No WMD!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

vote Lib Dem.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
1. Sadam has had WMD, he's used WMD, he acted as if he stlil got WMD. He never proved he got rid of his WMD, not even when the UN (including Germany, Russia, France and China) told him to do. years long Sadam frustrated the inspections, somtimes by not letting the inspectors enter at all, sometimes by handling wrong information, and all the time by not cooperating at all. (eventhough the UN (including Germany, Russia, China and France) told him so.

So? Neither John Ritter nor Hans Blix found any evidence of BCN weapons (the term "WMD" is highly inaccurate, and it is only used to scare the ignorant). Blix also maintained there was progress with the weapons inspection process. Mr Bush just got "impatient."

Originally posted by CyberShy
If we know he has used them twice (Iran, Kurds) and we cannot be sure he doesn't have them, we cannot take the risk.

Who are "we?" Saddam did not ever attack the West directly or indirectly.

Originally posted by CyberShy
2. Sadam supported terrorism. We cannot be sure if there were bounds between Al Qa'ida and Sadam.

Proof? Evidence?

Originally posted by CyberShy
Though there were contacts in the past, and we cannot be sure that these contacts may not be remade in the future.

The CIA was in contact with Usama bin Laden as well. Does that mean the US supports terrorism?

Originally posted by CyberShy
More since we are sure that Saddam supported terrorism in Israel by donating $25000 to the family of every suicide bomber.

How is that support of terrorism?

Originally posted by CyberShy
For sure since we couldn't be sure about #1, #1 in combination with #2, for sure after 9/11, is a good reason to take away the risk.

So where's the link between Saddam and the 911 attack again?

Originally posted by CyberShy
Though the rapport said more, it said that Sadam was very eager to continue working on these programs as soon as the oil-for-food program would have ended and all UN resolutions would have stopped.

Intention to work on programmes making BCN weapons is not the same as having these programmes, let alone having these weapons. Next.

Originally posted by CyberShy
Therefor either we must chose to continue with these sanctions untill Sadam died (and most obviously would be succeeded by one of his sons), including the horrible concequentions for his people. Or we must indeed take away the UN resolutions, and face Sadam building new WMD again.

A false dilemma based on guesstimations.

Originally posted by CyberShy
4. Another reason for Sadam to stop invading countries (Iran, Quweit) or the kurds since 1992 / 1993 is the presence of american and british troups in Saudi Arabia and both no-fly zones in Iraq. (there were no Russian, german, french or chinese troups to maintain peace for 12 long years!!!!)

1. The "No Fly Zones" were blatantly illegal.
2. This is a total speculation.

Originally posted by CyberShy
5. Nuclear weapons were not available for Sadam. Fortunately! Though, what do you want? Another Kim Jon Il as in North Korea? Did the world not learn to invade the maniac-country BEFORE it has these weapons, since when it has the weapons invading is no option anymore?

So he was guilty before shown that way? Suspcion is enough reason to kill somebody?

Originally posted by CyberShy
6. Sadam has killed between 500000 and 1000000 people during his 30+ years reign. How is that not a reason for any pacifist to remove him?

I don't know about these numbers, but the US helped put him in there and kept him there. I don't remember anybody was having a problem with Saddam when he was a good US lackey.

Originally posted by CyberShy
7. What's the alternative? Is there any other option? Do you guys really prefer Sadam in Iraq above a free Iraq?

who are you to decide what should happen in Iraq? Have you no respect for self-determination?

Originally posted by CyberShy
How much better would things have been IF Russia, France, Germany would have participated. If the world could've acted TOGETHER against Iraq, instead of powerplay by France (if Chiraq's not in charge, he will not cooperate. Everyone knows that it's France who's the actuall wannabe-important one.) (how can anybody prefer Chiraq above Bush, that's a true riddle to me)

Everyone knew the real reason why Mr Bush wanted to invade, and everybody wasn't convinced by his excuse for the invasion.

[Random ramblings, fallacies, and other gibberish removed]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Retreating the soldiers from the ME and SA would've been the populair thing to do. On short terms. It may have lead to a real rampage in the ME.

What do you think is happening in Iraq?

Originally posted by CyberShy
But now Syrie, Sudan and even Iran have chosen the more democratic way.

Originally posted by CyberShy
I cannot understand how all you wanna-be smart guys always fail to address them though you still claim victory.

They were refuted a billions times.

[Ned]

And, of course Morbius, Bush knew there were no WMD, just as the whole of the left states as fact, because the left is equally convinced that WMD were just a pretext anyway. The real reason for the Iraq invasion was America's imperialist need to dominate Iraqi oil. So, it is also true, is it not, that Bush and his neo-con allies are all a bunch of liars.

Right?

[Robert]

Finally someone who's addressing my arguments
I knew I could count on you, UR!

(the term "WMD" is highly inaccurate, and it is only used to scare the ignorant).

Whatever you want to name them.
Overhere in The Netherlands we call them ABC weapons. (Atomic, Biological and Chemical weapons)

So? Neither John Ritter nor Hans Blix found any evidence of BCN weapons

Blix reported that Sadam wasn't cooperating.
Indeed, there were no weapons found. But there was not trace of what happened to the weapons of which we know they have existed.

Blix also maintained there was progress with the weapons inspection process. Mr Bush just got "impatient."

Things were indeed getting better after time proceeded. Though we all know that Sadam was very keen on playing games. First steal much time, then cooperate a little more, just to satisfy the french and the germans. And we know as well that the cooperation could slow down dramatically again within days.

Games Sadam has played with the UN for years.
How much more years did we have to wait?
Fortunately Bush became impatient.

Not to mention that many many american troops were apparantly nessecary for Sadam to cooperate 'slightly more'. What if the troups would have been removed again? You know what would've happened.

In fact that means that the US should kept it's many many troops overthere to keep controlling Sadam. For another 12 years?

quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
If we know he has used them twice (Iran, Kurds) and we cannot be sure he doesn't have them, we cannot take the risk.

UR: Who are "we?" Saddam did not ever attack the West directly or indirectly.

So, if the western countries are attacked we should react. But if people from Iran or Quweit or the Kurds are being attacked we should not care?
Sounds like Chiraq and Schroder or Putin Talking. Not to mention the chinese.

This comment is really disturbing.
I should only care if my wife is being raped. If it's my neighbours wife I should not interfere. Is that what you mean?

quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
2. Sadam supported terrorism. We cannot be sure if there were bounds between Al Qa'ida and Sadam.

UR: Proof? Evidence?

That's what I said: we cannot be sure.
Read my words UR, don't scan them

quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
Though there were contacts in the past, and we cannot be sure that these contacts may not be remade in the future.

UR: The CIA was in contact with Usama bin Laden as well. Does that mean the US supports terrorism?

The CIA didn't support terrorism when supporting OBL. It supported the afghani people to free themselves from Russia.

Sadam is a maniac. Absolutely not comparable to the CIA. Though you are right if you say that the CIA should've never supported OBL to start with.

The conclusion still stands that a maniac who's eager to support terrorism may support groups in the future to attack the US or any other western country.
This may be Al Qa'ida, though that's not very likely since Sadam and OBL didn't really get along.

quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
More since we are sure that Saddam supported terrorism in Israel by donating $25000 to the family of every suicide bomber.

UR: How is that support of terrorism?

I would feel quiet supported to commit a suicidal attack if I knew that my wife would get $25000.

Intention to work on programmes making BCN weapons is not the same as having these programmes, let alone having these weapons. Next.

What are you? A lawyer?
A maniac is being controlled for over 12 years. He killed over 500,000 people. (low estimate)
We must either continue to control him untill he dies since we can be quiet certain that he will continue to kill many more people as soon as he's uncontrolled again.

I'd say having intentions to work on programmes to make BCN weapons is worse enough.
For sure if it's done by someone who's proven to actually do it and use them in the past.

It's not as if my neighbour who's a total lunatic dreams during night about building one big nuke to bomb New York city.

Only a lawyer would say: "He's not working on it, he's only making plans, set the good man free!"

quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
Therefor either we must chose to continue with these sanctions untill Sadam died (and most obviously would be succeeded by one of his sons), including the horrible concequentions for his people. Or we must indeed take away the UN resolutions, and face Sadam building new WMD again.

UR: A false dilemma based on guesstimations.

Sadam's evil is no 'guesstimate' Urban Ranger.
His evil has been showed to the world for the past 30 years.
It is no guesstimate that someone who's used BCN weapons in the past and only apparantly stopped producing them under strict UN sanctions and US/UK border patrol will use them again as soon as these restrictions would be lifted.

And even if we can't be certain (which is true) we should not take that risk.
Would you trust your wife to be together with a serial raper alone? Even if he's been in prison for the past 12 years?

Sure we can't be sure that the raper will strike again.

1. The "No Fly Zones" were blatantly illegal.

Laywer.
Ask the people from Quweit or the Kurds if they care if they were illegal?
If my neighbour has been kicking my children in my backyard several times I will for sure hit him on his nose as soon as he shows up in my yard again. Either if it's illegal or not.

Only a laywer would claim that the no-fly zones would be illegal after what happened to the Kurds.

quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
4. Another reason for Sadam to stop invading countries (Iran, Quweit) or the kurds since 1992 / 1993 is the presence of american and british troups in Saudi Arabia and both no-fly zones in Iraq. (there were no Russian, german, french or chinese troups to maintain peace for 12 long years!!!!)

UR: 2. This is a total speculation.

It's no speculation.
1988: Iraq invades Iran
1991: Iraq invades Quweit
1991: Iraq attacks Israel with rockets

1992 - 2003: Iraq invades no country while US/UK troups guard it's borders.
Though Sadam does surpress his own people and does attack minority groups within his own territory.

Of course we can never be sure.
Pherhaps Sadam would have changed into that peace loving friendly man after 1991. We could have tried that of course by not putting any sanctions and restrictions on the pour man. We could've trusted him because of his big blue puppy eyes.

And I start to worry that you might have done so.
Oh well, he was only a treath to his neighbours, not to any country in the west. You're right, we should not care that much.

quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
5. Nuclear weapons were not available for Sadam. Fortunately! Though, what do you want? Another Kim Jon Il as in North Korea? Did the world not learn to invade the maniac-country BEFORE it has these weapons, since when it has the weapons invading is no option anymore?

UR: So he was guilty before shown that way? Suspcion is enough reason to kill somebody?

He was already guilty because he invaded Iran, invaded Quweit, used chemical weapons twice.
We're not talking about your innocent newborn baby who may build nuclear weapons into the far future.

We're talking about a man who was already guilty for 25 years Urban Ranger.

And indeed, suspicion for a man who has killed hundreds of thousands is a very good thing.
For sure if he was asked to show his innocence for more then a decade, and he failed to do so.

Would you not be suspicious if Hanibal Lecter entered your living room?

quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
6. Sadam has killed between 500000 and 1000000 people during his 30+ years reign. How is that not a reason for any pacifist to remove him?

UR: I don't know about these numbers, but the US helped put him in there and kept him there. I don't remember anybody was having a problem with Saddam when he was a good US lackey.

The US dropped their support as soon as they saw how awefull Sadam was acting during the first gulfwar (against Iran)
We know today that the US has done wrong in those days. We know it with the knowledge of today.
In those days we were more afraid of the ayatola's in Iran. Those are still a threath btw.

The thing is that you cannot blame me for being a friend in my childhood with someone who became a serial killer later. You could blame me if I would stay his friend, while knowing what he was doing.
Though fortunately that's not the case with the US / Sadam.

quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
7. What's the alternative? Is there any other option? Do you guys really prefer Sadam in Iraq above a free Iraq?

UR: who are you to decide what should happen in Iraq? Have you no respect for self-determination?

So, you have no alternative. And as an excuse you claim that we should respect the self-determination of Iraq?
As if Iraq had any self-determination during Sadam.
Sadam determined what happened with Iraq. Not the Iraqi people.

In fact right now the Iraqi people finally can self-determine. This is giving problems right now. They have sort things out indeed. (like about every western modern society had to sort things out in the past. Bloody wars, unfortunately)
It's hard. I wish things would be different. Though history has learned that freedom unfortunately has to be paid for by blood

This would've happened anyway one day. Either after Sadam died, his son died or another collapse of the system. It's horrible. But it's not to blame to the americans. The only ones who are to blame for that are the terrorists in Iraq.

But as the elections showed, the Iraqi people can FINALLY determine what happens to their country themselves. Have you no respect for that?

Everyone knew the real reason why Mr Bush wanted to invade, and everybody wasn't convinced by his excuse for the invasion.

Which was?
In fact I don't care what his excuse was.
Even if it was so he could be rich, famous and be remembered forever in history.
I only care that a good thing has happened. I don't care if it has been done by bad, evil or horrific intentions.

To make a wonderfull example again.
If my wife is being raped while I'm away, and my neighbours breaks into our home to end it because the banging of her head against the wall disturbs his favourite movie, I'm happy he did so.

quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
Retreating the soldiers from the ME and SA would've been the populair thing to do. On short terms. It may have lead to a real rampage in the ME.

UR: What do you think is happening in Iraq?

Slowly the country is becoming democratic.
This unfortunately doesn't happen within 3 weeks.
Though it seems like they're going to do it much quicker then we in Europe ever did.

quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
I cannot understand how all you wanna-be smart guys always fail to address them though you still claim victory.

UR: They were refuted a billions times.

On the messageboard: http://www.idonotexistatallbutinurbanrangersmind.com

Look at this thread. Only you are capable to reply to my posts. The rest of them is big mouthing and blindly following people like you and Michael Moore. (I know you're flattered right now )

Are you not very disturbed that you're into the same camp as them?

Oh, you failed to address these arguments:
(all quotes by CyberShy)

6. Sadam has killed between 500000 and 1000000 people during his 30+ years reign. How is that not a reason for any pacifist to remove him?

You replied to this, but you didn't address the point.
You said something like: "Once america was his allie"
Which may be true but doesn't remove the fact that Sadam has killed hundreds of thousands of people, and how that's not a reason to remove him.

7. What's the alternative?

You replied to this, but you didn't address my point.
Or you must factually mean that the stalemath of those days should have lasted for another 12? 20? years?

That's an interesting alternative!

Have all you anti-war protestors voiced strong against the French militairy action Coast d'Ivoire? The Chinese actions in Tibet? Their hostility agains Taiwan?
Did you guys protest against the Russian actions in Tsjetsjenie? Against the actions of Sadam himself?
Did you go to the streets with tens of thousands to protest against the muslim-leaders in the middle east?

Thanks for responding.
A healthy debate is much better then the clueless big mouthing the rest of your camp prefers to do. I do respect you for that! But like I said, I already expected you to do so. When I saw "Urban Ranger" as last reply in the forum overview I already knew I finally got some response!

CyberShy

[Qilue]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Look at this thread. Only you are capable to reply to my posts. The rest of them is big mouthing and blindly following people like you and Michael Moore. (I know you're flattered right now )

My posts (the non-peanut gallery type) was more of a rant about Jackboot Johnny aka The sawn off little d***head in Canberra aka G.W. Bush's other sidekick aka The Right(not) (Dis)Honourable John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia.

Oh dear, I've done it again.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Qilue


My posts (...) was more of a rant (...)

stop ranting, start contributing to the debate.
(of course one may always rant between the serious lines! which is a height advantage of giving serious replies!)

[Ned]

Yeah Cyber, Morbius can make statements as "everyone knows why Bush invaded Iraq." But, when one asks the question, "Just what, pray tell, is that reason," you get silence. No response at all.

I will always remember an interveiw with one of the Democrat nominee contestants that said something similar. Bush lied, etc., etc. Chris Matthews then asked the contestant why the president went to war? The contestant began to respond, then caught herself, and responded, "I don't know." Matthews wouldn't give up though. No matter how he asked, the contestant wouldn't answer the question. Finally, Matthews said,

"Well, if you don't know why the president went to war, how can you criticized his reasons?"

The contestant looked confused and dumbfounded.

No democrat has ever been able to answer these questions honestly. They continue with "He lied." They never explain how he lied.

Democrat positions are nothing more that talking points endlessly repeated. They are statements devoid of basis, bald assertions without meaning, factual assertions without support.

Lies! Lies! and more Lies!

[Dinner]

Dumiya's patsy in the CIA Tenet has said that he regrets saying it would be a "slam dunk" to find WMD in Iraq ("It was the dumbest thing I ever said"). Tenet admites that the CIA really had nothing to go on and "We were nearly bankrupt." when it came to information about Iraq. Dispite getting up on national TV and telling the American people he had secret evidence which proved there were WMDs in Iraq Tenet still says he didn't lie. :hmm:

Tenet says he regrets 'slam dunk' comment

Thursday, April 28, 2005 Posted: 10:17 AM EDT (1417 GMT)

KUTZTOWN, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Former CIA Director George Tenet said he regretted assuring President Bush in 2002 that he had "slam dunk" evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"Those were the two dumbest words I ever said," Tenet told about 1,300 people at a Kutztown University forum Wednesday.

The theory was a leading justification for the war in Iraq.

Such weapons were never found.

Tenet, who left the CIA in July after seven years as director, also said apathy toward terrorism -- including congressional restrictions and budget and personnel cuts -- had sapped U.S. intelligence efforts for most of the last decade.

"The atrophy was tremendous," said Tenet, 52. "We were nearly bankrupt."

The CIA's assessment of Iraq's capabilities was not developed "for political reasons or a craven desire to lead the country to war," he said.

Tenet, a trusted Bush adviser, made the weapons remark in December 2002, during one of his frequent intelligence briefings with the president.

Unsure that Americans would find a CIA listing of evidence compelling, Bush turned to Tenet. "It's a slam-dunk case," Tenet said.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/28/tenet.weaponsremark.ap/index.html

[Ned]

It is clear that the CIA was not giving the presidents, both Clinton and Bush, the full story on WMDs.

But this does not mean that Bush lied, in the words of Air America, Michael Moore and John Kerry. To make this statement hold you have to leap to the conclusion that Bush knew that Tenet was full of ****.

[BlackCat]

@ CyberShy : You have managed to express my opinion on this case in clear words.

Sadly, only one has dared to challenge you, so I expect the usual ranting will continue.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

But this does not mean that Bush lied, in the words of Air America, Michael Moore and John Kerry. To make this statement hold you have to leap to the conclusion that Bush knew that Tenet was full of ****.

they were both full of ****. there are no WMDs in iraq.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


they were both full of ****. there are no WMDs in iraq.

If you want to be honest, every pol worldwide who said there were WMDs in Iraq is a liar. That includes Kerry, Clinton and most of the Democrat party.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

If you want to be honest, every pol worldwide who said there were WMDs in Iraq is a liar. That includes Kerry, Clinton and most of the Democrat party.

thats right, i want to be honest. So clinton and kerry, and most of the dem party are liars also. WE the libertarians are not liars. we are the untouchables.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


they were both full of ****. there are no WMDs in iraq.

I don't know what has been said in your country, and I'm not aware of precise arguments in US, but here noone has ever said that there WAS WMD's - the words has been that there was a high possibility that there was such weapons, and that is enough for me considering what has happend earlier.

[Ned]

Blackcat, even the UN said there were WMDs based on their inspections that were stopped in 1998.