The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has quietly concluded without any evidence of the banned weapons that President Bush cited as justification for going to war, the White House said Wednesday
The Iraq Survey Group, made up of some 1,200 military and intelligence specialists and support staff, spent nearly two years searching military installations, factories and laboratories whose equipment and products might be converted quickly to making weapons.
Official Word on WMD
- Pherr the Dorf
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2913
- Joined: January 31, 2003, 9:30 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Sonoma County Calimifornia
Official Word on WMD
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... ST0536.DTL
The first duty of a patriot is to question the government
Jefferson
Jefferson
Yeah for real. It seems strange we'd go to war to make Halliburton billions of dollars and to ruthlessly continue to build our empire, yet we wouldn't even bother to plant the handful of WMDs that would shut up many of the criticsWinnow wrote:I would like to applaud our government for not planting WMDs. This is a great day for the U.S.!

Freedom of speech makes it much easier to spot the idiots.
- Pherr the Dorf
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2913
- Joined: January 31, 2003, 9:30 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Sonoma County Calimifornia
So what, he's Jewish and a Zionist no?Llaffer wrote:Even Lieberman has stated that even though none have been found now, it doesn't mean that they never existed.
Convincing a jew that an arab has the means and motive to kill him isn't exactly difficult.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
So in other words, you still feel the people that were critical of the US going to war to dispossess Saddam of WMD he didn't have, were wrong.Brotha wrote:Yeah for real. It seems strange we'd go to war to make Halliburton billions of dollars and to ruthlessly continue to build our empire, yet we wouldn't even bother to plant the handful of WMDs that would shut up many of the criticsWinnow wrote:I would like to applaud our government for not planting WMDs. This is a great day for the U.S.!
I have to admire your persistence (because I'm not in range to hit you in the back of the head with a shovel)
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
I wouldn't say they were wrong, but being so narrow minded that all they can focus on is WMD, well...Zaelath wrote: So in other words, you still feel the people that were critical of the US going to war to dispossess Saddam of WMD he didn't have, were wrong.
There were many, many other reasons to oust Saddam Hussein. WMD may have been the big motivator initially, but I really can't understand why people think this was the only reason for the invasion.
Iraq will be much better off without a murdering, self indulgent, thieving individual as their leader.
Pardon? On what basis?Sueven wrote:This is just shy of "fuck muslims" on the VV racism scale.Convincing a jew that an arab has the means and motive to kill him isn't exactly difficult.
Fuck you.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
- Pherr the Dorf
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2913
- Joined: January 31, 2003, 9:30 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Sonoma County Calimifornia
Do you really think anything but a replica of those traits is going to be able to come to/stay in power? And yes I mean that sincerelyAruman wrote:I wouldn't say they were wrong, but being so narrow minded that all they can focus on is WMD, well...Zaelath wrote: So in other words, you still feel the people that were critical of the US going to war to dispossess Saddam of WMD he didn't have, were wrong.
There were many, many other reasons to oust Saddam Hussein. WMD may have been the big motivator initially, but I really can't understand why people think this was the only reason for the invasion.
Iraq will be much better off without a murdering, self indulgent, thieving individual as their leader.
The first duty of a patriot is to question the government
Jefferson
Jefferson
But the removal of Saddam from power due to his "murdering, self indulgent, thieving" tendencies was NOT the reason for going to war and killing thousands of U.S. troops and tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Iraqi civilians. The IMMINENT threat of WMD's is. I definitely feel betrayed by the U.S. government, and I wish more people realize what a crushing blow to the U.S.'s ability to do good in the world the Iraq War's falsehoods are.
The entire world is probably saying "Fool us once, shame on you... fool us twice shame on us."
Animale
The entire world is probably saying "Fool us once, shame on you... fool us twice shame on us."
Animale
Animale Vicioso
64 Gnome Enchanter
<retired>
60 Undead Mage
Hyjal <retired>
64 Gnome Enchanter
<retired>
60 Undead Mage
Hyjal <retired>
Well...
I am Jewish. I think that I am a rational, reasonable person who is no more likely to be predisposed to be afraid of, or antagonistic toward, arabs than a person of any other nationality.
Your statement indicated that it is easy to whip Jews into anti-arab hysteria because of the modern political situation.
It's every bit as racist as saying "well what do you expect, of course a black man goes into an uncontrollable frenzy of carnal lust when he sees a white woman."
I'm a Jewish guy who doesn't really look Jewish and doesn't have a Jewish last name, so I get to hear a lot of anti-semitic jokes from people who don't know me well. I usually find them funny. It takes a fair amount to offend me, but such a flippant, offhand comment seems to me to indicate real racism.
I am Jewish. I think that I am a rational, reasonable person who is no more likely to be predisposed to be afraid of, or antagonistic toward, arabs than a person of any other nationality.
Your statement indicated that it is easy to whip Jews into anti-arab hysteria because of the modern political situation.
It's every bit as racist as saying "well what do you expect, of course a black man goes into an uncontrollable frenzy of carnal lust when he sees a white woman."
I'm a Jewish guy who doesn't really look Jewish and doesn't have a Jewish last name, so I get to hear a lot of anti-semitic jokes from people who don't know me well. I usually find them funny. It takes a fair amount to offend me, but such a flippant, offhand comment seems to me to indicate real racism.
Last edited by Sueven on January 12, 2005, 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Oh we understand there was a much more compelling reason for ousting Saddam, you just won't admit it yet.Aruman wrote:I wouldn't say they were wrong, but being so narrow minded that all they can focus on is WMD, well...Zaelath wrote: So in other words, you still feel the people that were critical of the US going to war to dispossess Saddam of WMD he didn't have, were wrong.
There were many, many other reasons to oust Saddam Hussein. WMD may have been the big motivator initially, but I really can't understand why people think this was the only reason for the invasion.
Iraq will be much better off without a murdering, self indulgent, thieving individual as their leader.
Hrmm, I'm not sure if Bush/Cheney funnelling cash from Iraq to their mates is thieving; murdering and self indulgent fits quite well though.
You're still chuckling at the WMD under the desk joke and wondering how you could go more to be such a great comedian.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
I'm saying there's a bit of flawed logic here.Zaelath wrote:So in other words, you still feel the people that were critical of the US going to war to dispossess Saddam of WMD he didn't have, were wrong.Brotha wrote:Yeah for real. It seems strange we'd go to war to make Halliburton billions of dollars and to ruthlessly continue to build our empire, yet we wouldn't even bother to plant the handful of WMDs that would shut up many of the criticsWinnow wrote:I would like to applaud our government for not planting WMDs. This is a great day for the U.S.!
I have to admire your persistence (because I'm not in range to hit you in the back of the head with a shovel)
Let's say the Bush administration knew Iraq didn't have any WMDs, they just invented that excuse so they could make Halliburton billions of dollars, get Iraq's oil, etc. So they invented an entire reason to go to war and lied time after time after time about it. If they did alll of this without batting an eyelash and knew Iraq wouldn't have WMDs, wouldn't they have made plans to plant some? Just a single crate of WMDs or some kind of nuclear material would have shut many of the critics up, although I think even if we would have found WMDs it just would have just been semantics. With many people here saying IRAN of all places deserves to have NUKES, it seems to me that not many of you took this seriously to begin with.
Freedom of speech makes it much easier to spot the idiots.
- Dregor Thule
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:59 pm
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: Xathlak
- PSN ID: dregor77
- Location: Oakville, Ontario
Yes there were other reasons. However, WMD was the one main reason used to rally support for the war. Why? Simple: It was the ONE thing that could rally most of the US to support sending their family members across the world to invade a sovereign country. By playing on 9/11 and how scared many people were, they managed to drum up a national support for a war they would have had zero chance of getting going without it. Imho they downplayed the main reasons (and some of them are valid, although debateable if a huge war was the answer) and blew the WMDs out of proportions on purpose. That, to me, is deplorable to say the least.There were many, many other reasons to oust Saddam Hussein. WMD may have been the big motivator initially, but I really can't understand why people think this was the only reason for the invasion.
Of course, I also believe they were surprised that the rest of the world didn't buy into the WMD as the main reason.. hence why they started going down the list of one reason after another to find something to gain support.
Brotha, am I correct in assuming that you believe that:
1. We went to war, at least in large part, to remove WMD's from Hussein.
2. At the time, we legitimately felt that Saddam had WMD's.
3. It has now been shown that he did not have WMD's.
And if so, would you be willing to characterize the war as a mistake?
1. We went to war, at least in large part, to remove WMD's from Hussein.
2. At the time, we legitimately felt that Saddam had WMD's.
3. It has now been shown that he did not have WMD's.
And if so, would you be willing to characterize the war as a mistake?
Sueven wrote:Well...
I am Jewish. I think that I am a rational, reasonable person who is no more likely to be predisposed to be afraid of, or antagonistic toward, arabs than a person of any other nationality.
Your statement indicated that it is easy to whip Jews into anti-arab hysteria because of the modern political situation.
It's every bit as racist as saying "well what do you expect, of course a black man goes into an uncontrollable frenzy of carnal lust when he sees a white woman."
I'm a Jewish guy who doesn't really look Jewish and doesn't have a Jewish last name, so I get to hear a lot of anti-semitic jokes from people who don't know me well. I usually find them funny. It takes a fair amount to offend me, but such a flippant, offhand comment seems to me to indicate real racism.
Whoah hold up there If I remember you cant be racist against a religion or at least thats what the might click has said. So put that in your dreidle abd smoke it.
I appologise if you thought I meant it in that manner, I was more thinking of battered wife syndrome than "all black men have giant units and want our teenage girls". It was a gross oversimplification, but there wasn't any intention to degrade Judaism.Sueven wrote:Well...
I am Jewish. I think that I am a rational, reasonable person who is no more likely to be predisposed to be afraid of, or antagonistic toward, arabs than a person of any other nationality.
Your statement indicated that it is easy to whip Jews into anti-arab hysteria because of the modern political situation.
It's every bit as racist as saying "well what do you expect, of course a black man goes into an uncontrollable frenzy of carnal lust when he sees a white woman."
I'm a Jewish guy who doesn't really look Jewish and doesn't have a Jewish last name, so I get to hear a lot of anti-semitic jokes from people who don't know me well. I usually find them funny. It takes a fair amount to offend me, but such a flippant, offhand comment seems to me to indicate real racism.
There are people that would take the contention that you don't "look jewish" as just as big a slight... unless you perhaps mean an orthodox jew in full regalia.
In any case, it certainly suits the Zionist cause to perpetuate the WMD theory, so Lieberman's comment is hardly surprising.
Besides, I generally think of rascism as theoretical in-born traits, which I don't believe in. I don't really think avoiding a group of young black (or white, for that matter) men on the street when I'm alone is rascist, they are statistically more likely to cause me trouble than a troup of girl scouts. There's a difference between being rascist and accepting that our societies tend to engender criminal behaviour in minority races.
Similarly.. I always found the most rascist people to be members of minority races in cliques, any and all of them. I'm Italian if anything, and the Italian community where I once lived was incredibly racist to "skippys", including me =)
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
Most of the WMD that might be damning are traceable to a point of origin, certainly anything with fissile material and even anthrax (that's one of the hardest but they made massive headway since the anthrax letters). Do you really think it would be less embarrassing for the US if WMD was found and the source was shown to be the US?Brotha wrote: Let's say the Bush administration knew Iraq didn't have any WMDs, they just invented that excuse so they could make Halliburton billions of dollars, get Iraq's oil, etc. So they invented an entire reason to go to war and lied time after time after time about it. If they did alll of this without batting an eyelash and knew Iraq wouldn't have WMDs, wouldn't they have made plans to plant some? Just a single crate of WMDs or some kind of nuclear material would have shut many of the critics up, although I think even if we would have found WMDs it just would have just been semantics. With many people here saying IRAN of all places deserves to have NUKES, it seems to me that not many of you took this seriously to begin with.
It's not like a cop planting a few E's on a guy to frame him up, it's a considerable task to plant a significant cache of WMD, and there's multinational forces and far far too many regulars that would have to buy into it.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
Yes, that's what I believe, but no I wouldn't call it a mistake. If, for instance, we had discovered that the reason the WMDs were absent in Iraq was because Saddam had genuinely changed his ways, I might characterize it as such, but that wasn't the case. There's no doubt in my mind (or in our inspector's who didnt find WMDs minds) that Saddam was just biding his time and this was nothing but a temporary respite, not a permanent solution. Saddam was still in violation of 1441 and nothing in principle had changed or was going to.Sueven wrote:Brotha, am I correct in assuming that you believe that:
1. We went to war, at least in large part, to remove WMD's from Hussein.
2. At the time, we legitimately felt that Saddam had WMD's.
3. It has now been shown that he did not have WMD's.
And if so, would you be willing to characterize the war as a mistake?
Freedom of speech makes it much easier to spot the idiots.
- Niffoni
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1318
- Joined: February 18, 2003, 12:53 pm
- Gender: Mangina
- Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Ironically, this actually works in the Bush admin's favor. The fact that no "evidence" was planted suggests that they're just stupid, reactionary and incapable of leadership, rather than the evil heads of a bumbling Nixon-esque conspiracy.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all. - Douglas Adams
Weren't all of Iraq's WMDs supposedly from the US anyways?Zaelath wrote:Most of the WMD that might be damning are traceable to a point of origin, certainly anything with fissile material and even anthrax (that's one of the hardest but they made massive headway since the anthrax letters). Do you really think it would be less embarrassing for the US if WMD was found and the source was shown to be the US?
It's not like a cop planting a few E's on a guy to frame him up, it's a considerable task to plant a significant cache of WMD, and there's multinational forces and far far too many regulars that would have to buy into it.

Freedom of speech makes it much easier to spot the idiots.
Well that certainly makes more sense and I'm sorry for misinterpreting your comment. When I say I don't look Jewish I basically mean that I'm tall and have straight hair.
Brotha: Do you honestly believe that 1441 has fuck all to do with it? I don't.
Basically, of the three assumptions I gave you, I disagree with the first, half agree with the second, and agree with the third. I'm sure that the Bush administration did think that there would be WMD's in Iraq, but I don't feel that our reasons for invading had anything to do with them. I also don't think it really has a lot to do with enriching Halliburton or obtaining oil or fighting terrorism or freeing the Iraqi people or getting revenge for gulf war 1.
We went in to Iraq because there was (and is) a very real threat that fundamentalist muslims in the middle east could eventually conglomerate into a cohesive body that would be capable of being a world power on the same scale as a Russia or a France. Clearly, their influence would be felt in different ways (they probably wouldn't get a security council seat for instance), but they would have influence nonetheless. The problems that this would create are vast. First, the region would likely be militant, causing small problems for us but much more significant problems for their neighbors in general and Israel in particular. Second, the region does possess natural resources that would allow it to gain worldwide influence in a manner that other militant, lawless regions are unable to duplicate.
The thought that, twenty years down the road, the middle east would be a consolidated political entity militantly opposed to the United States and our allies and totally in control of a resource we desperately need is a bit worrisome to me.
We don't need the Middle East to become just like America, Canada, and Western Europe. We'd be happy if they became something like China. China is independent, disagrees with us philosophically and ideologicaly on many issues, and pursues their own interests as much as possible. However, we are still able to deal with them on rational, mutually agreeable terms, through the diplomatic process and the international institutions we had set up. If the fundamentalist part of the middle east were to consolidate and gain power, it is unlikely that they would be willing to work with us in the same manner.
I believe that our goal in terraforming Iraq is to take a step that moves the middle east closer to becoming a region that is capable of dealing with us in terms that we consider mature and civilized. It's the same reason we target Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia: Maybe Saudi Arabia does commit abuses and atrocities at the level of Iraq, but at least we can talk to them and deal with them rationally. It is imperative for our interests that we are able to do this with the region as a whole.
So I sort of agree philosophically with the Iraq war, although I feel that our implementation of the strategy has been nothing short of total incompetence. I disagree with all the bullshit about weapons of mass destruction, fighting terrorism, and freeing the Iraqi people, because it's all smoke and mirrors. The reason we're in Iraq is to remake the world in a way that better suits our needs. That's why you pro-war folks aren't convinced of anything when you're given evidence that Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism or Iraq didn't have WMD's or the Iraqi people aren't any more free than they used to be: You never cared in the first place and neither did Bush. The actual issue has never been debated publicly because the administration has never been honest about what the issue actually is.
Brotha: Do you honestly believe that 1441 has fuck all to do with it? I don't.
Basically, of the three assumptions I gave you, I disagree with the first, half agree with the second, and agree with the third. I'm sure that the Bush administration did think that there would be WMD's in Iraq, but I don't feel that our reasons for invading had anything to do with them. I also don't think it really has a lot to do with enriching Halliburton or obtaining oil or fighting terrorism or freeing the Iraqi people or getting revenge for gulf war 1.
We went in to Iraq because there was (and is) a very real threat that fundamentalist muslims in the middle east could eventually conglomerate into a cohesive body that would be capable of being a world power on the same scale as a Russia or a France. Clearly, their influence would be felt in different ways (they probably wouldn't get a security council seat for instance), but they would have influence nonetheless. The problems that this would create are vast. First, the region would likely be militant, causing small problems for us but much more significant problems for their neighbors in general and Israel in particular. Second, the region does possess natural resources that would allow it to gain worldwide influence in a manner that other militant, lawless regions are unable to duplicate.
The thought that, twenty years down the road, the middle east would be a consolidated political entity militantly opposed to the United States and our allies and totally in control of a resource we desperately need is a bit worrisome to me.
We don't need the Middle East to become just like America, Canada, and Western Europe. We'd be happy if they became something like China. China is independent, disagrees with us philosophically and ideologicaly on many issues, and pursues their own interests as much as possible. However, we are still able to deal with them on rational, mutually agreeable terms, through the diplomatic process and the international institutions we had set up. If the fundamentalist part of the middle east were to consolidate and gain power, it is unlikely that they would be willing to work with us in the same manner.
I believe that our goal in terraforming Iraq is to take a step that moves the middle east closer to becoming a region that is capable of dealing with us in terms that we consider mature and civilized. It's the same reason we target Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia: Maybe Saudi Arabia does commit abuses and atrocities at the level of Iraq, but at least we can talk to them and deal with them rationally. It is imperative for our interests that we are able to do this with the region as a whole.
So I sort of agree philosophically with the Iraq war, although I feel that our implementation of the strategy has been nothing short of total incompetence. I disagree with all the bullshit about weapons of mass destruction, fighting terrorism, and freeing the Iraqi people, because it's all smoke and mirrors. The reason we're in Iraq is to remake the world in a way that better suits our needs. That's why you pro-war folks aren't convinced of anything when you're given evidence that Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism or Iraq didn't have WMD's or the Iraqi people aren't any more free than they used to be: You never cared in the first place and neither did Bush. The actual issue has never been debated publicly because the administration has never been honest about what the issue actually is.
- Pherr the Dorf
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2913
- Joined: January 31, 2003, 9:30 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Sonoma County Calimifornia
- Pherr the Dorf
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2913
- Joined: January 31, 2003, 9:30 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Sonoma County Calimifornia
Seebs wrote:I think it is important to say .. We didn't find any 'more' WMD. The Kurds found some. That Gulden's bomb was a WMD if memory serves.
Cracker Mother fuckers.
"After a war that has consumed nearly two years and millions of dollars, and a war that has cost thousands of lives, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, nor has any evidence been uncovered that such weapons were moved to another country," Pelosi said in a written statement. "Not only was there not an imminent threat to the United States, the threat described in such alarmist tones by President Bush and the most senior members of his administration did not exist at all."
Chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer is to deliver his final report on the search next month. "It's not going to fundamentally alter the findings of his earlier report," McClellan said, referring to preliminary findings from last September. Duelfer reported then that Saddam Hussein not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either. Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq.
The first duty of a patriot is to question the government
Jefferson
Jefferson
Again its all about accounting for them.
Its a fact, and everyone knew at one time he had them what happened to them? When were they destroyed, how were they and were?
He would not apply to the demands of the previous defeat in Gulf War I and account for his previously owned WMDs after 12 years and countless resolutions.
He was defiant, and You PICK....Who would you rather be at war with the US or some rebels or Iran when they found out ya didn't have WMDs. He figured the corruption he was dealing with in the UN and the security council would keep the US from invading(FRANCE & VETO POWER) and he could just say hey I dont have em!!!! Then say, But Im not going to account for all the ones that at one time even though that was the demands of a war that he lost and from the UN!
Anyways I had wanted to take down that evil asshole since Gulf War I, so Im happy however it was done!!!... Mainly, I disliked him for the environmental damage he caused with the burning of the oil wells and yea the whole genocide thing!
PS:
Some minor WMD stuff was found, but nothing on a large scale...Also they did uncover plans that: Saddam was trying to get out of UN sanctions recently, and again start up a massive program like he had before for biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons. Id personally rather him not have that oppurtunity.
Its a fact, and everyone knew at one time he had them what happened to them? When were they destroyed, how were they and were?
He would not apply to the demands of the previous defeat in Gulf War I and account for his previously owned WMDs after 12 years and countless resolutions.
He was defiant, and You PICK....Who would you rather be at war with the US or some rebels or Iran when they found out ya didn't have WMDs. He figured the corruption he was dealing with in the UN and the security council would keep the US from invading(FRANCE & VETO POWER) and he could just say hey I dont have em!!!! Then say, But Im not going to account for all the ones that at one time even though that was the demands of a war that he lost and from the UN!
Anyways I had wanted to take down that evil asshole since Gulf War I, so Im happy however it was done!!!... Mainly, I disliked him for the environmental damage he caused with the burning of the oil wells and yea the whole genocide thing!
PS:
Some minor WMD stuff was found, but nothing on a large scale...Also they did uncover plans that: Saddam was trying to get out of UN sanctions recently, and again start up a massive program like he had before for biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons. Id personally rather him not have that oppurtunity.
Love how you seems to haev forgotten that the US supported him and put him and made sure he got the power he had, just as they did with Bin Laden.Aruman wrote:Love how you ignore the fact that high ranking officials in France had a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power.Kelshara wrote: Love how you point out France and veto and once again ignore the shitload of times USA has vetoed.
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich"
The USA giveth, and the USA taketh away... /shrug.Hesten wrote:Love how you seems to haev forgotten that the US supported him and put him and made sure he got the power he had, just as they did with Bin Laden.Aruman wrote:Love how you ignore the fact that high ranking officials in France had a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power.Kelshara wrote: Love how you point out France and veto and once again ignore the shitload of times USA has vetoed.
Never forget that...

People change over time, so do US policies. Saddam was removed from power because of his actions. 'Nuff said.
Still, that does nothing to change the fact that France sucked up to Saddam.
Love how you ignore the fact that high ranking business friends of the US government had a vested interest in going to war with Iraq.Aruman wrote:Love how you ignore the fact that high ranking officials in France had a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power.Kelshara wrote: Love how you point out France and veto and once again ignore the shitload of times USA has vetoed.
- nobody
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: April 2, 2004, 8:37 pm
- Location: neither here nor there
- Contact:
i love how you ignore the fact that france, germany, russia, and china all had a vested interest in keeping a bloodthirsty dictator in power. but majority rules right? when we tried to work it out through the un nothing ever happened. i don't think we should have gone personally but saddam wasn't making a lick of effort to prove he had no wmd. for 10 years we gave him a chance to work with inspectors.Kelshara wrote:Love how you ignore the fact that high ranking business friends of the US government had a vested interest in going to war with Iraq.Aruman wrote:Love how you ignore the fact that high ranking officials in France had a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power.Kelshara wrote: Love how you point out France and veto and once again ignore the shitload of times USA has vetoed.
My goal is to live forever. So far so good.
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. - Benjamin Franklin
خودتان را بگای
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. - Benjamin Franklin
خودتان را بگای
Well, I am sure that US businesses did in fact make some money due to the war, I never denied that. They make money from the military even when a war is not happening.Kelshara wrote:Love how you ignore the fact that high ranking business friends of the US government had a vested interest in going to war with Iraq.Aruman wrote:Love how you ignore the fact that high ranking officials in France had a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power.Kelshara wrote: Love how you point out France and veto and once again ignore the shitload of times USA has vetoed.
The difference is removing Saddam from power was beneficial to Iraq and the entire region in the long run, while those individuals in France only wanted Saddam to remain in power for their own benefit. Who are the 'Haliburton's' of France?
IMO France abused their veto power in the name of greed, while the intentions of the United States and the Coalition was to remove an individual from power who did nothing more than abuse his own citizens, line his own pockets with money from the Oil for Food program, and scoff at UN resolutions.
- nobody
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: April 2, 2004, 8:37 pm
- Location: neither here nor there
- Contact:
anyone else see the irony in that? the US invaded iraq (going against the un) because iraq wouldn't cooperate with the UN and let inspectors do their job.
My goal is to live forever. So far so good.
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. - Benjamin Franklin
خودتان را بگای
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. - Benjamin Franklin
خودتان را بگای