Saddam Had No WMD's or programs

LAK,

You folks love to polish a turd. It would be highly inaccurate to characterize Sadaam's govt. as being soveriegn. He came to power through assasination, maintained power thru mass murder, torture, rape, domestic and international terror as well as international coersion and bribery. His government was one of international criminals, perpetrating daily crimes against humanity as well as war crimes. He waged aggressive, acquisitive war against his neighbors, used internationally proscribed weapons against massed troops and innocent civilians and stood in open, blatant defiance of multiple UN sanctions. He lined his pockets with monies earmarked for food and medicine for women and children. These are not the acts of a 'soveriegn nation'. Perhaps outlaw regime or rogue despot are more accurate descriptions.

You show such concern for the Iraqi's killed in the fighting; where was that concern when Sadaam was throwing them into shredders, raping them, mutilating them, filling mass graves with them. You folks need to save up a few bucks and buy a clue.
 
Um, I think the invasion of a sovereign country is a tad more serious than a court case involving a single offender. If the rules of evidence and a court apply to a traffic violation, there certainly ought to be something rather more concrete before throwing the weight of an army against a nation, which even with all due care and attention is going to forseeably result in the inadvertant death of thousands of innocent civilians.
Click to expand...



The rules are DIFFERENT. Not less important. DIFFERENT.


Can you comprehend the difference between "DIFFERENT" and "IMPORTANT"?


Let's see, if I apply your "reasoning", I'd have to conclude that as an soldier on a battlefield, I can't fire at that movement in the brush there. I have to wait until I have positive identification that the movement is caused by an enemy combatant and that that particular enemy combatant is planning to attack me, and that he has the means to do so.


Thanks, but no thanks. You wait for the court order if you want, I'm going to anhiliate that bush.


And I'll let your widow know what a noble character you were.
 
Our disgraceful Democrat Party fears success in Iraq far more than all the terrorists in the world. For a Republican President to get credit for anything good, would be devastating to their future. It is abundantly clear that Democrats are more interested in their lust for power than they are for this countries safety, or stopping terrorism.
 
The WMD's had all been destroyed and we found that out when we ransacked the country.

If they had all been destroyed, then where the hell are the crushed casings and the incineration paperwork? Why did troops find a binary sarin warhead on the side of the road a few months back?

The naivete exhibited with respect to Iraqi WMDs is just staggering, sometimes.

My guess is that all the Iraqi WMDs are in Syria, and were the source of the attempted WMD attack on the Jordanian capital a few months ago.
 
Yep. That convoy that was seen headed out of Iraq into Syria should have been reduced to smoking craters, just on GP. Stupid to let that happen.


But I suspect some folks around here forgot about that little detail.
 
Quartus,

You seem to have two distinct matters mixed up; the decision to start a war, and invade a sovereign country ...... and what happens on a "battlefield" later on.

I do not know what relevence the latter has with what evidence be required for the former to be justified.
 
gburner
You folks love to polish a turd. It would be highly inaccurate to characterize Sadaam's govt. as being soveriegn. He came to power through assasination, maintained power thru mass murder, torture, rape, domestic and international terror as well as international coersion and bribery. His government was one of international criminals, perpetrating daily crimes against humanity as well as war crimes. He waged aggressive, acquisitive war against his neighbors, used internationally proscribed weapons against massed troops and innocent civilians and stood in open, blatant defiance of multiple UN sanctions. He lined his pockets with monies earmarked for food and medicine for women and children. These are not the acts of a 'soveriegn nation'. Perhaps outlaw regime or rogue despot are more accurate description.

You show such concern for the Iraqi's killed in the fighting; where was that concern when Sadaam was throwing them into shredders, raping them, mutilating them, filling mass graves with them. You folks need to save up a few bucks and buy a clue
Click to expand...

Says who? The "sovereign nation" of "Kuwait"? Who was it that pulled that "country" out of a hat? Name one country bordering Iraq that was not or is not a client state in one form or another and has blood all over it's pro-western founders and history.

As for all the specific charges against Saddam's government, where's the body of evidence?

Perhaps if you watch all the performing artists - like Sheikh Yo'Money Saud Nasir al-Sabah's daughter Nayirah who was weeping LIES before our Congress - you don't need such trivial things as "evidence" right? And of course it matters not if the then president of the United States repeated those LIES to persuade Congress and the American people to go to war with Iraq, and never recanted them. A complete falsification engineered by his friend and former chief of staff Craig Fuller - and his Hill & Knowlton PR firm for a tidy payoff.

Then there was Serbia.

So from one turd repeating the lies about about Saddam "turning babies out of incubators to die" - do we now have another turd that allows more lies to stand?

Buy a clue? That's pretty apt, since being bought seems to be the crux of the matter here. Is Iraq going to get a "special envoy" from the United States like Zalmay Unocol Khalilzad? Or a Condosleeza Chevron Rice for "National Security Minister"?

Just how do people reconcile the truth with a government that brazenly uses complete and utter falsifications for acts of war?
 
Then maybe we should look at our current leader's use of our military? Think of all the resources that we're wasting in Iraq, the billions of dollars wasted and hundreds (Thousands if you count Iraqi civilians we and the opposition have killed in the crossfire) of people killed. Think of what that could've done to get Osama Bin Laden and effectively killed Al Qaeda.
Click to expand...

You don't really give a crap about dead Iraqi civilians, otherwise you would have been at the forefront of the champions of the liberation of Iraq from the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. The mass graves are still being unearthed in Iraq, and they have found thigh bones the size of matchsticks - infants murdered by Saddam and his henchmen.

And instead of lounging around gold-plated pools plotting their next actions (funded by the millions of dollars of oil money left over after the Oil-for-Food bribes to the French), and training in well-equipped facilities, Osama and his terrorists are hiding in caves and spider-holes, pissing themselves at the sound of thundering jet engines.

I consider that to be a vast improvement over the circumstances of September 10, 2001.

And in case you haven't heard, President Bush already has effectively killed Al Qaeda - 75% of its leadership is in custody or dead, and the rest are running for their lives.
 
Quartus,

You seem to have two distinct matters mixed up; the decision to start a war, and invade a sovereign country ...... and what happens on a "battlefield" later on.
Click to expand...


Ah! Sir LAK! You've gotten to the crux of the matter! And the crux of your confusion.

Battlefields are not limited to the actual place where open hostilities are currently taking place. The entire world is a battlefield, and we are at war with fundamentalist Islam. We have been for at least 30 years. When things like 9-11 and dirty bombs and sarin gas on subways are at stake, we can't wait for courtroom proof before acting, and there is no moral or legal reason to do so.

If I were to apply your standards to personal defence I couldn't draw and shoot if 3 big guys with baseball bats were coming towards me with obvious malicious intent.
 
The decision to invade a soverign country was made by the United Nations, regardless of what Kerry and his cohorts now think "serious consequences" was supposed to mean.
 
mvpel,

The press printed misrepresented photos during the Serbia affair. The "KLA" faked a "massacre" at Racak - all kinds of photos of those bodies too. We know that the Hussein government was fighting rebel Kurds as well as some other elements. One could just as easily fish out a thousand generic photographs of dead children from trouble spots all over the Mid East and Central Asia and say that "the Israeli government gassed them".

The trouble is, when you have a government - and presidents - that are repeatedly complicit to blatant lying in such matters - you really can not trust much of anything they bring forward anymore.

Sort of like someone catching their wife cheating "a dozen times" or so.

When such things are so openly supported and defended, and merely passed over, it is a certain sign of a nation in a state of final and fast decline.
 
Battlefields are not limited to the actual place where open hostilities are currently taking place. The entire world is a battlefield, and we are at war with fundamentalist Islam. We have been for at least 30 years. When things like 9-11 and dirty bombs and sarin gas on subways are at stake, we can't wait for courtroom proof before acting, and there is no moral or legal reason to do so.
Click to expand...

Newspeak. The very phrase "war on terrorism" is newspeak. Tabloid terminology; the product of liberal "intellect". Any government that tells you there is a "war against terrorism" is not being honest - nor has your interests at heart.

The idea that there is no accountable structure and process for invading sovereign states is the stuff that dreams of world empire are made of.

The amalgamation of political government resources and intelligence services, and "international" organizations with pseudo-sovereignty - mingled with global elements of all forms of organized crime and enormous sums of money is a recipe for disaster. Just take the "United Nations" itself as just one shining example.

Ah! Sir LAK! You've gotten to the crux of the matter! And the crux of your confusion.
Click to expand...

I am not confused at all. But it seems that watching two large buildings demolished has sure confused the intellect, reason and logic of a great many people in a very short span of time.
 
LAK - the fact that Saddam deployed chemical munitions against thousands of Kurdish civilians in Halajba on March 15, 1988, killing 5,000, is so well-established - verified by multiple international organizations, confirmed by physical evidence, and testified to by the survivors - as to be beyond dispute.

The fact that you are calling it into question makes me wonder what other facts you are inclined to question. Are you also a Holocaust denier?
 
Who cares why we invaded the ME, the fact remains that we're (finally) there. In my uneducated opinion, we should have done this way back in the '70's when we had our first "oil shortage" scam.

All this PC bullcrap about whether or not Saddam had WMD's is irrelevant. Everyone knows he had them (he used them on his own people), he also had more than 12 years to rectify the matter with the UN sanctions and IAEA inspectors, but instead he chose to flip the bird to the rest of the world and go on mass-murdering his own.

He's out. We're in. Case closed.
 
mvpel
LAK - the fact that Saddam deployed chemical munitions against thousands of Kurdish civilians in Halajba on March 15, 1988, killing 5,000, is so well-established - verified by multiple international organizations, confirmed by physical evidence, and testified to by the survivors - as to be beyond dispute.
Click to expand...

"So well-established - or merely "well-accepted"? Let's hear these "witnesses" and foresic experts speak under oath - and then see what they have to say about it.

We had a president - George Herbert Walker Bush - that not only lied, but who was a party to a carefully prepared performance and presentation about "dead babies" in Kuwait. We also had a president who attacked another sovereign country based on false testimony and "evidence" of "atrocities" called Serbia. And in both cases a Congress who went along with it. To date, what exactly happened to who, and by whom on March 15, 1988 is certainly not "beyond dispute".

The term "Holocaust denier" is an intimidatory attempt to pre-emptively discourage any discussion concerning the facts surrounding the circumstances of the death of various groups, nationalities, and religions (Like Catholics and Jews) who perished under the Nazi Party during WW2.

A number of my family fled Germany in the late 1930s to escape persecution and internment, and a number of our relatives died as well. If you would like to discuss this subject maybe you should open another thread.
 
If the justification for Iraq is "murdering dictator", why do we leave so many other murdering dictators in place?
 
Handy...

You keep coming back to this question time and again dispite it being answered time and again. Are you trolling or suffering from short term memory loss?

Some highlights...

Multiple UN sanctions...
Serious consequences promised...
Unprovoked war against neighbors...
Harboring terrorists...
Financing terrorism...
Clinton's demand for regime change...
Missile attacks on overflights...
Violating sanctions...
Continued production of WMD...
Pocketing Oil for Food funds...
Bribing Western Euro govts...
Attempted assasination of GHW Bush...
Shell game with UN Inspectors...
Use of WMD on his own folks...

Let's all take up a collection and buy Handy a clue. :)
 
Even John Kerry accepted that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction.

Guess that doesn't make him fit to be President, either, if Mr. Omnipotent was so easily duped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top