Forums > Social Discussion > Iraq now more or less of a terrorist haven?
Login/Join to Participatemember
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
I have a question, is iraq more or less a haven or breeding ground for terrorists?
I see no reason to believe Al Qaeda and Saddam aren't enemies. Ive seen no evidence what so ever to suggest there is a connection between the two, and it seems highly unlikely saddam would ally himself with Al Qaeda. Amongst the list of Al Qaedas enemies are socialist non-secular arab governments, Much like pre-invasion iraq had established with saddam as dictator. Saddam was ruthless enough that I doubt terrorists would choose iraq as a haven. There are much better nations in in the middle east, I think if terrorists were there, it was probably to oppose saddam.
Now in todays iraq we have no government, and the only authority is a bunch of soldiers who many of which don't want to be there. They are more concerned with protecting themselves then policeing the nation hunting for terrorists. And frankly the place is in way to much chaos to investigate anything. Many iraqi's want saddam back, and many more don't want him back but are willing to kill or die trying to get rid of americas presence. The youth of iraq are the most dangerous. They are pissed off and have impressionable minds. Many of them were orphaned in the invasion, and Al Qaeda vultures are preying on them trying to recruit them as terrorists everyday. I don't think they would have this opportunity before we invaded. I think we have created a haven and a breeding ground for terrorists. Who's going to stop the Al Qaeda from recruting? the soldiers who are to scared to leave their bases because everytime they are ordered out they got bombed and shot at?
I have a question, is iraq more or less a haven or breeding ground for terrorists?
I see no reason to believe Al Qaeda and Saddam aren't enemies. Ive seen no evidence what so ever to suggest there is a connection between the two, and it seems highly unlikely saddam would ally himself with Al Qaeda. Amongst the list of Al Qaedas enemies are socialist non-secular arab governments, Much like pre-invasion iraq had established with saddam as dictator. Saddam was ruthless enough that I doubt terrorists would choose iraq as a haven. There are much better nations in in the middle east, I think if terrorists were there, it was probably to oppose saddam.
Now in todays iraq we have no government, and the only authority is a bunch of soldiers who many of which don't want to be there. They are more concerned with protecting themselves then policeing the nation hunting for terrorists. And frankly the place is in way to much chaos to investigate anything. Many iraqi's want saddam back, and many more don't want him back but are willing to kill or die trying to get rid of americas presence. The youth of iraq are the most dangerous. They are pissed off and have impressionable minds. Many of them were orphaned in the invasion, and Al Qaeda vultures are preying on them trying to recruit them as terrorists everyday. I don't think they would have this opportunity before we invaded. I think we have created a haven and a breeding ground for terrorists. Who's going to stop the Al Qaeda from recruting? the soldiers who are to scared to leave their bases because everytime they are ordered out they got bombed and shot at?
Flaming Lesbian
181 posts
Location: Portland, Oregon
181 posts
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posted:
Sadam ran a secular regime, al quaeda is a relegious orginization. simple as that.
The problem in Iraq is simply pride. The people of Iraq didn't overthrow their dictator (which I personally believe they would have, had the conditions actually been as bad as they have been portraied, but I don't believe american media), America did. America stepped in and `saved` them.
For a few days after Sadam was overthrown, a few Iraqis were thankful for being saved, sure. Nobody minds being saved... But they do mind having it rubbed in their faces that someone else had to step in because `they were too weak to protect themselves`. So they try to disprove that. They attack their `saviours`, in effort to prove that they're a strong people. The only problem is that the commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States dosen't have an exit strategy. They push American forces out, and American forces push back harder because both nations have too much pride to simply allow the other to win.
The saddest part of the whole situation is that Sadam had no WMDs, was no threat to America, or any other part of the world, but was simply prideful (aren't we all?). But he was able to keep the violent relegions in the area under control, while still allowing them to practice. Now he's gone and they're practicing, out of control, and turning into another Afghanastan....
forgive the spelling errors, i'm an english major, but it's been a long day at work ;]
Sadam ran a secular regime, al quaeda is a relegious orginization. simple as that.
The problem in Iraq is simply pride. The people of Iraq didn't overthrow their dictator (which I personally believe they would have, had the conditions actually been as bad as they have been portraied, but I don't believe american media), America did. America stepped in and `saved` them.
For a few days after Sadam was overthrown, a few Iraqis were thankful for being saved, sure. Nobody minds being saved... But they do mind having it rubbed in their faces that someone else had to step in because `they were too weak to protect themselves`. So they try to disprove that. They attack their `saviours`, in effort to prove that they're a strong people. The only problem is that the commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States dosen't have an exit strategy. They push American forces out, and American forces push back harder because both nations have too much pride to simply allow the other to win.
The saddest part of the whole situation is that Sadam had no WMDs, was no threat to America, or any other part of the world, but was simply prideful (aren't we all?). But he was able to keep the violent relegions in the area under control, while still allowing them to practice. Now he's gone and they're practicing, out of control, and turning into another Afghanastan....
forgive the spelling errors, i'm an english major, but it's been a long day at work ;]
Lights dancing off my skin as chains wrap round it.
Pain is in a little box and I'm so glad I found it.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
2,211 posts
Location: London, Wales (UK)
Pooh-Bah
2,211 posts
Location: London, Wales (UK)
Posted:
Dictators rule by fear. Individuals live under fear, dictators work by control and elimate swifly dissidents. Takes a lot of courage to risk your life, your family's life for revolution.
It is a good thing that Sadaam is gone but my belief has always being that an invasion of Iraq would not help Iraq in the longterm- regardless of the trumped up motives given. The main reason being the US & British Gov don't give a [censored] about the Iraqis as people and the circle of violence would just continue. Its like a bad joke how the lessons have been ignored. Another generation of hate is being born.
The saddest part of it all for me is once again the ordinary person who wants to live out their life in peace has their lives torn apart.
Dictators rule by fear. Individuals live under fear, dictators work by control and elimate swifly dissidents. Takes a lot of courage to risk your life, your family's life for revolution.
It is a good thing that Sadaam is gone but my belief has always being that an invasion of Iraq would not help Iraq in the longterm- regardless of the trumped up motives given. The main reason being the US & British Gov don't give a [censored] about the Iraqis as people and the circle of violence would just continue. Its like a bad joke how the lessons have been ignored. Another generation of hate is being born.
The saddest part of it all for me is once again the ordinary person who wants to live out their life in peace has their lives torn apart.
Come faeries, take me out of this dull world, for I would ride with you upon the wind and dance upon the mountains like a flame.
- W B Yeats
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
To further clarify, are we now more at risk of terrorists operating out odf, hideing in or recruiting out of iraq? Opposed to pre-invasion?
To further clarify, are we now more at risk of terrorists operating out odf, hideing in or recruiting out of iraq? Opposed to pre-invasion?
resident fridge magnet
835 posts
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
835 posts
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
Posted:
I'd respond, but others have said it so much better than I ever could. I'm posting links to two articles written for The Guardian (British newspaper) by Indian novelist Arundhati Roy. They are quite old: the first was written just after september 11, 2001, the other about a month later, just after the American government's war on Afghanistan had started.
However, what she says is just as applicable to Iraq: both articles are quite long, but very, very well worth reading!!!
1st article: "the algebra of infinite justice", here
2nd article, "brutality smeared with peanut butter" here
I'd respond, but others have said it so much better than I ever could. I'm posting links to two articles written for The Guardian (British newspaper) by Indian novelist Arundhati Roy. They are quite old: the first was written just after september 11, 2001, the other about a month later, just after the American government's war on Afghanistan had started.
However, what she says is just as applicable to Iraq: both articles are quite long, but very, very well worth reading!!!
1st article: "the algebra of infinite justice", here
2nd article, "brutality smeared with peanut butter" here
everyone's unique except me
SILVER Member
member
26 posts
Location: Perth, Western Australia
member
26 posts
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posted:
Saddam made a point of killing anyone that could organise a threat against his rule. Including his sons in law. Ruthless power game. Meanwhile religious freedom was limited with the usual tension between She-ites and Sunni sects. Religious leaders are making a grab for power using a formulaic approach. How do you control large groups of people? Love, Fear and Hate. Works a treat. Especially when the new bad guy has to play by the rules.
The media gives us a crisp new look at this war and many would like to think it is another Vietnam. It's not. After a year and with most of the country occupied the Coalition forces have actually suffered few casualties. So far about 800 deaths with almost 1/4 of these non-combat related. This is less than the road toll back in the USA. In contrast Vietnam (which I admit ran for longer) had about 60 000 US deaths with over 1 1000 000 Vietnamese killed. Iraqi death toll is something less than 11 000. In a historical context of large scale war this is going very well. Ironic I know.
Don't get me wrong. The casualties are a tragedy. But if you compare this to the over 2 000 000 people who "disappeared" under Saddam you can get some kind of proportion. Human history is a tale of conflict and madness. Maybe one day we will get over it.
Iraq has been a debarcle since the 80's and something had to be done. The US were partly responsible for his rule and have done the right thing removing him. Should have been done years ago though. By targetting the leader they send a clear message around the world to similar despots. You can no longer stand behind your followers for protection. You will be made accountable. It's an interesting thought.
But will Iraq ever know peace? I doubt it. Too many religious nutbags.
B.
Saddam made a point of killing anyone that could organise a threat against his rule. Including his sons in law. Ruthless power game. Meanwhile religious freedom was limited with the usual tension between She-ites and Sunni sects. Religious leaders are making a grab for power using a formulaic approach. How do you control large groups of people? Love, Fear and Hate. Works a treat. Especially when the new bad guy has to play by the rules.
The media gives us a crisp new look at this war and many would like to think it is another Vietnam. It's not. After a year and with most of the country occupied the Coalition forces have actually suffered few casualties. So far about 800 deaths with almost 1/4 of these non-combat related. This is less than the road toll back in the USA. In contrast Vietnam (which I admit ran for longer) had about 60 000 US deaths with over 1 1000 000 Vietnamese killed. Iraqi death toll is something less than 11 000. In a historical context of large scale war this is going very well. Ironic I know.
Don't get me wrong. The casualties are a tragedy. But if you compare this to the over 2 000 000 people who "disappeared" under Saddam you can get some kind of proportion. Human history is a tale of conflict and madness. Maybe one day we will get over it.
Iraq has been a debarcle since the 80's and something had to be done. The US were partly responsible for his rule and have done the right thing removing him. Should have been done years ago though. By targetting the leader they send a clear message around the world to similar despots. You can no longer stand behind your followers for protection. You will be made accountable. It's an interesting thought.
But will Iraq ever know peace? I doubt it. Too many religious nutbags.
B.
If found wandering please return to Gnor.
Flaming Lesbian
181 posts
Location: Portland, Oregon
181 posts
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posted:
Bill, I remind you that America was founded by "religious nutbags" who fought off the most powerful country in the world for the right to worship how they wanted.
Bill, I remind you that America was founded by "religious nutbags" who fought off the most powerful country in the world for the right to worship how they wanted.
Lights dancing off my skin as chains wrap round it.
Pain is in a little box and I'm so glad I found it.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Thor, it was really more about taxation without representation, not religion.
Thor, it was really more about taxation without representation, not religion.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
Thor it's funny how you have no comprehension of america's history and have such a twisted idea why the revolution happened. Go find me a history book that cites religion as a major motivation to revolt.
Thor it's funny how you have no comprehension of america's history and have such a twisted idea why the revolution happened. Go find me a history book that cites religion as a major motivation to revolt.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Bill,
I agree with you: getting rid of Saddam was not a bad thing. But the fact that a good thing was accomplished doesn't excuse the actions of the U.S. government in this case.
IF the U.N. had agreed to this invasion, I would have been OK with it. IF Bush hadn't lied about WMD's and said why he was really going in, I would have not been so upset about it. IF the U.N. had been involved with the reconstruction project, I would have been OK with it. IF Bush hadn't tried to slip contracts to his oil and industry pals, I wouldn't have been nearly as irritated.
And now there is evidence that Rumsfeld (and thus, Bush as CIC) ORDERED the prisoner abuse that has come to light. In my opinion, Rumsfeld needs an all-expense-paid vacation to The Hague.
This all could have been handled so differently.
Bill,
I agree with you: getting rid of Saddam was not a bad thing. But the fact that a good thing was accomplished doesn't excuse the actions of the U.S. government in this case.
IF the U.N. had agreed to this invasion, I would have been OK with it. IF Bush hadn't lied about WMD's and said why he was really going in, I would have not been so upset about it. IF the U.N. had been involved with the reconstruction project, I would have been OK with it. IF Bush hadn't tried to slip contracts to his oil and industry pals, I wouldn't have been nearly as irritated.
And now there is evidence that Rumsfeld (and thus, Bush as CIC) ORDERED the prisoner abuse that has come to light. In my opinion, Rumsfeld needs an all-expense-paid vacation to The Hague.
This all could have been handled so differently.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
Flaming Lesbian
181 posts
Location: Portland, Oregon
181 posts
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posted:
I didn't say relegion had anything to do with the revolutionary war (but saying it's entirely taxation without representation is like saying the civil war was entirely about slavery), all I said was a bunch of non-conformist relegious nutbags founded a country that defeated the greatest world power of the time. why did they come here? to escape people telling them their way of worship was wrong.
all the ideas we are now forcing on the Iraqi (and afghan) peoples, those are the values we grew up with, not necessarily the values they did. That's the way we worship, not necessarily the way they do. so we're telling them their way of worship is wrong?
I just find it ironic that a country founded by people escaping relegious persocution by the most powerful nation in the world would be itself the persocuters when it became the most powerful nation in the world....
but, since a couple of people here have skewed ideas of what exactly brought our forefathers here, and are unwilling to even search google to find out, the library of congress can very nicely spoon feed your history to you...
https://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html
I didn't say relegion had anything to do with the revolutionary war (but saying it's entirely taxation without representation is like saying the civil war was entirely about slavery), all I said was a bunch of non-conformist relegious nutbags founded a country that defeated the greatest world power of the time. why did they come here? to escape people telling them their way of worship was wrong.
all the ideas we are now forcing on the Iraqi (and afghan) peoples, those are the values we grew up with, not necessarily the values they did. That's the way we worship, not necessarily the way they do. so we're telling them their way of worship is wrong?
I just find it ironic that a country founded by people escaping relegious persocution by the most powerful nation in the world would be itself the persocuters when it became the most powerful nation in the world....
but, since a couple of people here have skewed ideas of what exactly brought our forefathers here, and are unwilling to even search google to find out, the library of congress can very nicely spoon feed your history to you...
https://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html
Lights dancing off my skin as chains wrap round it.
Pain is in a little box and I'm so glad I found it.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
all I said was a bunch of non-conformist relegious nutbags founded a country that defeated the greatest world power of the time. why did they come here? to escape people telling them their way of worship was wrong.
Wait a sec. The Puritans and the Founding Fathers were about 100 years apart.
all I said was a bunch of non-conformist relegious nutbags founded a country that defeated the greatest world power of the time. why did they come here? to escape people telling them their way of worship was wrong.
Wait a sec. The Puritans and the Founding Fathers were about 100 years apart.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
How is america persecuting iraqi's religiously btw?
How is america persecuting iraqi's religiously btw?
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
We aren't. However, Bush's constant beating his chest about how Christian he is might (understandibly) lead them to think this is a crusade.
We aren't. However, Bush's constant beating his chest about how Christian he is might (understandibly) lead them to think this is a crusade.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
The UN didnt care about the US' wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iran, Afganistan and a few other places before 9/11, why should the US care what the UN thought post 9/11?
Iraq had WMD's, they also had 12+ years to hide them, if they didn't have them, why in the world did Saddam kick the weapons inspectors out of his country? Why didn't he let them look where ever they wanted? Can you answer those questions?
If someone in the military rapes a girl in Oz, does that mean Bush orderd it? If Rumsfeld orderd the abuse, how does that mean Bush orderd it?
If you believe it so, then by all means Greenpeace should all be put in jail for the actions of its members, or is the group not responsible for the actions of its members?
Thor, the US isnt telling the Iraqis nor the Afgans how to worship, they are however trying to get them to form a better government.
In America we have the freedom of religion and anyone no matter of status or office can and does have the right to tell and talk about their religion however they see fit, the seperation between church and state has no direct influence over the individual. If it did, it would mean that those in a government office or teachers, wouldnt be allowed to practice their own religion.
The UN didnt care about the US' wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iran, Afganistan and a few other places before 9/11, why should the US care what the UN thought post 9/11?
Iraq had WMD's, they also had 12+ years to hide them, if they didn't have them, why in the world did Saddam kick the weapons inspectors out of his country? Why didn't he let them look where ever they wanted? Can you answer those questions?
If someone in the military rapes a girl in Oz, does that mean Bush orderd it? If Rumsfeld orderd the abuse, how does that mean Bush orderd it?
If you believe it so, then by all means Greenpeace should all be put in jail for the actions of its members, or is the group not responsible for the actions of its members?
Thor, the US isnt telling the Iraqis nor the Afgans how to worship, they are however trying to get them to form a better government.
In America we have the freedom of religion and anyone no matter of status or office can and does have the right to tell and talk about their religion however they see fit, the seperation between church and state has no direct influence over the individual. If it did, it would mean that those in a government office or teachers, wouldnt be allowed to practice their own religion.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Yes, he did have WMD's and used them. He also destroyed them when instructed to. Yet Bush invaded him for NOT DESTROYING the WMD's. That was the reason he gave to invade.
Oh, that's the b!tch of it. Bush has plausable deniability. "I didn't tell him to do that! Oh no! Horrors!"
But anyone with two brain cells to rub together can tell that Rumsfeld isn't so dumb as to have violated the Geneva Convention without discussing it with the CIA and others. Bush had to have known. But whether it can be proven is going to be the toughie.
Quote:
Iraq had WMD's, they also had 12+ years to hide them, if they didn't have them, why in the world did Saddam kick the weapons inspectors out of his country? Why didn't he let them look where ever they wanted? Can you answer those questions?
Yes, he did have WMD's and used them. He also destroyed them when instructed to. Yet Bush invaded him for NOT DESTROYING the WMD's. That was the reason he gave to invade.
Quote:
If Rumsfeld orderd the abuse, how does that mean Bush orderd it?
Oh, that's the b!tch of it. Bush has plausable deniability. "I didn't tell him to do that! Oh no! Horrors!"
But anyone with two brain cells to rub together can tell that Rumsfeld isn't so dumb as to have violated the Geneva Convention without discussing it with the CIA and others. Bush had to have known. But whether it can be proven is going to be the toughie.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted:
burzaruka, you honestly are trolling arent you?
if you are trying to bait ppl, keep it for the social chat forum.
Josh
burzaruka, you honestly are trolling arent you?
if you are trying to bait ppl, keep it for the social chat forum.
Josh
--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
If you are refering to the Ozzy girl who was rapped part, I was refering to a case that happend a few years ago to demonstrate a point that not every leader always knows what happens in his group. This doesnt mean that they shouldnt bear some of the responsibilities, but it doesnt make them at fault either. I am sorry, I wasnt out to bait or troll, just draw a line of relivence that people around the world could understand since the US military cant seem to keep their flys zipped when in forgine countries. I just happend to pick that case because of some of the reading I had been doing.
Lighting, if he destroyed all of his WMDs like you allege him to have, then why were the inspectors kicked out? Why, only under threat, did he agree to let them back in? Why did the UN decide to do nothing about their own inspectors getting kicked out?
These are all important questions that you have to answer if you are going to debate the topic of WMDs in Iraq.
Yes you are right, Bush does have deniability, I am also sure the CIA does a lot without the President knowing about it. Why else would a hammer cost $12,000??
If you are refering to the Ozzy girl who was rapped part, I was refering to a case that happend a few years ago to demonstrate a point that not every leader always knows what happens in his group. This doesnt mean that they shouldnt bear some of the responsibilities, but it doesnt make them at fault either. I am sorry, I wasnt out to bait or troll, just draw a line of relivence that people around the world could understand since the US military cant seem to keep their flys zipped when in forgine countries. I just happend to pick that case because of some of the reading I had been doing.
Lighting, if he destroyed all of his WMDs like you allege him to have, then why were the inspectors kicked out? Why, only under threat, did he agree to let them back in? Why did the UN decide to do nothing about their own inspectors getting kicked out?
These are all important questions that you have to answer if you are going to debate the topic of WMDs in Iraq.
Yes you are right, Bush does have deniability, I am also sure the CIA does a lot without the President knowing about it. Why else would a hammer cost $12,000??
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Wait, you aren't seriously saying that there might still actually be WMD's in Iraq, are you?
Telll me you aren't serious...
Quote:
Lighting, if he destroyed all of his WMDs like you allege him to have, then why were the inspectors kicked out? Why, only under threat, did he agree to let them back in? Why did the UN decide to do nothing about their own inspectors getting kicked out?
Wait, you aren't seriously saying that there might still actually be WMD's in Iraq, are you?
Telll me you aren't serious...
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
Maybe because the US put spys in with the UN inspectors who got caught?
Maybe because the US put spys in with the UN inspectors who got caught?
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Lightning, who can say what is hidden in Iraq, we cant even stop all the drugs at our own boarders, what makes you think that we can find hidden weapons in a forgine country? With the subject of WMDs you add 1 and 1 and come up with 47,000! Things just don't add up. There are too many unanswerd questions for me to say that without a doubt the arnt any in Iraq. Keep your speculations if you wish, but I am going to wait on cold hard fact before I say there arnt any WMDs in Iraq.
Why is it so hard to believe that sombody has hidden something so well that even our grossly overpaid government cant seem to find?
I don't know if there were spies or not, but if Saddam had destroied the weapons, even if there were spies, wouldnt he want to put a little egg on the American face and show the world that hey "I am complying with every demand of the UN and the US is still sending in its spies, look how stupid they are!" ? If you are complying with a piece of paper, then you want everyone to know you are, you wouldnt kick out the spies and the investigators all together unless you had something to hide.
An innocent person doesnt run from the cops, and we all know that OJ really is guilty.
Lightning, who can say what is hidden in Iraq, we cant even stop all the drugs at our own boarders, what makes you think that we can find hidden weapons in a forgine country? With the subject of WMDs you add 1 and 1 and come up with 47,000! Things just don't add up. There are too many unanswerd questions for me to say that without a doubt the arnt any in Iraq. Keep your speculations if you wish, but I am going to wait on cold hard fact before I say there arnt any WMDs in Iraq.
Why is it so hard to believe that sombody has hidden something so well that even our grossly overpaid government cant seem to find?
I don't know if there were spies or not, but if Saddam had destroied the weapons, even if there were spies, wouldnt he want to put a little egg on the American face and show the world that hey "I am complying with every demand of the UN and the US is still sending in its spies, look how stupid they are!" ? If you are complying with a piece of paper, then you want everyone to know you are, you wouldnt kick out the spies and the investigators all together unless you had something to hide.
An innocent person doesnt run from the cops, and we all know that OJ really is guilty.
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
what do you think is harder to find, one man holed up in a tiny hidden bunker or hundreds of 40ft long missiles?
seeing as they found a single man who was in hiding, it seems likely they might have bumped into one or two of the wmd's too, if there are as many as we were told there were.
its the logical conclusion; 1+1=2
tell that to rodney king.
what do you think is harder to find, one man holed up in a tiny hidden bunker or hundreds of 40ft long missiles?
seeing as they found a single man who was in hiding, it seems likely they might have bumped into one or two of the wmd's too, if there are as many as we were told there were.
its the logical conclusion; 1+1=2
Quote:
An innocent person doesnt run from the cops
tell that to rodney king.
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Was Rodney King innocent? I thought he was already getting arrested when they beat him?? To clarify for the easily confused, I am horrified at the beatings, but do believe that he wasn't just an innocent man out for an evening stroll when he was beat. I am in no way agreeing with the beating in fact quite the opposite.
Anyhow, who said anything about a 40 foot missle? Not all WMDs are ICBMs. Not to mention with 12+ years you can hide stuff pretty good, Saddam didnt have this advantage. He probably killed all the people who hid the missles, either that or had his sons do it.
Was Rodney King innocent? I thought he was already getting arrested when they beat him?? To clarify for the easily confused, I am horrified at the beatings, but do believe that he wasn't just an innocent man out for an evening stroll when he was beat. I am in no way agreeing with the beating in fact quite the opposite.
Anyhow, who said anything about a 40 foot missle? Not all WMDs are ICBMs. Not to mention with 12+ years you can hide stuff pretty good, Saddam didnt have this advantage. He probably killed all the people who hid the missles, either that or had his sons do it.
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
sorry - i was under the impression that in the land of the free a man is assumed innocent until he is proven guilty?
silly ignorant me...
no, the alleged wmd's are not all icbm's.
but it was suggested that many of them were.
they have found nothing so far - no icbm's, no warheads to put on them, no chemical or biological weapon plants, no stockpiles of explosives...
nothing.
doesn't that seem just a little bit strange to you if hussein really was as armed as the us and uk governments claimed?
sorry - i was under the impression that in the land of the free a man is assumed innocent until he is proven guilty?
silly ignorant me...
no, the alleged wmd's are not all icbm's.
but it was suggested that many of them were.
they have found nothing so far - no icbm's, no warheads to put on them, no chemical or biological weapon plants, no stockpiles of explosives...
nothing.
doesn't that seem just a little bit strange to you if hussein really was as armed as the us and uk governments claimed?
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
uh ICBMS? Theres very few nations with ICBM's, even russia couldn't develop very accurate ones which is why they relied on huge warheads instead of accuracy with their nuclear weapons.
Saddam had SCUD's, they aren't much more advanced then v1 rockets used in ww2.
They couldn't reach america and would only be able be dumb fired at cities in surrounding middle east countries like israel, which we have seen before.
uh ICBMS? Theres very few nations with ICBM's, even russia couldn't develop very accurate ones which is why they relied on huge warheads instead of accuracy with their nuclear weapons.
Saddam had SCUD's, they aren't much more advanced then v1 rockets used in ww2.
They couldn't reach america and would only be able be dumb fired at cities in surrounding middle east countries like israel, which we have seen before.
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
sorry - robotface is right.
it was suggested however that they had ballistic missiles to deploy the stockpiled warheads and chemical/biological weapons.
so my point stands - they are about 40 ft long and easy to find.
and no-one has.
sorry - robotface is right.
it was suggested however that they had ballistic missiles to deploy the stockpiled warheads and chemical/biological weapons.
so my point stands - they are about 40 ft long and easy to find.
and no-one has.
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
im just being a technical arse.
im just being a technical arse.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Okay, if you think that they are easy to find thats on you. I can dig a 40 foot hole in the ground and drop the sucker in it and cover it back up and 12 years later you would never know it was there. Heck in a place like Iraq you can do it and the sand would have blown over enough to cover it a week later!
Just because they havnt been found, doesn't mean that they arnt there.
There are hundreds of missing children around the world that can talk move about and do other such attention grabbing things, but yet they remain missing... and a missle that cant move and cant and cant get your attention (untill it is too late) cant be found and it is thought that someone his lying about their existance... this I find odd.
Totally off topic, but I thought Rodney King still went to trial for narcotics and was found guilty, but because of what happend to him was basically let off, only to be arrested a little while later for the same charge.
You're probably right, no ICBMs but at this point it really doesnt matter what you call the sucker it is still a rocket with some nasty stuff in the nose. Yes that is the technical term
Okay, if you think that they are easy to find thats on you. I can dig a 40 foot hole in the ground and drop the sucker in it and cover it back up and 12 years later you would never know it was there. Heck in a place like Iraq you can do it and the sand would have blown over enough to cover it a week later!
Just because they havnt been found, doesn't mean that they arnt there.
There are hundreds of missing children around the world that can talk move about and do other such attention grabbing things, but yet they remain missing... and a missle that cant move and cant and cant get your attention (untill it is too late) cant be found and it is thought that someone his lying about their existance... this I find odd.
Totally off topic, but I thought Rodney King still went to trial for narcotics and was found guilty, but because of what happend to him was basically let off, only to be arrested a little while later for the same charge.
You're probably right, no ICBMs but at this point it really doesnt matter what you call the sucker it is still a rocket with some nasty stuff in the nose. Yes that is the technical term
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Well, the only true "fact" would be a positive find. Tell me, how long must they search without finding any WMD's before you'll be convinced that there aren't any? If you're going to make a statement like that, then you have to give a deadline. It's been over 12 months now, not including the inspections.
When's it enough to say that they aren't there?
Quote:
Lightning, who can say what is hidden in Iraq, we cant even stop all the drugs at our own boarders, what makes you think that we can find hidden weapons in a forgine country? With the subject of WMDs you add 1 and 1 and come up with 47,000! Things just don't add up. There are too many unanswerd questions for me to say that without a doubt the arnt any in Iraq. Keep your speculations if you wish, but I am going to wait on cold hard fact before I say there arnt any WMDs in Iraq.
Well, the only true "fact" would be a positive find. Tell me, how long must they search without finding any WMD's before you'll be convinced that there aren't any? If you're going to make a statement like that, then you have to give a deadline. It's been over 12 months now, not including the inspections.
When's it enough to say that they aren't there?
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
It's also combined with the government using a COLLEGE PAPER as evidence, no other convincing evidence being presented (admited by the presntee's themselves) and general slipperyness on the part of the british and americans when confronted with the whole issue.
Remember that british guy who killed himself because they twisted his report and used it as justification for the war?
It's also combined with the government using a COLLEGE PAPER as evidence, no other convincing evidence being presented (admited by the presntee's themselves) and general slipperyness on the part of the british and americans when confronted with the whole issue.
Remember that british guy who killed himself because they twisted his report and used it as justification for the war?
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
If you are asking my personal opinion about when it is time to give up search, then I would just ask you when a parent should give up hope of ever seeing their child again.
If you are asking me from a political stand point, I would tell you that I had no clue and that I am glad I am not the one who has to make that choice.
Robotface, it wasnt just a college paper, I mean c'mon the US sold Iraq the weapons, heck in some CIA basement somewhere they probably have the exact number of weapons sold and weapons used since the sale and the numbers probably dont balance out.
We know they are there because they have used them, we think they are still there because we dont have enough evidence to support the idea that ALL WMDs were destroyed.
Ohh a good question, purly hypothetical, tomorrow they find a cash of WMDs, how many WMDs would it take for you (being anyone) to consider the war justified?
If you are asking my personal opinion about when it is time to give up search, then I would just ask you when a parent should give up hope of ever seeing their child again.
If you are asking me from a political stand point, I would tell you that I had no clue and that I am glad I am not the one who has to make that choice.
Robotface, it wasnt just a college paper, I mean c'mon the US sold Iraq the weapons, heck in some CIA basement somewhere they probably have the exact number of weapons sold and weapons used since the sale and the numbers probably dont balance out.
We know they are there because they have used them, we think they are still there because we dont have enough evidence to support the idea that ALL WMDs were destroyed.
Ohh a good question, purly hypothetical, tomorrow they find a cash of WMDs, how many WMDs would it take for you (being anyone) to consider the war justified?
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [iraq terrorist] we found the following existing topics.
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com