why shouldn't Iraq have nuclear capabilities?
Printable View
why shouldn't Iraq have nuclear capabilities?
Well at that point in time Missy one Saddam Hussein was in power and Saddam had conducted terrorist activities (so Gore says in that video) and had used POISON GAS on Kurds.....so I think it was just a good idea to keep WMD's away from him and most world leaders agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy
Nothing wrong with Nuclear POWER but not everyone should have nuclear weapons and usually world leaders use Nuclear Power as the guise to achieve nuclear weapons
1988, gas attack - the West DID NOTHING.Quote:
Originally Posted by LyleWell at that point in time Missy one Saddam Hussein was in power and Saddam had conducted terrorist activities (so Gore says in that video) and had used POISON GAS on Kurds.....so I think it was just a good idea to keep WMD's away from him and most world leaders agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy
Nothing wrong with Nuclear POWER but not everyone should have nuclear weapons and usually world leaders use Nuclear Power as the guise to achieve nuclear weapons
1990 1st Gulf War because he invaded Kuwait.
It wasn't until 2003 the west gained a conscience and used the death of the Kurds as one of the many smoke screens for invading Iraq.
This is the paradox for the US, do nothing in 1988 and get bitched at invade the country and take down their dictator in 2003 and get bitched at....we're CONSTANTLY in a no win situation it's either "Mind your own business!" or "Aren't you going to help?" and with every situation there are at least 2 sides and usually they'll say both of those things.
no Lyle. All of the West stood by and let Saddam do it but what people wont excuse is waiting 15 then use it as a justification for a phoney war.
That's the problem.
They need to look more menacing imo. They don't look like baddies. That's the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by NamelessWell, in my opinion, being responsible to kill millions peoples for a false reason (a forged argument to create a war for their own benefits) is more than enough. What else would it take?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Killing a shed load of innocent civillians isn't enough. You need masks and catch-phrases. A Vince McMahon like split-personality would also help.
What Bush and Balir really needed to do was to head to Iraq themselves, and hit a few civiliians with a folded up chair. Mass killings of innocent civilians just doesn't cut it these days. Not in the land of Lyle anyway. They're amatuer war criminals at best. Pussies.
It helps if you look like thisQuote:
Originally Posted by onoThey need to look more menacing imo. They don't look like baddies. That's the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by NamelessWell, in my opinion, being responsible to kill millions peoples for a false reason (a forged argument to create a war for their own benefits) is more than enough. What else would it take?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Killing a shed load of innocent civillians isn't enough. You need masks and catch-phrases. A Vince McMahon like split-personality would also help.
What Bush and Balir really needed to do was to head to Iraq themselves, and hit a few civiliians with a folded up chair. Mass killings of innocent civilians just doesn't cut it these days. Not in the land of Lyle anyway. They're amatuer war criminals at best. Pussies.
http://hoyaparanoia.files.wordpress....pg?w=206&h=300
There we go...Quote:
Originally Posted by Howlin Mad MissyIt helps if you look like thisQuote:
Originally Posted by onoThey need to look more menacing imo. They don't look like baddies. That's the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nameless
Killing a shed load of innocent civillians isn't enough. You need masks and catch-phrases. A Vince McMahon like split-personality would also help.
What Bush and Balir really needed to do was to head to Iraq themselves, and hit a few civiliians with a folded up chair. Mass killings of innocent civilians just doesn't cut it these days. Not in the land of Lyle anyway. They're amatuer war criminals at best. Pussies.
http://hoyaparanoia.files.wordpress....pg?w=206&h=300
Forget about previous wars, we're talking about Iraq. B and B committed an unambiguous war crime according to international law, crimes that American prosecutors at Nuremburg previously declared were the worst of all war crimes. Shouldn't they stand trial for them?Quote:
Originally Posted by LyleVietnam and the Spanish-American War were planned and started "illegally" and neither JFK or William McKinley were called war criminals or were tried for war crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
As for the Iraq-Al Quaeda ties...listen to YOUR BOY Al Gore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bogBwAby3soAnd since I know you don't like watching videos I'll give you a summary Gore admits #1 Terrorist were in Iraq AND Saddam supported them and #2 Iraq was trying to further their nuclear capabilities
Point to Lyle
And you need to show actual facts and evidence rather than yet another video. Here are some facts for you :
George Bush last night admitted that Saddam Hussein had no hand in the 9/11 terror attacks, but he asked Americans to support a war in Iraq that he said was the defining struggle of our age.
Bush: Saddam was not responsible for 9/11 | World news | guardian.co.uk
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon.
The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said.
The assessment of the al Qaeda connection and the insistence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were two primary elements in the Bush administration's arguments in favor of going to war with Iraq.
Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com
The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.
Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."
The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years.
U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons (washingtonpost.com)
But answer the question. They should face a trial, shouldn't they?
You know how he got the job running Uganda? He was good at rugby. He was a Captain in the Ugandan army that the Brits used for domestic policing but played on one of the army teams and got known to the top brass. He was too placid before games though so they used to hit him on the head with a hammer before games to get him fired up. When we left we thought he'd make a malleable person to leave in charge, only it went to his head a little bit and his domestic policing methods got out of hand. Plus there was the people-y eat-y thing too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howlin Mad MissyIt helps if you look like thisQuote:
Originally Posted by onoThey need to look more menacing imo. They don't look like baddies. That's the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nameless
Killing a shed load of innocent civillians isn't enough. You need masks and catch-phrases. A Vince McMahon like split-personality would also help.
What Bush and Balir really needed to do was to head to Iraq themselves, and hit a few civiliians with a folded up chair. Mass killings of innocent civilians just doesn't cut it these days. Not in the land of Lyle anyway. They're amatuer war criminals at best. Pussies.
http://hoyaparanoia.files.wordpress....pg?w=206&h=300
But you weren't minding your own business, you were actively backing Saddam because he was at war with Iran, a country whose regime you were trying to overthrow because they'd overthrown the previous Iranian dictatorial regime that you'd installed in power. And Reagan actually got the DIA to make a report blaming the gassing of the kUrds on Iran so that the US could still continue to support Saddam without getting criticised/sanctioned for it. You were minding your own business in the Middle East in the 1980s in the same way that Adolf Hitler was minding his own business in central Europe in the 1930s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Never lost in sight that Rumsfeld and Saddam were buddy buddy at the time and that the US sold tons of weapons to IRaq knowing what they would do with it... chemical stuff too. England even sold a gaz factory to Iraq, keys in hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUPb-3zkh0c
OK first off let me say I was wrong.....I should have put LBJ instead of JFK in my previous post re: Vietnam being an illegally started war, man that has been bothering me all day ;D
Kirkland/Nameless those are erroneous points if we're talking about JUST George Bush and not American foreign policy as a whole which I assume this thread will eventually get into but either way the US isn't the bad guys and W and Blair are not war criminals and once again to suggest such a thing is idiotic, partisian, and doesn't help anyone except the terrorists....right now the terrorists are thinking "We think they are wrong because they do not follow Muhammed and they are occupying our countries" and if we even tried W and Blair for war crimes it would be "Even they knew they were wrong, let's kill them anyway"
The issue I have with liberals these days is that under NO MEANS is war ever acceptable and that is not only foolish and naive but it's dangerous because just 8 years ago we were at peace and we got blindsided by a group who was/is/and will always be at war with us and to not even attempt to fight back is mental.
The US started an illegal premptive war against a country that had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism? How are they not the bad guys?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Bush and Blair planned an aggressive preemtive war and there's endless evidence to show this. Back in 1948 planning aggressive wars was described by the head American prosecutor at Nuremburg as the worst of all war crimes, the kingpin that allowed all the other Nazi war crimes to happen. Bearing this in mind, shouldn't B and B be prosecuted for planning a war of aggression?
In 2001 you got attacked by people from countries where for decades you've been propping up tyrants, despots and dictators who've kept their people under horrible repressive conditions. Don't you think that after decades of keeping these guys in power, continuing to keep those guys in power and thus dooming hundreds of millions of people to live under endless repression, that it's understandable if some of those people might occasionally take their anger about it out on your office buildings?
That sums up pretty much my thoughts. Plus Lyle, know that such behaviors are just fueling the extremists ranks, it gives them gold arguments to recruit: "you see, America declare an illegal war on us because they hate muslims and want our demise" and such bullshit. The war made things worst toward extremists. Fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingThe US started an illegal premptive war against a country that had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism? How are they not the bad guys?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Bush and Blair planned an aggressive preemtive war and there's endless evidence to show this. Back in 1948 planning aggressive wars was described by the head American prosecutor at Nuremburg as the worst of all war crimes, the kingpin that allowed all the other Nazi war crimes to happen. Bearing this in mind, shouldn't B and B be prosecuted for planning a war of aggression?
In 2001 you got attacked by people from countries where for decades you've been propping up tyrants, despots and dictators who've kept their people under horrible repressive conditions. Don't you think that after decades of keeping these guys in power, continuing to keep those guys in power and thus dooming hundreds of millions of people to live under endless repression, that it's understandable if some of those people might occasionally take their anger about it out on your office buildings?