Why there were no terrorists in Iraq

Pericles said:
Why did George Bush really invade Iraq?
The weapons of mass destruction were never found
There is no evidence of any planned invasions on Israel or the U.S.
There is no evidence of any terrorists in the nation of Iraq either.
so WHY?

The reason no terrorists were found, is really quite simple. There were none. There never were any terrorists either, because Saddam Hussein would not have allowed it. The allowance of terrorists in Iraq would have offered a challenge to Hussein's power. Saddam is like Stalin. No matter how much he brutalized his people, or hated another country, or anything for that matter, no matter what, he would not allow a challenge to his power. That is what you have to understand. I'm not saying that having Hussein out of power is a bad thing, or that there was no good reason to invade Iraq. I am just telling the absolute truth. The reasons that our government gave us for invading Iraq, for lack of a better term, were lies. They were simply lies. Some people may say that we invaded Iraq for oil. That's possible, but that is not what this message is about. That is another message for another time.

Terrorists in Iraq?
Nah...
That's like saying that Americans like SUV's. :rolleyes:
 
wade said:
The more I read this board, the more convinced it is just a place for ultra conservatives to agree with each other. Not a place for actual discussion and debate. :dunno:

Wade.

Nah, it's both.
So you're right and wrong.
Sentence fragment. :whip:
 
wade said:
The more I read this board, the more convinced it is just a place for ultra conservatives to agree with each other. Not a place for actual discussion and debate. :dunno:

Wade.

We're glad to discuss and debate, first you have to have something that will open itself to such. For instance, who are you supporting and why? Another thread I suggested you start a thread on a topic you seem interested in, that has not much to do with conservative v. liberal, you have so far, chosen not to.
 
Hobbit said:
Ever hear of a small, tactical nuke? Small and tactical just means it isn't capable of wiping out a whole city. Anything that falls into the nuclear/biological/chemical (NBC) catagory is considered a weapon of mass destruction. The types of chemicals found in those things are really nasty. Most of the missile is just fuel and casings. Most airborne toxins take less than 12 oz. (a soda can) detonated a few hundred feet up to wipe out several city blocks. Just one of those "small, tactical" chemical rounds could wipe out a college campus, national convention, or football crowd. They're still against Iraq's terms of surrender and they're still WMD's.

There were terrorists all over Iraq and even if Saddam didn't support them, he still looked the other way and let them do their own thing. The only man we never caught after the 1993 WTC attack, we traced to Iraq, where Saddam basically gave him sanctuary.

Mustard gas is a chemical weapon that is not a weapon of mass destruction as defined by the Bush and Blair administrations. Those were in the defunct shells we found buried in the desert. Point stands. NOT ONE weapon of mass destruction was found. Despite the fact that the administration KNEW they had the following: Serin, VX, anthrax, and several other different weapons which haven't been found. The simple fact that the 100-500 tons ("conservative estimate" of Colin Powel) of VX haven't been found, not ONE OUNCE, is really surprising. And by surprising I mean it was a shameless misrepresentation of the truth.

And SaddamDID NOT, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, permit terrorism in the parts of Iraq that he controlled. Terrorism in any form was a challenge to his totalitarian regime, and he brutal murdered terrorists along with the innocents.
 
wade said:
The more I read this board, the more convinced it is just a place for ultra conservatives to agree with each other. Not a place for actual discussion and debate. :dunno:

Wade.

The pot calls the kettle black!

A debate implies two sides that don't agree with each other. Each side presents facts that support their viewpoint. I believe that is exactly what is happening here. If this board was as slanted as you say, the moderators would have banned you and others.

As for squashing debate and intelligent political discourse, the prize should go to the the Left which has done in my opinion an extraordinary job. How often does the Left resort to name calling when debating issues? Labels like "racist", "fascist", "Nazi", "ULTRA CONSERVATIVE", "extremist", "religious nut", etc. How many campuses in this country have speech codes to suppress "insensitive" or "hate" speech (which is used to describe any speech not in sync with the Liberal elite's world view).

In the Liberal world view, there are two types of Americans.

First, "normal" people --- the one or two percent of the population who support abortion on demand (including partial birth abortion), condoms for kids, gay marriage, gun control, oppressive taxation, a bloated federal government, eliminating the death penalty, hatred for Bush, are against the war in Iraq, don't like the free market economy, are members of Greenpeace and/or the NOW and/or the NAACP, support public television, hate orthodox religious viewpoints and those that hold them, think that America is evil and run by white corporate CEOs, etc. etc. etc.

Second, the "right wing ultra conservative religious extemist Fascist Nazi ditto head fanatics", which is the remaining 98-99% of the country, who disagree (even slightly) on any one or two of the aforementioned positions held by the first group.
 
nakedemperor said:
Mustard gas is a chemical weapon that is not a weapon of mass destruction as defined by the Bush and Blair administrations. Those were in the defunct shells we found buried in the desert. Point stands. NOT ONE weapon of mass destruction was found. Despite the fact that the administration KNEW they had the following: Serin, VX, anthrax, and several other different weapons which haven't been found. The simple fact that the 100-500 tons ("conservative estimate" of Colin Powel) of VX haven't been found, not ONE OUNCE, is really surprising. And by surprising I mean it was a shameless misrepresentation of the truth.

And SaddamDID NOT, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, permit terrorism in the parts of Iraq that he controlled. Terrorism in any form was a challenge to his totalitarian regime, and he brutal murdered terrorists along with the innocents.

Mustard Gas is not a weapon of mass destruction? Just because the Bush administration didn't mention it? "Tactical chemical weapons" aren't weapons of mass destruction?

You're kidding ... right? Zyklon-B wasn't mentioned by the Bush Administration either, yet Hitler used it to wipe out 6 million Jews.

Has it ever occurred to you that the WMDs were moved to Syria which will not allow any inspections at all?
 
KarlMarx said:
Mustard Gas is not a weapon of mass destruction? Just because the Bush administration didn't mention it? "Tactical chemical weapons" aren't weapons of mass destruction?

You're kidding ... right? Zyklon-B wasn't mentioned by the Bush Administration either, yet Hitler used it to wipe out 6 million Jews.

Has it ever occurred to you that the WMDs were moved to Syria which will not allow any inspections at all?

Wow, I get to answer two posts in ONE. On the first, to Wade, :bow2: Thank you!

On the second to the banned one, thank you again, I got tired of explaining WMD and arguing it.
 
nakedemperor said:
Mustard gas is a chemical weapon that is not a weapon of mass destruction as defined by the Bush and Blair administrations. Those were in the defunct shells we found buried in the desert. Point stands. NOT ONE weapon of mass destruction was found. Despite the fact that the administration KNEW they had the following: Serin, VX, anthrax, and several other different weapons which haven't been found. The simple fact that the 100-500 tons ("conservative estimate" of Colin Powel) of VX haven't been found, not ONE OUNCE, is really surprising. And by surprising I mean it was a shameless misrepresentation of the truth.

And SaddamDID NOT, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, permit terrorism in the parts of Iraq that he controlled. Terrorism in any form was a challenge to his totalitarian regime, and he brutal murdered terrorists along with the innocents.
Lets say for the sake of argument you are right (i think you are). What is point of your statement?
1. It does not matter if bush lied at this moment. We MUST finish this conflict with democratic (or semi-democratic) secure iraq. If goverment lied, then this should investigated and guilty part must be punish, but should it be done in this moment? Should we just pack up, say we are sorry and leave? (perhaps release sadam and give him some arms?)
2. Lets say they did not lie (my thinking) about wmd. Most of the security agencies of many goverments believed iraq had wmd, the different branches of iraq military believed they had wmd (they were thinking the other guy had it). So we cannot find them. Reasons
<li>Sadam never had, then why did they played all these games with UN? I guess in that case he overplayed his hand. </li>
<li>Sadam had them, but was able to move/hide them (say to Syria). Much good they do for him now</il>
What should we do now? Leave iraq as it is? Keep searching? (not sure how much searching you can do with security as it is)
In any case,
 
Kathianne said:
Wow, I get to answer two posts in ONE. On the first, to Wade, :bow2: Thank you!

On the second to the banned one, thank you again, I got tired of explaining WMD and arguing it.
You're quite welcome....

I was going to add this point to my previous post....

If that single shell of mustard gas that was found had detonated properly, it would have caused several THOUSAND deaths.

So...it was a WEAPON
And it was capable of DESTRUCTION
On a MASSIVE Scale

Put them all together and you get a WMD!
 
Kathianne said:
On the second to the banned one, thank you again, I got tired of explaining WMD and arguing it.
Ops, i guess i should pay more attention to the status of the poster before posting a reply
 
drac said:
Ops, i guess i should pay more attention to the status of the poster before posting a reply


That wasn't to you, but to nakedemperor, which had to do with 2 id's as well as the posts.
 
drac said:
Ops, i guess i should pay more attention to the status of the poster before posting a reply

BTW the only thing you may not do to a mod, that is different than to anyone else, is flame AT ALL. We do not allow unlimited flaming anywhere on the board, but forbit it to mods and administators.

Read the rules.
 
wade said:
The more I read this board, the more convinced it is just a place for ultra conservatives to agree with each other. Not a place for actual discussion and debate. :dunno:

Wade.

I'd love to debate... but hit-and-run postings of the DNC's talking points is not debate, it's trolling.
 
8236 said:
Abu Nidal?? Some silly old retired hijacker from the 80s? Do us a favour America, go and invade a Russia or China and then remember what a REAL war is about. Not the US army's military testing range that is Iraq.

And your response to what should have been?
 
8236 said:
Abu Nidal?? Some silly old retired hijacker from the 80s? Do us a favour America, go and invade a Russia or China and then remember what a REAL war is about. Not the US army's military testing range that is Iraq.

Why so grumpy? Did you miss your favorite cartoon?

You anti-war/anti-US types can't handle the "target shooting" in Iraq now....what do you think you cry babies will be doing if we attacked China or Russia?

Of course, attempting to have an intelligent conversation with dopes like you is like trying to pound nails with my forehead, it's futile and just gives me a headache.
 
Excellent rap sheet on Abu Nidal from Rotten;
link

old, yes. experienced yes. leader yes. so is osama. all make this story from the telegraph plausible.
link

Although I'd like to believe Saddam was being charitable to an old terrorist mastermind, I know he didn't like anyone in his barrio to be bolder than himself, and entertain the notion he had bigger plans for him.

At the least, even Rotten admits, saddam was harboring a terrorist responsible for the deaths of some 900 people. At the most, he was building relations with terrorist groups by providing them a place to train and group, and a sensai.
 
I'm back, un-banished! Everyone can stop holding their breaths. I had another ID but it was banned because I posted on the same computer as a sibling. This makes the second time a MOD saw this, marking the second time I had to make a new ID to clear it up. Hopefully I won't get banned by every MOD ad infinitum =P
 
nakedemperor said:
I'm back, un-banished! Everyone can stop holding their breaths. I had another ID but it was banned because I posted on the same computer as a sibling. This makes the second time a MOD saw this, marking the second time I had to make a new ID to clear it up. Hopefully I won't get banned by every MOD ad infinitum =P

I was wondering about that. Four people use this computer, what if they all participated on this board?

Wade.
 
wade said:
I was wondering about that. Four people use this computer, what if they all participated on this board?

Wade.

Then you better write the administrator of the board ahead of time before making dual accounts from the same IP address. If not, all accounts will be terminated.
 

Forum List

Back
Top