The importance of perception

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 23, 2003, 5:49 pm

What, my 5 minute, inbetween work assignments google search wasn't in depth enough for you Miir?

If I can satisfy "shreds of evidence" in 5 minutes, imagine what I could find if I spent a couple hours?

Question is, do you have an open enough mind to consider a change in your opinions.

Otherwise, why bother?

miir · Post by **miir** » April 23, 2003, 8:01 pm

If I can satisfy "shreds of evidence" in 5 minutes, imagine what I could find if I spent a couple hours?

You satified nothing.
Saddam has openly supported the PLO and other Palestinian terror groups for years. Drudging up well known facts does not strengthen any argumnet about Saddam/Iraq supporting international or anti-American terrorist groups.

As for your other 'shred', it is totally invalid as it comes from an unaccredited source based on 11 year old information.

Neziroth · Post by **Neziroth** » April 23, 2003, 9:41 pm

It's so easy to shoot down an idea. Try arguing one.

How about you prove to Hussein isn't linked to anti-american terrorism.

You're screaming for proof that he IS linked to them... let's take the opposite approach. If you're so sure he isn't - then prove it.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 23, 2003, 10:29 pm

Neziroth wrote:It's so easy to shoot down an idea. Try arguing one.

How about you prove to Hussein isn't linked to anti-american terrorism.

You're screaming for proof that he IS linked to them... let's take the opposite approach. If you're so sure he isn't - then prove it.

Do you even understand the basics of debating?
Go back to school, little one.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 23, 2003, 10:51 pm

Neziroth wrote:It's so easy to shoot down an idea. Try arguing one.

How about you prove to Hussein isn't linked to anti-american terrorism.

You're screaming for proof that he IS linked to them... let's take the opposite approach. If you're so sure he isn't - then prove it.

This comes up time and time again when it comes to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. It is absurd to ask someone to prove the non-existence of something. The onus is always on the accusor to provide evidence of his claims. It's basic logic that many laws fall under the umbrella of.

I could come out and say that you are a child rapist and worship satan and you would go to prison for it because it would be absolutely 100% impossible for you to prove that you aren't a child rapist that worshps satan.

This was Bush cabinet logic demanding that Hussein prove to the world he doesnt have weapons of mass destruction. It is beyond infantile to demand proof to baseless accusations.

Proving that Saddam Hussein doesn't have weapons of mass destruction or ties to terrorism is ridiculous. Want do you want? A secret government document that says he doesn't? Does Jesus have to repel down from heaven on a bungee cord and tell you that his dad told him?

So far the most compelling evidence anyone on this board has ever shown that he has WMD's or ties to terrorism is "I just know in my heart that he does." Well gee fucking whiz.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 24, 2003, 12:56 am

A good way to prove that Saddam didn't have banned weapons would be if they could somehow provide explainations for all the circumstantial evidence.

For instance there was found over 5000 of chemical weapon suits stashed away in a school. They also found a bunch of antidotes to common chemical weapons.

If the old regeme could provide a reasonable explaination for those things it would go a long way towards "proving" that they're not hiding something.

Similarly, Iraq had a bad habit of lying on an official basis. I mean just look at their information minister for example. He was denying that US troops were in town even when they were across the street from the press conference.

When faced with the situation of beliving the Colin Powel or beliving Saddam's bunch. I have to lean towards the secretary of state being more accurate.

For past 12 years Saddam's bunch have cheated and retreated on every UN effort to determine their weapon's status.

It gets to the point you just have to go in and look for yourself. You can't trust the promise of a proven liar.

You got ex-scientists talking about how they were instructed to destroy bioweapons two days before the war. You hear from them that they were told to take questionable materials home a day before they were inspected.

You hear of intercepted telephone calls where the speakers talk about double checking their hidden material before the inspectors arrive.

Eye witness interviews say they were hiding stuff. News media discovered and documented a terrorist training camp equipped with instruction manuals about terrorism, and a boeing 707 frame outside where they could practice their attacks.

Where's the proof?

Common sense dictates that there was something shady going on.

The only people not convinced are those with a political agenda to defend.

Why deny that a smoke-choked building doesn't have a fire just because you haven't seen a flame yet?

When you finally see the flames you're going to feel like a fool.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » April 24, 2003, 1:02 am

miir wrote:
You satified nothing.
Saddam has openly supported the PLO and other Palestinian terror groups for years.

Drudging up well known facts does not strengthen any argumnet about Saddam/Iraq supporting international or anti-American terrorist groups.

Errrrm you say that Saddam has openly supported other Palestinian terror groups for years and this does not strengthen any argument about Saddam/Iraq supporting international terrorist groups?

Clearly he supported the PLF...Clearly the PLF was responsible for the Achille Lauro...Curious that Abu Abbas was hangin' loose in Iraq all these years while he was wanted by Italy for this incident including the murder of Klinghoffer during the Achille Lauro Hi-Jacking off the coast of Egypt...

The Achille Lauro Hi-Jacking = International Terrorist Act therefore...

Salis · Post by **Salis** » April 24, 2003, 5:45 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:A good way to prove that Saddam didn't have banned weapons would be if they could somehow provide explainations for all the circumstantial evidence.

For instance there was found over 5000 of chemical weapon suits stashed away in a school. They also found a bunch of antidotes to common chemical weapons.

If the old regeme could provide a reasonable explaination for those things it would go a long way towards "proving" that they're not hiding something.

Similarly, Iraq had a bad habit of lying on an official basis. I mean just look at their information minister for example. He was denying that US troops were in town even when they were across the street from the press conference.

When faced with the situation of beliving the Colin Powel or beliving Saddam's bunch. I have to lean towards the secretary of state being more accurate.

For past 12 years Saddam's bunch have cheated and retreated on every UN effort to determine their weapon's status.

It gets to the point you just have to go in and look for yourself. You can't trust the promise of a proven liar.

You got ex-scientists talking about how they were instructed to destroy bioweapons two days before the war. You hear from them that they were told to take questionable materials home a day before they were inspected.

You hear of intercepted telephone calls where the speakers talk about double checking their hidden material before the inspectors arrive.

Eye witness interviews say they were hiding stuff. News media discovered and documented a terrorist training camp equipped with instruction manuals about terrorism, and a boeing 707 frame outside where they could practice their attacks.

Where's the proof?

Common sense dictates that there was something shady going on.

The only people not convinced are those with a political agenda to defend.

Why deny that a smoke-choked building doesn't have a fire just because you haven't seen a flame yet?

When you finally see the flames you're going to feel like a fool.

cir·cum·stan·tial ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sûrkm-stnshl)
adj.
Of, relating to, or dependent on circumstances.
Of no primary significance; incidental.
Complete and particular; full of detail: a circumstantial report about the debate.
Full of ceremonial display.

OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of incidental evidence doesn't make evidence, it makes OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of incidental evidence. Stop assuming it does until you see EVIDENCE. The entirety of the UK and US bullshit producing spin-doctoring lie factory couldn't put this argument past the United Nations, so can you drop uhh i heard this though dude BECAUSE CLEARLY THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE. Until there is, you should be the one feeling like a fool because you're backing a fucking war based on this premise. Please introduce logic into your thinking.

As for the stupid analogies, if you're walking down a street when there's a bank robbery, and you happen to have the same moustache as the robber, and also the same gun back in your house by your thinking that's some sweet CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence and you should go to jail! Thank god you're not in the legal system.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 24, 2003, 10:18 am

Tell you what,

Post the best article supporting your viewpoint that you can find.

I'd like to read what's convincing you so strongly.

I'll respond with similar effort if it seems you you went to any effort to share.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 24, 2003, 10:31 am

Arborealus wrote: Errrrm you say that Saddam has openly supported other Palestinian terror groups for years and this does not strengthen any argument about Saddam/Iraq supporting international terrorist groups?

Clearly he supported the PLF...Clearly the PLF was responsible for the Achille Lauro...Curious that Abu Abbas was hangin' loose in Iraq all these years while he was wanted by Italy for this incident including the murder of Klinghoffer during the Achille Lauro Hi-Jacking off the coast of Egypt...

The Achille Lauro Hi-Jacking = International Terrorist Act therefore...

The best you can come up with is one incident 18 years ago where one civilian was killed in a botched hijacking by a Palestinian group that had no association with Iraq at the time? At the time of the hijacking, the PLF was based in Tunisia (why hasn't the USA invaded and liberated Tunisia?).

I've been unable to find any international Palestinian terrorist acts that havent been directly aimed at Israel.

I know you desparately want to tie Saddam with anti-american terrorism so you can try to further justify your contries invasion of Iraq but I have seen nothing even remotely convincing.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » April 24, 2003, 10:38 am

If this were a criminal court case would the "evidence" be sufficent to secure a conviction? Would you as the prosecutor go for the death penalty based on this case?

Now we are in a situation where thousands of people have been killed and the "evidence" still cannot be proven\found. I think "beyond a reasonable doubt" should apply before we kill thousands of people. People...not just numbers on a TV screen graphic. I believe some of the people on this board don't look past those numbers.

For those that say that we got rid of an "evil" dictator remember that this whole process was supposidly 100% about disarming Iraq, not regime change. If that wasn't the case then we were lied to.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » April 24, 2003, 11:08 am

For those that say that we got rid of an "evil" dictator remember that this whole process was supposidly 100% about disarming Iraq, not regime change

Dude, that was JANUARY. By February it was about "liberating the Iraqi people" and making the right "moral choice".
They gave up on the terrorism angle back in December so I dunno why anyone is even bothering to discuss it here.
Heck we even have a thread here somewhere claiming it's about "opening the area up for US trade" and "accessing 15m new consumers". I'm sure that's the exact line the DoD uses on the letters informing families that their sons and daughters died in the desert.

If that wasn't the case then we were lied to

Damn us bleeding-heart liberals for trying to make this point all along.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 24, 2003, 12:45 pm

The gamble is: lose a hundred soldiers now to prevent the nuking or biological spraying of a city later.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 24, 2003, 12:48 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:The gamble is: lose a hundred soldiers now to prevent the nuking or biological spraying of a city later.

That's some pretty fucked up logic.

Kill all your potential enemies on the possibility they might attack you at some point in the future.

Dalmoth · Post by **Dalmoth** » April 24, 2003, 1:03 pm

Acies wrote: People have used religon for centuries to commit unspeakable crimes.

I differ with most people on this statement. People have used Religion, Patriortism, Nationalism, and many other reasons as EXCUSES to commit unspeakable crimes.

Power corrupts, its a simple concept and still very true today. Given a sufficient amount of it, the protection of and growth of that power becomes all that matters to its wielder.

The source of that power is often not even the root problem. The fact that is some people simply can not handle the amount of power given to them. You can see this in your local burger joint, businesses across America, in governments around the world, in religious organizations as well. No walk of life, no country, no human is without this weakness.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » April 24, 2003, 1:06 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:The gamble is: lose a hundred soldiers now to prevent the nuking or biological spraying of a city later.

You can't just invade every country that MIGHT bomb us one day. That's letting unfounded fear rule over reason. With that logic then the US has a long laundry list of countries to invade next.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 24, 2003, 1:09 pm

So, at what threshold do you begin to defend yourself?

After 3000 die? 6000? 60000?

The Neville Chamberlain approach is a proven failure.

Lal, Saddam and Sons have proven themselves to be unique as far as threats go. So unique that an attack was justified. The debate however is on what makes it justifed.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » April 24, 2003, 1:13 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:So, at what threshold do you begin to defend yourself?

After 3000 die? 6000? 60000?

The Neville Chamberlain approach is a proven failure.

Invading Iraq was not an act of defense by any stretch.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 24, 2003, 1:15 pm

Ah well then you and I disagree.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » April 24, 2003, 1:16 pm

Making such decisions on shoulda coulda wouldas is cowardly, manipulative politics.

You haven't shown that we were defending anything. Its all hypothetical unsubstantiated conjecture

miir · Post by **miir** » April 24, 2003, 1:31 pm

So, at what threshold do you begin to defend yourself?

After 3000 die? 6000? 60000?

George Bush seems to think that threshold is zero.

Please tell me Adex, how many Americans did Saddam kill?

The Neville Chamberlain approach is a proven failure.

And can you PLEASE fuck off with the Hitler/WW2 comparisons.
There is no fucking similarities whatsoever.

Why the fuck do you guys always resort to the same lame ass bullshit every time your arguments are exposed as barinless and moronic?

Saddam and Sons have proven themselves to be unique as far as threats go.

How exactly was Saddam a threat?

Did he ever make any aggressive actions directed at the USA or American interests in the Middle East?
Was there any evidence of WMDs?
Was there any indication that Saddam intended to attack the USA or American interests?
Was there any links to Al Qaeda or any other international anti-american terrorist groups?
Did Iraq have a military capable of launching an attack on a neighbouring nation?

Other than the botched invasion of Kuwait, did Saddam or Iraq partake in any hostile or military action outside of it's borders in the past 30 years?

How exactly was Saddam such a threat?

Sure, liberating the Iraqi people is a fine and noble cause but George Bush probably launched a whole new generation of anti american terrorists is continuing to uproot any sort of stability in a very tumultuous area of the world.

The blodshed in Iraq has just begin.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » April 24, 2003, 1:56 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:The gamble is: lose a hundred soldiers now to prevent the nuking or biological spraying of a city later.

The problem is that as long as there is a large group of people living in poverty there will be a danger of attacks on our citizens. Now I'm not saying that we are responsible or even able to solve the problem of poverty in the near east, I mean we haven't even been able to do that here at home. However, invading a country or threatening them is, in my opinion, not the best option for making headway into solving the problem. I think Senator McCain and President Clinton have the right idea. Recently they have spoken out about this situation and while I have not heard them map out a plan they at least are on the right track on how to help these countries make an effort towards solving the problem of poverty.

Poverty may never be eliminated under the current system we have, however, we can do our best to reduce the potential threat posed towards us by reducing the size of the pool from which terrorist can come out of. By using diplomatic and financial assistance we could potentially reduce the threat with a lot less lose of life and at a lower cost in capital. However, our own need to do things out of self interest and some of our more shall we say fervent believers in righteousness will not allow us to help the people in this manner.

Salis · Post by **Salis** » April 24, 2003, 3:01 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:So, at what threshold do you begin to defend yourself?

After 3000 die? 6000? 60000?

The Neville Chamberlain approach is a proven failure.

Lal, Saddam and Sons have proven themselves to be unique as far as threats go. So unique that an attack was justified. The debate however is on what makes it justifed.

Unique in that he wasn't?

Dude you really need to get a grip on your arguments here, they're making almost zero common sense. By your logic, at this present time the US should have an army rolling through, now let me see, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Morroco, North Korea, Pakistan, Malaysia (sorry if I missed half of Africa too). Seriously think about what you're saying, if you were in control of any current hotspot or terrorist zone in the world at the moment with that attitude the place would be a fucking blood bath. Violence begets violence.

Salis · Post by **Salis** » April 24, 2003, 3:04 pm

Crav wrote: The problem is that as long as there is a large group of people living in poverty there will be a danger of attacks on our citizens.

lol because all terrorists kill Americans due to jealousy of how rich you are

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 24, 2003, 3:05 pm

Please tell me Adex, how many Americans did Saddam kill?

Just as many as he could get away with. To him the fight against Bush was a turf fight. Repeatedly in his meetings he refered to the battle against America in terms similar to a family grudge match.

And can you PLEASE fuck off with the Hitler/WW2 comparisons.

I can’t do that Miir. It’s wise to learn from the mistakes of history.

There is no fucking similarities whatsoever.

I disagree, allowing Saddam to go nuclear is an act of passiveness that would have led to situation of him dominating the middle east.

Why the fuck do you guys always resort to the same lame ass bullshit every time your arguments are exposed as barinless and moronic?

Why do you resort to calling people names when you have nothing persuasive to offer?

Did he ever make any aggressive actions directed at the USA or American interests in the
Middle East?

One, he encouraged suicide bombing via monetary rewards to the bomber’s families.

When the good guys overran Uday’s palace they found a text Uday wrote mentioning am’s plan to create a super sized Iraq that included Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Saddam payed for and botched a failed assassination attempt on a US president.

He dumped tons of oil into the Persian gulf in response to attacks in GW1.

He tore up Kuwait and burned 10% of the Kuwaiti’s old reserve into airborne contaminants.

He publically encouraged terrorist acts against America.

He provided and protected a safe haven for a terrorist boot camp.

Was there any evidence of WMDs?
Yes,
Numorous Iraqi scientists, former soldiers, and officials testify that he did.

All over Iraq thousands chemical weapons suits and antidotes were stored near Iraqi troop positions.

Hans Blix and the happy good times UN bunch found chemical warhead munitions.

It was documented that he USED WMD on Iran during the 1980s Iran Iraq war.

His buddy Chemical Ali as the locals name him used chemical weapons to break the will of a Kurdish town under rebellion.

Was there any indication that Saddam intended to attack the USA or American interests?
Yes,
Saddam actively engaged in a nuclear program both before and after GW1. Armed with nukes his power in the region would aid in his efforts to create his dreamed-of super sized Iraq.

Was there any links to Al Qaeda or any other international anti-american terrorist groups?
Yes,
There was evidence found in that overrun terrorist training camp that showed support for terrorist groups other than the Palestinian terrorist group you conceded.

Did Iraq have a military capable of launching an attack on a neighboring nation?
Nope,
UN sanctions prevented his rebuilding after GW1.

The new threat in this century comes from not armies but mass casualty terrorism and support of terrorism.

Other than the botched invasion of Kuwait, did Saddam or Iraq partake in any hostile or military action outside of it's borders in the past 30 years?
Yes,
The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s in which Saddam demonstrated his willingness to use chemical weapons at his convienence.

I’ve already mentioned that documents found in Uday’s palace showed that Kuwait was just a jumping off point for a larger invasion of Saudi Arabia.

How exactly was Saddam such a threat?

Saddam was like that crack addict LA that took a joy ride in a tank. Someone that unstable could not be left behind the wheels of a country.

Saddam was too nuts to run a country. He’s proven himself to support our enemies. He’s brutalized and gassed his own people. He dreamed of emulating his personally hero Joseph Stalin by enforcing dictatorship, Saddam Style Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

I say that Saddam was unique as a threat because unlike North Korea, he has a historical record that shows he would USE WMD to further his goals of regional domination.

[/i]

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 24, 2003, 3:08 pm

Salis,

The reason Saddam and Sons was unique from the countries you mentioned was due to the fact that he has historical record of using WMD invading his neighbors, and openly encouraging and financing terrorism.

Folks like North Korea or Malaysia haven't done this.

Salis · Post by **Salis** » April 24, 2003, 3:21 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Salis,

The reason Saddam and Sons was unique from the countries you mentioned was due to the fact that he has historical record of using WMD invading his neighbors, and openly encouraging and financing terrorism.

Folks like North Korea or Malaysia haven't done this.

Ok you do realise that the WMD case (Iran-Iraq war) you just quoted was a US backed conflict and that pretty much all of the aforementioned chemical weapons were sold to Iraq by the US and UK? You knew that right?

On top of that, there are no links with Saddams regime and international (thx Miir!) terrorist organisations.

You named 2 countries which didn't violate a partial area of your argument, and attempted to dismiss my argument. Don't think so bud. At least 3 of those countries on the list OPENLY support INTERNATIONAL terrorist organisations. At least 2 DO NOT sign up to international treaties chemical weapons and have large stocks of these. If you want to debate this debate it, but don't attempt to sideline arguments with half-assed sidesteps.

Now in order to stop everyone here repeating themselves 100x, do you actually have anything other than circumstantial 'i heard this, i heard that' evidence for Iraq HAVING WMD's in the period (Jan 2003) before this war. That was the justification for the war. And/or any evidence for this Al-Qaeda link? Or do you just intend to repeat the same shit over and over? Like Kyou said, prove they exist, don't ask people to prove they didn't.

Or just admit that you don't really know, along with the Whitehouse, No.10 Downing St. etc etc and you're hoping there is, to justify your position.

Interesting read btw;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 971907.stm

Crav · Post by **Crav** » April 24, 2003, 3:39 pm

Salis wrote:
Crav wrote: The problem is that as long as there is a large group of people living in poverty there will be a danger of attacks on our citizens.
lol because all terrorists kill Americans due to jealousy of how rich you are

Hmm that is what you got from what I wrote eh? I guess I'll have to spell it out. Terrorist kill people because they believe that they have more to gain by kill others and causing them pain than anything else in their lives. Either they are told that their people will benefit from their action or that they will cause others to feel the pain that they feel everyday. Jealousy has very little to do with their motives, hatred for those that they feel cause them and their family's pain is. Let me ask you Salis have you ever lived in poverty or even been around family that has? Do you understand the pain that is caused when you see someone you care about not have enough to eat or have to sleep on the ground? That my friend is poverty, the poor aren't jealous of the rich, they are angry at them and at themselves for being in that situation. I'm not going to get into why people live in poverty because that is a completely and very long discussion. In any case I hope that cleared up what I meant by poverty causing the danger to us.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 24, 2003, 3:59 pm

I'm not trying to dismiss your arguement Salis. I'm trying to define why I think Iraq was unique. Iraq had a nuclear potiential combined with support for terroism, plus a proven history of using WMD.

That made Iraq stand out of the list you showed me.

Do I recognise that the US has meddled in middle eastern affairs many times yielding negative consequences?

Yes I recognise that. Other than playing an active part in the palistinian homeland movement, I personally think the US should back off from meddling in the political affairs of those countries who pose no threat to the safety of the US.

I have heard and read about those terrorism links you guys deny. One time I think I overheard a story on NPR. Another time I saw the satelite photos of the terrorist training camp and an AP story accompanying it. I also want to say I saw something on CNN about that terrrorist training camp. The recall the reporter talking about the documents they found there.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » April 24, 2003, 5:30 pm

Adex, I applaud your effort here, but this crowd is too ignorant for you to make any progress. They are even more shrill than usual as their relevance wanes.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 24, 2003, 5:51 pm

Just as many as he could get away with. To him the fight against Bush was a turf fight. Repeatedly in his meetings he refered to the battle against America in terms similar to a family grudge match.

What reality are you living in?
Saddam did not attack the USA.
The USA and Britain invaded Iraq and Iraq defended itself?
Defending and attacking are not the same thing.

Did you expect Iraqis to bow down in submission?

I can’t do that Miir. It’s wise to learn from the mistakes of history.

Feel free to learn from others mistakes in history but don't take those lessons COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT and apply them.

I disagree, allowing Saddam to go nuclear is an act of passiveness that would have led to situation of him dominating the middle east.

Again I ask what fucking reality are you living in?

Iraq never had nuclear capabilities and did not have any sort of advanced nuclear program. There are several other middle eastern countries that currently have nuclear weapons and/or advanced nuclear programs.. Iraq was never on that list.

[Why do you resort to calling people names when you have nothing persuasive to offer?

Because you have added nothing to this discussion other than spouting the same rhetoric and unfounded accusations as your govenrment.
If you had some logical arguments I might be inclined to discuss this in a more civil tone.

One, he encouraged suicide bombing via monetary rewards to the bomber’s families

The last time I checked, Israel is not the USA.
Several other middle eastern countries encourage and reward the familes of Palestinian 'martyrs'. Saddam, in that respect is no different from his peers.
Is the USA going to invade every country that supports Palestine?

When the good guys overran Uday’s palace they found a text Uday wrote mentioning am’s plan to create a super sized Iraq that included Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

So Uday aspired to expand Iraq's borders.
Was any action taken on those aspirations?
What about Iran's aspirations to extend thier borders across Iraq?
What about Palstines aspirations to end the Israeli occupation and push them out of the middle east?

Christ, are you really that clueless?
Do you know that little about the middle east?

Saddam payed for and botched a failed assassination attempt on a US president.
He dumped tons of oil into the Persian gulf in response to attacks in GW1.
He tore up Kuwait and burned 10% of the Kuwaiti’s old reserve into airborne contaminants.
He publically encouraged terrorist acts against America.
He provided and protected a safe haven for a terrorist boot camp.

1) And the USA never attempted to infiltrate Saddam's inner circle and have him assassinated? Give me a break.

2-3) Yes, he did some pretty heinous things 13 years ago.

4) He encouraged Iraqis to defend their country against the US invaders... yeah that makes sense.

5) The 'terrorist boot camp' was located in a Kurdish controlled region of Northern Iraq. Doubtful that Saddam even knew of it's existence... and evem if he did, it was in enemy territory.

Yes,
Numorous Iraqi scientists, former soldiers, and officials testify that he did.
All over Iraq thousands chemical weapons suits and antidotes were stored near Iraqi troop positions.
Hans Blix and the happy good times UN bunch found chemical warhead munitions.
It was documented that he USED WMD on Iran during the 1980s Iran Iraq war.
His buddy Chemical Ali as the locals name him used chemical weapons to break the will of a Kurdish town under rebellion.

1) None of the information provided by any of those sources has been verified.
2) Chem/Bio suits and antidotes != WMDs.
3) EMPTY chemical warheads.
4) Yes, Saddam used American Made chemical weapons against Iran... the US government generously provided all the chem/bio weapons he needed back then.
5) American Made chem/Bio weapons were used against the Kurds 17-18 years ago.

Saddam actively engaged in a nuclear program both before and after GW1. Armed with nukes his power in the region would aid in his efforts to create his dreamed-of super sized Iraq.

Iraq has no semblance of any advanced nuclear program.
Forged documents provided by the CIA did state that he attempted to purchace weapons grade plutonium in the 90s.
No evidence of any nuclear program has been discovered in Iraq.

There was evidence found in that overrun terrorist training camp that showed support for terrorist groups other than the Palestinian terrorist group you conceded.

Please provide this 'evidence'.

UN sanctions prevented his rebuilding after GW1.
The new threat in this century comes from not armies but mass casualty terrorism and support of terrorism.

And yet the US govenrment was still unable to provide any proof that Iraq was involved with any terrorist groups other than rewarding families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s in which Saddam demonstrated his willingness to use chemical weapons at his convienence.

I’ve already mentioned that documents found in Uday’s palace showed that Kuwait was just a jumping off point for a larger invasion of Saudi Arabia.

Man, you're pretty damn ignorant about the Iran/Iraq war.
You should be embarrased.

The complete and utter ass kicking Iraq received after the attemted invasion of Kuwait proved that his aspirations were fantasy.
Iraq never had the means or the manpower to hold Kuwait and after 12 years of sanctions they were not even capable of defending thier own country.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 24, 2003, 6:14 pm

I trust that my president has information I don't, and is acting on his best judgement.

I'm pretty sure you aren't comforable giving Bush that level of trust.

Anything we discuss will be colored by this.

I mark this conversation as an impass until investigators are given enough time to bring finality to all of these speculations.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » April 24, 2003, 8:21 pm

miir wrote:Is the USA going to invade every country that supports Palestine?

Was this a trick question?

Salis · Post by **Salis** » April 24, 2003, 9:51 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I have heard and read about those terrorism links you guys deny. One time I think I overheard a story on NPR. Another time I saw the satelite photos of the terrorist training camp and an AP story accompanying it. I also want to say I saw something on CNN about that terrrorist training camp. The recall the reporter talking about the documents they found there.

Heh was that an attempt to persuade me there is evidence? One time you THINK you overheard? .....

Dude by that rationale, Fox News discovered 3 chemicals weapons factories. I really suggest you take some time to read/watch some in-depth articles/documentaries on the subject. Pretty sure you'll find that there isn't any evidence there right now.

As for the whole impasse thing, fair enough, you trust your government. I prefer to trust mine when it shows me evidence for that trust. Call me stubborn but I've seen one or two abuses of government in my time!

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » April 24, 2003, 10:09 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I trust that my president has information I don't, and is acting on his best judgement.

I'm pretty sure you aren't comforable giving Bush that level of trust.

Anything we discuss will be colored by this.

I mark this conversation as an impass until investigators are given enough time to bring finality to all of these speculations.

Adex, you're a nice guy, but you're one naive person. I mean, it's nice that you can put such blind faith in WMD... I mean GWB, sorry, don't know how that happened... but that's just what it is, blind. You're trying to argue points based on your feelings, and you're just getting shot down for it. But at least you recognize that it's just your faith that's sustaining you, maybe you need it to keep from snapping... I dunno.

Neziroth · Post by **Neziroth** » April 24, 2003, 10:38 pm

Miir wrote:So Uday aspired to expand Iraq's borders.
Was any action taken on those aspirations?

STOP!! WAIT!! Could it be because we're there?!?!

Adex wrote:Why do you resort to calling people names when you have nothing persuasive to offer?
Miir wrote:Because you have added nothing to this discussion other than spouting the same rhetoric and unfounded accusations as your govenrment.
If you had some logical arguments I might be inclined to discuss this in a more civil tone.

Adex made some good points. If you don't agree, fine. It doesn't mean they're bullshit. Try opening the rusty old doors to that oh-so-knowledgable mind of yours and looking from his perspective.

Adex wrote:Saddam payed for and botched a failed assassination attempt on a US president.
He dumped tons of oil into the Persian gulf in response to attacks in GW1.
He tore up Kuwait and burned 10% of the Kuwaiti’s old reserve into airborne contaminants.
He publically encouraged terrorist acts against America.
He provided and protected a safe haven for a terrorist boot camp
Miir wrote:Yes, he did some pretty heinous things 13 years ago.

So... what? They're all out of his system now and he's likely to never do them again?

As for the whole scientists talking about biological weapons issue and whether or not its true... Just stop, sit down and ask yourself this: Why was he being so difficult with inspections if he had nothing to hide? HE could have avoided all of this. HE was warned time and time again. HE allowed this war to happen.

Since he had such a hard time cooperating, the US government felt it was necessary, for the safety of the US, the middle east, and every other country to invade and stop whatever was going on. That was the original reason and I'm convinced (sorry no proof here) that that's STILL the main reason.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » April 24, 2003, 10:43 pm

Saddam invades Kuwait, US invades Iraq.. lets just call it even steven, k guys? Cool 8D

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » April 24, 2003, 10:49 pm

miir wrote:
Arborealus wrote: Errrrm you say that Saddam has openly supported other Palestinian terror groups for years and this does not strengthen any argument about Saddam/Iraq supporting international terrorist groups?

Clearly he supported the PLF...Clearly the PLF was responsible for the Achille Lauro...Curious that Abu Abbas was hangin' loose in Iraq all these years while he was wanted by Italy for this incident including the murder of Klinghoffer during the Achille Lauro Hi-Jacking off the coast of Egypt...

The Achille Lauro Hi-Jacking = International Terrorist Act therefore...
The best you can come up with is one incident 18 years ago where one civilian was killed in a botched hijacking by a Palestinian group that had no association with Iraq at the time? At the time of the hijacking, the PLF was based in Tunisia (why hasn't the USA invaded and liberated Tunisia?).

I've been unable to find any international Palestinian terrorist acts that havent been directly aimed at Israel.

I know you desparately want to tie Saddam with anti-american terrorism so you can try to further justify your contries invasion of Iraq but I have seen nothing even remotely convincing.

Nope I have been opposed to the War since day 1 thanks...There are other ways of handling the situation...

This does not mean Mr. Hussein does not support international terrorism...

And one incident is plenty, I'm not interested in where Abbas and the PLF were based at the time...He fled to Iraq and lived there with impunity having been convicted in Italy of the Hi-Jacking and Murder.

And how do you consider the Hi Jacking of an Italian ship and murder of an American to be "Directly aimed at Israel?"

And I'm sure if I cared to devote a bit more time I could find other acts similiarly supported...One however is adequate to refute your position.

sarlen · Post by **sarlen** » April 24, 2003, 11:09 pm

kyoukan wrote: To say that every single muslim leader religious or otherwise is a violent fundamentalist hypocrite is absolutely 100% no different than saying every Christian leader is a lying sack of shit like Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham.

Umm, Kyo all the christian leaders ARE lying sacks of shit.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » April 25, 2003, 6:39 am

I see it this way:

1) Pro-war people say Saddam is a terrorist threat because he has WMDs: None are found.
2) Pro-war people say he is a threat to the region: Given the way his military folded like a house of cards I cannot believe he was a threat.
3) Pro-war people say we have to liberate the Iraqi people: Yeah good job on that and then letting the country tear itself apart while you bunker down in your amply defended oil fields because this hastily started war lacked the personel to properly secure and police the land they took.

Along the way a lot of people suffered and died, huge risks were taken with Turkey, Syria and Iran and the tensions are stil palpable. In 10 years I predict one of 3 things:
1) Iraq will be split into more than one country, thus increasing the tensions in the area.
2) Iraq's people will democratically choose to set up an islamist theocracy much like Iran and hate the americans just as much as anyone in the middle east.
3) Democratic Iraq will be held together by struggling "democratic governments" that wouldn't last til daybreak without the huge US military presence still in the country backing them up (at the very reasonable cost of preferential rates on Iraqi Crude).

This is just the end of the beginning.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 25, 2003, 11:31 am

Neziroth wrote:
miir wrote:Miir wrote:
So Uday aspired to expand Iraq's borders.
Was any action taken on those aspirations?
STOP!! WAIT!! Could it be because we're there?!?!

No dumbass, they tried to invade Kuwait and got stomped like a narc at a biker rally. In it's heydey their military was beaten like a redheaded stepchild by the coalition forces.
Maybe Uday still aspired to expand Iraq's borders but only a complete and utter retard (like yourself) would have acted on them after the Gulf War.

So... what? They're all out of his system now and he's likely to never do them again?

Ok, shall we go back through history and drudge up all the heinous acts commited by the American military and the American government?

Adex brought up incidents in the Iran/Iraq war in which Iraq was basically funded and supported by the good ole USA... it wasn't so long ago that the USA supported Saddam and did a lot to keep him in power in Iraq. How can completely ignore Americas involvement in Iraq in the 70s and 80s?

As for the whole scientists talking about biological weapons issue and whether or not its true... Just stop, sit down and ask yourself this: Why was he being so difficult with inspections if he had nothing to hide? HE could have avoided all of this. HE was warned time and time again. HE allowed this war to happen

I'm not even going to bother explaining the rationale behind his actions.
If you're too dim witted to understand his defiance on your own, my attemt to explain it would make no difference.

Since he had such a hard time cooperating, the US government felt it was necessary, for the safety of the US, the middle east, and every other country to invade and stop whatever was going on.

You're incredibly naive.
The government and media feasts on people like yourself and adex.

I find it amusing.. amusing but sad.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » April 25, 2003, 11:42 am

Zzzzzzzzzzzz.....Zzzzzzzzzzz......Zzzzzzzzzzz

Same old shit just warmed up a little.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 25, 2003, 1:37 pm

Maybe you should consider changing your diet Cartalas.. because all that shit you eat keeps spewing back out.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » April 25, 2003, 1:46 pm

Kelshara wrote:Maybe you should consider changing your diet Cartalas.. because all that shit you eat keeps spewing back out.

No need Cart... Kelshara seems to suck it right up!

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 25, 2003, 1:47 pm

hum Cartalas and Metanis.. is this a re-run of Dumb and Dumber?

Neziroth · Post by **Neziroth** » April 25, 2003, 3:48 pm

miir wrote:
Neziroth wrote:
miir wrote:Miir wrote:
So Uday aspired to expand Iraq's borders.
Was any action taken on those aspirations?
STOP!! WAIT!! Could it be because we're there?!?!
No dumbass, they tried to invade Kuwait and got stomped like a narc at a biker rally. In it's heydey their military was beaten like a redheaded stepchild by the coalition forces.
Maybe Uday still aspired to expand Iraq's borders but only a complete and utter retard (like yourself) would have acted on them after the Gulf War.

So action WAS taken then, am i reading it right? Try not to contradict yourself, it weakens your argument.

miir wrote:
As for the whole scientists talking about biological weapons issue and whether or not its true... Just stop, sit down and ask yourself this: Why was he being so difficult with inspections if he had nothing to hide? HE could have avoided all of this. HE was warned time and time again. HE allowed this war to happen
I'm not even going to bother explaining the rationale behind his actions.
If you're too dim witted to understand his defiance on your own, my attemt to explain it would make no difference.

I'm not sure you even know why he fought inspectors so much. And if you do have some sort of reason, show me proof. Proof seems to be important to you so I'm sure you have some.

miir wrote:
Since he had such a hard time cooperating, the US government felt it was necessary, for the safety of the US, the middle east, and every other country to invade and stop whatever was going on.
You're incredibly naive.
The government and media feasts on people like yourself and adex.

I find it amusing.. amusing but sad.

Yeah I believe every single damn thing they tell me. (not really, incase you missed the sarcasm.) But I DO believe that the countries neighboring him, and the rest of the world is safer in the long run without him.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » April 27, 2003, 10:12 pm

Kelshara wrote:hum Cartalas and Metanis.. is this a re-run of Dumb and Dumber?

Ohh you Kelshara you so smart we so dumb, you post are so good. Are post so bad.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » April 28, 2003, 10:32 am

Neziroth there were reasons the Iraq government resisted inspections. Namely national sovereignty and attempts to have sanctions eased\lifted.

National Sovereinty:
Iraq is a country consisting of many fanatical and oposing factions. The only way it was held together was through brute force and fear, namely Sadam (This is the reason we didn't remove Sadam after the first war). Any sign of weakness inspires power grabs by opposing factions, this is why the government tried to hide the destruction of the missiles prior to the invasion from the Iraqi people. You have to realize this isn't the US\Canada\much of Europe, the culture is very different from our own and will be a major challenge for the US to control Iraq without oppressing these groups themselves.

Sanctions:
The US\UK made it obvious that sanctions would never be lifted while Sadam remained, thereby removing the main motivation for Iraq to cooperate.

---------------

vn_Tanc wrote:2) Iraq's people will democratically choose to set up an islamist theocracy much like Iran and hate the americans just as much as anyone in the middle east.

This will happen unless the US enforces its own administration on the people (if Rumsfield has his way).