Al-Queda apparently gasses cute doggies

Tyler

As you'll recall, Saddam agreed to start such a process. However the US rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rubbish!there is one way to comply with the UN sanctions,& he has Never attempted to comply,that's why the US & UN have taken no notice of the lying Barstool

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Saddam offered a first-step of investigations. The States doesn't want that. Actually, I should rephrase that. Bush and many of the Republicans don't want that. Bush would MUCH prefer, I believe, to blow Saddam and his buddies up then to simply eliminate through peaceful means all of Saddam's dangerous weapons.

The evidence is in Bush's stated goal; "A regime change in Iraq". If his goal was simply to elimiante the danger he woudl say "No mass wepaons in Iraq". But that's not the goal. The goal is Saddam dead.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When? Last week? Didnt he reject the UN workers like 4 years ago and hasnt allowed them in since? Oh! But nooowww he will let them in

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Took a few years to hide his arsenal didnt it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"When? Last week? Didnt he reject the UN workers like 4 years ago and hasnt allowed them in since? Oh! But nooowww he will let them in Took a few years to hide his arsenal didnt it"

Yes. Hmm, how long have Israel and Palestine been fighting? So if a cease-fire comes up should Israel say "no, you didn't want it a while ago therefore we won't allow it now"? Anyway, I don't think Saddam is about to comply with full disarment of his weapons. But why should he? Why should it be law that he can't possess weapons? America can. Israel can. Britian can. Russia can (well, since they're no longer the Soviets). The law is basically - anyone who is not part of hte group that made the bombs first is not allowed to have the bombs now.

Anyway, like I said I doubt Saddam would go along with the whole thing anyway. And if he did, Bush wouldn't care. His stated goal is a regime change - not removal of threat. He wants Iraq dead, not peaceful.

 

There is a procedure that has to be followed,if he wants them back.
HE has not even started that at any time!
He speaks only lies to fool the appeasers!

 

Thats not the same thing and you know it. If he wasnt hiding anything, why would reject the inspection workers?

Who the hell said he couldnt have weapons? Not us? Were just talking about, oh lets say.... Mass destruction weapons, biological agents that could possibly wipe out the human race. You know, little insignifant weapons like that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ya, cuz he is madman that has people working on bioligical weapons right now, right? His plan is to eliminate the middle east, right? Lets wipe out a whole region for a few million tons of oil

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sorry, cant see it happening. OH no, I must be a stupid bush lover right?

 

*stRgrL*

Your thinking is right!
Bloody appeasers!
They tried to keep Hitler going untill it was to late!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"Thats not the same thing and you know it. If he wasnt hiding anything, why would reject the inspection workers?"

What does America benefit from outright rejecting Saddam allowing some UN inspection?


"Who the hell said he couldnt have weapons? Not us? Were just talking about, oh lets say.... Mass destruction weapons, biological agents that could possibly wipe out the human race. You know, little insignifant weapons like that"

Exactly. But any country that is on the same side as you can build them just fine. And you can build them just fine. It's beautifully illustrated during the cold war. American's were told that the evil Commies were building weapons to take over the world. The Commies told their citizens that the evil Americans were building weapons to take over the world. And like I said, in 1960 the Soviets had enough nukes to blow up the world almost 3 times and America had enough nukes to blow up the world over 10 times.


"Ya, cuz he is madman that has people working on bioligical weapons right now, right? His plan is to eliminate the middle east, right? Lets wipe out a whole region for a few million tons of oil Sorry, cant see it happening. OH no, I must be a stupid bush lover right?"

What plan? Saddam has done nothing to indicate this. Anyway, everything I have ever said is that I am for a war in Iraq. I am for a war in Iraq because in the long run it will help the people in Iraq. If Saddam offered up a full UN inspection I would say yes and feel no justification in starting a war against him. At the moment we're as justified attacking Iraq as we are in attacking Saudi. Except, we have more proof that Saudi supports terrorism.

And Bush is the worst leader in American history I can think of to lead through a war. "You're either with us or against us" is a Nazi remark.
- You're either with us or against us
- But what you're doing is detrimental. A war is necessary but not in the fashion you're attempting
- Fuck you, then you're our enemy
Personally I don't think Bush has the balls to follow through on that comment. It's a stupid, stupid comment that is about as democratic as Hitler and Stalin dinning together. I would almost prefer to have Reagen in power through war.

 

"They tried to keep Hitler going untill it was to late!"

As I recall, the time Saddam tried to take a nation we did blow them up. I don't think you can possibly comapre the two situations. One man has some weapons and once tried to take a nation. The other man took over multiple nations during the period of appeasment.

 

Below we list the observations of Iraq-watch, U.N. analysts and others from the period from 1998 to December 2001.

1998: U.N. Arms Inspectors (under the U.N. UNSCOM program) make their final attempt to inspect Iraqi WMD installations and are turned back. U.N. withdraws its forces. One of the incriminating pieces of evidence is an offer from Pakistan to help Iraq build a modern weapon, 25 inches in diameter, approximately 1300 pounds, and using modern, high yield designs including a "flying tamper". No evidence of this device is uncovered but as the inspectors get closer and closer, Iraq becomes more and more resistant to the inspection regime and finally they are ejected, never to return.
1998: Classified and commercially available overhead imagery shows renewed and increased activities at previous weapons development sites. Later released reports show that waste from nuclear reactors built with the aid of the Russians prior to 1998 has been stockpiled for the development of a radiation dispersal weapon.
1999: Revelations from a former head of the Iraqi Nuclear Program demonstrate worldwide apathy towards enforcement of non-proliferation led to an accelerated nuclear program in Iraq. Previously disbanded teams are detected reformed and thought to be restarting the Iraqi nuclear program
1999: Dual use equipment of the kind thought to be used in producing precisely machined parts for nuclear weapons production are detected with others thought to be on its way. Iraq is also detected in the market for any types of nuclear waste materials not suitable for nuclear detonation but clearly suitable for radioactive waste dispersal weapons (RWDW).
1999: Defector from Iraq claims a number of SCUD II missiles remain hidden in Iraq.
1999: Bulgarian shipments are inspected and weapons grade nuclear material is found being smuggled into Iraq. The number of previous unstopped shipments may have been enough to fully fuel at least three weapons.
1999: The German company Siemens is accused of selling devices used in medical machinery that can be used as nuclear triggering devices.
2000: Details of the Iraqi nuclear design are verified in the investigation of the trigger devices and the Iraqi "shopping list" which includes components needed for the flying tamper design.
2000: Continued acquisition of "shopping list" items indicate a steady growth in production, no longer a focus on development.
2001: Captured documents in Afghanistan may indicate that Iraq is selling either the components of or the designs for a radioactive waste dispersal weapon (RWDW).
The Iraqi Designed Nuclear Weapon
Less than a 2000 lb gravity bomb, the Iraqi's nuclear design is based upon a new, lighter weapon design most likely stolen from a sophisticated weapons program, a program that Iraq is not thought to have had in 1998.


Sorry guys, this was a copy and paste from another post and I didnt include the link. I will do my best to try and find it though. Well this looks like a pretty good reason for "ousting" Saddam.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Iraq has weapones. Therfore we must kill him.
Russia has these weapones...
Israel....
Britian...

The fact that he has massive weapons is not justification alone to kill him. (Joeman I realize your reply will simply be yes it does).

 

to answer the original question...

Of course it is propoganda and it isn't propoganda. The incubator story was a proven bald faced lie. This one is not yet proven.

You know how we dispose of dogs in our USA "shelters"?

We pump the air out until as they are suffocating their eyes pop out.
.............................................................................................

Our foriegn policy and lack of one has alienated all but the UK prime minister.

IF we were so smart, why are we doing everything that bin Laden would hope for in alienating even the few two faced allies we had.

Anything for the oil boys... and you better pretend it is for patriotism. If you don't buy all our propoganda the shadow government has ways to scare you into absolute submission even if it takes psy-ops or a nuclear war.

 

So, attacking civilians, gassing the Kurds, sending Scud missiles to Isreal and defectors in custody saying that Saddam is working on a nuclear "dirty bombs", smallpox, anthrax and will give these weapons to whomever will do his bidding - is not reason enough?

 

What does America benefit from outright rejecting Saddam allowing some UN inspection?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the UN thought they could finnish the inspection they would.
He has only told the press he will have them back not the UN.
Thats a big differance

 

"So, attacking civilians, gassing the Kurds, sending Scud missiles to Isreal and defectors in custody saying that Saddam is working on a nuclear "dirty bombs", smallpox, anthrax and will give these weapons to whomever will do his bidding - is not reason enough?"

For the first three, I believe we had a war over that, hm?
Working on weapons - I believe America has more nuclear power than any nation on Earth. What you're saying is like I said before; "Any nation not on our side is not allowed weapons, whether they are a threat or not."

You need more reason than that. To me, that reason is a threat against the Iraqi people. Not because he has weapons. Not because he is anti-US. Not because he could attack the US (because he wont). Simply because he's a threat to the Iraqi people.

The fact is the government can't use this as their reason. Americans won't stand for it. American's and Europeans and Canadians are not keen on the idea of loosing tons of life to save a people that may not even want "saving".

 

Beeing a Pakistani I know for sure that Pakistan never and I repeate never in last 20 years had friendly relations with Iraq. It is bunch of BULLSHIT that Pakistan helped them to build some super weapon. Pakistan have very strick profilation policy and it is observed by UN,Canada,Frenchs and USA. So this, I can't buy this bullshit. Pakistan didn't even have any trades with Iraq in last 10 years. Iraq always sided with India on all the issue relating India and Pakistan so that is the main reason that Pakistan does not have friendly relations. Now by looking what you have posted, I can say for sure that it is nothing but a Lie. Sorry stargirl but this post of urs very fishy, I do read your posts and I can see lots of patriotism but very little logic or true reasoning. I can't blame you for that becuase I might have done or think the same if I were you.
Thank you.

Thank you.

 

Hitler was quite sane and quite brilliant.

 

"Hitler was quite sane and quite brilliant."

My bad, poor phrasing. Star had suggested that Saddam was dumb enough to attack America right now on American soil. I called Saddam a madman in relation to his views, not as in clinically sane or insane. So I held that definition through with Hitler.

And while Hitler was politically quite brilliant, he was a poor strategist. Germany could have won the war. Anyway, that's anotehr debate all together.

 

Actually I often agree with you, you're quite sensible.

 

Hitler was great at influencing mobs and morons. Unfortunately that means most people. He was not brilliant at war, if that's what you were referring to. In 1941, British intelligence amde a decision to not assassinate Hitler, and to actively deter others from assassinating him, because he was clearly a detriment to the German war effort.