Those elusive WMD in Iraq?

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 124
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Naples (or any other WMD devotee), here's a simple question: Do you think it's possible for us to still find Iraqi nerve agents?
  • Reply 102 of 124
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    Ok here let me demonstrate:



    Take a penny or dime. Hide it in your house, I mean good. When your significant other gets home, ask them to find it. You played this when you were little right? Chances are they can't. They could hunt for days and not find it if you hid it good.



    They can claim it never existed all they want. But you know where it is. And if you want to be sneaky you can actually misguide them and move it around when they are not looking. They may never find it.



    I think you get the point right?




    Well using that analogy you'd need a sack full of pennys to really hurt someone wouldn't you?



    That would be a lot easier to find wouldn't it?
  • Reply 103 of 124
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dmz

    Why is it not VERY LIKELY that if there were WMD, that they would have destroyed/given away what they had?



    Questions like this are looking at the wrong part of the equation.
  • Reply 104 of 124
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Naples:



    You are forgetting something, or not aware of a few somethings, which are:



    Paul Wolfowitz, dep, defense sec said just after the invasion, that (and I quote approximately) "Weapons of mass destruction was the only thing the Bush Administration could come to consensus about when deciding what reasons were acceptable and presentable to the American people".



    bearing that in mind, here are some other points to bear in mind:



    *War against Iraq was planned from the first day Bush stepped into the White House.



    *Iraq, under Saddam Hussein used to possess WMDs...US, and European defense corporations have records and receipts dating back to the 1980s...so this was the safest reason gambled on by the Bush admin.



    *Gen Wesley Clark, on Sept 12, 2001 was hassled repeatedly by the White house to publicly make a connection between 9-11 and Saddam Hussein. He said "give me some proof and I will". No proof was forthcoming.



    *Why would a nation possess WMDs? For decoration? Or use? Iraq, during the war in 2003 never used any weapon of non-conventional characteristics. In fact, Iraq was of such little threat to anyone that their "elite republican guard" barely even fought the foreign invaders, and instead, quietly merged back into the civilian population!!!!



    *The 1991 Gulf war destoyed virtually none of Iraqs WMDs: Virtually everything was found and destroyed by the UN inspectors *after* the fighting stopped. Some WMD evidence might have been unearthed by UN inspectors before the war started, if anything was there, that is. Inspections were the only chance of unearthing something...but Bush decided, against all statistical probability, that inspections werent going to work and an invasion was the way to do it. Seems like he has been proved wrong, yet again, yet again



    *Inspections were costing virtually $$$ zero. It was cheap, effective and kept Saddam from acquiring banned materials. The invasion has cost the US $200 BILLION so far, the lives of 560 US troops, 10000 troops severly injured, 10000 innocent Iraqi civilians dead, and the WMDs, if there were any, could now be *anywhere*, given the chaos and looting that immediately followed the war. Al qaida, who were *never* in Iraq during Saddam's regime, are most certainly holed up there now, and are probably searching for WMDs as well...nd we all know what they might do with them, dont we?



    * In the absence of WMDs, as admitted by Hussein Kamel, when they were all ordered destoyed in 1991, the war has suddenly been re-billed by the Bush admin as part of the "war against terror". What has happened re. terrorist attack statistics since the Iraq war? I wont even bother answering that...but if the Iraq war was part of the war agaionst terror...lets just say that it looks as if it has achieved the diametric opposite.



    *If you really want to know the reasons behind the war, just get it from the horse's mouth....go to the source....look at the words of the architects, written well before Bush ever came into office:

    http://www.newamericancentury.org



    All those media sources yopu have quoted...they add up to precisely nothing when you look at the sum total of WMDs which have been found since the war started. A big fat round Nothing. Perhaps, as the Bush admin's prized source boy, the late Hussein Kamel stated. the WMDs were all destroyed in 1991.



    Saddam Hussein was telling the truth, and Bush, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of them were all LYING through their asses, and knowing it full well. Perhaps that is what incenses you...the man billed as a threat to civilization was a pussy, and the people who promised to bring "honestly and integrity to the White House" are the real rogues and liars.



    Lastly, when you are in a hole, I would advise..."stop digging".
  • Reply 105 of 124
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    And Naples...one more thing: If you want to learm a bit more about this subject, other than what is spoon fed to you by Fox, Clear Channel and the Bush sympathizer corporate networks...go watch a showing of Robert Greenwald's awesome documentary "Uncovered: the truth behind the Iraq war".



    In it, there is damning testimony and evidence presented by 20 and 30 year veterans of the security and intelligence communities that the Bush White House and the Defense Dept. lied to and misled the American people and concealed vital evidence about Saddam's Iraq which, given public exposure, would have wrecked the case for war. The agents who present the evidence are so outraged by the conduct of this admin that they have jeopardized their careers and contacts in order to get the word out. These people are the true patriots.



    Go watch it somewhere. Its worth it.



    http://www.truthuncovered.com/
  • Reply 106 of 124
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    You arguing piece of...



    Once again you are only reading what you want and taking it all out of context. I was pointing out the policy of burying weapons. I know that those weapons were later found to have NO NERVE AGENT. The story I quoted was the original story about the find.



    Are suggesting that because they were found not to be WMD's that SH and Co. did not conceal other weapons in the sand and all over?




    piece of what??? Come on, don't leave us guessing!!



    One thing that people seem to(choose to)forget, is that we have most of Iraq's top scientists. We control the country. We have HUGE rewards(and other perks like citizenship and a house somewhere in the US) for people who were involved in the WMD programs to come forward and tell us where the weapons "are", if they indeed exist. To this date, NADA, zip, zilch.



    Unless of course, Saddam and his 2 sons did everything themselves. Scientists/truck drivers/heavy machinery operators/etc etc etc. Riiiight.
  • Reply 107 of 124
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Really, it all comes down to the fact that we know the Iraqi WMD programs from front to back in great detail. I wouldn't be surprised if the US has a better accounting of Iraqi WMD than we do of our own (demonstrated by the find of undocumented bio agents buried at fort detrick).



    The reason the US is not concerned with looking anymore is because we know that there is little or nothing to find. We know the history of Iraqi WMD production in great detail. We know the internal politics of those working in the programs. We know all of the hows, whys, whens, whats and whos.



    As it stands, it would be physically impossible for Iraqi nerve agents to still exist. Maybe there is some forgotten mustard somewhere, but probably not.



    There's a reason why people like kay are now saying that they were wrong and the bush admin needs to "come clean."



    "I was more worried that we were still sending teams out to search for things that we were increasingly convinced were not there," Mr Kay said.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...160842,00.html



    So, like I said, it's not about 'finding' or not 'finding' WMD.
  • Reply 108 of 124
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    Questions like this are looking at the wrong part of the equation.





    If that is true, is the sudden interest in Iran, with quite a bountiful supply of Nuclear equipment, a bit too coincidential? Having equipment that they didn't report, etc. I don't mean to be conspiritorial, but it seemed odd that these two "separate" events happened in such close proximity.
  • Reply 109 of 124
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    I will reply to all of you at once OK?



    Now I am not sure who brought up the Iran angle, but that is the most reasonable argument I have heard here. However, it is totally pulled out of the air, as far as I can tell. Last I looked Iran was part of the UN. They also had/have an obligation to the international community. I cannot see the UN allowing Iran to wantonly invade Iraq. So even though it is the most believable scenario, it is highly unlikely IMO.



    The entire world knew that SH had WMD and used them, the entire world demanded he account for those known WMD's. He never accounted for all of them, to this day. SH had to be dealt with sooner or later. I think all will agree with that.



    The sand in the Vaseline was 9/11. Do you let an already dangerous regime continue knowing that it has vowed harm to the US, knowing that it has no qualms about using WMD (even on it's own people), knowing that there is now a possibility for terrorists to seek out WMD's, not to be outdone by the 9/11 catastrophe? It is that uncertainty that forced this president and congress to act IMO. Another attack to even come close to 9/11 would be detrimental to the US and his Presidency.



    The world is a better place now and freedom and democracy have a chance to flourish in a region that, left to it's own devices, would probably never have that opportunity. Wether you agree with the way it was done or not you have to give GWB credit for seeing what needed to be done and getting it done. If the US did not "deal with" SH we would still be sending in inspectors and Iraqis would be dying at a break neck pace and we still would not know what he was doing with regard to WMD. An as far as the Iranian invasion theory, you can thank GWB and Co. for eliminating that scenario, since SH is now in a cage.



    Other good can be attributed to the decision to go into Iraq and remove the leadership: Libya has given up their WMD, Iran has opened up to inspectors, and the exposure of the Pakistan underground nuclear store.



    As far as lies, they were everywhere, defectors lied to the US, SH lied to the world in one way or another, Putin lied to Bush, lies everywhere lies. It seems you people forget about all of the misinformation that exists all around. yet the only official that is held to task is GWB.



    It appears now that officials in the UN were bribed by SH and Co. It looks like the same goes for Russia and France took those bribes also. I would ask where the outcry for that is, but it would be a lesson in futility among this crowd.



    It is this "get rid of bush at all costs" or ABB, that blinds some to the real threats that exist in the world. To me, this is apparent when some compare the two leaders or justify atrocities with the old "Bush Lied and therefor is no better". This partisan hatred is only perpetuating a rift that can only get wider. If Bush looses, or Kerry Wins, the same vitriol will be directed toward him and so on and so on. It needs to stop somewhere and I see no signs from the left leaning people here, anyway.
  • Reply 110 of 124
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gilsch



    One thing that people seem to(choose to)forget, is that we have most of Iraq's top scientists. We control the country. We have HUGE rewards(and other perks like citizenship and a house somewhere in the US) for people who were involved in the WMD programs to come forward and tell us where the weapons "are", if they indeed exist. To this date, NADA, zip, zilch.



    Unless of course, Saddam and his 2 sons did everything themselves. Scientists/truck drivers/heavy machinery operators/etc etc etc. Riiiight.






    They stored highly toxic deadly radioactive material in hospitals without giving it a second thought. You think the drivers and the man who transported that material there knew this? I would guess most of the time, the dumb asses that handled and transported this stuff knew noting of the true nature of what they were handling. And considering that in many instances this stuff wasn't even properly labeled, even if they weren't necessarily dumb asses, they still wouldn't have a clue. And how hard do you think it could have been to conceal some of this shit inside an oil truck destined for a routine oil smuggling run into Jordan, only to have that truck stay on that side of the border until the situation permitted its return to Iraq? Such possibilities are endless.
  • Reply 111 of 124
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    Now I am not sure who brought up the Iran angle, but that is the most reasonable argument I have heard here. However, it is totally pulled out of the air, as far as I can tell. Last I looked Iran was part of the UN. They also had/have an obligation to the international community. I cannot see the UN allowing Iran to wantonly invade Iraq. So even though it is the most believable scenario, it is highly unlikely IMO.



    We all know that war still exists even with the UN. Saying that the UN precludes the need for national defense is the absolute pinnacle of irony.
  • Reply 112 of 124
    sondjatasondjata Posts: 308member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    I will reply to all of you at once OK?



    Now I am not sure who brought up the Iran angle, but that is the most reasonable argument I have heard here. However, it is totally pulled out of the air, as far as I can tell. Last I looked Iran was part of the UN. They also had/have an obligation to the international community. I cannot see the UN allowing Iran to wantonly invade Iraq. So even though it is the most believable scenario, it is highly unlikely IMO.



    The entire world knew that SH had WMD and used them, the entire world demanded he account for those known WMD's. He never accounted for all of them, to this day. SH had to be dealt with sooner or later. I think all will agree with that.



    The sand in the Vaseline was 9/11. Do you let an already dangerous regime continue knowing that it has vowed harm to the US, knowing that it has no qualms about using WMD (even on it's own people), knowing that there is now a possibility for terrorists to seek out WMD's, not to be outdone by the 9/11 catastrophe? It is that uncertainty that forced this president and congress to act IMO. Another attack to even come close to 9/11 would be detrimental to the US and his Presidency.



    The world is a better place now and freedom and democracy have a chance to flourish in a region that, left to it's own devices, would probably never have that opportunity. Wether you agree with the way it was done or not you have to give GWB credit for seeing what needed to be done and getting it done. If the US did not "deal with" SH we would still be sending in inspectors and Iraqis would be dying at a break neck pace and we still would not know what he was doing with regard to WMD. An as far as the Iranian invasion theory, you can thank GWB and Co. for eliminating that scenario, since SH is now in a cage.



    Other good can be attributed to the decision to go into Iraq and remove the leadership: Libya has given up their WMD, Iran has opened up to inspectors, and the exposure of the Pakistan underground nuclear store.



    As far as lies, they were everywhere, defectors lied to the US, SH lied to the world in one way or another, Putin lied to Bush, lies everywhere lies. It seems you people forget about all of the misinformation that exists all around. yet the only official that is held to task is GWB.



    It appears now that officials in the UN were bribed by SH and Co. It looks like the same goes for Russia and France took those bribes also. I would ask where the outcry for that is, but it would be a lesson in futility among this crowd.



    It is this "get rid of bush at all costs" or ABB, that blinds some to the real threats that exist in the world. To me, this is apparent when some compare the two leaders or justify atrocities with the old "Bush Lied and therefor is no better". This partisan hatred is only perpetuating a rift that can only get wider. If Bush looses, or Kerry Wins, the same vitriol will be directed toward him and so on and so on. It needs to stop somewhere and I see no signs from the left leaning people here, anyway.






    This has to be the most assinine post this year. As I said before Clinto was nearly ejected from office for lying about getting head. No one died as a result no billions spent , just a permenently stained shirt and a loose reputation. Bush lies about WMD and over 600 soldiers dead and over 1,000 wounded, some for life. That isn't picking on Bush, that's showing how two faced the admin is regearding "honesty" and "transparent government."



    Back to SH. Saddam liked to run his mouth, Truth is, and everybody knew it, was he and his military could not strike the US with anything. The WMD that Iraq had was largely given to him by the US so we knew what he had and legaly could be held as accessory to murder when he used it on the Kurds. We also know that the first round of inspections did much to remove WMD that he had. We also know that SH did not have the facilities to properly store WMD that he was accused of having. in fact this position is somewhere on AO and goes into great detail. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence at all that Saddam or the Iraqi government was involved with any 9-11. That was an idea propagated by Cheny, et.al. and has no basis in fact.



    Lybia did not 'come around" because of Iraq. only the shortsighted would think this. Khadafi has a plan and has been suffering under a embargo for a longer time than Iraq. Khadafi has been clearing the deck, starting with the lockerbie plane issue. Lybia needs money and kaddafi is positioning his country to move into the 21st century. If you didn't know, Lybia has been getting into high technology and would be able to compete with other high tech nations for exported American jobs and certain aspects of manufacturing. It cannot do so while under embargo.



    Lastly, given the second time this administration has backed coup leadership ( first in Venezuela and second in Haiti) over democratically elected leadership shows that this admin, and possibly others, have no respect for Democracy where the people choose a path not amenable to the US. I can only see that in the future (just as in Iran) that there will be serious problems with the new "iraqi" democracy as people start to see it for the puppet government it will be.
  • Reply 113 of 124
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Sondjata

    Back to SH. Saddam liked to run his mouth, Truth is, and everybody knew it, was he and his military could not strike the US with anything. The WMD that Iraq had was largely given to him by the US so we knew what he had and legaly could be held as accessory to murder when he used it on the Kurds. We also know that the first round of inspections did much to remove WMD that he had. We also know that SH did not have the facilities to properly store WMD that he was accused of having. in fact this position is somewhere on AO and goes into great detail. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence at all that Saddam or the Iraqi government was involved with any 9-11. That was an idea propagated by Cheny, et.al. and has no basis in fact.



    Sorta like how Libya had no WMD programs, Huh?



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Sondjata

    Lybia did not 'come around" because of Iraq. only the shortsighted would think this. Khadafi has a plan and has been suffering under a embargo for a longer time than Iraq. Khadafi has been clearing the deck, starting with the lockerbie plane issue. Lybia needs money and kaddafi is positioning his country to move into the 21st century. If you didn't know, Lybia has been getting into high technology and would be able to compete with other high tech nations for exported American jobs and certain aspects of manufacturing. It cannot do so while under embargo.



    Um, what do I say to that spin, here is an article that says it better than I could.



    http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0312220001.asp



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Sondjata

    Lastly, given the second time this administration has backed coup leadership ( first in Venezuela and second in Haiti) over democratically elected leadership shows that this admin, and possibly others, have no respect for Democracy where the people choose a path not amenable to the US. I can only see that in the future (just as in Iran) that there will be serious problems with the new "iraqi" democracy as people start to see it for the puppet government it will be.



    You call Haiti a working democracy? Wow, you should move there then. It is a lovely place.



    Anyway, I would hardly call saving a man's life supporting a coup. They could have easily left him there to be dismembered instead of saving him to make trouble for the US later.
  • Reply 114 of 124
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    NaplesX,

    There was a NYTimes article from over a year ago about Qaddafi's changes. This was before the war in Iraq. And these were self-induced... Here is the abstract from the article:



    MAGAZINE DESK | January 19, 2003, Sunday

    The Makeover



    By Scott Anderson (NYT) 8142 words

    Late Edition - Final , Section 6 , Page 29 , Column 4



    ABSTRACT - Scott Anderson article profiles Muammar el-Qaddafi, powerful leader of Libya for past 33 years; during 1980's, he was Public Enemy No 1 in eyes of America, backing guerrilla groups around world and reputedly responsible for some of era's deadliest terrorist attacks, culminating in 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland; now, Qaddafi seems to want to put past behind him, but many question his true motives; has re-established diplomatic and economic ties throughout Europe and wants to create pan-African confederation modeled on European Union; has made conciliatory overtures toward US, condemning Sept 11 attacks and reportedly sharing intelligence on Al Qaeda; is described as extremely guarded and deliberate, reclusive and charismatic; sees his destiny and legacy with African nations that aided Libya during United Nations embargo, although Libyans regard themselves as Arab; some in Washington favor restoring relations with Libya, and Europe may also be eager to establish ties with regional head of state that is opposed to Islamic fundamentalism; but Bush administration is concerned about human rights issues and development of biological and chemical weapons, and Libya remains on State Department list of states that sponsor terrorism; photos (L)





    The man was already changing by the late '90s, Iraq didn't compel him to give up the ghost. This isn't spin, this is the truth...
  • Reply 115 of 124
  • Reply 116 of 124
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by psgamer0921

    They found the weapons!



    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WarOnTer.../index.html




    your link is bad.
  • Reply 117 of 124
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    I will reply to all of you at once OK?



    Now I am not sure who brought up the Iran angle, but that is the most reasonable argument I have heard here. However, it is totally pulled out of the air, as far as I can tell. Last I looked Iran was part of the UN. They also had/have an obligation to the international community. I cannot see the UN allowing Iran to wantonly invade Iraq. So even though it is the most believable scenario, it is highly unlikely IMO.








    The Iraq war has probably taught Iran a lesson. Get Nukes, or be invaded.



    Quote:

    The entire world knew that SH had WMD and used them, the entire world demanded he account for those known WMD's. He never accounted for all of them, to this day. SH had to be dealt with sooner or later. I think all will agree with that.



    Ever heard of bureaucracy, that affliction that all governments of all ideologies are susceptible to? Nerve agents that we didnt know we had were discovered at Ft Detrick recently, leaking. the Pentagon has "lost" over a $$trillion of inventory in the last 2 decades or so. The USA cant even keep track of our own WMD inventory, so how the hell can Iraq, a nation whose military and infrastructure was leveled in 1991 keep track of theirs? Our intel agencies knew more about Iraq's WMD program than Saddam himself, who was kept out of the loop by scared Iraqi scientists who didnt want to lose their jobs (or their lives)...and according to all those CIA etc veterans, Iraq had no WMDs by the time the 2003 war started.



    Quote:

    The sand in the Vaseline was 9/11. Do you let an already dangerous regime continue knowing that it has vowed harm to the US, knowing that it has no qualms about using WMD (even on it's own people), knowing that there is now a possibility for terrorists to seek out WMD's, not to be outdone by the 9/11 catastrophe? It is that uncertainty that forced this president and congress to act IMO. Another attack to even come close to 9/11 would be detrimental to the US and his Presidency.



    If you want the truth about 9-11, don't ever, ever listen to this president.



    Quote:

    The world is a better place now and freedom and democracy have a chance to flourish in a region that, left to it's own devices, would probably never have that opportunity. Wether you agree with the way it was done or not you have to give GWB credit for seeing what needed to be done and getting it done. If the US did not "deal with" SH we would still be sending in inspectors and Iraqis would be dying at a break neck pace and we still would not know what he was doing with regard to WMD. An as far as the Iranian invasion theory, you can thank GWB and Co. for eliminating that scenario, since SH is now in a cage.



    When you talk about "freedom and democracy", what exactly do you mean? There is freedom and democracy...meaning the kind of society envisioned by the founders of the United States....and there is "freedom and democracy" of the GWB kind...namely the fostering of elitism and the largest possible $ gap between the wealthiest and the workers, the confiscation of foreign nations' natural resources for the private gain of a few, the rollback of civil liberties in the name of "security", the imposition of certain favorite forms of religion in government affairs, the persecution of unfavored minorities and the overall imposition of "big brotherism". The Iraqi people are not stupid, and they will never, ever accept the kind of deal being served up, on behalf of the PNACs aim of Israel being the region's all powerful state.



    Quote:

    Other good can be attributed to the decision to go into Iraq and remove the leadership: Libya has given up their WMD, Iran has opened up to inspectors, and the exposure of the Pakistan underground nuclear store.



    You are thinking too short term, by far....and the attribution of Libya's recent decisions to the removal of Saddam Hussein is a stretch of the wildest proportions. Col. Ghaddafi has never even mentioned Saddam as a "reason for wanting to re-enter the world community". He is a pragmatist...he wants to remain in power, and to do that, he needs the Libyan economy to flourish...which it cannot do with continued sanctions. Iran meanwhile, has shut down the inspections......



    Quote:

    As far as lies, they were everywhere, defectors lied to the US, SH lied to the world in one way or another, Putin lied to Bush, lies everywhere lies. It seems you people forget about all of the misinformation that exists all around. yet the only official that is held to task is GWB.



    he has not been held to task!! Where is the grand jury, where is the special prosecutor? Where are the $billions from the likes of Mellon Scaife etc....and the Ken Starrs of this world? What heads have rolled after 9-11, and will we the people ever get some form of restitution for the appalling waste of taxpayer $$billions that have been sucked into the coffers of Halliburton and the defense industries?



    Quote:

    It appears now that officials in the UN were bribed by SH and Co. It looks like the same goes for Russia and France took those bribes also. I would ask where the outcry for that is, but it would be a lesson in futility among this crowd.



    Links?



    Quote:

    It is this "get rid of bush at all costs" or ABB, that blinds some to the real threats that exist in the world. To me, this is apparent when some compare the two leaders or justify atrocities with the old "Bush Lied and therefor is no better". This partisan hatred is only perpetuating a rift that can only get wider. If Bush looses, or Kerry Wins, the same vitriol will be directed toward him and so on and so on. It needs to stop somewhere and I see no signs from the left leaning people here, anyway.



    Kerry, Bush. Bush, Kerry. At least a Kerry presidency (not that I like him) will do away with the PNAC think tank that is dominating US foreign policy, and allowing the perpetuation of their phoney "war on terrorism" because of their obsession with Israel's security.



    We are going to have troops in Iraq possibly for another decade or more. We are not welcome there. Six more were killed today...this will keep going, on and on and on..and no end is in sight. Nations dont like being bombed when they havent attacked anyone...and they often tend to react . Pearl Harbor 1941? New York 2001, Kabul 2001, Baghdad 2003. It's all the same...pre-emptive warfare. America didnt like being pre-emptively hit on 9-11...and we reacted in a similar way.
  • Reply 118 of 124
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by psgamer0921

    They found the weapons!



    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WarOnTer.../index.html




    Your link is funny!
  • Reply 119 of 124
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Nations dont like being bombed when they havent attacked anyone...and they often tend to react . Pearl Harbor 1941? New York 2001, Kabul 2001, Baghdad 2003. It's all the same...pre-emptive warfare. America didnt like being pre-emptively hit on 9-11...and we reacted in a similar way.



    Although all of your statements were way over the edge, this last statement shows your view of the world most clearly.



    If you equate Pearl Harbor and 9/11, you are on the fringe IMO.



    Pearl Harbor was a military attack, one military targeting another military target. 9/11 was terrorists attacking a CIVILIAN target with the purposes of inflicting as many CIVILIAN casualties as possible. There is a huge difference. The US does not intentionally target civilians. this is true of any government with any respect for human life.



    The fact that the majority of the Iraqi army abandoned ship before the actual fighting shows that the message from this government that this war was not against the Iraqi people but against the leaders, shows they heard the message.



    Are you saying that Iraq never attacked anyone? Tell me you are not saying that.
Sign In or Register to comment.