Did saddam have...
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=136010
Printed Date: 11 July 2026 at 4:51pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Did saddam have...
Posted By: mysteriousone
Subject: Did saddam have...
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 6:02pm
|
Due to some pm's recieved by a forumer who shall remain unnamed *cough*linus*cough* i have decided to take a poll -------------  "Where is your beer tonight? I hope its a heineken."
Jesus is my savior |
Replies:
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 6:03pm
|
Jesus! Keep PMs, Private!!!! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Homer J
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 6:03pm
|
Maybe.
I was all for the war in the beginning, but now I see it as the right place, at the wrong time. |
Posted By: mysteriousone
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 6:05pm
|
Hades i am just curious as to what people think about my question: did he have them ------------- "Where is your beer tonight? I hope its a heineken."
Jesus is my savior |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 6:09pm
Pretty much the same here. I personally think clinton should have done this. I still suppport the war though, we got a dictator out of there, though we went to war with a different goal. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Homer J wrote:Posted By: procarbinefreak
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 6:13pm
no... we just wanted oil 
|
Posted By: Homer J
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 6:14pm
|
The main problem is that we had politicians running the war. If we would have had someone like Schwartzkopf as Secretary of Defense, instead of that politician Rumsfeld, we probably would have been out of there already.
Scwartzkopf would never take the position, though. |
Posted By: Killgore
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 6:54pm
|
Of course he did. He had the ones that the US sold to him to fight the Iranians. You guys don't remeber this.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ - Link ------------- 
|
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 6:55pm
| He had them, but by the time we got there, he shipped them to Iran and Syria. Sneaky bastard. |
Posted By: wvrunnera5
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 7:10pm
|
Well if he didn't have them, he sure was trying to get them and would possess them in the near future. And if he got them he'd just distribute them to terrorists who you know would use them first chance they got. And also, who's forgetting when Saddam murdered thousands of his own people by the use of chemical weapons? There's so much more but I don't want to get into it. ------------- Constipated people don't give a crap! |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 7:41pm
|
Does it really matter? If he did, he can't use them now. If he didn't we still suck.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 7:52pm
| The ultimate waste of time. Somehow mysterious manages to make a lot of threads/posts like this... |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 7:53pm
|
Yes, he had used them before on the Kurds, please. And we wont be out of Iraq for a while. I mean, look, we still arent out of korea! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors"> 
|
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 7:57pm
This thread: 
He didn't use 'em on us, there doesn't seem to any evidence of the ones Bush claimed, so why worry? |
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 7:58pm
------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 7:59pm
Why should we wait for an attack? We instituted a government, a Democratic one, this has started a chain reaction. Remember the "Red Scare"? When the US thoght that if comunism took root in aisia that it would spread? Well its just like that, but with democracy. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 8:02pm
| Dude...he lied to get us to go to war. You're saying that's OK? I agree-we did good stuff. This isn't a case of ends defines the means though. We were wrong about Communism, why do you think we're right now? |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 8:06pm
|
He didnt lie to get us to go to war. He is going off past precidents and information that he is givin by the CIA and NSA and other countries. People on the ground looking at this stuff.
And i think we are right because other countries are taking notice. The Saudie royal family is basicaly, very nervous. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 8:10pm
|
That's total crap. He is responsible for the actions of the people in his government. He chooses whether to act on the information. Obviously, his information was wrong. He was also obviously already planning to invade Iraq. I couldn't care less how nervous the Saudis are-what the heck do they do to me? Nothing, as far as I know. We've been in cahoots with them for years.
I do believe we did a good thing, but, again, the ends do not justify the means used here. Lieing to the American people is something that should not, and cannot, be tolerated. |
Posted By: wvrunnera5
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 8:31pm
|
Ok for the guys who think "well they didn't do anything to us before". That's not the point. Iraq, the Saudis, and everyone else who hates America probably won't directly attack us, your right. But what they will do is support the terrorists who WILL directly attack us. Every country knows that if they mess with America they're getting taken out. So they get terrorists to do the dirty work for them. So by fighting in the middle east and taking out countries that would help terrorists we're going straight to the problem. And for the people who think we've been there too long, if we leave with Iraq a total mess then everything will start over again and terrorism will strongly take hold in that country. And about Bush "lieing" or whatever your arguement is, I'm sure there's alot that the general public doesn't know about that could help you guys understand why we're fighting. Most people get their thoughts from the news which tell half-truths and only the bad stuff. Talk to soldiers who have faught there and ask them why they were fighting. Ask them if the war is justified or if they think it's right that we're over there. Most would agree with the war. ------------- Constipated people don't give a crap! |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 8:37pm
|
Lieing to the american public? You get lied to every day. If the government told you why they did what they did every single day, it would be a huge security risk. Quit whining about every little thing. Democrats voted to go to war just like everyone else. The government doesnt tell you crap, you dont have a clue whats going on, you just think you do. Quit complaining.
There have been secret wars going on since the 70s, only till recently did they ever get released to the public, the amount the american public has been lied to doesnt compare with anything your saying. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 9:02pm
|
OK, you're correct, I'll rephrase that.
Situationally, lieing is taking it too far here. We're talking about thousands of American lives, and tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Coalition lives. I don't think I know what's going on-I'm sure that I don't, for that matter. That doesn't mean I should just lay back and listen to the government. A democratic society cannot afford to be complacent. I'm fine with you thinking that it's fine for the government to lie. How 'bout joining the armed forces and putting your life on the line then? *EDIT* Most of those secret wars didn't cost nearly this many lives. Like I said, put your money where you mouth is. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 9:09pm
|
Are you serious? The secret wars didnt have people dying? Loas. Loas was worse than vietnam. The US has a plan to get rid of terorism. If they publicly oust a dictator of some corupt forign government as a stepping stone to a goal. I really dont care. They could tell me they are going in search of the tellitubies, i do not care. They are fighting terorism and using Iraq as bait and as a theater of operation. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: xteam
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 9:10pm
|
hmmmm -------------  |
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 9:17pm
|
Man, you really are good at putting words in my mouth.
Read what I said. Then reply. The number of people that die does matter. 150 is one heck of a lot less than 1500. Laos wasn't worse than Vietnam, not by a long shot. Get your facts straight. I'm fine with them lying to me about most things, really. I'm not fine with them lying to me about a military action that demeans our country in front of the world, gets thousands of our soldiers killed, thousands more injured, and takes even more money from us simply because someone wants to finish what daddy started. Whether or not that's what he's doing-he didn't tell the truth to get there. He knew it. It's one of those things where it only matters if you get caught. He was stupid, he got caught. Now it matters. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 9:22pm
|
You show your ignorance about these matters. You are saying Laos wasnt worse than vietnam? Vietnam was bad. Laos was much much much worse. Demeans our country? The only thing that demeans our country during this war is the way the media has swarmed all over this war.
Picking up where daddy started? Thats the dumbest thing i have ever heard. And its a war, people die. People get injured. Suck it up. The muslim jihadist movement declared open war on all US citizens on september 11th. It was their pearl harbor. Shut your mouth, and quit thinking about politics. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 9:40pm
Go do some actual research(why do I have to say this a second time?). I don't know who you're repeating, but you need desperate help from your history teacher. The only good thing coming out of this war is the fact that the media is swarming over it. The Bush administration has effectively bungled a whole crapload of things-somebody is responsible for keeping them in line, seeing how they don't even give an ear to the Democrats.
It's called slander. I'm using it. The man made a stupid decision-he deserves it. That said, explain to me why he's been trying to go war in Iraq since just after he was elected.
People need to stop comparing the two. Islamic jihadists aren't the sole population of the Middle East, much less part of a hugely aggressive, massively industrializing country. If they did, we'd be far worse off. Invading a country to capture a few thousand people is not the answer. The whole point of thinking before you go to war is because people die. That's what I've been saying this whole time. What the heck did you think I meant when I said that you should put your money where your mouth it? Stop acting like I'm an idiot. I obviously pose a threat to your logic-otherwise you wouldn't be fighting me, so I can't be stupid.
That just shows you've missed the point of this thread. What else is this war about except politics? Much less the belief in it's so called righteousness. *EDIT* Fixed some grammatical/typing errors. |
Posted By: Badsmitty
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 9:52pm
| I have noticed that the war drums are beating a lot less loudly here on the forum. |
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 9:54pm
|
<---Has become far less disgustingly conservative.
That might be part of it. I have a big mouth, you hear it a lot around here. |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 10:08pm
| Yeah, he had them at one time. But not within the past 5 to 10 years. |
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 10:15pm
Wait, do hand grenades count?
|
Posted By: agentwhale007.
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 10:22pm
|
If this poll would have been asked 2 years ago the responce would be different.... ------------- Hey, nice marmot!  |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 10:23pm
| Yeah, hindsight is always 20/20. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 10:23pm
|
There's a chance the weapons were moved to Syria or neighboring countries. We know he had nerve gas, and we know he had the contacts to get them. And I believe it was stated by President Bush that we had convincing evidence that he had WMD's. He showed us the evidence he had-which happened to be faulty. The 911 commission proved that there were communication problems between the CIA, FBI, and other government groups. Besides, we had greater reasons to invade Iraq other than WMD's-no need to go into all of them, but there's no telling how many lives we saved. That said, let me also say that I believe this war was planned before 9/11. I believe that it was the President's goal, and he acted upon the evidence that he had before him far too hastily. I have said this many times, and it lowered my trust in him as a leader. I still, however, prefer him over the alternative, and I'm still a conservative. I'm simply not a Bush-bot. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 10:26pm
|
Stratoaxe has defined my position very well(are you sure you aren't in my head?).
I do prefer him over the alternative, because if Kerry had been president, a whole lot more Iraqis would be dying now, because there would be no one trying to create order. I've had enough of places like Somalia, the Congo, South Africa, and all the other places the West has destroyed. You're also right whale-but 2 years ago is a long time. Two years ago I was 13. I came to this forum less than 2 years ago. I don't think I gave a rat's tail about this stuff either. |
Posted By: wvrunnera5
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 10:26pm
|
Alright, I'm glad some of you understand that we (the general public) know little about what goes on during this war. Understanding that you should also understand that there may be reason we do not know about that caused us to go to war with Iraq. Possibly they were an even GREATER threat for some reason that we do not know about but the government does, who knows. The point is the government is top dog and they know the most and I believe there's enough evidence that I trust this is a justified war. As for our soldiers dieing. OK, I honestly feel sorry for every family who has lost a loved-one, but this is war if some of you have forgotten. And soldiers along with innocent lives will die, but if we didn't do anything, even more innocence would've died and lived a life of fear for many years. And our number of casualties is far less than of any other war before us. As I said before, I feel sorry for every family who lost someone, but this has been kept to a minimum for a war. ------------- Constipated people don't give a crap! |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 10:41pm
| There is no truth to you saying that if Kerry was president then this or that would happen. So spare everyone the guessing. Simply put, we went in on faulty information, and now we should start to pull out. We've been there too long and have had too many die, on both sides. Now there is a time for a regime change, it just happens to be our regime that needs it. |
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 10:50pm
|
I said "I believe". What more do you want?
I'm questioning the ethics behind the war, not the good it does. I truly believe we are helping the Iraqi people(my friend just went back to Jordan yesterday, her family used to live in Iraq, she wrote a book called Thura's Diary. There's one way the war has been bad...), but we went about it wrong. Times have changed. Communication has changed, and the government can't get away with as much anymore. The people are the regulators here. |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 10:52pm
| I understand that after the bombs fall, some good can and will come of it. However, I do not think it was worth it. It is true that Saddam and his sons were bad people; however, it was not our place to step in with our military and kill soldiers and civillians over there. |
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 10:58pm
|
Well, if there had been WMDs threatening Israel(to get back on topic), would it have been OK? To support an ally?
Either way, we're there now. What we're doing is generally positive. If we pull out now, we cause a lot more havoc. It's time to rap it up, and come home. That might take some time. |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 11:00pm
|
They've had enough time. We hold the territory by occupation only. They don't want us to run their government too. It's time to funnel money and engineers to help them, but let them start their government without our intrusion. I have a beef with Israel anyways. Their inability to cooperate with the Palestinians have made me believe it's better off if they fight alone. |
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 11:02pm
|
'Tis true. I agree-but we need some allies.
That said, I don't think they're quite ready for us to leave. Collapse now would be really bad. Like, billions of dollars bad. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 11:41pm
|
I'd like to put forth a theory here, if I may, to add a little substance to why we're still in Iraq- Our current state of mind regarding the military has been influenced heavily by two different conflicts-Vietnam and Desert Storm. In every war/conflict we fight, there will be "flashbacks" to Vietnam. Namely with our government who had egg on their face not only because we lost so many of our lives, but it was a foreign relations diasaster. We gave South Vietnam our word to continue supplying weapons and funding after we withdrew our troops. So not only did we loose lives in vain, we failed to either keep communism from taking over South Vietnam or keep our promise to continue supporting the South Vietnamese. Now, you might wonder what I just said has to do with our current situation. We can not afford another Vietnam. If we leave now, this could possibly be just that. Assuming the Iraqi people still can't keep their own country under control, and we pull out troops right now, we'll have the worst political disaster on our hands since Vietnam. So in the eyes of our government, continuing to keep at least a presence of military in Iraq for a little while anyway is the only sensible option. It might be easy to say "Pull out now", and granted I have a brother in the Army, not to mention all of the other people with relatives in the army, but I can't justify taking the chance on losing the lives we've lost thus far in vain. -------------
|
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 11:41pm
|
Ok, the key thing here is that Bush was led to believe that his faulty information was true. I
like analogies, so here is one: Say Linus came on here and
informed me he was a girl. Then, his sister came on here and told
me the same thing. Likewise with his cousin. So right now, I think Linus is a girl and have many sources to prove it. I am suprised, and rightfully so, so I make a thread about it. In said thread, I lead everyone to believe Linus is a girl.
Some time goes on, and people keep believing the same thing. Then
one day a long time later, someone comes on here with proof that Linus
is infact, not a girl. Am I to be blamed for misleading the forum, when I was only acting on "solid" evidence from many sources? This is basicly what is happening now with Bush and the WMDs. Pariel: He did not use his WMDs on us because he knew that if he did that would simply prove he had them, and the entire world would be backing us. That is about the opposite of what he wanted at that moment. |
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 21 June 2005 at 11:50pm
|
Well, either way he loses, I don't see why he didn't go out with a bang.
Either way, no matter how blown up the whole WMD thing was, it's his government, so shouldn't he take responsibility? I understand maybe that's taking it a little too far, but I think it makes sense, especially with his views on the subject. He does seem to think he's got everything under control(OK, maybe that's Ashcroft...). Either way, it's a nasty mess. Good analogy. I guess it makes sense. I'm not really sure how many people would have complained if he'd used those chemical weapons on Isreal or in self-defense either. I don't think they'd yell at us for going in if he did...but either way, I just can't put Saddam and going out as quietly as his means allow together. The opposite makes significantly more sense, seeing how he blatantly violated UN treaties for a decade. Eh, it's bed time. I'm not even sure if the above is coherent. |
Posted By: wvrunnera5
Date Posted: 22 June 2005 at 12:25am
|
Although I do still believe that Saddam has either had WMD or was trying to get them, Hysteria has a point. And to what you were saying Pariel, I don't think Saddam "went out with a bang" because, well, I don't think he could. I mean we went in there and just kicked butt. Our first targets were probably things to disable Iraq's military and Saddam was most likely running the whole time. I mean, we did find him in a hole lol. And I agree with the ones that say pulling out now would leave the country pretty much defensless. And no matter how much it sucks that we have to be over there fighting, it is necessary and we must complete the job 100% no matter what or else it would all be for nothing. ------------- Constipated people don't give a crap! |
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 22 June 2005 at 12:46am
He probably didn't use them, because he figured now is not the time. He assumed he would be back in power at a later date, so he might aswell save face for the time being. He did what? Violated the UN treaties? Which treaties? Would those happen to be the same treaties that ordered him to destroy his WMDs? The very same WMDs you are claiming he didn't have? Isn't it kind of hard to violate a treaty for a decade, if you are infact not violating it? You just completly opposed youself. |
Posted By: hashi2008
Date Posted: 22 June 2005 at 2:10am
|
I just wanted to coment on a few points. First off, Sadam could have had the weapons, and just shipped them out. He had time. Secondly, we support Israel because they hate our enemies, and they have nukes in the middle east. Another thing I wanted to say is that we need to stay in and see to it that Iraq can establish a stable and productive government. If we just leave, they are likely to do the same thing that Afganastan did, and end up fighting each other and allowing terrorist groups to infect the area. As for Sadam, he is crazy, you have to realize that. He is one of the most arogant leaders of modern governments, and thought he could acctualy weazle his way out of this war like the last. The man is an evil genious. ------------- Founder of the "Forumers Against the Ugly Woman Sigs" also known as FAUWS. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 June 2005 at 9:08am
If anyone denies that then they are even more ignorant then they say Bush is. Cedric, You don't deserve to live in America... called patriotism, be part of it sometime. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 June 2005 at 9:13am
That it clearly making fun of me, no matter which way you spin it. And how'd you know I had a sister -------------
|
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 22 June 2005 at 9:21am
|
This is how much I actually care.
Yeah that is right. I personally dont. As for if we should be in Iraq? I dont have a problem with it because from my small limited info on the topic, the Iraqi people are eventually going to come out ahead. -------------
|
Posted By: Lil' Joe Boogie
Date Posted: 22 June 2005 at 9:48am
|
Well.
Whatever conclusions everyone comes up with is their opinion. The fact remains that we have troops over their and what they need right now is our support. I have been here for over 2 years now. I see the faces on them as they go out on patrol or convoy. Every day the main bases get incoming mortars and rockets. 2 of my team members were hit by a mortar last week. They were very lucky. To cut and undermind our country or government just creates a fury to these F@#$%& insurgents and rebels that they are winning. It is in the papers daily about other countries and even our own people slamming what has happened. Support...people...is what our guys and gals need over here. And to me, most of them are just kids. ------------- Lil' Joe Boogie A-5 |
Posted By: agentwhale007.
Date Posted: 22 June 2005 at 9:50am
|
^^ Do not filter dodge. ------------- Hey, nice marmot! |
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 22 June 2005 at 10:42am
Well, you are the first person who popped into my head. I ment no offence by it. Plus at the end, I said that someone proved you were a manly man. I knew you had a sister becasue I'm stalking you. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 June 2005 at 10:50am
|
So that's what that rustling noise outside my window is every night!
Why not just knock on the door, we can play some pool... Whale, Lil > you... Insurgants are bastards and we should be able to call them what we want. -------------
|
Posted By: Bango
Date Posted: 22 June 2005 at 11:43am
|
Saddmam is a fan of Doritos, not Froot Loops though. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/21/saddam.guards.ap/index.html - http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/21/saddam.guards.ap/i ndex.html ------------- http://imageshack.us"> 
|