The Return of Al Qaeda

[smoke20 0]

All it will take is another 9/11 or WORSE and this thread is a moot point! Then EVERYONE on this thread, that are saying we are killing too many people will change thier mind.

reach449

personally i think a lot of us (including me) just like a good arguement.

[homesick_american 1]

It's like when you kick down a fire ant mound....come back the next day and you have a dozen of them.

Fire ants are not human beings plotting to kill us are they..

You get the 'pointing out the obvious' award. It's an analogy. Did they not have analogies where you grew up?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Yes I think he had WMD's.

So I guess you're calling our President a liar. I expected that kind of snide insinuation about our Commander In Chief from a leftie, not you.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

i'm still not clear on the WMD definition. if WMD is only nukes..they never found that evidence. but is WMD includes chemicals...ya he had them.

so what is the definition of WMD?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction

Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a term used to describe a massive weapon with the capacity to indiscriminately kill or incapacitate. The phrase broadly encompasses several areas of weapon synthesis, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and, increasingly, radiological weapons.

As Saddam most certainly had used mustard-gas during Iran-Iraq war, as well as chemicals and incendiaries against Kurds (and other opposition), there isn't much question that he had WMD's.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... there isn't much question that he had WMD's.

So Gary isn't the only one insinuating that the President is a liar. You're doing it too! Wow.

President Bush: Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't...

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...8/20060821.html

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

All it will take is another 9/11 or WORSE and this thread is a moot point! Then EVERYONE on this thread, that are saying we are killing too many people will change thier mind.

reach449

Maybe. But I for one am not convinced that "doing an Iraq" on other countries in the region is likely to prevent that from happening. Quite the opposite in fact.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i'm still not clear on the WMD definition. if WMD is only nukes..they never found that evidence. but is WMD includes chemicals...ya he had them.

so what is the definition of WMD?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction

Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a term used to describe a massive weapon with the capacity to indiscriminately kill or incapacitate. The phrase broadly encompasses several areas of weapon synthesis, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and, increasingly, radiological weapons.

As Saddam most certainly had used mustard-gas during Iran-Iraq war, as well as chemicals and incendiaries against Kurds (and other opposition), there isn't much question that he had WMD's.

Certainly not if the person who sold them to him still has the receipts. Remember the question wasn't simply about the prescence of WMD, as much as the language might have gotten distorted over time to that effect - but about advanced programmes of research, manufacturing, and delivery. This is what has not been found - whether or not they find decaying 15 year old shells buried in a bunker somewhere is irrelevant. It still doesn't amount to an active research & manufacturing operation. This is what was claimed and which was presented to the UN security council as the primary rationale for the war. The fact that this turned out to be bogus or at least highly exaggerated was the reason that the justifications for the war from Bush and Blair shifted to secondary rationales about "regime change" and "liberating oppressed peoples".

Lets not pretend that a 15 year old ashtray is the same as a newly smoking gun. That smoking gun has yet to be found - and there is to date no direct physical evidence of any advanced research and manufacturing program. None. Zippo. Nada. Zilch.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i'm still not clear on the WMD definition. if WMD is only nukes..they never found that evidence. but is WMD includes chemicals...ya he had them.so what is the definition of WMD?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction

Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a term used to describe a massive weapon with the capacity to indiscriminately kill or incapacitate. The phrase broadly encompasses several areas of weapon synthesis, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and, increasingly, radiological weapons.

As Saddam most certainly had used mustard-gas during Iran-Iraq war, as well as chemicals and incendiaries against Kurds (and other opposition), there isn't much question that he had WMD's.

Certainly not if the person who sold them to him still has the receipts. Remember the question wasn't simply about the prescence of WMD, as much as the language might have gotten distorted over time to that effect - but about advanced programmes of research, manufacturing, and delivery. This is what has not been found - whether or not they find decaying 15 year old shells buried in a bunker somewhere is irrelevant. It still doesn't amount to an active research & manufacturing operation. This is what was claimed and which was presented to the UN security council as the primary rationale for the war. The fact that this turned out to be bogus or at least highly exaggerated was the reason that the justifications for the war from Bush and Blair shifted to secondary rationales about "regime change" and "liberating oppressed peoples".

Lets not pretend that a 15 year old ashtray is the same as a newly smoking gun. That smoking gun has yet to be found - and there is to date no direct physical evidence of any advanced research and manufacturing program. None. Zippo. Nada. Zilch.

If the old Baathist regime had indeed hidden those functional bio and chemical weapons, you best believe that we would have seen some use of them by now.

[GaryC 7]

... there isn't much question that he had WMD's.

So Gary isn't the only one insinuating that the President is a liar. You're doing it too! Wow.

President Bush: Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't...

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...8/20060821.html

Gupt, we got you. Who gives a fukc what you think of Bush.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

i'm still not clear on the WMD definition. if WMD is only nukes..they never found that evidence. but is WMD includes chemicals...ya he had them.so what is the definition of WMD?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction

Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a term used to describe a massive weapon with the capacity to indiscriminately kill or incapacitate. The phrase broadly encompasses several areas of weapon synthesis, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and, increasingly, radiological weapons.

As Saddam most certainly had used mustard-gas during Iran-Iraq war, as well as chemicals and incendiaries against Kurds (and other opposition), there isn't much question that he had WMD's.

Certainly not if the person who sold them to him still has the receipts. Remember the question wasn't simply about the prescence of WMD, as much as the language might have gotten distorted over time to that effect - but about advanced programmes of research, manufacturing, and delivery. This is what has not been found - whether or not they find decaying 15 year old shells buried in a bunker somewhere is irrelevant. It still doesn't amount to an active research & manufacturing operation. This is what was claimed and which was presented to the UN security council as the primary rationale for the war. The fact that this turned out to be bogus or at least highly exaggerated was the reason that the justifications for the war from Bush and Blair shifted to secondary rationales about "regime change" and "liberating oppressed peoples".

Lets not pretend that a 15 year old ashtray is the same as a newly smoking gun. That smoking gun has yet to be found - and there is to date no direct physical evidence of any advanced research and manufacturing program. None. Zippo. Nada. Zilch.

If the old Baathist regime had indeed hidden those functional bio and chemical weapons, you best believe that we would have seen some use of them by now.

All that I stated was that Saddam did have WMD's--however, the question of it is "when?". Certainly, he did during Iran-Iraq war and afterwards at least up to Gulf War (1991). Admittedly, it cannot be said that he rebuilt his WMD program(s) after 1991 (when much of Iraq was trashed due to his intransigence on Kuwait--certainly chem factories were prime targets).

[GaryC 7]

The world isn't black and white, and the for us or against us rhetoric is bull$hit. Its for people who rather remain ignorant.

Never did I say I support Saddam, but I also never said, attacking Iraq was just and the correct course of action.

But if Saddam was so bad, what about all the other places in the world were there are bad leader's killing innocent people, do we need to go invade and kill all them too? Oh wait, some of them have nukes and would nuke the sh!t out of us if it came down to it.

But anyway, we took care of Saddam, oh in a few weeks or so, its been years, what are we still doing there? Does Saddam have a bunch of clones that we are trying to kill too?

Saddam didn't have WMD's or he destroyed them. But he did test chemical weapons on his people. But testing a weapon doesn't mean they were to the point of being considered a WMD. You can have chemical weapons, but its pretty useless if you don't have any way to deliver it effectively.

But hey, look at it another way. The US does have lots of WMD's and a rather incompetent leader who has started an unjust war against another country resulting in many innocent deaths. Following the arguments of Mr Bush and the conservatives who still support this war, doesn't that give justification for the US to be attacked by an outside state?

Tell that to these children. You know not what you speak of.

What about these? No Saddam didn't kill them we did.

So Saddam killing innocent people = bad, the US killing innocent people = good? I mean, you complain about how terrorists cowardly blow innocent people up, but what about our coward bombs being dropped from the sky? they don't always hit the right target. And even if they do, there is likely to be collateral damage. Your so focused on Saddam killing innocent people, thats you cant see whats really going on. We have killed many, many, many people. Many of them women and children. How is our killing of innocents any more justifiable than Saddam's?

Trying to compare Saddams willful murder of his own citizens to the regrettable deaths of innocents in a war is moronic at best. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

So Saddam killing innocent people = bad, the US killing innocent people = good? I mean, you complain about how terrorists cowardly blow innocent people up, but what about our coward bombs being dropped from the sky? they don't always hit the right target. And even if they do, there is likely to be collateral damage. Your so focused on Saddam killing innocent people, thats you cant see whats really going on. We have killed many, many, many people. Many of them women and children. How is our killing of innocents any more justifiable than Saddam's?

Trying to compare Saddams willful murder of his own citizens to the regrettable deaths of innocents in a war is moronic at best. You have no idea what you are talking about.

D&G's comparison here is like comparing Pakistan's 1971 "Operation Searchlight" (the 3.5 million victims of that were all disgruntled citizens of Pakstan who were murdered for daring to vote--for a winning candidate that the military government didn't like) to the Dresden firebombing in WW2--basically, the comparison is invalid!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

All that I stated was that Saddam did have WMD's--however, the question of it is "when?". Certainly, he did during Iran-Iraq war and afterwards at least up to Gulf War (1991). Admittedly, it cannot be said that he rebuilt his WMD program(s) after 1991 (when much of Iraq was trashed due to his intransigence on Kuwait--certainly chem factories were prime targets).

But that's where the problem is I think. That this was used as a justification to go to war... or I should say 'the' justification. And it all seems to be based on unsupported intelligence and hear-say. You would think that if there's a 'reasonable doubt' angle to this it would be reason enough not to do it.

Certainly I don't want to see this strategy continue if this is any indication of how it is to be prosecuted in future.

If the old Baathist regime had indeed hidden those functional bio and chemical weapons, you best believe that we would have seen some use of them by now.

Agreed. If that were the case you would expect that these would have turned up in a car bombing or something by now.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

If the old Baathist regime had indeed hidden those functional bio and chemical weapons, you best believe that we would have seen some use of them by now.

Agreed. If that were the case you would expect that these would have turned up in a car bombing or something by now.

not necessarily. why have them show up and show justification in our being there? :

[Saddle Bronc 124]

If the old Baathist regime had indeed hidden those functional bio and chemical weapons, you best believe that we would have seen some use of them by now.

Agreed. If that were the case you would expect that these would have turned up in a car bombing or something by now.

Not really. WMD's aren't usually very suitable for IED's (such as car bombs); AQ (and other Iraq insurgents) aren't exactly known for having stocks of tanks and field-artillery guns (which could be so used).