[Stryke 9]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40212-2003May10.html

Argue away.

[Mr. Vega]

"Why are we doing any planned targets?" Army Chief Warrant Officer Richard L. Gonzales, leader of Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha, said in disgust to a colleague during last Sunday's nightly report of weapons sites and survey results. "Answer me that. We know they're empty."

Enough said.

[Stryke 9]

I can see it now...

TEN YEARS LATER

US Team Unveils MDW Evidence
Paint Can "Smoking Gun"

In a surprise announcement today, President-for-Remainder-of-Unnatural-Life Richard Cheney announced the discovery of a "smoking gun", conclusively tying the former Iraqi regime with chemical weapons production.

In the middle of an otherwise routine speech on his new Arrest Everyone bill, Cheney was seen to imperceptibly crack a smile, and state into his robotic voicebox "And I've got something we've all been waiting for for a long, long time..." Ordering an attendant to lift on high a standard green aerosol spray-paint can, Cheney's speakers announced; "Last week, this canister was found among the remains of an old Iraqi military base, now converted into a car factory. Contained inside it are numerous toxic chemicals, which, if released in large quantities over an average city block, could kill or severely harm hundreds- or even thousands- of people. In addition to causing potentially severe brain damage and/or asphyxiation, this cocktail of chemicals had the ability to "tag" or "paint" the affected area with a distinct green material, no doubt so that bombers could know which areas to and not to strike on repeat campaigns. Ladies and gentlemen, today we have finally unveiled the extent and diabolic nature of the evil weapons program we were so lucky to have stopped in motion, all of ten years ago."

Cheney then seized up, apparently having imprudently ignored the advice of his doctors not to allow any trace of emotion into his cold mechanical replacement heart, and was wheeled offstage. Attendants continued throughout the event to describe in detail the financial benefits of developing a turban-seeking missile

[Rictor]

US cant turn up ****?
I'm suprised. Not by the fact there they havent found any WMD, but by the fact that they havent fabricated them by now.

And they were yelling at Hans Blix for not finding what they at the time thought to be obvious...and now they wont allow the man back in, since he would constitute an independent confirmation body, which would get in the way of fabrcating evidence.

Notice how they lowering expectations.."We may not find WMD, but we may possible find circumstantial evidence that could possbile point to a dual-purpose WMD creation facility in the early stages"...I hope people wont but it, though I think most US citizens will

hehe reminds me of Lynel Hutz: "No, we dont have any evidence per se. But we do have plenty of conjecture and heresay, those are kinds of evidence"

[CP5670]

This is no surprise at all; as I said in that big Iraq thread, even if there were any WMDs it would be extremely difficult to find them, and multiply so with the pre-war political approach used. Even Hussein is not so stupid as to leave them behind in Iraq when he had all that time to smuggle them out without any trouble. If a surprise attack had been conducted without any warning and without six months of threats and inspections, then it is more likely that something would have been found, but in the current situation the chances of a Freespace 3 coming out are far higher than the probability of the US finding WMDs even if they exist.

I guess the reason that they are not making up evidence is that it would only lead to suspicion, since it is simply too ridiculous and unlikely that they are actually finding something.

[Galemp]

So, when does Bush get tried for War Crimes?

[CP5670]

Nobody ever gets tried for that; the winners in a war make the laws while the losers in a war die.

[Bobboau]

we did just find two moble production thingys.

[Galemp]

So, tell me again, why did we decide to invade Iraq? We were going against the UN... they had no weapons of mass destruction... no ties to the 9/11 attacks... not harboring Osama... Saddam's vanished... and now all the 'liberated' Iraqis are looting and overrunning the country, causing it to degrade into anarchy.

Can't say I'm suprised. The sad thing is that nobody in the government is going to admit they made mistakes, or be punished for them. Instead we'll probably abandon Iraq and move on to invade another country, in the name of The War on Terror, Liberty and Justice for all.

[CP5670]

Read the big old Iraq thread for some info on why the UN is not worth bothering with (hey, we were going against Hussein's wishes too! it's an illegal war!! ), why it does not matter what weapons they have at the moment, why Hussein (among others) must be linked to bin Laden if he is smart enough to run a country, and all that other good stuff.

I doubt they will forget about Iraq just yet because it would not be in American interests; it needs to prosper so that one of the anti-US extremists do not gain control (which would bring things back to the original situation), as these people always thrive in chaos and cannot obtain power otherwise.

[Bobboau]

I seem to recall quite a large number of anti-war people saying something along the lines of "well obviusly we all know he has weapons of mass destruction, every half decent dictator on the planet has them, the question is weather he is going to use them in a menner that threatens the US" I heard this argument from about 90% of the anti-war people, leading me to beleve that you were all convinced that he had them (but that you didn't think it constituted a threat worth going to war over).

and i had always countered that with a "well I realy don't care about the weapons, I want to remove him for other reasons", now that is not to say I didn't expect to find wmds, nor does it mean that I don't think it is important to find them, but the reasons for that is becase I would rather not give the people working against us something to use.

but before we start going after the second point I would like some work on the first, before the war how many of you (anti-war people specificly) thought that there were banned weapons in Iraq (for the sake of argument lets limit that to BCN weapons, so we don't et into arguments over missles and stuff)

[Shrike]

Originally posted by GalacticEmperor
So, when does Bush get tried for War Crimes?

When he starts pushing his populace into plastic shredders and sending out his secret police to brutalize and kill any suspected insurgents.

[Tiara]

Ow am I glad I'm going sailing for the next 5 days

[CP5670]

be sure to check back when you return; there should be some fun going on in here by then.

[Stryke 9]

Bob: True, but the fact that recently Bush has done more to disprove the idea that he had weapons than anything else is telling. And if you're trying to say that somehow it's acceptable for a nation to go to war on little more than a hunch and a character profile, well, that's just ****ing deranged. So what happens when the next president gets the idea that Germany, France, England, Russia, and Quebec-area Canada are in an international conspiracy against him personally? Is he justified then in blowing up the entire planet, even though he has no proof and indeed nothing more than a vague sense that people don't like him there?

Shrike: Those wouldn't be war crimes, those would be state crimes. War crime would be if he did it to the Iraqis. And he most certainly has indirectly slaughtered quite a few of them (and is continuing to slaughter, 16 the other day). Really, the generals in the field are more directly at fault, and unless he's defeated and brought to court in shackles he's considered innocent by default, but since he did wage a baseless war that involved the deaths of thousands if not tens of thousands (he's suppressing the bodycounts), he ain't exactly Nobel Peace Prize material.

Which is another thing that bothers me. What the hell kind of stupid sycophant would put warmonger Bush up for the Peace Prize? Why not, say, somebody who hasn't declared two ****ing wars in the past two years???

[Shrike]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Which is another thing that bothers me. What the hell kind of stupid sycophant would put warmonger Bush up for the Peace Prize? Why not, say, somebody who hasn't declared two ****ing wars in the past two years???

Maybe because in a month of shooting he's done more to bring about some sort of stability in the middle east than twelve years of talking?  I've never been a Bush cheerleader, but I'm willing to give him and his administration the benefit of the doubt in Iraq.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
And he most certainly has indirectly slaughtered quite a few of them (and is continuing to slaughter, 16 the other day).

Can you find me a link to an article about this? I've been completely disconnected from news recently.

I like this:

[q]A little-known nuclear special operations group from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, called the Direct Support Team, has already sent home a third of its original complement, and plans to cut the remaining team by half.[/q]

What a round-about way of saying that they're gonna be left with a third of their original force.

[Bobboau]

Did someone actually put him up for a peace prize?

Anyway, no I don't think any president has the right to arbitrarily wage war on anybody they want to, and this is not what I meant. Iraq is a supporter of terrorism, remember the (I believe it was) $20,000 prize families of suicide bombers got, that alone, to me, is reason for removal (especially when coupled with Sadam's generally bad rule) as it flys in direct conflict with our international objectives, specifically Israel. (Yes I know you don't think this realy affects them but I do, and there are other things like the terrorist camps in the north (which killed prominent Kurds, i.e. Sadam's enemies) ect...)
Can you name one thing that has gotten the Arab world more pissed at us than Israel (honestly the war with Iraq has not, yet at least). The simple matter is that we will not have security until the Palestinians have a state, and we will not allow Israel to be concord (although technically this would probably lower hostilities ), and Israel will not give them there state so long as they are blowing themselves up, and they will not stop blowing them selves up until outside forces stop funding them,
Iraq was one such outside force, as is Syria (whom we have been threatening), Iran (whom we are probably plotting to overthrough), and Saudi Arabia (whom we are no longer dependent on for oil:))
So to wrap it up
Sadam,
~brutal ruler who invades countries I like and tortures people -  makes me want him removed (though it does not give me a good reason on it's own)
~suports terrorism - gives me a good reason to remove him, in addition to furthering my desire to have him removed
~has outstanding charges of illegal weapons production - gives me a legal reason to do it, as well as a real potential threat to me and my allies, and another good reason to have him removed

in any case I will be quite pissed if we can't find them, this will not change my believe that what we did was the right thing, but I will be quite pissed, at Bush, for doing such an incompetent job at finding the weapons or for having used that for the pretext for the war when he could not garentee we would be able to prove our allegations

[CP5670]

I would be quite happy if he got the peace price actually. That is one of the stupidest prizes around so its reputation would really go down the drain if someone like him receives it. (after all, being a math guy I scoff at Nobel prizes anyway; Fields medal are superior )

Actually, best of all would be if Saddam got it instead. He is the true man of peace.

Is he justified then in blowing up the entire planet, even though he has no proof and indeed nothing more than a vague sense that people don't like him there?

Anyone is "justified" in doing anything they please. How many times must I repeat that to you?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by CP5670
but in the current situation the chances of a Freespace 3 coming out are far higher than the probability of the US finding WMDs even if they exist.

 

maybe they'll find a copy of Freespace 3 this time