Conquer Club

Stopper wrote:

Joe McCarthy wrote:I dont mind if folks want to point that the war was fought over false information, thats fair game. Its the people that say it was a lie that piss me off. "bush lied and people died " is bullshit. Anybody that says that it was known Saddam didnt have WMDs and Bush just lied about it for the war is full of baloney. Everybody and their mother thought Saddam had them. Every single reliable intelligence agency here and abroad said he had them, including the Russians, Germans, and British. He had used them to kill off thousands of Kurds in Iraq and had never proven that he had disposed of his stockpile and in fact evaded every effort to help him prove he was weapon-free. What he did was bluff that he did have them so he could seem stronger in the region and his bluff got called. Any reasonable person would have believed, given the available info, that Saddam had those weapons and was fully capable of using them.

No, I don't agree at all. Lots of people at the time suspected he had bugger all, including Scott Ritter and Hans Blix. The world and his wife knew in the run-up to the war in late 2002 that the whole WMD thing was simply a pretext for the US in the UN to invade, and that it didn't really matter to the US whether it was true or not. They were going to invade regardless of whether WMD were ever found or even existed.

UNSCOM *always* said that the sanctions after the Kuwait war had been very effective as far as nuclear and chemical materials were concerned (even if not for other things).

In the end, the US and Britain invaded anyway - they didn't wait for the UN to complete their inspections, and they never got a valid resolution to invade Iraq (1664 didn't allow it.)

What bothered me at the time was the attitude of the British (and US) media at the time. Almost no newspaper or TV outlet ever seriously questioned the US's claims, nor did they ever seriously question those people who could give a contrary view (like Ritter and Blix). But they sure as hell banged on about those ridiculous "yellow cake from Nigeria" claims, the "45 minutes" claims, and Colin Powell's pitiful presentation at the UN.

I don't believe the WMD claim was a mistake, I think it was a big lie, and 2002 was a powerful demonstration of how our "free" media will just go along with the government and not seriously question them when it matters. I wonder what the next big lie will be.

Blitzkreig wrote:

Stopper wrote:<Lots of incisive political commentary, even if I say so myself>

UNSCOM *always* said that the sanctions after the Kuwait war had been very effective as far as nuclear and chemical materials were concerned (even if not for other things).

WHAT? The sanctions were not at all effective. According to UNICEF, more than 500 thousand people died, mostly children, because the sanctions were so restrictive. "The reasons include lack of medical supplies, malnutrition, and especially disease owing to lack of clean water. Among other things, chlorine, needed for disinfecting water supplies, was banned as having a "dual use" in potential weapons manufacture." (Encyclopedia)

So, no, the sanctions didn't work and we needed to take a different course.

Jargo The Axe wrote:I havn't bothered to read all of the previous 19 pages so if these are already stated ignore.

People hate America because we are on top as far as military. It is natural to hate anyone stronger than you. Also we are involved heavily in the Middle East. Now think about real hard; who started it there?

Jargo The Axe wrote:About my last topic US involvement started with the rise of terrorism including Desert Storm. But the actual origins of the fighting dates back to around 2,050 b.c.


Any questions on this? ask and I'll try to answer.

Jargo The Axe wrote:A) i answer with a question to you, where do you think it started?

The West Wing - Isaac and Ishmael wrote:TOBY
[sighs] I-I know it's not new. I know in the eleventh century... I'm gonna have trouble
pronouncing this, in the eleventh century, [sighs] secret followers of Al-hassan Ibn-al-Sabbah,
who were taught to believe in nothing and dare all, carried out these very swift and very
treacherous murders of fellow Muslims, and they did it in the state of religious ecstasy.

[...]

TOBY [cont.]
As a matter of fact, young men between 12 and 20 were given hashish, and uh, smuggled into a...
I really don't know what they call it, they were smuggled into a kind of specially designed
pleasure garden complete with concubines. They were told this was paradise, and that the
Master's Angels would carry them back if they carried out murders of the Master's enemies.

B) what do you call Sadam Hussein?

Jargo The Axe wrote:A) Good point

B) Sorry I'm not an expert

C) Oh well....

Oh ya I never promised to give correct answer I said I'd try.


p.s. What would "properly answered" be?

vtmarik wrote:A ... dictator with Stalin-ish features.

Jargo The Axe wrote:OK Stopper fair enough. If you knew my real age you'd know why I can't answer you completely. An about Hitler not being a terrorist, what is your definition of the word "terrorist"? I'm talking to vtmarik.