Smoking Gun

Were the smoking guns in Iraq planted?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 38.5%

  • No

    Votes: 16 61.5%
  • Total voters
    26
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Not because they want power, or glory, but because they feel that under one all powerful leadership, they can wash out the petty diffirences each country has, and that they are the only ones capeable of doing it.
Click to expand...

That is hilarious.
 
Hey, it's just a theory and I could be wrong. But hey, I oughta tell you about this woman I know if you want a laugh. Olga Scully. Some of her wild theories are that the Nazi holocaust was faked, the Gulf War syndeome, Martin Bryant (remember him from the Port Arthur massecre?) was a hired government agent and September 11 was set up to push for war and National Security. As far as conspiracy theories go, the only one I really feel is valid is the JFK assassination, and I go with the two gunmen theory from what I've seen, in case you were wondering. The other things such as the planting of the missiles in Iraq, well, if they were going to plant something it'd be a nuke, I believe, or something similar. (I just know this thread will turn to conspiracy theories now).
 
I agree with Phillip; America does want to rule the world. Only I would change that to A world, because we sure as heck want to leave this shit all behind us. Just one big, red, white, and blue family with no Hamas, Al-Qaida, Hussein, Osama bin Lickin', or cigar-chompin' fools. Well...the UK can come along, Australia too, we could use some more Asian architecture so jump on board Japan, the Swiss because they know how to stay out of trouble, heck, so do Sweden and Norway (everyone can learn from them).

I could go on for quite a bit, so let me put it like this:

Wulf's "New Ark" Quota
1) If you do NOT think throwing rocks at tanks hurt them, you're in.

2) If you do NOT fire guns into the air at random, and at high angles, you're in.

3) If you are NOT related to an oil baron in ANY way, you're covered.

4) If you have been to school, are going to school, or have a willingness to go to school, join us.

5) If you have to wait for, or join a committee to put a stop to harming mass innocents, then join the UN or seek psychological help. Just stay away from us.

6) If you belong to the above statement, and try to force yourselves to come with, we will repel borders, which means you could be shot. If we find out later, you will find out what "spacing" somebody means.

7) If you are French, that means you stay. If you are PART French, then as long as you are at least half NOT French, you are okay to come with; we will just have to kick the part of you that is French before you join us. If you renounce your Frenchness in front of us, the said kicking will be avoided, but we are watching you.

8) If you are any of these, but are in any way involved with Wing Commander, HOPE IS NOT LOST! Just mention your knowledge of it to the nearest guard, and he/she will direct you to an office to be interviewed. We still may have difficulties if you're French, but we'll just have to see.

9) If you are THIS tall, you can ride the ride. (This is a joke, and not to be taken seriously...enjoy the ride.)
 
im Irish, im too drunk to truely care.....
though i have this strange urge to bomb canada, and watch Saddom bitch-slap satan...
 
Originally posted by Happy
u may ask, so what if he has missles that fly 20 miles farther than they are allowed having, but they had that limit thrust upon them as they proved to the wolrd that they were unfit/untrustable with missles of greater ranges.
Click to expand...
Actually, I may ask, why would we care about missiles which, if equipped with a payload of any kind, will end up with a range smaller than the limit?

Personally, I'm really growing tired of this WMD bullshit. Say that you just want to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and I'll support you. But I really don't need a million lies about why Iraq is a threat. It's these lies that make me and many others so edgy about the war in Iraq - if Bush is gonna keep lying about why he wants to go in, how can we know what his real intentions are anyway?
 
You've really hit the nail on the head here. I'm all for taking out Saddam and causing a regime change in Iraq, but America has been trying to justify war unsucessfully. How many charges were laid at Iraq? And how many have been proven? About the only thing that has been proven is that there are links from a terrorist cell who have no relation to Saddam with the Taliban. If that is justification enough to wage war on Iraq, then shouldn't there also be a lot of justification to bomb America because of how many militent groups would have ties to the Taliban? Or arn't Iraq allowed to be given the same chances America has to fight terror in their own country? Granted, under Saddam's rule he likely couldn't care less, but surely to not be condemned by other countries (he likes to gain points) he would have to be seen as being tough on terrorism.
 
Er, gentlemen...

Why does everyone keep insisting that no one has proven Saddam has had WMDs?
We KNOW he had them. Its a proven fact. The government admitted as much in the past. It has also USED them in the past.
UN Resolution 1441 laid the burden on Iraq to prove that it had dismantled its weapons programs and destroyed the weapons. The resolution directed them to provide a detailed accounting of the weapons they had developed, along with what they had done to end the weapons programs, and what happened to the supplies that were produced in those programs.

Guess what?

He didn't provide a complete accounting. Powell's presentation to the UN mentions one of the big ones - the supply of Anthrax that Iraq admitted possessing back in 1995. You know what Iraq's recent report (in response to Resolution 1441) says about the Anthrax it produced?

Nothing.

Hans Blix is the one that brought up the rocket with a range 20 miles beyond the limit (the presence of a warhead has nothing to do with the range - according to the Iraqis, its the lack of a guidance system that pushes the range the extra distance). Powell presented satellite photos that he claims suggest the Iraqis are building weapons with much LONGER ranges. He also mentioned the Iraqi test flight of an unmanned aircraft that maintained a lengthy orbit around Iraq in an apparent test flight.
According to Powell, an extra 20 miles is the least of our worries.
 
I think that when people are saying that there is no proof of Saddam having WMDs, said people are subconsciously thinking WMDs = Nukes. We know that Saddam had (and may not have destroyed) chemical and biological weapons, and that is what Redolution 1441 is concerned with.
 
Originally posted by junior
We KNOW he had them. Its a proven fact.
Click to expand...
I suppose I should start by stating the obvious - Iraq hasn't proven that it's gotten rid of these weapons, but until someone can demonstrate that they still exist, all we know is that Iraq HAD such weapons in the past.

Having gotten that out of the way, I'd like to point out that none of it makes any difference. Saddam Hussein could have every type of weapon known to mankind, and he still wouldn't be a threat. He's an oppressive dictator that deserves to be, err, removed, but he's about as much of a threat to the US as you are - and I'm guessing you're not much of a threat :p.

Iraq would never attack the US. Saddam Hussein is not a madman, he's not out searching for world domination. He's trying to survive. And he knows very well that attacking the US is tantamount to suicide.

The American government knows this perfectly well. The only reason why they insist that Saddam Hussein is a threat, is because, many years ago, the US lost a far more important war - the war against the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about.
 
Saddom may not be a direct threat to the world, but he is a major indirect risk to the entire world. u can say, he had WMD, but without proof that they were destroyed, u must assume they still exist. to say that they doesn't exist without proof is too dangerous, it's like getting in bed with a syphiliptic french whore, sure she says she is clean, but can u really trust her? He may be unwilling to use them, but he is willing to sell them to militant extremists, and we all know what they are willing and capable of doing. it is no different than drug cartels, u don't bust the dealer on the street, u go after the source. Once the source is cut off, the threat is not as great. it might also be said that Saddom is not the only source, which is true, but he is the biggest, and most willing.
 
Ya know, we've been saying Saddam has had his last chance, since, what the first Bush administration all the way through Clinton and now into 2003? Excuse me, but this fucker has had the last thirteen years to get his shit together.

He's done nothing to endear himself to us. He's not a good guy to his people. He's known to be a loose cannon. He runs around making all sorts of dangerous weapons and running them around in vans to prevent the inspectors from finding them. Lets just carpet bomb his palace and take him out, civillian casulties or not. I'm sick of all this bullshit deliberation and half-hearted red tape. This shit should be done and over with now. No one likes the guy, he doesn't like anyone else; lets just get our hands dirty and be done with it.

After that, North Korea.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
I suppose I should start by stating the obvious - Iraq hasn't proven that it's gotten rid of these weapons, but until someone can demonstrate that they still exist, all we know is that Iraq HAD such weapons in the past.
Click to expand...
Resolution 1441, however, leaves the burden of proof with Saddam. It basically says, prove you got rid of them.
Originally posted by Quarto
Having gotten that out of the way, I'd like to point out that none of it makes any difference. Saddam Hussein could have every type of weapon known to mankind, and he still wouldn't be a threat. He's an oppressive dictator that deserves to be, err, removed, but he's about as much of a threat to the US as you are - and I'm guessing you're not much of a threat :p.

Iraq would never attack the US. Saddam Hussein is not a madman, he's not out searching for world domination. He's trying to survive. And he knows very well that attacking the US is tantamount to suicide.

The American government knows this perfectly well. The only reason why they insist that Saddam Hussein is a threat, is because, many years ago, the US lost a far more important war - the war against the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about.
Click to expand...

If Hussein is such a genius that he wouldn't do anything as risky as launch a WMD attack against the US, then why hasn't he complied with Resolution 1441? Bush is breathing down his neck over this, and it looks very much as if Bush is going to launch a war fairly soon using WMD as the major (albeit not only) pretext. Full and open compliance with 1441 would attach a very large leash to Dubya's war plans, but Hussein hasn't done much more than resume his old song and dance that he used during the first round of inspections.

I honestly don't know whether he'd personally launch a WMD attack against the US given the opportunity, but for a guy who's supposedly so set on survival, he seems awfully determined to draw down the wrath of the US - which will almost certainly bring a rather sudden halt to his career.
 
Originally posted by junior
If Hussein is such a genius that he wouldn't do anything as risky as launch a WMD attack against the US, then why hasn't he complied with Resolution 1441? Bush is breathing down his neck over this, and it looks very much as if Bush is going to launch a war fairly soon using WMD as the major (albeit not only) pretext. Full and open compliance with 1441 would attach a very large leash to Dubya's war plans, but Hussein hasn't done much more than resume his old song and dance that he used during the first round of inspections.
Click to expand...
Err, he's been doing everything in his power to ward Bush off. Every time Bush sets an ultimatum, Saddam complies. First he let the inspectors in, then he gave them the docs, then he allowed U-2 flights. But he's in a delicate situation - if he complies fully and completely, he'll appear weak in his people's eyes. He's doing a balancing act - he sways in one direction and his people will kill him, he sways in the other and the US will kill him.
 
Originally posted by LeHah
Ya know, we've been saying Saddam has had his last chance, since, what the first Bush administration all the way through Clinton and now into 2003? Excuse me, but this fucker has had the last thirteen years to get his shit together.

He's done nothing to endear himself to us. He's not a good guy to his people. He's known to be a loose cannon. He runs around making all sorts of dangerous weapons and running them around in vans to prevent the inspectors from finding them. Lets just carpet bomb his palace and take him out, civillian casulties or not. I'm sick of all this bullshit deliberation and half-hearted red tape. This shit should be done and over with now. No one likes the guy, he doesn't like anyone else; lets just get our hands dirty and be done with it.

After that, North Korea.
Click to expand...

Amen, brother, A-f'in-men. Saddam is just another ass-pimple in the world that needs to be busted. Get the UN inspectors a'walkin', and let the Mk-82s do the talkin'.

I mean, seriously here, he's like the guy everyone wants to beat the shit out of in school, because he's always talking crap and never backs it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top