»I'm tired of people complaining about no wmd's«
|
|||
 we all know that most wars the world has seen have ulterior political motives then what everyone is told or believes when the war first begins...i think you need to witness the after effects to come up with a conclusion. this is why i get upset when people say the war is not just, because we went in under the assumption of wmd's. so ok we haven't found any thus far, who knows if we ever will, we wouldn't have even found saddam if it wasn't for insider help, he was in a hole for god's sake.. nonetheless the reason we went in there has no basis on the good that will eventually come out of this. the good is we got rid of a bad man that could eventually have gotten exponentially worse. this is why i hate the arguement we didn't find what we went in for we should leave. no! we are able to do something morally good in the meantime which is more than i can say for most wars... i know i will get mucho flak for this post but it must be said, politicians lie from day 1, all we can hope for is for there to be some moral compass in which they fallow in which we can all agree needed to be done one way or another...(let the fists fly!)   posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsBush, Kerry, Iraqi'm tired of people complaining about no wmd's |
|
|||
 The war in the faulklands (spelling sorry) was a stupid war. There were obviously nothing but selfish reasons for Britain to fight over the faulklands. Did they lie about it? No! They went to war and took the flak for it - no BS! Now if Britain and America wanted to take Saddam out of power why couldn't they just say that? Why'd they have to put in all this WMD response time BS? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 uummm...argentina invaded the falkland islands and were threatning to kill or expel all the British ex patriots the falklands are a British province and so its the same as if someone invaded Britain itself protecting British citizens...doesnt sound like a stupid and selfish thing to do to me posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 also you must realize that there were probably like 100 reasons for invading but the media(wich only focusus on the negative) only reported a few... posted by Agent Zero |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 As stated elswehere, the issue isn't about WMD's It's about misleading people to get approval. Had Bush said they were after "Saddam the Tirant" from the get-go, it would have been harder to convince the rest of the world (Saddam was not top of the human rights hit list), but ultimately Bush would have been proved right. Had he set off to oust a tirant, and done it. it would have been a 100% success No amount of whining and belly-aching could have changed that. Had he said it was "To stabalise what will ultimately become the worlds sole source of Oil - to prevent Saddam holding the world to ransom in the future" - We might have bought into it. But instead is was WMD. But this alone is not the full picture Had it been just about Saddam having them, then this latest business about problems finding them would not be major news. But it was the "Immediate Threat", the "We have Proof" and more specifically "once we get to Iraq, we'll show you..." which is what all the fuss is about. Try it in legal terms. Some punk kid is arrested on suspicion of having a gun. When the Police search him, they find no gun. The arrest would be laughed out of court. It doesn't mean the kid didn't ever have a gun, or he didn't kill people, it just meant the arrest was invalid. It's the difference between evidence and suspicion. posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 That's the way it was and even worse: Saddam let the inspectors do their work, Saddam destroyed officially under their eyes (and in front of cameras) his last weapons, Saddam gave an extensive list of what happened to his old weapons: In short: Saddam complied, inspectors were satisfied, but the US still wanted to invade. Everybody (except Fox News watchers) could actually see that US was pushing towards a war... no matter what. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: Try it in legal terms. Some punk kid is arrested on suspicion of having a gun. When the Police search him, they find no gun. The arrest would be laughed out of court.
It doesn't mean the kid didn't ever have a gun, or he didn't kill people, it just meant the arrest was invalid. first things first, we know for a fact tht the kid has had guns in the past and has killed many people with the gun or without...ok so you pat down the kid he has no gun, but for a single year before he allows you to inspect his room and you find many illegal guns and get rid of them, then later as you continue doing this the people that look for the guns aren't allowed to look for the guns for a while...the kid allowed them to look for guns in the first place why not let them now if he had nothing to hide? so while your patting him down and find no gun, wouldnt you hold him responsible for those crimes he commited earlier? is that not still a crime? can he not still go to jail for those crimes? those crimes that were more harmful than just carrying a gun the first place? wouldn't that be the smart and moral thing to do? posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
You make sure the kid doesn't get off on a technicality by making sure the arrest warrant is for the right thing. posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
and tells me he's going to seach my room. I tell him, no not today. The next day he says he wants to search my room and I say not today. This happens for 2 months and then I finally let him search my room. He doesn't find any pot. Does that mean i never had any? Not only that, but all my friends tell him that I had the stuff (russia, china). In addition he finds a bong (wmd facilities). Should he assume that I don't smoke pot? Of course not. So why do you guys expect america to? posted by liberal slayer |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marl64: You make sure the kid doesn't get off on a technicality by making sure the arrest warrant is for the right thing. exactly a technicality is a lawyers dream, doesn't mean it's right...many a criminal has gotten off on a technicality...you believe mans law is just? just because we don't or can't bring criminals to justice doesn't mean were right and it shouldnt be done... posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: first things first, we know for a fact tht the kid has had guns in the past and has killed many people with the gun or without Which, as a country leader, is legal. Putin has killed many, too. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
liberal slayer: Should he assume that I don't smoke pot? Of course not. So why do you guys expect america to? We don't, that's the point. We'd like a little honesty up front before sending our troops into the hotzone. Extending the analogy, What if you used to smoke pot but gave up months ago. The friends told your dad that they sold you some ages ago, but you probably have some left. Your dad askes you "do you smoke pot" and you reply "not any more, Ok I used to, but I gave up". He calls the cops (UN), but they tell your dad that they can't arrest you without evidence, they check the room, but find nothing. So your dad takes the law into his own hands and (with a neigbour (UK)) locks you in the cellar. He tells the police that he will justify this later once he's searched the room properly, he'll find the Pot and show them. So you sit in the cellar, while your dad repeatedly takes your room apart. As he does, he finds porn and knives and your diary which confesses to a few things you'd rather not be public. All of this might be valid reasons for you to be locked away, but the pot charge is still BS. The ironic thing is that both your dad and the neighbour are police officers (members of the UN), but felt that there was too much paperwork involved to do things through police channels. They also feel that the law is too soft in its dealings with drugs and that they are probably right anyway. Oh and your dad also forgets that it was him that gave you the gun and the neighbour which gave you the knife. 
posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
i like the first analogy cause that's americas stance. marl that other analogy is yours...we see two differnt things. he had them but got rid of them...he hid them and sent them away to other countries posted by Agent Zero |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
So you are saying that these huge stockpiles of weapons were all removed from the country just as the troops moved in? If they managed to get all of it out of the country that quickly then they can't have had particularly large stockpiles can they? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
the UN debated for a long time over this...remember. posted by Agent Zero |
|||
|
|||
1, 2 Next
Goto page
1, 2 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 21 November 2008, 02:51 php B.B. |