Chemical weapons found?
taranaki
08-09-2003, 05:32 PM
Let's invade,depose the head of state,and kill his kids.
(AP) A federal judge cleared the way Friday for the Army to begin incinerating Cold War-era chemical weapons at a military facility in Alabama, rejecting environmentalists' claims that the process will endanger nearby residents.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson denied a request from an environmental group for a temporary restraining order to block the startup of the incinerator at the Anniston Army Depot.
At a hearing, Jackson said the harm the plaintiffs claimed would come from the incineration "is purely speculative at this time."
The incinerator, located about 50 miles east of Birmingham, would be the nation's first in a populated area. Emergency planners say about 35,000 people live within nine miles of the plant, which under the Army's plan would destroy some 2,254 tons of nerve agents and mustard gas over seven years.
The Chemical Weapons Working Group had asked Jackson to intervene, citing concerns about the risk to the public in case of an accidental leak. The Army insists incineration is a safe way to dispose of the weapons, which have been stored at the depot for decades.
The burning was to begin Wednesday, but the military agreed to a delay so the hearing before Jackson could be held.
Prior to the hearing, Army spokesman Mike Abrams said that if Jackson sided with the military, trial burns could begin as soon as Saturday.
"We believe the sooner we start the better off this community is," he said Thursday.
About 19,000 people who live near the depot have yet to pick up protective hoods, air filters and other gear being distributed in case of an accidental release of nerve agent, and officials still are installing safety equipment at some schools.
Also, the Army revealed this week it plans to evacuate more than 3,000 people who work at the depot during any chemical release rather than issuing them safety equipment in advance.
Craig Williams, executive director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group, called the idea of quickly evacuating so many workers during an emergency "totally insane."
But depot spokesman Joan Gustafson defended the plan as more practical than leaving workers at the installation during an accident.
"We're comfortable with the plan," said Everett Kelley, president of Local 1945 of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents plant workers. "The issue with us isn't with the incinerator, it's storing the chemicals. The real danger is having them sit here."
About 7 percent of the nation's aging stockpile of chemical weapons is stored in dirt-covered concrete bunkers at the depot. The United States agreed to destroy the munitions under an international treaty.
(AP) A federal judge cleared the way Friday for the Army to begin incinerating Cold War-era chemical weapons at a military facility in Alabama, rejecting environmentalists' claims that the process will endanger nearby residents.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson denied a request from an environmental group for a temporary restraining order to block the startup of the incinerator at the Anniston Army Depot.
At a hearing, Jackson said the harm the plaintiffs claimed would come from the incineration "is purely speculative at this time."
The incinerator, located about 50 miles east of Birmingham, would be the nation's first in a populated area. Emergency planners say about 35,000 people live within nine miles of the plant, which under the Army's plan would destroy some 2,254 tons of nerve agents and mustard gas over seven years.
The Chemical Weapons Working Group had asked Jackson to intervene, citing concerns about the risk to the public in case of an accidental leak. The Army insists incineration is a safe way to dispose of the weapons, which have been stored at the depot for decades.
The burning was to begin Wednesday, but the military agreed to a delay so the hearing before Jackson could be held.
Prior to the hearing, Army spokesman Mike Abrams said that if Jackson sided with the military, trial burns could begin as soon as Saturday.
"We believe the sooner we start the better off this community is," he said Thursday.
About 19,000 people who live near the depot have yet to pick up protective hoods, air filters and other gear being distributed in case of an accidental release of nerve agent, and officials still are installing safety equipment at some schools.
Also, the Army revealed this week it plans to evacuate more than 3,000 people who work at the depot during any chemical release rather than issuing them safety equipment in advance.
Craig Williams, executive director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group, called the idea of quickly evacuating so many workers during an emergency "totally insane."
But depot spokesman Joan Gustafson defended the plan as more practical than leaving workers at the installation during an accident.
"We're comfortable with the plan," said Everett Kelley, president of Local 1945 of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents plant workers. "The issue with us isn't with the incinerator, it's storing the chemicals. The real danger is having them sit here."
About 7 percent of the nation's aging stockpile of chemical weapons is stored in dirt-covered concrete bunkers at the depot. The United States agreed to destroy the munitions under an international treaty.
Veyron
08-09-2003, 09:05 PM
Let's invade,depose the head of state,and kill his kids.
Who?
Who?
Marc04
08-10-2003, 09:03 PM
I'm thinking Geroge Bush
Very nice find taranaki, i read this in my paper the other day and laughed. Seems we can find WMD every where, just not were we say they are.
Very nice find taranaki, i read this in my paper the other day and laughed. Seems we can find WMD every where, just not were we say they are.
taranaki
08-11-2003, 03:11 AM
It rather smacks of hipocrisy,doesn't it?:tongue:
Worse yet,in their haste to be rid of these embarrassing and morally questionable weapons,the powers that be appear totally unable to grasp the concept that they are dealing with a hazardous substance the like of which has never been destroyed in large quantities on U.S.soil before......has it?
The concern of local residents regarding the disposal of these weapons raises another question.How much of this foul garbage is buried in bunkers around the U.S.?Perhaps the U.N.should send a team of weapons inspectors into the U.S.,and demand that George provide them with a full list of his strategic weapons and plans for future weapons development?If Uncle Sam refuses to comply,we could invade the U.S. and depose their dangerous leader.
Of course,such an idea is utter horseshit.
But then it appears to be the entire argument for sending U.S. and British troops into Iraq.
Worse yet,in their haste to be rid of these embarrassing and morally questionable weapons,the powers that be appear totally unable to grasp the concept that they are dealing with a hazardous substance the like of which has never been destroyed in large quantities on U.S.soil before......has it?
The concern of local residents regarding the disposal of these weapons raises another question.How much of this foul garbage is buried in bunkers around the U.S.?Perhaps the U.N.should send a team of weapons inspectors into the U.S.,and demand that George provide them with a full list of his strategic weapons and plans for future weapons development?If Uncle Sam refuses to comply,we could invade the U.S. and depose their dangerous leader.
Of course,such an idea is utter horseshit.
But then it appears to be the entire argument for sending U.S. and British troops into Iraq.
Veyron
08-11-2003, 09:25 AM
Uncle Sam refuses to comply,we could invade the U.S. and depose their dangerous leader.
We never used them on our own people like Saddam did on his own and all the dead in those mass graves, but if they screw up this clean up, it might well happen by accident. :rolleyes:
We never used them on our own people like Saddam did on his own and all the dead in those mass graves, but if they screw up this clean up, it might well happen by accident. :rolleyes:
YogsVR4
08-11-2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by taranaki
Perhaps the U.N.should send a team of weapons inspectors into the U.S.,and demand that George provide them with a full list of his strategic weapons and plans for future weapons development?If Uncle Sam refuses to comply,we could invade the U.S. and depose their dangerous leader.
Of course,such an idea is utter horseshit.
:lol: The UN is scared of its own shadow. They pussyfooted around Iraq. They're currently scared shitless by North Korea. It would be funny to watch them pass a resolution (once the US finally leaves the UN) to send inspectors here. :lol: I know it wouldn't do that in reality, but since the UN lives in a fantasy world anyway we can play the "what if" game.
Perhaps the U.N.should send a team of weapons inspectors into the U.S.,and demand that George provide them with a full list of his strategic weapons and plans for future weapons development?If Uncle Sam refuses to comply,we could invade the U.S. and depose their dangerous leader.
Of course,such an idea is utter horseshit.
:lol: The UN is scared of its own shadow. They pussyfooted around Iraq. They're currently scared shitless by North Korea. It would be funny to watch them pass a resolution (once the US finally leaves the UN) to send inspectors here. :lol: I know it wouldn't do that in reality, but since the UN lives in a fantasy world anyway we can play the "what if" game.
Veyron
08-11-2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
:lol: The UN is scared of its own shadow. They pussyfooted around Iraq. They're currently scared shitless by North Korea. It would be funny to watch them pass a resolution (once the US finally leaves the UN) to send inspectors here. :lol: I know it wouldn't do that in reality, but since the UN lives in a fantasy world anyway we can play the "what if" game.
You're right.
:lol: The UN is scared of its own shadow. They pussyfooted around Iraq. They're currently scared shitless by North Korea. It would be funny to watch them pass a resolution (once the US finally leaves the UN) to send inspectors here. :lol: I know it wouldn't do that in reality, but since the UN lives in a fantasy world anyway we can play the "what if" game.
You're right.
taranaki
08-12-2003, 02:13 AM
Yes Yogs,you are in fantasy land with your thoughts on the UN.:rolleyes:
Veyron
08-12-2003, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by taranaki
Yes Yogs,you are in fantasy land with your thoughts on the UN.:rolleyes:
Yes, he really is. The UN isn't scared to do anything, it just isn't their purpose to help unite the world. The UN is a panel of thugs who's sole purpose is to unite against the USA and devise schemes to extort money from the USA. The reason they don't do anything is because their too busy getting their palms greased. An Iraqi official on that board to represent human rights, give me a break, that's just one example of the lunacy that abounds at the UN. We need to leave it now.
Yes Yogs,you are in fantasy land with your thoughts on the UN.:rolleyes:
Yes, he really is. The UN isn't scared to do anything, it just isn't their purpose to help unite the world. The UN is a panel of thugs who's sole purpose is to unite against the USA and devise schemes to extort money from the USA. The reason they don't do anything is because their too busy getting their palms greased. An Iraqi official on that board to represent human rights, give me a break, that's just one example of the lunacy that abounds at the UN. We need to leave it now.
YogsVR4
08-12-2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by taranaki
Yes Yogs,you are in fantasy land with your thoughts on the UN.:rolleyes:
Like you said, the idea of sending inspectors to the US is horseshit.
I just thought I'd expand on that definition a bit. The UN is a steaming pile of horseshit. At best it would disband. At minimum the US should leave it and help Toronto in its bid to move the rest of that ineffective group to our neighbors up north.
The UN is run by cowards. They’ll stand up to the US but cower before North Korea. They’ll stand on their (fucked up) principles with the US but appease dictators and tyrants. They’ll be ready to face the US in open debate but afraid to face China over Tibet or Taiwan.
The UN is fucking useless. More an more people here realize it. Every year a resolution is brought before the house of representatives to withdraw the US from the UN. Each year it gains support. It will take several more years, but the day will come when the UN goes the way of the League of Nations – shit canned like the useless bureaucratic cesspool it is.
Yes Yogs,you are in fantasy land with your thoughts on the UN.:rolleyes:
Like you said, the idea of sending inspectors to the US is horseshit.
I just thought I'd expand on that definition a bit. The UN is a steaming pile of horseshit. At best it would disband. At minimum the US should leave it and help Toronto in its bid to move the rest of that ineffective group to our neighbors up north.
The UN is run by cowards. They’ll stand up to the US but cower before North Korea. They’ll stand on their (fucked up) principles with the US but appease dictators and tyrants. They’ll be ready to face the US in open debate but afraid to face China over Tibet or Taiwan.
The UN is fucking useless. More an more people here realize it. Every year a resolution is brought before the house of representatives to withdraw the US from the UN. Each year it gains support. It will take several more years, but the day will come when the UN goes the way of the League of Nations – shit canned like the useless bureaucratic cesspool it is.
V-8Fan
08-12-2003, 01:34 PM
Veyron, you hit the nail on the head. SCREW the UN, get them the hell out of here! They are irrelevant.
A challenge to those who continue criticizing the United States on its Iraq policy: do you have personal KNOWLEDGE that there are no weapons of mass destruction buried or otherwise hidden in Iraq? Oh, you don't? I thought not.
Back to the UN issue...I will personally fire on UN troops if I see them operating in the US, along with a couple million other ARMED civilians. Better to die on my feet than to live on my knees.
A challenge to those who continue criticizing the United States on its Iraq policy: do you have personal KNOWLEDGE that there are no weapons of mass destruction buried or otherwise hidden in Iraq? Oh, you don't? I thought not.
Back to the UN issue...I will personally fire on UN troops if I see them operating in the US, along with a couple million other ARMED civilians. Better to die on my feet than to live on my knees.
taranaki
08-14-2003, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by V-8Fan
A challenge to those who continue criticizing the United States on its Iraq policy: do you have personal KNOWLEDGE that there are no weapons of mass destruction buried or otherwise hidden in Iraq? Oh, you don't? I thought not.
I am satisfied that if they were there,the U.S. intelligence services would have known exactly where they were.The millions of overjoyed civilians liberated by U.S.troops would be leading the Marines straight to stockpiles of toxic shells.I'm even prepared to concede that Saddam was a big enough shit to use them without hesitation,if he had them.But,they don't,they didn't,and he couldn't,which is why I am confident that they don't exist.By your argument,do you have a single shred of evidence,or personal knowledge that they do exist?If so,George would love to hear from you,it would certainly get him out of a credibility problem....
Originally posted by V-8Fan
Back to the UN issue...I will personally fire on UN troops if I see them operating in the US, along with a couple million other ARMED civilians. Better to die on my feet than to live on my knees.
As I said before[and you missed the point before]
Four legs good,Two legs bad! Four legs good,Two legs bad!
A quote from George Orwell's Animal Farm.ONE ANIMAL COMES UP WITH A SIMPLE PIECE OF RHETORIC,AND THE OTHERS FOLLOW IT BLINDLY,DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE CLEARLY FAULTS IN THE ARGUMENT.
As far as I can see,you are firmly in the 'hell with the facts,I'll stick to some crappy old slogans' school of thought.Or rather, un-thought.
A challenge to those who continue criticizing the United States on its Iraq policy: do you have personal KNOWLEDGE that there are no weapons of mass destruction buried or otherwise hidden in Iraq? Oh, you don't? I thought not.
I am satisfied that if they were there,the U.S. intelligence services would have known exactly where they were.The millions of overjoyed civilians liberated by U.S.troops would be leading the Marines straight to stockpiles of toxic shells.I'm even prepared to concede that Saddam was a big enough shit to use them without hesitation,if he had them.But,they don't,they didn't,and he couldn't,which is why I am confident that they don't exist.By your argument,do you have a single shred of evidence,or personal knowledge that they do exist?If so,George would love to hear from you,it would certainly get him out of a credibility problem....
Originally posted by V-8Fan
Back to the UN issue...I will personally fire on UN troops if I see them operating in the US, along with a couple million other ARMED civilians. Better to die on my feet than to live on my knees.
As I said before[and you missed the point before]
Four legs good,Two legs bad! Four legs good,Two legs bad!
A quote from George Orwell's Animal Farm.ONE ANIMAL COMES UP WITH A SIMPLE PIECE OF RHETORIC,AND THE OTHERS FOLLOW IT BLINDLY,DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE CLEARLY FAULTS IN THE ARGUMENT.
As far as I can see,you are firmly in the 'hell with the facts,I'll stick to some crappy old slogans' school of thought.Or rather, un-thought.
V-8Fan
08-14-2003, 08:00 AM
"I am satisfied that if they were there,the U.S. intelligence services would have known exactly where they were."
You're satisfied with any anti-American viewpoint your handlers can come up with. Are you real, or are you Memorex?
I grow tired of listening to, or rather reading, your nonsense. You may have this silly forum back, and you can all practice your leftist talking points on one another.
You're satisfied with any anti-American viewpoint your handlers can come up with. Are you real, or are you Memorex?
I grow tired of listening to, or rather reading, your nonsense. You may have this silly forum back, and you can all practice your leftist talking points on one another.
YogsVR4
08-14-2003, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by V-8Fan
You may have this silly forum back, and you can all practice your leftist talking points on one another.
Perhaps you should review the left vs right thread at the top of this forum. :rolleyes:
Your rhetoric is just as boisterous as those coming in from the left. Don’t get bent out of shape when you’re both behaving the same way.
You may have this silly forum back, and you can all practice your leftist talking points on one another.
Perhaps you should review the left vs right thread at the top of this forum. :rolleyes:
Your rhetoric is just as boisterous as those coming in from the left. Don’t get bent out of shape when you’re both behaving the same way.
Veyron
08-14-2003, 10:17 AM
Read this and decide for yourself if Saddam ever had chemical weapons and would hesitate to use them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1877161.stm
Then read this, a pathetic cat and mouse/shell game played by Saddam and tolerated by the UN.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm
Now decide if the world should have given him more time, or take a chance that he wasn't networking with Al Queada etc.
He burried jet planes, they found thousands of chemical suits, thousands of dead were found in several mass graves, the people were being starved. Even if the Iraqi's were making ends meet, he wasn't maintaining infrastructure like power/water supplies necessary to sustain civilization.
Nobody else was ever going to do anything about this, but as a result of his own decision to be unwilling to comply, to give a damn and one fraction of his power to his people, he orchestrated his own demise, 12 years and 17 UN resolutions later.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1877161.stm
Then read this, a pathetic cat and mouse/shell game played by Saddam and tolerated by the UN.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm
Now decide if the world should have given him more time, or take a chance that he wasn't networking with Al Queada etc.
He burried jet planes, they found thousands of chemical suits, thousands of dead were found in several mass graves, the people were being starved. Even if the Iraqi's were making ends meet, he wasn't maintaining infrastructure like power/water supplies necessary to sustain civilization.
Nobody else was ever going to do anything about this, but as a result of his own decision to be unwilling to comply, to give a damn and one fraction of his power to his people, he orchestrated his own demise, 12 years and 17 UN resolutions later.
freakray
08-14-2003, 10:39 AM
I stayed out of this thread too long.
Brian, although your first link offers credibility to the fact that Saddam had chemicals weapons, 14 years ago, the question now is whether he had any such weapons 4 months ago.
In response to an prior argument of yours, Iraq was invaded on the premise of being a threat to other nations by its possession of chemical weapons and the like. How can you justify a statement like "We never used them on our own people like Saddam did" which although being correct is totally irrelevant to the point here.
The USA produced the chemicals it is now destroying in order to use them on other countries, Saddam was accused of doing the same, do you see the point here?
You yourself state that Saddam ignored the UN, so when did it become the USA's job to enforce UN resolutions?
V8-fan, where did you come from, so we know where to send you back to.
How is stating that the US Intelligence group should know exactly where things are if they are indeed there anti-American?
It sounded to me like Naki was giving the said intelligence agency much more credit than they deserve in light of the events of the last couple of months.
Brian, although your first link offers credibility to the fact that Saddam had chemicals weapons, 14 years ago, the question now is whether he had any such weapons 4 months ago.
In response to an prior argument of yours, Iraq was invaded on the premise of being a threat to other nations by its possession of chemical weapons and the like. How can you justify a statement like "We never used them on our own people like Saddam did" which although being correct is totally irrelevant to the point here.
The USA produced the chemicals it is now destroying in order to use them on other countries, Saddam was accused of doing the same, do you see the point here?
You yourself state that Saddam ignored the UN, so when did it become the USA's job to enforce UN resolutions?
V8-fan, where did you come from, so we know where to send you back to.
How is stating that the US Intelligence group should know exactly where things are if they are indeed there anti-American?
It sounded to me like Naki was giving the said intelligence agency much more credit than they deserve in light of the events of the last couple of months.
Veyron
08-14-2003, 10:55 AM
We never threatened or used this type weapon on other countries, and we were no longer willing to take the chance that he wouldn't again so we stepped up to enforce the resolutions. Believe a lot of countries are glad it wasn't them who had to.
I'm not going to drive a car that doesn't have all the wheels on it, we are still over ther searching and fighting regime stragglers at the same time. I'm patient and confident we'll find plenty of what he said he didn't have.
I'm not going to drive a car that doesn't have all the wheels on it, we are still over ther searching and fighting regime stragglers at the same time. I'm patient and confident we'll find plenty of what he said he didn't have.
taranaki
08-16-2003, 04:41 AM
I'm patient and confident we'll find plenty of what he said he didn't have.
Why?
Between the thousands of troops on the ground,the multi-billion dollar intelligence network that the US has in place around the globe and in space,and the thousands of hungry Iraqis who would jump at the chance of claiming some of the reward money if they had information worth selling,the U.S. has yet to come up with a single incriminating weapon,a single round of chemical ordinance,a single cache of weapons grade chemicals,or a single incriminating e-mail or written order that leads to any of the above.
So please expand,WHY do you believe in a future that flies in the face of the evidence to date?
Why?
Between the thousands of troops on the ground,the multi-billion dollar intelligence network that the US has in place around the globe and in space,and the thousands of hungry Iraqis who would jump at the chance of claiming some of the reward money if they had information worth selling,the U.S. has yet to come up with a single incriminating weapon,a single round of chemical ordinance,a single cache of weapons grade chemicals,or a single incriminating e-mail or written order that leads to any of the above.
So please expand,WHY do you believe in a future that flies in the face of the evidence to date?
YogsVR4
08-16-2003, 09:20 AM
Because you are wrong. They have incriminating evidence. They have emails. They have letters. What they haven't found yet is the actual weapons.
Veyron
08-16-2003, 10:24 AM
We also have this:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/
What does it mean? We don't know yet, it's just an example of what could be found. It's an in progress procedure that is far from finished.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/
What does it mean? We don't know yet, it's just an example of what could be found. It's an in progress procedure that is far from finished.
freakray
08-16-2003, 11:53 AM
We also have this:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/
What does it mean? We don't know yet, it's just an example of what could be found. It's an in progress procedure that is far from finished.
That article has been discussed here before.
What does it mean, nothing!!
It means that Iraq HAD a nuclear program 12 years ago, it doesn't mean they had one now.
U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon -- but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking.
Even the US officials admitted it wasn't proof of anything except that they didn't destroy everything like they were meant to after the Gulf War.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/
What does it mean? We don't know yet, it's just an example of what could be found. It's an in progress procedure that is far from finished.
That article has been discussed here before.
What does it mean, nothing!!
It means that Iraq HAD a nuclear program 12 years ago, it doesn't mean they had one now.
U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon -- but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking.
Even the US officials admitted it wasn't proof of anything except that they didn't destroy everything like they were meant to after the Gulf War.
Veyron
08-16-2003, 12:35 PM
It means that Iraq HAD a nuclear program 12 years ago, it doesn't mean they had one now.
I get that, but he also had chance after chance to prove by proper procedures that he was complying with the resolutions, instead he was defiant to the very end. He never showed proof that he destroyed or dismantled, he also stalled inspectors and wouldn't let them into certain areas after he greed to. That's the main reason a action of force was taken, his own doing.
Let me clarify my position on the WMD search/supposed bad intel situation. I don't really care if we find any or not, he proved to the world to be a supporter of terrorist and he himself a brutal murdering dictator. We are there to protect our interest and we shouldn't care what the rest of the world's opinion is of that.
I believe history will prove that removing him from power in that region was an important act and a good start of cleaning up some dangerous networking run amuck. We and our way of life are under attack by said network so I'm not going to feel bad or bust Bush's chops for fighting back to weaken and put these thugs on the run. War is politics by other means, Saddam designed his own empass, I'm glad we did what we did and are doing.
The only people here that really disagree with it, yet agree the fall of Saddam is a good thing, are those who vehemently oppose Bush. Much of it is useless finger pointing and poitical positioning, nothing more. The ones that can't see the fall of Saddam as a good thing are just intellectually dishonest or niave IMO.
One of the earliest resolutions approved the use of force so we didn't violate anything there. IMO the sales pitch to the American people to get the country behind the effort really wasn't necessary from what I experienced just hearing people talk, we were already behind it, even many of the Bush opposition. Of course they started piling on the "reason we went" argument afterwards.
So people can keep harping on the lack of a WMD find all they want to, and simply ignore the fact that the search is ongoing. It gives them a reason to spur on the opposition. It's much like an argument over abortion, the opinions are so deeply held that no amount of proof or reasoning is going to change the other's mind.
With all that said, do I fear my own government? Believe me, I do!
I get that, but he also had chance after chance to prove by proper procedures that he was complying with the resolutions, instead he was defiant to the very end. He never showed proof that he destroyed or dismantled, he also stalled inspectors and wouldn't let them into certain areas after he greed to. That's the main reason a action of force was taken, his own doing.
Let me clarify my position on the WMD search/supposed bad intel situation. I don't really care if we find any or not, he proved to the world to be a supporter of terrorist and he himself a brutal murdering dictator. We are there to protect our interest and we shouldn't care what the rest of the world's opinion is of that.
I believe history will prove that removing him from power in that region was an important act and a good start of cleaning up some dangerous networking run amuck. We and our way of life are under attack by said network so I'm not going to feel bad or bust Bush's chops for fighting back to weaken and put these thugs on the run. War is politics by other means, Saddam designed his own empass, I'm glad we did what we did and are doing.
The only people here that really disagree with it, yet agree the fall of Saddam is a good thing, are those who vehemently oppose Bush. Much of it is useless finger pointing and poitical positioning, nothing more. The ones that can't see the fall of Saddam as a good thing are just intellectually dishonest or niave IMO.
One of the earliest resolutions approved the use of force so we didn't violate anything there. IMO the sales pitch to the American people to get the country behind the effort really wasn't necessary from what I experienced just hearing people talk, we were already behind it, even many of the Bush opposition. Of course they started piling on the "reason we went" argument afterwards.
So people can keep harping on the lack of a WMD find all they want to, and simply ignore the fact that the search is ongoing. It gives them a reason to spur on the opposition. It's much like an argument over abortion, the opinions are so deeply held that no amount of proof or reasoning is going to change the other's mind.
With all that said, do I fear my own government? Believe me, I do!
taranaki
08-16-2003, 04:18 PM
From the people who brought you "The quest for the Holy Grail"...
Presenting....
"The search for the WMD"
We never have to find anything,but if we keep telling people that it exists out there,they'll all believe it eventually.Besides,all the time we're herelooking for WMD,we may as well keep pumping that lovely black gold,eh?
There are no WMD's.Game over,George got it wrong.
Presenting....
"The search for the WMD"
We never have to find anything,but if we keep telling people that it exists out there,they'll all believe it eventually.Besides,all the time we're herelooking for WMD,we may as well keep pumping that lovely black gold,eh?
There are no WMD's.Game over,George got it wrong.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026