Please don't vote for McCain

mfp1016

mfp1016

Member
I like how WMDs are now a bipartisan issue. I thought the US would always prevail because in the end both Democrats and Republicans agreed that something able to kill a lot of people is a WMD. Now the Democrats are lawyering what qualifies as a WMD?
You're right though Rylan, I'm pretty sure that when chemists synthesized mustard gas they were shooting for the "trampling effect" brought about by it, never mind the toxin issue.
 
mfp1016

mfp1016

Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2471741
Ok - Well why didn't we let the UN finish the job?
2nd there are other countries such as Libiya that supports Hamas and Hezbollah more than Iraq does or ever did, in fact this is their base location. - To further my point, its said that Iraq has had no credible link to al Qaeda which was something they tried to make us believe.
Third. Ok we did find gas left over... what it proves is that Iraq didn't or that we didn't destroy all the weapons we were supposed to in 1998. However, these biological weapons at this point were no longer harmful substances because the shelf life had expired years ealier. So I will acknowledge we did find some materials, however these things did not pose a risk.
We went to war because they said Iraq posted an immenant threat... which was not the case.. Our reason for war was political.
I believe Journeyman already provided several links showing that many successful terrorist attacks using mustard gas that had pasted its shelf life.
Rylan, to prove your point, if I gave you 100 year old mustard gas, would you let your family breath it?
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2471741
Ok - Well why didn't we let the UN finish the job?
2nd ....
Nope. My turn.
I answered your three questions, now you answer three of mine. (I'll address the numerous mistakes in this post by you at a later date)
Question #1. Summarize the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq passed by Congress found Here
Question #2. Which President is responsible for the accusations that Saddam had nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs restarted after Desert Strom?
Question #3. How long should Saddam have been given to comply with UN Inspectors?
 
mfp1016

mfp1016

Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2471741
Ok - Well why didn't we let the UN finish the job?
2nd there are other countries such as Libiya that supports Hamas and Hezbollah more than Iraq does or ever did, in fact this is their base location. - To further my point, its said that Iraq has had no credible link to al Qaeda which was something they tried to make us believe.
Rylan, I swear, son, you need to look stuff up before you start posting your crap. You can walk up to the head of Hamas and ask him, and he would tell you the group is Palestinian group.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2471741
Ok - Well why didn't we let the UN finish the job?
2nd there are other countries such as Libiya that supports Hamas and Hezbollah more than Iraq does or ever did, in fact this is their base location. - To further my point, its said that Iraq has had no credible link to al Qaeda which was something they tried to make us believe.
Third. Ok we did find gas left over... what it proves is that Iraq didn't or that we didn't destroy all the weapons we were supposed to in 1998. However, these biological weapons at this point were no longer harmful substances because the shelf life had expired years ealier. So I will acknowledge we did find some materials, however these things did not pose a risk.
We went to war because they said Iraq posted an immenant threat... which was not the case.. Our reason for war was political.

Ok I am game. But after this you must answer journey's question.
Let the U.N. finish the job? When did they ever start enforcing things on Iraq? They were like the mom who's child is out of control and all the say is "Johnny stop doing that please" over and over.
The leaders of libya have never PUBLICLY announced they would give 25,000 dollars to suicide bomber families. Also libya never fired on our planes or broke 17 u.n resolutions as well. (Try finding one other country that did EVERYTHING Iraq did). You have to keep this in percpective. I can find one country that may have done one or 2 of those things in the long list of reasons to go in, but they didn't do them all. And since we did go into Iraq, Libya has changed it's tune and stopped their weapons program. Cause and effect...they learned it.
No risk? Have you seen the effects of what just the vapors from one of those shells can do to a person? You have no clue what the hell you are talking about. Care if I send you some ten year old sarin in a box to your mailbox?
Define imminent threat......as I said he had 6 months to move the "goods" which it sounds more and more like is what happenned and syria is sitting on a huge stockpile....By our action...he no longer was imminent, at the time of the speech...he was..You can not deny he had them....75% of the U.s. agrees to that based off the U.N. people and bi-partisan people going through Sadaam's papers now.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
The "unbiased fair" UN or atleast its other members had major financial reasons not to deal with it. Sadaam was paying them off. That is why. We asked, they BSed around we said

[hr]
it, it needs to be done.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by mfp1016
http:///forum/post/2471760
I believe Journeyman already provided several links showing that many successful terrorist attacks using mustard gas that had pasted its shelf life.
Rylan, to prove your point, if I gave you 100 year old mustard gas, would you let your family breath it?
If I gave you a 100 year old ferminted egg would you eat it?
And no, as far as I know no one has posted anything about old gas...however I will
Scott Ritter stated that the WMDs Saddam had in his possession all those years ago has long since turned to harmless substances. Sarin and tabun have a shelf life of five years, VX lasts a bit longer (but not much longer), and finally botulinum toxin and liquid anthrax last about three years.[51].
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2471873
Ok I am game. But after this you must answer journey's question.
Let the U.N. finish the job? When did they ever start enforcing things on Iraq? They were like the mom who's child is out of control and all the say is "Johnny stop doing that please" over and over.
The leaders of libya have never PUBLICLY announced they would give 25,000 dollars to suicide bomber families. Also libya never fired on our planes or broke 17 u.n resolutions as well. (Try finding one other country that did EVERYTHING Iraq did). You have to keep this in percpective. I can find one country that may have done one or 2 of those things in the long list of reasons to go in, but they didn't do them all. And since we did go into Iraq, Libya has changed it's tune and stopped their weapons program. Cause and effect...they learned it.
No risk? Have you seen the effects of what just the vapors from one of those shells can do to a person? You have no clue what the hell you are talking about. Care if I send you some ten year old sarin in a box to your mailbox?
Define imminent threat......as I said he had 6 months to move the "goods" which it sounds more and more like is what happenned and syria is sitting on a huge stockpile....By our action...he no longer was imminent, at the time of the speech...he was..You can not deny he had them....75% of the U.s. agrees to that based off the U.N. people and bi-partisan people going through Sadaam's papers now.
Why do I have to bear the burden of proof for your statements... you should do that. And why are you arguing with the science ... if scientists/chemists say it is no longer harmful, why do you assume it still is... are you a chemist and what proof do you have?
Why would he move it to syria? What relationship do they have. 2nd, the same people who said he moved things to syria said they had mobile rv labs rolling around the desert.
who were these things an imminent threat to?
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2471904
The "unbiased fair" UN or atleast its other members had major financial reasons not to deal with it. Sadaam was paying them off. That is why. We asked, they BSed around we said

[hr]
it, it needs to be done.
So now our allies and UN members are being paid off by Iraq? What was it Oil for NUKES?
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2471873
Ok I am game. But after this you must answer journey's question.
Let the U.N. finish the job? When did they ever start enforcing things on Iraq? They were like the mom who's child is out of control and all the say is "Johnny stop doing that please" over and over.
The leaders of libya have never PUBLICLY announced they would give 25,000 dollars to suicide bomber families. Also libya never fired on our planes or broke 17 u.n resolutions as well. (Try finding one other country that did EVERYTHING Iraq did). You have to keep this in percpective. I can find one country that may have done one or 2 of those things in the long list of reasons to go in, but they didn't do them all. And since we did go into Iraq, Libya has changed it's tune and stopped their weapons program. Cause and effect...they learned it.
No risk? Have you seen the effects of what just the vapors from one of those shells can do to a person? You have no clue what the hell you are talking about. Care if I send you some ten year old sarin in a box to your mailbox?
Define imminent threat......as I said he had 6 months to move the "goods" which it sounds more and more like is what happenned and syria is sitting on a huge stockpile....By our action...he no longer was imminent, at the time of the speech...he was..You can not deny he had them....75% of the U.s. agrees to that based off the U.N. people and bi-partisan people going through Sadaam's papers now.
So lets go to war with Russia... they've been flying close to our borders and over our ships with bombers.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by mfp1016
http:///forum/post/2471766
Rylan, I swear, son, you need to look stuff up before you start posting your crap. You can walk up to the head of Hamas and ask him, and he would tell you the group is Palestinian group.
Huh? well I meant Lebanon not Libiya... point is still the same.
don't be a ___...
tell what the difference is...
Point is that there is a nation that supports terrorism or that has a territory occupied by terrorist... yet you want to wage a war because Saddamm said he would give money to a bombers family... This doesn't make sense. Another point is that those suicide bombers were attacking places in the middle east not here. 911 bombers were egyptian and saudi arabian and they got there resourses from afganistan and al al Qaeda... not hezbollah or Hamas.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2471761
Nope. My turn.
I answered your three questions, now you answer three of mine. (I'll address the numerous mistakes in this post by you at a later date)
Question #1. Summarize the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq passed by Congress found Here
Question #2. Which President is responsible for the accusations that Saddam had nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs restarted after Desert Strom?
Question #3. How long should Saddam have been given to comply with UN Inspectors?
Come on man... you are answering your own questions. Question 3 is something different. If they are UN Resolutions than they should be handled by the UN in the proper manner, if they are in charge of situation let them handle it. You mentioned they shot at our planes... did they take anyone out? I don't think this justifies a war that many americans have died in simply based on they shot at our planes.. A strike possibably, but not a full war.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Actually, I'm not sure all the nitty-gritty post-Iraq War reasons why it was a good idea to go to war matters. The selling point given to the American people was WMD which was an imminent threat to the USA. Bush pushed that, Congress endorsed that, and the majority of Americans came to believe it. And then there was none. Its a big pie in our face, because supposedly we have the highest tech, most sophisticated intelligence the world has ever known, yet, Saddam's lie (that he had WMDs) was bought hook, line and sinker. To those who were uncertain or didn't believe, it is a major Gotcha! For those who believed but now realize it was either bogus or a mistake, it is still a slap in the face, IMO. How can our intelligence make such a mistake?? Or did it make a mistake?
Conspiracy theories seem more and more plausible.
Now, will history judge bringing down Saddam as the best thing for the USA or even the world? Sen. Kerry is probably right, it depends on what comes of it. Wishy, washy, yeah, but still true. What will the results of this war mean for the USA 50 years from now? How will it have changed the world? For the good, or the bad? No one here or anywhere knows the answer to that yet. The thing is still playing out.
 
groupergenius

groupergenius

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2471927
Why do I have to bear the burden of proof for your statements... you should do that. And why are you arguing with the science ... if scientists/chemists say it is no longer harmful, why do you assume it still is... are you a chemist and what proof do you have?
Why would he move it to syria? What relationship do they have. 2nd, the same people who said he moved things to syria said they had mobile rv labs rolling around the desert.
who were these things an imminent threat to?
Rylan, I don't know if you remember...but. Iraq and Iran fought a brutal, dirty war for several years. Saddam used those WMD gasses against Iranian troops.
Wasn't very long after their conflict that lovely Saddam decided he wanted Kuwait. Ergo the US and several other countries join forces and kick Saddams booty. Just before the conflict began, Saddam sent his Air Force to Iran.
AND IRAN LET HIM!!!!!!!
 
groupergenius

groupergenius

Active Member
Originally Posted by Beth
http:///forum/post/2471974
Actually, I'm not sure all the nitty-gritty post-Iraq War reasons why it was a good idea to go to war matters. The selling point given to the American people was WMD which was an imminent threat to the USA. Bush pushed that, Congress endorsed that, and the majority of Americans came to believe it. And then there was none. Its a big pie in our face, because supposedly we have the highest tech, most sophisticated intelligence the world has ever known, yet, Saddam's lie (that he had WMDs) was bought hook, line and sinker. To those who were uncertain or didn't believe, it is a major Gotcha! For those who believed but now realize it was either bogus or a mistake, it is still a slap in the face, IMO. How can our intelligence make such a mistake?? Or did it make a mistake?
Conspiracy theories seem more and more plausible.
Now, will history judge bringing down Saddam as the best thing for the USA or even the world? Sen. Kerry is probably right, it depends on what comes of it. Wishy, washy, yeah, but still true. What will the results of this war mean for the USA 50 years from now? How will it have changed the world? For the good, or the bad? No one here or anywhere knows the answer to that yet. The thing is still playing out.
You can't deny the fact that Japan and Germany are a little nicer to deal with over the last 50 years. Jus' sayin'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top