War on Terror

[danmand]

Wow. Somehow I'm advocating "the return of Sadaam and his ways".
LOL
As for your pitiful WMD, these *chemical* weapons have practically NO value to a terrorist.
Try again.

Oh, but now we have a question! How could the US solve "the Iraq issue" without going to war?

First, you tell me what issue? 'Cause I have NO idea what the big deal with Iraq was. I know what the US *said* it was, but none of it makes any sense.

You tell me what the issue was, then I'll tell you how they could have solved it.

If you don't respond, I'll just assume that, like the US, you have nothing and, like escohort, just buy into the "might makes right" argument. I hope that works for ya.

Oh, leave poor BB alone; He is totally mesmerized by Condoleeza Rice and her gap tooth smirk.

Anybody with a bare minimum of intelligence can now see that IRAQ posed no threat whatsoever to the US.
Few people at the time expected the US government to lie about such serious matters. With hindsight we now know they did.
Bill Moyers had an expose of Condoleeza Rice last night on PBS. He documented that she lied about the warnings for 9/11, and that she, as late as in the election campaign, lied about WMD and Iraq/Al Quada links.

 

[Ranger68]

Now, once again that bigot *d* ( his posts re Israel and Jews in general) posts his idiotic notion that the war was illegal, yet cannot offer any explanation that would eliminate the self defense issue the US raises.

First off, the US isn't CLAIMING self-defense, for the last time. They wouldn't be so stupid - as I pointed out, it's not remotely self-defense. Again, it would be like assaulting someone because you thought at some point in the future they were going to assault you. This is NOT self-defense.

"Since 1945, according to the UN charter, it has been illegal to wage war against another country except in two tightly defined circumstances. One is that you have just been attacked, and are fighting back and are fighting back in immediate self-defence pending the arrival of international help. (There is no possible reading of this rule, Article 51 of the UN charter, that would extend it to cover preventive war, where one country attacks another because of something it fears the other might do in the future.)" - Gwynne Dyer, Future Tense

You need to read these articles and treaties if you're going to discuss them openly.

 

[Ranger68]

ah so there wouldnt really have been a problem then if iraq had sold some WMDs to some terrorists? you cant have it both ways, chump

*sigh*
NOBODY is "selling WMDs" to "some terrorists".
IT'S A FICTION.

 

[Ranger68]

bb, you CANNOT argue that the possibility (which turned out itself to be a fiction - are you still clinging to the belief that the US didn't *lie* about the intelligence?!) of possession of "WMDs" is reason enough to attack a country in the name of self-defense. Period. It's very clear. In fact, the US is NOT claiming this. I really don't know what else to point out as wrong in your argument.

 

[Ranger68]

I followed your argument.
I just wish people would drop the whole notion of ANY NATION selling WMDs to terrorists.
It doesn't happen. It won't happen. There's no point in talking about it.
That's all.

 

[langeweile]

of course i know that, you werent following my argument.

one of the bushies suggested that the U.S. had no blame if the chemical weapons they sold to iraq were used for genecide..... i was saying that EVEN IF iraq had sold WMDs to terrorists then it would follow that they werent responsible for what was done with those WMD's...... (which of course is ridiculous!!!)

Your argument doesn't make any sense. If I follow your logic then:

1) Gun manufacturers are responsible for shooting death's

2) Cigarette makers are responsible, if you smoke and die

3) Car manufacturers are responsible, because people die in cars


Your logic implies that nobody is responsible for their own actions. Sounds like Ophrah Winfrey to me.

 

[langeweile]

are you nuts?

you have argued that the occupation of iraq was legitamate because saddam might have sold WMDs to terrorists and that makes him complicit in terrorism. meanwhile the US sold iraq the chemicals it used against the kurds and now says "we know iraq is capable of genocide because he gassed his own people". of course the US is responsible for selling deadly weapons to a lunatic murderer!

You did not answer my question. If you want to make the case that the USA is responsible for Saddam gasing Kurds, than following your logic..read previous post.

Do you agree that cigarette makers, car manufactures and gun makers are responsible for what people do with their products?

 

[Ranger68]

Anyone who argues that the US invasion was justified because Saddam might have sold WMDs to terrorists isn't thinking clearly.

 

[langeweile]

Okay, langeweile. Nerve gas. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that's what you're talking about - that's the title of the first link, even though they're talking about simple CHEMICAL agents, not nerve gas proper. It leads me to believe that these guys who wrote this have no idea what they're talking about.)

Tell me, has nerve has ever been used in a terrorist attack? How many people were killed?
How many people would have been killed by a decent-sized nail bomb, or just a regular explosive (like that used in Madrid)?
Now, tell me how valuable nerve gas is to a terrorist.
(Ignore the fact that THEY CAN ALREADY MAKE IT.)

I don't believe the true strength of a chemical or bio weapon vs. a conventional weapon can be strictly meassured in casuality rate. If you meassure the effect in casualty rates the conventional wins, no question there. However I believe that the real impact of an ABC weapon is more physchological.
While people can "somewhat rationalize" the impact of a conventional bomb, most people are horrified by just imagining the impact of an ABC weapon
Like you correctly stated, there just having been that many documented cases of an ABC attack, to have a clear picture of the true nature of them.

 

[Ranger68]

I don't think this is the case. In areas where terrorists are really a threat (Israel, Northern Ireland at its worst) people were worried about conventional bombs, and not *more* so about "WMDs". This is just ignorance based on fear.

Anyway, people are already "afraid" of the threat of WMDs. It would not be in the terrorists' best interests to allay public fears by actually putting them to use. Right? In fact, it would be COUNTER to their interests to actually use them, since people would realize that there's not that much to fear. Conventional explosives are FAR more dangerous to people than the possibility that terrorists might use anthrax or sarin. Once people discovered that, the WMDs would lose any "psychological" impact that you claim.

Again, why are we worried about WMDs? Why was the US supposedly worried about WMDs?

 

[danmand]

Again, why are we worried about WMDs? Why was the US supposedly worried about WMDs?

The power of propaganda: Weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION.

 

[papasmerf]

Anyone who argues that the US invasion was justified because Saddam might have sold WMDs to terrorists isn't thinking clearly.

Howcome you are insultive instead of just opionated?

 

[langeweile]

I don't believe the reason for invading was really WMD's, but it makes a good and scary headline.

We don't have many friends, if any,in the mideast. The whole region is a breeding ground for terrorists. It would have made no difference if we would have poked our stick in to IRAN, IRAQ, SYRIA, LEBANON or any other country in that whole region.
Either way we would have had a gathering of all unfirendly elements in that region to fight the uSA(or any other western nation for that matter).
Personally I believe Iraq was a target of convinience. A) because there were some troops already in place B) Iraq was already on the s**list.
Strategically it was a smart move to create a battleground away from home. So far it has worked IMHO, because all the "evil doers" have come out of their rat holes (or spider holes) to fight us in a somewhat open way. It surely beats having them run around here and blow up more buildings. we just can't get too complacent.
Before you jump all over me, I am stating my opinion here.

 

[langeweile]

Howcome you are insultive instead of just opionated?

Because he is smarter than us........

 

[papasmerf]

Ah I missed that one completely

 

[Ranger68]

Howcome you are insultive instead of just opionated?

This is my opinion.
How come you can't think clearly?

 

[papasmerf]

This is my opinion.
How come you can't think clearly?

there we go again

LOL

 

[Ranger68]

I don't believe the reason for invading was really WMD's, but it makes a good and scary headline.

We don't have many friends, if any,in the mideast. The whole region is a breeding ground for terrorists. It would have made no difference if we would have poked our stick in to IRAN, IRAQ, SYRIA, LEBANON or any other country in that whole region.
Either way we would have had a gathering of all unfirendly elements in that region to fight the uSA(or any other western nation for that matter).
Personally I believe Iraq was a target of convinience. A) because there were some troops already in place B) Iraq was already on the s**list.
Strategically it was a smart move to create a battleground away from home. So far it has worked IMHO, because all the "evil doers" have come out of their rat holes (or spider holes) to fight us in a somewhat open way. It surely beats having them run around here and blow up more buildings. we just can't get too complacent.
Before you jump all over me, I am stating my opinion here.

I agree with the fact that it makes a good and scary headline - that is, that the US administration lied about Iraq.

The problem is, you're just making more terrorists - more people who hate the west. Because they're still blowing up cars and building - just in Iraq, now.

 

[Ranger68]

Because he is smarter than us........

Apparently.
All I get is crap about WMDs, and terrorist links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and self-defense. It's all very transparent nonsense. I can't help it if you guys can't see that.
If you think I'm wrong, tell me why.

 

[lenharper]

"becuase he is smarter than us..."

having read all the posts on this thread I would have to say that is indeed true.