Jump to content
BeatKing.com | Music News | Downloads | Forums | Videos | Lyrics

WMD Found in Iraq


Bombardier

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think everyone is glad that Saddam is no longer in power. I am aware that he attacked many other countries in his area pre gulf war. Since the gulf war we had him under many restrictions no fly zone, economic sanctions, etc... He was contained and had been contained for years before we decide to attack him... Pre gulf and post gulf war Iraq are very different in terms of offensive action taken on his behalf. Shooting at US planes flying over his country and getting involved in an offensive attack of the US or other surrounding countries is extreamly different.

Once he has gotten nuclear capability and then threatens you.......it is a little late to do anything. If you attack him....he nukes you. If you don't attack him.......he may still nuke you.

He was not anywhere near having nuclear capabilities.. I agree that we couldn't afford to wait that long.. but there was much that could have been done to avoid war and prevent this from happening before it had a chance to occur. That is one of the main agruments that the Bush Adminstration used to try to convince the public (through fear of WMDs) that they should attack... even when the threat wasn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good hindsight Joeyz. Had they found a more advanced nuclear capability, then how would you have felt? He did not advertise his capabilities and refused to cooperate with the inspectors. It would seem he had something to hide. If he had nothing to hide, then he ran a Hell of a bluff and obviously made one Hell of a mistake.

If the ATF shows up at my house I will let them in. I have no illegal weapons. I am not going lock the door and hide until they storm the place. He had his chance to cooperate with the UN inspectors and chose not to. He has suffered the consequences and the world is a better place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good hindsight Joeyz. Had they found a more advanced nuclear capability, then how would you have felt? He did not advertise his capabilities and refused to cooperate with the inspectors. It would seem he had something to hide. If he had nothing to hide, then he ran a Hell of a bluff and obviously made one Hell of a mistake.

If the ATF shows up at my house I will let them in. I have no illegal weapons. I am not going lock the door and hide until they storm the place. He had his chance to cooperate with the UN inspectors and chose not to. He has suffered the consequences and the world is a better place.

I would have been very conserned if they had found greater nuclear capabilities... Like I said, I think there were more and better options to resolving the problems at the current stage in the game I don't feel that war was necessary. I know he wouldn't be advertizing the fact that he had WMDs...I think Saddam was testing us when he was turning away the weapon inspectors... hence he allowed them back in... yet when the weapons inspectors went back in they didn't have any time to assess the situtation before they were pulled out and we attacked. It's also very easy for you to say that if we hadn't gone to war we would have been nuked.. there's no way for you to know that. Bottom line is--> we didn't exhaust all avenues available... and I think that was a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we did exhaust all options. He would keep playing mind games. He thought we would not attack and was wrong. Had we not attacked he would still be playing cat and mouse. If he did have a viable nuclear program, he would be gaining more time. I am glad we invaded when we did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we did exhaust all options. He would keep playing mind games. He thought we would not attack and was wrong. Had we not attacked he would still be playing cat and mouse. If he did have a viable nuclear program, he would be gaining more time. I am glad we invaded when we did.

Well, God Bless America! I am glad we can both be intitled to our own opinion. Even if mine is better! :bigsmile: :psychofun: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, God Bless America! I am glad we can both be intitled to our own opinion. Even if mine is better! :bigsmile: :psychofun: :lol:

I'm sure you are right cause I am always wrong!!

But tell the truth, you are still gonna vote Redneck...er I mean Republican instead of voting Demagogue...er I mean Democrat. Aren't you??? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure you are right cause I am always wrong!!

But tell the truth, you are still gonna vote Redneck...er I mean Republican instead of voting Demagogue...er I mean Democrat. Aren't you??? :blink:

Never!!! I would rather suck on a puss filled boil and eat a bowl of bloody HPV warts than vote for GWB in this upcomming election! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:) Joeyz, it seems that we both logged off last night at the same time and arrived today at the same time. You seem to be keepin redneck hours. :rolleyes:

Just vote a straight Republican ticket and don't tell anyone. It will be ok. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be keepin redneck hours. :rolleyes:

Well I am a Georgia boy.. I just don't chew tobacco, drink natural light, vote for greedy oil fiends, or have sex with my sister.... so I guess good ol boy time is similar to Redneck time. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I am a Georgia boy.. I just don't chew tobacco, drink natural light, vote for greedy oil fiends, or have sex with my sister.... so I guess good ol boy time is similar to Redneck time. :lol:

yeah but you are missing out on all the good parts!!! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Shawn @ May 17th 2004, 10:14 PM)

As method pointed out, the shells dated from the Iraq-Iran war. Not recent creations. Hell if they were from then, they probably were manufactured in the U.S.

I hear this a lot from those opposed to the war, but I can't really see what difference it makes where he got them from or what difference it make that we supported Iraq in the 80's. Arguments can be made that it was the right thing to do at the time, and vice versa. I don't understand how this has anything to do with how this is being dealt with now.

(DudeAsInCool @ May 18 2004, 12:43 AM)

Had they waited and built an international coalition, like George, Sr., I don't think we would be in the mess we are today.

Well, there was a coalition. Sure, it didn't include France, Germany, Russia, and others, but it was still a large coalition. I don't see how waiting would have convinced countries like France, Germany, etc. to join the coalition since it has come out about how these countries leaders were involved with skimming from the oil for food program. That is why it is so ironic when the US is accused of going to Iraq for oil.

(DudeAsInCool @ May 18 2004, 12:43 AM)

I find it even more interesting that dangerous nuclear threats like N. Korea are relatively ignored in favor of this preoccupation with Iraq...it's really quite illogical when you come down to it.

Countries like North Korea, Iran, Syria, and other will have to be confronted at some point. Hopefully, most of this can be diplomatically as it was with Lybia. I don't think that could have been done if it were not clear that there was a credible threat of force being used. I think Iraq was first on the list because there was a clear, legal case for action. I know many say the action was illegal, but Saddam was violating both UN resolutions, and the cease fire agreement from the first gulf war. It also seems to me that taking on Iraq to prove to North Korea that you are serious is better than the other way around.

This was the first time I have ever posted in a political thread. Hopefully, I won't be tarred and feathered by the 99% liberal majority here. :bigsmile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was the first time I have ever posted in a political thread. Hopefully, I won't be tarred and feathered by the 99% liberal majority here. :bigsmile:

I wish. I've found myself surrounded by the Rebels on numerous occassions on this site, and had to bring the big artillery to keep em back - you are welcome to join in on the fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear this a lot from those opposed to the war, but I can't really see what difference it makes where he got them from or what difference it make that we supported Iraq in the 80's. Arguments can be made that it was the right thing to do at the time, and vice versa. I don't understand how this has anything to do with how this is being dealt with now.

I see it mattering for the principles that Bush claimed he was working to prevent. Bush wasn't claiming Iraq had a few shells of chemical weapons left over from a generation ago. His claims were that Iraq had a thriving chemical weapons (or other WMD) program. A few elderly shells doesn't suggest to me that they were working on creating an arsenal at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

going OT, i just wanted to say how much i enjoy the exchange between joeyz & Redneck4sure. :lol: i'm loving your work, guys. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it even more interesting that dangerous nuclear threats like N. Korea are relatively ignored

Very very very very very very very very very very very true.

Nobody says much of anything about N. Korea.

Since they seem to be much much much further along than Iraq was with "WMD", why haven't we invaded N. Korea yet? They've also directly threatened their neighbors, and the U.S. many times.

I want to read Redneck's and NullsRevenge's opinion on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since they seem to be much much much further along than Iraq was with "WMD", why haven't we invaded N. Korea yet? They've also directly threatened their neighbors, and the U.S. many times.

That's a very good point. N. Korea could really become a problem, potentially.

I hope we're keeping a good eye on them.

Anyone with nukes is dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • Wait, Burning Man is going online-only? What does that even look like?
      You could have been forgiven for missing the announcement that actual physical Burning Man has been canceled for this year, if not next. Firstly, the nonprofit Burning Man organization, known affectionately to insiders as the Borg, posted it after 5 p.m. PT Friday. That, even in the COVID-19 era, is the traditional time to push out news when you don't want much media attention. 
      But secondly, you may have missed its cancellation because the Borg is being careful not to use the C-word. The announcement was neutrally titled "The Burning Man Multiverse in 2020." Even as it offers refunds to early ticket buyers, considers layoffs and other belt-tightening measures, and can't even commit to a physical event in 2021, the Borg is making lemonade by focusing on an online-only version of Black Rock City this coming August.    Read more...
      More about Burning Man, Tech, Web Culture, and Live EventsView the full article
      • 0 replies
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...