- Joined
- 29 Nov 06
- Moves
- 16790
12 Feb 07
1 edit
I am appalled that my government wouldn't at least pretend that they found WMDs in Iraq. They certainly dreamed up enough BS to get us in there, how hard would it be to plant unanium in some old warehouse or something? It's more audacious to show outright that we were lied to. It's like our government was daring us to get get outraged and we just folded. If they would have at least planted some weapons there, we could all feel a little justification for what is going on, and a little less guilty about letting it continue.
I guess I should turn this into a debate topic. Would there be more popular support for the war now if WMDs would have been found?
12 Feb 07
Originally posted by hoven5thdoubt it, you'd still be in the same predicament now
I am appalled that my government wouldn't at least pretend that they found WMDs in Iraq. They certainly dreamed up enough BS to get us in there, how hard would it be to plant unanium in some old warehouse or something? It's more audacious to show outright that we were lied to. It's like our government was daring us to get get outraged and we just folded. ...[text shortened]... te topic. Would there be more popular support for the war now if WMDs would have been found?
12 Feb 07
Originally posted by hoven5ththe soldiers hate it when people say things like this, especially when people say "bring the troops home". i respect the troops and the war
I am appalled that my government wouldn't at least pretend that they found WMDs in Iraq. They certainly dreamed up enough BS to get us in there, how hard would it be to plant unanium in some old warehouse or something? It's more audacious to show outright that we were lied to. It's like our government was daring us to get get outraged and we just folded. ...[text shortened]... te topic. Would there be more popular support for the war now if WMDs would have been found?
12 Feb 07
Originally posted by hoven5thNo. They would be hollering about some other reason.
I am appalled that my government wouldn't at least pretend that they found WMDs in Iraq. They certainly dreamed up enough BS to get us in there, how hard would it be to plant unanium in some old warehouse or something? It's more audacious to show outright that we were lied to. It's like our government was daring us to get get outraged and we just folded. ...[text shortened]... te topic. Would there be more popular support for the war now if WMDs would have been found?
- Joined
- 29 Nov 06
- Moves
- 16790
12 Feb 07
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomI don't care what the troops hate. I hate that they're over there killing people on my tax dollar. Regardless, turning the discussion into what the troops are thinking is a distraction from the real issue: that it was an unprovoked war predicated on lies to begin with, and not only should we not be there, but we should be mad as hell about it now.
the soldiers hate it when people say things like this, especially when people say "bring the troops home". i respect the troops and the war
12 Feb 07
Originally posted by hoven5thWe have not found the stockpiles of WMDs as expected, but let's ignore the minor instances of WMDs that have been found.
I am appalled that my government wouldn't at least pretend that they found WMDs in Iraq. They certainly dreamed up enough BS to get us in there, how hard would it be to plant unanium in some old warehouse or something? It's more audacious to show outright that we were lied to. It's like our government was daring us to get get outraged and we just folded. ...[text shortened]... te topic. Would there be more popular support for the war now if WMDs would have been found?
Does not it seem a little odd that a president would start a war based on a deliberate lie, but would not go the extra mile and plant a few stockpiles? To me it seems evident that GWB expected to find stockpiles of WMDs.
Also, the premise that the presense of WMDs was the sole driver leading up to war is flawed. For example, it seems all have forgotten and forgiven the fact that Iraq as routinely firing on US aircraft all the way until 2002.
12 Feb 07
Originally posted by techsouthThe no fly zones were only agreed to by the US, the UK and France and were widely (and correctly) considered to be a violation of international law by many other countries. France withdrew from patrolling the areas, and when the US and UK launched counterstrikes against Iraqi SAM sites, they also questioned the legality of the no fly zones.
A no-fly zone agreed to at the end of the first gulf war, endorsed by all countries involved in the first gulf war.
12 Feb 07
Originally posted by techsouthIronically all the WMD being used in Iraq (and Bosnia, I might add) have been used by the American and British troops.
We have not found the stockpiles of WMDs as expected, but let's ignore the minor instances of WMDs that have been found.
Does not it seem a little odd that a president would start a war based on a deliberate lie, but would not go the extra mile and plant a few stockpiles? To me it seems evident that GWB expected to find stockpiles of WMDs.
Also, the ...[text shortened]... tten and forgiven the fact that Iraq as routinely firing on US aircraft all the way until 2002.
It's called depleted uranium, it's radioactive and it's cancerous.
Good ol' WMD's...
12 Feb 07
Originally posted by Ian68Clearly we should have let them slaughter the Kurds and continue slaughtering the Shia in the south. Globalony has no words on paper (International Law) that allow for protecting the slaughtered. Liquidation of a people is a much better choice then violating sovereign airspace. It's the U.S. and U.K.s fault. Thank god the Phrench stood by globalony and quit the effort. It's not like they haven't already established the precedent not interferring with liquidation.
The no fly zones were only agreed to by the US, the UK and France and were widely (and correctly) considered to be a violation of international law by many other countries. France withdrew from patrolling the areas, and when the US and UK launched counterstrikes against Iraqi SAM sites, they also questioned the legality of the no fly zones.
12 Feb 07
Originally posted by shavixmirOh yes, the depleted uranium mumble jumble. I use depleted uranium on my race car to reach desired corner percentages. I handle it with my bare hands at least a hundred of times a year. I like it better than lead becuase I can get more weight in less space. Depleted uranium is no more a WMD than lead.
Ironically all the WMD being used in Iraq (and Bosnia, I might add) have been used by the American and British troops.
It's called depleted uranium, it's radioactive and it's cancerous.
Good ol' WMD's...
12 Feb 07
Originally posted by MerkYes...
Oh yes, the depleted uranium mumble jumble. I use depleted uranium on my race car to reach desired corner percentages. I handle it with my bare hands at least a hundred of times a year. I like it better than lead becuase I can get more weight in less space. Depleted uranium is no more a WMD than lead.
I now understand your problems.
Don't worry. Testicular cancer can be cut away.
12 Feb 07
Originally posted by shavixmirLol!
Yes...
I now understand your problems.
Don't worry. Testicular cancer can be cut away.
O.K. I have to admit, I'm not saying it's good for you or that is has no effects. Heck, there are even laws on how much lead a person can have in their home. (At least in the States, I'm guessing we're not alone on that.) I'm just saying that your WMD assertion is hyperbole.
12 Feb 07
Originally posted by Merk500.000 extra dead Iraquee kids from 1990 to 2000.
Lol!
O.K. I have to admit, I'm not saying it's good for you or that is has no effects. Heck, there are even laws on how much lead a person can have in their home. (At least in the States, I'm guessing we're not alone on that.) I'm just saying that your WMD assertion is hyperbole.
Official UN figures. Due to cancers.