So they found WMD

[Drunken Poncho]

oh hint... the poster everywhere for rallys saying 'end the occupation of iraq'. The mindless cretins on tv every single day saying 'the occupation of iraq is illigal'. Maybe occupation is... but..

do you take stabalisers off of a kids bike before it is ready and let it fall and case it pain, or do you leave them on untill you know without doubt that that kid aint falling off of the bike ?

And does anyone here seriously believe that saddam hussein has been caused some sort of injustice by this war ? Do you not remember the scenes on bagdahd when the statue was torn down?

The joy on those peoples faces that saddam had power no more is more than enough to justify his removal, imho.

oh and and i dont see a picture of iraq with a layout of where all th chemicals are.. doesnt mean they arent there tho. Does anyone seriously believe that it takes 10 years to even think about destroying missles?

saddam is no fool, he played a very good game on the public.

let enough inspectors in with just enough access to constitute progress... lets a few missiles out of thousands be disarmed... It was pretty obvious i believe he was playing with the un, buying time..

I also believe that america shouldnt have been in charge of this thing. Dont get me wrong by looking at m yviews... i dislike america as much as the next censorship obsessed devout christian right wing fundamentalist (note the sarcasm). If the UN had have pulled its fingers out of its arse and delt with it, we wouldnt have had to deal with saddam like this.

And it is saddam we were at war with. Not iraq. Common misconception.

The un werent involved in the war (and still as of when i write this) are not involved in the rehabilitation of the country, because france and germany (key veto holders) are owed billions by iraq, which would be unable to recouped if they took part in the war.

[Drunken Poncho]

alittle bit of botulism here.... missiles he said were destroyed there.. a few detailed nuclear program folders in the corner...

nope

nothing here but us emus.. heads in the sand.. seeing nothing

[Knoxville]

I think (and im prolly gonna get flamed for this) that none of us can say for SURE absoloutly certainly without a fraction of doubt wether saddam had WOMD capabilitly or not.

Has every aquar inch of the country been searched without warning and in extreme detail.........no, because thats impossible.

Unfortunatly if there were any he was given time to hide them , if there weren't any we've gone to war albeit illegally but we've removed an evil dictator from power.

I await with baited breath bush's anti north korea campaign, as i can see that next and they won't stand any messing around from the u.s or anyone else.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Drunken Poncho
oh hint... the poster everywhere for rallys saying 'end the occupation of iraq'. The mindless cretins on tv every single day saying 'the occupation of iraq is illigal'. Maybe occupation is... but..

do you take stabalisers off of a kids bike before it is ready and let it fall and case it pain, or do you leave them on untill you know without doubt that that kid aint falling off of the bike ?

And does anyone here seriously believe that saddam hussein has been caused some sort of injustice by this war ? Do you not remember the scenes on bagdahd when the statue was torn down?

The joy on those peoples faces that saddam had power no more is more than enough to justify his removal, imho.

oh and and i dont see a picture of iraq with a layout of where all th chemicals are.. doesnt mean they arent there tho. Does anyone seriously believe that it takes 10 years to even think about destroying missles?

saddam is no fool, he played a very good game on the public.

let enough inspectors in with just enough access to constitute progress... lets a few missiles out of thousands be disarmed... It was pretty obvious i believe he was playing with the un, buying time..

I also believe that america shouldnt have been in charge of this thing. Dont get me wrong by looking at m yviews... i dislike america as much as the next censorship obsessed devout christian right wing fundamentalist (note the sarcasm). If the UN had have pulled its fingers out of its arse and delt with it, we wouldnt have had to deal with saddam like this.

And it is saddam we were at war with. Not iraq. Common misconception.

The un werent involved in the war (and still as of when i write this) are not involved in the rehabilitation of the country, because france and germany (key veto holders) are owed billions by iraq, which would be unable to recouped if they took part in the war.

I think people actually want the US to hand control over to an INDEPENDENT organisation like the UN.

Regarding the statue. The entire incident was staged. It was a media event. Have a look at these four images:

Image 1
Image 2
Image 3
Image 4

Notice how the US tanks roll in and seal off the entrances to the square? Notice how there are only about 150 people in the square? You would have thought a nation being liberated from years of oppression would have garnered a few more than 150 people dont you think? There is reams of evidence that this was a media event. It also happened (coincidentally) right in front of the hotel where the journalists were staying.

LOL! It was saddam we were at war with, not Iraq? That's funny, who got bombed?

[Drunken Poncho]

ha thats funny who hid amoungst women and children....

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Drunken Poncho
alittle bit of botulism here.... missiles he said were destroyed there.. a few detailed nuclear program folders in the corner...

nope

nothing here but us emus.. heads in the sand.. seeing nothing

You can suck up all the US propaganda all you like. If you read the Kay report you will see that there was not threat from Iraq whatsoever.

INVADE IRAQ! THEY HAVE FOLDERS AND PAPERS DISCUSSING NUCLEAR WEAPONS! WHAT MORE REASON FOR WAR CAN THERE BE? THEY HAVE A 10 YEAR OLD VIAL OF BOTULINUM THAT YOU COULD HAVE MADE BY DIGGING UP A CABBAGE PATCH! INVADE!

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Drunken Poncho
ha thats funny who hid amoungst women and children....

What did you want him to do, strap himself to a 100ft target and telephone Dubya with his GPS co-ordinates?

[Drunken Poncho]

i really hope DaBeeeenster has no authority over anything more than the ammount of toner orderd for the office where he works.

I dont listen to unproperganda. I listen too all sides of the argument and form my own opinion.

something too few of you have managed to do.

so DaBeeeenster, you are a fan of mr.hussein ? Was hitler and castro at your last sewing evening ?

[Drunken Poncho]

he could have given himself up if he had nothign to hide and stood a united nations trial.. but oooooooooooh no.. lets put all our women and children into weapons depots and hide in thier houses.

oh how responsible of him. doing the best for his countrys people. etc etc.

[DaBeeeenster]

LMAO. You dont listent to propaganda?

Do you not remember the scenes on bagdahd when the statue was torn down?

The joy on those peoples faces that saddam had power no more is more than enough to justify his removal, imho.

[Knoxville]

Originally posted by Drunken Poncho
he could have given himself up if he had nothign to hide and stood a united nations trial.. but oooooooooooh no.. lets put all our women and children into weapons depots and hide in thier houses.

oh how responsible of him. doing the best for his countrys people. etc etc.

If he had given himself up would he not have been put on trial for his other war crimes regardless of what weapons he had?

[Drunken Poncho]

you dont listen. full stop.

and the fact that there were many MANY 'other war crimes' commited by him and people under his command is reason enough do you not think?

[Knoxville]

Yeah, it is reason enough, i said in my first post that the fact that he was an evil dictator is reason enough to remove him from power.

[Drunken Poncho]

ok. so i know many of you disagree with the means of removing him, and the manner that it was done...

But do any of you deny that in say a years time, when iraq has held democratic elections (remember them ?) and the country is self sufficient that all of this would have been worth it.

How about in 50 years ? How will history look back on this, and how do you think iraqis will see it ?

leaving all personal feelings about the conflit aside..

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by Drunken Poncho
ok. so i know many of you disagree with the means of removing him, and the manner that it was done...

But do any of you deny that in say a years time, when iraq has held democratic elections (remember them ?) and the country is self sufficient that all of this would have been worth it.

How about in 50 years ? How will history look back on this, and how do you think iraqis will see it ?

leaving all personal feelings about the conflit aside..

The question here is not whether Saddam was removed or not, it is the method or path which arrived at his removal. I think everyone agree that he's an evil guy. However, that doesn't justify the invasion of another sovereign state by foreign powers, especially without an UN mandate.

President Mugabe of Zimbabwe is an evil guy and he's also killing the people of his country also, but I don't see the US and UK sending couple of divisions each to enforce a 'regime change'. China has weapons of destruction and it's government is not democratically elected, and guess what we don't see the the US even threatening to remove China as 'the most favored trading partner' status. Israel illegally invade a previously agreed area that is considered controlled by Palestinian Authority, strike against targets in Syria, has secret WDM programs and has been in acting in contravention to UN resolutions since the 1970s, I don't see the US even lifting a finger to even condemn its action.

Do we see a pattern here?

The fact is simple: the US choose to dictate issues for or against sovereign states that are considered friends or foes through its colored polarized lenses of the current administration. It is prepare to act unilaterally, against all odds - 'You're either with us or against us.' Of course this mentality of unilateralism is only ok if it is the US that's the aggressor. Why? The evidence is plain horrible to look at... The last time the UK decided to act unilaterally was the Falkland War. Mrs Thather sent a force there while the US spent time standing on the sideline. It was not until the UK literally begged for assistance did the US provided support. So much of the 'special relationship'. To roll back a little further, there was the Suez Crisis...

Aside the US, the other major partner-in-crime in the current mess in Iraq is, of course, our beloved country, the UK. Our PM brought the UK into this conflict solely on the basis of the Iraqis possessed WDM and they're a threat to the security of the UK. Nothing more, nothing less. The evidence to support the PM's case for war is getting thinner and thinner. First of all, the rather disputable dossier on Iraq's WDM - we all know that the terms between battlefield ballistics and strategic weapons were delibrately confused in the dossier and the assessment was that even if the Iraqis had battlefield chemical or biological weapons, they couldn't deploy them with ease due to their desire to hide the weapons against spy satellites and spy planes. Now, I don't much agree with the politics of Robin Cook, but I think he knows a thing or two how this government functions... And he's claiming that the PM 'knew Iraq had no WMD' in his new book (his diary). If this is in any way inaccurate or even libelous, I hope he has a good set of lawyers.

The truth is, there was no justification for the UK to get involve in this mess in Iraq - not the one stated by the PM anyway. If he's stand up and say: "Look Saddam is an evil guy, he's going to anyway, we're going to join in a help our friends in the US', it may be quite different. It may not sound pretty and not as many people will be convinced by this case, but at least it's the truth.

I'm not asking politicians to be saints - they can't be, they're politicians. However, I expect our PM to at least give it to us straight for something as important as sending our country into war. It is very simple, but at the same time very fundamental. This is something called integrity.

[Bazzlad]

What a load of *EDIT*, you're here spouting off like you're some super informed indivudals, but all the time you know as much or as little as we do. You read properganda, just from the other side, Da beensteir I try to avoid arguing with people whos idea of a debate is to find outside links, I'm sure I could find twice as many pro war sites and *cough* facts to help my argument, but I don't need to. Saddam has commited millions of war crimes and murdered millions of innocent people, he was failing to comply with UN inspectors AND wasn't dismantling his weapons, he stalled to remove his WOMD and they probably reside in the hands of one of the terrorist factions he supports,
As I said earlier, you're one of those people who'd have us attack Iraq AFTER they'd bombed thousands of people (Which they have done before)

I think you need to calm it down a little and you your head not your sence of indignation - I am going to move this to Question time.
Moby