Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

True enough, but that weren't the reasons given, untill all other given reasons (WMD's, connection to Al Queayda) failed to be true.

Also, the USA never seemed that concerned with mass murdering dictators/governments (Rwanda, Oeganda) before or after, at least not enough to invade the country for it, some were even supported (Chili, Saddam earlier).

I hope you are honest enough to admit to yourself that Bush didn't invade Iraq out of the goodness of his heart, to help the poor suffering people of Iraq, of which he killed over a 100,000 too in the process of "liberating" them (If I heard the numbers correctly).

Again...oil...Ralphy...oil...

[Steve]

The argument that the reasons for war were a lie by Bush's part just astound me. Do people not understand what intelligence reports are? The intelligence reports that both the US and UK had showed an iminent threat with Sadaam. Irregardless of the fact that the reports were later proven to be false, the fact of the matter is at the time the war started, the reports were there and had not been proven false. If Bush had these reports in his hands and failed to act on them, all the anti-Bush people would be in an uproar that he did not act based on the intelligence he had. It's not a "lie" - it's acting on intelligence we had.

And to those democrats who say it's a lie, what about all of Congress who voted to give the President the power to go to war? They must have lied to because they were given all the same intelligence the President and our allies had. If I remember correctly, it was a unanimous decision to grant the President the power to go to war.

And if you want to say this entire war was over oil, please show documented evidence that shows the United States and/or our allies have stolen oil from Iraq. Iraq is the 7th largest importer of crude oil to the US and imports from that country have actually declined since the war. See:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html

[eusebioCBR]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

You've seen that?

YES, the satellite images presented by the defence department and shown on all the network news shows covering the near year long debate of wether we should hold Saddam accountable to the countless violations of the armistice he agreed to. Saddams surrender was conditional and he is responsible for those violations. If you think Saddam was no big deal or not much of a threat would you want him neighboring your country? Perhaps you'd like him heading your government? I'm sure we're all content to philosophize from our relatively comfy societies and now most in Iraq can boast that liberty(philosophize) as well.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by eusebioCBR)

YES, the satellite images presented by the defence department and shown on all the network news shows covering the near year long debate of wether we should hold Saddam accountable to the countless violations of the armistice he agreed to. Saddams surrender was conditional and he is responsible for those violations. If you think Saddam was no big deal or not much of a threat would you want him neighboring your country? Perhaps you'd like him heading your government? I'm sure we're all content to philosophize from our relatively comfy societies and now most in Iraq can boast that liberty(philosophize) as well.

Its getting a liitle bit boring to us - the 'liberals' to be interpreted like Saddams or Osama's fans by you americans (not all of you, of course!) here...
We dont admire them!!!!!...but the fact is that we also see the two sides of the story and honestly theres no innocence or only good intentions in invading Iraq ...
And before someone asks to some proof -- I can say that superpowers like US never were worried to show some proof --always decided to 'act' based in its suppositions in keep its mission: SAVE THE WORLD!!!!!!!!

[eusebioCBR]

I didn't use the term liberal so debate those insecurities with yourself. I saw someone ask for proof and I chimed in. The last bit was my opinion as a member of the greatest superpower in the world Wouldn't Political Banter be boring if everyone agreed?

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by eusebioCBR)

I didn't use the term liberal so debate those insecurities with yourself. I saw someone ask for proof and I chimed in. The last bit was my opinion as a member of the greatest superpower in the world Wouldn't Political Banter be boring if everyone agreed?

I didnt say you especifically called me liberal anyway I cant see a problem in it (others members are always calling me that).. so you got it wrong... Insecurities???? You are the one who seems insecure to debate something -- I rarely see you here debating ...

But you are right in one thing --We need to debate in Political banter -and this the thread that actually I like the most --I love politics so its too easy to come here to debate(and be sure I know how it works -since Im one of the few regulars members who post here and ...seems that its the opposite with you...) and believe me, agree to the members of the only superpower is the last thing im worried ---btw if you still have any doub about it... ask Chase, right?? lol

[eusebioCBR]

In the first place you quoted me with your whining about the liberal issue. I guess I have not posted as much as you and others(in this thread) so please pardon my trespass.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by eusebioCBR)

YES, the satellite images presented by the defence department and shown on all the network news shows covering the near year long debate of wether we should hold Saddam accountable to the countless violations of the armistice he agreed to. Saddams surrender was conditional and he is responsible for those violations. If you think Saddam was no big deal or not much of a threat would you want him neighboring your country? Perhaps you'd like him heading your government? I'm sure we're all content to philosophize from our relatively comfy societies and now most in Iraq can boast that liberty(philosophize) as well.

So those caravans of large trucks running 24hrs a day into Syria was just a coincidence.( I'm going to regret visiting this thread )

I asked if you saw the caravans of large truck running for 24 hrs a day into Syria?

If the USA had documented proof from satellite images of caravans of trucks moving into Syria on the eve of the war, I have no doubt at all that George W. would have ordered to follow and examine these trucks.

That there was proof that Saddam did not give full cooperation in regards to the restrictions that were put upon him I totally agree with, that Saddam was a big deal as a tyrant I also agree with, that Saddam was building WMD's there was much doubt about, weapon inspections were still in full progress, Hans Blix and his men were still inspecting and could not find any proof that there were any WMD's, because there weren't any as it turned out.
The world (France, Germany, Russia, millions of protesters) doubted the security reports or at least were sure that is was not enough proof to base a war on and they were proven right. They had access to the same intelligence as the pro-war governments of the USA and Britain, but they interpreted the intelligence correctly by saying there was insufficient proof and that there needed to be more inspections and more monitoring. The inspections and the no-fly-zones proved in retrospect enough to control the weapon-building capacity of Saddam. Sure, the citizens of Iraq were under the reign of a terrible tyrant, but that wasn't the issue. Now they are on the brink of a civil war, I don't know what's better, living under a dictator or living in a country with a civil war going on, can you?

The pro-war people always claim that the anti-war people would have Saddam doing as he himself pleased, that is not the case, we just didn't think war was the solution, more inspections, more monitoring, keeping up the no-fly-zones, it should have been enough to keep him under control, without taking thousands of lives of Iraqi citizens and of coalition forces.

[RalphyS]

And again I ask the question that no pro-war activist can answer me: Why didn't Saddam use the WMD's he supposedly had at the moment that the coalition forces entered/invaded Iraq? Why would Saddam choose to move these weapons abroad instead of using them against the forces that would surely dethrone and imprison him? Many thing can be said about this terrible man, but to consider him a fool I would not do.

About the oil-aspect, I do not think the sole reason for invading Iraq was oil, I think Dubya was probably more seeking revenge for daddy, but I do believe that the oil is a thing, which keeps the US looking to the middle-east and the political moves in that region with much more interest than it would, say to central Africa.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

.
The pro-war people always claim that the anti-war people would have Saddam doing as he himself pleased, that is not the case, we just didn't think war was the solution, more inspections, more monitoring, keeping up the no-fly-zones, it should have been enough to keep him under control, without taking thousands of lives of Iraqi citizens and of coalition forces.

YES!!!!!!

[eusebioCBR]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

So those caravans of large trucks running 24hrs a day into Syria was just a coincidence.( I'm going to regret visiting this thread )

I asked if you saw the caravans of large truck running for 24 hrs a day into Syria?

If the USA had documented proof from satellite images of caravans of trucks moving into Syria on the eve of the war, I have no doubt at all that George W. would have ordered to follow and examine these trucks.

That there was proof that Saddam did not give full cooperation in regards to the restrictions that were put upon him I totally agree with, that Saddam was a big deal as a tyrant I also agree with, that Saddam was building WMD's there was much doubt about, weapon inspections were still in full progress, Hans Blix and his men were still inspecting and could not find any proof that there were any WMD's, because there weren't any as it turned out.
The world (France, Germany, Russia, millions of protesters) doubted the security reports or at least were sure that is was not enough proof to base a war on and they were proven right. They had access to the same intelligence as the pro-war governments of the USA and Britain, but they interpreted the intelligence correctly by saying there was insufficient proof and that there needed to be more inspections and more monitoring. The inspections and the no-fly-zones proved in retrospect enough to control the weapon-building capacity of Saddam. Sure, the citizens of Iraq were under the reign of a terrible tyrant, but that wasn't the issue. Now they are on the brink of a civil war, I don't know what's better, living under a dictator or living in a country with a civil war going on, can you?

The pro-war people always claim that the anti-war people would have Saddam doing as he himself pleased, that is not the case, we just didn't think war was the solution, more inspections, more monitoring, keeping up the no-fly-zones, it should have been enough to keep him under control, without taking thousands of lives of Iraqi citizens and of coalition forces.

I'm not convinced there is nothing harmful being hidden in Syria.

Unless you have absolute proof of what was not on every one those trucks, I'll continue to hold my suspicion.

[eusebioCBR]

I would rather fight as a free man, I don't see life under a dictatorship being truly lived.

There's no need to tell me "that's easy for you to say", it's a pedictable respnonce

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by eusebioCBR)

I would rather fight as a free man, I don't see life under a dictatorship being truly lived.

The same applies to me, I too would fight with any means possible against a dictator if I lived in a dictatorship, but ... and that's a big but, I would not force anyone to fight with me of for me, it should be everyone's own personal choice if freedom is worth the pain of physical harm or even death that could fall upon you.

In this case the USA took away that choice from the Iraqi people and put them in harm's way without giving them any choice in the matter.

[eusebioCBR]

In this case the USA took away that choice from the Iraqi people and put them in harm's way without giving them any choice in the matter.

I see your point, but I don't completely agree.

When the American colonies declared independence from the UK/King far less than half of pop.(37%?) were supporters.

I know the circumstances are different (Iraq), but I believe there is a percentage of their pop. that wants outside support to secure freedom.

[Justify]

**double post**