Anti-War 100,000 - Pro-War 400

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by gworld, Sep 25, 2005.

  1. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #541
    Have you ever even read a book about history? Can you tell us, in what form these two things are related? :confused:
     
    gworld, Sep 28, 2005 IP
    Blogmaster likes this.
  2. Design Agent

    Design Agent Peon

    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    154
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #542
    The question was obviously referring to why he specifically choose page 2.

    But your responses were much funnier, see you at the next star trek convention. We can get our tazer guns and take out those evil clingons.

    DAMN I keep doing this, must be the mind altering drugs or my mental health issues.

    What I really meant was
    I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I
     
    Design Agent, Sep 28, 2005 IP
    Blogmaster likes this.
  3. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #543
    Yes that may be so, however the inspections up before the war included 'spy' flights over Iraq with much stricter time restrictions on when the inspection would take place. Granted it is what I say and proof is wow hard to find to say the least from back then, I'm sure it's possible with 50 hours but even experts at that time were saying that Iraq literally could not move as we were giving such strict restrictions and Iraq was actually 'allowing and obiding' by the restrictions. I will still try to find some links for you on this though, many stories that did exist also are turning up to have been removed most likely due to age :(

    --Before deciding to endorse an independent review, White House officials had little alternative but to rely on some unsatisfying answers when asked about the intelligence failure. On Wednesday, for example, Bush suggested that war came because Saddam Hussein did not let inspectors into Iraq, when in fact it was the United States that called for inspections to end. "It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in," Bush said.--

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78806,00.html
    http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,78898,00.html
    http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2003/02/12/194239


    Quote:
    Many of our allies and I believe even us break UN resolutions so other trivial ones 'not that all listed are trivial' doesn't make it right as the main one WMD's and inspections of the programs were being allowed in full right up to the war.





    Quote:
    If they were caving as bad as they were and allowing us basically free range of their country to inspect wouldn't it of been prudent to see how much further we could have forced them to comply with the pressure we were giving at that time w/o pulling the inspectors out and going to war? Bush was given the authority for war on the basis he would exhaust all measures which I don't see how anyone could argue that he did.



    Yes I agree however I already answered this before for you. In the past the president had no teeth to get the job done, congress voting for the power for war gave Bush the opportunity to pressure Saddam into compliance which Saddam was starting to do. Inspections, interviews with scientists w/o anyone present, records being turned over and missles being destroyed are just a few areas they were 'complying with' The argument that he had x amount of time to comply realy is weak as I see it since the president was given the power mainly to pressure Iraq and not for war, while the short time Bush pressured Saddam it was starting to work, instead of giving it time however Bush decided to yank the inspectors who could find no WMD's and attack.
    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905908,00.html
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/09/sprj.irq.missiles1130/
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2734991.stm



    Quote:
    I realise many will say 'but Saddam was given so many years to comply' but w/o the teeth the president was given, once the president was given the teeth he started to cave on many things including destroying missles that 'could' with no warhead and the wind on it's back go over the UN mandated maximum range. Wouldn't it of been better to give it a few more months to see how much he would comply, afterall Saddam was already caving on many demands, why not demand more and save lives both on our side and Iraqs?



    Most of this answered above. I agree on part of the premise you state here, especially about putting trust into these savages. However I am trying to look at the bigger picture, the before time realy doesn't matter as giving the president the power to attack sure seamed to be changing Saddams tune as before the power was given what did he have to worry about? A few bombs here and there and that was it, when power was given to attack he knew he had no choice. I wouldn't like leaving them in power either, but is killing tens of thousands of Iraqi's better, having thousands of US troops killed and huge amounts of money spent on the war on false accusations better than giving the pressure a try, especially when it was finally starting to work?

    I responded to this a bit quick so I'm sure it's not in the best format or wording, but hopefully you will get my intent behind it :)
     
    GRIM, Sep 28, 2005 IP
  4. opiapr

    opiapr Peon

    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #544
    100,000 or 300,000 really make no difference maybe only 25% were really against war the rest were against President Bush and he did not won the election with 100% of votes. :eek:
     
    opiapr, Sep 28, 2005 IP
    zman likes this.
  5. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #545
    I see you ran into the same problem I did. Finding information and timelines is not as easy as I thought it would be. I have a lot of bookmarks on many different subjects regarding the war, islam, etc. So many, in fact, that I really should take the time to resort them and categorize them better.

    Unfortunately, I did not keep up with initial pre-war activity much, nor have I encountered it much in debate.

    There was definitely a time when UN Inspectors were not allowed in. Many years, in fact. After many years and the threat of war, they were allowed back in. Not having enough information to establish a time line, without numerous hours of research, then counter-verifying claims to be sure it's not a "one off" makes it quite difficult to debate.

    There are reports, including a UN report, that claims Iraqs wmd was moved to Syria just prior to the war. The UN report is easy enough to find, but I had a link that had satellite photos that showed a convoy heading towards Syria just prior to the war starting. Will see if I can dig it out. There is also a report from the NYT about wmd looting just after the war began. If wmd, as the UN claims, was moved to Syria (and there is a well established history of saddam moving weapons around frequently), then how does someone find something that was moved? How does someone find something that was looted? When did saddam agree to keep all his wmd in a nice neat pile, to make it easy for us to find? Not questions to you really, just questions in general. It would be easy enough to just say they never existed, but that's just not the case.

    Reports indicate it was not just a few missles here and there. As to whether waiting a few more months, based upon the historical pattern of deception and cat/mouse games he played for twelve years is speculative in hindsight.

    There is not anything I've seen to suggest that *something* was indeed working with saddam. Nor that there were false accusations. Not finding wmd when reports indicate some was sent to Syria and some was looted doesn't mean they didn't exist. It doesn't discount that 20 tons of chemical wmd were used in a plot, masterminded by zarqawi in Iraq that was foiled against Jordan. It doesn't discount the chemical wmd that was found last month in Iraq.

    Would a few more months have made a difference? In hindsight, anything is possible to judge. Yes, it very well could have. Or, it could have been the same cat/mouse games he played for twelve years and just another attempt to delay the inevitable. Judging history will always be easier than predicting it's outcome.
     
    GTech, Sep 28, 2005 IP
    Blogmaster likes this.
  6. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #546
    Wow you aren't a kidding, hardly anything left.

    I myself watched it like a hawk :)

    Yes there was, but I believe at least one other time that the inspectors left under Clinton if I'm not mistaken it was the US pulling the inspectors out and not being kicked out. The threat of war also was not as serious as it was once the president of the US was given authority, Saddam may be an idiot and an axxhole but sure he realised the President would have a tough time leading a full fledged war against him w/o congressional approval.

    Yes i remember the convoy very well, its merit however is about as hi as yellow cake :) It was long disproven, one of the ways was inspectors testing the site and finding no signs at all of ever holding any weapons, no readings with all of their specialized testers and a few other reasons that disproved it but I forget off hand exactly what they were, it may come to me later.

    Yes there were missiles, but missiles were not illegal it was the range. The main missile that Saddam was destroying at the end with any decent war head would not travel past the UN restrictions, making it an extremely loose case of breaking the resolutions in the first place. There are reports of other missiles being around as well, but nothing in great quantity. Yes there was cat and mouse, but with the imminent threat that the US posed to him finally which I will agree with Bush here it should have been right from the beginning to force him to comply. But once he started complying why on any merit should we pull inspectors out to attack? Why did Bush even bother then, Bush was getting what he said he wanted and then it was not good enough, realy have a hard time seeing any argument on this.


    All credible reports I have read show the Syria shipment is bs, the looting for the most part was explosives and have never sene any proof of wmd's being looted just 'speculation' from the white house like so much other speculation which has been disproven time and time again. What wmd's were found last month in Iraq if I might ask? Didn't hear about that one, heard reports of 'they thought they found' but each time it's come back negative, or in such small amounts basically residue on old warheads, etc. False accusations by the white house? Well this one should be very easy to see, aluminum tubes, yellow cake from niger and many others.

    Yes true, but doesn't change the fact that inspectors had full access to Iraq which they did, or that Saddam was destroying missiles, etc. Exactly what we were demanding he do. Personally I would have liked to see Saddam and his sons, other top officials simply assasinated. The next in charge or power struggle may have been worse, at that time however we could have easily stepped in and was worth a shot before all out war.
     
    GRIM, Sep 28, 2005 IP
  7. Will.Spencer

    Will.Spencer NetBuilder

    Messages:
    14,789
    Likes Received:
    1,040
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    375
    #547
    HEheheh

    Two points! -- Nothing but net!
     
    Will.Spencer, Sep 28, 2005 IP
  8. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #548
    This is a typical Gtech post. The proof that WMD existed is that they can't find it.

    Gtech, there is a picture of big elephant right in the middle of this posting.












    Do you see it? No, just because you don't see it, it doesn't mean that it is not there, can you prove that the picture of elephant never existed? I say the fact that you don't see it, proves that there was a picture of elephant in the middle of this posting. :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Sep 28, 2005 IP
  9. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #549
    Yellow cake, disproven. But it's not a point I argue.

    I take no exception to the missles. Not really a point worthy of attention. I don't contend that he was complying. A show and tell, perhaps, to show the world he was doing something. I agree though, not really a point deserving of argument. Lots of speculation possibilities, but nothing worthy of "smoking gun" status.

    I take no exception to yellow cake. As I mentioned above, it's not a point I argue. That being said though, there is plenty of room for expanded discussion on this point.

    In no particular order, we have:

    Dirty bomb material taken out of Iraq. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124881,00.html

    UN Confirms Saddam Shipped out WMD to Syria - http://cshink.com/united_nations_inspectors.htm
    (there is a lot of other information at this link)

    Weapons materials looted - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html
    (If you don't want to register to read, a full copy of the text is here: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2005/0313systematic.htm )

    More on weapons materials missing - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158470,00.html

    Yet more on missing materials - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8080407

    BTW, this is within the past few months.

    Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered (August 2005) - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

    20 tons of chemical wmd - http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04123/309356.stm

    UN's report on looting - http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=13547&Cr=iraq&Cr1=weapon

    WMD moving to Syria - http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=670123

    Here's one for ferret :) - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/uttm/main552868.shtml

    CIA can't rule out WMD move to Syria - http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm

    Yet, here's a conflicting report about Syria - http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/26/iraq.main/

    Apparently inspectors were unable to locate much of what was posted above. We can always speculate, in hindsight, what could have been done differently. But I think what is important here, is that we were not talking about a few missles here.
     
    GTech, Sep 28, 2005 IP
  10. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #550
    Thank you! I am honored you took the time to address me with your greatness!
     
    GTech, Sep 28, 2005 IP
  11. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #551
    Gtech

    Do you even read the links that you put in your posts? All it says there was machines or radioactive materials that COULD HAVE, POSSIBLY, MAY BE have dual use for weapons. CIA can not RULE OUT, I can not RULE OUT that pigs can fly but it doesn't make it so.

    Any country that have a hospital with a x-ray machine has radioactive material. Any university or mechanical shop that has a good CNC machine has the POSSIBILITY to produce weapon parts. They even mention in the article that those radioactive materials could not have been used for nuclear bomb.

    From your fox news link:

    "The haul included a "huge range" of radioactive items used for medical and industrial purposes, said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration.

    .................

    Wilkes said "a huge range of different isotopes" were secured in the joint Energy Department and Defense Department operation. They had been used in Iraq for a range of medical and industrial purposes, such as testing oil wells and pipelines.

    Such a device would not trigger a nuclear explosion,

    ...............................

    There are just too many radioactive sources available across the globe, the report said."

    Gtech, you are right, every country in the world which has a hospital is a danger to USA. What is next? Attacking all the countries that have hospitals? :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Sep 29, 2005 IP
  12. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #552
    Yes, I do actually read them.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124881,00.html

    For example, in your attempt to pick a few lines out of the article above and present them completely out of context to trivialize it's importence because "lying doesn't matter, only the message matters," you carefully avoided the following while trying to convince readers hospitals were in danger:

    What was the title of the link again? Keeping in mind of course, I simply posted the link title and link url without commentary.

    But there's more that you intentionally avoided in your attempt to mislead:

    Nothing but fine print, I'm sure. How about the rest of this one?

    What's behind door number one, Bob?

    Shameful gworld, just shameful. And you had the nerve to ask ME if I read!
     
    GTech, Sep 29, 2005 IP
  13. IamNed

    IamNed Peon

    Messages:
    2,707
    Likes Received:
    276
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #553
    Too much punditry...
     
    IamNed, Sep 29, 2005 IP
    Will.Spencer likes this.
  14. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #554
    I gotta run but do plan on responding more later however

    OH my god this one you gotta be kiding me! Not intending this in a bad way but fox news calling medical instruments dirty bomb material? I don't see any smoking gun in this at all, wow I guess my state then would be guilty as well with all our hospitals there has to be tons of 'dirty bomb material'

    Again I'll repost later but thanks for the info, if I'm wrong I'd be glad to be informed :)
     
    GRIM, Sep 29, 2005 IP
  15. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #555
    Components here is all I see, components that 'could' and the key phrase could be used for making wmd of which the UN knew that Saddam had them and where they were which also brings up the fact that most of it possibly all of it Saddam was still able to have under the UN resolution. This story does not prove any WMD's themselves being sent out nor does it imply it. This story actually proves my point, yes there was a convoy but were there actual WMD's in it, nope not according to this story and not according to everything I've ever watched or read disproving Bush's administration that it was WMD's. The whole dual purpose debate has also been widely disproven, kind of like saying our police can arrest anyone with a bathtub because it could be used to take a bath but could also be used to brew up a batch of crystal meth.

    Still no WMD's or illegal items in this report, of course Saddam still had weapons nobody ever sad he didn't nor was it illegal for him to have certain weapons under the UN resolutions. I see this story personally as a reason for against how Bush ran things, why didn't Bush make sure these sites he was so sure had WMD's were gaurded? I find much more info in this article to back my point of view up, good article though. The UN inspectors also frequented these sites.

    Again I honestly see these as a Bush f up, nothing supporting the prowar movement in reality.

    Again another story that supports Bush f'd up. The plant was #1 new in an area Saddam hasn't controlled in how many years? But now that the US is in control it somehow is supposed to be blamed on Saddam? Reguardless of 'fault' it is also 'precursor agents' which still were not banned and in most cases can and may be used for medical, farming and other industries.

    This one would have some merit if #1 the only proof wasn't from 'detained' people from the attack who were more than likely tortured. Is there any proof of a residue left over, or any other proof other than possibly tortured detainees sqealing like pigs anything their captors want them to say. I may do more research on this one, I've heard it before but still haven't read or heard any significant proof to back it up.

    Story admits that the judge ruled on hearsay and very poor information? Looks to me like an anti saddam, osama judge which is fine but no real merit in it at all.

    They can't rule it out, but no proof it happened. The convoys however of supposed 'wmd's' came from sites that were #1 inspected before the convoys left and #2 inspected after the convoys and found absolutely zero evidence of any actual WMD's.

    Reguardless this still doesn't challenge my point about how Bush went about the war. I watched and have continued to watch this and check daily from multiple sources from before the war to the present, back to before the first Gulf War. I agree Saddam should have been taken out, but the way in which it was done I strongly disagree with, especially with the underhanded nature of the Bush administration in using flimsy intelligence at best to start the war, using terrorism to strike fear into the American people to rally for the war and not using the pressure that was working and instead saying well even though Saddam is starting to do everything I'm asking FUXX him I'm attacking anyways.
     
    GRIM, Sep 29, 2005 IP
  16. ferret77

    ferret77 Heretic

    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    230
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #556
    I don't which is worse

    1) we invaded a country on bad intel

    or

    2) we invaded the country on good intel., and now syria, Iran or whoever has tons of wmds

    Either way, it kind of sucks
     
    ferret77, Sep 29, 2005 IP
  17. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #557
    Going to try to make a few points with links as time allows. For those who don't think Bush lied or distorted any facts in order to attack Iraq the first point I'll bring up is #1 yellow cake and #2 aluminum tubes, there are plenty more to bring up and hopefully if time allows I'll beable to address those as well. These 2 items were key issues in the 'imminent threat' the Bush admin used to base the war on Iraq, yet both have been totally disproven and experts both inside the US government, private sector of the US and outside of the US stated these claims were BS, many articles even make reference to the experts telling the administration that the claims were bogus but the administration still decided to go with the claims. Would love to hear a argument disproving this, but the facts do not add up, the intelligence used was extremely flimsy at best and the administrations own experts had told them otherwise.

    http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...03_invasion_of_iraq_aluminum_tubes_allegation
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5403731
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200411180004
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/elbaradei_report.html
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter7.htm
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17707-2003Oct25
    https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20030324&s=trb032403
    http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030320.html
    http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1

    I realise pro bush and pro war individuals will not have their minds changed at all from this, but can you at least admit that in these cases it is proven most experts disagreed with the administration. If you can I must ask why would you still support the administration as this was a key part to the supposed threat and reason for war.

    I'm sorry but even if I was totally Pro Bush and Pro Iraq War, I still would be pissed that our government relied on such flimsy fabricated materials to make our citizens scared shitless in order to gather support for a war.
     
    GRIM, Sep 29, 2005 IP
  18. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #558
    The war was over WMD and Iraq trying to make NUCLEAR BOMB, not over material that COULD BE used to make a dirty bomb.
    If you suggest that war should be over any place that have access to material that can be used to make dirty bomb then as I suggested, every country that has a hospital must be attacked.
    The material that was mentioned in the article is available in hospitals, universities and many major industries. If the problem is with the amount material available for making dirty bomb, I am almost sure that California is much bigger danger than Iraq ever was.

    This COULD BE, POSSIBLY a weapon of mass destruction

    [​IMG]

    if some one start a big fire with it.
     
    gworld, Sep 29, 2005 IP
    Will.Spencer likes this.
  19. latehorn

    latehorn Guest

    Messages:
    4,676
    Likes Received:
    238
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #559
    If Bush was planning to lie about this wmds than why didn't he plan to make a false newstory that should confirmed it otherwise he must have IQ below 90.

    Seriously.. I think that they were unsure about iraqi wmds but decided to invade incase of.. Im happy US invaded Iraq and destroyed Saddams bath party. Don't forget that saddam killed about one milion kurds. Is 1900(number of soldiers that have died there) american lifes worth more than one million kurdish lifes?
     
    latehorn, Sep 29, 2005 IP
    Crazy_Rob likes this.
  20. latehorn

    latehorn Guest

    Messages:
    4,676
    Likes Received:
    238
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #560
    I guess 'Operation Iranian Freedom' will cost one billion dollar.
     
    latehorn, Sep 29, 2005 IP