When does you patience run out? - Page 3

PLATO · May 2, 2003, 16:15

Good Lord! Fez-Spec...GePap-Slowww.

Is the issue here so unimportant that our only attacks can be on the messingers and not the message? (With respect to GePap and Sloww for being WAY more on topic).

Did Saddam have WMD? Of course...he used them!

Did he have them at the beginning of this war? I think so. But the point is that he knew how to make them and could do it quickly. This combined with his track record made him a "grave threat".

GePap · May 2, 2003, 16:28

Quote:

This combined with his track record made him a "grave threat".

Past action is not proof of future action, specially when you have actions in the middle that serve as counter-proof.

He sued chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds, He did not used chemical weapons against the Coolition, Israel, or the Shia in 1991 (never heard any reports, as opposed to what they said in "Three Kings"). Why would his post 1998 actions resemeble his pre-1990 actions and not his 1991-98 actions?

"grave threat", unless it is imminent, is not a causus belli- the important thing for me is, what was the legal justification given for this war? violations of Un sanctions, sanctions delaign with disarmemment. If Iraq was disarmed (I give the US one more month, but as of now, it seems their intelligence was wrong on many things), then out legal justification was, well, not real.

SlowwHand · May 2, 2003, 16:38

Did you watch the Prez's address last night?

It's not over, just because Hussien is driven from power.
I'm amazed that I've not yet seen a thread.
Guess it's too early.
Have to wait until the next terrorist leader is about whooped, THEN start whining.

Q Classic · May 2, 2003, 16:44

oh, i'm sure people will start *****ing the next time it looks like we're revving for war.

Spiffor · May 2, 2003, 16:47

Q Cubed :
This is right. I hope I'll be the first.

Japher · May 2, 2003, 16:50

Quote:

Past action is not proof of future action, specially when you have actions in the middle that serve as counter-proof

I guess I will never hear you saying "less we study our history, we are doomed to repeat it."

Past action is not proof, but motive and proof of intent. It is the only tool we have at this time to predict the future... so it will have to suffice. And, if you don't want the US marching through your front door it might be wise not to be an evil dictator murdering your citizens... oh well, better luck in the next life bucko

GePap · May 2, 2003, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Did you watch the Prez's address last night?
.

That publicity stunt and waste of money? what for, so he could tell me something I already knew and nothing more? When was the last time major military action was taken in Iraq? April 12th or so? So he comes up now to tell us the obvious? Please.

I would love it for him to have the guts to come on Tv and lay out for the Aerican people how long troops will be there, and how much money he is willing to spend rebuilding Iraq. He won't do so, of course, but it would be nice for him to do so.

GePap · May 2, 2003, 16:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Japher
I guess I will never hear you saying "less we study our history, we are doomed to repeat it."

Past action is not proof, but motive and proof of intent. It is the only tool we have at this time to predict the future... so it will have to suffice. And, if you don't want the US marching through your front door it might be wise not to be an evil dictator murdering your citizens... oh well, better luck in the next life bucko

One has to study ALL of history, not study it selectively. Again, Saddam did not use WMD against the US, ever. Why would he? you can say, hey, if he gets into another war with Uran, he might use WMD's. But for you to say :hey, he will use WMD's against the US, you have to get by the fact that he didn;t use WMD's against the US in our previous war (or this one, for that matter).

As for your second part. You better not be an ANTI-US dictator killing your own people. As long as you remain pro-US, you are fine, or if you are a dictator in Africa.

PLATO · May 2, 2003, 18:06

GePap, You are correct that Saddam didn't use WMD during your referenced timeframe. Does this mean that you think he saw the light? Hardly. The scientist that you earlier reffered to have given a litany of last minute destroyed documents and destruction of WMD. He tried to get rid of as much evidence as he could only when invasion was imminent. Why would he have kept those WMD all those years? The answer is obvious for those willing to listen to the facts. There are now reports of meetings with Al Qeada in 1998. There have been other suspected meetings. Terrorist were active in northeastern Iraq (Yes I know...Saddam didn't control that part of the country. Yeah right...if he was as good a fellow as some would have us believe then why wasn't the Republican Guard up there cleaning things up? Again, obvious...he had no interest in doing so).
Now GePap, you live in New York, right? Your telling me that you were willing to leave a man with his track record in power? Do you really think that the unthinkable couldn't happen again? Do you really believe that if Saddam thought he could get away with it that he wouldn't have done it in an instant?

C'mon, you are way to intelligent not to see the truth here.

GePap · May 2, 2003, 19:15

PLATO: and there were reports that Atta had mert with Iraqi intelligence in Prague beofre 9/11. Where are those reports now? And the link between Ansar Al_Islam and Baghdad? They took all of Ansars documents a month ago, and in a month the didn;t come up with one tie, one connection yet, between Ansar and Baghdad? (which was supposed to be the great active Al Qaeda-Iraq link)

Do I think If Saddam though he could get away with it, would he do it. Perhaps, probalby, BUt that is the rub of your argument PLATO: he could have never gotten away wth it, and he knew it. IN all the documents from Al qaeda we took from Afghanistan: not a single document given to show any funding, weapons, support, from Iraq to Al Qaeda. Why not? Did they burn all the files? We have now most of the highest members of Saddam's scientific elite in our custody. One would think if they had, and we have, and we have always said they did have, valuable info, why has the coolition not acted on it?

I don't link Saddam to 9/11 cause he had nothing to do with 9/11, or the Cole attack, or the Embassy bombings. 9/11 is not a reason to attack Saddam, never was, never will. Why hasn't Bush said Osama's name since July of 2002 after all his "dead or alive" sthick? As a New Yorker, that gets me much more.

I never found any of the doomsday scenerios credible. As I said before the War, I did not think even if Saddam had WMD's. that that wasa credible caussu belli, and I have seen nothign to change that opinion. There was only one valid excuse fopr war, the "liberation excuse". The thing being, that most people in these forums and the US were not using the "liberation" excuse, butt he "Oh my God, Osama and Saddam will get together, kill us all, and rule the world with their hellspawn!" excuse. And as of right now, no proof that that was a valid excuse at all has come up.

PLATO · May 2, 2003, 19:33

Hellspawn.

Quote:

Do I think If Saddam though he could get away with it, would he do it. Perhaps, probalby

Okay, we agree here.

Quote:

he could have never gotten away wth it, and he knew it.

If he had acted directly...no question that your correct. The problem was that their was growing ties to terrorist networks. Osama...maybe. Hamas, Hezbollah...definately. He was paying homicide bomber's families in Israel. Obviously there was an established conduit for the cash to move. Before 9/11, Hezbollah was responsible for more American deaths than any other terror organization. WMD could have moved through a variety of channels and countries and never have left Hezbollah's hands. In this scenario, I maintain he could have gotten away with it.

Quote:

One would think if they had, and we have, and we have always said they did have, valuable info, why has the coolition not acted on it?

They are. Over 1000 specialist are eithier on the way or preparing to go. The US has identified 100's of sites that need to be looked at. I don't think we want the 19 year old Marine trying to do this.

Quote:

Why hasn't Bush said Osama's name since July of 2002 after all his "dead or alive" sthick?

1.) Embarrasment, 2.) As the picture of world wide terror organizations unfolds, Osama becomes less relevant to the overall war.

Quote:

There was only one valid excuse fopr war, the "liberation excuse".

As I am sure you are aware, this was one of my major points for going to war. WMD and enforcement of UNSC resolutions were also there.

Quote:

And as of right now, no proof that that was a valid excuse at all has come up.

patience my friend, patience.

TCO · May 2, 2003, 19:49

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

That publicity stunt and waste of money? what for, so he could tell me something I already knew and nothing more? When was the last time major military action was taken in Iraq? April 12th or so? So he comes up now to tell us the obvious? Please.

I would love it for him to have the guts to come on Tv and lay out for the Aerican people how long troops will be there, and how much money he is willing to spend rebuilding Iraq. He won't do so, of course, but it would be nice for him to do so.

You are still pissed that we won.

GePap · May 2, 2003, 19:51

I myself, as I have said, want a full accounting of all the claims made by Blari and BUsh: for example, evidence that Mobile Bio-weapons labs ever existed (or not) and if they did, what happened to them: acouning for all the claimed Anthrax, Sarin, VX, Mustard Gas, every claimed SCUD or better, all of it. Them finding 2 or 3 shells with nerve gas residiue will not be enough.

Quote:

WMD could have moved through a variety of channels and countries and never have left Hezbollah's hands.

Hezbollah hasn't attacked a single American outside of Lebanon, and hasn't done that since the 1980's. I don;t fear Hezbolah cause I know I am not on thier target list, and the folks in Hezbollah know they would not get away with suing WMD's against Israel. Besides, they have a much closer realtion with Syria and have still gotten zip as far as WMD's are concerned.

I do not view the "State giving WMD to uncontrolled non-state actor" scenerio to be credible. If it was plausible, it would have already happened. Chem weapons are not new people, they are older than automatic rifles.

GePap · May 2, 2003, 19:52

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

You are still pissed that we won.

Man, that is trully pityful. You need a life GP, you really do.

TCO · May 2, 2003, 19:54

You know, I really get sick of people giving W **** about going after Osama. They sound like people who just sit and watch the TV and ***** without ever doing anything.

Remember how quiet things were in September on October and then the bombing started in Afghanistan. Remember all the kvethcing from the fainthearted when we got a little slowed down in November. Remember Bush making that the top priority and taking the whole regime down. I don't know ir Osama is dead (probably) or is hiding in a cave somewhere. I do know that we took down the organization and that we eliminated the state/regime where he had sanctuary.

Or do you want to ***** about Afghanistan, too?

TCO · May 2, 2003, 19:56

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

Man, that is trully pityful. You need a life GP, you really do.

I volunteered for recall in Afghanistan and this last one. What the hell did you do? Watch TV and play civ? Bush got the job done.

GePap · May 2, 2003, 20:00

I have every right to call attention to our failures in afghanistan, as much right as you have to point to our successes.

The fact that you think military victory disproves my arguemnts shows you don't have a clue what my arguments ever were, and as such, nothing you say means sh1t to me, since you obviously have utterly misunderstood me, and as my avatar once said:

Being Minsunderstood- When one is misunderstood as a whole, it is impossible to remove completely a single misundertanding. One has to realize this lest one waste superfluous energy on one's defense.

TCO · May 2, 2003, 20:05

Ok, but I still think it chaps your ass that we won.

Ted Striker · May 3, 2003, 00:37

GP has the chemical weapons!!!

Bourbon and red wine.

Now I have more pics to post, nice work Submersible Player.

Urban Ranger · May 3, 2003, 07:59

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
You are still pissed that we won.

That's an interesting image - considering that Arabic is written right to left, which apparently is not the case on the banner (or however you called it).

TCO · May 3, 2003, 12:00

Live on in your little leftist conspiracy dreamworld. FAct is the Iraqis totally DISRESEPCT the human shields and other ****ers like that.

raghar · May 3, 2003, 13:04

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH

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.

Did they have any usable and nonused weapons?
They could screw or simply didn't think they'll need the evidence. If you don't have evidence then what? Fabricate it? Or wait if they'll get common sense? Both ways could end with diseaster. And as you can see it did end with problems for Iraq. >
Well we could ask on explanation on alt.gov.conspiracy It could be more reasonable than attempts to get some info from goverment now.

Did US provided evidence that they destroyed their own chemical and biological weapons? I never seen one.

Shi Huangdi · May 3, 2003, 13:20

""A good chance" is not a causus belli."

It was for me. Saddam had a duty to fully comply as per the cease fire agreements. I wasn't willing to put our security on the line on the hope that Saddam was telling the truth.

Kirnwaffen · May 3, 2003, 14:14

I don't care. All of the political damage has already been done, and finding the weapons won't change that. At this point, all that finding anything will do is make the supporters feel vindicated and illicit charges of fraud from the detractors.

SpencerH · May 3, 2003, 16:07

Quote:

Originally posted by raghar

Did they have any usable and nonused weapons?
They could screw or simply didn't think they'll need the evidence. If you don't have evidence then what? Fabricate it? Or wait if they'll get common sense? Both ways could end with diseaster. And as you can see it did end with problems for Iraq. >
Well we could ask on explanation on alt.gov.conspiracy It could be more reasonable than attempts to get some info from goverment now.

Since your flag is antarctic perhaps english is not your mother-tongue. In any case I dont understand your point at all, sorry.

Quote:

Did US provided evidence that they destroyed their own chemical and biological weapons? I never seen one.

The US has never claimed to have destroyed their chemical weapons. They are in the process of doing so now. There is a chemical weapons storage facility and an incinerator for destroying the weapons in use about 100Km from here. I'm pretty sure that someone has the records of what has been destroyed and what remains though. I dont know whether the US has maintained any biologicals. I believe they destroyed them quite a few years ago and again I'm sure there are records.

Ted Striker · May 3, 2003, 16:15

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

I volunteered for recall in Afghanistan and this last one. What the hell did you do? Watch TV and play civ? Bush got the job done.

Yo I didn't see this before.

GePap, I don't think you realize who you are really talking to. If you knew GP you'd be turning bright red from all this crap you're spewing at him.

Q Classic · May 3, 2003, 19:12

it doesn't matter. war will always be a part of human existance, and hopefully, human existance will soon be snuffed out by the more zealous warmongers.

PLATO · May 4, 2003, 02:17

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
I myself, as I have said, want a full accounting of all the claims made by Blari and BUsh: for example, evidence that Mobile Bio-weapons labs ever existed (or not) and if they did, what happened to them: acouning for all the claimed Anthrax, Sarin, VX, Mustard Gas, every claimed SCUD or better, all of it. Them finding 2 or 3 shells with nerve gas residiue will not be enough.

Quote:

WMD could have moved through a variety of channels and countries and never have left Hezbollah's hands.

Hezbollah hasn't attacked a single American outside of Lebanon, and hasn't done that since the 1980's. I don;t fear Hezbolah cause I know I am not on thier target list, and the folks in Hezbollah know they would not get away with suing WMD's against Israel. Besides, they have a much closer realtion with Syria and have still gotten zip as far as WMD's are concerned.

I do not view the "State giving WMD to uncontrolled non-state actor" scenerio to be credible. If it was plausible, it would have already happened. Chem weapons are not new people, they are older than automatic rifles.

GePap, I think we all want to know what happened to his WMD. That question may be far more important than even you are giving it credit.

WRT Hezbollah, you ARE on their target list. They announced that approx 8-12 weeks ago. Americans anywhere are now fair game.

The "State giving WMD to uncontrolled non-state actor" statement is last century thinking. The world has changed and most countries even regard this as a grave threat now.

Quote:

Besides, they have a much closer realtion with Syria and have still gotten zip as far as WMD's are concerned.

Are you implying that Syria has WMD?

Master Zen · May 4, 2003, 13:49

Sorry people but saying it was a good enough excuse to invade Iraq because you THINK they are developing WMD is just horse****

If you take action on things which you SUSPECT will happen it gives you pretty much the excuse to do whatever you want. I find it strange that you people would never accept a policeman to arrest you because he SUSPECTS you have done something. Remember the phrase, you are innocent until proven guilty? I see no reason for applying this standard into world affairs. But then again, a US-led world order is everything BUT just...