PDA

View Full Version : More WMDs found in Iraq



jchung
09-05-2006, 02:18 PM
Original discovery of WMDs (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf)

This is on top of the buried Sarin and Mustard gas that was found.

More WMDs found. 1,500 Gallons of chemicals (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html)

DJ-SLEV3N
09-05-2006, 02:21 PM
Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found.

Even Bush admits this himself.

http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/PR2004/NS-07-12-04.html

WhiteKnight77
09-05-2006, 02:24 PM
Declassified Portion of NGIC Report on WMD in Iraq (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf) dated June 21, 2006. Very telling.

jchung
09-05-2006, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by DJ-SLEV3N:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found.

Even Bush admits this himself.

http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/PR2004/NS-07-12-04.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I said, MORE WMDs being found ON TOP of the Sarin and Mustard gas that WK posted (sorry, I should have transferred WK's link from the other thread). This shows that Iraq's capabilities were NOT wiped out as some naysayers were claiming.

Melonie
09-05-2006, 02:33 PM
WMDs are definitely a good reason to go there, but we had other purposes too. Not only was Saddam supporting terrorist, but he was also reported to be responsible for over 600,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. Saddam had to be stopped. And yet people are still saying we shouldn't have went there. Hmm... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

WhiteKnight77
09-05-2006, 02:33 PM
Hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq: US intelligence (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060622055545.07o4imol.html)



Reporters questioned the lawmakers as to why the Bush administration had not played up the report to boost their case for continued warfare in Iraq.

"The administration has been very clear that they want to look forward," Santorum said. "They felt it was not their role to go back and fight previous discussions."


Bush is fully aware of what has been found in Iraq, from the airplane to the weapons found in the deserts of Iraq.

Brutusn
09-05-2006, 02:33 PM
Nukes in america...

But that doesn't make a problem.

Melonie
09-05-2006, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Brutusn:
Nukes in america...

But that doesn't make a problem.

We're not threatening to nuke people now are we?

DJ-SLEV3N
09-05-2006, 02:36 PM
The thing is, wasnt there a admitted intelligents failure? Im sorry but Bush is way to inconsistent for me to trust as a president, you cant expect me to forgot that he admitted all this stuff then come to find out there is these so called WMD's? It just doesnt make any sense really, plus where is the concrete proof that these were gonna be used against the US? I thought this war was to protect our country. I dont give bush permission to put our troops in danger for another countrys wellbeing, I just dont beleive in that.

WhiteKnight77
09-05-2006, 02:36 PM
Yes, we had more reasons to go into Iraq but the biggest was the WMD. One has to remember also that Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN and the world during the 12 years leading up to Gulf War 2/ Granted, it could have been handled differently but that is now the past and we cannot change it. The funny thing is, has anyone ever wondered why France and Germany didn't want us to go in there? They had been selling Iraq banned goods under the UN embargo that they approved back in 91. Stange that a supposed ally would do such things isn't it?

Melonie
09-05-2006, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by DJ-SLEV3N:
The thing is, wasnt there a admitted intelligents failure? Im sorry but Bush is way to inconsistent for me to trust as a president, you cant expect me to forgot that he admitted all this stuff then come to find out there is these so called WMD's? It just doesnt make any sense really, plus where is the concrete proof that these were gonna be used against the US? I thought this war was to protect our country. I dont give bush permission to put our troops in danger for another countrys wellbeing, I just dont beleive in that.

Our country was threatened, and additionally, 9/11 was an attack. Not by Saddam personally, but by the terrorist, which is another reason why we are there. If we never went to Iraq, Al Zarqawi would still be alive and Saddam would still be in power.

Chimera87
09-05-2006, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by DJ-SLEV3N:
Even Bush admits this himself. Like that means anything.



Originally posted by Melonie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brutusn:
Nukes in america...

But that doesn't make a problem.

We're not threatening to nuke people now are we? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Remember the cold war.... Please do, because what you just said is such a bs argument. It's the threat of HAVING them, not the threat of using them.

DJ-SLEV3N
09-05-2006, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Melonie:
WMDs are definitely a good reason to go there, but we had other purposes too. Not only was Saddam supporting terrorist, but he was also reported to be responsible for over 600,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. Saddam had to be stopped. And yet people are still saying we shouldn't have went there. Hmm... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif


This is were it gets tough for me, I do believe Saddam was a bad person, and I dont doubt if he was responsible for all those deaths in his own country, but is it our responsibility to play the super hero and get rid of all the bad people in the world? Is it really worth all the US troops killed in the process to liberate some other country? Thats were I have a hard time making a decision.


Like that means anything.

lol true.

Chimera87
09-05-2006, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Melonie:
WMDs are definitely a good reason to go there, but we had other purposes too. Not only was Saddam supporting terrorist, but he was also reported to be responsible for over 600,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. Saddam had to be stopped. And yet people are still saying we shouldn't have went there. Hmm... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif Why doesn't you're local god Bush visit Africa then, eh? Ow wait, now I remeber. There isn't any oil there.
Are you seriously too ignorant to see this?

Yes here we go again, a discussion "vs" the USA and Jackie will come in and close it, since its so offending....

It aint, it's the truth.

sam_fisher091
09-05-2006, 02:50 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Why doesn't the US do something about Darfur, rather than stay in Iraq?

Melonie
09-05-2006, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by DJ-SLEV3N:
This is were it gets tough for me, I do believe Saddam was a bad person, and I dont doubt if he was responsible for all those deaths in his own country, but is it our responsibility to play the super hero and get rid of all the bad people in the world? Is it really worth all the US troops killed in the process to liberate some other country? Thats were I have a hard time making a decision.


I never once said that the only reason why we were there was because of Saddam's injusticeness toward his people. That was just one issue. Like I previously mentioned, Saddam was supporting terrorist, threatened our country, and additionally, we killed Al Zarqawi in Iraq.

Our oil imports are lower now than they were before the war. If we were taking all their oil, why are our gas prices more expensive?

Chaos477
09-05-2006, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Melonie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brutusn:
Nukes in america...

But that doesn't make a problem.

We're not threatening to nuke people now are we? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Did Iran,Korea or Pakistan threaten to nuke anyone? Plus i really don't believe that terrorists had anything to do with 9/11, actually i'm certain, i have no doubts whatsoever.

DJ-SLEV3N
09-05-2006, 02:54 PM
Basically I beleive there are more and bigger threats that we should of concentrated on, threats that are more aimed at the US rather than somebody else's people or country, threats that could really bite us in the rear later on down the road. To me our country should be our first priority.

Chimera87
09-05-2006, 02:55 PM
Maybe in stead of invading another country to get more oil, think about cars that don't use a gallon per mile....

My parents car uses 5 Liters of petrol per 100 kilometers.

Oil will be gone in about 5 - 10 years, maybe mr. ow mighty god Bush should think about Hybrid cars, but nooo he rather invades a country and makes his people believe it was just.

Brutusn
09-05-2006, 03:00 PM
Basicly america threatens with there WMD's. They do it by saying they go in war when people support terrorists in there.

Embargo's are just stupid. Your neighbour also doesn't tell what is allowed in your house or not. Embargo's do.

Anyway, there is oil in Iraq and orginisations with power to cut it off. America is build on oil and can't affort losing lots of oil. (they have to drive there 2 mile to the galleon cars http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). So america goes in and gets rid of people that may have the power to cut off the oil, and thus saving his own oil reserves. The people saving argument is a nice extra!

Goodnight!

DJ-SLEV3N
09-05-2006, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Melonie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DJ-SLEV3N:
This is were it gets tough for me, I do believe Saddam was a bad person, and I dont doubt if he was responsible for all those deaths in his own country, but is it our responsibility to play the super hero and get rid of all the bad people in the world? Is it really worth all the US troops killed in the process to liberate some other country? Thats were I have a hard time making a decision.


I never once said that the only reason why we were there was because of Saddam's injusticeness toward his people. That was just one issue. Like I previously mentioned, Saddam was supporting terrorist, threatened our country, and additionally, we killed Al Zarqawi in Iraq.

Our oil imports are lower now than they were before the war. If we were taking all their oil, why are our gas prices more expensive? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have some good points Melonie, but I guess it just depends on how much of a actual threat you believe it was to our country, I just think theres bigger and more imminent threats out there right now to us as a country, thats all.

WhiteKnight77
09-05-2006, 03:02 PM
Chimera, maybe you are unaware of the fact that the price of gas rose and stayed high after hurricane Katrina and not due to Gulf War 2?

sam_fisher091
09-05-2006, 03:05 PM
I ask again:

How come the US does nothing about Darfur, where there is genocide going on RIGHT NOW, as we speak. How come the US stood idly by while Hutu mobs ransacked Rwanda and killed more than 800,000? Why didn't the US take down the Khmer Rouge, and save the lives of 1 million+ Cambodians?

BECAUSE THE US DOESN'T DO JACK **** IF THEY DON'T GET ANYTHING IN RETURN!

jchung
09-05-2006, 03:06 PM
Well, I'm done here at the office, so I will leave it at this.

We are the richest and most powerful nation. When we don't get involved people curse us. When we do get involved, people curse us.

As WK already pointed out, Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN for over a decade. What should we do? Why not dissolve the UN if anyone can simply refuse to do what the UN mandates?

Look at what happened in Somalia in 1993. It is no mystery that Warlords in Africa have been confiscating UN supplied aid for years and growing richer and more powerful every day. It is even been questionable if the people of Africa would be better off without the UN aid, as it only helps the warlords (In Africa private aid has been immeasurably more effective than any UN aid by a margin that cannot be fathomed).

US Rangers step in the solve the problem and look at the mess that came out of it. Ultimately the US ends up cleaning all the messes, and making up for all of the shortcomings of the UN.

Why did the UN not take care of Saddam's games within the first few years as he constantly placed restrictions on the inspectors? If we stop enforcing UN mandates, then why have them? What good is the UN if nobody cares what they say?

Look at Iran, I guarantee that if the world was not against the US enforcing the UN mandates that nobody was willing to take responsibility for, Iran would not have such a cavalier attitude about pursuing its nuclear program today.

DJ-SLEV3N
09-05-2006, 03:07 PM
How come the US does nothing about Darfur, where there is genocide going on RIGHT NOW, as we speak. How come the US stood idly by while Hutu mobs ransacked Rwanda and killed more than 800,000? Why didn't the US take down the Khmer Rouge, and save the lives of 1 million+ Cambodians.


Theres nothing in it for us, thats why, you are correct sir. But like Melonie said, there are other reasons beside Iraq's own people for getting into the war. Not to say I agree with it, there is just more to it.

sam_fisher091
09-05-2006, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by DJ-SLEV3N:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How come the US does nothing about Darfur, where there is genocide going on RIGHT NOW, as we speak. How come the US stood idly by while Hutu mobs ransacked Rwanda and killed more than 800,000? Why didn't the US take down the Khmer Rouge, and save the lives of 1 million+ Cambodians.


Theres nothing in it for us, thats why, you are correct sir. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. The US could have saved countless lives. But, since they couldn't get anything in return (or they had not been directly attacked by said nation) they wouldn't do it.

DJ-SLEV3N
09-05-2006, 03:12 PM
Well if anybody wants to discuss this subject more or anything for that matter, I finally got MSN, tryin to figure out how this madness works though. Im to use to aim, anyways back on topic.

WhiteKnight77
09-05-2006, 03:12 PM
For those who think that vehicles in the US only get 2 miles to the gallon need to wake up. The average is 27 miles to the gallon. Sure there are some vehicles that only get about 14 miles to the gallon, but there are many that get 40 or more miles to the gallon with most getting 30+. I agree, that vehicle owners need to buy vehicles that suit their needs such as using a van instead of an SUV to carry kids around. People don't understand that those SUVs are more dangerous for their kids than a mini-van or car is.

Still, I am glad that the price of gas here in the US has risen to the heights it has. With prices this high, consumers are looking at giving up the SUVS that they will never take off road (the whole purpose to begin with) and buying more fuel efficient cars. One thing many of you who have never been to the States fail to realize is that instead of being able to walk to ones work place from home or even catch a bus, housing developments are spread out from industrial/commercial area forcing people to have to drive. Buses do not go everywhere and commuter rail is virtually non-existant. Only when local politicians create zoning areas that allow for true mixed use building, will we be able to give up the need for vehicles here in the US, but I do not see that day coming any time soon.

Melonie
09-05-2006, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by DJ-SLEV3N:
I just think theres bigger and more imminent threats out there right now to us as a country, thats all.

Possibly... But our government is far more informed than we are. I think they understand the threat issues a lot more than we do.

jchung
09-05-2006, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by sam_fisher091:
I ask again:

How come the US does nothing about Darfur, where there is genocide going on RIGHT NOW, as we speak. How come the US stood idly by while Hutu mobs ransacked Rwanda and killed more than 800,000? Why didn't the US take down the Khmer Rouge, and save the lives of 1 million+ Cambodians.

BECAUSE THE US DOESN'T DO JACK **** IF THEY DON'T GET ANYTHING IN RETURN!

That is a good question SF, but remember that Sudan was not a global threat. There are no chemical weapons, no nuclear powerplant, etc...

This is why we got involved in Korea and Vietnam, but not in Cambodia, Burma, etc... Direct Chinese involvement in those countries (more in Korea of course) required that we counteract the with direct involvement.

Did we get anything by getting involved in Afganistan in the 80's? No, but again, the USSR at the time was an international threat, so we took steps to help the people there.

Iraq, as already attacked Kuwait, and Saddam's rhetoric made it clear that he was not backing down from his past endeavors, top that with his obstinate stance against the UN and that should be enough reason to move in.

WhiteKnight77
09-05-2006, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by sam_fisher091:
I ask again:

How come the US does nothing about Darfur, where there is genocide going on RIGHT NOW, as we speak. How come the US stood idly by while Hutu mobs ransacked Rwanda and killed more than 800,000? Why didn't the US take down the Khmer Rouge, and save the lives of 1 million+ Cambodians?

BECAUSE THE US DOESN'T DO JACK **** IF THEY DON'T GET ANYTHING IN RETURN!

Why didn't the UN do something is the question you should be asking.

We enforced the UN mandate that Iraq disarm and give up their WMD as Saddam didn't do so as required. The UN wanted to do nothing more than keep issuing sanctions. This is also why the UN has not gotten involved with Africa (remember their bungling of Somalia that led to what is know known as Black Hawk Down?). The UN is an ineffective body of beauracracy.

scworld
09-05-2006, 03:36 PM
Chinese human rights? O wait, economical distress if the USA embargoes that and vice versa.

SC-Titan
09-05-2006, 03:40 PM
well i am of the opinion that going in was the right thing to do, but can someone please tell me why we are still there. i repeatedly hear from Pres Bush that we cant "cut and run" and we have to " stay the course" and that we must " acheive victory"

well heres the deal, Saddam isnt in power anymore, we have supposedly found or didnt find(lol)what we were looking for, we have started a Iraqi military, they have had free democratic elections, etc..etc...

So what does victory entail, why havent we seen some clearly set goals laid out by the govt for what victory entails, what things need to happen before we can say, 'OK the job is done and we are going home'. until we see that i dont really see our boys coming home anytime soon, and i just see the Iraqis getting more and more pissed off at us that we arent leaving.

DJ-SLEV3N
09-05-2006, 03:47 PM
Well a lot of people say that if we pull out too soon it could be disastor, my question is when is to soon. If its going to minimize troop casualties than I say as soon as possible, but im sure its not that simple considering the huge mess we have made over there.

SC-Titan
09-05-2006, 03:56 PM
i think now is as good a time as any to leave, i think what u do is let them govern themselves and defend themselves and we will leave a small force behind to help IF they ask us to help, and we give their newly elected govt the power to call the shots, NOT us.

Chimera87
09-05-2006, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
Chimera, maybe you are unaware of the fact that the price of gas rose and stayed high after hurricane Katrina and not due to Gulf War 2? Ever checked the prices here? If we could drive our cars on those prices, damn we'd be happy, but nooo you guys must complain about the price nontheless.

If you guys drove efficient cars, then there wouldn't be such a big whine about the price.

Just drive normal cars.

DJ-SLEV3N
09-05-2006, 03:58 PM
lol yea my Jeep definitely doesnt help my gas situation.

RoaringMad Mac
09-05-2006, 04:09 PM
Good points by all: The only thing I will say is that we as Americans have not been attacked again since 9/11. This does count for something. I know soilders lives are being lost and that is unfortunate. However, Even other countries are now a little safer that we are fighting this.

On that note we will never again be 100% safe from terrorist activities.There are some questionable things that is going on over there but Everyone jumping on the Bush bandwagon of jumping on him is not going to solve anything. Remeber the Vietnam Conflict. I know you do WK, Hell, the president at that time to was under fire just as bad as now. Bush is not the Problem, and as for the non Americans on this board that start pointing their holier than thou finger at us critizing, you might want to re-think your self righteous stance before saying and insinuating that we are the almighty Devil of the world. We pay more spend more and help more countries than any other country put together and that ultimately is our freaking downfall. I am not trying to start an arguement on this, this is why I stay out of political debates with most of you, but pointing fingers at my country when I don't slander and make fun of yours is the bottom line. That is another reason why political debates just don't go over well on a gaming forum. But as long as everyone keeps civil about it okay,but like I said you start poking at my country and I will say something. I am not going to sit back and just let you throw rocks at us.

Rant over. Let talk about Dead Rising now WK. LOL.

Chimera87
09-05-2006, 04:19 PM
It might look like I'm ignorantly bashing the USA, but I don't.

I've thought about my arguments.

I yet again say, that my opinion is clearly based upon Dutch media. Yours are based on American media. I said this the last time a discussion like this was brought forward, where I was dismissed, as a minor who lived in a damn small country... talking about **** arguments.

DJ-SLEV3N
09-05-2006, 04:22 PM
Well thats one thing I definitely dont trust is our media, or really any media for that matter.

sam_fisher091
09-05-2006, 04:25 PM
The UN is more ineffective then the Leauge of Nations was.

DJ-SLEV3N
09-05-2006, 04:26 PM
Well look at this, sounds good to me.

"Major U.S. oil source is tapped
Successful test by Chevron partners in deep Gulf waters could rival Alaska in potential supply; U.S. reserves may swell 50 percent."

Read More
http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/05/news/companies/chevron_gulf/index.htm?cnn=yes

WhiteKnight77
09-05-2006, 06:26 PM
Chimera, here in the US, the majority of the media his a bastion of liberal thoughts and ideals. Granted, many here in the US does whine about the price of fuel (I don't as I am well aware of how expensive fuel can be elsewhere, I was paing $2.50 a gallon in 84 when I was on Okinawa and I saw prices of 1.74 Euro, $8 a gallon, for a liter last year in Germany) and it is them that need to get a grip. Heck, I remember gas at 25 cents a gallon when I was 10 years old (this was on base while off base was 30-35 cents).

Chimera, I am unlike most people on this forum, I am well traveled and have been since I first flew to Japan when I was 6 years old. I have lived coast to coast in the US and have been in 7 different countries (technically Okinawa is part of Japan so I didn't count it as a seperate entity).

It's not that you live in a small country or are a minor, it's that you should think carefully about an argument before bringing it up in a debate such as this. I agree, the US has enjoyed such cheap fuel for so long, but as I said earlier, I am glad it is higher now. It will force people here to rethink what they drive, where they live, and what they do for fun. Hopefully it will also bring about changes in zoning laws to create places where a car isn't needed. I hope it also curbs the need to drive just to drive like kids do here.

thejackel21
09-05-2006, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by sam_fisher091:
The UN is more ineffective then the Leauge of Nations was.
HHAHAHA

you forget one thing, there was another world war after leauge of nations was formed in 1918 so think of it this way
1944-1918=26 years!
2006-1948=58 years and running

still think that?

lochang19
09-05-2006, 08:25 PM
That tells me they've been at it twice as long with worse results. Usually people or organizations learn how to be more efficient during the course of time, but not the UN.

And Chimera, basing any ideas upon your state-based media is naive and ignorant. (no insult intended) Of course you're only going to go with whatever they tell you, that's their job. Read books by all sides on a topic, search the internet for all angles on a debate, get some corroborated facts and then base your ideals upon said facts. Since 9/11 (and a bit since the '93 Black Hawk Down engagement) I've read hundreds of books about geopolitical topics, the global economy, and especially about the Arab world. I find all the intricate details facinating, from the roots of the extreme elements to the mainstream, non-violent elements that just want to do what everyone else should: live in peace drinking Mountain Dew while laying in a hammock reading Calvin and Hobbes.

EDIT: LOL! I said state-based militia, not media :P

Chimera87
09-06-2006, 06:26 AM
WK: You're absolutely right and I didn't know you were outside the USA too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

@ LoChang: Books are also non-objective. Everything has been influenced by media/time. We get our news different from yours, but I can't automatically assume it's wrong or that yours is. Book aren't always true either, take the *censored for non-religious flame* for example, I can't exactly call it historical or reality.

You read books about the Arab world, but did they come from the Arab world, or from the USA itself? There's a difference there.

Now I don't say that you don't know **** and are indocrinated, I know you aren't. Just see that most of things you read are based on a particular area and are influenced all around.

thejackel21
09-06-2006, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by Chimera87:
You read books about the Arab world, but did they come from the Arab world, or from the USA itself? There's a difference there.


80% used in the western world that talk about the arab world.. are very biased and also they dont even know what the hell they are talking about half the time. Even history books about crusades...

it is only know from scholars that people are realizing major bias in those books.
example: after 9/11 there were "professors who claimed to know alot about arabs". But when you look up the credits of them you find that..their knowledge is only about the crusades.. And last time i checked knowledge of crusades doesnt make you an EXPERT on EVERYTHING ARAB!!!

it is like saying i can do algebra so therefore im an expert in calculus.

plus almost all books from arab world are banned the only one i know isnt is the prophet and arabs in america.

Chimera87
09-06-2006, 06:37 AM
That's what I said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DonkeyElephant
09-06-2006, 10:20 AM
A few things:

1. The conservative media has a very strong presence in the U.S. There are many stations and newscasters that have a strong conservative bias, and they actually make more $$$ in ratings and advertisements than the liberal media.

2. These chemical weapons were manufactured after the Iraqi invasion. It does not lend any credence to Bush's claim that Iraq had WMDs before we invaded, and he has admitted so, publicly.

3. The Iraq war was ******ed from the beginning. First of all, Iraq was actually a balancing power in the reason. Saddam ran a secular state, so there was no love lost between radical Islamic organizations and Iraq. Simply put, Iraq was not supporting terrorism.

So if Iraq posed no indirect danger, then they might pose a direct danger. Enter the theory of going over there to rid him of WMDs. On the surface it sounds like a logical theory -- some madman in the middle east who has a grudge against the Bush family is stockpiling weapons and will eventually use them on us, right? Except that Saddam wasn't a madman. In the words of Dave Chapelle in an interview, "The worst thing you can call someone is crazy. It's dismissive. It means you don't understand them, so they must be crazy." Saddam was smart enough to know that there was no way he could directly win a military conflict with the U.S., and that such a conflict would result in his losing power. There is no way he would sacrifice that power along with the rest of the world's opinion by attacking the U.S.

So why didn't he let the weapons inspectors in? This was a ******ed thing on Saddam's part, but he probably has a reason for it that goes along the lines of principle and/or exercising what little leverage he had over the U.S. since the rest of the world didn't support our goal.

Thus we move onto our "moral obligation" to remove such an "evil man" who killed 600,000 people from power. To that I say, who cares? I'd much prefer we take care of our own before we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight a war against someone who posed no real threat to our national security. Walk the street of D.C. and you can't go one block without seeing 3 homeless people. Use the money to boost us up to #1 in high school education. Even if everything was fine in the U.S., there are much more ruthless rulers and atrocious scenarios, mostly in Africa, that we could use our money to fix. Of course we have no economic interest in those countries, so we can just pretend they don't exist.

thejackel21
09-06-2006, 10:45 AM
1. majority of american media is actually liberal. It is a great misconception, because rupert murdock owes all of conservative media. All of channels and newspapers and magazines are in one way or another under his corportion. CBS,NBC,CNN all three are liberal bias. ABC is more neutral in a way.

2. Yes im not surprised, that some of the media is claiming there where there and secondly how dumb do you have to be to claim mustard gas to be deadly today?!. only 1% of the infected died horribly and also in world war I when the germans used it what stopped it? human urine.

3. whether we like it or not a claim to wmd we all know is false cuze again like you said letting inspectors would show some praise to the UN. And actually half the tapes played at the UN were found out to be before GULF I!!
If a government is to go to war, then they didnt bush do like his father did and use the somolia reason. "we are going to somolia to rid the area of the facist genocidic leaders..."
gee reword it and we are trying to free a people from OPPRESSION from A TYRANT! hmm sound familiar anyone? and i bet you a **** load of people would agree for THAT!

WhiteKnight77
09-06-2006, 12:25 PM
DonkeyElephant, how aware of you of Iraqi history from the mid-70s through 91? Are you aware that Saddam had gassed the Iranians during the 8 year war with them? Are you aware of Saddam gassing the Kurds? This all happened prior to 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait. This is why such a big worry was made over it prior to Desert Storm. This is also why the UN had inspectors there to get Saddam to destroy said weapons. You do know that most of the weapons found date back to the Iran-Iraq War right? Saddam had them and still had them when we kicked off Iraqi Freedom.

As far as the media goes, here is what Australian Ruper Murdoch owns:

Filmed Entertainment - News Corporation
20th Century Fox
20th Century Fox Espanol
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Television
Blue Sky Studios
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Fox Studios Australia
Fox Studios LA
Fox Studios Baja
Fox Television Studios

Television - News Corporation
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Sports Australia
Fox Television Stations
FOXTEL
STAR

Cable Television owned by News Corporation
Fox Movie Channel
Fox News Channel
Fox Sports Digital
Fox Sports Enterprises
Fox Sports Espanol
Fox Sports Net
Fox Sports World
FUEL
FX
National Geographic Channel
SPEED Channel
Stats, Inc

Direct Broadcast & Satellite Television - News Corporation
BskyB
DIRECTV
FOXTEL
Sky Italia

Magazines - News Corporation
Inside Out
Donna Hay
News America Marketing
Smart Source
The Weekly Standard
Gemstar

Newspapers - News Corporation
Australasian region Newspapers:
Daily Telegraph
Fiji Times
Gold Coast Bulletin
Herald Sun
Newsphotos
Newspix
Newstext
NT News
Post Courier
Sunday Herald Sun
Sunday Mail
Sunday Tasmanian
Sunday Territorian
Sunday Times
The Advertiser
The Australian
The Courier Mail
The Mercury
The Sunday Mail
The Sunday Telegraph
Weekly Times
United Kingdom region Newspapers:
News International
News of the World
The Sun
The Sunday Times
The Times
Times Education Supplement
Times Higher Education Supplement
Times Literary Supplement
TSL Education
United States region Newspapers:
New York Post

Books - News Corporation
Harper Collins Publishers
- Australia
- Canada
- Childrens Books
- United States
- United Kingdom
Regan Books
Zondervan

Other Investments - News Corporation
MySpace.com Profile
Festival Records
Mushroom Records
National Rugby League - Australia
News Interactive
News Outdoor
Nursery World

Notice, that there are not any news magazines or newspapers that are owned by him in the US. Media here in the US is a vast liberal bastion compared to being an unbiased medium. Ever wonder why more conservatives have talk radio shows compared to liberal? To balance out liberal editors, producers and reporters.

jchung
09-06-2006, 01:41 PM
Well WK as your list shows some of the largest publications are missing from that list. The NY Times and the Washington Post. Two very large and very liberal publications.

WhiteKnight77
09-06-2006, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by jchung:
Well WK as your list shows some of the largest publications are missing from that list. The NY Times and the Washington Post. Two very large and very liberal publications.

These are entities owned by Rupert Murdock's News Corperation and not others owned by Cox, Time-Warner or others. That is why the Times and The Post aren't listed, he doesn't own them.

lochang19
09-06-2006, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by Chimera87:
@ LoChang: Books are also non-objective. Everything has been influenced by media/time. We get our news different from yours, but I can't automatically assume it's wrong or that yours is. Book aren't always true either, take the *censored for non-religious flame* for example, I can't exactly call it historical or reality.

I agree about books being non-objective, that's why I mentioned reading things from all points of view, and then coming to your own judgment based on corroborated facts. That's all I was saying, if you're going to come to an opinion, base it off knowing both (or more) sides to issues, not just one, that's what is naive and ignorant, which is why most people that pipe off their opinion without knowing any facts of a situation irritate me so much. If people at least based their thoughts off FACT, then I'd be okay with that.

Shouting out insults or derrogatory references just because you don't like Bush, or any other politician, isn't intelligent.

Not directed at you, Chim, just an observation of teh peeps.

DonkeyElephant
09-06-2006, 11:05 PM
DonkeyElephant, how aware of you of Iraqi history from the mid-70s through 91? Are you aware that Saddam had gassed the Iranians during the 8 year war with them? Are you aware of Saddam gassing the Kurds? This all happened prior to 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait. This is why such a big worry was made over it prior to Desert Storm. This is also why the UN had inspectors there to get Saddam to destroy said weapons. You do know that most of the weapons found date back to the Iran-Iraq War right? Saddam had them and still had them when we kicked off Iraqi Freedom. Aware enough to know that Saddam's 20-30 year old weapons posed no threat to U.S. soil. Aware enough to know that Saddam's military capabilities were severely hindered following the Gulf War, even if he did have a few weapons still lying around. Also aware enough to know that today is an entirely different geopolitical climate. We had no problem whooping Saddam in 1991, why would he be a threat to us using the same weapons when ours have advanced? Saddam never had the capability to strike U.S. soil. He was only a threat to those around him, like Iran. Yeah, that country that keeps threatening and taunting the U.S. and the rest of Europe. Now that Saddam is gone and the U.S. is using much of its forces in Iraq, Iran knows we don't have many military options when it comes to them.

Saddam brought a necessary balance to the region. You think Saddam would allow its next-door neighbor, whom he doesn't get along with, to develop a nuclear program? I think not. Do I feel bad for the people he killed in his rule? Yeah. But I still don't think that alone is justification for going to war over there because, sadly, that happens in a lot of places around the world on a much larger scale.

Basically, what I'm saying is that since the Gulf War, Saddam has not gotten out of line following the Gulf War. He has pretty much just been used as a scapegoat to gain political points when a President hits a rough spot.

In closing, ponder this: If Saddam really had WMDs, what better time to use them than when you have an invading army coming at you that has you completely outmanned and outgunned, and said invasion was announced pubicly 48 hours in advance? How much of a threat could Saddam be if it took us less than a month to invade and dismantle the central leadership?

sam_fisher091
09-06-2006, 11:20 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Well, I mostly agree. I think that Sadaam could have struck US soil, but not cause much damage at all. The Gulf War pretty much incapicatated Sadaam, I agree with you there.

[Opinion]The Middle East will always be in chaos, unless Israel or some other nearby developed nation can take over some of the more dysfunctional, starving and war-beaten nations. China, for example, could help the people of the Afghan corridor. [Opinion]

Jackie Fiest
09-06-2006, 11:29 PM
Hey guys,

I just want to send a message and say most of you have done a great job so far. For the most part it's been very respectful. Thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

DJ-SLEV3N
09-06-2006, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by DonkeyElephant:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">DonkeyElephant, how aware of you of Iraqi history from the mid-70s through 91? Are you aware that Saddam had gassed the Iranians during the 8 year war with them? Are you aware of Saddam gassing the Kurds? This all happened prior to 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait. This is why such a big worry was made over it prior to Desert Storm. This is also why the UN had inspectors there to get Saddam to destroy said weapons. You do know that most of the weapons found date back to the Iran-Iraq War right? Saddam had them and still had them when we kicked off Iraqi Freedom. Aware enough to know that Saddam's 20-30 year old weapons posed no threat to U.S. soil. Aware enough to know that Saddam's military capabilities were severely hindered following the Gulf War, even if he did have a few weapons still lying around. Also aware enough to know that today is an entirely different geopolitical climate. We had no problem whooping Saddam in 1991, why would he be a threat to us using the same weapons when ours have advanced? Saddam never had the capability to strike U.S. soil. He was only a threat to those around him, like Iran. Yeah, that country that keeps threatening and taunting the U.S. and the rest of Europe. Now that Saddam is gone and the U.S. is using much of its forces in Iraq, Iran knows we don't have many military options when it comes to them.

Saddam brought a necessary balance to the region. You think Saddam would allow its next-door neighbor, whom he doesn't get along with, to develop a nuclear program? I think not. Do I feel bad for the people he killed in his rule? Yeah. But I still don't think that alone is justification for going to war over there because, sadly, that happens in a lot of places around the world on a much larger scale.

Basically, what I'm saying is that since the Gulf War, Saddam has not gotten out of line following the Gulf War. He has pretty much just been used as a scapegoat to gain political points when a President hits a rough spot.

In closing, ponder this: If Saddam really had WMDs, what better time to use them than when you have an invading army coming at you that has you completely outmanned and outgunned, and said invasion was announced pubicly 48 hours in advance? How much of a threat could Saddam be if it took us less than a month to invade and dismantle the central leadership? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what I believe also, I dont think Sadam was a big enough threat to the US, some people might argue if he was even a threat at all. Like I said, there are bigger threats out there we should be more focused on.

WhiteKnight77
09-07-2006, 07:41 AM
Even degraded chemical weapons are dangerous and pose a threat. While Saddam may not have posed a direct threat to the US, he did fail to meet the mandates of the terms of peace for the Gulf War and failed to meet UN resolutions to destroy all WMD. It is now known that he did fail to uphold his agreements.

As far as Iranians being his enemy, maybe it has to do with attacking Iran to begin with. Had he left his neighbor alone, there would not have been a need for a "balance of power" in the region. If left alone, Iraq certainly could have developed something that could hit the US. Scuds were originally a tactical weapon, Iraq had altered many and even built new versions of them to increase it's range to create a strategic weapon. He would have kept going until he did have one that could be used to reach the States in my opinion.

Saddam didn't use chemical weapons for either war apparently due to the fact he wanted world opinion to think that he was the good guy in all of this, yet he was the one who invaded Kuwait and he was the one who failed to meet the demands placed upon him by the world (for the second war). It is a fact that Saddam did have them and did use them in the past and was totally capable of using them again. If Saddam never had WMD, explain the gassing of the Iraninans and the Kurd. How about the super gun Saddam was building that could launch a shell to reach Israel or worse, shells that could reach space and kill satellites? All of this was Saddam's ambition. If such a gun can shoot a shell into space, the same gun could firea a shell that could reach a continent 8000 miles away.

jchung
09-07-2006, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jchung:
Well WK as your list shows some of the largest publications are missing from that list. The NY Times and the Washington Post. Two very large and very liberal publications.

These are entities owned by Rupert Murdock's News Corperation and not others owned by Cox, Time-Warner or others. That is why the Times and The Post aren't listed, he doesn't own them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually that was my point. Sorry I did not make it very clear. I was making the point that some of the biggest publications with a clear liberal bias are not on the list.

DonkeyElephant
09-07-2006, 09:57 AM
Knight,

You keep mentioning things that occurred BEFORE we came in and romped Saddam in 1991. After 1991, he did not aggressively attack his neighbors.

The USA is the only country to EVER use a nuclear weapon in combat. By your logic, since that happened 65 years ago, the UN should be working on disarming the USA's weapons and calling for a change of Gov't. That hasn't happened though. Why not?

In the 1800s, we aggressively attacked our neighbors to exact "Manifest Destiney." We nearly decimated the Native American population. It's a stretch, but you could call it a mild form of genocide, if there is such a thing as a "mild form." Clearly, we are an aggressive country that needs to be stopped, right?

The world is dynamic. What happened in the Gulf Region up to 1991 isn't necessarily going to happen in 2003. Mostly because Saddam's country was in economic shambles after the Gulf War and never recovered because of U.S. sanctions. Saddam was unable to export Iraq's most valuable commodoty: oil. Maybe he wanted such a weapon that could destroy satallites, but he was a long way from getting it.

Yes, Saddam failed to meet UN demands following the Gulf War and kept blocking weapons inspectors. But that was never the primary reason sited for going to war in Iraq by Bush. Heck, that wasn't even a reason mentioned at all. The reasons sited were that we automatically assumed that Saddam had WMDs (most likely false) that were being sold to Terrorists (definitely false) that could strike US soil at any moment (false). Saddam was deemed an "imminent threat" to our security (false).

WhiteKnight77
09-07-2006, 04:58 PM
Yes, the US has used nuclear weapons, but not since then have we. I also agree that we probably could have gotten land in different ways than taking them forcefully (we really did Indian nations wrong), but that is part of our sordid past.

If you really want to look at how aggressive the US is, why did it take so long for the US to enter either WW1 or WW2? We were just as happy as to not be in either at the start and would have sat back in an isolationist state, but we had citizens killed or attacked without provocation. One has to remember that those who forget history tend to repeat it.

Now why didn't Saddam use chemical weapons on us when we kicked his army out of Kuwait or again when we went back in there to enforce resolutions, I can't tell you. Still he had the means to do so. Oh, Saddam was able to sell oil. The UN Food for Oil program was put in place and ended up being mismanaged by the UN. Oil he sold illegally to neighbors had the money being used to buy weapons and other stuff from both France and Germany (this from those who have served since 2003). This is why France and Germany didn't want us to go back in. The program was a failure by the UN to ensure that it was actually spent on food and medicine for those who needed it. Saddam did sell oil.


The United States and other members of the
United Nations Security Council were aware of billions of dollars in oil sales by Iraq
to its neighbors in violation of the U.N. sanctions regime and outside of the OFFP,
but did not take action to punish states engaged in illicit oil trading with Saddam
Hussein‚‚ā¨ôs regime. Successive Administrations issued annual waivers to Congress
exempting Turkey and Jordan from unilateral U.S. sanctions for their violations of
the U.N. oil embargo on Iraq. Until 2002, the United States argued that continued
U.N. sanctions were critical to preventing Iraq from acquiring equipment that could
be used to reconstitute banned weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. In
2002, the Bush Administration asserted that sanctions were not sufficient to contain
a mounting threat from Saddam Hussein‚‚ā¨ôs regime and the Administration decided
that the military overthrow of that regime had become necessary.

This from the Iraq: Oil-For-Food Program, Illicit Trade, and Investigations (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL30472.pdf#search=%22iraqi%20food%20for%20oil%20p rogram%22) report for Congress.

I remember watching Colin Powell, then Secretary of State go to the UN and show pics of Iraqis holding up inspectors while trucks were pulling out the back of compounds. WMD was the pretext of going back into Iraq and the possiblity of Saddam arming terrorists with said weapons, not that they were being sold to them.

DJ-SLEV3N
09-09-2006, 04:44 PM
lol Bush is a funny guy I must say

*Bush* "What did Iraq have to do with what?"

*Reporter* "The attack on the World Trade Center"

*Bush* "Nothing"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIqVID3OzQE&mode=related&search=

DonkeyElephant
09-09-2006, 06:01 PM
There is a nice 300+ page report that was just released yesterday that pretty much confirms that Saddam was nowhere near an imminent threat to the U.S., that he was not cooperating with Al Qaeda (in fact, he was actively seeking them himself), and that he did not have any biological or nuclear weapons programs in effect at the time of our invasion.

Omega_224
09-09-2006, 06:14 PM
People seem to confuse 9/11 with the invasion of Iraq. We invaded AFGHANISTAN because of 9/11. We invaded Iraq 'cause Saddam was an ***.

DJ-SLEV3N
09-09-2006, 06:40 PM
I believe Cheney had claimed that Iraq was linked to "Al Qaeda" therefor having ties to 9/11.

MDS_Geist
09-13-2006, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by DJ-SLEV3N:
I believe Cheney had claimed that Iraq was linked to "Al Qaeda" therefor having ties to 9/11.

Source?

DJ-SLEV3N
09-13-2006, 06:53 AM
http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id169.html

CovertKi11
09-13-2006, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Omega_224:
People seem to confuse 9/11 with the invasion of Iraq. We invaded AFGHANISTAN because of 9/11. We invaded Iraq 'cause Saddam was an ***. An *** you put in power. Kind of how you funded, supported and armed the Taliban when the Soviets were in Afghanistan.

TFS_Jackie edit: CovertKi11, this thread is still open because those involved have done a good job of not name calling and finger pointing. So, unless you have solid evidence that Omega_224 is responsable for putting Saddam in power and funding the Taliban as you claim..


Originally posted by CovertKi11:
An *** you put in power. Kind of how you funded, supported and armed the Taliban when the Soviets were in Afghanistan.

...then I would suggest that comments like that be avoided in the future.

Edit: Jackie, you know I would never want a political debate shut down on these forums. They never last long enough on these forums as it is and I always enjoy a good debate. I was referring to the American government in general when I mentioned the Taliban/Saddam/Mujhadeen/whoever was armed, supported and funded. I don't really believe Omega himself has the resources to be funding quasi-terrorist organizations. It's no secret that some organizations currently on the US terrorist group list were funded by the US government in the past.

Omega said 'People seem to confuse 9/11 with the invasion of Iraq. We invaded AFGHANISTAN because of 9/11. We invaded Iraq 'cause Saddam was an ***.' Seeing as Omega is including himself on the side of the Americans who funded said organizations, I should treat him as such, no?

MDS_Geist
09-13-2006, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by CovertKi11:
An *** you put in power. Kind of how you funded, supported and armed the Taliban when the Soviets were in Afghanistan.

Put in power by an entirely different administration just like an entirely different administration funded the mujahdeen (not the Taliban, most the people the US funded were the Norther Alliance folks) against the Soviets. So that logic of yours doesn't work so well.

vanhalen_678
09-15-2006, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Melonie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DJ-SLEV3N:
The thing is, wasnt there a admitted intelligents failure? Im sorry but Bush is way to inconsistent for me to trust as a president, you cant expect me to forgot that he admitted all this stuff then come to find out there is these so called WMD's? It just doesnt make any sense really, plus where is the concrete proof that these were gonna be used against the US? I thought this war was to protect our country. I dont give bush permission to put our troops in danger for another countrys wellbeing, I just dont beleive in that.

Our country was threatened, and additionally, 9/11 was an attack. Not by Saddam personally, but by the terrorist, which is another reason why we are there. If we never went to Iraq, Al Zarqawi would still be alive and Saddam would still be in power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you do realize that new information could have come up so he had to change what he said...or have you not reached that conclusion?