PadawanOsswe Posted October 26, 2005 #51 Share Posted October 26, 2005 The U.N. does not own us, they do nothing really. shame, The U.N. has all this power and pussyfoot's with it. sorry but if The U.N. wont do their job, then we have to do it for them. --------------------------------------- and again the sanctioning and consulting the U.N. is not the better way to have dealt with this. this is not an enemy that you can shake hands with and get it over with! we do not live in a candyland world where everything will be peacefull and good. you need to take a warm cup of reality my friends. wether you like it or not the war against terrorism was inevitable. this could and will go on for decades. get used to that fact and stop whining! this is the way it had to be handled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted October 26, 2005 #52 Share Posted October 26, 2005 shame, The U.N. has all this power and pussyfoot's with it. I agree. and again the sanctioning and consulting the U.N. is not the better way to have dealt with this. You're right. this is the way it had to be handled. It was handled horribly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TooFarGone Posted October 26, 2005 #53 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Rumbolt...in answer to the mess of Iraq...it is a success story! Seems like a great success, with all the bombings. But they aren't bad bombs, they are just powerfull fireworks! They are voting there and everything, now_ thanks to Americans and the coalition. You just never hear that on tv; It must be just me that gets CNN then... the media wants only negative stuff on the air waves; sells tv. They give both sides, to give a fair view. You must only get Al jazera in the states... I think you lack intelligence and fortitude, Jeremy, for not wanting to help out in Iraq. Sorry, but last I checked, Canada was a free country, and we can say what we want about the war. I guess stating your opinion stets yuor lack of intellegence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Ed Posted October 26, 2005 #54 Share Posted October 26, 2005 (edited) I think you lack intelligence and fortitude, Jeremy, for not wanting to help out in Iraq. Babs, I am pro war in Iraq, but everyone has their opinion. I think this comment really shows your lack of intelligence. Edited October 26, 2005 by Mr Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PadawanOsswe Posted October 26, 2005 #55 Share Posted October 26, 2005 It was handled horribly. explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted October 26, 2005 #56 Share Posted October 26, 2005 explain? Well, they put too much emphasis on WMDs, and it turned out they didnt find any... that alone turned many people against the war. Had the emphasis been on SHs crimes, then it would have had more support IMO. Now, the biggest problem is that the US went in there expecting the Iraqis to welcome them with open arms and the insurgency to be negligeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Ed Posted October 26, 2005 #57 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Had the emphasis been on SHs crimes, then it would have had more support IMO. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PadawanOsswe Posted October 26, 2005 #58 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Well, they put too much emphasis on WMDs, and it turned out they didnt find any... that alone turned many people against the war. Had the emphasis been on SHs crimes, then it would have had more support IMO. Now, the biggest problem is that the US went in there expecting the Iraqis to welcome them with open arms and the insurgency to be negligeable. ah, but there are WMD's my friend. and Saddam also has a history with WMD's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanato Posted October 26, 2005 Author #59 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Yes, in the 80s he destroyed them to conform to UN Santions. ~Thanato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted October 26, 2005 #60 Share Posted October 26, 2005 ah, but there are WMD's my friend. Really? Provide me with proof. Where are these WMDs? and Saddam also has a history with WMD's His history means nothing. THe emphasis was on disarming him... and he said he did disarm, and the UN inspectors AND the US havent found any WMDs to date... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PadawanOsswe Posted October 27, 2005 #61 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Really? Provide me with proof. Where are these WMDs? His history means nothing. THe emphasis was on disarming him... and he said he did disarm, and the UN inspectors AND the US havent found any WMDs to date... lets say saddam had WMD's and a TV with the popular american news channel CNN. if CNN is broadcasting for weeks about Saddam's WMD's and possibly invading Iraq, what do you think he'll do? Hide them! ------------------------------------- wrong, his history does mean something, it means that if he had WMD's once he wouldnt have a second thought to get some more. and if all he did is SAY he disarmed them, then who's to say he did? An animal cannot change their instincts.....a tyrant will allways be a tyrant. how bout in the 90's when factual nuclear work was bieng done? how bout the chemical weapons labs? howbout commen sense? never underestimate your enemy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TooFarGone Posted October 27, 2005 #62 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I agree...the "WMDs" shouldn't have been the main reason to go in at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PadawanOsswe Posted October 27, 2005 #63 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I agree...the "WMDs" shouldn't have been the main reason to go in at all. so you would rather that you had been nuked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanato Posted October 27, 2005 Author #64 Share Posted October 27, 2005 so your saying that since America had slaves in the past that America will allways have slaves? Im sorry, but he did not have WMDs when the US invaded, and there is very strong evidence to support that he haddnt had any since 91. Now heres a reason why he wouldnt have WMDs, umm to STAY IN POWER! If he had them he would of been removed through UN action. But i gues the americans removed him in an illigal action. ~Thanato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Strangelove Posted October 27, 2005 #65 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I'm one of those oddballs that fully expects someday that they will find some garage somewhere in Iraq with the WMD's under a tarp. It would be so easy to hide certain of these weapons. I guess I'll just have to wait and see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TooFarGone Posted October 27, 2005 #66 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I highly doubt we would have been nuked...seeing as the didn't have a nuclear weapons program. And I'm sure Canada was on Iraqs strike list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted October 27, 2005 #67 Share Posted October 27, 2005 lets say saddam had WMD's and a TV with the popular american news channel CNN. if CNN is broadcasting for weeks about Saddam's WMD's and possibly invading Iraq, what do you think he'll do? Hide them! Yep. Could be. But he also could have simply not had them... and I thought the western world believed in "innocent until proven guilty." The whole point about the inspections was to determin whether he had the WMDs and force him to disarm, or whether he disarmed already. You cant justly say "Well, he didnt have any... even though we have no evidence, he must have hid them so we'll invade!" wrong, his history does mean something, it means that if he had WMD's once he wouldnt have a second thought to get some more. No it doesnt. He could have valued his life more than having WMDs. and if all he did is SAY he disarmed them, then who's to say he did? That's, once again, where I refer to "innocent until proven guilty." Lets kill everyone who pleads innocent in a court of law now, right? An animal cannot change their instincts.....a tyrant will allways be a tyrant. We're not talking about his tyrany, we're talking about the possession of WMDs (or lack there of). how bout in the 90's when factual nuclear work was bieng done? You lost your chance at that one with the new rounds of resolutions and inspections. how bout the chemical weapons labs? Which? howbout commen sense? Common sense isnt always right, hence innocent until proven guilty. never underestimate your enemy! It appears thats exactly what the US did... so you would rather that you had been nuked? By what and who, hmm? Damn, I guess we should invade Russia, they have nukes... they MUST be set to nuke the US! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted October 27, 2005 #68 Share Posted October 27, 2005 so you would rather that you had been nuked? With what,and by who? SH had no such weapon. Before the war weapons inspectors said there were none I guess they were right. SH needed to be taken out of power and it should have been done back in 91. Why was he left in power,the answer is not so simple. Ya there could still be some barrels with toxic gas that he used 25 yrs ago,somewhere. but really every counrty has some some where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted October 27, 2005 #69 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Quick question why is the U.S. not doing anything about Iran and it's nuclear program? Does Osama need to blow something else up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanato Posted October 27, 2005 Author #70 Share Posted October 27, 2005 The United States has the worlds largest Stockpile of ABC weapons, now can you tell me that isnt dangerous. ~Thanato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TooFarGone Posted October 27, 2005 #71 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Not as much oil in Iran though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PadawanOsswe Posted October 27, 2005 #72 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Quick question why is the U.S. not doing anything about Iran and it's nuclear program? Does Osama need to blow something else up? we are preparing for Iran, dont you worry! as for stellar's question regarding chemical weapons labs. YES! we have found some in Iraq, a google search should do the trick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted October 27, 2005 #73 Share Posted October 27, 2005 (edited) as for stellar's question regarding chemical weapons labs. YES! we have found some in Iraq, a google search should do the trick! Mind showing me YOUR sources, the ones YOU are going off of? I keep finding articles like this: www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.no.labs/ The only chemical "labs" found in Iraq were makeshift labs run by the insurgents... The equivalent of a highschool chemistry lab. Edited October 27, 2005 by Stellar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted October 27, 2005 #74 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Ok a quick google http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted October 27, 2005 #75 Share Posted October 27, 2005 When I google that topic all I find are reports of WMD's in Iraq prior to the "invasion". but it was just a quick peak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts