Womd

[1stdeadeye]

WOMD?

My two cents:

Who was the last nation to use WOMD? It was Iraq on the Kurds.

As for the Taliban, how could you defend them? Did they attack us, no. Their proxies Al-Queda did! You can not harbor and provide support to Al-Queda and then claim it's not your fault. The Taliban also knew about Al-Queda's previous terrorist attacks. Remember the Clinton Cruise Missle Strike!

Israel Troops don't go looking for 8 year olds to kill. Those that are killed are usually killed during combat with militants, unlike the Palistinian Murderers who go looking for civilians to blow themselves up amoungst. Don't try to claim the high ground for the Palestinians!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Miscue, that is probably the worst thing I have ever seen anyone post. How dare you use the deaths of over 2,000 people in order to justify an event that has nothing to do with them. How dare you trivialize their deaths.

WTF????

Collegeboy did you really have the bals to post this?

Man I can not wait to bunker you at AO SC!! I'll even lend you a marker if you can't bring one!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
So you are saying that it is ok to use the deaths of 2,000 people on 9/11, to justify the invasion of another country. I mean if it is true that you are doing it to prevent future 9/11's (doubtful), why Iraq?

They were the last to use WoMD! They could make them, they have used them, end of story!

Why not N. Korea (the only country proven to pose a threat to us (yet we gave into their demands)), why not China, why not Saudi Arabia (I mean the majority of the 9/11 people were Saudis), why not Israel (For if they don't stop they will cause an end to this world in the coming centuries, if that long)?

None of these countries has used WoMD!

So why Iraq, the country that posed no threat to us, had no delivery system, no WOMD, nothing that could be considered to even pose a threat to the US. Yet you are using the deaths of the people on 9/11 to justify yours and others blood lust. Thank you for trivializing and ruining the deaths of over 2,000 innocent citizens.

How many thousands of Kurds were killed with Iraq's "non-existent" WoMD?

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


The point I was making about the Taliban was that if you asked a person who attacked us on 911, you might here Osama or the Taliban, you ask what organization did, and you might hear Al Queda or the Taliban. The Taliban never attacked us like many people falsely believe. All they did was allegedly giving Osama shelter. While that is bad in itself, they did not attack us like so many think.

WHAT???

CB the depth of your depravity has astonished me! Allegedly? Where was Osama living? Where were all of the Al-Queda captured? Where did Clinton launch cruise missles into?

The Taliban shielded, encourgaged, and profited from Al Queda. They were just as guilty!

[paintballguy429]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
WOMD?

My two cents:

Who was the last nation to use WOMD? It was Iraq on the Kurds.

As for the Taliban, how could you defend them? Did they attack us, no. Their proxies Al-Queda did! You can not harbor and provide support to Al-Queda and then claim it's not your fault. The Taliban also knew about Al-Queda's previous terrorist attacks. Remember the Clinton Cruise Missle Strike!

Israel Troops don't go looking for 8 year olds to kill. Those that are killed are usually killed during combat with militants, unlike the Palistinian Murderers who go looking for civilians to blow themselves up amoungst. Don't try to claim the high ground for the Palestinians!

Over a decade ago, even before the Gulf War

The difference between the Israelis and the terrorists is that we give the Israelis millions of dollars to conduct their thuggish raids in which they have absolutely no regard for life-innocent or guilty. Not to mention that Sharon has a history of war crimes.

[paintballguy429]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Originally posted by Collegeboy
So you are saying that it is ok to use the deaths of 2,000 people on 9/11, to justify the invasion of another country. I mean if it is true that you are doing it to prevent future 9/11's (doubtful), why Iraq?

They were the last to use WoMD! They could make them, they have used them, end of story!

Why not N. Korea (the only country proven to pose a threat to us (yet we gave into their demands)), why not China, why not Saudi Arabia (I mean the majority of the 9/11 people were Saudis), why not Israel (For if they don't stop they will cause an end to this world in the coming centuries, if that long)?

None of these countries has used WoMD!

So why Iraq, the country that posed no threat to us, had no delivery system, no WOMD, nothing that could be considered to even pose a threat to the US. Yet you are using the deaths of the people on 9/11 to justify yours and others blood lust. Thank you for trivializing and ruining the deaths of over 2,000 innocent citizens.

How many thousands of Kurds were killed with Iraq's "non-existent" WoMD?

Ok, you conservatives need to come up with points that are relevant to the war today. With the technical definition, the one that BUSH used, those were not WOMD he used on the Kurds.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
They were the last to use WoMD! They could make them, they have used them, end of story!

COULD use them on the U.S. is different than WAS going to use them or had intent to use them. There are plenty of people who COULD use them on us. Also the feared WMD have not been found yet.

Now lets not forget why countries do not use WMD on us. They fear an armed response and being toppled from power. Who better than Saddam knew the power of the U.S. (having experienced it in the first Gulf War when he broke down into tears because he thought the U.S. was going to going to oust him after destroying his army). As I said in my post above argue that it was good foriegn diplomacy because it will "stabilize the middle east" etc. It may even be true I will admit I cannot see all of the ramifications (none of us can). Do not, however, try to sell it as needed for the immediate defense of the American people. Any fool can see that was not the case.

[paintballguy429]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


Paintballguy:

I have given you four links showing terrorists in Iraq prior to the period that they started pouring in from accross the border (it is safe to say that most, if not all, of those terrorists have no links to Saddam). However, you choose to ignore it. Why? Because you refuse to accept the opposite of what you want to believe. There are many people here and all of them have their own opinions and beliefs and with the possible exception of college boy they are all willing to see what truth lies in the other side of the arguement. You aren't. It shouldn't suprise me after seeing the quote in your sig about the anti-globalization thugs that travel around the globe rioting in front of world leader confrences. But, that kind of blind unwillingness to look at what other people are saying and to analyze always kind of suprises me. If you're not willing to leave your rhetoric and stubborn unwilingness to listen at the door then I suggest you stop speaking.

Two of them have no relevance because Zarqawi was proven to have no link to Hussein.

The one concerning Abbas-it never actually says how Hussein gave him aid of any kind.

The other one is just full of Bush rhetoric and never actually gives any names, it essentially just says "Uh, yeah, we, uh, we have evidence that there are terrorists in Iraq."

Oh yeah you look at this pic and tell me who the thugs are

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by paintballguy429


Over a decade ago, even before the Gulf War

The difference between the Israelis and the terrorists is that we give the Israelis millions of dollars to conduct their thuggish raids in which they have absolutely no regard for life-innocent or guilty. Not to mention that Sharon has a history of war crimes.

Yes, and Arafat's hands are a clean as ca be!

Who started the Intifada? Who is blowing up innocent civilians without regard? Who is attacking whom? There is a huge difference between an attack and a counter attack! The Israeli's ARE NOT TARGETING CIVILIANS!!! Some get caught in the action. The Israeli's are not the ones hiding amoung innocent civilians forcing confrontations in populated areas!

AM,
I am not saying WoMD were the reason for GW II. I am saying thought that he has used them before. Mustard Gas is a chemical weapon and is a WoMD.

GW II was faught for many reasons. Simply though Saddam did not honor his surrender from GW I. Had CLinton followed up on GW I, GW II would never have happened.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by paintballguy429


Ok, you conservatives need to come up with points that are relevant to the war today. With the technical definition, the one that BUSH used, those were not WOMD he used on the Kurds.

Mustard Gas=Chemical Warfare=Weapon of Mass Destruction!

You sir are owned!

[paintballguy429]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Mustard Gas=Chemical Warfare=Weapon of Mass Destruction!

You sir are owned!

Mass Destruction?

No.

"you sir are owned"-wtf?!

[Miscue]

I suppose now we are determining if how Saddam kills people is acceptable or not?

[paintballguy429]

omg miscue just get out of this thread

No, 1stdeadeye argued that Hussein has used WOMD in the past. That is not true even under the Bush definition.

Miscue, you have no arguments. If you would like to support all the crap you spouted off before about 9/11, do so. Otherwise, you have not made any thoughtful contributions to the thread.

[Miscue]

Re: omg miscue just get out of this thread

Originally posted by paintballguy429
No, 1stdeadeye argued that Hussein has used WOMD in the past. That is not true even under the Bush definition.

Miscue, you have no arguments. If you would like to support all the crap you spouted off before about 9/11, do so. Otherwise, you have not made any thoughtful contributions to the thread.

And what crap would this be that I spouted off? All I did was post a picture.

[paintballguy429]

You suggested that if we didn't invade Iraq, it was very possible that another 9/11 could take place. Of course, you didn't bother to actually support it, but I guess that's ok since your a mod