Nuclear Arms Reportedly Found In Iraq

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
BAGHDAD, July 21 (UPI) -- Iraqi security reportedly discovered three missiles carrying nuclear heads concealed in a concrete trench northwest of Baghdad, official sources said Wednesday.

The official daily al-Sabah quoted the sources as saying the missiles were discovered in trenches near the city of Tikrit, the hometown of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"The three missiles were discovered by chance when the Iraqi security forces captured former Baath party official Khoder al-Douri who revealed during interrogation the location of the missiles saying they carried nuclear heads," the sources said.

They pointed out that the missiles were actually discovered in the trenches lying under six meters of concrete and designed in a way to unable sophisticated sensors from discovering nuclear radiation.

The sources said al-Douri, who is related to former Vice Chairman of the Iraq Revolution Council and Saddam's right-hand man Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, was captured after Iraqi police intercepted an e-mail message in which he set a meeting with another former Baath official.

The report could not be authenticated by the interior ministry or the national security department, but the paper noted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiar Zibari made a surprise request recently to Mohammed el-Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to resume inspections for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Link

If this turns out to be true. Granted, a BIG IF.... but if this is in fact true how many people would say this qualifies as a legitimate threat of WMD's? Or would he have had to have 10, 20, 50 or 100 for those saying "Bush liied" to say the WMD threat was real.
 
IF this is true, then I will admit that there is some merit to the war in Iraq. However, if I were Saddam Hussein, I would have used those suckers when I was being invaded so I doubt this, but if it is true, then damn.
 
If these are found and they weren't planted there then it does add a little bit of legitimacy to the war. But I would wonder if he has/had them, why not use them when under attack?
 
Nuclear arms aren't something you'd plant like a .38 on a shot criminal. That stuff is so heavily guarded it's ridiculous. If it were planted you don't think the entire town would come out and say we just dug a 10 meter pit, filled it with concrete and said "Walla, nuclear arms!".

If they used nuclear arms, gas or biological our doctrine has only one response. Nuclear. Use gas on US troops? Nuclear response. That's why he wouldn't use them. We would have made Iraq Glassparkinglotistan.
 
"Don't belive everything you hear in the news."

Actually I think this is a major defense alot of Pro-Bush people use.
 
Iraq Interior Ministry Says Report on Nukes 'Stupid'
Email this story

Jul 21, 9:43 AM (ET)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraq's Interior Ministry dismissed as "stupid" a report in a local newspaper Wednesday that said three nuclear missiles had been found near Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit.

A senior U.S. military official told reporters he had no information on the report in the Iraqi newspaper al-Sabah. He said officials were checking the report.

Asked by Reuters about the report, a spokesman at the Interior Ministry said: "It's stupid."

The report, picked up the United Press International news agency, sent the U.S. dollar higher against other major currencies on the foreign exchanges.

Al-Sabah opened last year with backing from the former U.S.-led administration in Iraq.

The United States and Britain launched last year's invasion of Iraq over accusations that Saddam had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. But no stockpiles of banned weapons have been found.
 
Is three POTENTIAL nukes worth the lives of over 900 troops?

Yes, unless you consider the fact that there are other hostile countries with CONFIRMED nukes that we are ignoring. North Korea, for example, has made OPEN THREATS to use their nukes on us.

And besides, I thought liberation was the reason for this war.

Oh wait, terrorism.

Oh wait, they tried to kill Bush's dad.

Oh wait, I haven't read the lates PR release - why are we there this week?

Do the math, 900+ lives DOES NOT EQUAL 1 political agenda


EDIT: corrected grammar...Doh!
 
[quote name='peteloaf']Is three POTENTIAL nukes worth the lives of over 900 troops?

Yes, unless you consider the fact that there are other hostile countries with CONFIRMED nukes that we are ignoring. North Korea, for example, has made OPEN THREATS to use their nukes on us.

And besides, I thought liberation was the reason for this war.

Oh wait, terrorism.

Oh wait, they tried to kill Bush's dad.

Oh wait, I haven't read the lates PR release - why are we there this week?

Do the math, 900+ lives DOES NOT EQUAL 1 political agenda


EDIT: corrected grammar...Doh![/quote]

Try to follow along here...

A. The good of the many outweighs the good of the one, that means the Iraqi citizens freed from tyranny and the millions of lives possibly saved if the nuclear weapon story turns out to be true outweighs the lives of 900 American Soldiers.

B. If you have any concept of Indo-China politics and have any inkling of what North Korea's latest actions have been.. ever since we opened a can on Iraq, they've gotten really peaceful and quiet (they learned to not mess with the big dog)

C. Without even touching terrorism, daddy's unfinished business, oil, money, whatever... As the world's leading supervisor everyone agrees we have a responsibility to help feed, clothe and educate people in need.. but somehow we dont find an onus upon us to liberate people dominated by a tyrannical government.

D. If you really believe the media's slant about Iraqi's not wanting us there.. you obviously have never talked to a soldier that's been there. Over two dozen people have all told me the same story.. they're thanked by Iraqis daily.
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb']C. Without even touching terrorism, daddy's unfinished business, oil, money, whatever... As the world's leading supervisor everyone agrees we have a responsibility to help feed, clothe and educate people in need.. but somehow we dont find an onus upon us to liberate people dominated by a tyrannical government.[/quote]

Bush cut billions from US education in the leave no child behind act.
Many schools could not affford to teach the whole 180 days last year.

And China's government is a much more brutal regime than Sadam. Should we not have gone there first? No, they are too rich.
 
Excuse me, but the US pays more for schooling than any other country in the world. It's yet another bottomless pit that we throw money into, like welfare. There are reasons that the American education system are sub rate, but it is not because it is not properly funded.
 
[quote name='Squirms']Excuse me, but the US pays more for schooling than any other country in the world. It's yet another bottomless pit that we throw money into, like welfare. There are reasons that the American education system are sub rate, but it is not because it is not properly funded.[/quote]

Don't even get me started on welfare, social security and all the other anti-capitalist, completely socialist, bullshit programs we have to put up with daily.

But yes, we sink tons of money into our school system, our largest problem is A. apathy on part of the students, B. major apathy on part of the parents (how many parents help their kids with math or check with the teacher to see how they're doing these days?) and C. a major difference in funding between economic regions.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='Cornfedwb']C. Without even touching terrorism, daddy's unfinished business, oil, money, whatever... As the world's leading supervisor everyone agrees we have a responsibility to help feed, clothe and educate people in need.. but somehow we dont find an onus upon us to liberate people dominated by a tyrannical government.[/quote]

Bush cut billions from US education in the leave no child behind act.
Many schools could not affford to teach the whole 180 days last year.

And China's government is a much more brutal regime than Sadam. Should we not have gone there first? No, they are too rich.[/quote]

How many billions did Bush cut from total education funding? An exact amount and a link would help.

It sounds to me like we have a constitutional crisis if Bush has cut education funding. Funding is a function of Congress.

I've seen this argument before (school lunches, defense, education) from both parties. One party wants a 5% increase in funding. The other wants 3%. They compromise on 4%. Then the party that wanted the 5% increase claims funding has been cut.

Get your facts straight.
 
Obviously if WMDs have been found finally, it means it was OK to go to war - because we knew for a fact they existed at that time (retroactively, of course - or should that be radioactively?)
 
So THATS where we left them!!! Smile *runs from black suv*
Click to expand...

:rofl: I can just imagine that. People thinking a bunch of CIA guys pull up in a caravan of black Suburbans with blackened windows and go "WHOA! Lookie here at a what a we found! What faulty intelliegence? HAW HAW HAW HAW! Hey Buuba, get us a Bud for the pictures of us over da warheads!"

And at that point the war is justified, the left is silenced and we live happily ever after.

I'm having fun people, and kidding, no need to make this a flame war.
 
[quote name='Squirms']Excuse me, but the US pays more for schooling than any other country in the world. It's yet another bottomless pit that we throw money into, like welfare. There are reasons that the American education system are sub rate, but it is not because it is not properly funded.[/quote]

Misleading.

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001633.html

Welfare is a bottomless pit? There's plenty of far more wasteful stuff that government spends money on than welfare. Corporate tax loophoes, for one.

Suppose in the conservative wet dream, welfare is abolished cold turkey. What are all those people going to do? Turn to crime, most likely, and then we can add another couple hundred million dollars to pay for the already spiraling out of control prison population.
 
No at that point the conservative playbook demands that we start wholesale slaughter of anyone in slums and projects and bulldoze the bodies into vats of "stuff" where the bodies are turned into delicious Soylent Green for everyone to consume.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']No at that point the conservative playbook demands that we start wholesale slaughter of anyone in slums and projects and bulldoze the bodies into vats of "stuff" where the bodies are turned into delicious Soylent Green for everyone to consume.[/quote]



mmmmmm......soylent green........
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='Cornfedwb']C. Without even touching terrorism, daddy's unfinished business, oil, money, whatever... As the world's leading supervisor everyone agrees we have a responsibility to help feed, clothe and educate people in need.. but somehow we dont find an onus upon us to liberate people dominated by a tyrannical government.[/quote]

Bush cut billions from US education in the leave no child behind act.
Many schools could not affford to teach the whole 180 days last year.

And China's government is a much more brutal regime than Sadam. Should we not have gone there first? No, they are too rich.[/quote]

What?? China is much more brutal regime than Saddam's? Where the hell have you been the past decade or so? China's government and politics ain't no sunday picnic I'll give you that, especially twenty or so years ago but they've made many changes. i don't see them gasing thousands of their own people or anything lately. They haven't invaded in countries lately...Also China isnt all that rich. Iraq could've actually been a much richer country if Saddam wasn't in power. Look at some of them neighboring countries...Many Mideast countries that aren't ruled by crazy dictators have faired quite well, perhaps even better than China.
 
Plus China being in the Secuirty Council as one of the 5 permanent member pretty much means international damnation to invade them...
 
[quote name='peteloaf']Is three POTENTIAL nukes worth the lives of over 900 troops?

Yes, unless you consider the fact that there are other hostile countries with CONFIRMED nukes that we are ignoring. North Korea, for example, has made OPEN THREATS to use their nukes on us.

And besides, I thought liberation was the reason for this war.

Oh wait, terrorism.

Oh wait, they tried to kill Bush's dad.

Oh wait, I haven't read the lates PR release - why are we there this week?

Do the math, 900+ lives DOES NOT EQUAL 1 political agenda


EDIT: corrected grammar...Doh![/quote]

First off, North Korea is surrounded by Japan, South Korea, China and Russia. Those countries keep N. Korea in check more than we do. That's is why N. Korea always wants talks with us because they know those other countries won't bend at all. Iraq was surrounded by countries who were too weak to care or too busy trying to start their own weapons programs. Unlike N. Korea there was no one in the region to stand up to Saddam when HE defied UN resolutions time and time again by expelling Inspectors. THAT was the reason for this war. Why the fuck would Saddam do that unless he was up to something. We damn sure couldn't rely on Iran or Jordan to pressure Saddam. I GUARANTEE you if Saddam had been a good boy and DID WHAT THE U.N. ASKED IN THE FIRST PLACE, his sons wouldn't be dead, he'd still be butchering his people and he'd be grooming his sons to take over for another 50 years. Saddam brought this on himself and he knows it.

Second of all....

The troops joined the armed service of their own choice. What the hell did they think they were going to do just collect checks? I was living on an Air Base during the Gulf War and alot of my friends parents had to go. They knew being in the service was like the police. You may be in harms way. You understand that when you sign or else you shouldn't be there. Don't give me any crap that they were misled into signing up. There is not enough self-responsibility in this country and everyone want to blame others.[/b]
 
i believe that if our intelligence said that iraq had or was trying to get Nukes, that was enough reason to attack Iraq. 1 nuke can take out alot more than 900 people..

the reason we havent invaded north korea IMO, is because they're all talk. they havent invaded another country. they havent declared war on anyone. They told us they had nuclear weapons, or a nuclear weapon, and that if we didnt drop the sanctions that they would use them, and of course we began talks with them.

Saddam on the other hand has used chemical weapons on his own people and he's attacked Kuwait and Iran. Since we know he's used chemical weapons on his own people, we can pretty much so guess that if he had a nuclear weapon, he wouldnt hesitate to use it on us or a surrounding nation.
 
Don't give me any crap that they were misled into signing up. There is not enough self-responsibility in this country and everyone want to blame others.
Click to expand...

You don't join the National Guard or the Reserves thinking you're going to be sent to Iraq, and beyond your tour of duty.

Have you seen their ads? "One weekend a month, two weeks a year." "Earning money for College... Protecting their community".

You could make the case that active duty soldiers should expect to be deployed somewhere. But they should have every expectation that they would not be put into harms way unless it was absolutely necessary for the safety of the country. It is debatable whether it was or not.
 
[quote name='Cracka']i believe that if our intelligence said that iraq had or was trying to get Nukes, that was enough reason to attack Iraq. 1 nuke can take out alot more than 900 people..

the reason we havent invaded north korea IMO, is because they're all talk. they havent invaded another country. they havent declared war on anyone. They told us they had nuclear weapons, or a nuclear weapon, and that if we didnt drop the sanctions that they would use them, and of course we began talks with them.

Saddam on the other hand has used chemical weapons on his own people and he's attacked Kuwait and Iran. Since we know he's used chemical weapons on his own people, we can pretty much so guess that if he had a nuclear weapon, he wouldnt hesitate to use it on us or a surrounding nation.[/quote]

Huh. I thought the reason we still have thousands of American soldiers stationed along the Demilitarized Zone in Korea was precisely because North Korea has proven themselves capable of more than just talk.

And North Korea actually was making a push to develop a nuclear bomb, an active and real push, at the same time we went after Iraq on rumors of nukes. Rumors that could have been proven false had Bush given the weapons inspectors a chance to finish their work.
 
[quote name='"GuilewasNK"'][quote name='peteloaf']Is three POTENTIAL nukes worth the lives of over 900 troops?
Unlike N. Korea there was no one in the region to stand up to Saddam when HE defied UN resolutions time and time again by expelling Inspectors. THAT was the reason for this war. [/b][/quote]


Saddam didn't kick out the inspectors, we WITHDREW them. We told them to get out because we were going in. It's funny about the timing of when we went in. We went in just as Saddam was compling more with the resolutions. Remember, they were bulldozing the Al-sumad (sp?) missles that were 15 miles over the range limit just before we invaded.
 
most of you seem to think that when the weapons inspectors were in Iraq, that they could just inspect any building they wanted at any time they wanted, which is not so. They were only allowed to inspect buildings that Saddam told them that they could inspect, and they could the buildings at times set by Saddam.
 
[quote name='Cracka']most of you seem to think that when the weapons inspectors were in Iraq, that they could just inspect any building they wanted at any time they wanted, which is not so. They were only allowed to inspect buildings that Saddam told them that they could inspect, and they could the buildings at times set by Saddam.[/quote]

Sorry, but you are wrong here. They WERE being allowed to go wherever they wanted.
 
Why is it that Bush supporters are so habitually factually *wrong*? We found WMD! Hussein kicked out the inspectors! Mass graves of more than 400,000 bodies!

Why do they never realize that when Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people, our government supported him? Why don't they remember that the Al Qaeda camps they refer to that were in Iraq were in Kurdish controlled lands, outside of Hussein's control?

I'd suspect that it's because they've been brainwashed, or they have very short attention spans, or they're ignorant, or they're stupid. Maybe all of the above. It's kind of hard to tell.

I'm not saying Hussein wasn't a bad guy. I'm saying that it's odd that so many right-wing nutcases are so wrong, so much of the time. It'd be hilarious, if it wasn't so sad.

seppo
 
Uhh... where did you find this article? As far as I can tell, it isn't from any credible source. No major newsite has this article, no minor newssite... in fact, no news website at all has this article.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='Cracka']most of you seem to think that when the weapons inspectors were in Iraq, that they could just inspect any building they wanted at any time they wanted, which is not so. They were only allowed to inspect buildings that Saddam told them that they could inspect, and they could the buildings at times set by Saddam.[/quote]

Sorry, but you are wrong here. They WERE being allowed to go wherever they wanted.[/quote]

according to the news at the time of the inspections, no they werent.

Why is it that Bush supporters are so habitually factually *wrong*? We found WMD! Hussein kicked out the inspectors! Mass graves of more than 400,000 bodies!

Why do they never realize that when Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people, our government supported him? Why don't they remember that the Al Qaeda camps they refer to that were in Iraq were in Kurdish controlled lands, outside of Hussein's control?

I'd suspect that it's because they've been brainwashed, or they have very short attention spans, or they're ignorant, or they're stupid. Maybe all of the above. It's kind of hard to tell.

I'm not saying Hussein wasn't a bad guy. I'm saying that it's odd that so many right-wing nutcases are so wrong, so much of the time. It'd be hilarious, if it wasn't so sad.

seppo
Click to expand...

why is it that everyone of your posts is basically just some smartass comments along with a little name calling?

i swear i could say water is wet and you would say "NUH UH ITS NOT WET. YOU"RE A RIGHT-WING NUTCASE!!!111!"
 
Except for the fact that your whining about my post doesn't change the information within. The point is that the right wingers have been wrong on factual things so often in regards to the Iraq war that it's *absurd*. The amount of misinformation is so overbearing, we should have thrown Bush out due to simple incompetance. And there's people like you, who parrot this BS nonstop like it's truth, but it's not. It's not even close. And you would think that after being burned by bad info, time and time again, that people like you would wise up, but you *don't*, and that boggles my mind.

I mean, it's fascinating. Truly.

seppo
 
[quote name='"ZarathosNY"'][quote name='GuilewasNK'][quote name='peteloaf']Is three POTENTIAL nukes worth the lives of over 900 troops?
Unlike N. Korea there was no one in the region to stand up to Saddam when HE defied UN resolutions time and time again by expelling Inspectors. THAT was the reason for this war. [/b][/quote]


Saddam didn't kick out the inspectors, we WITHDREW them. We told them to get out because we were going in. It's funny about the timing of when we went in. We went in just as Saddam was compling more with the resolutions. Remember, they were bulldozing the Al-sumad (sp?) missles that were 15 miles over the range limit just before we invaded.[/quote]

(Several news organizaions have reports on this)
http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html

WE didn't withdraw anything. The UN did and THEN Saddam refused to let them back in. Sounds like being kicked out to me.

The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning.

--Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98/
Click to expand...

Now if Saddam is defying the UN, which is supposed to be the authority, what do you suggest should be done? Everyone say we should have let the inspectors do their job. I'm sorry, if Iraq is bound by the rules of the UN resolutions then he should have done what he was told.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9803/05/iraq.ritter/

Scott Ritter, the American weapons inspector whose presence helped touch off the last U.N.-Iraq standoff, arrived back in Iraq on Thursday, planning to pick up where he left off when the crisis started two months ago.

In January, Iraq blocked inspections by Ritter's team, alleging he was a spy and that his team was weighted with Americans and Britons. There are fewer U.S. and British representatives in the group of about 50 U.N. personnel that arrived with Ritter on Thursday.
Still, the mission by Ritter's team was seen as a test of Iraqi cooperation following an agreement signed last week allowing U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq's so-called presidential sites, which include palaces.

The deal, which averted a U.S.-led attack on Iraq, calls for diplomats to accompany U.N. teams on visits to presidential compounds.
Click to expand...

We caved in to another Iraq demand when they had no ground to stand on.

The 15-member U.N. Security Council unanimously endorsed the agreement Monday, and warned Iraq of "severest consequences" if it fails to comply.
Click to expand...

Now you know what this means. If you don't comply prepare to fight, bottom line. This was in 1998. Now what did the UN really mean since they are so concerned with this war today? Were they going to call Saddam names? Write is phone number on men's bathroom stalls worldwide? Saddam knew the UN didn't have the balls to back up that threat. Once the UN made that statement it should STICK. You can't deliver an ultimatum and then keep backing down. Saddam knew he wouldn't be touched. Honestly, if 9/11 never happened Saddam would still be in power. We can't take that chance anymore.

You could make the case that active duty soldiers should expect to be deployed somewhere. But they should have every expectation that they would not be put into harms way unless it was absolutely necessary for the safety of the country. It is debatable whether it was or not.
Click to expand...

I would prefer active duty soldiers to serve as well but if you sign up for the armed service, the police, the fire department you know you may be put in harms way. People need to be responsible for their own decisions and explore what they could possibly be doing. They don't train the National Guard to use guns because it looks good. There are serveral instances in this countries history where the National Guard was put in harms way. It doesn't take much to pick up a book and say this isn't for me.

Did you feel strongly about National Guardsman being sent to Serbia as well? In your own words it really wasn't "absolutely necessary for the safety of the country."
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']Man you are seriuosly confused. Are you saying that the inspectors have not been in Iraq since 1998? They have. We pulled them out in March so we could invade.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/07/1060145783214.html?oneclick=true

Iraq was also suffering under US and UN sactions. Iraq was absoulty no threat to us. 9/11 had nothing to with Iraq. It is uniformed people like yourself that is the greatest threat to our democracy.[/quote]


Please read my post. I didn't say that the inspectors haven't been there since 1998. I don't know where you got that from. I was simply giving an example of Saddam's defiance of the U.N. that pre-dated the current administration.

And if you look through my posts, I didn't say Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I'll quote what I said...

"Honestly, if 9/11 never happened Saddam would still be in power."
Click to expand...

If 9/11 never happened we'd still be reactive instead of proactive in reagards to National Security regardless if a Republican or a Democrat was in office. That is all that statment means. That is a logical assumption.

Then you said...

It is uniformed people like yourself that is the greatest threat to our democracy.
Click to expand...

:lol: To use your own words "Man you are seriously confused."
 
Bush cut billions from US education in the leave no child behind act.

First, it's called "No Child Left behind".

Second, it took no money from education.... it placed a number of new requirements on educators. The biggest criticism was that there wasn't enough new funding to pay for all of the new requirements.

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/index.html
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK'][quote name='ZarathosNY']Man you are seriuosly confused. Are you saying that the inspectors have not been in Iraq since 1998? They have. We pulled them out in March so we could invade.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/07/1060145783214.html?oneclick=true

Iraq was also suffering under US and UN sactions. Iraq was absoulty no threat to us. 9/11 had nothing to with Iraq. It is uniformed people like yourself that is the greatest threat to our democracy.[/quote]


Please read my post. I didn't say that the inspectors haven't been there since 1998. I don't know where you got that from. I was simply giving an example of Saddam's defiance of the U.N. that pre-dated the current administration.

And if you look through my posts, I didn't say Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I'll quote what I said...

"Honestly, if 9/11 never happened Saddam would still be in power."
Click to expand...

If 9/11 never happened we'd still be reactive instead of proactive in reagards to National Security regardless if a Republican or a Democrat was in office. That is all that statment means. That is a logical assumption.

Then you said...

It is uniformed people like yourself that is the greatest threat to our democracy.
Click to expand...

:lol: To use your own words "Man you are seriously confused."[/quote]

So you are admitting that your argument was completely facetious? I mean, you can't be suggesting that we were justified in invading Iraq because of failed inspections that took place in 1998, when inspections that were occurring in 2003 were going along well until Bush pulled out the inspectors.
 
I mean, you can't be suggesting that we were justified in invading Iraq because of failed inspections that took place in 1998, when inspections that were occurring in 2003 were going along well until Bush pulled out the inspectors.
Click to expand...

I was just showing the cat and mouse game that Saddam played over the years. I never said anything about 1998 justifying today's war. That's something you inferred on your own.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']
I mean, you can't be suggesting that we were justified in invading Iraq because of failed inspections that took place in 1998, when inspections that were occurring in 2003 were going along well until Bush pulled out the inspectors.
Click to expand...

I was just showing the cat and mouse game that Saddam played over the years. I never said anything about 1998 justifying today's war. That's something you inferred on your own.[/quote]

It's not something I inferred, you quoted articles from 1998. We pulled out the inspectors so we could invade. They were doing their job, and guess what, there was nothing to be found.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I would prefer active duty soldiers to serve as well but if you sign up for the armed service, the police, the fire department you know you may be put in harms way. People need to be responsible for their own decisions and explore what they could possibly be doing. They don't train the National Guard to use guns because it looks good. There are serveral instances in this countries history where the National Guard was put in harms way. It doesn't take much to pick up a book and say this isn't for me.

Did you feel strongly about National Guardsman being sent to Serbia as well? In your own words it really wasn't "absolutely necessary for the safety of the country."[/quote]

Serbia attacked, bombed and created armed uprisings in Croatia, Bosnia, and Slovenia. There was ethnic cleansing taking place. Ethnic Albanians were fleeing into Albania. The region was being destabilized. The international troops there were not doing their jobs (i.e. the Dutch being assigned to protect a refugee camp, then fleeing to the hills and watching as the Serbs separated and executed the men, women, and children). That was the reason that was given for going, not that they were planning on attacking America with some imaginary WMD's.

Did we go into Iraq because Saddam was a brutal dictator killing his people? Was that what we were told at the time? Was that the case that was made? No. We were told that he had something to do with 9/11, that he had WMD, and that he was going to attack America. None of that was true. We had Saddam contained, he was no longer even a threat to his neighbors. He was a brutal dictator, yes. But if we invaded based on that, then we'd have to go after North Korea (you know, the rogue state that has both a ruthless dictator AND nukes), Uzbekistan (they arrest, torture, and kill Muslims, their religion is banned. Some are boiled to death. Sound familiar?), Sudan (non-Muslims and non-Arabs (mostly blacks) are being systematicly raped and killed by a paramilitary group supported by their government), and many other countries, many of which are worse than Saddam.

Do you know what really upsets me, and really makes the whole brutal dictator argument look bad? We continue to support Uzbekistan, our special forces train their troops, and we gave them 500 million last year. Why do we continue to support these brutal regimes to this day? Have we not learned from history? We supported Saddam Hussien, Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos, the Taliban, Pinochet, Pol Pot, and Bin Laden himself (though he didn't run a country), and too many others to list here.

So, if you'd like to continue on pretending that the human rights violations were the only reason we went, and that the false arguments of WMD and 9/11 involvement never happened, then go ahead. But American soldiers in Iraq have every right to ask the question, "Why did we invade Iraq? Were we lied to?"


That being said I support staying in Iraq, leaving now would cause a civil war, and most likely involvement from neighboring countries, thus creating either a fundamentalist Muslim state, a Baath party dictatorship, or rule by local warlords and militias, like we're seeing in a lot of Afghanistan.
 
But American soldiers in Iraq have every right to ask the question, "Why did we invade Iraq? Were we lied to?"
Click to expand...

I'll give that to you. I might have misunderstood you earlier about the National Guard. It sounded like you said that they didn't realize they could be sent into war one day. That's the main thing I had issue with. If I misunderstood I apologize.

Do you know what really upsets me, and really makes the whole brutal dictator argument look bad? We continue to support Uzbekistan, our special forces train their troops, and we gave them 500 million last year. Why do we continue to support these brutal regimes to this day?
Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from on this point as well. I'll be the first to admit that America has strangebedfellows at times. Almost every government on this planet has situations like this.

Also, regardless of everyones viewpoints here, at least this war is getting people more interested in voting and the politcal process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top