US calls off search for weapons of mass destruction

by WhyNow2000 193 Replies latest social current

  • Reborn2002
    Reborn2002

    Yeru I love you man but your rationale is comical.

    The war was NOT illegal. As a resumption of the war Iraq started, resumed due to multiple violations of the Ceasefire agreement...it was not illegal internationally, and with the resolution of Congress authorizing the use of force it was not illegal constitutionally....your arguement holds NO water. If you think it was illegal...go to court.

    This is merely your opinion, and NOT indisputable fact. The fact DOES remain however that the United States engaged in a preemptive strike (obviously going on the OFFENSIVE, anyone with any concept of offense and defense can see this) and attacked Iraq when Iraq had not as of yet attacked the United States. The primary justification for the war was that Iraq possessed WMD, as Simon brought out in link time and time again. Your deference to the justification being that Saddam was a cruel dictator is revisionism in light of the fact that after almost a year of control of the country, your precious coalition has found not one WMD. In fact, how amusing the Colin Powell goes before the UN with satellite imagery and recorded phone calls detailing how equipment is being moved from one place to another on specific days, yet the same intelligence with total control of the country can NOW find nothing. Would the United States be crying foul if some other big bad country attacked them preemptively just because they could? Damn skippy. Your perspective is just skewed because your an overpatriotic American in the military who will defend your country even when it is wrong. You say take it to court if you think it was illegal. Your sarcasm oozes of the United States which is that of the sole superpower which feels it can do as it pleases simply because it is the world bully.

    As to Abu Abbas, yes, he was charged with the death of one American...and that's one too many...but he and his group are responsible for the deaths of scores if not hundreds of people internationally.

    As opposed to the thousands of Iraqis who have died during this conflict waged under false pretenses? The Iraqi child spammed all over the television screen in recent months for losing his parents and both of his arms due to a misplaced coalition precision-bomb is but one example of thousands. I suppose you rationalize that as collateral damage however, and an unfortunate result of war. How convenient for you.

    Do not get me wrong or misquote me, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator who deserved removal, I do agree with George W. Bush that he was a thug and that it is a relief to know that Iraqis will not be subject to more rape rooms and torture under his regime. But that does not account for the fact that the primary justification for the war was a lie? Acting based on the current premise, the United States should be engaging in preemptive military strikes on the countries of Yemen, Syria, Iran, and North Korea amidst others. Are they? Certainly not. Don't evade that point by saying a different strategy is necessary for North Korea. If Saddam possessed WMD and was capable of using them on the United States, North Korea possesses the same ability if not moreso and can raze the entire West Coast with ballistic missiles, so they should have been first in line.

    I am not a pacifist, nor a radical leftist. If George W. Bush had come before America and said they were removing Saddam Hussein for being a vile dictator, and not for possessing WMD, his nation does not possess, I may have digested this war easier. Even then I would have opposed it however, for Saddam is no less cruel than other dictators in other lands, and the United States oversteps it's authority when assuming it is it's responsibility to govern the entire world stage. Hell, George W Bush is a cruel dictator going by those standards. He had executed more United States citizens under his watch while Governor of Texas than any other official in history. As it stands, I personally believe Paul O'Neill and that the Bush Administration had indeed been orchestrating this war pre 9/11. Not that I fault that, as Clinton did indeed sign the Iraqi Liberation Act, but lying about the reason for the war is an impeachable offense IMHO. If a blowjob can get you impeached, sending 500 U.S. soldiers to their death to fight a personal vendetta and lie and sending thousands of Iraqi civilians to their doom is impeachable, although I am sure being the Dubya supporter you are, you will disagree and concoct an excuse for him.

    Just my 2 cent rant since everyone else feels they can voice their opinion.

    (buys Yeru a beer even though we disagree completely on politics)

  • logansrun
    logansrun

    I found a weapon of mass destruction at the McDonald's bathroom yesterday.

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim
    As opposed to the thousands of Iraqis who have died during this conflict waged under false pretenses? The Iraqi child spammed all over the television screen in recent months for losing his parents and both of his arms due to a misplaced coalition precision-bomb is but one example of thousands. I suppose you rationalize that as collateral damage however, and an unfortunate result of war. How convenient for you.

    A) the war was not waged under false pretenses...If everyone things this war was illegal, why isn't anyone in court trying to prosecute?

    B) Saddam was responsible for the deaths of 10 of thousands of Iraqis a year...2003 was an improvement.

    I feel sorry for the child who lost parents and limbs due to the war...I feel more sorry for the kids forced to watch their parents tortured raped and murdered...and the parents forced to watch their children raped tortured and murdered...but that's no happening in Iraq anymore.

    Smiles as he chugs the beer....asks for a scotch and water on the back.

  • roybatty
    roybatty
    Acting based on the current premise, the United States should be engaging in preemptive military strikes on the countries of Yemen, Syria, Iran, and North Korea amidst others. Are they? Certainly not. Don't evade that point by saying a different strategy is necessary for North Korea. If Saddam possessed WMD and was capable of using them on the United States, North Korea possesses the same ability if not moreso and can raze the entire West Coast with ballistic missiles, so they should have been first in line.

    Exactly. Jump back to the early 1990's. Clinton is in office and the North Koreans are developing a nuclear weapons program. What does Clinton do? He does what most of you are saying. Clinton plays the "contain" and "appease" game. The US agrees to blackmail by agreeing to basically give the North Koreans what they ask for in return they agree to stop their nuke program. What happens? We now find out that the North Koreans never stopped their nuke program and now they have nukes. What a great plan! Hey, I know what, let's now try the same stupid plan with Iraq! Yeah, what a wonderful idea. In a few short years we can have BOTH North Korea and Iraq with nukes. Great idea!

    Sheesh, don't you guys wonder why NOW Libya and Iran are agreeing to stop their secret nuke programs and let inspectors into the country? Because they know Bush isn't going to screw around. If you plan on making nukes expect to some day have the US army knocking on your door. And you know what? I give Bush high marks for doing what's right in the long run even though it's unpopular right now.

  • roybatty
    roybatty
    I feel sorry for the child who lost parents and limbs due to the war...I feel more sorry for the kids forced to watch their parents tortured raped and murdered...and the parents forced to watch their children raped tortured and murdered...but that's no happening in Iraq anymore.

    Anyone watch Nightline last night? I didn't see all of it but Ted Koppel in there "touring" Iraq. I was amazed seeing all the differnt, ordinary Iraqi people coming up to him to say thanks to Amercia. Don't see that on most of the news stations. I guess seeing helicopters being shot down and soldiers dying is more interesting to people.

  • Pleasuredome
    Pleasuredome
    Jump back to the early 1990's. Clinton is in office and the North Koreans are developing a nuclear weapons program. What does Clinton do? He does what most of you are saying. Clinton plays the "contain" and "appease" game.

    hahaha.... lmao. yes, while clinton was 'appeasing' the north koreans, guess who was selling them 2 nuclear reactors? good old bumsfelt, who now declares north korea as part of the "axis of evil" because of its efforts to build nuclear weapons. http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html

    if it was all fiction it wouldnt be half as funny.

  • roybatty
    roybatty

    The sale of the nuclear technology was a high-profile contract. ABB's then chief executive, Goran Lindahl, visited North Korea in November 1999 to announce ABB's "wide-ranging, long-term cooperation agreement" with the communist government.

    The company also opened an office in the country's capital, Pyongyang, and the deal was signed a year later in 2000. Despite this, Mr Rumsfeld's office said that the de fence secretary did not "recall it being brought before the board at any time".

    In a statement to the American magazine Newsweek, his spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said that there "was no vote on this". A spokesman for ABB told the Guardian yesterday that "board members were informed about the project which would deliver systems and equipment for light water reactors".

    Ummm....so what's your point? Who put this deal together? You make it seem that a company ran by Rumsfed sold reactors to N. Korea. This wasn't the case at all. I guess you can spin this story any way you want. It still doesn't excuse Clinton's policy to bend over for the North Koreans, resulting in them now having nukes. Again, what a great policy. Heck, Clinton should have just given them some nukes and saved himself all the paperwork.

  • rem
    rem

    I consider myself a pretty liberal bleeding heart, but I have to agree with the conservatives on this one. If history has shown us anything its that the policy of containment is a failure.

    I feel bad for what many innocents are going through in the Middle East right now. But then again, the people in the Middle East have been suffering under their dictators for decades. I think that what we are doing over there may be painful and hard in the short term, but will be good in the long term. Good not only for the US, but for the people of the Middle East and the International scene in general.

    I also believe that our action in Iraq has given us much more leverage in our 'negotiations' with North Korea. Hopefully a peaceful solution will be found in that situation.

    rem

  • Pleasuredome
    Pleasuredome

    Ummm....so what's your point? Who put this deal together?
    Mr Rumsfeld's office said that the de fence secretary did not "recall it being brought before the board at any time".
    A spokesman for ABB told the Guardian yesterday that "board members were informed about the project which would deliver systems and equipment for light water reactors".

    just a few points;

    1. rumslfed's diplomatic amnesia (lying) of "ABB's "wide-ranging, long-term cooperation agreement" with the communist government."

    2. reading this quote sugests rumsfeld didnt share you point of view at that particular time: "Critics of the administration's bellicose language on North Korea say that the problem was not that Mr Rumsfeld supported the Clinton-inspired diplomacy and the ABB deal but that he did not "speak up against it". "One could draw the conclusion that economic and personal interests took precedent over non-proliferation," said Steve LaMontagne, an analyst with the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington."

    3. "One US congressman and critic of the North Korean regime described the reactors as "nuclear bomb factories"."

    and 4. one small point about hypocrisy.

    oh you think that any of that is meant to excuse clinton?????? WTF???? you think i want to excuse that [deleted]? honestly. everything's 'black and white", "left and right".

  • rem
    rem

    Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but since when is a *light water* reactor a nuclear bomb factory? Granted, it's possible to make fissionable material with such a reactor (it's just a lot harder than with a heavy water reactor), but isn't that that the reason light water reactors were allowed, along with inspections?

    Again, maybe I missed this story and there's more too it.

    rem

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit