It doesnt make sense... - Page 3 - Video Games Forum

zteccc · #21 (**permalink**) 10-01-2004, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedevilf

Well Kerry thinks otherwise..and plus there is something else, its not exactly "USA" which is interested in oil, it is GB, and GB jr. comes back to finish the job and take revenge for GB Senior. And that is what is happening..

And I ask again, if Oil was what George Bush, the 41st president of the United States, was after, why didn't we finish the job in 1991? Why wasn't the oil taken at that point? Why leave Saddam Hussein in power for those 12 years? Let's face it, there was nothing standing between the US troops in 1991 and Baghdad. There is also no evidence (only innuendo) that the current President Bush was pursuing anything other than the theat of Saddam Hussein. John Kerry himeslf called Saddam Hussein a threat and stated that disarming Saddam Hussein was of the utmost importance. John Kerry has also said (In July or August of this year), that knowing what he knows now, he would still have gone into Iraq. The oil as a goal simply doesn't mesh with the actions that have been taken, neither does revenge.

-- Jeff

*~$kAnDaLouZ~* · #22 (**permalink**) 10-06-2004, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zteccc

Weren't there weapons? You have positive proof? According to the intelligence agencies of most nations (not just the US), Saddam had the weapons and had the ability to make more. There are many unanswered questions about these weapons including a huge truck convoy that traveled into Syria just before the war and mustard gas found in the Euphrates.

Personally, I'll wait and see for the final outcome, because, unlike you, I don't have any concrete evidence one way or another.

That said, the US went in because of Iraq's violations of the cease fire treaty, and violations of 17 UN resolutions. Violations that Saddam Hussein could have easily corrected any time over a period of 12 years. Of course Saddam chose not to. He would rather let his people suffer in poverty and endure an embargo rather than live up to a treaty that he agreed to.

-- Jeff

Didn't the final weapons report come out already ? Have you not heard the news ? Or was that something else ? Hmm, guess Tony Blaire was apoligizing for something else.
Military and government issues are usually way over our heads(the general public). America would not go into Iraq for no reason. It's always political or economical. Why is the oil building or whatever the only building being guarded by US troops over there ?
12 years ? I guess it took another two presidents for action to be taken. Weird, first is Bio weaponry, then links with "Al Qaeda". And right after the "Bin Laden" mess. This doesn't seem very coincindental to me.
But hey, think what you like.

thedevilf · #23 (**permalink**) 10-06-2004, 10:03 PM

Im not with SH, i say he should have been disarmed, the people of Iraq were under his control and were livin a bad life and it was important for him to be disarmed or..whatever you call it. But making a fuss about it and sayin its b/c of WMD is just wrong just to win support of other countries.

zteccc · #24 (**permalink**) 10-08-2004, 12:22 AM

@Skandalous,
Weapons or not, Saddam Hussein was a threat. The report states that there were no stockpiles and that Hussein's weapons programs had diminished since 1991. That said, Saddam's own scientists have said they could have easily produced massive quantities of chemical weapons very quickly. As such Saddam still had the ability to manfacture these weapons for use in war or sale to terrorist groups.
This war was not about WMD. They were a part of it, but they were simply one of a series of violations against the cease-fire agreement at the end of the 1991 Gulf War (a war that didn't end, but was still active since no peace treaty was signed). The cease fire required an accounting of the WMD. It required a level of cooperation by Saddam Hussein. It required proof of the destruction of the weapons that Hussein had in 1991. It required several other things that Iraq didn't comply with. Saddam Hussein could have easily avoided 12 years of sanctions, 17 resolutions and the resumption of hostilities. He could have his sons alive. He could be free. I cannot begin to fathom why he chose the path that he did, but it suggests mental instability. If he was mentally unstable, and had the power that he had, and had scientists who could have generated large amounts of chemical weapons very quickly (their words), then he was a threat.

The UN agreed with this assessment which is why 17 resolutions were passed. There wasn't an intelligence agency in the world who didn't consider Saddam Hussein a threat. It was impossible to know for sure without either Saddam Hussein's cooperation (which was required by the cease-fire) or the action that the coalition undertook to determine what the truth was.

Here is the truth, however: Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran and against the Kurds. He filled mass graves with the bodies of thousands of his own citizens. He compensated families of terrorists. He supported state-sanctioned torture and rape of his own people. He chose to allow his people to suffer under UN sanctions for 12 years instead of complying with a cease fire treaty that he signed and agreed to, one that wouldn't have lost him his country or his position. He was, in short, a bad man and the world is better off without him in power. The world generally agrees with the above statements, and in fact in the United States, President Bush's opponent for the upcoming election, Senator John Kerry, also agrees with these statements, even in light of the weapons reports.

Now the report also allows for the possibllity that the massive convoy from Iraq to Syria just before the war might have contained weapons, there's no way to be certain at this point. The report also allows for the potential for weapons to be hidden so well that we simply cannot find them. That isn't really important. As I wrote, WMD was only one of many reasons to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

@thedevilf
Sometimes we have to make a case for action and that case must be built on the best intelligence that we have. The best intelligence that anyone in the world had stated that WMDs existed. There was no reason for anyone to doubt that intelligence. Even opponents of the war agreed with the intelligence but simply were concerned with war as a matter of politics or philosophy. If you go back to President Bush's speeches prior to the war, he said that Saddam Hussein hadn't accounted for these weapons which is different from saying that he had them. The cease fire treaty requried an accounting. This is common practice and every military keeps logistical counts of their armaments. We had proof that at one time Saddam Hussein had these weapons (because he had used them). It wasn't unreasonable to demand an accounting (which Saddam never gave).

I'm truly sorry for the loss of life in Iraq. I'm truly sorry for the loss of life in many nations. If the UN had any guts or will, none of this would have been necessary, but the UN doesn't, and as a result, sometimes people and nations simply have to take action, even if it is unpopular.

-- Jeff

ps Now, will someone explain to me how any of the above is relevant to this thread's topic?

thedevilf · #25 (**permalink**) 10-08-2004, 07:27 PM

Well it makes no sense to lie about it. Now the reports say...WE ARE SORRY BUT THERE ARE NO WMD's IN IRAQ....not even "we couldnt find" but "NO". Obviously a lie. Now I know SH is a threat and was a threat. But why not just come out open and say it and they will get more support, and wouldnt have to get the whole UN involved and this really made US look bad because everyone used to trust the US because they were so honest and loyal and dont lie about anything. Well after that, many countries believe that the US is a monster. Am I wrong?

muspell · #26 (**permalink**) 10-10-2004, 10:19 AM

Quote:

ps Now, will someone explain to me how any of the above is relevant to this thread's topic?

Virgins giving birth to the son of God, the existence of wmds... I think I see the connection quite clearly.

Book of Bush(book of Luke): chap1, verse 26- 37.
-The WMDs foretold
26. In the sixt month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Washington DC, the presidential residence, 27. to a President engaged in a conflict far away in the middle east, and what else is new. The President's name was George W. Bush. 28. The Angel went to him an said, "Greetings, you who are highly favoured! The Lord is with you." 29. Bush was greatly concerned about this and wondered how this Wanker had got past Security. 30. But the Angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, George, you have found favour with God. 31. You will be blessed with an idea that will solve all your problems, and you will call it "there might be WMDs". 32. It will be great and will be called the Highest idea ever. The Lord will give you the throne your father righteously should have had, 33 and you will rule Iraq forever; your kingdom will never end." 34. "How will this be," George asked the angel, "since I have no leadership qualities and have the mental facilities of a four year old?" 35. The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the Power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the ideas you will have will be the manifestation of God's Will." George made a bewildered face. 37. The angel rolled his eyes, then said "Even you can see that your closest advisors seem to be getting ideas lately, and it has been said of them that they were incapable of independent or critical thought. 37. Lo! For nothing is impossible with God." 38. "I am the Lord's servant, " George aswered. "May it be to me as you have said.". Then the angel left by the balcony door.

thedevilf · #27 (**permalink**) 10-11-2004, 09:15 AM

Rofl

just looking at his face makes me laugh

That story was mighty interesting and funny

lulu · #28 (**permalink**) 10-11-2004, 08:47 PM

My head hurts...

*~$kAnDaLouZ~* · #29 (**permalink**) 10-13-2004, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zteccc

@Skandalous,
Weapons or not, Saddam Hussein was a threat. The report states that there were no stockpiles and that Hussein's weapons programs had diminished since 1991. That said, Saddam's own scientists have said they could have easily produced massive quantities of chemical weapons very quickly. As such Saddam still had the ability to manfacture these weapons for use in war or sale to terrorist groups.
This war was not about WMD. They were a part of it, but they were simply one of a series of violations against the cease-fire agreement at the end of the 1991 Gulf War (a war that didn't end, but was still active since no peace treaty was signed). The cease fire required an accounting of the WMD. It required a level of cooperation by Saddam Hussein. It required proof of the destruction of the weapons that Hussein had in 1991. It required several other things that Iraq didn't comply with. Saddam Hussein could have easily avoided 12 years of sanctions, 17 resolutions and the resumption of hostilities. He could have his sons alive. He could be free. I cannot begin to fathom why he chose the path that he did, but it suggests mental instability. If he was mentally unstable, and had the power that he had, and had scientists who could have generated large amounts of chemical weapons very quickly (their words), then he was a threat.

The UN agreed with this assessment which is why 17 resolutions were passed. There wasn't an intelligence agency in the world who didn't consider Saddam Hussein a threat. It was impossible to know for sure without either Saddam Hussein's cooperation (which was required by the cease-fire) or the action that the coalition undertook to determine what the truth was.

Here is the truth, however: Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran and against the Kurds. He filled mass graves with the bodies of thousands of his own citizens. He compensated families of terrorists. He supported state-sanctioned torture and rape of his own people. He chose to allow his people to suffer under UN sanctions for 12 years instead of complying with a cease fire treaty that he signed and agreed to, one that wouldn't have lost him his country or his position. He was, in short, a bad man and the world is better off without him in power. The world generally agrees with the above statements, and in fact in the United States, President Bush's opponent for the upcoming election, Senator John Kerry, also agrees with these statements, even in light of the weapons reports.

Now the report also allows for the possibllity that the massive convoy from Iraq to Syria just before the war might have contained weapons, there's no way to be certain at this point. The report also allows for the potential for weapons to be hidden so well that we simply cannot find them. That isn't really important. As I wrote, WMD was only one of many reasons to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

@thedevilf
Sometimes we have to make a case for action and that case must be built on the best intelligence that we have. The best intelligence that anyone in the world had stated that WMDs existed. There was no reason for anyone to doubt that intelligence. Even opponents of the war agreed with the intelligence but simply were concerned with war as a matter of politics or philosophy. If you go back to President Bush's speeches prior to the war, he said that Saddam Hussein hadn't accounted for these weapons which is different from saying that he had them. The cease fire treaty requried an accounting. This is common practice and every military keeps logistical counts of their armaments. We had proof that at one time Saddam Hussein had these weapons (because he had used them). It wasn't unreasonable to demand an accounting (which Saddam never gave).

I'm truly sorry for the loss of life in Iraq. I'm truly sorry for the loss of life in many nations. If the UN had any guts or will, none of this would have been necessary, but the UN doesn't, and as a result, sometimes people and nations simply have to take action, even if it is unpopular.

-- Jeff

ps Now, will someone explain to me how any of the above is relevant to this thread's topic?

Ugh! I said think what you like, as in I don't really care anymore. So, why do you have to type another long answer I'm not interested in ?!

zteccc · #30 (**permalink**) 10-13-2004, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *~$kAnDaLouZ~*

Ugh! I said think what you like, as in I don't really care anymore. So, why do you have to type another long answer I'm not interested in ?!

Because others read this board besides just you and I, and some of them may be interested (perhaps all of them are not interested, but there's no way to know).

As to why it is so long, let's just say that lengthy answers are one of my shortcomings.

-- Jeff