Aloysius Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 ppl say bush lied to take us to war. i disagree. there was an artical in the Washington Post.. i'm too lazy to remember when it was... but from the intelligence we have we know for certain that Saddam Hussein AT LEAST believed that he had weopons of mass destruction. his scientists were afraid to report failure. HIS SCIENTISTS lied to him about the success of weapons programs... these weapons existed on paper, the threat existed on paper, Bush made the prudent decision based on the apparent threat -_- what do you think about this theory?
IXpenguin21 Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 the movment into iraq was because sadam did not let us inspect him, giving us reason to believe that he was hiding something.
Aloysius Posted January 27, 2004 Author Posted January 27, 2004 i decided against my better judgement to post it... i just wanted to see what ppl think of the theory that the weapons existed on paper and it wasn't bush who lied, it was the iraqi scientists
IXpenguin21 Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 theories, speculation, cotroversy... that's what life's like on the planet earth!!!
Aloysius Posted January 27, 2004 Author Posted January 27, 2004 :lol: apparently there's documents found in Iraq to proove they thought they had the weapons, and scientist testimony that they lied to save their own butts...
M.SIGGA Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 No offense but this topic has been slaughtered already; check the Back Alley. I am the loyal opposition but I don't have the strength to get into this discussion again. For the record, anything Blaze or Don Jon will say on this post I will prob disagree with, providing accurate points of view they won't care to mention :D That's my argument.
Aloysius Posted January 27, 2004 Author Posted January 27, 2004 :huh: does the one in the back alley touch on the scientists lying to saddam about success of weapon program theory?
M.SIGGA Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 ok I'm not getting into this debate, but Bush had crappy unreliable intelligence (from the British, vengeful Iraqi exiles, and the CIA) mixed with actual records that Sadaam actually had weapons in the late 80s and early 90s he bought from America. So that is also a "possible" and important senario that isn't one of your poll picks.
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 I can't pick either. I don't think Bush or the scientists lied. I think there are weapons, we just haven't found MANY yet.
PedroX Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 wasn't this an episode of the X-files? peace...
CatholicAndFanatical Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 I for one supported the war at first. I was all gung-ho about it. But now, its like another vietnam, we shouldnt be there. Were loosing more soldiers now than we did when the war was happening. NOW come to find out there was really never any WMD's there. But what really, really, really, really, really really really really angers me... WHAT HAPPEN TO OSAMA BIN LADEN?? You know, the guy who was repsonsible for taking down the towers? The guy who started this War on Terror in the first place... It didnt make a bit of since to me that after the Terror Attack on us, and finding out it was Osama's fault..that we would go attack Sadam instead. After seeing that take place it made more sense that Bush used this as an excuse to get rid of Sadam, for personal reasons. Yes he was a threat not only to his own people, but to the world..BUT, Osama Bin Laden is far more dangerous than Sadam could hope for. Ok, thats my dolla fity
Jake Huether Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 I for one supported the war at first. I was all gung-ho about it. But now, its like another vietnam, we shouldnt be there. Were loosing more soldiers now than we did when the war was happening. NOW come to find out there was really never any WMD's there. But what really, really, really, really, really really really really angers me... WHAT HAPPEN TO OSAMA BIN LADEN?? You know, the guy who was repsonsible for taking down the towers? The guy who started this War on Terror in the first place... It didnt make a bit of since to me that after the Terror Attack on us, and finding out it was Osama's fault..that we would go attack Sadam instead. After seeing that take place it made more sense that Bush used this as an excuse to get rid of Sadam, for personal reasons. Yes he was a threat not only to his own people, but to the world..BUT, Osama Bin Laden is far more dangerous than Sadam could hope for. Ok, thats my dolla fity I'm almost completely in agreement. I don't think Bush is in it for "personal reasons", otherwise I don't think he would have gone to the Pope for his opinion. Other than that, yeah, what the heck happened to Osama. Are we that short memoried (?? is that a word??).
Aloysius Posted January 27, 2004 Author Posted January 27, 2004 no one forgot about Osama. if we had not gone to war in Iraq do you really believe we would've found him by now? me neither... i think the weapons existed on paper, the scientists were gettin a lot of money for tellin him they had produced WMD's... i believe it was the prudent decision given the paper evidence of WMD's...
M.SIGGA Posted January 27, 2004 Posted January 27, 2004 I'm almost completely in agreement. I don't think Bush is in it for "personal reasons", otherwise I don't think he would have gone to the Pope for his opinion. Other than that, yeah, what the heck happened to Osama. Are we that short memoried (?? is that a word??). for western political leaders, going to the pope for an opinion is a political gesture.
M.SIGGA Posted January 28, 2004 Posted January 28, 2004 no one forgot about Osama. if we had not gone to war in Iraq do you really believe we would've found him by now? me neither... i think the weapons existed on paper, the scientists were gettin a lot of money for tellin him they had produced WMD's... i believe it was the prudent decision given the paper evidence of WMD's... ok I promise to get out of this debate, but it's calling me! it supposedly wasn't only on paper; remember Colin Powell's press conference when he pointed out the weapons on maps, and they turned out to be empty silos and other obstructions when they got into Iraq. Also the State of the Union address that lead Americans to believe the locations were definite and there were exact numbers of what kinds of weapons Sadaam was in possession of and how they were aimed at us and our allies. As of yesterday, the US weapon's inspector has returned to the United States completely empty handed. If these supposed weapons ever existed they will probably surface when a plow accidentally hits one or a terrorist uses one in another attack. I don't like the President at all, but if the existence of the possibly fabricated weapons really exist I hope Bush succeeds in finding them.
jjm Posted January 28, 2004 Posted January 28, 2004 I for one supported the war at first. I was all gung-ho about it. But now, its like another vietnam, we shouldnt be there. Were loosing more soldiers now than we did when the war was happening. NOW come to find out there was really never any WMD's there. But what really, really, really, really, really really really really angers me... WHAT HAPPEN TO OSAMA BIN LADEN?? You know, the guy who was repsonsible for taking down the towers? The guy who started this War on Terror in the first place... It didnt make a bit of since to me that after the Terror Attack on us, and finding out it was Osama's fault..that we would go attack Sadam instead. After seeing that take place it made more sense that Bush used this as an excuse to get rid of Sadam, for personal reasons. Yes he was a threat not only to his own people, but to the world..BUT, Osama Bin Laden is far more dangerous than Sadam could hope for. Ok, thats my dolla fity "we shouldn't be there" I think the worst thing that could happen to that (Iraq) country right about now would be for the USA to decide to cut there losses and just head home. That would be hugely irresponsible. I know it is not that simple and that there are many soldiers dying in Iraq, even though the war is over, but their presence is hopefully aiding the reconstruction and preventing the country from lapseing into a chaos from which could rise another ruler who may not have the same moustache but would be verry similar to Sadam. Is it right to assume Iraqis want our culture, businesses, and architecture in there cities? in there country? How can you ever know what ideals the people rebuilding and "guiding" Iraqis have in there heart? One would like to be able to fulheartedly believe and trust in ones countrymen and neighbors but just looking at your community is enough to tell you it is wise to ask questions. Who opts to see Saddam executed? Who are we to throw the first stone? What should happen to him? Sould we mount his head on the whitehouse wall? should he be incarcerated for the rest of his life? should we rinse our hands and hand him over to the Shiites that he oppressed and who shout for his blood? this is a difficult question. Can we be expected to love him and to look for his inherint dignity? (please note that the headmounting is not to be taken as a serious suggestion. If I have offended you you have my appologies) What responsibility do our countries have to these people. Would it be just for my country to say that we didn't aggree whith the necessity of the war and the way in which the war was instigated (biapasing UN) and therefore have no responsibility to the Iraqi nation. Is it right for many in the USA expect that Canada should agree with them and better help them out when they want help. Was it right for the administration to play upon post 911 fears to try and garner support for the destruction of the Iraqi regime? Does any fear of a real or apparent danger give any country the right to take a human life? Am I being anti-something by asking questions? Well I think I'm done ranting for the day. -Cheers Jim
Aloysius Posted January 28, 2004 Author Posted January 28, 2004 ok I promise to get out of this debate, but it's calling me! it supposedly wasn't only on paper; remember Colin Powell's press conference when he pointed out the weapons on maps, and they turned out to be empty silos and other obstructions when they got into Iraq. Also the State of the Union address that lead Americans to believe the locations were definite and there were exact numbers of what kinds of weapons Sadaam was in possession of and how they were aimed at us and our allies. As of yesterday, the US weapon's inspector has returned to the United States completely empty handed. If these supposed weapons ever existed they will probably surface when a plow accidentally hits one or a terrorist uses one in another attack. I don't like the President at all, but if the existence of the possibly fabricated weapons really exist I hope Bush succeeds in finding them. it existed on paper,, the location was written, the amount was written, it was all well-documented to make saddam fat and happy. the scientists were commisioned to work on WMD's because saddam wanted them, if they reported to saddam that there were just weapons made without specifying nums or locations, how would saddam have believed them? :huh:
M.SIGGA Posted January 28, 2004 Posted January 28, 2004 it existed on paper,, the location was written, the amount was written, it was all well-documented to make saddam fat and happy. the scientists were commisioned to work on WMD's because saddam wanted them, if they reported to saddam that there were just weapons made without specifying nums or locations, how would saddam have believed them? Ok I'm seriously not wanting to debate, but it keeps calling me in, so I'll debate this out again. Your theory isn't complete because there were weapons at some point in time because they transfered from the United States to Iraq, which Sadaam used on his own people. Despite the weapons program the scientists might have lied about there are still these unaccounted weapons Sadaam was in possession of at some point in time, which were not accounted for by U.N. weapons inspectors before the war. Sadaam simply said 'they were gone' which we didn't believe, but it turns out he might very well have sold them off or buried them somewhere. THis whole weapon situation is really messed up and confusing b/c the U.S. is so intertwined in selling Sadaam weapons and all the parts to make the weapons. So there is some proof that Sadaam might have had weapons at the time we recently invaded Iraq. Whether or not he definitely had them is the mystery. The only thing we are positive about now is that the stats, numbers, and locations of those supposed weapons that the U.S. was given was completely bogus, therefore what the President told the American people was bogus too.
thicke Posted January 30, 2004 Posted January 30, 2004 Osama? According to the military, he's as good as in the bag!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now