war in iraq Options

[technicolour]

I support the war. If we had a draft (President Bush promised he wouldn't by the way) I would be the first to go. And you know what's really sad? The fact that we've gone on like 9/11 didn't even happen. Iraq has nothing to do with the war? Are you people that ignorant? The War we are currently in is the War on terrorism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Iraq had a whoolleee lotta terrorism going on there, right? And 9/11, was that not terrorism? We didn't stop at osama bin laden's band of idiots because we want to put terrorism to a stop. If the Bush administration was being selfish, we would've just stopped at Osama. But we also saw the danger of Iraq and wanted to liberate them and eliminate the threat of any attack. But unlike the Bush administration, Americans are selfish and think that was wrong. Yeah, try and tell me "Bush is in it for the oil!" Really people, think before you post. 

This guy is RIGHT.

the UN has not acted in the Sudan.

Damn right. They have too big of a stick shoved up their ass. They are doing pretty much NOTHING.

They get pissed when we get too cowboy and do things ourselves (i.e, Iraq).

Damn chickens are what they are. They wont support us and what our main dude thinks.

UN means United. I really don't even get why we are still there. They sure as hell aren't United with us.

[sammi rules you]

they don't have to agree to be united with us. just because we want to do something doesn't mean they should all pour in a bunch of money and soldiers to help. the UN told Bush it was not the time to do it since there wasn't sufficient evidence of WMDs existing there. he just wouldn't listen.

When you get on your hands and knees and you search every singe sq foot of Iraq, and you go in EVERY building and turn every rock, then you can convince me that there are none. Until then, do not use it as a excuse to make Bush look like a Terrorist.

....do you know how big weapons of mass destruction are? nuclear bombs can't fit under rocks

bush even said it himself that they made a mistake. they are not harboring any WMDs. yes. that's a true statement.

[*kryogenix*]

they don't have to agree to be united with us. just because we want to do something doesn't mean they should all pour in a bunch of money and soldiers to help. the UN told Bush it was not the time to do it since there wasn't sufficient evidence of WMDs existing there. he just wouldn't listen.

But the Russian Intelligence agency said there was. British Intelligence said there was. Our intelligence said there was.

bush even said it himself that they made a mistake. they are not harboring any WMDs. yes. that's a true statement.

do you have the article where he says this?

[sikdragon]

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the war. At the very beginning of the war there were two convoys that left bagdhad. They went into syria.

Bush did say that they found no WMD's.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Iraqi chemical warfare pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom.

No WMD's. Right.

[sikdragon]

Is that sarcasm? or did you mean to put a question mark at the end?

Anyone can only piece together what's really happening by using the information presented through the media. The convoys that went to syria was a report on tv.

[*RockizLife*]

they don't have to agree to be united with us. just because we want to do something doesn't mean they should all pour in a bunch of money and soldiers to help. the UN told Bush it was not the time to do it since there wasn't sufficient evidence of WMDs existing there. he just wouldn't listen.
....do you know how big weapons of mass destruction are? nuclear bombs can't fit under rocks

bush even said it himself that they made a mistake. they are not harboring any WMDs. yes. that's a true statement.

Actually, there are several ways they hide WMD. And they're pretty tricky too. For one example, they figured out how to turn an RV into a lab and missle launcher I still believe they have them out there hiding, or with someone helping them. I'll try and find the place where I saw examples of how they hide WMD. I'll post it if I can. It's alot harder to find WMD then you think. Weapons of Mass Destruction aren't just Nuclear Bombs you know.

[sammi rules you]

But the Russian Intelligence agency said there was. British Intelligence said there was. Our intelligence said there was.
do you have the article where he says this?

yes, but the UN didn't think that it was sufficient information to go to war over. they don't HAVE to agree with us.

and..are you kidding me? he and many others from his administration have admitted they made a mistake countless times.

Actually, there are several ways they hide WMD. And they're pretty tricky too. For one example, they figured out how to turn an RV into a lab and missle launcher  I still believe they have them out there hiding, or with someone helping them. I'll try and find the place where I saw examples of how they hide WMD. I'll post it if I can. It's alot harder to find WMD then you think. Weapons of Mass Destruction aren't just Nuclear Bombs you know.

well, the soldiers have looked. the president himself has said there is none. they looked, HARD, and found nothing.

and just because convoys went to syria doesn't mean they were filled with WMDs. they could have been exporting something. it could have been anything.

[sadolakced acid]

weapons of mass destruction:

nuclear, chemical, biological, or conventional bombs that are designed to inflict mass damage.

saddam did have weapons of mass destruction.

sometimes it helps to use a word that means a lot, when you're accusing someone of something.

and, as far as ruthless dictators go, kim jung II is much worse than saddam. in the famines, they had propoganda telling people grass was nutritous, so that they would hvae food to eat.

if you commit a crime, like say the word god or comment on how hungry you are, you and all your relatives get an immediate death sentence.

so why, exactley, haven't we done anything?

becuase we're chicken. we don't dare attack anyone who might possibly actually have nuclear weapons.

based on that, we can surmise that the bush admin. knew that iraq proabably didn't have functional nuclear weapons. in fact, i'm pretty sure they didn't say iraq had nukes. they said iraq was trying to revive it's nuclear program.

and, looking at the way the US treats nuclear contries, i'm not suprised. that people might want to get nukes.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Iraqi chemical warfare pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom.

No WMD's.  Right.

Again.

[sadolakced acid]

wasn't that in teh late 80s?

[*kryogenix*]

yes, but the UN didn't think that it was sufficient information to go to war over. they don't HAVE to agree with us.

and..are you kidding me? he and many others from his administration have admitted they made a mistake countless times.
well, the soldiers have looked. the president himself has said there is none. they looked, HARD, and found nothing.

and just because convoys went to syria doesn't mean they were filled with WMDs. they could have been exporting something. it could have been anything.

the UN doesn't have to agree with us. That doesn't mean we're wrong because the UN won't act.

i remember hearing him admit that we haven't found any WMDs, not that there were never any WMDs. There's a difference.

There is little doubt in my mind that they had WMDs pre invasion. Bleached chemical trailers, newly emptied artillery shells with traces of biological agents and moving convoys tend to raise suspicion. There was absolutely no reason for Saddam not to let us inspect if he truly didn't have WMDs, unless he wanted to embarass us so much, that he was willing up to give up the throne.

and, looking at the way the US treats nuclear contries, i'm not suprised. that people might want to get nukes.

? We treat Britain fine. We're friends with Israel. We're not mistreating Russia. How does that make other countries want nukes?

Atomic weapons are a no-win solution. That is why they were only used twice in anger, and that was when no one really understood them. Countries with a weaker military industrial complex tend not to do well in an arms race against the US. As soon as they try to pull something, we'll be able to respond with one hundred times the force if we'd like.

[*mipadi*]

? We treat Britain fine. We're friends with Israel. We're not mistreating Russia. How does that make other countries want nukes?

What about North Korea and Iran?

[*kryogenix*]

What about North Korea and Iran?

Understood, but I'm refuting the belief that the US is hostile to all countries with atomic weapons. We certainly haven't been very friendly with them, even before they started trying to get nukes.

[medic]

....do you know how big weapons of mass destruction are? nuclear bombs can't fit under rocks

Actually I do, the only thing dangerous in a nuclear is the plutonium, which depends on the size of the weapon. A peace of plutonium half the size of a softball (or a little bigger) could take out the whole city of New York and contaminate almost the whole west cost.

[technicolour]

QUOTE(mipadi @ Jun 22 2005, 7:54 AM)
What about North Korea and Iran?

Isn't Northa Korea doing those talks..I forgot what the fancy term for it is.

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the war. At the very beginning of the war there were two convoys that left bagdhad. They went into syria.

Bush did say that they found no WMD's.

So true. My mom found an article about proof of them going to syria..I'm looking for it now. I'll edit when I find it.

FOUND IT!!! The Site

[*mipadi*]

Isn't Northa Korea doing those talks..I forgot what the fancy term for it is.

There were some talks that North Korea hasn't been participating in. But that's not really the point. The point is that the US has acted in an aggressive manner towards North Korea, so it's no surprise they'd want to develop nukes--in order to counter ours.

Naturally, this results in an arms race similar to the Cold War of 1945-1991 (roughly).

So true. My mom found an article about proof of them going to syria..I'm looking for it now. I'll edit when I find it.

FOUND IT!!!  The Site

That's not really proof of anything. The official quoted says that a convoy left Iraq for Syria, but it is not certain whether the convoy was carrying WMD's or even material to manufacture WMD's.

[technicolour]

Um, excuse me, but If i knew a country hated me (my country) and had Nukes HELL YEA i would act "aggressive-ly" towards that country.

[*mipadi*]

Um, excuse me, but If i knew a country hated me (my country) and had Nukes  HELL YEA i would act "aggressive-ly" towards that country.

So are you saying it's no surprise that North Korea wants nukes, and it's due at least in part to the US's diplomatic attitude toward North Korea?

[technicolour]

Um Hello. We have had rocky relations to them for like ever, Even when CLINTON was in office.

It's just when 2 people hate eachother. It just happens.

[*mipadi*]

So you assert that Bush's depiction of them as the "Axis of Evil" did nothing at all to hinder our improvement of relations with North Korea?

[technicolour]

Is there really anything you CAN do?

Talks-they back out and say they're going to but NOOO


They just dont like the US. We to them are the "Axis of Evil."

[sammi rules you]

the UN doesn't have to agree with us. That doesn't mean we're wrong because the UN won't act.

i was responding to this:

Damn chickens are what they are. They wont support us and what our main dude thinks.

UN means United. I really don't even get why we are still there. They sure as hell aren't United with us.

uh duh, of course if they don't agree they're not going to put their country on the line just because we think we should ..

[*mipadi*]

Is there really anything you CAN do?

Talks-they back out and say they're going to but NOOO
They just dont like the US. We to them are the "Axis of Evil."

You're being too simplistic. If we're actually going to solve problems, we have to figure out why things are they way they are, and not just accept that they are that way.

[technicolour]

Ok. Start figuring then.

And what the heck is wrong with accepting things they way that they are?