The iraqi soccer team has won their first match in the olympics this year. the men seemed very happy, they no longer have to worry about Udey cutting their gentails off if they miss a goal. they can actually play without fear for the first time in decades. The iraqi olympians will recieve the greatest applause of all at this olympics. Ironically, the country that made it all possible is being told to not wear their national flag to prominantly or celebrate to much when they win for fear of hostility.

Isn't that FUC**** disgusting!?! How true...What an awesome post, Trav!!!!!

Yeah, and if us liberals had our way, they would be in mass graves, instead of on the soccer field :thumbs: . We didn't sacrafice hundreds of our kids and thousands of Iraqis so they could play soccer. We did it because they had WMDs and they were a "threat" to us. I'm glad that they are enjoying themselves at the Olympics. That doesn't make the war worth it.

As for flying the American flag... It's sad that our Olympic team is told not to fly the flag but pissing off the world and starting illegal wars isn't the best way to make everybody love us.

its not about the olympics. the olympics is a symbol of their freedom, and a stark reminder of how much better off they are without saddam and his crazy sons. When once they were beaten and tortured if they missed a goal and lost a match, now they are free to play for themselves, not to avoid a flogging or worse. Its not our fault you dont like it. Any reminder that what we did was good and right just pisses you off, you can only think about the WMD's.

Yeah, and if us liberals had our way, they would be in mass graves, instead of on the soccer field

No, but if you had your way, they'd still be tortured, beaten, and oppressed. I suppose it's all in vein because we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Come to think about it, you do make an excellent point...you got us there. :thumbs:

We didn't sacrifice hundreds of our kids and thousands of Iraqis so they could play soccer.

No, and if you think that was the point of his post, you're either congenitally insane, or irretrievably stupid...take your pick.

We did it because they had WMDs and they were a "threat" to us.

Not exactly...they were a "threat" to mankind. Just ask the Kurds, but I suppose you could care less about them because we only found the constituents of biological weapons, and not WHOLE WMD's. As far as how it affected us, they were non compliant, and a potential threat. We dealt with Saddam preemptively, and now he's NOT a threat to us, and he's certainly NOT a threat to his own people or other ethnicities he didn't "approve" of. It's a fairly simple concept...

the entier concept of stoppng threats before they hit us is lost on them. the lesson of 9-11, that being we dont have the luxury of reataliating to attacks or the luxury of relying on the good word of people like saddam hussein anymore does not compute with them. sometimes I think that if there was a lie about WMD, sit was told to get these sorry sacks off thier ass to do something. It seemed tehy didnt want to act unless they themselves were threatened. never mind anyone else or future generations oof aemericans, but once they learned their precious lives may be cut short they were read to act. its pretty selfish actually. helping mankind by ousting a scumbag like saddam, a guy who attacked 3 of his neighbors, fired missles at israel in an attempt to ignite a global war, gassed his own people, attempted to kill a US president, lied to the world, stole food money from his people who starved while he bought munitions and weapons and palaces , financed terrorists who blew up innocent civilians in isreal, harbored wanted terrorists, and a whole laundry list of murders, intimidations, secret police, torture chambers, political prisons mass graves and so on and so on was not worth it. of course the north koreans were the real threat :rolleyes:

I predict everyone will be happy that the US did what it did in Iraq in 10 years.

Originally posted by Idioteque
Yeah, and if us liberals had our way, they would be in mass graves, instead of on the soccer field :thumbs:


LMAO, its so funny becasue its true. if you had your way saddam would still be ruling iraq, and his psychotic sons waiting in the wings for their turn.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
No, but if you had your way, they'd still be tortured, beaten, and oppressed.
You mean like in Saudi Arabia…? You mean like in most Arab Countries? It’s funny because in Africa women get stoned to death daily, and far more die in those countries. Yet, Iraq was such a priority in terms of saving human life.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I suppose it's all in vein because we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
We went to war to make America safer, which has not happened because of the Iraq War. We did not go to liberate the Iraqis of Saddam Hussein. That is not our job as America, to be doing so, after September 11th. You cannot hand Democracy to people at Gun Point, they have to fight for it. If they do not fight for it, they will not defend it. It’s just that simple. Iraq is not that much better off, with Uranium Poisoning, Birth defects, Hospitals still in poor conditions, car bombings occurring, and utter chaos.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Just ask the Kurds, but I suppose you could care less about them because we only found the constituents of biological weapons, and not WHOLE WMD's.
In 1988 we gave Saddam weapons, and that was the same year he killed thousands of Kurds….funny how that works out.

again, its all the US governments fault. you sound like a broken record man.

In 1988 we gave Saddam weapons, and that was the same year he killed thousands of Kurds….funny how that works out.

So you're saying it's our fault he killed those people, OD???

Whatever...:rolleyes:

You mean like in Saudi Arabia…? You mean like in most Arab Countries? It’s funny because in Africa women get stoned to death daily, and far more die in those countries. Yet, Iraq was such a priority in terms of saving human life.

Other Arab countries weren't in violation of treaties stipulated by the same worthless body of third world regimes that stopped us from invading initially.

You cannot hand Democracy to people at Gun Point, they have to fight for it. If they do not fight for it, they will not defend it. It’s just that simple.
Strangely, this statement does make some sense, but you have to realize that these people are so ass backwards, they've never even been given the opportunity TO think about democracy, so, logically speaking, why would they fight for it?

Iraq is not that much better off, with Uranium Poisoning, Birth defects, Hospitals still in poor conditions, car bombings occurring, and utter chaos.

I highly doubt it...

I predict everyone will be happy that the US did what it did in Iraq in 10 years.

Actually, this was a great post, Karankawa...

I fully concur!

Originally posted by The Praetorian
So you're saying it's our fault he killed those people, OD???
We knew Saddam was a bad man, and we still gave him weapons to fight Iran, knowing he would use them against the Kurds.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Other Arab countries weren't in violation of treaties stipulated by the same worthless body of third world regimes that stopped us from invading initially.
Israel was, they invaded the West Bank (violation), and they have violated UN resolution after resolution. And Saddam was complying with our demands in the UN, and he was doing what he was told.

David Kay, in 2001 said, Saddam Hussein is complying with all demands, and is allowing us to search in any specific area we want Which shows he was doing better. He was doing what we asked, and we didn’t find any weapons in the searches. And we still haven’t found the weapons…now have we?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Strangely, this statement does make some sense, but you have to realize that these people are so ass backwards, they've never even been given the opportunity TO think about democracy, so, logically speaking, why would they fight for it?

This is not a war on bringing Democracy to the Middle East. This is about making America safer from terrorism…and according to the 2003 Terror Report, terrorism is much worse.

ya, we gave him the weapons after he promised us he would use them on the kurds, whatver overdose:rolleyes: thats wha you are saying. we gave them to him knowing he would use them on the kurds, we didnt care. and please, give us proof of this mr I want Proof. how many chemical weapons did we give him? I hope that you have an acount from the guy who actually flew the plane full of WMD's into Iraq and used the forklift to unload em, otherwise I wont believe you. seriously, how can you say he was "doing better"? that is so lame! Would you let a serial killer out of prison if he appeared to be "doing better"?

andoverdose, how do they collect data on how many terrorists there are exactly? do they interview them all? how is that possible? if we knew ow many terrorists there were we would have to know where hey were right? or is it just another "objective" report? there is no way to know that there are more terrorists and there is no way to know the reason why they became terrorists. but, the "study" works for your arguments so who are you to question it right?

This is not a war on bringing Democracy to the Middle East. This is about making America safer from terrorism…and according to the 2003 Terror Report, terrorism is much worse.

Of course it is...we're fu***** their shit up! They're pissed off, and consequently, they're retaliating. It's going to be a war that we'll probably be fighting 10-15 years from now, and that's just the way it's going to be.
Israel was, they invaded the West Bank (violation), and they have violated UN resolution after resolution.

Has there ever been peace in the Gaza strip? They've been dealt with, and they weren't shooting our aircraft out of the skies, but the Iraqis were. They did have weapons they shouldn't have had, and because of his radical actions, that bastard, Saddam, isn't in power anymore...as I see it, all good things...

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Of course it is...we're fu***** their shit up! They're pissed off, and consequently, they're retaliating. It's going to be a war that we'll probably be fighting 10-15 years from now, and that's just the way it's going to be.
It was a mistake, and we shouldn’t have to deal with this, while terrorism is such a huge threat. There is one huge check against Bush.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
They did have weapons they shouldn't have had, and because of his radical actions, that bastard, Saddam, isn't in power anymore...as I see it, all good things...
He never had weapons past 1994. He was no threat to America…period.

"He never had weapons past 1994. He was no threat to America…period."

I am glad you were so ready to put your life into the hands of hans Blix and saddams good word, ut like you said, he was getting better :rolleyes:

He never had weapons past 1994. He was no threat to America…period.

You can't possibly claim to know this. The man was a genocidal maniac, and all of the sudden, you claim, he became a good little Muslim dictator? :rolleyes: Come on, OD...the fu**er was a threat to all humanity, nothing more, nothing less.

The UN reported he didn’t, and we haven’t found any weapons. That concludes it to be most likely true.

I guess they missed that sarin gas shell, makes you wonder what else they missed with their half assed inspection designed to find nothing.

Originally posted by Travh20
I guess they missed that sarin gas shell, makes you wonder what else they missed with their half assed inspection designed to find nothing.

Sarin Gas:

"Impure or improperly stored sarin is unstable and degrades over time. US experts consider chemical warfare agents less than 50 percent pure to be militarily ineffective. Western sources estimate the sarin Iraq produced never exceeded 60 percent purity, and Iraq reported that poor operating practices at Al Muthanna limited the purity of sarin to between 20 and 50 percent. Since it contained at least 40 percent impurities when manufactured, sarin produced at Al Muthanna had a short shelf life."

http://www.traprockpeace.org/iraqweaponsc.html#cex

And most of it was Pre-Gulf War, when we gave him the weapons…which thus showed he was not using the weapons, he was simply letting them destroy on their own.

he was simply letting them destroy on their own.

Oh how clever!! So Saddam was using those shells as a place to store his Sarin while it naturally decomposed.

How lucky we are that we have you here to tell us what Saddam's intentions were. Otherwise we would have thought that Saddam had loaded those shells up with Sarin to use on opposing troops.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Oh how clever!! So Saddam was using those shells as a place to store his Sarin while it naturally decomposed.


These weapons were from 1988, when we gave him weapons. He destroyed all of his weapons, and these weapons were abandoned, and unusual because Sarin Gas decomposes rapidly. This example the Right Wing uses is false.

These weapons were from 1988, when we gave him weapons. He destroyed all of his weapons, and these weapons were abandoned, and unusual because Sarin Gas decomposes rapidly. This example the Right Wing uses is false.

WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING SADDAM HUSSEIN? YOU'RE INFERRING, IN A NUTSHELL, THAT HIS ACTIONS WERE PURE, AND HIS MOTIVES WERE DECENT. THIS BLOWS MY FU***** MIND...

You're so predisposed to hating our current government for involving us there, that you don't even see the benefits bestowed to mankind, and there are many financially and socially. It's not perfect now, and probably won’t be for a long time, but at least they're being given the opportunity to move forward instead of backward. Now that's progress...

Originally posted by The Praetorian
WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING SADDAM HUSSEIN?
How was speaking the truth, defending Saddam Hussein? The Weapons were what we, the United States gave him. If we thought he was such a ruthless man, why did we in return supply him with weapons?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
YOU'RE INFERRING, IN A NUTSHELL, THAT HIS ACTIONS WERE PURE, AND HIS MOTIVES WERE DECENT.
The Sarin Gas was abandoned, and it was expired. It was no threat to America, or anyone around the world.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
It's not perfect now, and probably won’t be for a long time, but at least they're being given the opportunity to move forward instead of backward. Now that's progress...
This is a war on terrorism, not giving Democracy to countries around the world.

Originally posted by Overdose
Sarin Gas:

"Impure or improperly stored sarin is unstable and degrades over time. US experts consider chemical warfare agents less than 50 percent pure to be militarily ineffective. Western sources estimate the sarin Iraq produced never exceeded 60 percent purity, and Iraq reported that poor operating practices at Al Muthanna limited the purity of sarin to between 20 and 50 percent. Since it contained at least 40 percent impurities when manufactured, sarin produced at Al Muthanna had a short shelf life."

http://www.traprockpeace.org/iraqweaponsc.html#cex

And most of it was Pre-Gulf War, when we gave him the weapons…which thus showed he was not using the weapons, he was simply letting them destroy on their own.

this is such a joke. they found WMD's, end of story. the fact that they are pre gulf war is even worse in that they seemd to have evaded all of the meticulous inspections, what else did they miss? if your pinning all your hope on the UN inspections so much as a can of Raid better not show up. they were using a sarin nerve gas shell as part of a IED. how much do you want to be t there are more WMD's there then you or Hans Blix cares to admit to? you are the biggest flake I have ever see. lets see, kerry did lie about vietnam, but its OK, we did find WMD's but they wwere pre war, and probably degraded, there are lots of new jobs, but they are Mc jobs. can you ever admit you maybe were wrong about something or is there alwways an out for your incorrect stances?

you still havent given us the proof that we gave saddam all these weapons, and that we gave them to him knowing he would use them on the kurds.

Originally posted by Travh20
this is such a joke. they found WMD's, end of story.
They found unusable, destroyed, in-effective WMD’s, which were no threat to Americans.

Originally posted by Travh20
how much do you want to be t there are more WMD's there then you or Hans Blix cares to admit to?
Trav, if you really want to use, unusable, ineffective, WMD’s as your case for Saddam having weapons, you won’t get far. That one find, is not enough to strike war against Saddam. Even if they had found weapons that were usable, what they found does not amount to a full out war. They found a few shells, that were ineffective and no threat to America…I don’t see how you can say, “Look he had WMD’s!!! That would have to be an almost idiotic statement.

But surely you can admit that the likelihood of there being only one shell of Sarin in all of Iraq is very unlikely. Sure we only found one, but I don't think anyone believes that Saddam had only one shell of Sarin.

Until you can prove me otherwise, Saddam was no threat in terms of the WMD myth.

You mean...

Until we can find a Sarin plant located IN Iraq complete with a corporate office that has Saddam Hussein's name on the door and that has DNA evidence that Saddam Hussein was there WHILE it was operating and that Hussein was in the office KNOWING that the plant was producing Sarin AND IF we can prove that Saddam, actually, in person, placed the Sarin IN warheads (need more DNA evidence there) and if we can prove that Saddam's personal Hummer was actually hooked up to the warhead and DELIVERED to a launch site, and oh yes, need some sort of evidence that Saddam was in the auto that was towing....

Them MAYBE there might be just an itty bitty bit of truth to the Saddam Hussein WMD "myth."

Karankawa

The UN found no weapons in Iraq, before we invaded Iraq. That shows something right there. A report from the UN showed that Saddam has had no involvement in making or creating any weapons since 1994. And since we have been in Iraq, the only weapons we have found are out-dated, unusable, weapons that were no threat to the United States of America. The Sarin Gas was Pre-Gulf War, when we gave him weapons. It was unusable, dysfunctional and abandoned. That example is false, and you have yet to show me another. Please, refrain from spewing unfactual information.

we are still waiting for the proof aabout how we gave him weaposn of mass destruction.

Originally posted by Travh20
we are still waiting for the proof aabout how we gave him weaposn of mass destruction.

It’s common knowledge that we gave him weapons to fight Iran. Don’t believe it? I’m sorry.

ROTFLMAO, OK, so its oK for you to make wild claims and not back then up? is that the case? you ask for proof in almost every thread, but when asked for it you pass it off as common knowledge. well its not common knowledge overdose. It is a common accusation, but its not common knowledge.I want proof of a delivery of chemical weapons to iraq from the united states, and proof that we knew he would use them on the kurds, as you claim.

These links show the relationship, and the times when we gave him weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/88244_sean24.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml

Okay, fine, OD, we did supply them with weapons, but the major issue we had in the Middle East during the 70's and 80's was with the Iranians. They were the ORIGIONAL terrorists, and had been a thorn in our side since President Carter with regards to several hijacked US flights. At the time, we didn't have a real presence there, so consequently, we fought a war through a puppet nation, which just so happened to be the lesser of two evils. Yes, in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't really ethical, but we also weren't left with much of a choice. We supplied them with weapons to fight against a mutual enemy, and that probably wasn't the best bet to hedge, but it seemed like the only openly diplomatic option to exercise at the time. We probably figured our loyalty would pay off financially, as well, but we didn't expect the bastard to gas people who weren't the intended target. Quit blaming us for Saddam's actions. It's like blaming Smith & Wesson for gun related deaths...it isn't fair.

What I'm telling you here is that Saddam WAS a terrorist, AND, due to mounting animosity, a potential threat to the United States, as well as a KNOWN threat to his neighbors. Now that we have an established presence there, hopefully, we can circumvent such events from occurring in the future, and maybe make a little money in the process. All good things…:)

assuming these sites are factual, it still says nothinga bout us knowing he would use them on the kurds. it says they were to be used on the iranian human wave attacks. I admit it wasnt the best idea in the world, but as has alwyas been the case, the United states usually has to pick between the lesser of two evils when picking sides in a war. Iran and the ayatolla were the major threat at the time. a comaprison can be drawn to WW2 where we were military alies of the soviet union. we gave them tons of weapons and aid to beat the germans. Stalin kiled more russians then hitler killed jews and gypsies, but we still had to pick a side. we were no frind of either. The chemical weapons cold have tipped the balance in iraqs favor. what if iran had won the war? what would the shape of the middle east look like? we will never know. Hindsight is always 20/20. sure, giving weaposn to a dictator is not everyone first choice, but considering the alternative you really have no choice. And really the whole argument agaisnt the wa based on the fact we gave him weapons reallly is dumb. it should be even more a justification to set things right

And really the whole argument agaisnt the wa based on the fact we gave him weapons reallly is dumb. it should be even more a justification to set things right

ABSOLUTELY!

Trav, the thing you fail to realize, is that in my arguments I used the fact we gave them weapons once. It was one sentence, that you decided to blow out of proportion. That sure isn’t my fault you did so. I have many other reasons against this war, and you were the one who wanted the links for that one sentence. So I decided to give them to you. Now, the reason I use this to further prove my point…is because before 1988 (when we gave him weapons), we knew he was killing the Kurds, because he had done it throughout the mid-80’s. And thus we gave him weapons to fight Iran (pretty much knowing he would use them against the Kurds). I’m not saying giving him weapons was so hugely wrong, because we needed to fight Iran, but we knew he was a bad man. We knew he shouldn’t have the weapons. Yet, we decided to anyway. And then we call for him to disarm? Now, can we please move on from this one, little, sentence that isn’t that much of a big deal?

its not a big deal, just interesting to see it play out. I suggest you do some research on how much aid we gave to the soviet union in the early 1940's to help them in their fight against the nazis. we helped the commuinists defeat the nazis. look what happened after that. 50 years of cold war with those same "allies". of course, what do you think the world would have looked like if the germans had taken over the soviet union? all things happen for a reason. In the world of geo-politics and alliances more often then not you have to choose between the lesser of two evils. It is wrong to insinuate we somehow had a hand in saddam s decision to gas the Kurds.

Originally posted by Travh20
its not a big deal, just interesting to see it play out.
Alrighty then…

Originally posted by Travh20
I suggest you do some research on how much aid we gave to the soviet union in the early 1940's to help them in their fight against the nazis. we helped the commuinists defeat the nazis. look what happened after that.
Trav, that was a world war, it was far different then what was going on in the Middle East at the time we gave Saddam weapons. Besides Saddam killed his people, before we gave him weapons. We didn’t know the Soviet Union was going to start having an arms race with us.

Originally posted by Travh20
is wrong to insinuate we somehow had a hand in saddam s decision to gas the Kurds.
When did I say we had a hand, in doing this? It was Saddam’s decision, but we knowingly gave a madman the weapons to do so. We gave him the weapons to fight Iran, but we knew (because of his previous actions) he would use them for killing the Kurds. Bottom line.

your right, you never implied we had a hand in saddams kiling of the kurds :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Travh20
your right, you never implied we had a hand in saddams kiling of the kurds

Thanks for being right about something...