Satan or Hussein, who's insane?

That's a perfect example Ali, and 1 that I wish more people would wake the fuck up and realize. I'm tired of always having to do things the right way, or the human rights way, or the legal way (and yes, I now realize that I'm truly getting my thoughts to the scary point here :D ), but it's the same tactic employed on The Shield every week.

They criminals are known to have committed specific crimes. It cannot be proven. The cops do "whatever it takes," even if that sometimes means bending or even breaking the rules to put that creep behind bars. I look at this the same way concerning Iraq. Saddam's a fucker, and just because he's got his biological/chemical weapons plants on mobile trucks, and has continued to evade the fucking morons from the UN, the USA isn't just going to wait anymore. Enough is fucking enough.

See, now look what you guys have done. Now I'm all fired up.
 
If Bush dropped the moniker of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", and started going after him for "Crimes Against Humanity", I think a lot more people would buy into this war.

So I'm basically agreeing with what NAD said too. The only thing about Milosevic is that we gave him a trial. Why? What further evidence did we need?

Same with Saddam - he needs no trial. He is guilty as charged.

But we don't need an entire war. That will hurt us. We need to send in a crack commando squad from the British SAS to assasinate him, and make it look like an inside job.
 
Ali, that's NOT an option any longer. Kill one despot and another is lined up to replace them.

I'm sorry you liberal types cannot or will not accept this, but the only option left now is to destroy their ability to wreak havoc on the world. And that means demolishing their entire government, but also the munitions factories, airforce bases, aircraft, missle silos, anti-aircraft guns, chemical and/or biological weapons plants. The list goes on.

It was the only way to stop Germany, and now they're a productive member of the European Union and the global economy. The only way to ensure that the country will cease and desist their terrorist and despotic ways (is despotic a word?), is to CRIPPLE THEM.
 
markgugs said:
It was the only way to stop Germany, and now they're a productive member of the European Union and the global economy.
Now THAT is an excellent point.
 
This is one of those classic threads, and one that hasn't been posted on in over two months...

So, now that the peopel have basically forgotten about Iraq and aren't being bombarded with images 24/7, I ask... where are the weapons of mass destruction?

And the reason they don't go after Saddam for gassing the Kurds? Surprise, we were supporting him at the time that happened...

And the remark about Germany... c'mon, anyone seen Sum Of All Fears? that's not too unreasonable to consider....

Bottom line, Iraq wasn't a threat to us, never was.. someone had to get hit with the weaponry, as that is the ONLY way Bush will get re-elected, which I don't think he will.

God, let's hope not.

And would someone take out his successor as governor here in Texas while they're at it?
 
Well Josh your calls for discussion have gone unheeded! I just now noticed you bumped the thread so I'll chime in... :Spin:

Papa Josh said:
Bottom line, Iraq wasn't a threat to us, never was.. someone had to get hit with the weaponry, as that is the ONLY way Bush will get re-elected, which I don't think he will.

Weapons of Mass Disappearance was one headline from earlier this week. Personally I think that Iraq has (or at least had) a lot of weaponry, including biological and nuclear technology (labs and empty warheads have been discovered), but I never saw them as much of a threat to begin with. Perhaps I'm more Machiavellian than is healthy, but I would rather the world was armed instead of leaving them without anything, and risking a greater threat in the long run.

Then again, according to Colin Powell's diatribe earlier this year, there were multiple stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, valid proof that Iraq indeed had lots of nasty stuff. Well, where is it? It didn't just disappear did it? It wasn't used during our military campaign against them, so where did all that stuff go, if it in fact existed to begin with? Maybe it was transported to Syria, or Lebanon, or China, or who knows where else.

My true fear is that the latter opinion will win out and perhaps give Bushy an excuse to go after someone else. He has already successfully fought two wars in his presidency thusfar, why not go for the hat trick?

I don't think that Bush will get re-elected, his dealings with the international community have been too bold for the entire American public to want 4 more years of risky behavior.
 
I sure hope you are right. Two wars in less than 4 years, you guys can call me a conspiracy theorist all you want, but the simple fact is that this man entered the office with a purpose. He entered under deceit (fraudulent election), and set out to prove just how much we needed to beef up our military spending. All of his grandstanding has put us at odds with our worldly neighbors time and again.

I swear if that man was to extend his hand to me, I'd be tempted to not touch it for fear of shaking hands with the devil. :tickled:

Seriously though, I don't know whether his heart is good or not, but he sure seems shady to me... his past speaks loud.
 
NAD said:
Then again, according to Colin Powell's diatribe earlier this year, there were multiple stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, valid proof that Iraq indeed had lots of nasty stuff. Well, where is it? It didn't just disappear did it? It wasn't used during our military campaign against them, so where did all that stuff go, if it in fact existed to begin with? Maybe it was transported to Syria, or Lebanon, or China, or who knows where else.
Now that the war is over, I want to see the HARD EVIDENCE that Bush and Blair claimed they had to show that REAL weapons did exist today. Not shells, not chemicals (found in any Home Depot), not paint thinner - where's the friggin' proof? Where is that document - has it been posted to any URL? If so, let me know.

*I edited my response here because after reading some of the comments on this thread, I just got annoyed all over again, but I don't want to start a thread war again. People shoot their mouths off etc in the heat of argument. Put it this way, I doubt if anyone's opinions before the war have changed whether you were pro or against war. Everyone knows their own truths*.

I will say this though - the American media hyping the war like a hollywood movie was DISGUSTING. Human beings were dying. The headlines were insulting, to claim "weapons of mass destruction" and then quickly change it to "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was an insult to all, whether you were pro or against.
 
Papa Josh said:
I swear if that man was to extend his hand to me, I'd be tempted to not touch it for fear of shaking hands with the devil. :tickled:

Man, you are soooooo not metal. :lol:

The 2000 election was flawed on both sides, just to let you know. Every body involved (with the exception of the Florida certification committee) acted illegally during the entire fiasco. :Spin:
 
NAD said:
The 2000 election was flawed on both sides, just to let you know. Every body involved (with the exception of the Florida certification committee) acted illegally during the entire fiasco. :Spin:

Yeah, I know..

Saw Condoleeza Rice (BITCH) on This Week with George Stephanopholus (however it's sopelled...), and he was drilling her with some really good questions... and she tried ducking most of them, of course. She reminds me of Sherry on 24, and not just because she's black..

In fact, a lot of what she said sounded like something straight out of the show..

What a ho....
 
Hey you leave Condilicious alone!!! :lol:

Did you get that article I sent you? Either way, I'll post it here anyhow. Via http://www.stratfor.com

THE STRATFOR WEEKLY
5 June 2003

by Dr. George Friedman

WMD
Summary
The inability to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has
created a political crisis in the United States and Britain.
Within the two governments, there are recriminations and brutal
political infighting over responsibility. Stratfor warned in
February that the unwillingness of the U.S. government to
articulate its real, strategic reasons for the war -- choosing
instead to lean on WMD as the justification -- would lead to a
deep crisis at some point. That moment seems to be here.
Analysis
"Weapons of mass destruction" is promising to live up to its
name: The issue may well result in the mass destruction of senior
British and American officials who used concerns about WMD in
Iraq as the primary, public justification for going to war. The
simple fact is that no one has found any weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq and -- except for some vans which may have
been used for biological weapons -- no evidence that Iraq was
working to develop such weapons. Since finding WMD is a priority
for U.S. military forces, which have occupied Iraq for more than
a month, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction not only
has become an embarrassment, it also has the potential to
mushroom into a major political crisis in the United States and
Britain. Not only is the political opposition exploiting the
paucity of Iraqi WMD, but the various bureaucracies are using the
issue to try to discredit each other. It's a mess.
On Jan. 21, 2003, Stratfor published an analysis titled Smoke and
Mirrors: The United States, Iraq and Deception, which made the
following points:
1. The primary reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was strategic
and not about weapons of mass destruction.
2. The United States was using the WMD argument primarily to
justify the attack to its coalition partners.
3. The use of WMD rather than strategy as the justification for
the war would ultimately create massive confusion as to the
nature of the war the United States was fighting.
As we put it:
"To have allowed the WMD issue to supplant U.S. strategic
interests as the justification for war has created a crisis in
U.S. strategy. Deception campaigns are designed to protect
strategies, not to trap them. Ultimately, the foundation of U.S.
grand strategy, coalitions and the need for clarity in military
strategy have collided. The discovery of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq will not solve the problem, nor will a coup
in Baghdad. In a war [against Islamic extremists] that will last
for years, maintaining one's conceptual footing is critical. If
that footing cannot be maintained -- if the requirements of the
war and the requirements of strategic clarity are incompatible --
there are more serious issues involved than the future of Iraq."
The failure to enunciate the strategic reasons for the invasion
of Iraq--of cloaking it in an extraneous justification--has now
come home to roost. Having used WMD as the justification, the
inability to locate WMD in Iraq has undermined the credibility of
the United States and is tearing the government apart in an orgy
of finger-pointing.
To make sense of this impending chaos, it is important to start
at the beginning -- with al Qaeda. After the Sept. 11 attacks, al
Qaeda was regarded as an extraordinarily competent global
organization. Sheer logic argued that the network would want to
top the Sept. 11 strikes with something even more impressive.
This led to a very reasonable fear that al Qaeda possessed or was
in the process of obtaining WMD.
U.S. intelligence, shifting from its sub-sensitive to hyper-
sensitive mode, began putting together bits of intelligence that
tended to show that what appeared to be logical actually was
happening. The U.S. intelligence apparatus now was operating in a
worst-case scenario mode, as is reasonable when dealing with WMD.
Lower-grade intelligence was regarded as significant. Two things
resulted: The map of who was developing weapons of mass
destruction expanded, as did the probabilities assigned to al
Qaeda's ability to obtain WMD. The very public outcome -- along
with a range of less public events -- was the "axis of evil"
State of the Union speech, which identified three countries as
having WMD and likely to give it to al Qaeda. Iraq was one of
these countries.
If we regard chemical weapons as WMD, as has been U.S. policy,
then it is well known that Iraq had WMD, since it used them in
the past. It was a core assumption, therefore, that Iraq
continued to possess WMD. Moreover, U.S. intelligence officials
believed there was a parallel program in biological weapons, and
also that Iraqi leaders had the ability and the intent to restart
their nuclear program, if they had not already done so. Running
on the worst-case basis that was now hard-wired by al Qaeda into
U.S. intelligence, Iraq was identified as a country with WMD and
likely to pass them on to al Qaeda.
Iraq, of course, was not the only country in this class. There
are other sources of WMD in the world, even beyond the "axis of
evil" countries. Simply invading Iraq would not solve the
fundamental problem of the threat from al Qaeda. As Stratfor has
always argued, the invasion of Iraq served a psychological and
strategic purpose: Psychologically, it was designed to
demonstrate to the Islamic world the enormous power and ferocity
of the United States; strategically, it was designed to position
the United States to coerce countries such as Saudi Arabia, Syria
and Iran into changing their policies toward suppressing al Qaeda
operations in their countries. Both of these missions were
achieved.
WMD was always a side issue in terms of strategic planning. It
became, however, the publicly stated moral, legal and political
justification for the war. It was understood that countries like
France and Russia had no interest in collaborating with
Washington in a policy that would make the United States the
arbiter of the Middle East. Washington had to find a
justification for the war that these allies would find
irresistible.
That justification was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
From the standpoint of U.S. intelligence, this belief became a
given. Everyone knew that Iraq once had chemical weapons, and no
reasonable person believed that Saddam Hussein had unilaterally
destroyed them. So it appeared to planners within the Bush
administration that they were on safe ground. Moreover, it was
assumed that other major powers would regard WMD in Hussein's
hands as unacceptable and that therefore, everyone would accept
the idea of a war in which the stated goal -- and the real
outcome -- would be the destruction of Iraq's weapons.
This was the point on which Washington miscalculated. The public
justification for the war did not compel France, Germany or
Russia to endorse military action. They continued to resist
because they fully understood the outcome -- intended or not --
would be U.S. domination of the Middle East, and they did not
want to see that come about. Paris, Berlin and Moscow turned the
WMD issue on its head, arguing that if that was the real issue,
then inspections by the United Nations would be the way to solve
the problem. Interestingly, they never denied that Iraq had WMD;
what they did deny was that proof of WMD had been found. They
also argued that over time, as proof accumulated, the inspection
process would either force the Iraqis to destroy their WMD or
justify an invasion at that point. What is important here is that
French and Russian leaders shared with the United States the
conviction that Iraq had WMD. Like the Americans, they thought
weapons of mass destruction -- particularly if they were
primarily chemical -- was a side issue; the core issue was U.S.
power in the Middle East.
In short, all sides were working from the same set of
assumptions. There was not much dispute that the Baathist regime
probably had WMD. The issue between the United States and its
allies was strategic. After the war, the United States would
become the dominant power in the region, and it would use this
power to force regional governments to strike at al Qaeda.
Germany, France and Russia, fearing the growth of U.S. power,
opposed the war. Rather than clarifying the chasm in the
alliance, the Bush administration permitted the arguments over
WMD to supplant a discussion of strategy and left the American
public believing the administration's public statements -- smoke
and mirrors -- rather than its private view.
The Bush administration -- and France, for that matter -- all
assumed that this problem would disappear when the U.S. military
got into Iraq. WMD would be discovered, the public justification
would be vindicated, the secret goal would be achieved and no one
would be the wiser. What they did not count on -- what is
difficult to believe even now -- is that Hussein actually might
not have WMD or, weirder still, that he hid them or destroyed
them so efficiently that no one could find them. That was the
kicker the Bush administration never counted on.
The matter of whether Hussein had WMD is still open. Answers
could range to the extremes: He had no WMD or he still has WMD,
being held in reserve for his guerrilla war. But the point here
is that the WMD question was not the reason the United States
went to war. The war was waged in order to obtain a strategic
base from which to coerce countries such as Syria, Iran and Saudi
Arabia into using their resources to destroy al Qaeda within
their borders. From that standpoint, the strategy seems to be
working.
However, by using WMD as the justification for war, the United
States walked into a trap. The question of the location of WMD is
important. The question of whether it was the CIA or Defense
Department that skewed its reports about the location of Iraq's
WMD is also important. But these questions are ultimately trivial
compared to the use of smoke and mirrors to justify a war in
which Iraq was simply a single campaign. Ultimately, the problem
is that it created a situation in which the American public had
one perception of the reason for the war while the war's planners
had another. In a democratic society engaged in a war that will
last for many years, this is a dangerous situation to have
created.
 
As usual Stratfor makes me sit back and say "...damn." It will be interesting to see how the public reacts to this in the long run if in fact no WMD are found.

Over the last few days I have read several articles that say that Colin Powell was highly skeptical of the evidence he presented to the UN, and that several CIA agents were pressured to find intelligence reinforcing Bushy's stance on Iraq several months back. Interesting to say the least.
 
METALLICA drummer Lars Ulrich is furious at the news that the military is using their songs to "break down" Iraqi captives in Baghdad, according to the World Entertainment News Network.

Interrogators are using the band's tracks, including "Enter Sandman", in the hope of extracting information about weapons of mass destruction — something which angers Ulrich.

He says, "I feel horrible about this. No one in Iraq has ever done anything to hurt me and I don't understand why we have to be implicated in that bullshit.

"What about firing up some VENOM or some of those Norwegian death metal bands? The problem with that is then it wouldn't be a soundbite. Sometimes METALLICA become the token heavy metal band that you can talk about.

"Someone asked me yesterday what I was going to do about it. What am I supposed to do about it — get George Bush on the phone and tell him to get his generals to play some VENOM?"

:lol: :lol:

He's going to sue the US Army now.
 
I'll bet he wouldn't be mad if the army was playing stuff from St. Anger. "Oh yeah man, that's some heavy shit! Is that too much METAL for ya?!?! HUH?!!??"