just for the war-mongers out there

[anxdiety]

and your next reason for going to war is going to be as good as this one right?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html

[UDawg]

Ok fine. If you want to label us war-monbers then we will return the favore. You are here by known as Pro-Saddam Supporters. How does it feel to know u support a mass murderer?

Cheers

BTW the page is blank.

[Sazar]

actually its not a blank page :)

Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S.

thats the title...

and the first few paragraphs...

Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.

The documents, given to International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, indicated that Iraq might have tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the agency said they were "obvious" fakes.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to the documents directly in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council outlining the Bush administration's case against Iraq.

"I'm sure the FBI and CIA must be mortified by this because it is extremely embarrassing to them," former CIA official Ray Close said.

:)

I spose calling people war-mongers is not the best thing to do... but then neither is lying to the UN and therefore the ENTIRE WORLD and being caught with your pants down... is it ?

:cool:

[UDawg]

Weird the page loads fine now.

Anyway it still does not change anything just as Powel said. It does not weaken the case it just make the CIA look bad. It doesn't say Saddam does or doesn't have a nuclear program. This is just an attemp to justicy the pro-Saddam supporters position.

[Sazar]

Originally posted by UDawg71
Weird the page loads fine now.

Anyway it still does not change anything just as Powel said. It does not weaken the case it just make the CIA look bad. It doesn't say Saddam does or doesn't have a nuclear program. This is just an attemp to justicy the pro-Saddam supporters position.

considering how dubyah is STILL using that article as evidence in some of his speeches... I dunno what you are going on about ?

also.. there is such a thing as an anti-war movement... if you think this is a pro-saddam movement.. so be it... thats just a little too close minded for me...

[The Baron]

How does it feel to know u support a mass murderer?I dunno, let's see how many civilians die in a war with Iraq

[anxdiety]

who said anything about being pro-saddam? Its more of an anti-WAR than anything. It seems the US is reaching for whatever reason they can find to justify going to war. Up and until the whole war on Afaghanistan there wasn't a mention of anything in iraq for a long while. But the American blood got boiling and need to solve their issues with needing to prove that they are the strongest country. IF you're so looking for a reason to go to war, why not go after north korea that is sitting there screaming that they have nukes. Instead you are choosing to go after a country that's all ready been crippled. Also mentioned by Saddam himself was an invite to do a one to one debate live and televised with Bush himself. Now if it was soo reasoned out why did the states not accept that offer to a debate?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/24/sprj.irq.saddam.debate/

Ahh well here's to hoping for a solar powered SUV soon enough so we can finally end having to go to war for the price of oil....


edit: added debate link

[silence]

Originally posted by UDawg71

Anyway it still does not change anything just as Powel said. It does not weaken the case it just make the CIA look bad.


sorry????.....if u present fakes as your evidence that DOES weaken your case, specialy if you get cought, like US was. don't you think that this kind of retarded moves do harm to US position in world and maybe this is reason why ppl don't like idea of war?

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Sazar
also.. there is such a thing as an anti-war movement... if you think this is a pro-saddam movement.. so be it... thats just a little too close minded for me...

and there is such a thing as an anti-saddam movement. if you label it as being war mongering, then so be it. just as closed minded.

[volt]

Originally posted by UDawg71
Ok fine. If you want to label us war-monbers then we will return the favore. You are here by known as Pro-Saddam Supporters. How does it feel to know u support a mass murderer?

Cheers

BTW the page is blank.

In this case, you will be known as a fanatic that believes everything politicians say. As I read most of your posts on that matter, you tend to agree with whatever bullsh1t Bush/Powell/you name it says.

Cheers :)

[PtrToNull]

who said anything about being pro-saddam? Its more of an anti-WAR than anything.


Oh believe me, it's just when anyone who questions Bush is "unpatriotic", or anyone who questions Israel is "anti-semetic".

It's very easy to use labels to shun people, it's disgusting.

[sbp]

There already is more than enough for Hussein to be dealt with.

And on the same day Iraq claimed to have destroyed all of its nerve gas VX. Basically the report, which Iraq typed up overnight, had nothing new.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030315/wl_nm/iraq_un_anthrax_dc_2

Funny, you going to believe that crap?

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
and there is such a thing as an anti-saddam movement. if you label it as being war mongering, then so be it. just as closed minded.

and if you label this war an anti-saddam-movement .. thats just a little closed minded of ya :)

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by sbp
There already is more than enough for Hussein to be dealt with.

And on the same day Iraq claimed to have destroyed all of its nerve gas VX. Basically the report, which Iraq typed up overnight, had nothing new.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030315/wl_nm/iraq_un_anthrax_dc_2

Funny, you going to believe that crap?

this is kind of a selective thinking thing ... neither you or anyone on this board is in the position to judge if this report contains the truth or not. running around saying its crap is a little too easy, friend.

[sytaylor]

"Lets go round again, maybe we'll turn back the hands of tiiiiime"...

How many times have those who insist action must be taken lablled war mongerours and later undoubted heros? You know at one point Sir Winston Churchill was one of the most hated men in england because he was scaring people with "Hitler must be stopped with force".. People had an uprising and chamberlain came back with his "Anti-War" white peice of paper "Peace in our time" it claimed.

Well that was the end of his political career. Do people not learn form history, or are they just ignorant? There is such thing as a greater good, tell me one thing peace demonstrations have ever actually changed in the world and i'll show you 100 that a war has.

War sucks, we all know that. But lets face it people are gonna die under saddam in horrible conditions whether there is a war or not. So by denying the will to remove saddam you are effectivley allowing him to continue mutilating his own people. Then you have the cheek to claim those who wish to see an end to this war mongers? If there was a "better option" don't you think we would have seen it after 12 years? Clinton prooved sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't work. Its time something was done

*edit* caught a few typos

[sbp]

Originally posted by 2fast4u
this is kind of a selective thinking thing ... neither you or anyone on this board is in the position to judge if this report contains the truth or not. running around saying its crap is a little too easy, friend. Looking at Iraq's past history, they have not been forthcoming. And even the Inspectors have said (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030313/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_anthrax_1) they do not expect the letter to contain any new information about the stocks of anthrax or VX themselves.

from the news (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030315/wl_nm/iraq_un_anthrax_dc_2)
"We are trying now our best to convince UNMOVIC that everything has been destroyed," Aldouri said.."In other words stonewall and buy more time.

UNMOVIC, led by chief inspector Hans Blix, says there are many open questions concerning Iraq's VX production capability, including significant amounts in Iraq's past accounts of precursors for the gas.

The agency wants Iraq to present all documents relating to VX, including research and development. It also wants further explanations for Iraq's contention that it was unable to weaponize the gas and destroyed it unilaterally in 1991.Geez anyone here think that all of a sudden the info will flow out and contain anything new?

So U.N. weapons inspectors say the nuclear weapons stuff is crap. The past reports Iraq has submitted have been crap. Wonder if peeps will slam Iraq for that? This is a kind of a selective thinking thing indeed.

Iraq said in the past it had lost documentation on the destruction, and asked inspectors to estimate the amounts from the size of the contaminated areas.The dog ate it. http://home.earthlink.net/~sbp777/smilies/aningrin.gif

[2fast4u]

How many times have those who insist action must be taken lablled war mongerours and later undoubted heros? You know at one point Sir Winston Churchill was one of the most hated men in england because he was scaring people with "Hitler must be stopped with force".. People had an uprising and chamberlain came back with his "Anti-War" white peice of paper "Peace in our time" it claimed.

how often must you repeat this wwII bs, sy? wwII had entirely different conditions, there was a real and immediate threat to the whole continent. compared to that, saddam is a small fly on the other hand. churchill was forced to take immediate action, bush by any means has no immediate reason for an attack whatsoever.

Well that was the end of his political career. Do people not learn form history, or are they just ignorant? There is such thing as a greater good, tell me one thing peace demonstrations have ever actually changed in the world and i'll show you 100 that a war has.

this is some fail logic from your side. you say if people would learn from history they would want war as the first reaction. by any means, DO YOU READ EUROPEAN HISTORY?? people in europe oppose war BECAUSE THEY INDEED _HAVE_ LEARNED FROM HISTORY!!

Its time something was done

ordinarily one might argee. there is just the problem that bush has been "sticking his finger in the ear" for around a good year too. now all off the sudden he wanted to remove saddam. even more interesting is the fact that he claimed he wanted to liberate the iraqi people around a month ago ... after the peace protests. we didnt hear a whole lot on this before that happened. now ther goes your point .. peace protests indeed do have effects.

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by 2fast4u
how often must you repeat this wwII bs, sy? wwII had entirely different conditions, there was a real and immediate threat to the whole continent. compared to that, saddam is a small fly on the other hand. churchill was forced to take immediate action, bush by any means has no immediate reason for an attack whatsoever.


I'm prooving how ineffective claiming someone "isn't a threat" all the time is, which is exactly something done at the time. Sure saddam isn't on the same scale as hitler but that means we ignore him right? Maybe then he'll disappear. Or if we just wait another 12 years?

Originally posted by 2fast4u
this is some fail logic from your side. you say if people would learn from history they would want war as the first reaction. by any means, DO YOU READ EUROPEAN HISTORY?? people in europe oppose war BECAUSE THEY INDEED _HAVE_ LEARNED FROM HISTORY!!

No, they would accept that war should be a possibility after all diplomatic efforts have been attempted, instead of trying to ignore their issues and hope they go away. To me that is false logic. The notion that leaving someone alone means they're going to clean their act up.

Originally posted by 2fast4u
ordinarily one might argee. there is just the problem that bush has been "sticking his finger in the ear" for around a good year too. now all off the sudden he wanted to remove saddam. even more interesting is the fact that he claimed he wanted to liberate the iraqi people around a month ago ... after the peace protests. we didnt hear a whole lot on this before that happened. now ther goes your point .. peace protests indeed do have effects.

Yeah bush changed a speech... WOW! War free'd europe, has ended dictatorships, brought about new technology that would have never been invented, started the space race and was even the motivation behind the supersonic flight.

On the other hand, bush changed a speech.. hmmmm

[2fast4u]

I'm prooving how ineffective claiming someone "isn't a threat" all the time is, which is exactly something done at the time. Sure saddam isn't on the same scale as hitler but that means we ignore him right? Maybe then he'll disappear. Or if we just wait another 12 years?

no, you are using the wwII situtation on the current one, which is false. period. you cannot apply a general rule on everything.

how about we stop bombing civilians in iraq and stop sanctioning them? ah wait, its too late anyway. you will get your beloved war very soon, believe me. but others will be dying in the sand for your "noble" reasons.

No, they would accept that war should be a possibility after all diplomatic efforts have been attempted, instead of trying to ignore their issues and hope they go away. To me that is false logic. The notion that leaving someone alone means they're going to clean their act up.

well diplomatic efforts have not been attempted obviously. mostly not by bush. the usa has been preparing nothing but war for months .. they were merely forced into trying _some_ diplomacy by the european states that you so easily damn for their effort for peace. and we are indeed seeing results, right?

Yeah bush changed a speech... WOW! War free'd europe, has ended dictatorships, brought about new technology that would have never been invented, started the space race and was even the motivation behind the supersonic flight.

tut tut, bush didnt just change speech. he has changed his reason for going to war all the time. first he said he wanted to fight terror, then he wanted to get rid of the "weapons of mass destruction" and finally he wanted to liberate the iraqi people. all in all he has seeked for reasons to legitimate his war.

hehe, and dont go around telling me that we need to war in order to provide motivation. there is more than the bigger dick philopsophy to the motivation of inventing new things.

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by 2fast4u
no, you are using the wwII situtation on the current one, which is false. period. you cannot apply a general rule on everything.

Im using a situation of appeasement, and using a general rule on everything is how physics works :p

Originally posted by 2fast4u
how about we stop bombing civilians in iraq and stop sanctioning them? ah wait, its too late anyway. you will get your beloved war very soon, believe me. but others will be dying in the sand for your "noble" reasons.

Oh forgive I forgot we were trying to bomb civilians here, i simply thought we were taking weapons, how silly of me not to believe propaganda. I don't belove war, get that inside your skull, somehow some way im sure you can do it. Again, sanctioning civilians? Look at their leader for a second... oh yeah that guy... he's the one being sanctioned.

Originally posted by 2fast4u
well diplomatic efforts have not been attempted obviously. mostly not by bush.

No obviosuly that last 17 or however many resolutions have been passed about iraq and saddam never really happened did they?

Originally posted by 2fast4u
tut tut, bush didnt just change speech. he has changed his reason for going to war all the time. first he said he wanted to fight terror, then he wanted to get rid of the "weapons of mass destruction" and finally he wanted to liberate the iraqi people. all in all he has seeked for reasons to legitimate his war.

hehe, and dont go around telling me that we need to war in order to provide motivation. there is more than the bigger dick philopsophy to the motivation of inventing new things.

So you mean he changed what he told people... aka his speech(es). No war isnt the only cause of invention its just a side product, but what I'm saying is its more effective than sitting on your ass.

[vampireuk]

Originally posted by sytaylor
Im using a situation of appeasement, and using a general rule on everything is how physics works :p

There is a slight difference between physics and peoples lives in a war:rolleyes:

Again, sanctioning civilians? Look at their leader for a second... oh yeah that guy... he's the one being sanctioned.

ROFLMAO yes and he has been affected so much by those sanctions;) :p

[Sazar]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
and there is such a thing as an anti-saddam movement. if you label it as being war mongering, then so be it. just as closed minded.

hmm... seeing as I never said war-mongers but would have been grouped as a saddam sympathiser by udawg...

its getting annoying people quoting you out of context to get their 2 cents in...

[2fast4u]

Oh forgive I forgot we were trying to bomb civilians here, i simply thought we were taking weapons, how silly of me not to believe propaganda. I don't belove war, get that inside your skull, somehow some way im sure you can do it. Again, sanctioning civilians? Look at their leader for a second... oh yeah that guy... he's the one being sanctioned.

lol not exactly. you sanction a country, or do you cut off food supplies to saddams palaces or bomb the sh1t out of those? nooooo ... you stop frickin medication from being brought into the country. saddam is laughing.

No obviosuly that last 17 or however many resolutions have been passed about iraq and saddam never really happened did they?

and list me a few of those 17 that were bringing truly diplomatic effort, afaik most of them were to create more sanctions or frequent bombings which isnt exactly what i think of diplomacy. its a long list, take your time.

So you mean he changed what he told people... aka his speech(es).

yep, and unfortunatelly i aint got a chrystal ball so i have to figure out why he wants to go to war from what he says. so there ...

No war isnt the only cause of invention its just a side product, but what I'm saying is its more effective than sitting on your ass.

hrm .. yes the inspectors are indeed sitting on their ass doing nothing. :rolleyes:

[Sazar]

Originally posted by sytaylor
"Lets go round again, maybe we'll turn back the hands of tiiiiime"...

How many times have those who insist action must be taken lablled war mongerours and later undoubted heros? You know at one point Sir Winston Churchill was one of the most hated men in england because he was scaring people with "Hitler must be stopped with force".. People had an uprising and chamberlain came back with his "Anti-War" white peice of paper "Peace in our time" it claimed.

Well that was the end of his political career. Do people not learn form history, or are they just ignorant? There is such thing as a greater good, tell me one thing peace demonstrations have ever actually changed in the world and i'll show you 100 that a war has.

War sucks, we all know that. But lets face it people are gonna die under saddam in horrible conditions whether there is a war or not. So by denying the will to remove saddam you are effectivley allowing him to continue mutilating his own people. Then you have the cheek to claim those who wish to see an end to this war mongers? If there was a "better option" don't you think we would have seen it after 12 years? Clinton prooved sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't work. Its time something was done

*edit* caught a few typos

frankly my dear... thats bs... if the us and the world is so ready and eager to change the condition of people's under the rule of an evil person and change the regime... perhaps HALF the energy and manpower and money et al concentrated on iraq would be invested in north korea...

the rhetoric sounds all well and good but the logic does not stand up...

concerning hitler... he had KNOWN army movements and a KNOWN army/navy prior to WWII... he was taking ACTIVE steps in europe to expand that little 'empire' of his... how can you possibly correlate the 2...

thats as ludircous as the whole pearl harbor and 9/11 analogy dubyah keeps bringing up...

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by vampireuk
There is a slight difference between physics and peoples lives in a war:rolleyes:


Yeah, but between using a succesful last resort and ignoring it when it was sucessful there isn't a difference. But that would mean taking what i said in context..

Originally posted by vampireuk
ROFLMAO yes and he has been affected so much by those sanctions;) :p

So i guess we should go the route of inspections and more sanctions making the peoples lives yet worse still? Heres a crazy idea, how about we get rid of saddam and then when we know what the new leader is doing with aid, lift the sanctions!

Originally posted by 2fast4u
afaik most of them were to create more sanctions or frequent bombings

Prooving just how well internation diplomacy works.. or we could use that old thing that works well, despite the fact there are some downfalls to it. Ya know, force?

Originally posted by 2fast4u
hrm .. yes the inspectors are indeed sitting on their ass doing nothing.:rolleyes:

You see it too? Good, I'm not the only one :p

vamp:post edited to show the actual quote