When does you patience run out? - Page 2

Zero · May 2, 2003, 11:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Years, but I'm closing to "I don't care". I am nearly sure Saddam had some chemical weapons/research that weren't threatening to anyone except Iraqis.
And when these trace chemicals will be found, the Bushies will explain how these toys could have plunged the world in chaos.

Besides, even if Saddam decided to get rid of all his chemicals before his fall, the Bushies will plant some.

We could theoratically attack ANY country and dig up something that they have been doing under the table. So its not like Iraq would be the only case.

Giancarlo · May 2, 2003, 11:28

Spec, you cannot even form a coherent sentence. So I don't see the point in arguing with you. You have presented nothing I can work with. You are ignorant and very arrogant. Saddam Hussein does have weapons of mass destruction. You are just acting like a fool to think he isn't. As General Patton once said, real men love to fight. You are the one who doesn't have facts. You are full of **** as it is. I have no room for a crackpot sophist like you who thinks small talk with a regime like Saddam Hussein is an option. It was like Neville Chamberlain. Appeasement is bullshit.

Ming · May 2, 2003, 11:33

Fez... attack the argument... NOT THE POSTER...

And that advice goes to EVERYBODY.

Giancarlo · May 2, 2003, 11:35

Then tell him to stop laying siege to me personally. I originally posted "Well I think it will take 6 months" and I had a good reason for it. But the kiddo went straight for me.

Am I not allowed to defend myself?

Spec · May 2, 2003, 11:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Fez... attack the argument... NOT THE POSTER...

Thank you.

Fez, please do, give facts....if you can.

Spec.

General Ludd · May 2, 2003, 11:37

I couldn't care less if they find WMD in Iraq. If they wanted to find WMD, they could just look in their own armouries.

Giancarlo · May 2, 2003, 11:38

Oh don't act like that Spec.. don't even think about saying "Thank you". You were the one who attacked me personally. You provided no facts what so ever. Infact you didn't prove anything at all besides personal attacks.

Q Classic · May 2, 2003, 11:40

fez, how was he going right into you? i can't see it...

Ming · May 2, 2003, 11:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
Oh don't act like that Spec.. don't even think about saying "Thank you". You were the one who attacked me personally. You provided no facts what so ever. Infact you didn't prove anything at all besides personal attacks.

I frankly don't give a damn who started it...

END IT... NOW.

Giancarlo · May 2, 2003, 11:44

Ming, very well.

Spec · May 2, 2003, 11:46

Cross posting, Alright Ming.

Q Classic · May 2, 2003, 11:47

again, it seems as if my eyes just stepped in something.

Zero · May 2, 2003, 11:48

Fez, Ming said "that goes to verybody".

Anyways, I wouldnt EVEN care if we FOUND WMDs. To me, I see it as we wen to war because we wanted to, and WMDs defintely didnt play much into why we wanted. Besides, just because Saddam has WMDs doesnt mean we have to go all paranoid and crazy. I fail to see why people are so obsessed with someone having a nuke.

Giancarlo · May 2, 2003, 11:49

Spec you refused Ming's warning by posting that.

Spec · May 2, 2003, 11:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
Spec you refused Ming's warning by posting that.

Cant you read, I said Cros posting, meaning that he wrote his post while I was writting mine, so I didn't see it.

Spec.

Giancarlo · May 2, 2003, 11:51

Then edit your DAMN POST, spec. Because I would. It is full of insults.

Q Classic · May 2, 2003, 11:54

i just finished cleaning off my eyes, and then they step in something again.

===

WMDs are a bad thing, no matter who has them. that's why we're all batshit about nkorea getting the bomb. IMHO, saddam having them was a bad thing~ not a good rationale for invading all on its own, perhaps, but definitely something which would bolster the case.

it does not seem, however, we'll be able to use that excuse to bolster our case anymore; we'll have to fall back on the liberation bit.

is it not curious that iraq, which was such an immediate threat, seemed to be quite the pushover in actual combat?

Ming · May 2, 2003, 11:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
Then edit your DAMN POST, spec. Because I would. It is full of insults.

I DELETED THE POST... Now stop acting like little children and discuss things in a Civil Fashion!

GePap · May 2, 2003, 11:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
I don't care if we find any or not. The causus belli wasn't that we knew they had WMDs, but that there was a good chance they could have them. Saddam was not complying with inspections and contuing his games, so it looked like he had something to hide. Under those circumstances, it was prudent not to believe Saddam that he had no WMDs and take him out.

"A good chance" is not a causus belli.

I am amazed "I don't care if they ever find any" is nuber 2 choice. Fine, I expected some people to say "It was alll about getting rid of a dictator", though I think I would not be hard pressed to find quotes with very different sentiments from just 2 months ago from most people saying that now. BUt does no one care, for example, that US intelligence could be so wrong, if nothing is found? The admin. wasn't just saying Iraq had a small program they were hiding (and if the Iraqis had nothing, how could they comply? How can you prove the exstance of nothing when others are so convinced you do?) but huge stockpiles of hiddedn weapons. I do remember Powell's news-conference, which many people here, including many of the "we don't care" crowd praised as so informative: well, if nothing was found, then every single piece of info given, about anthrax, about mobile bio-labs, thjose taped discussions, all of it would be either the end result of huge mistakes and mis-characterizations, or worse, outright lying and telling of policy individuals what they want...which is exactly what intelligence agencies are not supposed to do.

Soon after the war started I said if Saddam destroyed his WMD's (I always believed he had some, after all, everyone always said they did, for a decade), then t would mean the end of 3 other regimes. It seems I was wrong. People don't car, certainly not in the US, and perhaps not in the UK and Spain either, and that worries me. Most Americsn did not back this war to "liberate Iraqis", they backed it to "remove the greave threat to ourselves", and yet, if they are in the near future shown such a threat did not exists, they will willingly forget what they were told, as to not mar they "sweetness" of 'victory'. Perhaps the HItler quote in my sign is all to depressngly accurate.

Fez and Spec..don;t pollute my thread with your little battle.

Sloww: always a gentle-something..... (cute little vendetta you got going)

SlowwHand · May 2, 2003, 11:59

Ming.Good luck.

As far as a vendetta, you know how us stupid West Texans are.
I know you do, you say it enough.

Q Classic · May 2, 2003, 12:06

gepap, of course people don't care. that's why the country is in the fix it is now: greatest country in the world, and people still hate each other's guts and cry at every tiny little thing-- you'd think every american is secretly depressed and on zoloft.

oh, wait, most of us are, aren't we? by and large, americans are a pacified, drugged-up and well-fed lot. if there's some **** going down half a world away that doesn't directly affect us, we're very much more likely to agree with whomever's in power, or louder.

why else do you think so many people believe that skorea hates the us, or that we should bomb the fcuk out of nkorea? because it's half a world away! it won't matter to us! we're the greatest fvcking country in the world! the duke can kick all of your asses!

===

out of curiosity, since when were those news conferences informative? they were always simply reiterating what they'd said before, ne'er bringing forward new evidence or anything new to say...

GePap · May 2, 2003, 12:13

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
As far as a vendetta, you know how us stupid West Texans are.
I know you do, you say it enough.

Ohh Sloww, your memory is fading.. at all levels, you initiated the exchanges, since at some time you decide to go after me like you do after Che.

I should feel proud though, as I said, that someone cares enough to think of me, even if it is negatively: you could have bestowed this honor on Sava or UR, but you chose me...it must mean something.

Quote:

out of curiosity, since when were those news conferences informative? they were always simply reiterating what they'd said before, ne'er bringing forward new evidence or anything new to say...

I meant the whole presentation to the UN Powell gave, the one that th Prez. in his state of the Union presented.

SpencerH · May 2, 2003, 12:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Calc II
Fez, Ming said "that goes to verybody".

Anyways, I wouldnt EVEN care if we FOUND WMDs. To me, I see it as we wen to war because we wanted to, and WMDs defintely didnt play much into why we wanted. Besides, just because Saddam has WMDs doesnt mean we have to go all paranoid and crazy. I fail to see why people are so obsessed with someone having a nuke.

Its very simple, just look at the hoops we have to jump through in order to deal with NK. A tin-pot dictator of a third-world country is now blackmailing us (again) with the threat that they may have a nuke or could put one together in a few months. Did we really want Iraq to have a bomb so it could blackmail the other oil-producing countries? Lets not forget that the Israelis were not going to stand by and let Iraq develop weapons that would directly threaten them with annihilation.

Iraq has been trying to develop nukes since the 70's and did have a substantial chemical and biological program and stocks of those weapons. Those are facts.

Are there WMD in Iraq? Either there are some, or the Iraqis didnt bother to record when and where they destroyed them. If the Iraqis had provided ANY proof to the UN that they had in fact destroyed their chemical and biological weapons, the sanctions would have been lifted years ago, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and we'd have Iraqi oil in our gas tanks right now. The alternative is that the Iraqis destroyed those weapons but didnt want the sanctions lifted or were too stupid to be able to show the UN inspectors the evidence. Neither of those answers makes sense.

SlowwHand · May 2, 2003, 12:23

"Ohh Sloww, your memory is fading.. at all levels, you initiated the exchanges, since at some time you decide to go after me like you do after Che.

I should feel proud though, as I said, that someone cares enough to think of me, even if it is negatively: you could have bestowed this honor on Sava or UR, but you chose me...it must mean something."

Actually, I like Che just fine,
We don't agree on politics, but that's no big deal.
There is dialogue off the boards, of which you're not aware.

Sava?

Sava's whack, but he's funny as heck, and never slams in a generalized and bigoted way.

UR? Got me there, as he seems to loathe me as much as you do.
Which is fine. Not everyone likes everyone.

GePap · May 2, 2003, 12:26

Oh..yes, I must be this awful guy..just look how many times I get banned for insulting people..wait, that never happened...

I don;t loath you Sloww. Look at my posts, i never seek you out, I only respond when you start something against me: if I respond harshly, well, don't start crap aginst me.

Andrew1999 · May 2, 2003, 12:27

The one undisputable fact is this: Iraq did not use chemical or biological weapons during the war. This means they either did not have these weapons, or were deterred from using them even in the most extreme circumstances. Both of these go against the administration's case for war: Saddam Hussein has a large arsenal of chemical and biological weapons and delivery systems, and he is not rational and cannot be deterred from using them.

The basis of the United States' arsenal of nuclear weapons is that, in the event that we are threated with a massive defeat that threatens our existence as a nation, we will use our weapons to murder millions of civilians in the threatening countries. Russia has the same doctrine. So does Israel. So does every other nation with nuclear weapons, because that is the basis for having these weapons in the first place. The administration's argument means that when faced with the same situation, Iraq chose not to respond in a similar manner.

The question for people who believe in Iraq's chemical weapons arsenal is not "Where are they?" but "Where were they?"

Japher · May 2, 2003, 12:27

I am very patient and will give them, oh, around 50 years to find WoMD in Iraq

I think in about 2 ppl will not be watching that area so closely, as we will be busy bombing someone else, that we will be able to sneak some in, just for a good laugh...

SlowwHand · May 2, 2003, 12:55

Andrew, they didn't launch scuds against Israel, this time, either.
For the same reason. Troop movement approaching light-speed, for a military campaign.

gunkulator · May 2, 2003, 14:59

How long to find WMD? Simple: The same amount of time Hans Blix thought it was necessary to look for them.

Andrew1999 · May 2, 2003, 15:05

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Andrew, they didn't launch scuds against Israel, this time, either.
For the same reason. Troop movement approaching light-speed, for a military campaign.

Funny, they never found any Scuds either. Just a bunch of al-Samouds and a Seersucker.