What if, we go to war and then... - Post-9/11 Era

What if, we go to war and then...

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Pages:  1Original Forum    Popular Forums    Search

Posted by: NothingSacred

What if after we occupy and destroy the country, we don't find these weopons of mass destruction? Will Bush tell us that? Or does he have stuff ready to "plant" in Iraq as fake evidence? That is IF there are no weopons?

Bush say's, "OK, show us your cards!", they keep saying, "We don't have any cards.", Bush replies, "No matter what you say, it's a lie!"...What if it isn't? What if they're not producing the weopons, because they really don't have any?

I only hope that if they don't find anything later, that Bush will admit it!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Caps#1

What if, what if, what if, you have got not facts

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Caps#1

i mean no facts

Reply To this Message

Posted by: NothingSacred

Sorry buddy...

You keep preaching, what if they sell nukes to terrorists, what if they nuke Tel Aviv, what if they exchange nuke trading cards with North Korea...blah, blah, blah...

You, my friend ALSO do not have any facts. Like me you and your hero Bush, are just speculating or in his case, maybe using this as an excuse to get on to other motives.

I hope like hell, if we attack that they really do find a huge treasure-trove of death producing crap or I as an American, will be embarrased!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Caps#1

well i know that we will find what we are talking about, because the president cannot lie about a topic like this, we has documents to prove it. Why can't we see these documents? It is classified. I however do have facts, what I say comes from what the president says

Reply To this Message

Posted by: NothingSacred

You've got problems, do you really think that just because the president say's it, that it's true? Go read up on the Gulf of Tonkin or about how the Spanish/American war started back in the 1890s...

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Caps#1

im not saying that presidents cannont lie, take clinton for example, which im sure you adored, but what the pres says is backed up by years of collected evidence, and I guess that all of the Iraqi citizens that come over here and tell of the horrible things that Saddam does

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Dreamzwalker

I'll tell you how the spanish/american were started, 1898. William hearst had a paper with photos of the atrocities that the Spanish were committing in cuba. Killing and destroying the people. The public wished to end this and thus we entered war with them. Want some more?

And just as caps said, Citizens of Saddams regime can tell the horrible things they watch and live through. Many already have.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: skippy

quote:
Originally posted by NothingSacred
What if after we occupy and destroy the country, we don't find these weopons of mass destruction? Will Bush tell us that? Or does he have stuff ready to "plant" in Iraq as fake evidence? That is IF there are no weopons?

Bush say's, "OK, show us your cards!", they keep saying, "We don't have any cards.", Bush replies, "No matter what you say, it's a lie!"...What if it isn't? What if they're not producing the weopons, because they really don't have any?

I only hope that if they don't find anything later, that Bush will admit it!
There's no way in hell that they would admit it. That's why they won't show evidence now. They want to wait until they can plant it.

Caps#1, I'm sorry, but you are such a typical conservative. You and your ilk refuse to listen to what anyone else has to say because the president is a republican and that's really all that matters to you. Just keep on singing from the GOP songbook and pretending that everythings dandy. You make a criticism of Clinton just because he's a liberal. It just turns my stomach how predjudice you guys really are.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Dreamzwalker

hahah - Personally, I don't care what the president is as long as he's not a socialist -- like Saddam. He's a socialist who runs around Brown nosing himself and the U.N. inspectors. It's funny that they found mustard Gas and Saddam was like "wow, I didn't know I had that."

Prejudice? Read what NothingSacred says about the Jews and then try to label Caps prejudice.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Edward Teach

The President and Prime Minister have one thing that we, the news media and most of the rest of the world doesn't have. And that Intelligence. They have the CIA and MI6. These two guys have staked their career's on the information of that intelligence. Will you do the same with the intelligence that you have? Will you stake your career, or your life, or the life of your friends on the intelligence that you have?

They know so much more that they can't show the rest of the world. Yes I believe my President and the UK Prime Minister.

Do you believe Saddam Hussein over GWB and TB?

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Sean Kelly

we have already found plenty in Iraq. Even a new WMD has been discovered with the unmanned drone aircraft capable of long distance nuclear, biological or chemical warheads. There are plenty of ways to justofy an invasion..

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Dreamzwalker

Along with Iraqi assassins the Kuwait found armed and not very far from troop stations according to the news.
I do not know the validity of this though.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: NothingSacred

1st of all, everything I've said about Israel is true. There's absolutely no prejudice in any of it. Just observation of factual events.

2nd, just because the Spanish where oppressing the people of Cuba, doesn't make it right for us to blow up OUR OWN ship to make an excuse for war! Besides, it wasn't because of that, you have all of these romantic notions about the U.S. saving people and fighting oppression. There's plenty of oppression we ignore. We only discuss oppression when there's an economic reason, a PROFIT reason for us to go in.

I'm not a liberal and also not a conservative, but when Bush doesn't find these weopons, it's going to be like "Well, I guess they didn't have any, oh that's OK, it was just 200,000 Godless AY-rabs that died and several cities, no biggie, I can pay my buddies to fix it out of government funds." At least when Clinton had to apologize it was more like, "Sorry about the stain Monica."

*I'd just like to add, I'm no bleeding heart, if there was real evidence that there was a clear and present danger to the U.S., I'd GLEEFULLY call for the killing and destruction of the entire country with no remorse, hell target the baby milk factory 1st...but the evidence just isn't there, the Neocons just want to reshape the Middle East for oil, personal gain and Israel.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Caps#1

Talk about me having problems

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Sean Kelly

quote:
Originally posted by Caps#1
Talk about me having problems


Where to begin..?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Caps#1

you like that

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Caps#1

I may as well fire back then

THis is what you are

and a

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Sean Kelly

It's not my fault you if follow basic instructions:

1) open mouth
2) insert foot

heh.. get over it.. it was a friendly jab

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Dreamzwalker

NothingSacred:
We didn't go to war right away after the ship was blown up by a mine - go through your history book.
Spain sent a telegram to the US president calling him "weak" after the ship sunk.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Caps#1

lol srry

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Viv

You Pro-war antagonists make me seeth with anger.Your short sightedness is what makes this whole world a dangerous place to be in.
How you can sit there and bang on about how your administration needs to bomb this and occupy that in the name of freedom and democracy while you sit on your fat ass eating popcorn and swigging coffee makes me wince.
Do you not realise the wider implications of starting a war in the middle east?
People like you watch too much television and think the rest of the world will continue to orbit round your armchair.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Edward Teach

So what do you suggest?

I just saw an interview with a Saudi Arabian woman in Saudi Arabia who supports war to rid Iraq of Saddam. She said that the Iraqi's had a very good prosperous life before Saddam and she would like to see that return.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Viv

I`ll suggest that perhaps the main reason why Iraq suffers so greatly is mainly due to the sanctions that our beloved countries have imposed on it for the past decade or so -even in defiance of the UN.
The idea of going to war for the sake of liberating the people makes me hurl chunks. This is more like a smash and grab attempt to take what oil the iraqi`s rightfully own and establish greater power in the middle east against the surrounding arab states.
Terrorists? - more like the pot calling the kettle black..

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Sean Kelly

quote:
Originally posted by Viv
I`ll suggest that perhaps the main reason why Iraq suffers so greatly is mainly due to the sanctions that our beloved countries have imposed on it for the past decade or so -even in defiance of the UN.


Uh.. no. Sanctions were imposed by the U.N. for non-compliance with regulations, NOT by the U.S. - Does that turn your perspective on its side a bit..?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Edward Teach

Sanctions were not imposed on food, medical or any humanitarian supplies.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Caps#1

yep another argument crushed

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Dreamzwalker

Saddam uses Humanitarian funds to build palaces for himself. No wonder the people suffer so.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Edward Teach

Hence the "Oil for Food Programme"

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Sable

quote:
The President and Prime Minister have one thing that we, the news media and most of the rest of the world doesn't have. And that Intelligence


Goots,

i find funny that you mention intelligence has the difference between GWB and the others

i would agree with you. just to one difference, the world is just thinking that this is the kind of thing he is lacking !

ok, i know it was an easy go, flame on
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Edward Teach

Not fair, you didn't include the rest of the post. In that he get's intelligence from the CIA. A lot of people don't give GWB credit. He did some pretty good things for Texas when he was governer and even though democrats don't think he is doing that great I think a lot of Americans think he is.

Maybe it was Saturday Night Live that gave GWB such a bad rap when he was running for President.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: skippy

quote:
Originally posted by goots
Not fair, you didn't include the rest of the post. In that he get's intelligence from the CIA. A lot of people don't give GWB credit. He did some pretty good things for Texas when he was governer and even though democrats don't think he is doing that great I think a lot of Americans think he is.

Maybe it was Saturday Night Live that gave GWB such a bad rap when he was running for President.
Actually, the cia has refused to back up a lot of Bush's claims. Especially those Al Queda/Saddam claims.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Edward Teach

quote:
Originally posted by skippy
Actually, the cia has refused to back up a lot of Bush's claims. Especially those Al Queda/Saddam claims.


And where did you get this from? Show me an article.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: skippy

quote:
Originally posted by goots


And where did you get this from? Show me an article.
Look, I read it in the book "War on Iraq". I'm not about to go searching the web to prove something to someone who would just pooh pooh it anyway. You're going to believe what you want to believe no matter what articles I show you.

Besides, why is it that the anti-war movement has been given the burden of proof. Aren't we going to war on Bush's word? Where's their proof that Saddam has WMD? Where's the proof of an Al Queda/Saddam link. Nobody in the entire world has been able to present any.

Here's a couple of links that someone else posted earlier though. The first is from Reuters, possibly the only news organization lacking corruption and bias.

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle...storyID=2346382

http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/c...ol=968705899037
Reply To this Message

Posted by: skippy

quote:
Originally posted by goots


And where did you get this from? Show me an article.
Oh, the hell with it... here's an article

http://www.american-partisan.com/co...e/qtr4/1121.htm
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Sean Kelly

quote:
Originally posted by skippy
Besides, why is it that the anti-war movement has been given the burden of proof. Aren't we going to war on Bush's word? Where's their proof that Saddam has WMD?


Well, not really - this situation has already outlasted 3 U.S. Presidents - GWBush is not in a position to just fabricate whatever he wants without substantiation. The British are behind us for a reason. The UNSC has identified weapons of mass destruction. We know there WERE WMD there from previous inspections/dealings which seem to have somehow "disappeared". As for ties to al Qaeda - it wouldn't matter if there were NONE - this stems from a WAR ON TERROR - ALL Terror, not just Al Qaeda Terror. There have been proven terrorist camps & training facilites over the years that link Iraq and the present regime to terrorist activity, whether or not it's Al Qaeda, and I must say: that's reason enough to me.

You either support the "war on terror" and what path we are led down by that war, or you do not.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: skippy

quote:
Originally posted by Sean Kelly


Well, not really - this situation has already outlasted 3 U.S. Presidents - GWBush is not in a position to just fabricate whatever he wants without substantiation. The British are behind us for a reason. The UNSC has identified weapons of mass destruction. We know there WERE WMD there from previous inspections/dealings which seem to have somehow "disappeared". As for ties to al Qaeda - it wouldn't matter if there were NONE - this stems from a WAR ON TERROR - ALL Terror, not just Al Qaeda Terror. There have been proven terrorist camps & training facilites over the years that link Iraq and the present regime to terrorist activity, whether or not it's Al Qaeda, and I must say: that's reason enough to me.

You either support the "war on terror" and what path we are led down by that war, or you do not.
I say, "you are either for peace or against peace"... "you're either for murder or against murder".

My God, have you not been reading this message board? We are not against all terror. We don't give a damn if Israel, Turkey, Egypt, or any other of our evil allies commit acts of terror. Iraq used to be our ally... even after Saddam gassed his people. I saw footage of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddams hand after Saddam had gassed the Kurds. Even Ronald Regan chose to not do anything about it and continue sending money and weapons (some chemical and bio).

Now, under the current circumstances, we're ready to use those things against him.

There is no evidence of WMD in Iraq. If so the security counsil hasn't been presented with it. The world hasn't been shown any evidence. President Bush does lie durring speeches but the only places that seem to notice are public accuracy organizations like http://www.accuracy.org/iraq

It is estimated that it would take Saddam 10 years to come up with a nuclear weapon.

Like I said in other threads, the US has lied about Iraq trying to buy uranium (and they were caught falsifing documents), plus the CIA has denied any ties between Saddam and Al Queda.

Sounds to me like you just want the US to be the good guys. Well I do to, but I'm not willing to compromise my perception of reality or be dishonest.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Dreamzwalker

- it doesn't take ten years to come up with the ability and the tools found in the black market to make a nuke. Hell, you can find the blue prints and even a instruction manuel to build one "correctly" online. Governments all over the world have attempted to remove this information in vain.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: skippy

quote:
Originally posted by Dreamzwalker
- it doesn't take ten years to come up with the ability and the tools found in the black market to make a nuke. Hell, you can find the blue prints and even a instruction manuel to build one "correctly" online. Governments all over the world have attempted to remove this information in vain.
Uh, it's a little more complicated than that, lol!

Do you have expirience making nuclear weapons

Really though, it's very difficult. It literally takes years for any country to develop these kinds of weapons.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Dreamzwalker

yes, but not 10 - with the right equipment and KB.
NK may could make several if wanted by the end of the year - and they just started (per the released information anyways).

Reply To this Message

Posted by: skippy

quote:
Originally posted by Dreamzwalker
yes, but not 10 - with the right equipment and KB.
NK may could make several if wanted by the end of the year - and they just started (per the released information anyways).
North Korea didn't just start. I don't know the history of their nuclear program, but I can tell you that they've had the technology for a while. Once you have developed the technology, you can turn out bombs at a reasonable pace, but it takes years to develope the means of creating them.

Well, it's been fun, but I have to go.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Edward Teach

quote:
Originally posted by skippy
Actually, the cia has refused to back up a lot of Bush's claims. Especially those Al Queda/Saddam claims.


Yes some of the Al Queda/Saddam claims but I would hardly state that the CIA has refused to buck up a LOT of Bush's claims. That is just untrue. In fact one of the articles that you stated said that there was no indication that Iraq has ever intended to attack American interest and even that statement is incorrect.

Saddam Hussein was allegedly planning nine terrorist operations.

By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

SULEIMANIYEH, NORTHERN IRAQ – Iraq planned clandestine attacks against American warships in the Persian Gulf in early 2001, according to an operative of Iranian nationality who says he was given the assignment by ranking members of Saddam Hussein's inner circle.
The alleged plan involved loading at least one trade ship with half a ton of explosives, and – sailing under an Iranian flag to disguise Iraq's role – using a crew of suicide bombers to blow up a US ship in the Gulf.

The operative, who says he smuggled weapons for Iraq through Iran for Al Qaeda during the late 1990s, says he was told that $16 million had already been set aside for the assignment – the first of "nine new operations" he says the Iraqis wanted him to carry out, which were to include missions in Kuwait.

The last publicly known terrorism involvement by Baghdad was a failed assassination plot against Bush's father

"The Iraqis may have been waging war against the US for 10 years without us even knowing about it," says Magnus Ranstorp, at the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St. Andrews University in Scotland.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0403/p01s01-wome.html
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Dreamzwalker

That is most interesting. There is other interesting Iraqi officals giving out information - Look up "Saddam's Bomb maker" for one of the them.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Edward Teach

I believe his name was Hamza or something like that. He has been on the cable news networks.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Dreamzwalker

quote:
Originally posted by skippy

President Bush does lie during speeches but the only places that seem to notice are public accuracy organizations like http://www.accuracy.org/iraq

It is estimated that it would take Saddam 10 years to come up with a nuclear weapon.


And I suppose Saddam is a peaceful and honest. Every political party in the world lies about something- You learn this in history class. Look at the Grant administration - thought long ago, it has been labeled the most corrupted in American history - even over watergate.
Reply To this Message

Pages:  1 Free Forums    Chat Forum

Post-9/11 Era Forum: What if, we go to war and then...

Forum Forum Forum