The Iraq Thread 2

[Longinius 1]

"To put it simpler. Why are we innocent but not Iraq? No substantial proof has been shown of WMD exsistence in Iraq for the past year, and yet they are guitly without "just cause" or "burden of proof.""

And, to be even simpler yet, this also applies to the people you support being held in camps on Cuba. None of them are innocent until proven guilty it seems. Heck, most havent even had a trial to see if they are considered guilty or not.

[FSPilot 0]

Longingus

Quote[/b] ]Interesting how you use "innocent until proven guilty" when its concerning your guys. You should maybe apply that standard to all people, and not just when it suits your own purposes.

I do.  

Walker

Quote[/b] ]Lied or was stupid makes no diference if the WMD is not found they went to war and killed many Brave US, UK and Iraqi Soldiers as well many inocent civilians and OK a few criminal political regime members. Politicians who make wrong decisions of that magnitude, that causes them to go to war have to resign or be removed from office or be the same grade of criminal regime as that which they fought.

And if they were lied to?

Quote[/b] ]Actualy the US and UK administrations accused the Iraqi regime of posesion of WMD then apointed them self Judge Jury and Executioner. Now they must come up with the Promised Proof of WMD or resign or by a process of Vote of No Confidence in the case of the UK and Impeachment in the US be removed from Office. After that Reperations to IRAQ and dead or wounded US and UK soldiers have to be decided.

This is all IF the Promised Proof of WMD are not found

I leave it to you FSPilot to suggest a reasonable length of time to wait for the proof of WMD to be shown I personaly think they should be given until the end of this September.

I think the US and UK adminstrations need to pull their fingers out and find the proof of Iraqi WMD at the time of going to war

Kind Regards Walker

12 years.

AS

Quote[/b] ]Lol. ouch FS-Pilot. That was a boomerang!

Try to get out of this trap!

Innocent untill proven guilty. Well maybe we should call saddam back home.

If you ask me, he was guilty.  Just because you liked the way he was raping his country and people doesn't make him a nice guy.

Akira

Quote[/b] ]Is it not the Captains job to make sure that that doesn't happen on his ship? If drugs were being dealt on his ship because of "lax security" or "lax intelligence" or because he failed to fully implement his job, would he not be removed?

If the fault lies directly with him.  The odds are that this was not Bush's doing.

Quote[/b] ]Enough with the British. We are talking about the US, or have you forgotten the "intelligence snafu" all over the news? We are both guilty of "intelligence snafu's". In the military that is called "incompetence" and the offending officers would be removed. Why not THE top officer? The one who assured us of Iraq's imminent threat. Of known WMD sites and weapons. Where are they? If they knew about them, why haven't they been brought to the light of day. Nothing has been discovered. Not even a trace (WMD's leave trace's ya know?).

And nothing has been discovered to suggest that Bush maliciously lied to his country.  Period.

Quote[/b] ]So I ask again. Where is your proof that WMDs existed? I, and others, have provided ample links that state out right that large portions were destroyed, and their WMD industry seriously curtailed. Links please. Where is your proof?  

Read the first Iraq thread, it's all covered there.

Quote[/b] ]To put it simpler. Why are we innocent but not Iraq? No substantial proof has been shown of WMD exsistence in Iraq for the past year, and yet they are guitly without "just cause" or "burden of proof."

EDIT: Damn pesky tags

It's your opinion that we didn't have WMD proof.  It's mine that we did.

[walker 0]

Hi FSPilot

12 years.

Hmm so you believe the US and UK administrations are comparable to Sadams. Well I dont I think that a legitimate UK or US administration can have that long. Such an administration can have say six months from the deposing of Sadam to the finding proof of its accusations or how can it hold its head up under the stain on its reputation.

And if they were lied to?

....

If the fault lies directly with him.  The odds are that this was not Bush's doing.

....

And nothing has been discovered to suggest that Bush maliciously lied to his country.  Period.

As I said if they don't come up with the proof of WMD it does not matter if the administrations lied (straight criminal behaviour) or were stupid. (criminal neglegence) both are resignation matters in a true democracy and if they dont resign then a true democracy must remove them by Vote of No Confidence for the UK and Impeachment for the US otherwise they are no diferent than Sadams Regime.

It's your opinion that we didn't have WMD proof.  It's mine that we did.

Proof is simple Actual Chemicals or Bio Weapons, Working Factories, Witness statements and residues with verifiable proof of age the sort of thing a standard criminal lab can produce. Could you please point me to these sources of proof of WMD that you find such good proof.

On the same point why has not the UK and US adminstrations advertised them as they would be proof there was WMD at the time of War maybe you should mail your sources to the UK or US adminstrations so that all this can be cleared up

If you ask me, he was guilty.  Just because you liked the way he was raping his country and people doesn't make him a nice guy.

Regime change was not the given reason for war but to those who say well it was all about regime change fine; I have a list of many countries that need regime change even the Bush administration is suspect on those grounds since it it could be argued to have rigged an election. The UK government before the recent Northern Ireland Agreement could be there as could Israel, France for its Foriegn Policy in the Pacific etc, etc. Why has no one invaded Zimbabwe, North Korea, Burma, Siria, The UAE, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, China? All have Regimes which need changing. Heck if WMD is not found the US and UK have to invade themselves for invading another soverign country on a trumped up pretext? Double heck why didnt the US and UK invade US themselves when the present US Adminstrations members provided the chemicals and factories to make WMD they used at Halabja. As you see the regime change argument is a slipery slope.

Kind Regards Walker

[FSPilot 0]

Just about to edit wait a mo

Take your time.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]So I ask again. Where is your proof that WMDs existed? I, and others, have provided ample links that state out right that large portions were destroyed, and their WMD industry seriously curtailed. Links please. Where is your proof?  

Read the first Iraq thread, it's all covered there.

Nice try.

We all were kind enough to provide links to our points. If you intend to be taken seriously I suggest you do the same. Or to at least show common courtesy.

So unless you provide links for your assumptions and raw speculations that Iraq currently possesses WMD's, forget about any crediability you might have had.

So again. Where are the links?

[FSPilot 0]

The Iraq thread

[Tovarish 0]

The Iraq thread

LOL saw that one coming .

[Tovarish 0]

That's not a fact at all.  You're just pointing fingers because you don't like the administration.  There has been -no- evidence provided that the president lied to anybody about anything.  

and then

Quote[/b] ]If you ask me, he was guilty.  Just because you liked the way he was raping his country and people doesn't make him a nice guy.

That's not a fact at all.  You're just pointing fingers because you don't like the administration.  There has been -no- evidence provided that Saddam had WMD's.

[Tamme 0]

Akira

Quote[/b] ]Is it not the Captains job to make sure that that doesn't happen on his ship? If drugs were being dealt on his ship because of "lax security" or "lax intelligence" or because he failed to fully implement his job, would he not be removed?

If the fault lies directly with him.  The odds are that this was not Bush's doing.

Pilot dude.. That's like methaphore or smthing mmmmkay?..

It's like: USA is the ship. Bush is the captain. The soldier dealing the drugs is all the people lying and makin stupid mistakes in the TBA mmmkay?... So if the fault lies directly with the captain then Bush is responsible

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Enough with the British. We are talking about the US, or have you forgotten the "intelligence snafu" all over the news? We are both guilty of "intelligence snafu's". In the military that is called "incompetence" and the offending officers would be removed. Why not THE top officer? The one who assured us of Iraq's imminent threat. Of known WMD sites and weapons. Where are they? If they knew about them, why haven't they been brought to the light of day. Nothing has been discovered. Not even a trace (WMD's leave trace's ya know?).

And nothing has been discovered to suggest that Bush maliciously lied to his country.  Period.

Excactly, nothing has been discovered. That strongly suggests that TBA lied.

Quote[/b] ]There`s enough "Proof!!!" in the posts above. We are repeating it again and again, why don`t you read it?!?

Gee it's hard to make a joke without smilies

Quote[/b] ](WMD's leave trace's ya know?).

No they don't... They flyyyyyyyy

[FallenPaladin 0]

It's your opinion that we didn't have WMD proof.  It's mine that we did.

Yes. That proof vanished like the WMDs vanished from positions known to the USA according to TBA.

[FallenPaladin 0]

Quote[/b] ]There`s enough "Proof!!!" in the posts above. We are repeating it again and again, why don`t you read it?!?

Gee it's hard to make a joke without smilies

Sorry, mate.

I realised the irony too late. No offense meant.

[Akira 0]

Akira

Quote[/b] ]Is it not the Captains job to make sure that that doesn't happen on his ship? If drugs were being dealt on his ship because of "lax security" or "lax intelligence" or because he failed to fully implement his job, would he not be removed?

If the fault lies directly with him.  The odds are that this was not Bush's doing.

Pilot dude.. That's like methaphore or smthing mmmmkay?..

It's like: USA is the ship. Bush is the captain. The soldier dealing the drugs is all the people lying and makin stupid mistakes in the TBA mmmkay?... So if the fault lies directly with the captain then Bush is responsible

lol.....

THANK YOU

[Akira 0]

The Iraq thread

So then you have no proof is what you are saying?

Well considering I provided proof, and you provided bubkus...

'nuff said

[booradley60 0]

I'm starting to wonder again how a debate between Saddam and GW would have gone had it ever taken place. There would be so much rhetoric flying back and forth it would make my head spin. Seriously though, did Bush decline because he had no arguments or was it really just because it would force him to recognize Saddam and his regime as the sovereign government of Iraq?

[FSPilot 0]

Tovarish

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]If you ask me, he was guilty. Just because you liked the way he was raping his country and people doesn't make him a nice guy.

That's not a fact at all. You're just pointing fingers because you don't like the administration. There has been -no- evidence provided that Saddam had WMD's.

Aha! In that statement I never mentioned WMDs!!!

Tamme

Quote[/b] ]Pilot dude.. That's like methaphore or smthing mmmmkay?..

It's like: USA is the ship. Bush is the captain. The soldier dealing the drugs is all the people lying and makin stupid mistakes in the TBA mmmkay?... So if the fault lies directly with the captain then Bush is responsible

I understand it's a metaphor. But the US is such a giant administration it's not possible for Bush to know everything about everything thats going on. He can't be held accountable for other people doing things when he honestly didn't know they were doing them.

Quote[/b] ]Excactly, nothing has been discovered. That strongly suggests that TBA lied.

No it doesnt! You're jumping to conclusions. It suggests that we haven't found them yet.

Akira

Quote[/b] ]So then you have no proof is what you are saying?

Well considering I provided proof, and you provided bubkus...

'nuff said

We discussed all the proof you could ever dream of in that thread already. So read it.

booradley60

Quote[/b] ]I'm starting to wonder again how a debate between Saddam and GW would have gone had it ever taken place. There would be so much rhetoric flying back and forth it would make my head spin. Seriously though, did Bush decline because he had no arguments or was it really just because it would force him to recognize Saddam and his regime as the sovereign government of Iraq?

If I were in the secret service I wouldn't let Bush within 100 miles of Iraq, let alone Saddam.

[Tovarish 0]

Tovarish

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]If you ask me, he was guilty.  Just because you liked the way he was raping his country and people doesn't make him a nice guy.

That's not a fact at all.  You're just pointing fingers because you don't like the administration.  There has been -no- evidence provided that Saddam had WMD's.

Aha!  In that statement I never mentioned WMDs!!!

 

And what exactly did you mean by "If you ask me, he was guilty"

[FSPilot 0]

Sex with an intern.

[Tovarish 0]

Sex with an intern.

Wow man, that was about the one thing you've said in this thread that wasn't funny. Don't tell me you're loosing your touch.

[booradley60 0]

If I were in the secret service I wouldn't let Bush within 100 miles of Iraq, let alone Saddam.

They could have done it over TV channels. Well, back when Iraq had electricity.

[denoir 0]

We discussed all the proof you could ever dream of in that thread already.  So read it.

Yes, you said a lot of nice things in that thread. For instance that you would not support a war if no WMD were found. And that was during the UN inspections. Now both the UN and the coallition forces have not found anything and you are going against your statement and defending the justification for war.

It's really quite simple. You see the massive WMD number and the WMD development infrastructure that Bush & Co claimed Iraq posessed could not have vanished into thin air. If the "proof" they provided was true then they would have found plenty of WMD now. What about those nice satellite photographs that Colin Powell showed in his presentation?

To quote Blix:

Quote[/b] ]In a BBC interview on Thursday, Mr Blix said he had been disappointed with the tip-offs provided by British and US intelligence.

"Only in three of those cases did we find anything at all, and in none of these cases were there any weapons of mass destruction, and that shook me a bit, I must say."

He said UN inspectors had been promised the best information available.

"I thought - my God, if this is the best intelligence they have and we find nothing, what about the rest?"

[ralphwiggum 6]

where's proof that Hussein was a bad guy?

[booradley60 0]

Ask a Kurdish person in Northern Iraq. He or she might show you his or her deformed children.

[walker 0]

Hi FsPilot

I reiterate if the US and UK administrations don't come up with the proof of WMD it does not matter if the administrations lied (straight criminal behaviour) or were stupid (criminal neglegence) both are resignation matters in a true democracy and if they dont resign then a true democracy must remove them by Vote of No Confidence for the UK and Impeachment for the US otherwise they are no diferent than Sadams Regime.

I feel the adminstrations have until the end of September to come up with proof of WMD or their legitimacy as administrations is lost. They have to pull their fingers out and find that WMD; their future in power and probably their personal fortunes depend on it.

Kind Regards Walker

[FSPilot 0]

where's proof that Hussein was a bad guy?

***WARNING: Contains violent pictures***

This also has been posted in the original iraq thread.

[walker 0]

where's proof that Hussein was a bad guy?

Ralph dont ask a question you dont know the answere for there is a good chap.

Kind Regards Walker