Apologies now being acepted by those sheep that said war was over WMD

kayaman+ · Jul 12, 2003

out,

When have I ever implied that Saddam did anything great. This looks to me like typical righty, can't argue the points so turn it into some sort of insult.

"seems all the posters that were right about the war have decided to quit wasting time arguing with yall."

Don't you get it, that's the point of this thread. The right was wrong, even Bush2 is grasping at straws and making statements like, he's sure at some point in time there was a WMD program. Why did they set up a fall guy, George Tenet, if they didn't know this could haunt Bush2.

outandup · Jul 12, 2003

i hear people crying that US soldiers are being killed in iraq.

lets not forget the 3000+ killed on 9-11 and the 100's that have been killed in other terrorist attacks over the years and nothing was ever done.

this war will make these tin horned dictators think 2 and 3 times before they support the likes of al queda and hamas.

the bottom line is IF saddam got his hand on a nuke he would have held the US up with it and i'm one that's happy he's out of power.

i believe this message needed to be sent to the arab leaders. we'll see if we're hit again. the US is an open country and we cannot defend all of our targets, so we have to take the fight to them. end of story.

GrandSlam+ · Jul 12, 2003

I got a letter last week (dated May 21) from my cousin in Iraq...here's some excerpts:

"If you are watching the news, you already know about the mass graves they have found. We have been the ones digging up to find the bodies. Anyone who doesn't believe we should have gone to war with Iraq should be sent here to see this. It goes beyond words to even describe what it is like. The locals said after the Gulf War, Hussein executed 900 people a day for 30 days straight. I am at Hiliya and it is supposed to be the largest grave site. We estimate there are probably 20,000 people here."

"Please send me more bug spray. The mosquitos are terrible here. It is getting unbelievably hot over here. Yesterday it was 110 in the shade. We are starting work at 4 am and trying to quit around 2pm. They think we may get sent home around Sept. I hope it is sooner than that.We are still going to rebuild schools here at Hiliya. The news wasn't lying when they said he used the schools as shields. every school has some kind of artillery, anti-aircraft guns or ammunition dump right next to it."

There were plenty of reasons why we went to war; WMD was just a piece of the puzzle. Maybe we should look to the west for the answer to the WMD question.

http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,6287283,00.html

outandup · Jul 12, 2003

Phaedrus · Jul 12, 2003

Heartstring-tugging bullshit.

The doctrine of "pre-emptive war" is not going to protect the US from anything but peace. Get that through your head -- the fact that you think that if Saddam were to ever get a nuke he would probably use it on the US is a justification for war is horrifying. How would you feel if you fit a certain pyschological profile for murder, and you got in a fight in a bar, and based on whipping the guy's ass in the bar plus your profile the court went ahead and sentenced you to life due to your enormous potential for harm?

The conservatives have all lost their minds and gone more left than the left ever have in their wettest, leftest dreams.

Phaedrus

outandup · Jul 12, 2003

slow down and use your head. we would all speak german today if hitler got the bomb first. saddam attacked two neighboring countries and used chemical weapons. saddam with nukes would be as bad as hitler. it's a good thing we took him out now. i don't believe we should hit anyone else at this time.

Phaedrus · Jul 12, 2003

WWII was none of our business either, and frankly, look what it got us -- many dead Americans and a Europe that never misses an opportunity to take a shit on us.

The second-greatest traitor in American history manufactured an excuse to drag us into WWII despite the fact that an overwhelming majority -- as in, nearly 90% -- of Americans did not want to get involved. And so we went out, battled one horrifying racist atrocity in the west, and committed one horrifying racist atrocity in the east (does that mean we broke even or what?) lost many, many good men, made widows of American wives and orphans of American children and bereaved old men and women out of middle-aged American fathers and mothers, then had to babysit Japan until it was healthy enough to nearly take over our economy, and indirectly empowered Stalin, who imposed a much more sinister regime on many more people than Hitler did.

Why Hitler, but not Stalin?

Why Ho Chi Minh, but not Pol Pot?

Why Hussein, but not Khomeini?

Why Milosevic, but not Zhirinovksy?

Why Hussein now, but not in 1991?

I understand that it's a lot easier to guess the right course of action decades after the fact, but surely there is a better way to pick our "justified liberations" than by weighing our busy war schedule against the flip of a coin, which seems to be the current methodology used.

I humbly suggest that our military be used in the event of direct threats to America, American interests abroad, or when required by treaty, and absolutely at no other time. Not for patrolling Times Square. Not for toppling little pissant regimes. Not for attempting to flex our muscles at the little terrorist goat-fukcers (who after all, will just blow up whatever we put in front of them anyway, ref. Beirut, ref. Somalia, ref. Embassies in Africa, ref. USS Cole, ref. Trade Center attacks [1993 and 2001] ref. Pentagon attack, and so forth. Fukcing terrorists make us look like bigger assholes than we really are, which is no mean feat.)

Defence of our country, honour of our diplomatic obligations, and no other purpose. Hell, for what we are spending in a month on maintainance -- let alone the cost of the invasion itself -- we could have funded an insurgency movement and toppled him even easier than we did.

Phaedrus

outandup · Jul 12, 2003

and then would have taken America if we would have sat around and waited for the Germans to land here.

So you were for the war with Japan since they directly attacked us?

Phaedrus · Jul 12, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>That's where your wrong. Hitler would have steam rolled Europe and then would have taken America if we would have sat around and waited for the Germans to land here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never seen a single thing in Hitler's actions that gives this even a modicum of possibility. With most of Europe directly under his control, and the rest cowed into treaty or crushed under Stalin, Hitler would have been quite happy to be the third superpower in the Cold War. And like most charismatic dictators, whomever replaced him would never be able to hold it together -- the Third Reich would have collapsed before the Soviet Union did.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>So you were for the war with Japan since they directly attacked us?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely, but I smell a trap. Bear in mind that the Pearl Harbour attack was known about beforehand, and allowed to happen. What we should have done, was sent out a resistance force and shot those fukcers down as soon as they refused to alter course. But that would have just been a mere skirmish, and would not have lit quite the fire that Pearl Harbour did under America's collective asses.

You're convinced of Hitler's theoretical might; what's your take on FDR allying himself with Stalin? Do you really feel that Hitler's Third Reich could have survived without him? Do you really feel that Hitler would have been any worse than Stalin, for that matter would he have been even remotely near as bad?

[Mind you, Hitler was very very bad news for the Jews, I understand and acknowledge that. But I'm talking overall tyranny without the emotional sentiments.]

Phaedrus

sphincter · Jul 12, 2003

why not hussein in 91?......because the whole exercise was under u.n. control.....again,thanks u.n......if not for the u.n.,hussein would have been gone twelve years ago.....

had europe listened to churchill,hitler may have been preempted.....preemption is not a dirty word....but again(and again and again),europe sticks it`s collective heads in the sand...

outandup · Jul 13, 2003

i think you're a bit naive to believe the US could have prevented the attack on pearl harbour without an all out pre-empted strike. which your against. even if the US knew their would be an attack it wasn't just that easy in those days days to stop such a bombing run.

take for instance today we have a base at diegio garcia in the pacific, if the chinese decided to bombed it and we knew but we didn't know exactly when we probably couldn't stop them if they launched 100 bombers.

today if mexico massed troops to take a US border town initially they would meet little resitance.

whether you believe the US knew about the plan that the japanese were going to bomb us or not, it had never happened before so it would be hard for anyone to approve the necessary defense against such an attack. a pre-empted attack against japan with their planes on the ground was the only way to stop that attack against the US and you're against that.

kayaman+ · Jul 13, 2003

"war was the right thing to do..."

So why is Bush2 still trying to justify it and setting up a scapegoat?

"lets not forget the 3000+ killed on 9-11 and the 100's that have been killed in other terrorist attacks over the years and nothing was ever done."

Yeah and we never did get Bin Ladden for that did we, oh well let's go after Saddam. Oh shit, we let him get away too.

"this war will make these tin horned dictators think 2 and 3 times before they support the likes of al queda and hamas."

Wake up! These are some of the most devoutly religious people and the world and part of their religion is the idea that dying in a holy war is a free pass to heaven. Bush2's activities have more so emphasized the idea that any fight with Americans is a holy war.

"the bottom line is IF saddam got his hand on a nuke he would have held the US up with it and i'm one that's happy he's out of power."

Based on what??? How long has it been since the first golf war? In other words how long has he had a reason to be pissed? He was in control of one of the world's largest oil reserves which equates to a huge amount of revenue for weapons development.

"i believe this message needed to be sent to the arab leaders. we'll see if we're hit again."

Saddly the question is when, and unfortunately Bush2 does nothing to appease anti-U.S. sentiment in the world.

JohnnyDetroit · Jul 13, 2003

My two cents on the whole mess:

This is probably one of the most hypocritical things our government has done in recent memory. We funded this cock sucker for years when he was fighting Iran with the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach. During this time he was killing his own people as he has done in recent times, but since they also were killing Iranians we did not say shit. If Bush would come out and say it is about oil and not feed us the bullshit about "moral and just", than MAYBE I would back him a little more on this. Our country reminds me of Ancient Rome. So powerful and dominant that it only could be destroyed from within. How is it our right to dicate what goes on in Iraq. So in the 60s during the civil rights, Germany could of invaded because they did not like how we treated blacks? Canada can start dropping bombs because they do not agree with our border policy with Mexico? **** Europe. **** Asia. **** all of them. The only part of me that supports Bush is because the pussy Europeans are crying. The same people who started 2 World Wars and can't stop the Serbs, Croats, etc from killing each other the last 1000 years.

Do not fall for US propaganda on this. Iraq hates Iran. Iraq hates Isreal. YES, Iraq hates us but prior to Kuwait they were our pals. When has Iraq ever made claims of attacking the US directly that was not a rebuttal to one of our threats? If that is the case for dropping bombs, than why not North Korea? They have missiles that can reach the West Coast AND admit they would use them. Not only that they have threatened to nuke South Korea and Japan. So why are we talking shit about Iraq and planning to bomb them? OIL. Also, in my opinion because we would kick Iraqs ass. Which makes us a bully. Picking on people we can beat up. Most of this falls back on Clinton. He ignored Bin Laden and his crew for how long? Remeber his response was to shoot a few cruise missiles back in the mid 90s? WOW, thanks Bill. He knew about N Korea and did not do shit on that either. I agree GW has some tough decisions to make, but if I had to pick the bigger threat, without a doubt North Korea.

Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan. All at one point our own faults. CIA calls it "blow back". We did certain things to handle a situation and never looked into the future. CIA used to meet with Saddam and give him info in Iran. It was okay when he was gassing his people back than because he played ball. Just before he invaded Kuwait Bush Sr. gave the thumbs up for a major aid package to his buddy Hussein. If you do your research, you could even argue they were 100% justified in invading in the first place! Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields that produced the majoroty of the income. When told to chill out they told Iraq to **** off basically. SO if Canada starting stealing from the Alaskan pipeline we would just be okay with it?

While our government was saying "NO TO DRUGS" on TV in the 80s we were allowing the Contras, Noreiga etc to bring drugs in because stopping the growth of Communism made it okay to deal with criminals. When the islamic wack jobs were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan, we funded them and gave them weapons even though they were the source of almost the heroin that eventually flowed into this country. You think all those stinger missiles over there were delivered by Santa? Our own government.

Trying to stall the growth of communism we armed 1/2 of Africa. When the Iron Curtain fell we left leaving basically 10th world countries to fend for themselves. Everyone cried when they dragged that soldier through the streets, they were animals right? Everyone forgets they were just doing what we taught them. For all those years we preached to them about being soverign and being free to motivate them to fight communists, but than we expect them to forget that when we occupy them.

Whether it was replacing the government in Chile or putting in the Shah of Iran, we have played god way too much with the rest of the world. They make us think that all these nations etc hate us because of our freedom, football and apple pie. Maybe people need to think that maybe alot of people hate us because our governement goes against the very values our nation was founded on.

If he had WMD why not use them when we kicked his ass the first time, dropped bombs on him 10 years after or while we were driving in downtown baghdad.

100% true blue patriot, but i think this is easily one of the biggest shams of the past 100 years.

JudgeWapner · Jul 13, 2003

I am sooo sorry.

JohnnyDetroit · Jul 13, 2003

outandup,

in regards to pearl harbor, at least from the japanese perspective it was a move based on the United States refusing to lift an embargo (oil, scrap metal)against them. with their opinion of an eventual war with western powers and plans in take over china there resources would eventually run out and they would be stuck at standstill. conspiracy theories aside, a conflict between the US and Japan was inevitable.

JudgeWapner · Jul 13, 2003

From a military stand point,Pearl harbor was brilliant.

kayaman+ · Jul 13, 2003

True Judge,

However IMHO, from a moralistic stand point Pearl Harbor was disgusting.

Phaedrus · Jul 13, 2003

outandup wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>i think you're a bit naive to believe the US could have prevented the attack on pearl harbour without an all out pre-empted strike ... even if the US knew their would be an attack it wasn't just that easy in those days days to stop such a bombing run ... whether you believe the US knew about the plan that the japanese were going to bomb us or not, it had never happened before so it would be hard for anyone to approve the necessary defense against such an attack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Judge Wapner wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>From a military stand point,Pearl harbor was brilliant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

kaya man wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>IMHO, from a moralistic stand point Pearl Harbor was disgusting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guys, brush up. It came out almost ten years ago that we had intercepted radio transmissions and knew well ahead that the planes were in the air. No warning was given. No attempt at defence. There are a number of reasons why this might have been, but each of them comes back to the same root cause: FDR needed his own Lusitania so that he could get the US into the war, just as Wilson dragged us in the first time. I am no conspiracy theorist wacko, but I don't believe in making excuses for hideous men who happen to enjoy a bit of popular posterity.

Also, although I have not spent any serious time reviewing the evidence, there has been for years a belief that Pearl Harbour was a decoy anyway -- it's been since I was in high school since I heard it, but basically the death toll, while horrific, "should" have been a lot greater than it was, and many of the ships destroyed were either retired or set to be retired soon, and for all of the ships that were destroyed there were virtually no munitions lost -- as if they were floating there looking like a military flotilla, but virtually unarmed and unmanned. An almost irressitble "sitting duck" for the Japanese to bomb.

Phaedrus

Oceans11 · Jul 13, 2003

I agree with the Judge, Pearl Harbour was an amazing feat for 1941.
No-one had ever done anything like it before.

The attack was to start at 8:00am, to coincide with the declaration of war in Washington at 1:00pm.
They were about 5 minutes early- 7:55 after travelling thousands of miles, and using the limited technology of the late 30's.

The guys in Washington meanwhile, like most paper pushers, arsed things up, giving the mission its infamy tag.

War was then declared on Japan by the US.
War was NOT declared on Germany.

4 DAYS LATER, Hitler declared war on the US.

Now if there was a conspiracy, you would think that war would have been declared on Germany at the same time as Japan. Right?

That would be a good moment to bring your <their> diabolical conspiracy to completion.

Luckily, the carriers were at sea.

=======================================

Other weird coincidences during the war, off the top of my head.

The entire Luftwaffe being shifted around on d-day, so there was hardly any air defence when the good guys landed.

Churchill being informed of the Kursk salient victory just before he dropped anthrax all over the Rhur valley.(Kursk was the biggest tank battle in history)

[This message was edited by eek on July 13, 2003 at 07:25 PM.]