Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
The guy recieved his warning and chose to ignore it. I'm sure there's a similar ban process at the SomethingAwful boards.
Sabretit said:I have been a lurker here for the past few months and am a big fan of the wing commander series. I found this site through a banner ad on somethingawful.com.
Sabretit said:P.S. i am NOT just that other guy posting under a different name
Well, to be fair, even if Saddam did have WMDs, he would never have threatened America with them, for the same reason that he didn't use his gun the other day - he's not suicidal. But regardless of this, it would have been a heck of a pity to leave him in power, that's for sure.overmortal said:He would have kept on playing pussyfoot with Saddam, and, in the event that Saddam really did have WMD, we'd be having this conversation wearing gasmasks.
Not directly, no. But under his regime, Iraq was an acknowledged state sponsor of terrorism. I'm sure he'd have had no problem supplying some of his pals with a couple real swell tools.Quarto said:Well, to be fair, even if Saddam did have WMDs,
Yeah, I'm sure he would indeed have no problem supplying those pals of his with even better weapons to use against him. It would be pretty darn hard to count up all the evil actions that Saddam Hussein did, ordered, or indirectly supported, but it's funny to see how often people add fictional charges against him instead of focusing on the real stuff. No, Hussein did not support terrorists. Until the start of the last Iraq war, Al Qaeda considered Saddam their enemy, and wanted to overthrow him.Frosty said:Not directly, no. But under his regime, Iraq was an acknowledged state sponsor of terrorism. I'm sure he'd have had no problem supplying some of his pals with a couple real swell tools.
So, if I show you a pie, and then eat it, that's proof that I've got more pies? You're right, the fact that they haven't been found yet doesn't mean that they don't exist. However, given the amount of Iraqi WMDs that were destroyed immediately after the first Gulf War, and given the efforts made to prevent Iraq from acquiring new WMDs, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that Iraq might in fact have no WMDs left.Also, we know he had them, since he had used them in the past.
Frosty said:Also, we know he had them, since he had used them in the past. Furthermore, not having found WMDs yet is hardly proof of their non-existence. Iraq is massive, and still very dangerous and chaotic in many regions. It would be difficult indeed to find any needles in that hay stack. Especially when there are those who would seek to keep them hidden.
In addition, I greatly disapprove of everyone's fixation on the WMD issue.
Oh wait, it's only good when a Democrat is president! Since we all know that those evil Republicans are incapable of good deeds. I hope the whole world can see me giving it the finger, because I'm doing it as hard as I possibly can.
Al Qaeda isn't the only game in town, remember...Quarto said:Until the start of the last Iraq war, Al Qaeda considered Saddam their enemy, and wanted to overthrow him.
(Read the whole article here)Citing captured documents provided by the Israelis, she revealed that Saddam's closest deputy, Vice President Taha Yasin Ramadan, personally had signed checks made out to Palestinian terrorist leaders who had organized suicide-bombing attacks.
Not really such an unreasonable assumption. Certainly prudent in this case.Quarto said:So, if I show you a pie, and then eat it, that's proof that I've got more pies?
Precisely. He had at least a few left.Lynx said:I'm sure he had a few left, but those would be mostly old leftovers. Given the effort to rid them of their CBWs earlier, most production facilities were dismantled and/or destroyed.
And they will be found eventually, but the threat was not imminent. And of course why should anyone wait until it is?Rep. Jane Harman said:Some are suggesting, certainly, that (Saddam) destroyed the weapons after 1998 or maybe even sooner. It's just counterintuitive that he would have done that. His would have been the greatest intelligence hoax of all time, fooling every intelligence agency, three presidents, five secretaries of defense and the entire world into thinking he still had the weapons.
Now perhaps I'm mostly preaching to the choir here, since the majority of CZers, from what I've seen, seem to be supportive of the liberation of Iraq, but I think it's still important to say this, because this is starting to boil down to the intellectuals vs. those dumb principled people. The assumption, nay the conviction that Saddam's WMD programs were a danger to the national security of the United States and chief allies is still a perfectly reasonable one, and we shouldn't seek to divest ourselves of all ties to it simply because some chattering elites in their ivory towers are too soon shouting "I told you so!" And I think that's precisely what you're doing. You are now credible supporters of the war because you blithely downplay the threat. "Oh well, I'm glad to be rid of Saddam, but really, was all this WMD talk so necessary?" So we didn't have lunatics exploding cyanide bombs in our cities yet (they did try once, but failed.) Good. I'm glad we had the presence of mind to make a pre-emptive strike before the situation was well out of control, and I will stand by the justification until I die.President Bush said:Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
First of all, let's remember that international politics is not a popularity contest, nor should it be. Secondly, as I outlined in my previous post, the administration didn't focus solely on WMDs, but instead a broad range of violations. As for the media, I can't argue with you there. The media, by and large, have placed themselves in a position where anything positive about the war in Iraq is bad for their credibility, and so they have a vested interest in painting the war as bleakly as possible, and painting the administration as foolishly as possible. There are exceptions, of course, but that's still the rule.Lynx said:That is right indeed. The US administration could have sold the war much better to the crowds, but their and the medias sole obsession with the WMDs make their efforts look somewhat dubious 'cause they haven't been found yet.
Saddam Behind Bars: World Now Safe for All
Terrorism Gone, Everyone Totally Awesome to Each Other Now
TIKRIT, IRAQ (WI) — In a stunning victory for the Bush war machine, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released preliminary terrorism and violent crime figures for the brief period following the capture of Saddam Hussein on Saturday.
According to the report, terrorism around the world has dropped an astonishing 100% since the arrest of the 66 year-old burrowing semite.
Since the capture of Hussein, car and suicide bombings, hijackings, and assassination attempts have ceased all over the Middle East, and thousands of wanted terrorists have surrendered to authorities around the world.
Drops in pickpocketing, car theft and burglary have also been reported around the world, as well as a significant reduction in rudeness and uptightness and a 450% increase in smiles and rainbows.
While White House officials jumped at the opportunity to declare the world a "safer place" earlier this week, even they had no idea the benefits would go this far.
"This is just a triumph for human kind and for President Bush," exclaimed White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. "He's been telling the world for months that Saddam needed to be stopped to make the world safe, and now is his time to say 'I told you so.'"
While scientists are at a loss to explain it, the capture of Hussein is thought to be the reason that the Potomac is now flowing with peppermint candies and why neighborhoods all over the country are inundated with cute, cuddly puppies and kittens.
Right. The Palestinians, however, are fighting for territory, and their fight is almost entirely limited to that territory - as is their civilian population. That being the case, they could never have used WMDs anyway, because such weapons, by definition, cannot be used for selective strikes. Nor could they ever use such a weapon outside of their territory, because that would end all international support for their cause. Therefore, to the Palestinians, such weapons are useless.Frosty said:Al Qaeda isn't the only game in town, remember...
Eh, I downplay a threat that never existed. Even in places like Iraq, logic operates the same way it does everywhere else, and it's not logical to attack the world's only superpower or its allies (especially with weapons the rest of the world disapproves of) if you're interested in survival - and clearly, Saddam Hussein was indeed interested in survival. That's what this whole debate about whether Iraq had WMDs or not seems to be overlooking - to commit a crime, you need to have the means to do so, but above all, you need a motive. What, other than a deep-seated desire to commit suicide, could possibly have been Saddam Hussein's motive in using WMDs against the US and its allies?The assumption, nay the conviction that Saddam's WMD programs were a danger to the national security of the United States and chief allies is still a perfectly reasonable one, and we shouldn't seek to divest ourselves of all ties to it simply because some chattering elites in their ivory towers are too soon shouting "I told you so!" And I think that's precisely what you're doing. You are now credible supporters of the war because you blithely downplay the threat. "Oh well, I'm glad to be rid of Saddam, but really, was all this WMD talk so necessary?"
No they're not, they're fighting to eradicate the Jews.Quarto said:Right. The Palestinians, however, are fighting for territory...
Yeah, that's my point exactly. They'd love to gas the hell out of every city in Israel, and would do so in a heartbeat if given the means.That being the case, they could never have used WMDs anyway, because such weapons, by definition, cannot be used for selective strikes.
No it wouldn't. You see the world as Arafat and his thugs want you to see it, not how it is. If anything, that sort of lashing out would only increase everyone's eagerness to appease them.Nor could they ever use such a weapon outside of their territory, because that would end all international support for their cause.
I don't think you're reading me clearly.Eh, I downplay a threat that never existed.
That makes absolutely no sense. Quite clearly, logic was the farthest thing from his mind. You don't murder 20 million of your own people and logically expect to get away with it. You don't invade neighboring countries that are considered valued interests of nations much stronger than you and logically expect to get away with it. You don't disregard 17 Security Council resolutions and logically expect to get away with it. Especially when the President of the USA states rather directly that you will be assfucked in short order if you don't comply.Even in places like Iraq, logic operates the same way it does everywhere else, and it's not logical to attack the world's only superpower or its allies (especially with weapons the rest of the world disapproves of) if you're interested in survival - and clearly, Saddam Hussein was indeed interested in survival.
Not in directly using them. Holding the world hostage with the threat of using them. That is the whole crux of all of this. If Saddam Hussein had acquired WMDs in any form, from chemical to nuclear, the probability of those weapons finding their way into the hands of those who would use them would be incredible.What, other than a deep-seated desire to commit suicide, could possibly have been Saddam Hussein's motive in using WMDs against the US and its allies?
Frosty said:No they're not, they're fighting to eradicate the Jews.Yeah, that's my point exactly.