72% of Bush supporters still believe Iraq had WMD

[ViRGo_RK]

Does Ultima have a previous record of owning WMD's, and being a vicious dictator?

That might make your analogy logical.

[Ask The Geezer]

It's more than could be though. Everyone knows he had WMD at one point, cause he used it on his own people and his neighbors. Early in the present war, he claimed to have weapons that would wipe the attackers out to a man, although, he did not actually mention gas or bio stuff by name.

So why is it so illogical to just assume, at the beginning of the war, he didn't have any left? Sure, none have been found, after the fact, but every indication before the war was that he did have it.

Fredi, your scenario happens all the time here. Sometimes they find the stuff, sometimes they don't, but the powers that be are never brought to task for making a mistake. Not saying it's right, it just is.

[Subway]

Originally posted by ViRGo_RK
Does Ultima have a previous record of owning WMD's, and being a vicious dictator?

No, but to use Ultimas own words: "Just because previous records has not been found does not mean that it is not there" ... and if I would be Bush, 72 percent of my supporters would not believe the experts, they would believe only what I've sayd.

Fredi

[Subway]

Originally posted by iaskwhy
So why is it so illogical to just assume, at the beginning of the war, he didn't have any left?

You should never use words like "just" and "assume" when you talk about a reason to start a war IMHO.

Fredi

[Ask The Geezer]

Originally posted by Subway
You should never use words like "just" and "assume" when you talk about a reason to start a war IMHO.

Fredi

LOL, no, maybe not, but it looks like Bush did it anyway. He was just assuming that the CIA knew what they were talking about, and then Blair just assumed that Bush knew what he was talking about, and all the other coalition partners just assumed that the two B's knew what they were about. Nothing new though. I think most wars are started over false assumptions.

[gerbick]

Originally posted by Subway
You should never use words like "just" and "assume" when you talk about a reason to start a war IMHO.

just assume that the gold that was in the Swiss vaults were really Germany's.

now, keeping ill-gotten goods and starting a war are different things true enough; however it's been done in the past.

just because WW2 and WW1 had concrete reasons for their start(s), there are a lot of other wars that happened based on speculation.

but the speculation of the coalition war in Iraq of WMD and what not are based on past numbers that Saddam did use in the past bluffs and what not.

as what was alluded to earlier by iaskwhy, Saddam stated once or twice that he'd threaten to use "something" to repel possible invaders.

but that threat alone with "something" was once valid with WMD's and chemical weapons. Ask the Kurds, et al that died is mass.

but who knows... maybe the weapons were like those planes. Buried with their ass sticking up in the air. like an ostrich.

[Subway]

Originally posted by gerbick
but the speculation of the coalition war in Iraq of WMD and what not are based on past numbers that Saddam did use in the past bluffs and what not.

North Korea has WMD and they have clearly shown that they are interested to use it when needed. Now I'm pretty sure the US is not going to start a war with NK exactly because they know they have WMD and would use it. If the US would have thought that there's a big possibility that Saddam could use WMD against their army in Iraq and possible kill a lot of them with those WMD, then they would have not started that war in the first place. That sayd, I'm pretty sure they where sure that Saddam has no or not much usable WMD to use against them or they would have not invaded Iraq to start with. I'm pretty sure the intern reasoning for invading Iraq was something else then what he want's to tell us.

Fredi

[gerbick]

the situation with North Korea is quite a bit different. South Korea, Japan, and China would have to want to do something about this situation.

Saddam had invaded Kuwait a decade or so prior and had UN Sanctions against him/Iraq. There's no such thing, in total equal terms, against North Korea at the moment.

North Korea, they have powerful neighbors that have yet to be invaded or demand something be done. And I don't think North Korea is going to nuke China or anybody for that matter anytime soon. China would destroy them quickly.

[Ultima Designs]

Originally posted by Subway
Sorry, nothing against you personaly, but this can be sayd about anything.

But when the preponderance of evidence suggests that it was there or at least should have been, then it is much more valid.

[gerbick]

Originally posted by Ultima Designs
But when the preponderance of evidence suggests that it was there or at least should have been, then it is much more valid.

so where are they? any speculation(s)?

[Subway]

Originally posted by Ultima Designs
But when the preponderance of evidence suggests that it was there or at least should have been, then it is much more valid.

What I really tryed to say is that with this kind of reasoning: "in the past", "sould be", "just", "assume" ... with this kind of reasoning you can construct a reason to invade most countries and that the real reason was something different from the beginning.

Fredi

[Ask The Geezer]

Originally posted by Subway
What I really tryed to say is that with this kind of reasoning: "in the past", "sould be", "just", "assume" ... with this kind of reasoning you can construct a reason to invade most countries and that the real reason was something different from the beginning.

Fredi

And because it's so easy to do, it turns out to be the most used reason for one country invading another country. I wonder what SH's reason was for invading Kuwait? Or Japans reason for invading China, or.....

[Subway]

Originally posted by iaskwhy
And because it's so easy to do, it turns out to be the most used reason for one country invading another country. I wonder what SH's reason was for invading Kuwait? Or Japans reason for invading China, or.....

By these standards ... yeah, just never use freedom, the good guys or democracy in combination with those countries at that point in time ... oh, and we all know how much the US leaders love to use this words.

Fredi

[Ask The Geezer]

Originally posted by Subway
By these standards ... yeah, just never use freedom, the good guys or democracy in combination with those countries at that point in time ... oh, and we all know how much the US leaders love to use this words.

Fredi

Ha, I haven't fallen for the old freedom trick since like 1963. I believed it then, for about 2 years, until I saw what a lie that was, from personal experience. I realized that you can't ram freedom down peoples throats, or even give it away to people who won't fight for it themselves. And that's just one type of freedom. There seems to be many kinds.

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

Originally posted by shadowking
SH invaded Kuwait because he wanted to believe it a part of his country. He wanted the oil but more importantly he wanted the sea ports.

Actually, I thought it was a border and angled oil drilling issue (Kuwait drilling at an angle under Iraqi lands).

Not going to bother arguing if he was right, but I believe this was the "just" reason given by Saddam for invading...

And seemed there was more evidence of this than WMDs in Iraq...

[PAlexC]

Originally posted by iaskwhy
Ha, I haven't fallen for the old freedom trick since like 1963. I believed it then, for about 2 years, until I saw what a lie that was, from personal experience. I realized that you can't ram freedom down peoples throats, or even give it away to people who won't fight for it themselves. And that's just one type of freedom. There seems to be many kinds.

This whole 'spreading freedom' thing is a bunch of bull. The notion that forcably installing 'freedom' will create a domino effect around it is the same kind of flawed thinking about Communism and the Red Scare that got us into Korea and Vietnam.

[flipsideguy]

It's an oxymoron. Using war to promote freedom. It's absurd.

With the countries in East developing so rapidly in the past decade, the worlds energy resources will start being depleted--price of oil and gas will skyrocket. Being the world biggest consumer of oil you have to do something about it to ensure the supply is there for your national industry.

Now, how do you go about invading a country rich with oil for the sake of taking control of it's oil export without starting a World War, as well as get your citizens to back you up? You come up with a cock&bull story about "imminent threats" and "WMD" and voila. The American people always believe their president (remember Clinton's impeachment trials?)

Then you bribe countries with poor economies to join, just to fill a roster. To this day I don't know how Blair became such a tool and ate up whatever Bush (+ Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld etc) were serving.

Bush is a businessman. Not a good one, I might add, and he runs America like a business, the world as his market. So, the invasion/occupation of Iraq was just a hostile takeover... And he fired the old CEO

It's as easy as that.

/Flip

[indivision]

Originally posted by PAlexC
This whole 'spreading freedom' thing is a bunch of bull. The notion that forcably installing 'freedom' will create a domino effect around it is the same kind of flawed thinking about Communism and the Red Scare that got us into Korea and Vietnam.

?!

Going into Korea was bad? There was nothing bad about Communism?

[ViRGo_RK]

Death and Life have a sense of irony, no?

[Ask The Geezer]

Originally posted by indivision
?!

Going into Korea was bad? There was nothing bad about Communism?

I grew up being brainwashed about all that pinko commie crap. Communism is just like Democracy. Either or both can be bad, and they can both be good. Against all popular belief to the contrary, China has done fairly well under communism, while America and a large part of the rest of the world has gone to hell under democracy. Just look around. It's not the dogma, it's who's feeding it to you that matters.