Things found in Iraq - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Strange Famous · 12-28-2003, 03:18 AM

The fact is this and it is simple - NO WEAPONS WERE FOUND.

There is no evidence that Iraq had the ability to attack anyone.

Whether or not they had a programme has not been proved.

We have to also be very cautious in believing what they say has been found, we know that there is a very good chance that any of these thing smay have been planted by a nation that we KNOW has them - America.

debaser · 12-28-2003, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
The fact is this and it is simple - NO WEAPONS WERE FOUND.

There is no evidence that Iraq had the ability to attack anyone.

Whether or not they had a programme has not been proved.

We have to also be very cautious in believing what they say has been found, we know that there is a very good chance that any of these thing smay have been planted by a nation that we KNOW has them - America.

Quote:

Originally posted by debaser
I am not supporting what Bush said, but Iraq was not allowed to have the items they had by merit of a treaty they signed in 1991 to preserve the regime of Saddam Hussien. He made the law, he broke it, and he suffered the consequences.

Remember, the treaty placed the burden of proof on Iraq for showing that they had destroyed weapons and components we know they had. They provided no such proof. Therefor they were in non-compliance with the terms of the ceasefire.

Strange Famous · 12-28-2003, 06:49 AM

maybe they were. I am not disputing if they violated the terms enforced on them (at the basic threat that Saddam would be executed and his country owned by America if he did not submit on America's terms...)

I readily believe the ceasefire agreement was violated by Iraq.

(although America bombed Iraq almost every week throughout the next 10 years, so I think we have to understand that as well, they were clearly not willing to obey the spirit of the agreement either)

What I am saying is that there were no WMD, that Bush and Blair both knew with a fair degree of certainty that there were none, and that they lied and said there were.

debaser · 12-28-2003, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous

What I am saying is that there were no WMD, that Bush and Blair both knew with a fair degree of certainty that there were none, and that they lied and said there were.

So what is your point?

Strange Famous · 12-28-2003, 07:54 AM

That there was no moral basis for the war on the terms on which it was fought, and that the Prime Minister of the UK and "President" Bush deliberately mislead their people about the threat Iraq posed to anyone.

The only moral basis for any interference in Iraq was to remove Hussain, who was a butcher. There were far better ways of doing this, it could have been done in the first war if America had offered the support they initially promised to rival factions to the Baarth party.

debaser · 12-28-2003, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
That there was no moral basis for the war on the terms on which it was fought, and that the Prime Minister of the UK and "President" Bush deliberately mislead their people about the threat Iraq posed to anyone.

The only moral basis for any interference in Iraq was to remove Hussain, who was a butcher. There were far better ways of doing this, it could have been done in the first war if America had offered the support they initially promised to rival factions to the Baarth party.

In that case I agree completely.

Endymon32 · 12-28-2003, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
That there was no moral basis for the war on the terms on which it was fought, and that the Prime Minister of the UK and "President" Bush deliberately mislead their people about the threat Iraq posed to anyone.

The only moral basis for any interference in Iraq was to remove Hussain, who was a butcher. There were far better ways of doing this, it could have been done in the first war if America had offered the support they initially promised to rival factions to the Baarth party.

Wrong wrong wrong, a milliong times wrong. Reread what you wrote a few posts above. Debase pointed out the IRaq has the burden of proof to show he destroyed his WMD. He agreed to this term after he failed to invade a neighboring nation. After 12 years of playing games with inspectors, we took him out. We warned him numerous times.
So your pity for a name that invaded a nations and failed, while starving his people, killing an estimated 3 million people and blaming a man that ended all this while the world gasped in hypocricital horror, is nothing short of laughable.
A few posts above, you even admit that " that may be true" which it is true, Saddam signed a treaty after he failed in invade a neighbor.
Why do you claim to have the best interests of the people in mind, when you champion a man that murders so many?

Acually, you are very consistant with the leaders of communism that you champion. Saddam was not a communists, but he does have a lot in common with every communist leader, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro, namely a high murder count on people that do not think like him.
So its no suprise that you would defend Saddam. He fits in well with the people YOU would have running the show.

debaser · 12-28-2003, 09:14 AM

Actually he is right. He stated moral basis, not legal.

Endymon32 · 12-28-2003, 09:28 AM

Its not moral to stop a man from killing 100,000 people per year? Wow you are scary if you believe that.

debaser · 12-28-2003, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
The only moral basis for any interference in Iraq was to remove Hussain, who was a butcher.

Endymon32 · 12-28-2003, 05:28 PM

And that was done, so why are you bitching?

12-28-2003, 03:18 AM	#41 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	The fact is this and it is simple - NO WEAPONS WERE FOUND. There is no evidence that Iraq had the ability to attack anyone. Whether or not they had a programme has not been proved. We have to also be very cautious in believing what they say has been found, we know that there is a very good chance that any of these thing smay have been planted by a nation that we KNOW has them - America. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

12-28-2003, 06:49 AM	#43 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	maybe they were. I am not disputing if they violated the terms enforced on them (at the basic threat that Saddam would be executed and his country owned by America if he did not submit on America's terms...) I readily believe the ceasefire agreement was violated by Iraq. (although America bombed Iraq almost every week throughout the next 10 years, so I think we have to understand that as well, they were clearly not willing to obey the spirit of the agreement either) What I am saying is that there were no WMD, that Bush and Blair both knew with a fair degree of certainty that there were none, and that they lied and said there were. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

12-28-2003, 07:54 AM	#45 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	That there was no moral basis for the war on the terms on which it was fought, and that the Prime Minister of the UK and "President" Bush deliberately mislead their people about the threat Iraq posed to anyone. The only moral basis for any interference in Iraq was to remove Hussain, who was a butcher. There were far better ways of doing this, it could have been done in the first war if America had offered the support they initially promised to rival factions to the Baarth party. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

12-28-2003, 09:14 AM	#48 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	Actually he is right. He stated moral basis, not legal. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

12-28-2003, 09:28 AM	#49 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	Its not moral to stop a man from killing 100,000 people per year? Wow you are scary if you believe that.

12-28-2003, 05:28 PM	#51 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	And that was done, so why are you bitching?