Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Against the War in Iraq?


nightbird

Recommended Posts

You're slamming together what may well be two unrelated arguments here to make your point. To say that if you're against the war you're with the terrorists is silly..

First you'd have to prove that the two were related beyond all doubt. You can go on all day about circumstantial evidence and what seems likely, but I think if you're going to commit lives to it , you'd better be able to show it on paper, in triplicate. And no matter what your personal opinion is questioning the Presidents' motives behind all this doesn't make you a terrorist sympathizer or Un-American. Who wants to go through life as a lemming?

Maybe Bush was right and maybe he was wrong. But we haven't seen much that's conclusive either way..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Stellar

    10

  • Talon

    8

  • reese2

    6

  • snuffypuffer

    6

Shock and Awe...yes, that's the ticket! Shock and Awe dessimated the Iraqi Military! Perhaps they planned on doing something but weren't able to...

Much like the countless iraqi civillians eh joc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously it was because he did...maybe not WMD but certainly mass graves and rape parlors.

What you have done here is 'prove' that he was a dangerous and gathering threat> he did use them on his own people so why is it proposterous to believe that he would have given them to the terrorists?

And again, I pose the question...Who should you be more afraid of: A bully you think might have a switchblade in his pocket who has already knifed people in his own family and has threatened to knife you....or a bully who has a 357 locked and loaded but hasn't threatened you per say ....i.e. I am going to shoot you with this 357.... ?

It is like this: If you are against the war in Iraq...then you are in favor of Saddam still being El Presidente. One cannot seperate the two. You are either with us or against us...and if you are against us...you are with the terrorists.

People: Make up your minds!

Ah, where do I begin? First off, as reasons for going to war, I didn't hear a single word about mass graves or rape parlors. All I remember hearing about were WMDs, this and WMDs that and terrorists terrorists terrorists. Since no WMDs were ever found, as of yet, and since from what I understand the connections between Saddam and Al Quaida are circumstantial at best, the reasons Bush sent OUR soldiers into harm's way are quite different from the reasons he gave us. And if we really are there to take a despot out of power, then our work is far from finished, there are many, many more all over the world.

And I think you phrased the question wrong, who should we be more afraid of, the bully who may have a switchblade in his pocket, and certainly has a reputation of knifing people in his own family, and could knife you, but he may not have the switchblade anymore. Or the bully with the knife, who'd use a box cutter if he had to, and has stabbed us before, and most certainly will stab us again? Seems we've gone after the bully who might have the knife to make us feel better because we don't quite know where the other has gotten off to.

And finally, I am with the terrorists because I question the decision making of my leaders? I think you've missed the train on this one. Simply because I don't believe the hefty dose of bs my leaders are handing me does not make me unpatriotic. Not only do I find that statement highly insulting, but I think that's the best response you can come up with because you have no real, honest to god thoughts on the matter other than what you've been spoon fed by the right wing media.

Again, I do not strap bombs to my chest and walk into busy streets, nor will I fly a plane into a building full of innocent civilians because they're world view isn't the same as mine. Try not to sound so asinine in the future, fella.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the US, noone has proven that Bush knowingly lied...

Unfortunately they can't seem to prove that Bush knowingly told the truth on the matter either...

In my opinion it is open to interpretation whether Bush "lied" or not.

I think that ultimately it was up to Bush to know the truth of the matter before comitting to the war we are in now. The Buck Stops Here was a sign on the presidents desk for a reason, he is ultimately responsible for the decisions that are made that risk our soldiers lives...

For me the quick switch from Al-queda being the priority to Iraq being the priority seems oddly timed, and oddly motivated. The reasons we originally went to war continually morphs as the reasons are discover to be unfounded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is like this: If you are against the war in Iraq...then you are in favor of Saddam still being El Presidente. One cannot seperate the two. You are either with us or against us...and if you are against us...you are with the terrorists.

How I love binary thinkers...so simple a thought process. I am almost jealous.

So many here seemed to be tied up with research, critical thought, and independent analysis. With all of that effort folks here may come to different opinions on the matter, but it seems that most folks here can at least see the entire spectrum of concerns of the matter. There are a couple here who have the ability to see the world in black and white...off and on...

Binary thinker...so close to being an oxymoron, but not quite...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he didn't have anything to hide, why did he act like he had something to hide?

Propably wanted to look tough in the Arab world, lets remember as much as the fanatics thought he was to western, many of the others saw him as one of the few ME leaders willing to stand up against the west. Letting the UN walk all over him must have been damaging his credability. huh.gif

And finally: You have forgotten something else.....I think it was called...uh...

Shock and Awe...yes, that's the ticket! Shock and Awe dessimated the Iraqi Military! Perhaps they planned on doing something but weren't able to...

Not really, the Republican Guard just seemed to throw off their uniforms and start a gorilla campaign thats all. Hardly a success for the allies, just means we have hundreds of enemy fighters out there who we can't even see amongst the civilian population. It wasn't so much a case of the Iraqi soldiers saying 'I'm shocked! ohmy.gif And I'm awed! I'm going home' as 'H*ll with his, I'm going home and just set a target to snipe one coalition soldier a month from my roof huh.gif '

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THEY'VE NEVER BEEN FOUND! NOT ONE, SINGLE WMD HAS EVER BEEN FOUND! Thinking Saddam had WMDs and Saddam actually having WMDs are two completely different things. If he'd actually had them, don't you think he would have used them on us as soon as he invaded? He gassed his own friggin people! We invaded, don't you think he would have dropped as much mustard gas has he could get a hold of on us if he had so much as a barrel of the stuff?

Of course, I could be wrong.

WRONG. Sarin warheads were found in Iraq by the Polish. Hmm... you missed that fact huh?

Oh and if Saddam had WMDs he probably wouldnt use them against the US cuz the US was prepared and it would not help him at all. It would just prove that the US was right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately they can't seem to prove that Bush knowingly told the truth on the matter either...

In my opinion it is open to interpretation whether Bush "lied" or not.

Innocent until proven guilty... right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WRONG. Sarin warheads were found in Iraq by the Polish. Hmm... you missed that fact huh?

Weren't the rockets for use with a Soviet-era launcher and pruchased back in the 1980s for the Iran war huh.gif . I mean, I'm not debating they could cause a lot of damage if used corrctly, but its hardly ready to use against a western city in 45 minutes.

Innocent until proven guilty... right?

That actually depends on what civilisation your dealing with, in many its actually the opposite. tongue.gif For a world leader under the watch of the press and in deep water with the UN, the later is probably more acurate than the former. huh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesnt matter. He said that not a single WMD was found in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that really destructive enough to count as a WMD? I must say I'm kinda disappointed, I expected missiles, nuclear weaponry, or some insanely large quanities of chemical, biological or radioactive weaponry which could be used to cause heavy damage against a civilian area. huh.gif

Edited by Talon S.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Saddam HIMSELF was a weapon of MASS destruction. Well, capable of mass destruction anyway. He has proven that himself.

Edited by crystal3rose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expected missiles, nuclear weaponry, or some insanely large quanities of chemical, biological or radioactive weaponry which could be used to cause heavy damage against a civilian area. huh.gif

Right now I think bush would be willing to point at a box full of sharpened pencils and claim that Saddam could have used them against America...

The US Army tested those chemical shells that you mentioned. All but two shells were found to be inert from extended storage. The were leftover from the eighties during the Iran/Iraq war. (That was the war where the US government supported Saddam in his use of chemical weapons against Iran...).

Those two shells hardly qualify as a "Stockpile" of wmd.

Of course none of that matters as the reasons we went to war are going to continue to change until Bush can find something to hang his hat on that people will believe.

It started out as terrorist links and immediate threat to the US from wmd. when that fell through he went to humanitarian reasons. When that logic failed he went to Saddams defiance of weapons inspectors...

It will keep morphing until something finally sticks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as they were found it means that they were found... you cant say "NO WMDs WHAT SO EVER HAVE BEEN FOUND"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as they were found it means that they were found... you cant say "NO WMDs WHAT SO EVER HAVE BEEN FOUND"

But as Fluffy pointed out, its hardly like those count as WMD huh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as they were found it means that they were found... you cant say "NO WMDs WHAT SO EVER HAVE BEEN FOUND"

I see what you are saying. It is a matter of symantics at this point.

Yes, they have found 2 old shells leftover from the Iran/Iraq war that had not gone inert yet due to long term storage.

No, that doesn't qualify as a Stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. There is barely enough to be able to say Weapons in the plural form let alone enough to qualify as a "stockpile"

Last I checked you can't pile two round shells on top of each other; they will keep falling. Unless of course you support them(and the arguement) with a great deal of misdirection and misinformation. rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saddam's whole obstinant refusal to cooperate with UN inspectors were grounds to become suspicous. He pushed and pushed to have it look as though he was hiding something. He made an invasion happen through his own refusal to hold to the UN agreements that he signed.

With the huge gaps in time that the UN inspectors were there, and the start of the war, let us not kid ourselves and say that they had 'none'. If we are going to assume that Bush lied to make up reasons to go to war, why can we not also assume that Saddam managed to hide some WMD? (somewhere)

I am just saying anything is possible here. The whole situation smacks of insanity if you ask me.

Reese

Edited by reese2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know id love nothin more than WMD's to be found.

I vehemently supported the war initially.

I really would love to be able to say i told you so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last I checked you can't pile two round shells on top of each other; they will keep falling. Unless of course you support them(and the arguement) with a great deal of misdirection and misinformation.

Raises glass in Fluffy's direction! laugh.gifthumbsup.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last I checked you can't pile two round shells on top of each other; they will keep falling. Unless of course you support them(and the arguement) with a great deal of misdirection and misinformation. rolleyes.gif

heh

anyway, I disagree with whoever said "he made an invasion happen through his refusal to abide by the agreements he signed with the UN.

if you were to invade countries who broke agreements with the UN, or things like say....the Geneva convention...or basic international Law....then we would all be within rights to invade america. I mean, america has WMD's, america has a dictator (I call him that becuase people who say they dont like him are arrested, presummably on HIS authority, as well as his beliefs that america is completly above and beyonf reproach with international laws, not to mention the treatment, sanctioned by the government, of detainees.....just to name a few), america's president appears to be emotionally unstable, america's president is slowly killing of his own people with his tax cuts and welfare denials, and america's government under the leadership of key members of the Bush administration is all for pumping up their stockpile of weapons, including WMD's, and reaching out for global domination.

however......the UN has, and will continue to investigate america and all other countries who break their agreements, and until the WORLD says so...you dont go to war based on trumped up charges. One man's ambition, coupled with the ambition put in place a few administrations ago does not equate to the right to invade or justify the slaughter of innocents both allied and native. so no...I dont believe Saddam asked for an invasion based upon these circumstances.

however......if Saddam had continued to kill people, and began to practise genocide, then I am pretty sure he woudl be asking for an invasion then, but an invasion for the sole purpose of liberating...NOT the invasion we have seen where our bullets and bombs have done more damage than good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

america has a dictator (I call him that becuase people who say they dont like him are arrested, presummably on HIS authority,

When did he do this? And, to whom?

america's president appears to be emotionally unstable, america's president is slowly killing of his own people with his tax cuts and welfare denials,

This is a bit extreme, is it not??

if Saddam had continued to kill people, and began to practise genocide, then I am pretty sure he woudl be asking for an invasion then, but an invasion for the sole purpose of liberating...NOT the invasion we have seen where our bullets and bombs have done more damage than good.

Saddam, has never stopped killing innocent people. Whether by his hand, or the hand of his minions. Ever heard of 'Chemical Ali'? Well he was as close to practicing genocide, as anyone ever has. Read up on him. Read up on the tortures that Saddam's two sons have done. All under their father's watchful eye.

Now, I am not saying that Michael Moore doesn't have the right to put out in the public whatever he wishes. I am all for it. I am always up for learning new things. But, it is always best to not get carried away and look beyond any one's reasons for doing such. He didn't walk into this film in an attempt to get the the 'truth' whatever that may be. He went in with the sole intent on showing Bush and his administration in a particular way. With that being said, you should always put things into the proper context, and not fall prey to someone else's ideas. (Since most of what people here are saying is that Bush is telling you how to think, live, and what to believe) Michael Moore is doing much of the same things, just under a different guise.

Reese

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nightbird... how old are you? Seriously?

if you were to invade countries who broke agreements with the UN, or things like say....the Geneva convention...or basic international Law....then we would all be within rights to invade america.

If you could prove that the administration knowingly broke the Geneva rules and will not peacefully stand down then yeah... I guess ur right.

I mean, america has WMD's

Nothing wrong with that. The US can have WMDs, and so can other countries... its just not all countries that can have WMDs.

, america has a dictator

No it doesnt. If you call him a dictator you obviously have no idea what a dictator really is.

(I call him that becuase people who say they dont like him are arrested, presummably on HIS authority,

Lmfao. You think that people who say they dont like him are arrested, on his authority, because of what they said? You're horribly wrong. Shows how much you know. Not only are they not arrested on HIS authority, but they are not arrested for what they say. For security reasons, areas near confrences and things like this have special "protestor" areas in which anyone protesting can not leave. Sure they can talk about what they want outside of the areas but they cant *protest* outside of it because the police will push them back to the area. When they resist and want to get in the face of the president and scream large obsenities at him, thats when they get arrested for not listening to the law and to the cops. Then they say its not their fault and its the government who is trying to eliminate free speech. Yeah... sure.

as well as his beliefs that america is completly above and beyonf reproach with international laws,

Does he? You know that how? Because he invaded Iraq after Iraq didnt follow resolution 1441 giving the US the authority to act... or did he say something along the lines of "America is beyond reproach of international laws"... I'm guessing it's not the latter....

not to mention the treatment, sanctioned by the government, of detainees.....just to name a few),

It hasnt been proven to be sanctioned by the government yet, and that is still far away from implicating Bush... But even so, its the government that put a stop to it too btw...

america's president appears to be emotionally unstable,

You know what? He actually may only *appear* to be emotionally unstable. The tests that say he's a psycopath were all done secretly, in the field, and also keep in mind that not everyone there agrees with Bush and some take his actions as a sign of something different. We wont know how stable he truely is until theres a full complete official test... which I guess will be never.

america's president is slowly killing of his own people with his tax cuts and welfare denials,

laugh.gif

and america's government under the leadership of key members of the Bush administration is all for pumping up their stockpile of weapons, including WMD's,

So?

and reaching out for global domination.

How do you know that the US is activly attempting to gain global domination through the use of their military? Please... point me to some documents... But let me also tell you this, each country would like to have global domination through some means. That doesnt mean that every action they take is to gain global domination.

however......the UN has, and will continue to investigate america and all other countries who break their agreements, and until the WORLD says so...

Has it? Where is the UN in Sudan? Where was the UN in IRAQ when Saddam was killing his own people? The UN may want to investigate, but investigating is not enough to save peoples lives.

you dont go to war based on trumped up charges.

trumped up charges?

One man's ambition, coupled with the ambition put in place a few administrations ago does not equate to the right to invade or justify the slaughter of innocents both allied and native.

Yet his persuing WMDs, his past history with WMDs, the world belief that he still had WMDs, his torturous regime, his slaughter of innocents, and his plans of committing multiple terror attacks on US interests within the US and abroad, and his lack of cooperation with the UN resolutions certainly would justify it, dont you think?

however......if Saddam had continued to kill people

He was killing people.

and began to practise genocide,

If the No Fly Zone wasnt there, he should would kill the Kurds again...

then I am pretty sure he woudl be asking for an invasion then, but an invasion for the sole purpose of liberating...NOT the invasion we have seen where our bullets and bombs have done more damage than good.

And an invasion for the sole purpose of liberating would use what weapons? Unicors, magic wands and pixy dust?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stellor- Just to add something to your post...

Shows how much you know. Not only are they not arrested on HIS authority, but they are not arrested for what they say. For security reasons, areas near confrences and things like this have special "protestor" areas in which anyone protesting can not leave. Sure they can talk about what they want outside of the areas but they cant *protest* outside of it because the police will push them back to the area. When they resist and want to get in the face of the president and scream large obsenities at him, thats when they get arrested for not listening to the law and to the cops. Then they say its not their fault and its the government who is trying to eliminate free speech. Yeah... sure.

If I was speaking, I would not want anyone there to nay say.. It is respect. You show it to anyone that is speaking. We teach our children to sit and listen when they have speakers in school. (for their assembly) Why are we beyond basic principles of tact and manners when it comes to politics? Are we not above acting like a bunch of rabid animals? Are we, by interrupting ANYONE that we disagree with, in fact breaking free speech ourselves, by conducting ourselves in ways which we damn others' for??

If this part to which you are referring, Nightbird, is about the couple that got arrested for 'wearing anti- Bush shirts' then please, read the article again and see it for what it is. The content from which that article was based came directly from the people arrested. So, of course, they are going to say only the things which lean in the direction of their innocence, instead of 'truth'.. Now, if the article had been voiced solely on 3rd party onlookers, then I would say, you have some truth to it. But, everyone says 'They did nothing wrong' when being arrested. It is a standard blanket statement made by jail birds for centuries now and centuries to come..

Reese

Good post, by the way Stellar... Although I don't think age has any bearing on whether any of us truly 'get' what is going on.

Edited by reese2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol sorry but I was still frustrated with a guy on another forum who was talking about how the US government used holographic planes to fly into the WTC and pentagon, and then planted bombs exploded, and then the US used beam weapons, and then the actual planes were exploded laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like you should stay clear of that forum!!! Nothing more than a frustrating specticle... I say, stick here, this forum is about as good as it gets... (Well it is the best out there, with the best people, regardless of the viewpoints) As you see from that other forum, people can REALLY be out there in their own minds'...

Reese

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.