Iraq solution.

[giuliano]

saddam was like that kid on the ground getting kicked in the guts, but who just wouldn't say "enough! i give up!" so we just kept kicking him. he was no threat.

[Samildanach]

You know its really strange but I would have thought they had ways to scan large areas for at least nuclear weapons signatures by now.
Even if the weapons were shielded you should be able to devise some kind of emitted radiation scan which would show you the shielded areas because they absorb radiation compared to the surrounding background which would relatively reflect it.
I'm not military but this type of tech seems perfectly viable....mind you maybe it doesn't work well in sandy areas.

[giuliano]

yeah and prove what? that he had no nukes? what use would that have been to dubya?

[Dieval]

Originally posted by giuliano, saddam was like that kid on the ground getting kicked in the guts, but who just wouldn't say "enough! i give up!" so we just kept kicking him. he was no threat.

I guess an active nuclear program is not a threat to anyone....

Iraq Survey Chief Duelfer: Saddam Was Developing Nukes Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons development program at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003, chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer has told Congress.

Iraq Survey Chief Duelfer: Saddam Was Developing Nukes

[Gorgo]

So now a well-monitored "weapons development program" is an imminent threat to our survival necessitating the death and injury of thousands?

[Dieval]

Originally posted by Gorgo, So now a well-monitored "weapons development program" is an imminent threat to our survival necessitating the death and injury of thousands?

Assuming you're trying to quote the president, when you use the words "imminent threat", let me just point out to you what he said. -

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

GWB SOTU Speech.

I think this would fall in to the category of not waiting until the threat is imminent......should we have waited until they had a nuke before we attacked? Wouldn't that be stupid?

[Gorgo]

Again, you'll recall something called the U.N. Charter which says that the only legal attack is to remove an imminent threat. Then the matter rests with the U.N.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by Gorgo, Then the matter rests with the U.N.

I'm glad you're willing to leave matters like this in such capable hands.....hahahaha

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Dieval,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dieval,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Gorgo, Then the matter rests with the U.N.

I'm glad you're willing to leave matters like this in such capable hands.....hahahaha[/b][/quote]

Yeah, especially since they're in such good hands now. Almost a thousand dead GI's, for what? New terrorist warnings are being issued in the United States almost every day now. Can you really believe we are safer now?

[Comrade]

Yeah Zeebadee, the terrorists were really pulling their punches before we invaded Iraq. If only we had been nice and done nothing they wouldn't've threatened us.
Oh, and all of the information that the terror threats has comes from was begun a long time before Iraq. Began. <---

I really don't understand your logic, in any case. How does killing terrorists make them more dangerous?

I have a question. If Saddam was so secular, and bin Laden and his associates hated him so much no not work with him, why are they rallying to his cause? If it is because they hate America so much, then wouldn't they work with him before we invaded as well?

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Comrade, I have a question. If Saddam was so secular, and bin Laden and his associates hated him so much no not work with him, why are they rallying to his cause? If it is because they hate America so much, then wouldn't they work with him before we invaded as well?

bin Laden and his associates have been our enemy all along! They aren't "rallying to his cause". Iraq was no threat, saddam's troop weren't even able to defend their ouw country, how were they a threat to us?? Even Bush has never claimed that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attack. Iraq was quarantined, and inspections were ongoing. Can you show me a location in Iraq the inspectors weren't allowed to go to?

So, if bin Laden and his associates are our enemy, why have we sacrificed well over 900 GI lives attacking Iraq??

[Comrade]

Because a democratic Iraq will serve as a springboard into reforming those Islamist states that breed terror. Iraq has borders with both Iran and Saudi Arabia (and a bunch of others like Syria), and if we can get oil from Iraq, we can pressure the Saudis.

I've pointed this out a bunch. Iraq isn't the end, it is the second or third step.

Oh, and, he was funding terrorists, had a nuclear program, and had the means to produce chemical weapons. But he Wasn't A Threat™, I guess.

[Zeebadee]

"Because a democratic Iraq will serve as a springboard into reforming those Islamist states that breed terror. Iraq has borders with both Iran and Saudi Arabia (and a bunch of others like Syria), and if we can get oil from Iraq, we can pressure the Saudis."

So, you finally admit that this war is about Iraq's oil. Then why didn't Bush say so instead of giving us a bunch of lies about WMD's??


"Oh, and, he was funding terrorists, had a nuclear program, and had the means to produce chemical weapons."

Where were his reactors? Where were the chemical weapons factories? We can't even find a significant factory or reactor, let alone the " thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas" that Bush claimed they had.

Yeah, a major threat! A nuclear attack in 45 minutes!!

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Zeebadee, [b] So, you finally admit that this war is about Iraq's oil. Nice try, but no. I certainly don't mean it the way you do (for Halliburton profits). See, for those of us who live in reality, oil is something that our country requires to continue functioning. And it wasn't the main point, but a beneficial side effect. Win-Win is evil in haters' book, for some reason. Then why didn't Bush say so instead of giving us a bunch of lies about WMD's?? Well, the last time Bush stated which countries we had a problem with, NK started up its nuke program again. Now, just think of the whining and complaining if Bush said, "We intend to replace all Islamic governments with democracies. And strategic thinking isn't going to appeal to American anyways. But then again, it doesn't really matter what Bush's reasons were, that is the way it is going to be, and that is the way it is right now. Just look at the way things are in the Middle East right now. Islamic dictators are nervous, trying to play nice by showing us their nuclear programs... Where were his reactors? Where were the chemical weapons factories? We can't even find a significant factory or reactor, let alone the " thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas" that Bush claimed they had. Where was the part where I said he had reactors and chemical weapon factories? I didn't say he was currently producing them, I said he had a "nuclear progam" and "he had the means to produce chemical weapons" such as technical knowhow. Yeah, a major threat! A nuclear attack in 45 minutes!! Yeah, I guess it would be better to just leave Saddam there, he wasn't hurting anyone, he was just misunderstood. His father beat him, remember. Can't you think of how emotionally scarred he must be? Bush should've been more sensitive and sent psychiatrists instead of soldiers.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by Zeebadee,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Zeebadee,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Where were his reactors? Yeah, a major threat! A nuclear attack in 45 minutes!![/b]

Read my post about how to make a nuclear bomb... No one said there would be a nuclear attack in 45 minutes, but he did have an active nuclear weapons program. Again I ask, should we have waited until he finished a nuke before removing him from power?
<!--QuoteBegin-Zeebadee,
" Where were the chemical weapons factories? We can't even find a significant factory or reactor, let alone the " thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas" that Bush claimed they had.

Yeah, a major threat! [/quote]
Apparently you forgot my previous post(page 4 of this thread) from Hans Blix(and the UN) pointing out that they ALSO believed that Saddam had WMD's..might want to go back and skim over that and stop trying to make it sound like Bush was the only one that came to that conclusion.

[Zeebadee]

"Nice try, but no. I certainly don't mean it the way you do (for Halliburton profits)."

I didn't say anything about Halliburton, you brought that up. You stated, "if we can get oil from Iraq, we can pressure the Saudis."

".. I didn't say he was currently producing them,..."

Then how was he any immediate threat??

"Yeah, I guess it would be better to just leave Saddam there..."

I would guess that none of the over 900 dead GI's are members of your family. Try some more sarcasm, it seems to be the best of your posts.

Edited for spelling.

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Dieval,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dieval,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Zeebadee,@ Where were his reactors? Yeah, a major threat! A nuclear attack in 45 minutes!! Read my post about how to make a nuclear bomb... No one said there would be a nuclear attack in 45 minutes, but he did have an active nuclear weapons program. Again I ask, should we have waited until he finished a nuke before removing him from power? You are wrong, Tony Blair made the claim. (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...020033,00.html) And where was this "active nuclear weapons program" located? <!--QuoteBegin-Zeebadee, " Where were the chemical weapons factories? We can't even find a significant factory or reactor, let alone the " thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas" that Bush claimed they had. Yeah, a major threat!

Apparently you forgot my previous post(page 4 of this thread) from Hans Blix(and the UN) pointing out that they ALSO believed that Saddam had WMD's..might want to go back and skim over that and stop trying to make it sound like Bush was the only one that came to that conclusion.[/b][/quote]

I have never said that Bush was the only one to come to this conclusion. But he WAS the only one to start a war over it!!! Let's give credit where credit is due! How about having him accept some responsibility??

[Comrade]

And then you proceeded to say, "Hah! So you admit it was all for the oil!"
Give me a break.

Zeebadee, can you read? Bush even read his speech, can you hear?

Yeah, and I could say you should use some more haughty faux-indignation.

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Comrade, And then you proceeded to say, "Hah! So you admit it was all for the oil!" Give me a break. Zeebadee, can you read? Bush even read his speech, can you hear? Yeah, and I could say you should use some more haughty faux-indignation.

Please show me where I ever said what you quote me as saying. I said no such thing, you made up that quote, didn't you??

[Comrade]

Originally posted by zeebadee So, you finally admit that this war is about Iraq's oil.

No, not making it up at all. You were indicated that I was "admitting" that the suppositions of the no blood for oil crowd were correct, and I was saying no.

I did not "admit" that the war was about Iraq's oil, I said that Iraq's oil is a benefit that allows us to combat terrorism, certainly not the main thrust.