Iraq War (a few facts)

[nicky g]

"1. The current war in Iraq is actually a continuation of the one in which Iraq invaded Kuwait. That war never oficially ended. A cease fire was agreed to by Saddam Hussein. He broke the cease fire agreement when he jacked around with the UN inspectors for 10 years. Clinton didn't have time to get BJ's from Monica and perform his job at the same time, so all we had was a 10 year intermission."

Mmm. But it was the UN security council that passed the resolution declaring war, and the UN Security Council that then suspended that declaraton through another resolution that declared a ceasefire. The only organisation that could lift that ceasefire was the UN Security Council.

"2. Anyone who believes there were no WMD's is naive. Just ask the Kurds."

Have you heard of the concept of time? It's a far-out hypothesis that would allow the possibility of Iraq possessing WMDs in the 1980s, and yet possessing them in 2003. DOn't worry if you can;t quite get a grasp of it, it's a little tricky. Ignoring such fantastic theories, your logic is perfect.

"5. Even if we relocated Israel to Greenland and gave the whole country to the Palestinians the crazy Arabs would find something else to fight about. Go read your pre-WWII Middle East history."

What has this got to do with the Gulf War? And perhaps, given your obvious extensive historical knowledge of the Arabic world, you could elucidate on this history of fighting and show us how much more peaceful the rest of the world was than these crazy Arabs in those periods? not

[FishAndChips]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the 9/11 Comission report Al-Queda had terrorist cells operating in every country in the Middle East, including Iraq. That is the link between BL and SH. If SH didn't want them in Iraq he could have kicked them out. Allowing them to exist in Iraq is just like the UK allowing US military bases in their country

[/ QUOTE ] are you kdding me? Is this all you've got? Fact: There are Al Qaeda cells in many western european countries as well as cells in Canada. By many reports there are cells in the U.S. as well. There sure as hell were active cells in the U.S. in the late 20th early 21st centuries. Your claim that the presence of cells indicates a governmence compliance is ridiculous. As for your claim that arabs are more warlike because they like to fight each other, pre WWI, the europeans have been going at it on a consistent basis for centuries. Everyone knows Saddam had chemical weapons in the 80's and 90's. he may well have had them when we invaded. If he did, it's alot more likely that they are in terrorist hands now then prior to the war. Even if he did have some remedial weapons, do you know how many other states who have closer ties/insider sympathisers to terrorists also possess said weapons. (Iran, Pakistan etc...) War in Iraq does not make us safer from a chemical attack. Your right, forget Clinton, it took a truly great president to get us into this war.

[/ QUOTE ]


OWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice job in48092.

[FishHooks]

I agree with most of your points in there, all these people flaming you are just mad. Like you said they offer no solutions or even evidence that disputes your claims. Do all of you guys expect this man to open every history text book and just cite all this knowledge? These people are lovers of Cindy Sheehan, where a poll on fox news showed that only 19% of the people in this country respect her. So when I say most people here are crazy left wingers, I stand correct. It's hard to debate with them about issues that involve common sence, its nearly impossible. They could care less that we have photos of SH moving huge trucks of "stuff" from sites where UN inspectors where going the next day. They can't put two and two together.

[superleeds]

Just how many different accounts do you have at 2+2?

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the 9/11 Comission report Al-Queda had terrorist cells operating in every country in the Middle East, including Iraq. That is the link between BL and SH. If SH didn't want them in Iraq he could have kicked them out. Allowing them to exist in Iraq is just like the UK allowing US military bases in their country


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

are you kdding me? Is this all you've got? Fact: There are Al Qaeda cells in many western european countries as well as cells in Canada. By many reports there are cells in the U.S. as well. There sure as hell were active cells in the U.S. in the late 20th early 21st centuries. Your claim that the presence of cells indicates a governmence compliance is ridiculous. As for your claim that arabs are more warlike because they like to fight each other, pre WWI, the europeans have been going at it on a consistent basis for centuries. Everyone knows Saddam had chemical weapons in the 80's and 90's. he may well have had them when we invaded. If he did, it's alot more likely that they are in terrorist hands now then prior to the war. Even if he did have some remedial weapons, do you know how many other states who have closer ties/insider sympathisers to terrorists also possess said weapons. (Iran, Pakistan etc...) War in Iraq does not make us safer from a chemical attack. Your right, forget Clinton, it took a truly great president to get us into this war.


[/ QUOTE ]

[FishAndChips]

[ QUOTE ]
It's hard to debate with them about issues that involve common sence, its nearly impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to go donk, misspell "common sense" when you are criticizing someone else's intelligence (or should I type "entellergence".) [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
1. The current war in Iraq is actually a continuation of the one in which Iraq invaded Kuwait. That war never oficially ended.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares about whether the war "officially" ended or not? The invasion of Iraq was launched for totally different reasons and has been treated as a new campaign by everybody on every side. What is the point you are making here?

[ QUOTE ]

2. Anyone who believes there were no WMD's is naive. Just ask the Kurds.

[/ QUOTE ]

There obviously were WMDs in Iraq during the 1980s and early 1990s. If you have actual evidence that there were WMDs in the country when we invaded, then bring it out. Put up or shut up.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Anyone who believes there was no connection between Saddam Hussein is naive and uneducated. Just follow the Saudi money trail.

[/ QUOTE ]

Connection between Saddam and what? Please enlighten us as to what the Saudi money trail might tell.

[ QUOTE ]
4. Anyone who disagrees with points 2 and 3 needs to realize that international politics is not the US court system where you need everything documented in triplicate for a conviction. All you need is to learn your history, read between the lines, and apply some common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you present your evidence for those two points, which are highly contested, instead of just claiming them as fact? You've adopted this pedantic tone and derided others as naive and uneducated. So put your money where your mouth is and show off that worldliness and education that you must possess. I'll be waiting.

[nicky g]

That should read "and yet not possessing them in 2003". Somehow the not ended up at the end of the post.

[FishHooks]

I forgot to rant about the left wing consipiracy theorists.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
The recent posts on the Iraq War have so many factual errors I had to start a new post.

1. The current war in Iraq is actually a continuation of the one in which Iraq invaded Kuwait. That war never oficially ended. A cease fire was agreed to by Saddam Hussein. He broke the cease fire agreement when he jacked around with the UN inspectors for 10 years. Clinton didn't have time to get BJ's from Monica and perform his job at the same time, so all we had was a 10 year intermission.

2. Anyone who believes there were no WMD's is naive. Just ask the Kurds.

3. Anyone who believes there was no connection between Saddam Hussein is naive and uneducated. Just follow the Saudi money trail.

4. Anyone who disagrees with points 2 and 3 needs to realize that international politics is not the US court system where you need everything documented in triplicate for a conviction. All you need is to learn your history, read between the lines, and apply some common sense.

5. Even if we relocated Israel to Greenland and gave the whole country to the Palestinians the crazy Arabs would find something else to fight about. Go read your pre-WWII Middle East history.

Gulf War Vet (USAF 89-93)

[/ QUOTE ]

I just felt like joining the party, so I too will handle these one by one.

1. You can't continue an unlaunched war - as a veteran, you know that neither war was declared in the Constitutional manner, and thus any "cease fire" is a de facto end to the war.

2. As has been said, no WMDs have been found, and if you're currently in possession of them, congratulations, call the President.

3. You pathetic explanation of this point has been debunked well enough already.

4. "Points 2 and 3 are really good guys, I swear!"

5. Look at world history pre-WWI and you'll realize that it was all very feudal.

That's all been said, but I feel like if we reinforce it every 2 or 3 posts he'll get the picture. You are incorrect, sir, and FishHooks agreeing with you is essentially a confirmation of that fact.