WMD's found in Iraq

[epicstruggle]

Turns out the Weapons of Mass Death were just plain guns. They took out over 300,000 thousand lives. Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3253783.stm
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2003-11/08/article10.shtml
for more sources:http://news.google.com/news?q=Hodgkinson&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wn

Seems like Saddam had hundreds of thousands of people shot in the head. And thats just what we have found in the mass graves we have located right now. How many more are out there?

later,
epic

 

[Slides]

Maybe Iraq needs gun control legislation

 

[Willmeister]

It's really nice that people started to notice Saddam's killing sprees. It's not like a US senate proposed legislation against Iraq which the Reagan White House threatened to veto if it managed to get that far...

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/battle.html

Saddam's crimes only became 'known' after he invaded Kuwait it seems. Hussein probably killed a lot more than 300,000. The final number probably wouldn't surprise me in the least.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It's really nice that people started to notice Saddam's killing sprees.

Yeah...we're just damned if we do, and damned if we don't. That's OK, we're used to being treated that way.

 

[nutball]

It's really nice that people started to notice Saddam's killing sprees.

Yeah...we're just damned if we do, and damned if we don't. That's OK, we're used to being treated that way.

Well if you just did or you just didn't, that would probably be OK by most folks in the world. Trouble is, you do both.

 

[fbg1]

Maybe Iraq needs gun control legislation

The whole reason this happend in the first place is b/c of Sadam's absolute gun-control legislation. Do you think this could have happened if every Iraqi had an AK-47 under his pillow and a Glock on his hip? As Hitler once instructed:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -Adolph Hitler 1938

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Well if you just did or you just didn't, that would probably be OK by most folks in the world. Trouble is, you do both.

Yeah...again...we either do both, or we do neither, or we do one or the other. Doesn't matter....we'll be blasted either way.

 

[Tahir2]

Well if you just did or you just didn't, that would probably be OK by most folks in the world. Trouble is, you do both.

Yeah...again...we either do both, or we do neither, or we do one or the other. Doesn't matter....we'll be blasted either way.

Mainly because American foreign policies are not consistent - it engenders a lack of trust.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Mainly because American foreign policies are not consistent - it engenders a lack of trust.

Shouldn't be surprsing when we have potentially very different leadership every 4 or 8 years.

Also, I hope you are not implying that only U.S. foreign policy is inconsistent?

 

[ByteMe]

[

Mainly because American foreign policies are not consistent - it engenders a lack of trust.

My ass. You are just too ignorant to see the "total package".

 

[Tahir2]

Do you have a problem with your ass? Maybe you should see a Doctor instead of yelling 'My ass' to everyone here.

 

[ByteMe]

Do you have a problem with your ass? Maybe you should see a Doctor instead of yelling 'My ass' to everyone here.

Well, not that this is the place to say... but I like my ass.

 

[epicstruggle]

Mainly because American foreign policies are not consistent - it engenders a lack of trust.

I guess we should do what the middle east have done over the last few decades and have an unelected ruling party and screw democracy. That surely will at least give us a consistent foreign policy. BTW foreign policy stands can change in less than 4 years, every 2 years congress *could* swing from one party to another, forcing the president to change what he might be able to do.

later,
epic

 

[Slides]

The whole reason this happend in the first place is b/c of Sadam's absolute gun-control legislation. Do you think this could have happened if every Iraqi had an AK-47 under his pillow and a Glock on his hip? As Hitler once instructed:

Trouble is that a lot of Iraqis do have guns and apparently not afraid to use them, as recent violence indicates. The Kurds had guns and used them, but they didn't stand a chance against the Iraqi Army and chemical weapons.

 

[pax]

Nice package byteme... lets let them get slaughtered and care about it 20 years later...

 

[ByteMe]

Nice package byteme... lets let them get slaughtered and care about it 20 years later...

Part of me wants to help the parts of the world that need it. But then a part of me does not want to help the stoopid/ignorant/greedy/corrupt/lazy people that allowed this to happen in their country.

And then throw on top of that the very UNWISE europeans that like to bitch about everyone and everything. You would think that they would learn from their own history.

Maybe we should invade france, take it over and force immigrate the french bastards to the middle east.

YEA, so what. I just don't give a shit.

But since that line of thought won't do anyone any good I hope we use enough effort to make sure iraq is a success.

And I am still betting the whole isreal thing will blowup into a big war before anything gets "settled".

Maybe we should give them all guns and tell them to fight if they want, otherwise get the hell out of the way. After the fighting is done, the USA and israel get whatever land they want in the middle east.

Naa, that won't work either. Screw it... nuke em.

 

[Fred]

Kinda silly to compare the situations that Reagan was in at the time, and the one even George Sr was in.

Iraq was an unwitting ally against Iran, which was judged ot be a more serious threat (at the time) by most people.

 

[pax]

No its not silly because the us is a SUPERPOWER... when it makes choices to support genocidal tyrants for a temp cause and incures public wrath over it just to save a few bucks or a few us soldiers lives it usually ends up biting them in the ass big time later.

 

[ByteMe]

No its not silly because the us is a SUPERPOWER... when it makes choices to support genocidal tyrants for a temp cause and incures public wrath over it just to save a few bucks or a few us soldiers lives it usually ends up biting them in the ass big time later.

The USA is the ONLY superpower. And the so called "temp cause" was the freaking freedom of the world vs. communision. So if the USA had to make a few choices that flocked-up a few small piss-ant countries that were flocked up by their own people anyways, who gives a shit?

It is an easy choice between a few USA citizens lives or some lives in a country run by corrupt tyrants. Everyone is responsible and should fix their own crap.

As far as "caring" what the rest of the world thinks. Do you think the USA would be #1 if we followed the poor example from the rest of the world? We are THE superpower, we must of done something right.

 

[Johnny_Physics]

Kinda silly to compare the situations that Reagan was in at the time, and the one even George Sr was in.

Iraq was an unwitting ally against Iran, which was judged ot be a more serious threat (at the time) by most people.

Iran wasn't a threat, they couldn't have been.
If Iran was a threat then the US wouldn't have sold them weapons under the table to circumvent the weapons embargo held againt Iran during the 80s, right? That would be a pretty stupid thing to do, right?

But what do I know, the US might just be blithering idiots after all. 8)