whether or not he had them when we invaded in 2003 is doubtful. You see, this is the difference between you and I. I can and will admit when my beliefs are wrong, and proved so. I have no problem conceding a debate. You on the other hand remind me of the kid who would run around with his fingers in his ears going "La la la la I cannot hear you" whenever something is said to dispute what you believe.

If you cannot see the truth in what I've written above, you truly have the right name. You live with your head in the sand.


I guess I'll just leave it to you adults to keep on changing the subject. Hussein was a purported threat to the United States, capable of striking U.S. forces in the region with WMD within minutes. This has yet to be proven. As far as I'm concerned, this is the only relevant issue. The rest is just noise and attempted justification after the fact.

If the Iraqi people wanted liberation, they should have been willing to fight and die for it before we sacrificed the life of a single U.S. soldier.

From my view in the sand, I see nothing but body bags.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2003, 02:00:19 PM by Sandman »
Logged
sand

Offline Duedel

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1787
Bush v UN
« Reply #37 on: September 24, 2003, 02:05:11 PM »
Hmmm ... what I think about Mr. Bush and what he tells and what he does (over all, not only regarding Iraq) is best explained by a song Blink 182 wrote. The title is "Family reunion".
Logged

Offline muckmaw

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3874
Bush v UN
« Reply #38 on: September 24, 2003, 02:08:45 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I guess I'll just leave it to you adults to keep on changing the subject. Hussein was a purported threat to the United States, capable of striking U.S. forces in the region with WMD within minutes. This has yet to be proven. As far as I'm concerned, this is the only relevant issue. The rest is just noise and attempted justification after the fact.

If the Iraqi people wanted liberation, they should have been willing to fight and die for it before we sacrificed the life of a single U.S. soldier.

From my view in the sand, I see nothing but body bags.


I agree that the prime motive for war in the US was the threat we were told existed from Iraq.

I also agree that WMD's have not and probably will not be found in Iraq.

Where are paths diverge is that I believe even without ACTIVE WMDs in his possession, SH showed he had the capability to produce them, and no qualms about using them on his enemies. The US was a mortal enemy of SH.

I firmly believe if left unchecked, SH would have developed WMDs if he NO LONGER had them, or would have given/sold WMDs to any terrorist group looking to use them against Israel or the west.

As for you opinion of the Iraqi people rising up, we all know any attampt to overthrow SH would be squelched with an iron fist. He was unbeatable by a popular uprising.

Though it is not the US job to police the world, we have numerous interests in the Middle East and it's stability.  Freeing the Iraqi people was not the main reason for our involvement, but it's a wonderful bonus.
Logged

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Bush v UN
« Reply #39 on: September 24, 2003, 02:14:05 PM »
That's where we diverge. IMHO, Hussein was effectively contained. The region was probably more stable than it is right now.

I have my doubts about future stability. Israel isn't stable. I hardly expect that Iraq will be either.
Logged
sand

Offline muckmaw

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3874
Bush v UN
« Reply #40 on: September 24, 2003, 02:18:19 PM »
I think he was contained as long as he wanted to be.

Look how porous the Iraqi border is with Syria, the Terrorist mecca.

If given the right price/cause SH would have driven a Bio Bomb across that border in his land rover and handed it over.

You know he HAD wmds. We both know he would have made 'em again if he did'nt have 'em anymore.

Stability? No much in Israel. Very little in Iraq. But can you call living under a genocidal maniac stability? I think not. I also think Iraq has a much brighter future than it ever has.

We'll have this discussion again in 5 years, and see.

Logged

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Bush v UN
« Reply #41 on: September 24, 2003, 03:03:41 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by muckmaw
We both know he would have made 'em again if he did'nt have 'em anymore.


Well, if the U.S. ever pulled out and the UN lifted the sanctions, maybe so. There was some noise in this direction, but that all died under the "axis of evil" roar.

Hussein wasn't stupid. He may have attempted to play the UN against the U.S. and gained some benefit from it, but I truly doubt he would have taken a shot at the U.S. It would have amounted to nothing but a largely symbolic attack resulting in the complete and undivided attention of our military.

This policy of pre-emption is going to be hellish if it catches on.
Logged
sand

Offline Gixer

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3189
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush v UN
« Reply #42 on: September 24, 2003, 07:31:41 PM »
One should remember why the UN was formed in the first place. Do you really think world security,peace,economic and social development and human rights would be better without it?

It would be a great loss for all the above reasons if the UN was ever abolished, though hopefully cooler minds would prevail.



...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~




Quote
Originally posted by Eagler
I think I will \\if I don't - it will not be due to the Bush vs the UN argument

you think the UN will even be around in another 10 years?
Logged

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Bush v UN
« Reply #43 on: September 24, 2003, 07:36:10 PM »
I dont know why I bother asking, but do any you honestly belive there is any chance that Saddam would not have fully restarted his WMD quest after UN sanctions and inspections, and also the overflights were halted?
Logged

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Bush v UN
« Reply #44 on: September 24, 2003, 07:40:03 PM »
Of course not... a healthy nuclear weapons program is the best defense against U.S. aggression.
Logged
sand
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up
« previous next »