[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. - Page 25

geoschmo · #**241** March 15th, 2003, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rextorres:
We won in Iraq - the inspectors are in there - there is no way that Saddam will get away with anything while they are there (contrary to popular myth). W. should work to fry bigger fish instead of alienating the whole world.

You are the one believing in myths if you think inspectors can find anything Sadaam does not want them to find. They are only useful as long as the Iraqi government is beign sincere. And they can only even do that if there is some concrete threat of retaliation against non-compliance.

Quote:

What concerns me is that W isn't focusing on real problems. Korea and Iran come to mind. By attacking Iraq it just reinforces these two countries perceptions that they better build the bomb before it too late.

Iraq is by no means the only problem, but the threat from Iraq is real, despite your belief to the contrary. If you can't fix everything at once you serve no purpose by doing nothing at all.

Quote:

If you really care about the palistinian issue then maybe you should push for a peace plan - that is the real seed of terrorism.

That is just making excuses as you acuse others of doing. But I agree the Palestinian issue needs to be addressed and a long term solution needs to be found. That is being done, or being attempted anyway. There is only so much you can do when two Groups hate each other so vehemantly.

Quote:

This war is politically and financially motivated plain and simple.

There is no such thing as an apolitical war Rex.

Quote:

Besides who said I was against war? I think taking out the Taliban was a good thing.

Why do we have to wait for something to happen again like 9/11 before we take action? We knew the Taliban and Al-Quada was a threat, and we did nothing. I think we can all agree that was a mistake? Why do we need to make that one again?

Geoschmo

Thermodyne · #**242** March 15th, 2003, 11:04 PM

Had to dig way back to find this, been looking for hours. The Clinton administration was very concerned about the situation in Iraq, but IMHO not willing to risk intervention. American displeasure has been evident since the end of the gulf war. It was only the Clinton white house that was not concerned. I�m sure you all remember how it was back then, we would hear Monica�s name on the 6pm news, and awake to a new volley of cruise missiles fired at Iraq. Well here is how State felt about the situation in 99/2K
U.S. Department of State 99/00

[ March 15, 2003, 21:06: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Fyron · #**243** March 15th, 2003, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidG:
I wonder in anyone can answer the question posed in the sound clip Fyron posted?

I am still waiting to see an answer to that question. It has of course been avoided thus far, because no one can answer it. I could be wrong though, so please, prove me wrong with a good, solid answer to this question, not by spouting off more propaganda.

Thermodyne · #**244** March 15th, 2003, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rextorres:

quote:
Originally posted by Thermodyne:

quote:
Originally posted by rextorres:

quote:
Originally posted by Wizarc:
Who sold Iraq their supplies for Chemical Weapons? Who sold Korea their nuclear material to make nuclear weapons? Who sold Saddam his weapons to wage war?

The best joke I've heard is that the reason we know that Iraq has chemical weapons is because the U.S. has the receipts. Rumsfield was an advisor to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war and the U.S. gave them the technology to fight the Iranians.
Link please.
You guys attack my bias - but you have no answers to the evidence.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp

You need to do better than that. First the story does not support your statement in entirety. Actually it does not support your statement at all. And articles that are provided by anonymous sources are generally not accepted as fact unless presented with supporting documentation. I agree with most of the article, we kept Iraq from loosing to Iran. But that is a far cry from supplying them with WMD. I think we all know where Iraq got that technology from.

Thermodyne · #**245** March 15th, 2003, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:
Originally posted by DavidG:
I wonder in anyone can answer the question posed in the sound clip Fyron posted?

I am still waiting to see an answer to that question. It has of course been avoided thus far, because no one can answer it. I could be wrong though, so please, prove me wrong with a good, solid answer to this question, not by spouting off more propaganda.

They won�t touch that with a stick my friend. The scary part is that she was probably one of the bright young leaders of the movement. She had been coached on how to turn a question. I guess that no one warned her that it only works in controlled situations.

[ March 15, 2003, 21:28: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

DavidG · #**246** March 16th, 2003, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rextorres:
We won in Iraq - the inspectors are in there - there is no way that Saddam will get away with anything while they are there (contrary to popular myth)

Actually they have already got away with things. The very fact that they are now destroying weapons that were Banned proves this.

And what do you propose to do when the inspectors are kicked out again?

DavidG · #**247** March 16th, 2003, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rextorres:
You guys attack my bias - but you have no answers to the evidence.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp

I'm not really sure how you think this has any effect on the current situation. Are you saying that any regime that at some point in history obtained weapons from the US should be left alone to do what they want with them?

tesco samoa · #**248** March 16th, 2003, 12:48 AM

what was the question?

The shake hand ??

Fyron · #**249** March 16th, 2003, 12:49 AM

Take a minute to listen to this mp3: http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

rextorres · #**250** March 16th, 2003, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:

quote:
Originally posted by rextorres:

quote:
Originally posted by Thermodyne:

quote:
Originally posted by rextorres:

quote:
Originally posted by Wizarc:
Who sold Iraq their supplies for Chemical Weapons? Who sold Korea their nuclear material to make nuclear weapons? Who sold Saddam his weapons to wage war?

The best joke I've heard is that the reason we know that Iraq has chemical weapons is because the U.S. has the receipts. Rumsfield was an advisor to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war and the U.S. gave them the technology to fight the Iranians.
Link please.
You guys attack my bias - but you have no answers to the evidence.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp
You need to do better than that. First the story does not support your statement in entirety. Actually it does not support your statement at all. And articles that are provided by anonymous sources are generally not accepted as fact unless presented with supporting documentation. I agree with most of the article, we kept Iraq from loosing to Iran. But that is a far cry from supplying them with WMD. I think we all know where Iraq got that technology from.

http://www.timesOnline.co.uk/article...528574,00.html

How many sources do you need? The London Times is a respected paper BTW - for those of you who look at other news sources besides AM radio and Fox. Just because Rush or O'Reilly conveniently forgets to mention how the U.S. is complicit doesn't make it not true.

The only reason this is mentioned is because some people are blaming France and Germany for the this when we helped arm Saddam in the first plance

No one's addressed the fabricated evidence that Powell presented at the U.N.
And why the pentagon is giving contracts to Cheney's buddies.
Or why we are all of a sudden in the business of nation building.
etc.

Also: I'll listen to this mysterious clip later today - when I have access.

[ March 15, 2003, 23:55: Message edited by: rextorres ]