Womd

[bornl33t]

here's a though.... no one seems to like anyone nowadays.... if not bush as president then who? I'm sick of ppl who don't like something, but don't have a better person in mind... they just don't like the one doing the job.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by Heat
here's a though.... no one seems to like anyone nowadays.... if not bush as president then who? I'm sick of ppl who don't like something, but don't have a better person in mind... they just don't like the one doing the job.

BILL CLINTON, or maybe not. But anyway we needed to go to war in Iraq, regardless of the WOMD's. But as long as Bush doesn't invade anymore Middle Eastern countries i will be fine. In addition, I just find it funny how when Bush speaks he occasionaly sounds illeterate. The only big beef i have with him is his "Tax refund", and then his Tax Break.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata
In addition, I just find it funny how when Bush speaks he occasionaly sounds illeterate.

oooooooook.

[ERut]

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata

In addition, I just find it funny how when Bush speaks he occasionaly sounds illeterate.

And this has what to do with his foreign policy?

[Albinonewt]

Here's the thing about the WMD. They definitly existed. We know they did. We saw them. We saw them used. We know they were there. What we don't know now, is where they are today. I'm willing to bet they are out there. Saddam had more then 100 ammo bunkers where he could have stored them, and we've only searched 10. These depots are gigantic, the size of small towns. He was know to store his WMD in them in unmarked barrels, so we literally need to go through hundreds of thousands of tons of conventional weapons looking for a dozen barrels of anthrax. It takes a lot of time. The danger there is also that other people can be looking for them too, and they'll find them first (since they know where to look). It is entirly possible for us to never find them. What Bush did that was a mistake is to not make this clear before the war. The way he spoke about the WMD he made it seem as if the day the war was over we'd find 12 atomic bombs and then have our evidence. He obviously knew that wasn't case but he didn't communicate it well enough to us.

As for the 16 words. Joe Wilson's "conclusions" are not enough to prove Bush lied in his speech. Wilson's conclusions are very suspect. His methods were sloppy and incomplete. And he is a very partisan supporter of the Democrats asked to verify something for a Republican President. How he got the job in the first place was very suspect. And he is not, nor has he ever been, an intelligence officer. Add to that the minor little fact that his conclusions don't even contradict Bush's speech. So I'll never understand what all the hoopla is about when people cry about those 16 words.

[Albinonewt]

Oops, I had another point I wanted to make.

David Kay found evidence of a lot of WMD research and programs. It is possible that Saddam had switched his program to focus away from stockpiling weapons and towards just building them in a few hours whenever he needed them. A lot of people are working under this theory, and it is a pretty good theory.

The only problem I have with the theory is that a program like that would obviously be designed in order to decieve inspectors. If he had gone with this theory than he would have needed to destroy his stockpiles and then proven to the inspectors they were destroyed, and he never did that. A just in time approach to WMD is a smart plan, but it wasn't implemented in a way that would make any sense.

[punkncat]

Bush may have used what could be called misleading statements to help simplify or justify the war in Iraq.
He may not have been 100% right 100% of the time.
It certainly isn't as easy to draw a straight line to Iraq and justify war as it was for Afganistan.Nor as it could be for N. Korea or even Saudi Arabia(another subject)....

However the simple fact remains that Saddam , along with any leaders like him do, or will ,have to be dealt with.
If we are going to make the world a safer place then people like this have to be taken down.
And thank god that those responsible for saying it didn't aren't in charge right now.

[-Carnifex-]

Damn those liberals and their propaganda, not like those conservatives.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
Damn those liberals and their propaganda, not like those conservatives.

And I assume you have an example for once? Or are you, as usual, just throwing words at us until we batter them down again?

[jdev]

Originally posted by ERut
Just curious... 1) Why do people think that Bush intentionally lied about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? 2) And if he did, don't you think he'd be smart enough to plant some WOMD to justify the war?

personally, and I think some others may join me on this..

bush did this to pickup where his father left off. george senior couldnt finish the job in desert storm, and now george junior is trying to finish the job.

now, I was thinking about this while watching live war coverage constantly as the tanks rolled across the desert.. if they dont find it, they'll find it, if you get what Im saying.

you know, I distinctly remember bush saying that we were going over there to do 2 things. oust saddam from power, and find WMD. well, saddam is gone, sorta.. and we havent found the WMD, and its not looking hopeful. so, I guess, as history tends to repeat itself, we dont know when to quit. US military still has forces over in IRAQ settling down for what looks to be an occupation of the territory to me, one thing bush said US forces would not be used for. wheres the UN troops?

Originally posted by Thordic
How about you look at the big picture here. Regardless of any WMDs, Saddam needed to go. He was a bad bad man, and leaving him in power was making millions of people suffer. If thats not enough of a reason to go to war for you, I feel bad for the future of humanity and I hope to god you never run anything more important than a pencil sharpener.

so it is the US Militarys responsibility to end horrible dictatorships across the world?

I hear so much BS about how saddam was a horrible dictator. while it may be true.. thats not the reason we were over there. we went there to oust him because he was a threat to the US and the allies it maintained in the middle east/europe area. they also presented great threats to other countries in the area too.

Originally posted by Army
War sucks. War is the final political solution, after the politicians have failed. But the loudest voices against war, are from those who are the safest from it.

well put army.

Originally posted by Thordic
What I like is people are quick to forgive and forget Saddam's years of dictatorship, murders, torture, rapes, and whatever else he is responsible for in that country.

Yet Bush tells a mistruth, and he is the devil.

How about you look at the big picture here. Regardless of any WMDs, Saddam needed to go. He was a bad bad man, and leaving him in power was making millions of people suffer. If thats not enough of a reason to go to war for you, I feel bad for the future of humanity and I hope to god you never run anything more important than a pencil sharpener.

so, what I take from this, that lets say, there was no WMD. no threat to the US or other countries, just poor dictatorship.

should we still have commited US troops to iraq?

see above comments about the US aboloshing bad dictatorships across the world. i am all for sending troops into battle/war to defend MY/MY COUNTRIES freedoms, but I can honestly say that because saddam tortured, raped, beat, killed, and whatever else he does is none of my immediate concern. sure, i dont think its right, but i again dont justify sending our military over to defend other countries. it just seems like we are taking this "clean up the world" attitude a little too far.. i think some other guy did this in the 1940s, didnt really pan out for him.

Originally posted by Heat
here's a though.... no one seems to like anyone nowadays.... if not bush as president then who? I'm sick of ppl who don't like something, but don't have a better person in mind... they just don't like the one doing the job.

goddamn right.

listen people. im not sure how many of you on the boards are old enough to vote. of the percentage, not sure how many voted for bush. (i did) doesnt really matter. hes the guy in charge, let him run things.

am i happy with the way things are going? eh, they could be slightly better.

do i think someone like gore could have handled this situation? not really, gore strikes me as more of a pacifist. i could be wrong. then again, I dont vote for presidents on their war policies and such. i try to vote based on their standpoint on the issues. i think i voted bush though just to piss off my mother, who is a democrat.


i think bottom line would be this: if you dont like the way hes doing it, can you do it better? know someone else who can? fine. ill give you/that person the benefiet of the doubt. lets see your/their name on the 2004 ballot (or any future ballot for that matter). Ill be sure to vote for you/them to give you a chance.

[Thordic]

Originally posted by joey d
so it is the US Militarys responsibility to end horrible dictatorships across the world?

If the US could go to 100% isolationism, I wouldn't mind at all. We have enough resources to be totally self-sustaining without hurting our lifestyle TOO much. Let the rest of the world do whatever it wants, but you try to come across our borders and we'll evaporate you.

Unfortunately, we have to interact with other countries. So, as long as we are forced to do so, and play a role as a world power, then we might as well try to fix some of the problems.

As far as I'm concerned, you are either in all the way, or out all the way. Why do things half-assed? And if you are in all the way, that means you have to get involved and try to improve situations when its in your power to do so. Its called moral responsibility, but it doesnt seem like you get that. If you saw some lady getting raped on the sidewalk, are you the kind of person who would just walk on the other side of the street? Sure sounds like it. I dunno about you, but if I leave my house, and while I am out in the world I see something that requires my help, I'll try to do it.

[shartley]

[-Carnifex-]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


And I assume you have an example for once? Or are you, as usual, just throwing words at us until we batter them down again?

I've yet to get into a debate with you; I'm not sure when you bettered anything I've said down.

You're going to deny that both sides don't use propaganda?

[paintballguy429]

Re: Womd

Originally posted by ERut
Just curious... 1) Why do people think that Bush intentionally lied about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? 2) And if he did, don't you think he'd be smart enough to plant some WOMD to justify the war?

He needed badly to manufacture a cause. WMD are scary. Obviously, Americans will be scared by someone other than the US having WMD. He needed a selling point for his war, and he got one. The only problem was, there is no proof that Hussein had them.

[Collegeboy]

Are Iraqis better without Saddam? I do not think you will find one person on the face of this planet that will say no to that. (well maybe a couple)

Are the Iraqis better without Saddam and with a country designed and built by the US, I think not. For IMO any country built by the US will when it is all said and done not survive, and Iraq will be back to its old shape, just worst. (from civil wars and such, challenging for power, for a government put into power by anyone other then Iraqis will be found lacking in someone's eyes)

This was my objection to the war from the very beginning. I could care less about WMD, or the justification for war, for that could always been stretched or made up, or what ever. Just was war necessary was my objection.

To those who said that WMD was not the reason we went to war. The public overwhelmingly thought it was the reason, so it was the reason. Doesn't matter if the president only said it once in a speech, it is the reason.

My question is why Iraq, why now? If we supposedly went into Iraq for humanitarian issues, why not go into N. Korean, why not go into Zimbabwe, why not go into Azerbaijan, or Kazakhstan, why not?