Vietnam Syndrome?

Paladin Solo said:
Apparently, some chemical weapons were just found...don't know the full story yet though, I just saw a few seconds of it at school, and now, I don't have much time to link it, since I got to work, but I'll check up on the story later too.
Click to expand...

Yep. Soldiers hit by a nerve gas shell.

Come on people, let's make the Democrats eat crow!
 
Kharn said:
Which reminds me:

In Baghdad, however, US officials warned yesterday that the reported stockpiling of weapons in "mosques, shrines and schools" in Najaf could turn such sites into targets for military action.

"The coalition certainly will not tolerate this situation," the US administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, said in a statement addressed to residents of the city. "The restoration of these holy places to calm places of worship must begin immediately."
Click to expand...

If the US military is that stupid, it's in for a world of hurt. Seriously.
Click to expand...
Mosques-generally-do not have the same status of holy place as Churchs do. Most of the time Mosqes are supported by a market below or around the Mosque to support it, and generally all the facilities are availible to people of diffirent faiths. Sunni Islam does not really have a notion of "holy ground" outside of the Hajj and arguable Palistine.
 
Apparently, some chemical weapons were just found...don't know the full story yet though, I just saw a few seconds of it at school, and now, I don't have much time to link it, since I got to work, but I'll check up on the story later too.
Click to expand...
Yep. Ze facts:
A) It was an old shell, presumably from the '80s.
B) It wasn't an effective shell.
C) It needed artillery to be fired.

Now, the conclusions we can draw from these facts are:
A) The shell was left over from when Saddam used them, and the insurgents found it.
B) Saddam had been hiding it, and the insurgents found it.
C) Saddam had lost it somewhere and the insurgents found it.
D) Saddam sold the shell to the insurgents.
E) The shell did not come from Iraq, but from another country.

Whatever the case, it is not evidence of a weapons programme pursued by Saddam, nor is it evidence that Saddam had been breaking the UN regulations by hiding weapons. Moreover, this does not justify the USA's invasion, because at the time of accusing Iraq, there still was no proof of any weapons at all being there. The fact that a weapon, which may or may not have anything to do with Saddam hiding weapons, is found now does not change anything about the accuracy of information then.
 
If it is found now it doesn't change? The hell are you smoking?

If it is found now, then that is the smoking gun that we need. But still, even if it is proven to be our WMD, I'm guessing you will say it was all planted by the CIA...
 
Pfffrtsss...

Flogging a dead horse.

You won't find any Iraqui WMD nowadays, most of the nerve gas was sold by the Reagan administration by the US, and already used against Irani soldiers and Iraq's own population by now. "Whimper whimmpeer Saddam's got WMD and gassed his own population"

Lots of people forget to add "with our support" to that phrase.

Does it change the legitimacy of this war? No. Am I trying to inculpate the US for everything as some may suppose? No.

But if you want to start bitching about the whole WMD factor, set your facts right. I already posted a link with the weapons provider list on another thread.
 
If it is found now, then that is the smoking gun that we need. But still, even if it is proven to be our WMD, I'm guessing you will say it was all planted by the CIA...
Click to expand...
Ugh, my point was that it IS NOT a smoking gun, because:
A) There is no way in freaking hell that this was manufactered by Saddam after the Gulf War.
B) You, again, have no proof that it actually came from Saddam, or that he had hidden it. For all you know, it was left behind by Iraqi troops during the first Gulf War, or it came from a foreign nation. All you have is that a bunch of rebels fired it at your troops. That is no proof.
 
Did you read what I said Sander....?
Click to expand...
Yes I did. But, frankly, I don't get the sentence. "If it is found now" If what is found now? NSarin? That was just found there. What do you mean exactly....
 
If WMD's are found. Since that's what you were talking about...that is what I meant.

Sander said:
The fact that a weapon, which may or may not have anything to do with Saddam hiding weapons, is found now does not change anything about the accuracy of information then.
Click to expand...

Solo said:
If it is found now it doesn't change? The hell are you smoking?
Click to expand...
 
If WMD's are found. Since that's what you were talking about...that is what I meant.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about any ifs.
Me said:
The fact that a weapon, which may or may not have anything to do with Saddam hiding weapons, is found now does not change anything about the accuracy of information then.
Click to expand...
I don't see an "if", do you?
 
That's because we haven't found one yet genious, at least, not evidentally linked to him. Therefore note the "if" Must I explain everything. We found chemical weapons yes...but most likely not linked to Saddam...IF it is linked to him...then it doesn't change? I repeat...must I explain it again?
 
That's because we haven't found one yet genious, at least, not evidentally linked to him. Therefore note the "if" Must I explain everything. We found chemical weapons yes...but most likely not linked to Saddam...IF it is linked to him...then it doesn't change? I repeat...must I explain it again?
Click to expand...
*sigh*
And I've explained to you why it wouldn't change anything. What the hell are you blathering on about now?
 
It would change everything. If it is found now...that means that we were justified in going in. Some would say that doesn't change the fact that we didn't know for sure, but perhaps we did. If you want to argue whether or not we knew there were any WMD's before we went in, then how do you know they weren't moved out as we moved in?
 
It would change everything. If it is found now...that means that we were justified in going in. Some would say that doesn't change the fact that we didn't know for sure, but perhaps we did. If you want to argue whether or not we knew there were any WMD's before we went in, then how do you know they weren't moved out as we moved in?
Click to expand...
I don't. All I'm saying is that your intelligence was apparently not good enough to know where, when and how the WMD were made. (in fact, even the weapons inspectors said there weren't any, and they're the experts). And you still went in, meaning that the war was unjustified because you only found them now. Admittedly, it would change a bit (mainly the fact that I would have been wrong in thinking that there were no WMD), but it would not change the fact that Bush did not know this sure enough. (Remember: Powell himself admitted that his presentation for the security council was shaky and sucky).
 
Still...the FACT that he had WMD's means we were right, no matter whether or not we actually knew. Meaning, justified main cause. And just because you can't find something, doesn't mean it's not there, or someone is hiding it elsewhere. How do you know it's not burried in the middle of the Iraqi desert, or sold off to Al Quaida? We don't know that either, but neither do you. And another thing bothering me is...what do others care of Iraq if they don't want to go in? Ok, if the president wanted the "U"N to go in, then I can see your reason, but if you care nothing for the Iraqis, and weren't ask to go in...then why do you need justification? And I'm not saying this is you Sander.
 
I'd like to see you guys link up on some of this. I just checked a couple of news sources and am not seeing much on this topic.

One other interesting analogy with Vietnam- In the Vietnam war, one could still generally move around Saigon safely. That's not even true in Baghdad.
 
Linky-linky
It doesn't look like it's really a WMD. 's just one shell left over from the war with Iran.
Brig Gen Mark Kimmitt said:
He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained.
Click to expand...
 
Still...the FACT that he had WMD's means we were right, no matter whether or not we actually knew. Meaning, justified main cause.
Click to expand...
Yes, the main cause was jsutified, but that doesn't make it any better.
I'll try to show you with a little story:
If you accuse a man of murder, so you can get him into jail because you dislike him (or think he's an asshole or whatever), but there isn't sufficietn proof, then you are not justified in accusing him. However, if then it appears that he did commit the murder, even though you had no proof and only very vague accusations back then, then that does not mean that it would've been right to imprison the man back then when there was no proof.
Do you understand now?
And just because you can't find something, doesn't mean it's not there, or someone is hiding it elsewhere. How do you know it's not burried in the middle of the Iraqi desert, or sold off to Al Quaida? We don't know that either, but neither do you
Click to expand...
Correct, I don't. However, you do realise that in no way, shape or form does the burden of proof lie with me. It lies with you. You make the claim that he held WMD, so you must provide the evidence.
Furthermore, I have made it very obvious over and over and over again that Saddam probably didn't have those WMD. I have not seen anyone make it obvious that he probably did have those WMD.
And another thing bothering me is...what do others care of Iraq if they don't want to go in? Ok, if the president wanted the "U"N to go in, then I can see your reason, but if you care nothing for the Iraqis, and weren't ask to go in...then why do you need justification? And I'm not saying this is you Sander.
Click to expand...
They care about Iraq because that's what an international community is for. If no-one should care if they don't want to go in, then why the hell is there still such a thing as the UN?
 
then why the hell is there still such a thing as the "U"N?
Click to expand...

You got me...the "U"N should be here to keep and maintain peace, but I haven't seen much come out of it in the case of Iraq...the nations which make up the "U"N cave into terror to easily...look at Spain for example. The terrorists kill spanish citizens...demanding they pull out of Iraq...and they do so, but think that just because they arrested a few of those involved, they have actually won. Terrorists around the world were probably celebrating. Doesn't matter whether the majority supported it or not...they still lost that battle, and fucked their allies over. The "U"N failed as an international community to bring about a good resolution to Iraq...and basically left all the burden to nations like the US and Britian amongst others...they could work to bring peace to Iraq...but so far, I have yet to see one of them do something about it...doesn't matter who's fault it is or who is to blame for the mess there...if they are a peacekeeping, international world org, like you say they are, then they need to do their fucking jobs and quit bickering. Wasn't our fault that Somalia is shit, but we still didn't bitch about it and actually tried something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top