View Poll Results: For or against the war?
I am for the war.
58
81.69%
I am against the war.
13
18.31%
Voters: 71. You may not vote on this poll
For or against the war, take the poll here...
03-22-2003, 10:18 AM
#72
I need sleep...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NH
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by MrFatBooty
Bush is acting in violation of international law to eliminate a threat that was being dealt with through the proper channels. He still has provided no reason as to why he abandoned the UN.
Bush is acting in violation of international law to eliminate a threat that was being dealt with through the proper channels. He still has provided no reason as to why he abandoned the UN.
04-04-2003, 06:20 PM
#73
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all there has been NO proof linking Iraq to the Sept. 11th attacks. The FBI, CIA, and government have found no proof, so the Sept 11th arguement for this war is out the window. The majority of the Hi Jackers on Sept 11th were from Saudi Arabia (our ally)....NONE of them were from Iraq. They have also found no proof of Iraq's link to Al Queda. These were just accusations used by the administration to scare americans into supporting the war. I don’t disagree that there are legal arguments for this war, we must remember there were legal arguments for Hitler’s actions as well. The defense arguments are a bit shady, we are talking about a country that has no means of outright attacking our country. (Everyone seems to be surprised now that Iraq hasn’t attacked Israel, how soon we forget that he wasn’t supposed to have weapons that could reach Israel…. Hmmm? (minus the propaganda of course)) As far a legitimate moral argument I’m still waiting.
Saddam Hussein is perhaps an evil madman, he is however a foreign leader, regardless of our opinions of him, and we need to act like he is. The problem with circumstantial evidence is just that, it’s circumstantial not direct.
Abuses take place all over the world, morally we can argue if war is a way to end abuses. I’m for letting society run it’s course, be it king, dictator, or president, people throughout history and modern times have always held the one right that can never be taken away. The right to revolt.
"I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar soaked fingers out of the business of these [Third World] nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the "haves" refuse to share with the "have-nots" by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throats by Americans."
--General David Sharp [Former United States Marine Commandant 1966]
Saddam Hussein is perhaps an evil madman, he is however a foreign leader, regardless of our opinions of him, and we need to act like he is. The problem with circumstantial evidence is just that, it’s circumstantial not direct.
Abuses take place all over the world, morally we can argue if war is a way to end abuses. I’m for letting society run it’s course, be it king, dictator, or president, people throughout history and modern times have always held the one right that can never be taken away. The right to revolt.
"I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar soaked fingers out of the business of these [Third World] nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the "haves" refuse to share with the "have-nots" by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throats by Americans."
--General David Sharp [Former United States Marine Commandant 1966]
04-04-2003, 07:06 PM
#74
Sinner
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NoVA
Posts: 6,599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by filmpunk18
They have also found no proof of Iraq's link to Al Queda.
They have also found no proof of Iraq's link to Al Queda.
do you know why that is?
that information is classified. if the information or the source of said information becomes public knowledge people die. it's just that simple.
04-05-2003, 02:16 PM
#75
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the SOURCES or METHODS were found out that would put people at risk. However the INFORMATION itself does not…it is merely information, it’s not giving them the sources or methods of getting this information. For it to put people at risk they would have to go into detail of how they obtained this information, how they obtain that information is what is classified. So if top officials were just saying that there was no link to provide safety for methods, then those same people would also have to be saying that Saddam does not have WMD. The sources and methods of knowing Iraq has WMD are the same sources and methods of knowing Iraq would have a link to al Queda.
CIA Director George Tenet flatly contradicted the president in an October 2002 letter to Congress, explaining that Saddam was unlikely to initiate a WMD attack against any U.S. target unless Washington provoked him. Even if Iraq did acquire a larger WMD arsenal, the United States would still retain a massive nuclear retaliatory capability. And Saddam would only use WMD if the United States threatened his regime.
Here is a quote from CIA Director George J Tenet’s letter to congress on Oct 7, 2002
"As always, our declassification efforts seek a balance between your need for unfettered debate and our need to protect sources and methods. We have also been mindful of a shared interest in not providing to Saddam a blueprint of our intelligence capabilities and shortcomings, or with insight into our expectation of how he will and will not act. The salience of such concerns is only heightened by the possibility of hostilities between the U.S. and Iraq.
These are some of the reasons why we did not include our classified judgments on Saddam's decision-making regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.) in our recent unclassified paper on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Viewing your request with those concerns in mind, however, we can declassify the following from the paragraphs you requested:
Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or C.B.W. against the United States.
Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve conventional means, as with Iraq's unsuccessful attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or C.B.W..
Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a W.M.D. attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."
He clearly states “Saddam might decide that the EXTREME step of assisting Islamic terrorists…”
Why does he use the term “extreme”, because by assisting al Queda he would be risking his own regime. But, as the CIA director said, if he felt that he was going to be overthrown anyway he might decide that it “would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him”
The lack of evidence of any genuine connection between Saddam and al Qaeda is not surprising because relations between Saddam and al Qaeda have been quite poor in the past. Osama bin Laden is a radical fundamentalist (like Khomeini), and he detests secular leaders like Saddam. Similarly, Saddam has consistently repressed fundamentalist movements within Iraq. Given this history of enmity, the Iraqi dictator is unlikely to give al Qaeda WMD, which it might use in ways he could not control.
Intense U.S. pressure, of course, might eventually force these unlikely allies together, just as the United States and Communist Russia became allies during World War II. Saddam would still be unlikely to share his most valuable weaponry with al Qaeda, however, because he could not be confident it would not be used in ways that place his own survival in jeopardy. During the Cold War, the United States did not share all its WMD expertise with its own allies, and the Soviet Union balked at giving nuclear weapons to China despite their ideological sympathies and repeated Chinese requests. No evidence suggests Saddam would act differently.
Saddam has been trying to acquire these weapons for over 20 years, at great cost and risk. Is it likely he would then turn around and give them away? Furthermore, giving WMD to al Qaeda would be extremely risky for Saddam—even if he could do so without being detected—because he would lose all control over when and where they would be used. And Saddam could never be sure the United States would not incinerate him anyway if it merely suspected he had made it possible for anyone to strike the United States with WMD. The U.S. government and a clear majority of Americans are already deeply suspicious of Iraq, and a WMD attack against the United States or its allies would raise that hostility to fever pitch. Saddam does not have to be certain the United States would retaliate to be wary of giving his WMD weapons to al Qaeda; he merely has to suspect it might.
You see, Saddam cannot afford to guess wrong on whether he would be detected providing al Qaeda with CBW, nor can he afford to guess wrong that Iraq would be spared if al Qaeda launched a WMD strike against the United States or its allies. And the threat of U.S. retaliation is not as far-fetched as one might think. The United States has enhanced its flexible nuclear options in recent years, and no one knows just how vengeful Americans might feel if WMD were ever used against the U.S. homeland. Indeed, WMD terrorism is as dangerous for Saddam as it is for Americans, and he has no more incentive to give al Qaeda WMD than the United States does—unless, of course, the country makes clear it is trying to overthrow him. Instead of attacking Iraq and giving Saddam nothing to lose, the Bush administration should be signaling it would hold him responsible if some terrorist group used WMD against the United States, even if it cannot prove he is to blame.
CIA Director George Tenet flatly contradicted the president in an October 2002 letter to Congress, explaining that Saddam was unlikely to initiate a WMD attack against any U.S. target unless Washington provoked him. Even if Iraq did acquire a larger WMD arsenal, the United States would still retain a massive nuclear retaliatory capability. And Saddam would only use WMD if the United States threatened his regime.
Here is a quote from CIA Director George J Tenet’s letter to congress on Oct 7, 2002
"As always, our declassification efforts seek a balance between your need for unfettered debate and our need to protect sources and methods. We have also been mindful of a shared interest in not providing to Saddam a blueprint of our intelligence capabilities and shortcomings, or with insight into our expectation of how he will and will not act. The salience of such concerns is only heightened by the possibility of hostilities between the U.S. and Iraq.
These are some of the reasons why we did not include our classified judgments on Saddam's decision-making regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.) in our recent unclassified paper on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Viewing your request with those concerns in mind, however, we can declassify the following from the paragraphs you requested:
Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or C.B.W. against the United States.
Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve conventional means, as with Iraq's unsuccessful attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or C.B.W..
Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a W.M.D. attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."
He clearly states “Saddam might decide that the EXTREME step of assisting Islamic terrorists…”
Why does he use the term “extreme”, because by assisting al Queda he would be risking his own regime. But, as the CIA director said, if he felt that he was going to be overthrown anyway he might decide that it “would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him”
The lack of evidence of any genuine connection between Saddam and al Qaeda is not surprising because relations between Saddam and al Qaeda have been quite poor in the past. Osama bin Laden is a radical fundamentalist (like Khomeini), and he detests secular leaders like Saddam. Similarly, Saddam has consistently repressed fundamentalist movements within Iraq. Given this history of enmity, the Iraqi dictator is unlikely to give al Qaeda WMD, which it might use in ways he could not control.
Intense U.S. pressure, of course, might eventually force these unlikely allies together, just as the United States and Communist Russia became allies during World War II. Saddam would still be unlikely to share his most valuable weaponry with al Qaeda, however, because he could not be confident it would not be used in ways that place his own survival in jeopardy. During the Cold War, the United States did not share all its WMD expertise with its own allies, and the Soviet Union balked at giving nuclear weapons to China despite their ideological sympathies and repeated Chinese requests. No evidence suggests Saddam would act differently.
Saddam has been trying to acquire these weapons for over 20 years, at great cost and risk. Is it likely he would then turn around and give them away? Furthermore, giving WMD to al Qaeda would be extremely risky for Saddam—even if he could do so without being detected—because he would lose all control over when and where they would be used. And Saddam could never be sure the United States would not incinerate him anyway if it merely suspected he had made it possible for anyone to strike the United States with WMD. The U.S. government and a clear majority of Americans are already deeply suspicious of Iraq, and a WMD attack against the United States or its allies would raise that hostility to fever pitch. Saddam does not have to be certain the United States would retaliate to be wary of giving his WMD weapons to al Qaeda; he merely has to suspect it might.
You see, Saddam cannot afford to guess wrong on whether he would be detected providing al Qaeda with CBW, nor can he afford to guess wrong that Iraq would be spared if al Qaeda launched a WMD strike against the United States or its allies. And the threat of U.S. retaliation is not as far-fetched as one might think. The United States has enhanced its flexible nuclear options in recent years, and no one knows just how vengeful Americans might feel if WMD were ever used against the U.S. homeland. Indeed, WMD terrorism is as dangerous for Saddam as it is for Americans, and he has no more incentive to give al Qaeda WMD than the United States does—unless, of course, the country makes clear it is trying to overthrow him. Instead of attacking Iraq and giving Saddam nothing to lose, the Bush administration should be signaling it would hold him responsible if some terrorist group used WMD against the United States, even if it cannot prove he is to blame.
04-05-2003, 02:22 PM
#76
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mos def for.....
i hate people against war, be supportive of our country and our
troops fighting for us, and world peace...
if you against war these statements are for you and could be you:
1. it's too late, we are already in war...
2. if we start top get bombed you'd be the first to get all pissed and wanna bomb em back and shit
3. ur in college and don't want to get drafted
i hate people against war, be supportive of our country and our
troops fighting for us, and world peace...
if you against war these statements are for you and could be you:
1. it's too late, we are already in war...
2. if we start top get bombed you'd be the first to get all pissed and wanna bomb em back and shit
3. ur in college and don't want to get drafted
04-05-2003, 07:23 PM
#77
Sinner
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NoVA
Posts: 6,599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by filmpunk18
If the SOURCES or METHODS were found out that would put people at risk. However the INFORMATION itself does not…it is merely information, it’s not giving them the sources or methods of getting this information. For it to put people at risk they would have to go into detail of how they obtained this information, how they obtain that information is what is classified. So if top officials were just saying that there was no link to provide safety for methods, then those same people would also have to be saying that Saddam does not have WMD. The sources and methods of knowing Iraq has WMD are the same sources and methods of knowing Iraq would have a link to al Queda.
If the SOURCES or METHODS were found out that would put people at risk. However the INFORMATION itself does not…it is merely information, it’s not giving them the sources or methods of getting this information. For it to put people at risk they would have to go into detail of how they obtained this information, how they obtain that information is what is classified. So if top officials were just saying that there was no link to provide safety for methods, then those same people would also have to be saying that Saddam does not have WMD. The sources and methods of knowing Iraq has WMD are the same sources and methods of knowing Iraq would have a link to al Queda.
as for your rant, those reasons are precisely why Hussein would supply Al Queda with WMD. it was public record that mr CIA director man said that he didn't think the link between the two feasable. neither are stupid. that's just the que to make it happen and attempt to catch the US with it's pants down yet again.
it's no secret that both the Hussein regime and Al Queda have no love lost for the USA. an enemy of an enemy is usually a friend to a certain degree. it works that way on the playground and it works that way on an international scale. it's human nature.