Something you should consider before attacking Iraq

SoLiDUS · **Something you should consider before attacking Iraq -** 09-13-2002, 03:41 AM

A well written post I delightfully post here for all to read.

[quote:20638]I'm currently watching Scott Ritter on an American news show. He says that while touring for weapon inspections in Iraq, they never told the locals ahead of time where they were going, they made surprise visits, and over five years they didmantled 90 to 95 per cent of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production capacity. He says they never in five years saw any evidence whatsoever of any mobile fatories or any kinds, and the USA has never supplied evidence of such.

Now, the UN weapon inspectors were in there doing their jobs. And the USA, not Iraq, ordered them out of Iraq. Since then, Iraq has invited UN weapon inspectors back in. In fact, Iraq sent a letter to the USA Congress inviting them as well to send in their own US weapon inspectors. The USA declined.

Since Scott Ritter has come out and basically completely undermined the already baseless assertions of the US government regarding Iraq and chem/bio weapons, the US government has instead come out with "Iraq may develop nuclear weapons". So, the US government's pretext for war now is the hypothetical future situation in which Iraq might some day develop nuclear weapons. I must say, dozens of nations might some day develop nuclear weapons, and the US is not threatening to attack them, so it doesn't seem a valid excuse for war.

I have heard one US reporter specialising in politics suggest that the US has every right to attack Iraq because Iraq's past performance means they will do it all again. Such as chemical attacks against Iran and against Iraq's kurds. So, is the US saying that the past is a valid excuse for future wars? If so, then surely the US deserves to be attacked for Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the chemical weapons they used in Vietnam. Clearly that is logical. If the US uses the past as an excuse for attacking a nation, then the US must agree that the US deserves to be attacked. Clearly the US is not saying that though.

Iraq does not want war with the USA. Saddam Hussein may be a complete bastard, but he's not a moron. Nobody wants the USA's massive military coming in their front door. Iraq's ambassadors to other nations have repeatedly said they don't want a fight, and have repeatedly invited weapon inspectors to come in and investigate anything they want.

So, what has the US government got? No chemical and biological weapons excuse. The past is an illogical and flimsy line of crap, it doesn't work since that would eman the US deserves to be attacked as well. Iraq doesn't want war. The best the US government can come up with is that maybe, some day, Iraq might have nuclear weapons.

That's it? Iraq might have nukes some day? Well, the USA has heaps of the things, and is the only country to ever use nukes as weapons. And the USA deliberately targeted civilians. Again, Iraq does not want war. Even if they some day develop nukes, does anyone really think they are stupid enough to try delivering one or two with their rather low levels of rocket technology to the USA, with all its defences, and with the USA's ability to pulverise that entire region? It's bollocks.

Is there really any valid, rational excuse for the USA threatening to invade Iraq and kill its people?[/quote:20638]

Oddball · 09-13-2002, 05:29 AM

Damn good, and damn right too. I like the how it's saying America hears only what it wants to hear, America's politicians that is I don't know about the 250 mil others.

Von Paulus · 09-13-2002, 05:50 AM

Yup, I too side with the right and good and true. That is, the above article...

Pfc.Green · 09-13-2002, 08:46 AM

Unfortunatly, Snott Shitter is the only one of the weapons inspectors to say those things, the rest all believe saddam has chem/bio weapons and is working on nuclear, a non-american think tank also believes this. Besides the fact that Shitter has been out of the loop for four years. Shitters doing this for money and attention, he was given 400,000 dollars to make and Iraq friendly propoganda film, of which he kept about 80,000 dollars and who knows how much more he being bought with. Remeber 4 years ago he was all for removing Saddam, talked about how bad he was and that he needs to go and go soon.

pest · 09-13-2002, 09:10 AM

Yep, consider the source.

The way these multiple posts bashing US policy have been written would be humorous if they werent taken seriously by the more liberal elements. Do you guys truly believe that Bush and his advisors are just that evil, that they would attack iraq just for kicks? I dont know the whole story and neither do you. One UN inspector out of the whole group writing an article after being paid by the iraqis, doesnt constitute the whole story. I am not the biggest Bush fan, but I will defend him everytime against leftist drivel like this.

I would like to see your responses to Pfc. Green's assertion that Ritter was paid by the Iraqis. Is this news to you? Did you research the article/arthur before posting it here or did you find something (anything) in print that justifys yor dislike for the US and/or bush and decide to post it blindly?

Low spark · 09-13-2002, 09:28 AM

Give it up SoLiDUS, your fighting a propaganda machine that Hitler would be jealous of.

pest · 09-13-2002, 09:31 AM

[quote="Low spark":71a0c]Give it up SoLiDUS, your fighting a propaganda machine that Hitler would be jealous of.[/quote:71a0c]

Well, that certainly clears it up.

Divingdw · 09-13-2002, 09:34 AM

I dunno, I don't understand shit that comes out of any of our politicians mouth or anyone that works for our government. I don't understand Bush-Cheney and why the hell they want to go after Saddam over a god damned assumption, when Cheney was somewhat of a business partner with Iraq. I don't understand how this guy can know all this information, though it is possible he's correct. I'm sure that he's so low on the totem poll that he wouldn't know the full truth about it. Why the fuck can't we just stop fucking threatening other countries and maybe we wouldn't have so damn much to worry about? Well, I'll tell you why.

Because we have too many damn 'Allies' that call upon us.

Isreal wants our help, and they are our allies, but I think a lot of Americans see through what Isreal is/was doing, so the President was almost forced to try and make peace between Palestine and Isreal. If all Americans were too fucking dumb to realize it, then Palestine would be history by now.

China was an ally during the WWII era, and we helped them out with Japan, hence, Pearl Harbor was bombed, hence, we bombed the fuck outta Hiroshima.

Why is that America is the only one getting bashed for Iraq? It's clear that Tony Blair and George Bush are in this together, and they keep convincing each oter why we should have this war. We arn't they only ones thinking of invading Iraq. But, it's not a popular vote to invade either, I think a lot of Americans, or actually I KNOW a lot of Americans and even the Military are hesistent on invading Iraq. That's what is taking so long. G.W. Bush is just waiting for Saddam to make a wrong move, to make his attack reasonable. As of now, I don't think there would be a point in invading Iraq. It's all based on assumption.

A lot of people bash America about Vietnam, I can also say that we didn't need to be there. So did all those hippies at Woodstock. John Lennon was killed because he tryed to voice his oppinion on Peace not war.

That's what we deal with here in America. We don't know shit about what's going on, and all we can do is listen to what we are told. It's hard to have an oppinion when you are only told one way to go. I love America for its freedoms and civilized ways. But, when it comes to warring all the freaking time, it gets tiring. Some wars were fought for the ethical reason that they should be fought, others are just plain as shit pointless. The war on the Taliban was out of anger, but it should have been fought simply because they will sure as shit do it again if we didn't do anything about it. They dealt the first blow, they declared war on us, we knew what we had to do. But with Iraq, what the hell are we fighting them again for? I thought we taught them a lesson 10 years ago.

I don't think we will attack Iraq unles our politicians come up with some other reasonable reason. It could even be a lie, but as long as they make it sound like the truth, you can be sure a lot of us will have to believe it.

ColinXP [3rdArmy] · 09-13-2002, 10:39 AM

At what point in time did policy QUESTIONING turn into policy BASHING? It is the right and responsibility of the civillain to keep our government in check. Once we civillians stop questioning the policies coming out of the government, we lose the power granted to us in the Bill of Rights. "For the people" has lost more and more meaning everyday since 9/11.

Innoxx · 09-13-2002, 10:47 AM

Yeah, like Airport security is ridiculous, security check after security check. It's just a big hassle and it's a waste of money, the only reason the airports have tight security is to make white people feel safe. They know they can't make airports completely safe too many people have access. Even if they do make airports completely safe the arab commandos would simply bomb other crowded places.

pest · 09-13-2002, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innoxx

......the only reason the airports have tight security is to make white people feel safe. .

WTF kind of comment is that?

Innoxx · 09-13-2002, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pest

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innoxx

......the only reason the airports have tight security is to make white people feel safe. .

WTF kind of comment is that?

oh, im sorry, am i not politically correct enough for you?

Pfc.Green · 09-13-2002, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innoxx

Quote:

Originally Posted by pest

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innoxx

......the only reason the airports have tight security is to make white people feel safe. .

WTF kind of comment is that?

oh, im sorry, am i not politically correct enough for you?

Its nice that whites can be the butt of such comments but if someone had said "the only reason the airports have tight security is to make black/mexican/asian/arab people feel safe." everyone would scream RACIST RACIST CALL THE ACLU!!

Innoxx · 09-13-2002, 11:34 AM

Nothing wrong with nigger, spick, kike, honkey, zipperhead, mick, limey. These are just words you are not a racist if you use these words, it's all about context, it's the ignorant racist asshole who is using these words that is offensive. I think what the "white man" has done to the minorities, a black person or um..... an african american should have the right to call a white person a kracker if he has the sudden urge.

Divingdw · 09-13-2002, 12:40 PM

[quote="ColinXP [3rdArmy]":1653b]At what point in time did policy QUESTIONING turn into policy BASHING? It is the right and responsibility of the civillain to keep our government in check. Once we civillians stop questioning the policies coming out of the government, we lose the power granted to us in the Bill of Rights. "For the people" has lost more and more meaning everyday since 9/11.[/quote:1653b]

I guess you havn't read many of the other posts. Everyone in America is egotiscal, this, Everyone in America are a bunch of morons, that. I call that bashing. Do you not? If not that it would be fair for me to say that you're retarded. Even though I don't really think that, it would be fair on these terms

"For the people" going away since 9/11? I'd say is been going away since it was written. It's only more rapid now because the government has more of an excuse to take more freedoms.