If you guys wanna talk about weird pictures, if anyone saw that Iraqi video of them sawing off the American contractor's head. I haven't been able to eat for like 8 hours, and my mom saw it and she is crying. If anyone is looking to get sick to the stomach to stay home from school, watch the American Decapitation video.
Caution: Not for people who think this is something that is quick and painless.

Edit: You can find it by searching Kazaa for: American Beheaded

[quote author=ChR0NiC link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=150#msg59933 date=1084418982]
If you guys wanna talk about weird pictures, if anyone saw that Iraqi video of them sawing off the American contractor's head. I haven't been able to eat for like 8 hours, and my mom saw it and she is crying. If anyone is looking to get sick to the stomach to stay home from school, watch the American Decapitation video.
Caution: Not for people who think this is something that is quick and painless.
[/quote]

Yeah, speaking of Tuberload's picture :P

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=165#msg59934 date=1084419178]
[quote author=ChR0NiC link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=150#msg59933 date=1084418982]
If you guys wanna talk about weird pictures, if anyone saw that Iraqi video of them sawing off the American contractor's head. I haven't been able to eat for like 8 hours, and my mom saw it and she is crying. If anyone is looking to get sick to the stomach to stay home from school, watch the American Decapitation video.
Caution: Not for people who think this is something that is quick and painless.
[/quote]

Yeah, speaking of Tuberload's picture :P
[/quote]

No kidding... What are you trying to say chronic? I resemble someone getting their head cut off, or someone cutting off someone's head? Or am I wierd looking...

[quote author=ChR0NiC link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=150#msg59933 date=1084418982]
If you guys wanna talk about weird pictures, if anyone saw that Iraqi video of them sawing off the American contractor's head. I haven't been able to eat for like 8 hours, and my mom saw it and she is crying. If anyone is looking to get sick to the stomach to stay home from school, watch the American Decapitation video.
Caution: Not for people who think this is something that is quick and painless.
[/quote]

Very wise of American government to ensure only Americans get to trade with Iraq. Good to see that greed pays off.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=165#msg59934 date=1084419178]
Yeah, speaking of Tuberload's picture :P
[/quote]

[quote author=Tuberload link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=165#msg59955 date=1084433354]

No kidding... What are you trying to say chronic? I resemble someone getting their head cut off, or someone cutting off someone's head? Or am I wierd looking...
[/quote]

As you can see, clearly I was not referring to you when I was talking about a decapitated civilian, iago was the one who referred to you.

[quote author=ChR0NiC link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=165#msg60033 date=1084493079]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=165#msg59934 date=1084419178]
Yeah, speaking of Tuberload's picture :P
[/quote]

[quote author=Tuberload link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=165#msg59955 date=1084433354]

No kidding... What are you trying to say chronic? I resemble someone getting their head cut off, or someone cutting off someone's head? Or am I wierd looking...
[/quote]

As you can see, clearly I was not referring to you when I was talking about a decapitated civilian, iago was the one who referred to you.
[/quote]

Lol, clearly...

[quote author=Invert link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=165#msg60035 date=1084493467]
Too bad it was not a canadian

We should bomb the canadians accidentally again
[/quote]
In that case, I'm glad it was an american, because by being an american he was obviously a fat slob, because all the people of one nation are the same. Oh, and americans deserve to die, because... they just do.

They should do it again, maybe with a higher quality camera, hell I'll buy it for them.

We should attack Canada, what are they going to do? Send their moos to defend their worthless country. What good is Canada to the world anyway?

Give me one good reason why anyone would miss Canada.

Because iago lives in Canada and everybody (well, somebody) likes iago.

[quote author=Invert link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=165#msg60080 date=1084510142]
We should attack Canada, what are they going to do? Send their moos to defend their worthless country. What good is Canada to the world anyway?

Give me one good reason why anyone would miss Canada.
[/quote]
To quote a (uh, sort of) great man,
[quote]
Thanks, that's all I needed to hear.[/quote]

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=165#msg60092 date=1084532641]
[quote author=Invert link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=165#msg60080 date=1084510142]
We should attack Canada, what are they going to do? Send their moos to defend their worthless country. What good is Canada to the world anyway?

Give me one good reason why anyone would miss Canada.
[/quote]
To quote a (uh, sort of) great man,
[quote]
Thanks, that's all I needed to hear.[/quote]
[/quote]

LOL.

It would have been better if they did the head chopping on President Bush or Donald Rumself, you americans wouldn't be so cocky then now would you?

[quote author=ChR0NiC link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=180#msg60155 date=1084579657]
It would have been better if they did the head chopping on President Bush or Donald Rumself, you americans wouldn't be so cocky then now would you?
[/quote]
Too bad no one that would want to cut off one of their heads could get within a few thousand feet of them.

That video was disturbing, The guy was still struggling when they already cut off half his neck.

[quote author=ChR0NiC link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=180#msg60155 date=1084579657]
It would have been better if they did the head chopping on President Bush or Donald Rumself, you americans wouldn't be so cocky then now would you?
[/quote]

That's really not nice. Personally I like Bush and Rumsfeld, and just because you don't doesn't make it automatically better to decapitate them. I guess it's just because I do like them that I think it's wrong, so it's kind of a hypocritical statement. Anyway, not every American is cocky and I don't see how beheading two politicians will change our attitude about things. Also, I'm sure there's at least one arrogant person in Canada..lets decapitate your prime minister!

I got the low quality version, couldn't barely see anything.

I got my hair cut/bleached today, I need a digital camera.

[quote author=hismajesty link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=180#msg60160 date=1084581557]
Also, I'm sure there's at least one arrogant person in Canada..lets decapitate your prime minister!
[/quote]
:-\
[me=j0k3r]points at Iago and runs[/me]

[quote author=hismajesty link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=180#msg60160 date=1084581557]
[quote author=ChR0NiC link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=180#msg60155 date=1084579657]
It would have been better if they did the head chopping on President Bush or Donald Rumself, you americans wouldn't be so cocky then now would you?
[/quote]

That's really not nice. Personally I like Bush and Rumsfeld, and just because you don't doesn't make it automatically better to decapitate them. I guess it's just because I do like them that I think it's wrong, so it's kind of a hypocritical statement. Anyway, not every American is cocky and I don't see how beheading two politicians will change our attitude about things. Also, I'm sure there's at least one arrogant person in Canada..lets decapitate your prime minister!
[/quote]

Paul Martin is a bastard anyway, let him die~! Not all Americans are cocky, just the ones like Bush, though :P

[quote author=hismajesty link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=180#msg60160 date=1084581557]
Also, I'm sure there's at least one arrogant person in Canada..lets decapitate your prime minister!
[/quote]

Heh, will you? Our prime minister sucks. Better yet, do Jean Chretien.

Or do us a favour, and take both.

[quote author=ChR0NiC link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=180#msg60155 date=1084579657]
It would have been better if they did the head chopping on President Bush or Donald Rumself, you americans wouldn't be so cocky then now would you?
[/quote]

I don't usually do this, but I think you need to start thinking a little bit before you post...

I am assuming from the rest of the conversation that you are Canadian, so would it be fair of me to stereotype all Canadians as idiots because of you?

[quote author=Tuberload link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=180#msg60174 date=1084583060]
[quote author=ChR0NiC link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=180#msg60155 date=1084579657]
It would have been better if they did the head chopping on President Bush or Donald Rumself, you americans wouldn't be so cocky then now would you?
[/quote]

I don't usually do this, but I think you need to start thinking a little bit before you post...

I am assuming from the rest of the conversation that you are Canadian, so would it be fair of me to stereotype all Canadians as idiots because of you?
[/quote]

No, but lets do it anyway. ;D

It's funny how I single handedly turned this post into U.S. vs Canada.

People might think that I hate Canada or Canadians, I don't. I don't care much about the argument of who is better Canada or U.S.

The thing that interests me in this argument is strictly the reaction you get from Canadians about it; the extremely defensive reaction is what makes it so great to argue about this.

*sings* Oh Canada! *stops singing*

Canadians suck! ;)

[me=Hitmen]thinks invert has http://www.negativepositive.org/fuck-canada.html bookmarked[/me]

[quote author=Invert link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=165#msg60080 date=1084510142]
We should attack Canada, what are they going to do? Send their moos to defend their worthless country. What good is Canada to the world anyway?

Give me one good reason why anyone would miss Canada.
[/quote]

I agree fully, and after we invade Canada we should enslave there entire population. I call iago!

[quote author=Zeller link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=180#msg60245 date=1084638903]
I agree fully, and after we invade Canada we should enslave there entire population. I call iago!
[/quote]

It'll never happen, USA can't even seal the deal on Iraq. You guys have been over there for more than a year and still haven't stomped the rebel forces. So what, you got passed the Imperial guards, the rebel forces are worse trained than them and USA's casualty count is a hell of alot of casualties. Not that people dying is something I agree with, but drop the cockiness and American will not be hated by everyone.

[quote author=ChR0NiC link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=180#msg60263 date=1084649280]
[quote author=Zeller link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=180#msg60245 date=1084638903]
I agree fully, and after we invade Canada we should enslave there entire population. I call iago!
[/quote]

It'll never happen, USA can't even seal the deal on Iraq. You guys have been over there for more than a year and still haven't stomped the rebel forces. So what, you got passed the Imperial guards, the rebel forces are worse trained than them and USA's casualty count is a hell of alot of casualties. Not that people dying is something I agree with, but drop the cockiness and American will not be hated by everyone.
[/quote]

Ah, a serious but stupid post. The cockiness is well-deserved and earned by US troops. The current situation may be a debacle, but as usual in "debacles", the fault lies with politicians. The US soldier is incredibly trained and equipped to fight war. They don't know diddly squat about reconstruction. Building an infrastructure is the job of civil engineers and planners. Army, Air Force, and Marines are also not policemen. Policemen are policemen. Putting soldiers in harms way to do jobs they are not trained or equipped to handle is stupidity. That stupidity comes right from the top, at the White House, and has the name of George W. Bush.

If we were to free the soldiers to fight war when they needed to defend themselves, the news coming from Iraq would be entirely different. Being fired at from a building? Kill the attacker. Can't egress the threshold? Smoke him out. Doesn't work? Destroy the building. It's war, not nice-nice-playtime. If it's not war, get the soldiers out. They're not traffic cops.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=180#msg60267 date=1084652137]
If we were to free the soldiers to fight war when they needed to defend themselves, the news coming from Iraq would be entirely different. Being fired at from a building? Kill the attacker. Can't egress the threshold? Smoke him out. Doesn't work? Destroy the building. It's war, not nice-nice-playtime. If it's not war, get the soldiers out. They're not traffic cops.
[/quote]

It seems to be war. Just not the simple "army vs army on a clear battlefield". You're speaking of assault war, where everyone else is an enemy, and you don't care about your surroundings. This is a war fought where you're trying to protect the things around you. Think of it as a war set in some American city, with innocent civilians, and your own buildings all around that you're trying to protect.

[quote author=ChR0NiC link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=180#msg60263 date=1084649280]
[quote author=Zeller link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=180#msg60245 date=1084638903]
I agree fully, and after we invade Canada we should enslave there entire population. I call iago!
[/quote]

It'll never happen, USA can't even seal the deal on Iraq. You guys have been over there for more than a year and still haven't stomped the rebel forces. So what, you got passed the Imperial guards, the rebel forces are worse trained than them and USA's casualty count is a hell of alot of casualties. Not that people dying is something I agree with, but drop the cockiness and American will not be hated by everyone.
[/quote]

I personally don't think you have any room to talk about us not being able to "seal the deal on Iraq." Canada contributed a small number of troops, could they have sealed the deal? I doubt it. We have a commitment there, the deal has already been sealed. If we left Iraq now, it would be in a lot worse shape than it already is. There would probably be an uproar of anarchy and what government they do have would be easily overturned. I don't see Canada volunteering to step in and take over for us so we can come home. Your posts are very hypocritical as well, saying that Americans are arrogant yet you're being arrogant in suggesting that you beleive America wouldn't be able to invade America. Not that we ever would since Canada doesn't make us mad, but if we had to I'm sure it wouldn't be a big problem. The Rebels don't follow any rules, even less so than Saddams imperial guard. It's harder to handle Guerilla (sp?) tactics than at least semi-civilized ones. And, as Grok said, the troops are having to act as construction workers, humanitarian aid, police officers, and still be expected to be soldiers. They aren't equipped or trained to do all of this. I agree with most everything Grok said as well, except for the George W. Bush thing. It's not like Bush declared the war, or kept the troops over there. Sure, he's a supporter and basically spokesperson of the war, but just because he pushed for it doesn't mean he approved it. It was still Congress that declared it and sent the troops, under The War Powers Act the President isn't able to do that.

Bush pushed for the war, his people fabricated lies to convince people to war. He deserves blame. He shouldn't have gone to war, and now that he did, he'll have to fix up the mess he made.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60278 date=1084656251]
Bush pushed for the war, his people fabricated lies to convince people to war. He deserves blame. He shouldn't have gone to war, and now that he did, he'll have to fix up the mess he made.
[/quote]

What lies? I'm assuming you're talking about Weapons of Mass Destruction but before I comment on that I'd like to make sure.

[quote author=hismajesty link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60287 date=1084657691]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60278 date=1084656251]
Bush pushed for the war, his people fabricated lies to convince people to war. He deserves blame. He shouldn't have gone to war, and now that he did, he'll have to fix up the mess he made.
[/quote]

What lies? I'm assuming you're talking about Weapons of Mass Destruction but before I comment on that I'd like to make sure.
[/quote]

That's one. One that was very neatly illustrated in some recent video clip here where Rumsfeld I think it was claimed that he had never said anything like that, whereupon they played back an interview where he was saying just that...

I remember that Rumsfeld clip. As far as WMD I personally still beleive he had them. He had them in the past and used some on his own people. Perhaps digging up the corpses would be enough proof? The UN gave Saddam plenty of time to move the weapons or hide them prior to their arrival in Iraq. I also beleive they gave him a list of dates they'd be visiting.

I believe he tried to develop WMD long ago, with the support of the USA. He got a lot of assistance from there, you know, those evil terror supporters. President, I think they call their leader.

I don't believe he ever had any really functional WMD. I don't believe he was close to getting any WMD.

Chemical and biological weapons still qualify as "WMDs" IMHO.

BTW, it's funny how this little debate made its way into a "Post Your Picture" thread.

[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60302 date=1084662912]
Chemical and biological weapons still qualify as "WMDs" IMHO.

BTW, it's funny how this little debate made its way into a "Post Your Picture" thread.
[/quote]

I wouldn't say that having a tube of poisonous gas is equivalent to having WMD. I know that Saddam did tests with poisons against villages in Iraq, but I don't think he had useable weapons, i.e. missiles he could launch even back then.

And even if he had them then, those missiles were long since destroyed when he was attacked.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60304 date=1084663399]
[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60302 date=1084662912]
Chemical and biological weapons still qualify as "WMDs" IMHO.

BTW, it's funny how this little debate made its way into a "Post Your Picture" thread.
[/quote]

I wouldn't say that having a tube of poisonous gas is equivalent to having WMD. I know that Saddam did tests with poisons against villages in Iraq, but I don't think he had useable weapons, i.e. missiles he could launch even back then.

And even if he had them then, those missiles were long since destroyed when he was attacked.
[/quote]

Saddam Hussein had loads upon loads of mustard gas as well as anthrax, which he knowingly used on Iranian soldiers and civilians, and later on the Kurdish people in Iraq. Many mobile laboratories were discovered and seized, most of which were used to experiment on and grow various germs or to develope chemicals. He had been warned and sanctioned plenty of times on developing ICBMs, but he never really heeded them. He had an entire arsenal of missiles capable of reaching places like Israel, which he had demonstrated on more than one occasion. Although he was never quite able to develope missiles capable of reaching North America, numerous defecting scientists and discovered documents proved that he remained diligent in acquiring such technology, disregarding what the UN was trying to tell him. Multiple high-range missiles were discovered all over, but didn't receive much attention due to the fact that none of them were equipped with "WMD" warheads. People seem to essentially "down" the threat Hussein and his regime posed to the world simply because he apparently didn't have nuclear weapons. He had more of power, resources, and a bigger arsenal than anyone the likes of him should ever have. His relentless support of terrorism and repeating crimes against humanity were enough to earn him the boot and what follows it.

[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60355 date=1084685969]
Saddam Hussein had loads upon loads of mustard gas as well as anthrax, which he knowingly used on Iranian soldiers and civilians, and later on the Kurdish people in Iraq.
[/quote]

He is known to have had and used chemical weapons a long time ago. I haven't seen any evidence of him having them now.

There is nothing that says he didn't once have chemical weapons of mass destruction, but disposed of them (buried them, crushed them, etc) after demands from the UN. You might still be able to find traces of chemical weapons in Iraq, but that doesn't mean anything. We still find canisters of live Mustard gas in the Baltic sea, as disposed of after World War II. I wouldn't call finding that "Evidence of having WMD today".

Saddam even dismantled long range missiles in the time just before he was attacked. Stupid of him. He should've known that USA would attack him no matter what he did.

What USA did was keep adding demands until he could take it no more. A good strategy for creating a war to improve your ratings a bit, and distract people's attention.

How would you respond if Iraq demanded to inspect your nuclear missiles, chemical laboratories and other military installations to ensure you weren't having more than your allowance? How should Iraq feel when USA (having now twice attacked them) wanted to inspect their military installations? I'm sure that data collected under the guise of "looking for WMD" was used to further the war against Iraq. Very dishonest. Very ugly. Proof that Saddam was right?


[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60355 date=1084685969]
Many mobile laboratories were discovered and seized, most of which were used to experiment on and grow various germs or to develope chemicals. He had been warned and sanctioned plenty of times on developing ICBMs, but he never really heeded them. He had an entire arsenal of missiles capable of reaching places like Israel, which he had demonstrated on more than one occasion. Although he was never quite able to develope missiles capable of reaching North America, numerous defecting scientists and discovered documents proved that he remained diligent in acquiring such technology, disregarding what the UN was trying to tell him.
[/quote]

Having mobile laboratories makes sense. Doing research makes sense. Trying to obtain technology makes sense. Following the restrictions of the UN makes sense. If "what the UN was trying to tell him" was that he should leave himself defenseless, then of course he would disregard that.

What he had to regard was the letter of the demands, that he allow inspectors here and there, that he destroy this and that. And he did.


[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60355 date=1084685969]
Multiple high-range missiles were discovered all over, but didn't receive much attention due to the fact that none of them were equipped with "WMD" warheads. People seem to essentially "down" the threat Hussein and his regime posed to the world simply because he apparently didn't have nuclear weapons. He had more of power, resources, and a bigger arsenal than anyone the likes of him should ever have. His relentless support of terrorism and repeating crimes against humanity were enough to earn him the boot and what follows it.
[/quote]

So does the USA. More power, resources, and a bigger arsenal than anyone should have. Their relentless support of a state practising terrorism, and repeating crimes against humanity are enough to earn them the boot and whatever might follow it. Anything else?

This was about WMD, not about weapons or terrorism support. Of course he wanted to get weapons, anything he could be allowed to have. And of course he would walk right on the borderline, no reason to build less than what you're allowed if what you really want is to build more.

I haven't seen any believable claims or evidence that he supported terrorism any more than the USA does. Any country is likely to have hosted terrorists at some time. That doesn't imply support or collaboration from the leaders of the country. He didn't belong to the same religious group as bin Laden, he'd be more likely to suppress such groups in Iraq.

I believe that there was a large amount of mustard gas and anthrax that was known that Saddam had, but when they came looking, they could not find it. I believe he sold these chemical/biological weapons to terrorists or kept them very well hidden.

And Adron made a very very good point.

Adron: Adding to everything you said, my biggest gripe about the "march to war with Iraq" was the demand that Iraq turn over its WMD, and if they didn't, it was proof that they existed.

Iraq has WMD, we know that for a fact, because they have failed to show proof of their destruction.

Adron has WMD, we know for a fact, due to his failure to turn them over.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60375 date=1084703523]

He is known to have had and used chemical weapons a long time ago. I haven't seen any evidence of him having them now.
[/quote]
The evidence lies in the disease and suffering of Kurds, among others, in various parts of Iraq today. He has also used such devices on prisoners of his regime. Series of vials, containers, and development material were also seized. However, they were "disregarded" because they were nuclear weapons. Saddam being arm-less now? Who are you kiding?
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60375 date=1084703523]
There is nothing that says he didn't once have chemical weapons of mass destruction, but disposed of them (buried them, crushed them, etc) after demands from the UN. You might still be able to find traces of chemical weapons in Iraq, but that doesn't mean anything. We still find canisters of live Mustard gas in the Baltic sea, as disposed of after World War II. I wouldn't call finding that "Evidence of having WMD today".
[/quote]
After demands from the UN, Saddam disposed of cosmetic amounts of his arsenal to show that he was doing something. Things like Anthrax and AOrange aren't exactly things you leave "trace amounts of". For it to completely be disposed of, measures need to be taken to ensure negligible amounts remain and then decompose or disjoint over short periods of time. Finding vials of live germs and chemicals being preserved in somewhat-ideal conditions doesn't constitute "trace amounts". Sure Saddam's regime made galiant efforts of getting rid of as much as possible when they knew their twilight was approaching, but that doesn't really change the fact that they had it just days ago.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60375 date=1084703523]
Saddam even dismantled long range missiles in the time just before he was attacked. Stupid of him. He should've known that USA would attack him no matter what he did.
[/quote]
If he thought those long-range missiles could be effectively used against the Americans, he'd probably want to keep them intact. The dismantled missiles were of the same grade he used during the first Gulf War, and he probably assumed that this time, launching a volley of missiles at Israel or a neighboring country as a means of "defending himself" probably wouldn't score very many points with the national community, so ofcourse it was in his best interest to dismantle them, because then atleast it'd seem like he didn't "have them".
[quote][/quote]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60375 date=1084703523]
What USA did was keep adding demands until he could take it no more. A good strategy for creating a war to improve your ratings a bit, and distract people's attention.
[/quote]
The USA didn't keep "adding demands" that was the UN., and boy did they do it well. The US's demands included little more than actually allowing UN Weapons Inspectors, which Saddam didn't follow all that well, as a majority of sites that the inspectors wanted to see were denied to them. The US simply helped enforce the UN's word. And no, this war did NOTHING to boost the American government's "ratings". In fact, if you'd follow the polls, you'd know that Bush's approval ratings have been slipping with just about every passing day, so I can't quite see where you're going with your wag-the-dog accusation.
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60375 date=1084703523]
How would you respond if Iraq demanded to inspect your nuclear missiles, chemical laboratories and other military installations to ensure you weren't having more than your allowance?
[/quote]
I doubt I'd allow "Iraq" to do much inspecting, but if it was the national community, I'd probably comply. In fact, the US, like most superpower nations, are subject to inspection from various global agencies regarding compliance with various arms-control treatis, some established after WWII, and others during and after the Cold War. I've yet to see the national community raise red flags in response to the USA's "lack of compliance" with such regulations.
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60375 date=1084703523]
How should Iraq feel when USA (having now twice attacked them) wanted to inspect their military installations? I'm sure that data collected under the guise of "looking for WMD" was used to further the war against Iraq. Very dishonest. Very ugly. Proof that Saddam was right?
[/quote]
The US attacking Iraq twice? The first incursion into the Gulf was a worldwide effort by a coalition of nations to stifle Saddam's territorial ambitions. His forces invaded neighboring Kuwait by force, and the US and its allies were called upon to end Saddam's incursions, which it did. Inspection of military installations was one of the most paramount provisions of the cease-fire agreed to by the UN and Saddam's government when General Schwarzkopf's forces and their allies were knocking on the door of Baghdad. Is expecting Saddam to comply with provisions he himself signed upon really that unreasonable? What kind of data collected under "looking for WMDs" do you really think would further the war against Iraq? Proof that Saddam had ambitions that were explicitly denounced and warned against by the national community? Or perhaps schematics on Saddam's weapons systems or troop movements? If you truly believe that Saddam is a victim in all of this, perhaps you should reevaluate your creed.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60375 date=1084703523]
Having mobile laboratories makes sense. Doing research makes sense. Trying to obtain technology makes sense. Following the restrictions of the UN makes sense. If "what the UN was trying to tell him" was that he should leave himself defenseless, then of course he would disregard that.
[/quote]
That's the point. He didn't follow UN restrictions. That's where this fiasco began. Or perhaps this is all part of Dubbya's "blood revenge" for Saddam's attempted assassination of his father.
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60375 date=1084703523]
What he had to regard was the letter of the demands, that he allow inspectors here and there, that he destroy this and that. And he did.
[/quote]
Once again, all he had was the obligation to comply with the national community, and he failed to do so.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60375 date=1084703523]
So does the USA. More power, resources, and a bigger arsenal than anyone should have. Their relentless support of a state practising terrorism, and repeating crimes against humanity are enough to earn them the boot and whatever might follow it. Anything else?
[/quote]
Hopefully, you mean the US government and not its people. The US doesn't have more power, resources, and a bigger arsenal than it should. The US is not a lunatic dictatorship that tortures its own people and acts solely for its own good at the expense of the world. Sure, at the national level, you can argue otherwise, but such a debate would be a broken record.
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60375 date=1084703523]
This was about WMD, not about weapons or terrorism support. Of course he wanted to get weapons, anything he could be allowed to have. And of course he would walk right on the borderline, no reason to build less than what you're allowed if what you really want is to build more.
[/quote]
The justification and causality of the war is something that's being debated to no end. Some say it's WMDs. Some say it's removal of his oppressive regime. Others say its oil. Some may even say that Cheney is some supernatural evil force trying to throw the world out of whack. It's probably a combination of reasons, the predominate one only being obvious to those directly affiliated with the Bush administration. The reasons behind his refusal to comply with his obligations are irrelevant; the fact is he didn't comply, and that was problematic.
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60375 date=1084703523]
I haven't seen any believable claims or evidence that he supported terrorism any more than the USA does. Any country is likely to have hosted terrorists at some time. That doesn't imply support or collaboration from the leaders of the country. He didn't belong to the same religious group as bin Laden, he'd be more likely to suppress such groups in Iraq.
[/quote]

There is tons of proof in the pudding, such as Saddam's gifts of $25,000 to family's of Palestinian suicide bombers, and his supplying of any anti-American forces with assault weapons and other supplies. He's done plenty enough to be branded as someone who actively supported anti-American and anti-American interest terrorist activity. bin Laden is not really part of a religious group. He is more of a militant tyrant who attempts to use religion as a means of garnering support from Muslim zealots. Most Muslims, infact, insist that bin Laden isn't really a Muslim, but instead someone who radicalizes many of its teachings for his own gains. Saddam Hussein's powerbase and support came predominately from the Sunni majority in Iraq, and bin Laden himself was also believed to be a Sunni. The current situation with al-Sadr and his Shi'ite militia is that it appears to me that al-Sadr essentially wants to capture power, as during Saddam's reign, Shi'ites lacked desirable influence. [quote][/quote]

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60375 date=1084703523]I haven't seen any believable claims or evidence that he supported terrorism any more than the USA does. Any country is likely to have hosted terrorists at some time. That doesn't imply support or collaboration from the leaders of the country. He didn't belong to the same religious group as bin Laden, he'd be more likely to suppress such groups in Iraq. [/quote]

Good point. What we call "supporting terrorism", when it is done against us or our allies, we call "propping up democracy" when we supply arms, munitions, money, intelligence, training, trucks, food, etc, to rebels or counter-rebels of whatever regime world-wide.

[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60423 date=1084731879]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60375 date=1084703523]

He is known to have had and used chemical weapons a long time ago. I haven't seen any evidence of him having them now.
[/quote]
The evidence lies in the disease and suffering of Kurds, among others, in various parts of Iraq today. He has also used such devices on prisoners of his regime. Series of vials, containers, and development material were also seized. However, they were "disregarded" because they were nuclear weapons. Saddam being arm-less now? Who are you kiding?
[/quote]

I'm kidding noone. Why should I be? You seem to think you're kidding me, but you're not. Saddam wasn't arm-less, but he wasn't using wmd on the kurds now. Can you point at any news that says that wmd were seized in iraq, and specifies what? All I've seen is news saying that nothing but traces of weapons have been found still. Various buried remains, similar to the remains of world war weaponry you find at sea here. They've found plans, equipment that may be used to produce weapons or similars, but no actual wmd. No immediate threat. Nothing that inspections couldn't have kept in check.


[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60423 date=1084731879]
After demands from the UN, Saddam disposed of cosmetic amounts of his arsenal to show that he was doing something. Things like Anthrax and AOrange aren't exactly things you leave "trace amounts of". For it to completely be disposed of, measures need to be taken to ensure negligible amounts remain and then decompose or disjoint over short periods of time. Finding vials of live germs and chemicals being preserved in somewhat-ideal conditions doesn't constitute "trace amounts". Sure Saddam's regime made galiant efforts of getting rid of as much as possible when they knew their twilight was approaching, but that doesn't really change the fact that they had it just days ago.
[/quote]

Days ago? All gone now? Strange how all the wmd just magically disappear....


[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60423 date=1084731879]
If he thought those long-range missiles could be effectively used against the Americans, he'd probably want to keep them intact. The dismantled missiles were of the same grade he used during the first Gulf War, and he probably assumed that this time, launching a volley of missiles at Israel or a neighboring country as a means of "defending himself" probably wouldn't score very many points with the national community, so ofcourse it was in his best interest to dismantle them, because then atleast it'd seem like he didn't "have them".
[/quote]

Or, perhaps he assumed that since he was doing what he was told, he'd be ok? What would he have done to not be attacked? Produce some wmd that he could then publicly dismantle, to satisfy the USA?


[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60423 date=1084731879]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60375 date=1084703523]
What USA did was keep adding demands until he could take it no more. A good strategy for creating a war to improve your ratings a bit, and distract people's attention.
[/quote]
The USA didn't keep "adding demands" that was the UN., and boy did they do it well. The US's demands included little more than actually allowing UN Weapons Inspectors, which Saddam didn't follow all that well, as a majority of sites that the inspectors wanted to see were denied to them. The US simply helped enforce the UN's word.
[/quote]

The UN's word was to not attack Iraq. Saddam didn't like to allow American inspectors, a perfectly understandable opinion.



[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60423 date=1084731879]
And no, this war did NOTHING to boost the American government's "ratings". In fact, if you'd follow the polls, you'd know that Bush's approval ratings have been slipping with just about every passing day, so I can't quite see where you're going with your wag-the-dog accusation.
[/quote]

It did help distract from local politics for a while. Now that Americans are getting their heads sawed off, ratings are likely to not rise so quickly. Wars that aren't being quickly and smoothly won tend to have that effect. Maybe that means Bush will be pulling out soon. Hopefully not, as that'd just leave a big mess that he's created.

[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60423 date=1084731879]
I doubt I'd allow "Iraq" to do much inspecting, but if it was the national community, I'd probably comply. In fact, the US, like most superpower nations, are subject to inspection from various global agencies regarding compliance with various arms-control treatis, some established after WWII, and others during and after the Cold War. I've yet to see the national community raise red flags in response to the USA's "lack of compliance" with such regulations.
[/quote]

Ah, the difference is then that USA sends its agents under the UN flag? I don't think Saddam saw that difference. And I think the USA would've taken any chance they could to sneak in spies among the inspectors.

[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60423 date=1084731879]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5900;start=195#msg60375 date=1084703523]
How should Iraq feel when USA (having now twice attacked them) wanted to inspect their military installations? I'm sure that data collected under the guise of "looking for WMD" was used to further the war against Iraq. Very dishonest. Very ugly. Proof that Saddam was right?
[/quote]
The US attacking Iraq twice? The first incursion into the Gulf was a worldwide effort by a coalition of nations to stifle Saddam's territorial ambitions. His forces invaded neighboring Kuwait by force, and the US and its allies were called upon to end Saddam's incursions, which it did. Inspection of military installations was one of the most paramount provisions of the cease-fire agreed to by the UN and Saddam's government when General Schwarzkopf's forces and their allies were knocking on the door of Baghdad. Is expecting Saddam to comply with provisions he himself signed upon really that unreasonable? What kind of data collected under "looking for WMDs" do you really think would further the war against Iraq? Proof that Saddam had ambitions that were explicitly denounced and warned against by the national community? Or perhaps schematics on Saddam's weapons systems or troop movements? If you truly believe that Saddam is a victim in all of this, perhaps you should reevaluate your creed.
[/quote]

Yes, the US attacked Iraq twice. Once it was sanctioned by the UN. The other time it was just a regular illegal assault war on a small country. Both were definitely attacks. I don't think Saddam liked either one of them?

I think that knowledge of troop locations, strengths, weapons systems, etc could help further the war. Typically summarized as "Intelligence". You're saying that USA didn't take advantage of any Intelligence gather by the weapons inspectors, during the war?

[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60423 date=1084731879]
That's the point. He didn't follow UN restrictions. That's where this fiasco began. Or perhaps this is all part of Dubbya's "blood revenge" for Saddam's attempted assassination of his father.
[/quote]

Many countries don't follow the UN. One example of such a country could be the USA, attacking random small helpless countries such as Iraq. Is what you're saying that such countries deserve anything they get?



[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60423 date=1084731879]
Hopefully, you mean the US government and not its people. The US doesn't have more power, resources, and a bigger arsenal than it should. The US is not a lunatic dictatorship that tortures its own people and acts solely for its own good at the expense of the world. Sure, at the national level, you can argue otherwise, but such a debate would be a broken record.
[/quote]

Yes, I mean the government. It has wmd. It has a history of supporting regimes that support the US no matter what (i.e. coups, torture, dictatorships) instead of supporting legitimate regimes. And no, the US tortures mostly other people, and acts solely for its own good, sometimes at the expense of the world. I'm not sure what you mean about "national level".


[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60423 date=1084731879]
The justification and causality of the war is something that's being debated to no end. Some say it's WMDs. Some say it's removal of his oppressive regime. Others say its oil. Some may even say that Cheney is some supernatural evil force trying to throw the world out of whack. It's probably a combination of reasons, the predominate one only being obvious to those directly affiliated with the Bush administration. The reasons behind his refusal to comply with his obligations are irrelevant; the fact is he didn't comply, and that was problematic.
[/quote]

The biggest claimed reason was the immediate threat from Saddam's wmd. You know, that non-existant threat. It might have been oil, in which case it wasn't very successful. It could even have been removal of his regime, whic isn't a legitimate reason for an attack - intervening in the internal affairs of another state.


[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60423 date=1084731879]
There is tons of proof in the pudding, such as Saddam's gifts of $25,000 to family's of Palestinian suicide bombers, and his supplying of any anti-American forces with assault weapons and other supplies. He's done plenty enough to be branded as someone who actively supported anti-American and anti-American interest terrorist activity.
[/quote]

Ah, of course. The US has never supported underground movements or revolutionists? The US doesn't supply anti-Palestinian forces with weapons, such as rockets killing dozens of innocent palestinians? I don't think this line is anything you should be pursuing, because the US has done more than enough of supporting illegal activities.


[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60423 date=1084731879]
bin Laden is not really part of a religious group. He is more of a militant tyrant who attempts to use religion as a means of garnering support from Muslim zealots. Most Muslims, infact, insist that bin Laden isn't really a Muslim, but instead someone who radicalizes many of its teachings for his own gains. Saddam Hussein's powerbase and support came predominately from the Sunni majority in Iraq, and bin Laden himself was also believed to be a Sunni. The current situation with al-Sadr and his Shi'ite militia is that it appears to me that al-Sadr essentially wants to capture power, as during Saddam's reign, Shi'ites lacked desirable influence. [/quote]

I can't say whether bin Laden is a true believer or not. He claims to be. Saddam claims not to be. For that reason, seeing them in an alliance makes no sense. Saddam cared for his riches and his power in his country. bin Laden wants to destroy America for ideological reasons. They're not the same at all.

Raven is using a lot of old information. Sure, Saddam had loads of WMD before the first gulf war - which is why a worldwide coalition (a real one that time) invaded, with the UN's backing, and verifyably destroyed everything they could find. This was documented by the UN and has not yet been disputed by anyone. Sure, he used WMD on the kurds - but that was ages ago. Probably 15 or 20 years by now? You cannot use evidence that he *was* a threat to show that he *is* a threat now, especially after the world made such a sterling effort to remove his chemical and biological weapons.

Another thing that many people don't realise is that these weapons are very complicated. The two chemical weapons that Saddam stockpiled - sarin and tabun - have short shelf lives of about 5 years. Even if Saddam managed to conceal some from the inspectors the first time round, they would by now have degraded into useless sludge.

The simple fact is that with the combined effects of UN sanctions and international monitering (via satellite and soforth) of Iraq before the war and after Gulf War 1 would have detected any attempt to manufacture these weapons. If Iraq had been manufacturing these weapons after the international inspections, not only would we have known, but we would have found them after the war. To date, no WMD at all has been found in Iraq, post-war. None! People say that he could have hidden them, which I have already explained as being unlikely. This war was patently not about WMD. I really have no clue what's going on.

I hope to god that Bush looses the next election. The man's a liability.

I doubt Bush will lose, most elections have been won by the man that could raise the most amount of money. This election has had the highest amount of money than all the ones prior to it, and Bush has a lot more money than Kerry at the moment. Kerry lost out by having to pay for primaries and not getting free media coverage like Bush, since he's an incumbent and he has been stockpiling for 4 years. :)

Perhaps. Gallup has Kerry 1 point behind. It'll be a close thing.

[quote author=hismajesty link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60771 date=1084931099]
I doubt Bush will lose, most elections have been won by the man that could raise the most amount of money. This election has had the highest amount of money than all the ones prior to it, and Bush has a lot more money than Kerry at the moment. Kerry lost out by having to pay for primaries and not getting free media coverage like Bush, since he's an incumbent and he has been stockpiling for 4 years. :)
[/quote]

Kerry's wife is a billionairess. If money is needed, and if Kerry wants to win bad enough, the money will become available.

It still wouldn't top what Bush has raised/contributed to the campaign. I forget the figures however so I can't post them, but I know it's substantially more we were reading about it in Government class about month back.

All about money eh? Such a stupid scheme, where it should really be about proper testing of candidates.... :P

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]
I'm kidding noone. Why should I be? You seem to think you're kidding me, but you're not. Saddam wasn't arm-less, but he wasn't using wmd on the kurds now. Can you point at any news that says that wmd were seized in iraq, and specifies what? All I've seen is news saying that nothing but traces of weapons have been found still. Various buried remains, similar to the remains of world war weaponry you find at sea here. They've found plans, equipment that may be used to produce weapons or similars, but no actual wmd. No immediate threat. Nothing that inspections couldn't have kept in check.
[/quote]
Vials of anthrax and other materials suited to growing various types of germs. I already mentioned that. The immediate threat wasn't the point. The point was that he was a thorn in the side of the world that was beginning to nag more and more. He was removed, and that was a good thing. There were inspections. Inspections have been going on for years. Eventually, the inspectors weren't satisfied with being forbidden from certain areas that they deemed of interest to themselves, and that is where this began. Saddam did use germs and gas on Kurds and scores of Iraqi citizens. Sure he wasn't the last month or so before he was removed.


[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]
Days ago? All gone now? Strange how all the wmd just magically disappear....
[/quote]
They didn't dissapear. Plenty of WMDs have already been found. They just weren't nuclear weapons, but as I mentioned already, other weapons were already found.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]

Or, perhaps he assumed that since he was doing what he was told, he'd be ok? What would he have done to not be attacked? Produce some wmd that he could then publicly dismantle, to satisfy the USA?
[/quote]
He wasn't doing what he was told. What he COULD'VE done was give inspectors free access to wherever they wanted to go. Those were provisions he agreed upon earlier.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]
The UN's word was to not attack Iraq. Saddam didn't like to allow American inspectors, a perfectly understandable opinion.
[/quote]
The UN vote was not in overwhelming defeat of Bush's plans. They voted to ask the US to use restraint until more inspectors could be sent. The inspectors were sent. They were defiant. Therefore, Bush's administration okayed the removal of Saddam. The final team of inspectors was not American; in fact, they were predominately European. He didn't like American inspectors? Tough. He signed the provisions; he was obligated to comply with them.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]
It did help distract from local politics for a while. Now that Americans are getting their heads sawed off, ratings are likely to not rise so quickly. Wars that aren't being quickly and smoothly won tend to have that effect. Maybe that means Bush will be pulling out soon. Hopefully not, as that'd just leave a big mess that he's created.
[/quote]
The distraction the war provided was miniscule; issues like the waining economy occupied plenty enough room. Perhaps you weren't watching the news? The very proposition of the war already marked a fall in his ratings, and as the compaign progressed, they didn't rise very much. Bringing up the tragedy of the decapitation is tasteless. And you hope the US doesn't pull out soon? So that means you'd rather see more people suffer just so you can see Bush's image get hurt? It's amuzing how hypocritical some people are; you're against the war, but you're rather see it continue because you hate Bush.
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]
Ah, the difference is then that USA sends its agents under the UN flag? I don't think Saddam saw that difference. And I think the USA would've taken any chance they could to sneak in spies among the inspectors.
[/quote]
Once again; it didn't matter what Saddam thought. He was obligated to follow provisions he agreed to. We can go on and on debating the intentions of US military intelligence.
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]
Yes, the US attacked Iraq twice. Once it was sanctioned by the UN. The other time it was just a regular illegal assault war on a small country. Both were definitely attacks. I don't think Saddam liked either one of them?
[/quote]
What Saddam liked or disliked was irrelevant. His actions brought his circumstances upon him.
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]
I think that knowledge of troop locations, strengths, weapons systems, etc could help further the war. Typically summarized as "Intelligence". You're saying that USA didn't take advantage of any Intelligence gather by the weapons inspectors, during the war?
[/quote]
No, what I was saying was the little military "intelligence" that was gathered by the inspectors provided a disregardable direct advantage to the military campaign.
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]

Many countries don't follow the UN. One example of such a country could be the USA, attacking random small helpless countries such as Iraq. Is what you're saying that such countries deserve anything they get?
[/quote]
That's true, many don't follow the UN. However, few of them in doing so are breaking accords that their active leaders have signed. The attack was not in Iraq, but on its ruling government. Saddam got what he deserved.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]
Yes, I mean the government. It has wmd. It has a history of supporting regimes that support the US no matter what (i.e. coups, torture, dictatorships) instead of supporting legitimate regimes. And no, the US tortures mostly other people, and acts solely for its own good, sometimes at the expense of the world. I'm not sure what you mean about "national level".
[/quote]
Accusing the US of hypocrisy is a broken record. If you wanted to point out all the hypocrisy perpetrated by the governments of the world, your fingers would be sore for a while.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]

The biggest claimed reason was the immediate threat from Saddam's wmd. You know, that non-existant threat. It might have been oil, in which case it wasn't very successful. It could even have been removal of his regime, whic isn't a legitimate reason for an attack - intervening in the internal affairs of another state.
[/quote]
It was not the biggest claim; it was one of them. However, the threat from Saddam's arsenal was always there, and required interjection from the national community. The removal of his oppressive and malevolent regime was a legitimate reason for attack. The actions of his government were hardly an "internal affair". The world community has been interfering in the internal affairs of other nations for decades, recently being with the removal of Slobodan Milosevic's murderous regime in Serbia. Just because this time it was Bush initiating such actions doesn't make them illegitimate.
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]

Ah, of course. The US has never supported underground movements or revolutionists? The US doesn't supply anti-Palestinian forces with weapons, such as rockets killing dozens of innocent palestinians? I don't think this line is anything you should be pursuing, because the US has done more than enough of supporting illegal activities.
[/quote]
The US's support of revolutionaries tended to be exclusive to entities who fought mostly oppressive regimes almost exclusively in their own states. Iraq supplied terrorist organizations with weapons that were used to strike countries abroad, with the attacks being aimed almost exclusively at innocent civilians instead of militias and government vanguards. The rockets the US supplied Israel with arrived years ago, designed to aid them with their military conflicts with aggressive neighboring states, as well as anti-ballistic missile systems intended to protect innocent civilians from ICBMs launched by people like Saddam. The missile that sadly have been killing innocent civilians tend to be of domestic Israeli manufacture. However, the money and equipment Saddam consistently provided terrorist organizations (whose missions tend to be specifically to kill innocent civilians instead of military entities) are still being used today to kill innocent Israelies. Most major nations today are guilty of aiding rogue political bodies and organizations, but the details of such endeavours cannot all be brushed under the same rug.
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]

I can't say whether bin Laden is a true believer or not. He claims to be. Saddam claims not to be. For that reason, seeing them in an alliance makes no sense. Saddam cared for his riches and his power in his country. bin Laden wants to destroy America for ideological reasons. They're not the same at all.
[/quote]
An alliance between the two is technically improbable, however their desire to strike at a common foe, in this case America, provides more than enough reasonable cause for assuming they did, or intended to, proceed in atleast some joint venture.

Raven, wow. Greatest departure from logic I have ever seen you take?

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61080 date=1085105828]
Raven, wow. Greatest departure from logic I have ever seen you take?
[/quote]
Perhaps you should actually read what I write first.

[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61083 date=1085106098]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61080 date=1085105828]
Raven, wow. Greatest departure from logic I have ever seen you take?
[/quote]
Perhaps you should actually read what I write first.
[/quote]

I read it very carefully. Maybe more carefully than you did before you posted it?

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61080 date=1085105828]
Raven, wow. Greatest departure from logic I have ever seen you take?
[/quote]

I thought Raven's argument was a very good one. Then again my opinions are very different than yours. I guess my logic must be way out there...

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61106 date=1085115011]
[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61083 date=1085106098]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61080 date=1085105828]
Raven, wow. Greatest departure from logic I have ever seen you take?
[/quote]
Perhaps you should actually read what I write first.
[/quote]

I read it very carefully. Maybe more carefully than you did before you posted it?
[/quote]
So my opinions are illogical simply because you disagree with them. How logical of you.

I'm having fun watching this argument. Seems like Raven has facts, and those quotes of Adron were mainly opinion. This is fun to read.

Raven is quoting some facts, and a lot of old (now untrue) facts, and some things purported as facts that are just completely untrue. It seems that no one has addressed the points I made in my previous post yet.

No evidence has ever been put forward that Iraq supported terrorists. No WMD have been found in Iraq since the end of the war. Aluminium tubes, you say? Could be used for any number of things. Vials for anthrax (which Saddam never made or possesed, by the way)? Is that surprising? He *had* lots of WMD, before UNSCOM inspectors verifyably destroyed them - a fact documented by the UN and not disputed by the US - is it really shocking that a couple of vials could be left over? The simple fact is that the manufacture of WMD requires industrialisation, which requires money, parts, and large installations. The acquisition of all of those is readily detectable.

The only real source of 'evidence' is what Bush says is true. And he says a lot of strange things, as we all know.

As an afterthought - You mention the UN. How badly someone looses a vote is not a measure of how acceptable it is to flout the result of that vote in favour of your own self-interest. I do not claim to be armed with all the facts - none of us can be. I do claim, however, that most (if not all) of the states on the security council of the UN were armed with the facts at the time of the vote on whether to invade. The fact that the US lost that vote - and the fact that most of the 'old europe' countries voted against the war - is very damning in my eyes. Here you have a massive body of countries with foreign relations experience extending back hundreds of years. This is compared to the US, which has only been around for a little over 200 years, 150 of those spent in virtual isolation from the rest of the world.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61187 date=1085216637]
Raven is quoting some facts, and a lot of old (now untrue) facts, and some things purported as facts that are just completely untrue. It seems that no one has addressed the points I made in my previous post yet.

No evidence has ever been put forward that Iraq supported terrorists. No WMD have been found in Iraq since the end of the war. Aluminium tubes, you say? Could be used for any number of things. Vials for anthrax (which Saddam never made or possesed, by the way)? Is that surprising? He *had* lots of WMD, before UNSCOM inspectors verifyably destroyed them - a fact documented by the UN and not disputed by the US - is it really shocking that a couple of vials could be left over? The simple fact is that the manufacture of WMD requires industrialisation, which requires money, parts, and large installations. The acquisition of all of those is readily detectable.

The only real source of 'evidence' is what Bush says is true. And he says a lot of strange things, as we all know.

As an afterthought - You mention the UN. How badly someone looses a vote is not a measure of how acceptable it is to flout the result of that vote in favour of your own self-interest. I do not claim to be armed with all the facts - none of us can be. I do claim, however, that most (if not all) of the states on the security council of the UN were armed with the facts at the time of the vote on whether to invade. The fact that the US lost that vote - and the fact that most of the 'old europe' countries voted against the war - is very damning in my eyes. Here you have a massive body of countries with foreign relations experience extending back hundreds of years. This is compared to the US, which has only been around for a little over 200 years, 150 of those spent in virtual isolation from the rest of the world.
[/quote]

That's because you didn't make any real points that Adron hadn't previously touched upon.

There's no proof that Hussein didn't support terrorism? Are you mad? Saddam donated thousands of dollars to terrorists and their families to "repay" them for their efforts (I believe I mentioned this already), he knowingly harbored and resupplied terrorist factions and cells within his borders, convoys and shipments of weapons were intercepted by Israeli authorities that were headed for Hamas' militant wings and other terrorist organizations, and Saddam himself continually flaunted his pro-terrorist policies and dared the world to do something about it. To claim that there's no "proof" that Saddam aided terrorism is laughable at best.

You say that Europe's larger states have more experience than the US as though it has been the same people holding office for hundreds of years. Political idealogies have changed countless times; since the founding of America, about 5 different forms of government were noted, as well as plenty of scandals and revolutions. I'll put the political expertise of most living American policymakers against just about any living European's any day. You cannot assume a certain politician knows best based on the age of the nation he or she represents. We can only hope the decisions they make will deliver the best possible outcome.

[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61059 date=1085101338]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]
I'm kidding noone. Why should I be? You seem to think you're kidding me, but you're not. Saddam wasn't arm-less, but he wasn't using wmd on the kurds now. Can you point at any news that says that wmd were seized in iraq, and specifies what? All I've seen is news saying that nothing but traces of weapons have been found still. Various buried remains, similar to the remains of world war weaponry you find at sea here. They've found plans, equipment that may be used to produce weapons or similars, but no actual wmd. No immediate threat. Nothing that inspections couldn't have kept in check.
[/quote]
Vials of anthrax and other materials suited to growing various types of germs. I already mentioned that. The immediate threat wasn't the point. The point was that he was a thorn in the side of the world that was beginning to nag more and more. He was removed, and that was a good thing. There were inspections. Inspections have been going on for years. Eventually, the inspectors weren't satisfied with being forbidden from certain areas that they deemed of interest to themselves, and that is where this began. Saddam did use germs and gas on Kurds and scores of Iraqi citizens. Sure he wasn't the last month or so before he was removed.
[/quote]

A few vials of anthrax found hidden in a scientist's home or office? That is Saddam's fearful WMD arsenal? THAT is what required a full-scale war?

Saddam may have been a thorn, but the world voted to give him time. Saddam was not an immediate threat, and there was no valid reason to attack him. Besides, Israel is a much bigger thorn in the world's side than Saddam.

Saddam did use gas, long ago. Irrelevant to this conversation. Unless you want to nuke America because they're the only nation to have used nuclear weapons against another nation?


[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61059 date=1085101338]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]
Days ago? All gone now? Strange how all the wmd just magically disappear....
[/quote]
They didn't dissapear. Plenty of WMDs have already been found. They just weren't nuclear weapons, but as I mentioned already, other weapons were already found.
[/quote]

What I've found in the articles I've read are a lot of maybes. Stuff that could be used to make weapons, drawings for weapons, but not actual weapons.


[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61059 date=1085101338]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]

Or, perhaps he assumed that since he was doing what he was told, he'd be ok? What would he have done to not be attacked? Produce some wmd that he could then publicly dismantle, to satisfy the USA?
[/quote]
He wasn't doing what he was told. What he COULD'VE done was give inspectors free access to wherever they wanted to go. Those were provisions he agreed upon earlier.
[/quote]

That's not a reason to go to war. If you really believe that minor disputes over agreements are a reason for war, I'll bring up Israel and perhaps other countries who agree to a plan, then change their mind or procrastinate. You can't expect him to lie on his back, like a beaten dog all the time. That's not the way people work.


[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61059 date=1085101338]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]
The UN's word was to not attack Iraq. Saddam didn't like to allow American inspectors, a perfectly understandable opinion.
[/quote]
The UN vote was not in overwhelming defeat of Bush's plans. They voted to ask the US to use restraint until more inspectors could be sent. The inspectors were sent. They were defiant. Therefore, Bush's administration okayed the removal of Saddam. The final team of inspectors was not American; in fact, they were predominately European. He didn't like American inspectors? Tough. He signed the provisions; he was obligated to comply with them.
[/quote]

Which still doesn't change the fact that the US attacked Iraq without a valid UN sanction. The reason the UN vote wasn't an overwhelming defeat for Bush was the lies spread by Bush's supporters - that Iraq was an immediate threat.



[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61059 date=1085101338]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]
It did help distract from local politics for a while. Now that Americans are getting their heads sawed off, ratings are likely to not rise so quickly. Wars that aren't being quickly and smoothly won tend to have that effect. Maybe that means Bush will be pulling out soon. Hopefully not, as that'd just leave a big mess that he's created.
[/quote]
The distraction the war provided was miniscule; issues like the waining economy occupied plenty enough room. Perhaps you weren't watching the news? The very proposition of the war already marked a fall in his ratings, and as the compaign progressed, they didn't rise very much. Bringing up the tragedy of the decapitation is tasteless. And you hope the US doesn't pull out soon? So that means you'd rather see more people suffer just so you can see Bush's image get hurt? It's amuzing how hypocritical some people are; you're against the war, but you're rather see it continue because you hate Bush.
[/quote]

I was against starting the war. Once you have started it, you have to see it through, because right now it's all a mess. What I'm saying is that since you made the mess, now you get to fix it. It's easier to destroy than to rebuild.





[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61059 date=1085101338]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]
Yes, the US attacked Iraq twice. Once it was sanctioned by the UN. The other time it was just a regular illegal assault war on a small country. Both were definitely attacks. I don't think Saddam liked either one of them?
[/quote]
What Saddam liked or disliked was irrelevant. His actions brought his circumstances upon him.
[/quote]

It's relevant for understanding his position. You have to try to understand him.


[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61059 date=1085101338]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]
I think that knowledge of troop locations, strengths, weapons systems, etc could help further the war. Typically summarized as "Intelligence". You're saying that USA didn't take advantage of any Intelligence gather by the weapons inspectors, during the war?
[/quote]
No, what I was saying was the little military "intelligence" that was gathered by the inspectors provided a disregardable direct advantage to the military campaign.
[/quote]

Belief or fact? Perhaps the reason they didn't provide a huge advantage (assuming they didn't) was that Saddam didn't allow the American spies everywhere?



[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61059 date=1085101338]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]
Many countries don't follow the UN. One example of such a country could be the USA, attacking random small helpless countries such as Iraq. Is what you're saying that such countries deserve anything they get?
[/quote]
That's true, many don't follow the UN. However, few of them in doing so are breaking accords that their active leaders have signed. The attack was not in Iraq, but on its ruling government. Saddam got what he deserved.
[/quote]

Yes, in a way Saddam got what he deserved. The Iraqi people doesn't deserve chaos though, and the US didn't have the right to give Saddam what he deserved.


[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61059 date=1085101338]
Accusing the US of hypocrisy is a broken record. If you wanted to point out all the hypocrisy perpetrated by the governments of the world, your fingers would be sore for a while.
[/quote]
It works for showing that the decision to attack Iraq was arbitrary in some regards. There must've been other reasons to do it.


[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61059 date=1085101338]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]
The biggest claimed reason was the immediate threat from Saddam's wmd. You know, that non-existant threat. It might have been oil, in which case it wasn't very successful. It could even have been removal of his regime, whic isn't a legitimate reason for an attack - intervening in the internal affairs of another state.
[/quote]
It was not the biggest claim; it was one of them. However, the threat from Saddam's arsenal was always there, and required interjection from the national community. The removal of his oppressive and malevolent regime was a legitimate reason for attack.
[/quote]

It was not a legitimate reason; the UN said no.

[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61059 date=1085101338]
The actions of his government were hardly an "internal affair". The world community has been interfering in the internal affairs of other nations for decades, recently being with the removal of Slobodan Milosevic's murderous regime in Serbia. Just because this time it was Bush initiating such actions doesn't make them illegitimate.
[/quote]

It does. The UN can do things that the US cannot, legitimately.



[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61059 date=1085101338]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]

Ah, of course. The US has never supported underground movements or revolutionists? The US doesn't supply anti-Palestinian forces with weapons, such as rockets killing dozens of innocent palestinians? I don't think this line is anything you should be pursuing, because the US has done more than enough of supporting illegal activities.
[/quote]
The US's support of revolutionaries tended to be exclusive to entities who fought mostly oppressive regimes almost exclusively in their own states. Iraq supplied terrorist organizations with weapons that were used to strike countries abroad, with the attacks being aimed almost exclusively at innocent civilians instead of militias and government vanguards. The rockets the US supplied Israel with arrived years ago, designed to aid them with their military conflicts with aggressive neighboring states, as well as anti-ballistic missile systems intended to protect innocent civilians from ICBMs launched by people like Saddam. The missile that sadly have been killing innocent civilians tend to be of domestic Israeli manufacture. However, the money and equipment Saddam consistently provided terrorist organizations (whose missions tend to be specifically to kill innocent civilians instead of military entities) are still being used today to kill innocent Israelies. Most major nations today are guilty of aiding rogue political bodies and organizations, but the details of such endeavours cannot all be brushed under the same rug.
[/quote]

The US has supported regimes which have tortured and executed civilians. The US has more resources to offer. If Saddam had equivalent resources to offer to the nations he supported, the "war" would be fought differently. They have to make do with what they get - if they can destroy tanks and kill soldiers, they will, and they sometimes do too. If they don't have weapons that lets them attack soldiers, I fully well understand their attacking the "civilians" (i.e. armed occupants) living in settlements on their soil.

Also, supporting families left behind after dead warriors can't be such a bad thing to do.


[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61059 date=1085101338]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]

I can't say whether bin Laden is a true believer or not. He claims to be. Saddam claims not to be. For that reason, seeing them in an alliance makes no sense. Saddam cared for his riches and his power in his country. bin Laden wants to destroy America for ideological reasons. They're not the same at all.
[/quote]
An alliance between the two is technically improbable, however their desire to strike at a common foe, in this case America, provides more than enough reasonable cause for assuming they did, or intended to, proceed in atleast some joint venture.
[/quote]

Innocent until proven guilty, are we?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61187 date=1085216637]The fact that the US lost that vote - and the fact that most of the 'old europe' countries voted against the war - is very damning in my eyes. Here you have a massive body of countries with foreign relations experience extending back hundreds of years. This is compared to the US, which has only been around for a little over 200 years, 150 of those spent in virtual isolation from the rest of the world. [/quote]

Arta, that argument does not fly. You only have to look at WWI to see that all those old European countries had no clue how to handle foreign relations. If any of those hundreds of years of experience prior were useful in 1914, it would not have taken only two months from an assassination in July 1914, until September 1914, for 33 countries to be at war. That is not the kind of foreign relations experience on which the world should depend.

So, at best, you can hope they all learned from it and can only count their foreign relations experience since that time. But attempting to do that is not possible either. England, the imperialist of all imperialists, has been in more trouble worldwide than even the United States. Spain has been through countless revolutions and government changes, rending all their experience null. France, well they only have one foreign policy -- run. Germany is suffering from massive cultural guilt, albeit forced by culture and law. Russia is a non-union of fragmented states, most just trying to survive the next crop season, and will do anything in their own best interests, foreign relations be damned.

But here in the United States, we have blinders on, even to our own experiences of the past. Two days ago, I heard an impassioned but eloquent speech by Senator Earnest Hollings (Demcrat from South Carolina), on the subject of Iraq. In part of it he denounced the White House administrations seeking of democracy in Iraq, saying that democracy must come from within. People must want it and fight for it. He proceeded to list off over two dozen countries around the world where the USA had meddled and attempted to "install" democracy, each failing because the people never wanted it. He said if we really want to find out if the Iraqis want democracy, do the vote in September 2004, not in September 2005. Give the people a vote NOW. If they don't want democracy, they won't vote, and we can leave. If they do want democracy, then stay and help the new government rebuild, at their own discretion on what they need from us.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61377 date=1085335641]Which still doesn't change the fact that the US attacked Iraq without a valid UN sanction. The reason the UN vote wasn't an overwhelming defeat for Bush was the lies spread by Bush's supporters - that Iraq was an immediate threat.[/quote]
To my understanding, which may be wrong, the United States is not a U.N. territory, and is not subject to any ruling by the U.N. The U.N. rulings are merely suggestions, as far as U.S. law is concerned. Citizens of the USA will never give up our sovereignty. I don't really understand how the U.N. can exist without rule of law. But nonetheless, it's invalid to say the USA needs any approvals from the UN.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]Yes, in a way Saddam got what he deserved. The Iraqi people doesn't deserve chaos though, and the US didn't have the right to give Saddam what he deserved.[/quote]
I somewhat agree. Honestly, but without proof, I believe the real issue here is that puppet Saddam, who the USA financed to help fight Iran (when we hated THEM), got out of the USA's control. He became a liability, and since we were responsible for giving him all those WMD abilities, and the supplies, and the knowledge, (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) then it became time for us to "erase" him.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61382 date=1085337480]
Arta, that argument does not fly. You only have to look at WWI to see that all those old European countries had no clue how to handle foreign relations. If any of those hundreds of years of experience prior were useful in 1914, it would not have taken only two months from an assassination in July 1914, until September 1914, for 33 countries to be at war. That is not the kind of foreign relations experience on which the world should depend.

So, at best, you can hope they all learned from it and can only count their foreign relations experience since that time. But attempting to do that is not possible either. England, the imperialist of all imperialists, has been in more trouble worldwide than even the United States. Spain has been through countless revolutions and government changes, rending all their experience null. France, well they only have one foreign policy -- run. Germany is suffering from massive cultural guilt, albeit forced by culture and law. Russia is a non-union of fragmented states, most just trying to survive the next crop season, and will do anything in their own best interests, foreign relations be damned.

But here in the United States, we have blinders on, even to our own experiences of the past. Two days ago, I heard an impassioned but eloquent speech by Senator Earnest Hollings (Demcrat from South Carolina), on the subject of Iraq. In part of it he denounced the White House administrations seeking of democracy in Iraq, saying that democracy must come from within. People must want it and fight for it. He proceeded to list off over two dozen countries around the world where the USA had meddled and attempted to "install" democracy, each failing because the people never wanted it. He said if we really want to find out if the Iraqis want democracy, do the vote in September 2004, not in September 2005. Give the people a vote NOW. If they don't want democracy, they won't vote, and we can leave. If they do want democracy, then stay and help the new government rebuild, at their own discretion on what they need from us.

To my understanding, which may be wrong, the United States is not a U.N. territory, and is not subject to any ruling by the U.N. The U.N. rulings are merely suggestions, as far as U.S. law is concerned. Citizens of the USA will never give up our sovereignty. I don't really understand how the U.N. can exist without rule of law. But nonetheless, it's invalid to say the USA needs any approvals from the UN.

I somewhat agree. Honestly, but without proof, I believe the real issue here is that puppet Saddam, who the USA financed to help fight Iran (when we hated THEM), got out of the USA's control. He became a liability, and since we were responsible for giving him all those WMD abilities, and the supplies, and the knowledge, (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) then it became time for us to "erase" him.
[/quote]

I don’t mean to draw away from the conversation, but this is the most truth I have seen yet. I am a big supporter of America, and our current administration, but when put in perspective it is almost scary. Everyone, including the US, likes to beat their chest and say they are right, when in reality none of them really are. I think the UN is a great idea gone wrong. I just wish there could be some sort of world unity, without the fear of a unilateral government. The world we live in is a very scary place, unless you live in America with the blinders on like you said. Why as a nation, are we so blind to what's really going on? Is it because of our freedoms, or something else? Makes me wonder if to some degree we are brainwashed.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61382 date=1085337480]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61377 date=1085335641]Which still doesn't change the fact that the US attacked Iraq without a valid UN sanction. The reason the UN vote wasn't an overwhelming defeat for Bush was the lies spread by Bush's supporters - that Iraq was an immediate threat.[/quote]
To my understanding, which may be wrong, the United States is not a U.N. territory, and is not subject to any ruling by the U.N. The U.N. rulings are merely suggestions, as far as U.S. law is concerned. Citizens of the USA will never give up our sovereignty. I don't really understand how the U.N. can exist without rule of law. But nonetheless, it's invalid to say the USA needs any approvals from the UN.
[/quote]

Doing what you want to inside the US is your own business. You have sovereignty. A war between nations necessarily involves more than one nation though ;)

Apart from that, USA is known for not collaborating with other nations, and not accepting treaties that other democratic governments accept. You should give up more. One example is the treaty about war criminals - not accepting an international court for that.


[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61382 date=1085337480]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=30#msg60719 date=1084918732]Yes, in a way Saddam got what he deserved. The Iraqi people doesn't deserve chaos though, and the US didn't have the right to give Saddam what he deserved.[/quote]
I somewhat agree. Honestly, but without proof, I believe the real issue here is that puppet Saddam, who the USA financed to help fight Iran (when we hated THEM), got out of the USA's control. He became a liability, and since we were responsible for giving him all those WMD abilities, and the supplies, and the knowledge, (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) then it became time for us to "erase" him.
[/quote]

That makes a bit of sense. Give help to an evil dictator as long as he's gassing people you don't like, then smack him down when you need a distraction, and he's starting to become a nuisance.

Grok:

Perhaps. I just can't see what the US is doing happening in europe though. For so many selfish, greedy, blind, stupid people to elevate themselves to such important positions as to be able to do what they're doing. I thought about an explanation, and that's what I came up with. Maybe I'm not displaying enough foresight.

Raven:

I was referring to collective experience, not individual experience. I have never seen evidence linking Saddam to terrorism. I have never seen anything suggesting the stuff you just posted. The only stuff I've heard about Iraq and terrorists was to do with the Iraq/Iran war, where they used terrorists against Iran... but, uh, so did the CIA. I do accept that Iraq may have harboured terrorists in the past, but not much more than that. Cite your sources please, or I'll just assume you're making it up (no offense).

[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=60#msg61772 date=1085507903]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/846973/posts
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1082762002
http://www.nisat.org/blackmarket/asia/Southwest_Asia/iran/2002.01.08-Arms%20Headed%20for%20Gaza.html
[/quote]

Url #1 didn't say anything about the actual contents, just theories.

Url #2 says they captured material for nukes near Iraq, but not inside Iraq - could've been destined anywhere, and even if it was captured inside Iraq, there's nothing to say it wasn't just passing through to some terrorist organization elsewhere - obviously it must've passed other countries before, just happened to be discovered near Iraq.

Url #3 seems to be about weapons smuggling to palestinian organizations. It claims to come from Iran, not Iraq. It also included weapons more suitable for attacking military targets than attacking civilians, including anti-tank rockets and mines. Doesn't seem like a clear case of supporting terrorism, other than that the receivers may be labeled terrorists by certain terrorist governments.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=60#msg61821 date=1085517393]
[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=60#msg61772 date=1085507903]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/846973/posts
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1082762002
http://www.nisat.org/blackmarket/asia/Southwest_Asia/iran/2002.01.08-Arms%20Headed%20for%20Gaza.html
[/quote]

Url #1 didn't say anything about the actual contents, just theories.

Url #2 says they captured material for nukes near Iraq, but not inside Iraq - could've been destined anywhere, and even if it was captured inside Iraq, there's nothing to say it wasn't just passing through to some terrorist organization elsewhere - obviously it must've passed other countries before, just happened to be discovered near Iraq.

Url #3 seems to be about weapons smuggling to palestinian organizations. It claims to come from Iran, not Iraq. It also included weapons more suitable for attacking military targets than attacking civilians, including anti-tank rockets and mines. Doesn't seem like a clear case of supporting terrorism, other than that the receivers may be labeled terrorists by certain terrorist governments.
[/quote]

As I aforementioned, it's really difficult to find such proof online because alot of it was been essentially drowned out by other issues currently arizing such as the prisoner abuse scandal. Alot of my news I get from various news agencies (not always US-domestic ones), and so it's difficult to site those. Apparently those sites don't really blatantly prove anything, but it's too difficult to find any internet sources. I guess if you really want the proof, there should be some in old transcripts of certain foreign news programs. Aside from that, I don't think I could present any proof just by searching for currently available sites.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61377 date=1085335641]

A few vials of anthrax found hidden in a scientist's home or office? That is Saddam's fearful WMD arsenal? THAT is what required a full-scale war?

Saddam may have been a thorn, but the world voted to give him time. Saddam was not an immediate threat, and there was no valid reason to attack him. Besides, Israel is a much bigger thorn in the world's side than Saddam.

Saddam did use gas, long ago. Irrelevant to this conversation. Unless you want to nuke America because they're the only nation to have used nuclear weapons against another nation?
[/quote]
A few vials of anthrax here and there (a few is all it takes to kill thousands of people) is adequate cause to wonder just how much there is and what else he may have had. Regardless, a few vials was still a few vials more than what he was allowed to have. That anthrax should have been disposed of long ago. Instead, he kept it around, hinting that he may have had alot more. And we're still not sure whether he did.

Comparing Israel to Saddam's regime is beyond apples and oranges. The issues presented by Israel vs. those presented by Saddam are pointless to compare; there are just too many differences. Same with the situation of when Saddam used his gas and whether or not it's hypocritical of the current American administration to criticize him for that because over 50 years ago, a different administration had to use nuclear weapons to end WW2. Such an argument is obviously tangential. :)

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61377 date=1085335641]

What I've found in the articles I've read are a lot of maybes. Stuff that could be used to make weapons, drawings for weapons, but not actual weapons.
[/quote]
Perhaps you weren't looking hard enough, or for the right thing? I cannot site any proof, simply because I don't think any is available. But even the fact that he materials that had little applications other than weapons was already a breach on terms he had agreed upon. It wasn't a full scale blatant breach, but he pushed way beyond where he should have. He kept escalating his defiance until something was done about it.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61377 date=1085335641]
That's not a reason to go to war. If you really believe that minor disputes over agreements are a reason for war, I'll bring up Israel and perhaps other countries who agree to a plan, then change their mind or procrastinate. You can't expect him to lie on his back, like a beaten dog all the time. That's not the way people work.
[/quote]
This wasn't a minor dispute. The sanctions he agreed upon were the only things that allowed him and his regime to remain in power when Gen. Schwarzkopf and his troops were knocking on Baghdad's door in the first Gulf War. Naturally, such provisions are expected to be followed. These weren't just minor technicalities. Citing Israel in this matter is a moot point. Most of the reasons behind the destruction of agreements involved with Israel were that governments such as the Palestinian Authority were unable to prevent "rogue" terrorist groups from breaking the provisions that had been agreed upon. And when one side breaks an agreement, it's natural for the other sides to do something about it. Saddam was not at all a victim in any of this.


[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61377 date=1085335641]
Which still doesn't change the fact that the US attacked Iraq without a valid UN sanction. The reason the UN vote wasn't an overwhelming defeat for Bush was the lies spread by Bush's supporters - that Iraq was an immediate threat.
[/quote]
The US didn't really need a valid UN sanction, but Bush's administration decided to present their argument to the international delegations anyway. If you believe that the delegates were ignorant enough to so easily believe "lies", that perhaps you don't give them enough credit. Alot more evidence was presented to the UN than just "Saddam has WMDs", and all the evidence presented was the basis for their voting, not just that controversial one.


[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61377 date=1085335641]

I was against starting the war. Once you have started it, you have to see it through, because right now it's all a mess. What I'm saying is that since you made the mess, now you get to fix it. It's easier to destroy than to rebuild.
[/quote]
Agreed. The US and the international community are currently at work repairing the damage caused by the war, and according to many widespread predictions, after enough hard work, the new Iraq will be considerably better than the one run by Saddam's regime.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61377 date=1085335641]
It's relevant for understanding his position. You have to try to understand him.
[/quote]
I doubt there are many people out there who can say they truly understand him. What's important is dealing with his actions, not understanding them.


[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61377 date=1085335641]
Belief or fact? Perhaps the reason they didn't provide a huge advantage (assuming they didn't) was that Saddam didn't allow the American spies everywhere?
[/quote]
Saddam believing that weapons inspectors were spies was hardly justification for refusal to grand them access to the areas they wanted to see. Alot of the inspectors weren't even American, especially those that were part of the last team to attempt an inspection. Sounds more like a conspiracy theory. ;)


[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61377 date=1085335641]

Yes, in a way Saddam got what he deserved. The Iraqi people doesn't deserve chaos though, and the US didn't have the right to give Saddam what he deserved.
[/quote]
No, the Iraqi people didn't deserve chaos. Saddam could have spared his people from unneeded suffering, but he instead chose to just force them through, just for the sake of being defiant. The US was one of the more visible nations that signed the cease-fire treaty with Saddam. When Saddam broke it, the US was well within its rights to take appropriate actions, among them being Saddam's removal.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61377 date=1085335641]
It works for showing that the decision to attack Iraq was arbitrary in some regards. There must've been other reasons to do it.
[/quote]
I've already mentioned that there were probably more than one reason for the Bush administration's actions. That doesn't mean the decision to go ahead was arbitrary.


[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61377 date=1085335641]
It was not a legitimate reason; the UN said no.
[/quote]
A no vote by select delegates does not make the decision illegitimate, especially considering the US isn't bound by any UN decisions beyond a political standpoint.
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61377 date=1085335641]
It does. The UN can do things that the US cannot, legitimately.
[/quote]
No it doesn't. Lately, the UN has been a ceremonial entity, not without its own share of imperfections. Alot of its "decisions" have been viewed upon moreso as "advice" than actual "rulings". The UN really can't do all that much when there's a sizable body of opposition to conclusions it has reached.


[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61377 date=1085335641]
The US has supported regimes which have tortured and executed civilians. The US has more resources to offer. If Saddam had equivalent resources to offer to the nations he supported, the "war" would be fought differently. They have to make do with what they get - if they can destroy tanks and kill soldiers, they will, and they sometimes do too. If they don't have weapons that lets them attack soldiers, I fully well understand their attacking the "civilians" (i.e. armed occupants) living in settlements on their soil.

Also, supporting families left behind after dead warriors can't be such a bad thing to do.
[/quote]
How can you call someone who straps on a bomb and blows up a bus full of school-children a "warrior"? That's despicable, no matter what your "politics" are. Saddam gave money to the families these murderers left behind to help promote more of such evil. Insisting that there's any good in this is utter garbage.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=6835;start=45#msg61377 date=1085335641]

Innocent until proven guilty, are we?
[/quote]
Saddam isn't an American citizen; these rights do not extend to him. Regardless, now that he's arrested, he will be tried and his guilt can be formally assessed.