Forums | MacLife

Blueboy626 · 2003-03-12 10:03 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80813,00.html

I wonder where Saddam got this idea? The guy is bonkers...the US fails to convincingly tie Iraq to al-Queda type terrorists so Saddam creates them? Just for the US to use as proof against him? What a sweet guy-how nice of him and just in time too. big_smile

oolatec · 2003-03-12 10:31 pm

How in God's name is Saddam being forced into war? All he has to do is disarm. It doesn't take 12 years for a country to disarm... ask South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

ShnickyShnack · 2003-03-12 10:38 pm

It's a last-ditch smurf-the-innocent effort to counter an American attack. Seems pretty obvious.

Egress · 2003-03-13 12:33 am

I think Saddam "asked for it" when he invaded Kuwait. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

He's kept "asking for it" ever since, by firing at our planes, violating the treaties he signed, refusing to disarm, and thumbing his nose at the whole smurfing UN. It's a shame the UN is becoming politically deadlocked to the point of irrelevance. Folks, we are watching the UN go the way of the League of Nations. It's a shame. Fortunately, many countries are willing to stand up and enforce the treaties Saddam has signed and repeatedly broken, even if the UN can't.

Saddam actually believes he won the Gulf War, and can win again. If that's his idea of victory, we will soon hand him a victory he will never forget.

That reminds me-- it's time to start a betting pool on how many days Saddam has left to live. Since the war starts next tuesday, that'll be zero days. If he kicks it on wednesday, that'll be one day, etc.

titok16 · 2003-03-13 2:06 am

so you are saying Germany didnt lose World War I?
Up yours buddy...

"Do you think though that the leadership of the US or any other country wouldn't do those things you mentioned if they were in Saddam's position?"

um....yea...If the US were in the position to gas people, they sure would! yea smurfing right. please dont insult America again.

ehh...a smile to end all the seriousness...
smile
tito

iopossum · 2003-03-13 2:56 am

Also, I wasn't even referring to the gassing of people. I was referring to the firing at planes over the territory, the resistance to completely disarming, the "games" everyone says he plays, etc.

I love this double standard. When America tries to do what they believe is right they are criticized for not obeying the UN. When Iraq tries to do what they want they are defended saying theyre doing it for "national security" and that they are only doing "what anyone else would in their position".

Fine, I'm willing to accept any ONE of those two arguments, but nothing frustrates me more than someone who contradicts himself when he argues.

Blueboy626 · 2003-03-13 10:15 am

That article mentions no link to Al-qaeda...

Neither did I- I said "al-Qaeda TYPE terrorists" maybe I should have said "PLO type terrorists" as they seem more the type to strap dynamite to themselves.

plus, it says this: A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States has no information that would corroborate reports of Iraqi intelligence training homicide bombers at camps northeast of Baghdad, or anywhere else.

OK, so you don't want to believe Al-Jazeera or FOX news but some "anonymous U.S. official" is more believable? At least the reporter gives his name freely "Diyar al-Umari, an Al-Jazeera reporter who said he visited the camp on a tour organized by the Iraqi government, described the volunteers as coming from a number of countries and political movements." Can't you just see the line up and sign in process at the camp? "Where you from?" Hamas, "Next-where you from?" PLO, "OK next?" Al-Qaeda "Oh no, we'll just put you down as PLO too-OK?"

And I think the U.S. official (anonymous as he may be) summed it up pretty good when he said "the United States has no information that would corroborate reports of Iraqi intelligence."

So, the US guy says they're lying (I see no reason for them to lie, not that it matters anyway). Even though the US guy is saying this, I wouldn't doubt Saddam is trying to raise an army... he is being forced into war after all...

Nobody's forcing Saddam to do anything and that is in a nutshell-exactly the problem.

Blueboy626 · 2003-03-13 5:43 pm

Aren't you believing the US guy(s) when they say they have all this evidence of Iraq amassing WMD and ties to terrorism that they can't release for security reasons, or whatever? I may be interpreting this wrong, but it seems you are picking and choosing when you want to believe the US to suit your needs, which is a perfectly understandable reaction, but ultimately unproductive.

No, actually I wish I could see that US evidence of Iraq's WMD-but then again it's not up to the US to prove he has them but for Iraq to prove they don't. This seems to be the most conveniently overlooked fact of this entire process so far-even George Bush spelled it out plain as day in his last speech-the onus is on Saddam, all he has to do it drag it all out to a parking lot somewhere and say "here's what we got left" and "in this box here is all the evidence, documents, video tapes, etc., about the stuff we destroyed".

The person I want to believe the most is Saddam-but he's given me zero (0) reasons to so far, in fact the more he huffs and puffs about NOT having WMD the more I think he does have them, probably stored away in Syrian warehouses or buried in the sand somewhere.

Blueboy626 · 2003-03-13 5:52 pm

Nobody's forcing Saddam to do anything and that is in a nutshell-exactly the problem.
Saddam's not forcing anyone else to do anything either... North Korea seems to be trying to force something, but no one's doing much there it seems.

One crazed tyrant at a time OK? Saddam signed surrender papers 12 years ago that said he would destroy all of his WMD...we (the entire world) is still waiting for some proof he actually did that. By not acting in good faith and disarming himself of WMD-Saddam is forcing this issue, the only reason he's gotten away with it until now is that we didn't have a kick-ass President in the White House to hold him to it.

AutoJC · 2003-03-13 6:19 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80813,00.html

I wonder where Saddam got this idea? The guy is bonkers...the US fails to convincingly tie Iraq to al-Queda type terrorists so Saddam creates them? Just for the US to use as proof against him? What a sweet guy-how nice of him and just in time too.

Leave it to Saddam to have the French train his army and the Arab terrorists to train his homicide bombers.

First the homicide bombers blow themselves up on the front lines and then the soldiers do what the French teach them to do best- surrender. lol

Man, this war's going to be short. We won't waste too much ammo on these camel smurf.

Blueboy626 · 2003-03-14 10:56 am

If I recally correctly (and there's a good change I don't) Bush tried to get action against Iraq earlier in his presidency, and no one cared too much. It wasn't until after 9/11 that he was able to push it through... It's like he used the political inertia from the deaths of the thousands in the WTC to get an almost unrelated agenda through....

Can't argue that point with you, seems like a lot of the neo-cons continue to spew about "remember 9/11" as if that event had anything to do with Saddam-maybe only in that an unchecked tryrant "might" attack us in the future...but then again so could Kim Jong II.

Also, maybe the reason the other non "kick-ass" presidents didn't push it before is because there are more pressing matters to deal with that actually have a direct impact and meaning to our lives..

Well, don't get me started on that last loser we had as a president-"more pressing matters?" like blow jobs in the oval office, lobbing million dollar cruise missiles at aspirin factories, or negoiating give away treaties with North Korea?

It's an oversight for any president or any leader anywhere to let a leader like Saddam get away with not giving his people a right to vote, but it's not this great act of altruism or heroism that many seem to think it is. And an actual war is excessive and an over reaction as a means to reach the inteded goals, it would seem to me.

I'm beginning to feel the same way-maybe we should just nuke Saddam and follow the old idiom of "kill them all and let God sort it out". big_smile

Forums | MacLife

#1 2003-03-12 10:03 pm

If Iraq didn't have them before-they do now!

#2 2003-03-12 10:31 pm

Re: If Iraq didn't have them before-they do now!

#3 2003-03-12 10:38 pm

Re: If Iraq didn't have them before-they do now!

#4 2003-03-13 12:33 am

Re: If Iraq didn't have them before-they do now!

#5 2003-03-13 2:06 am

Re: If Iraq didn't have them before-they do now!

#6 2003-03-13 2:56 am

Re: If Iraq didn't have them before-they do now!

#7 2003-03-13 10:15 am

Re: If Iraq didn't have them before-they do now!

#8 2003-03-13 5:43 pm

Re: If Iraq didn't have them before-they do now!

#9 2003-03-13 5:52 pm

Re: If Iraq didn't have them before-they do now!

#10 2003-03-13 6:19 pm

Re: If Iraq didn't have them before-they do now!

#11 2003-03-14 10:56 am

Re: If Iraq didn't have them before-they do now!

Board footer