Presidential Candidate

DjGizmo · Nov 29, 2003, 12:19 PM

uhhuh. yeah Mr. Hussein's large invisible chemical weaponry stockpiles are a humongous threat to americas national security... i mean he obviously must have posessed large quantities of invisible precision guided missile systems capable of targeting major american cities from thousands of miles away... i've seen the light... And obviously iraq's neighbors weren't at all intimidated by these weapons because they're only a threat to America. That explains why it was the americans thought it was necessary to attack them. Wow. Everyone must feel so much safer, knowing that someone like bush can claim a country has large stockpiles of WMD and attack them for no reason whatsoever.

Why do you think countries (especially the ones on Bush's so called "axis of evil") want a nulear weaponry based defense? it's all good though.

digerati · Nov 29, 2003, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DjGizmo
uhhuh. yeah Mr. Hussein's large invisible chemical weaponry stockpiles are a humongous threat to americas national security... i mean he obviously must have posessed large quantities of invisible precision guided missile systems capable of targeting major american cities from thousands of miles away... i've seen the light... And obviously iraq's neighbors weren't at all intimidated by these weapons because they're only a threat to America. That explains why it was the americans thought it was necessary to attack them. Wow. Everyone must feel so much safer, knowing that someone like bush can claim a country has large stockpiles of WMD and attack them for no reason whatsoever. Why do you think countries (especially the ones on Bush's so called "axis of evil") want a nulear weaponry based defense? it's all good though.

I don't remember once hearing that they had missiles capable of hitting American cities. And considering Saddam used nerve gas on more than one occasion I think it'd be a safe assumption to say he had WMD. Don't you?

DjGizmo · Nov 30, 2003, 07:26 AM

i didn't say they didn't, but i'm just pointing out that they weren't a threat to america. So why was it america's job to go in there and "liberate" all those oilfields into the hands on bush's oil company friends? If there was any proof of the existence of WMD; the official "justification" for the war, it would have been the UN's job to police them, not the Bush's. Bush's buddies made a lot of money out of this war. Did you ever think that maybe that was one alterior motive... why was he so keen on lying about it all to try to "justify" a war that the UN didn't approve of?

JavaFox · Dec 1, 2003, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DjGizmo
it would have been the UN's job to police them, not the Bush's.

Can you show me one example of anything that the UN has successfully policed or administered? Can you give me an example of a war that the UN has prevented or mitigated?

Yeah. I didn't think so. You wouldn't want your high school debate team to double as your football team, would you? Why would you want the UN to try to handle anything except debate?

Quote:

why was he so keen on lying about it all to try to "justify" a war that the UN didn't approve of?

Read the UN Charter. It's not the UN's job to authorize war. It's the UN's job to prevent it.

Oh and by the way, the Kosovo Campaign wasn't authorized by the UN either. Perhaps we should have just sat on our hands like the European countries did while the Kosovar Muslims were being slaughtered by Milosevic.

bird chest · Dec 1, 2003, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BluntmaN
Hmm what about delivery systems? Making Clorium gas is easy but how can you kill some one without inhalling it your self? It is weapons capable of delivering these gases that the US and UN where looking for and don't tell me that a 20 foot Scud missile is difficult to find, in the middle of a desert, with todays spy sats and Blackbirds.

It is called propaganda and lies and we all do it everyday. If I say I want to plant a bomb in my suppervisors office coz he is a Major PITA then would you arrest me for terrorism? Sadam SAID he'd use nukes against you but he didn't is this the first time you hear this? Korea does it all the time and India and Pakistan.

It is called protecting goverment secrets and it is vital when half of the world wants your country blown to bits. Having weapons inspectors turning every stone is bad enough but I would still protect my army's movements.

But you do. America has so much spy equipment you could find out the size of a mans shoe without even trying (according to some pentagon sources) are you now telling us that your saterlites are like Ray Charles in the Louvre? Make up your minds.

They do not have to have a 20 foot scud to deliver these weapons they could have tank shells that are filled with the chemicals.

Don't yo think it would have been smarter to allow the UN and see a couple of your secrets when the US has just said they will go to war with you if you do not cooperate with the inspectors. Also you just said the US can see everything but then you pull a 180 and say we can't see where their men are located?

It is not about if we could have seen it. It is where to look when it was happening and with all the trucks going everywhere in the country where do you look?

Nov 29, 2003, 12:19 PM	#31
DjGizmo DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: in front of my pc Posts: 25 Rep Power: 0	uhhuh. yeah Mr. Hussein's large invisible chemical weaponry stockpiles are a humongous threat to americas national security... i mean he obviously must have posessed large quantities of invisible precision guided missile systems capable of targeting major american cities from thousands of miles away... i've seen the light... And obviously iraq's neighbors weren't at all intimidated by these weapons because they're only a threat to America. That explains why it was the americans thought it was necessary to attack them. Wow. Everyone must feel so much safer, knowing that someone like bush can claim a country has large stockpiles of WMD and attack them for no reason whatsoever. Why do you think countries (especially the ones on Bush's so called "axis of evil") want a nulear weaponry based defense? it's all good though.

Nov 30, 2003, 07:26 AM	#33
DjGizmo DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: in front of my pc Posts: 25 Rep Power: 0	i didn't say they didn't, but i'm just pointing out that they weren't a threat to america. So why was it america's job to go in there and "liberate" all those oilfields into the hands on bush's oil company friends? If there was any proof of the existence of WMD; the official "justification" for the war, it would have been the UN's job to police them, not the Bush's. Bush's buddies made a lot of money out of this war. Did you ever think that maybe that was one alterior motive... why was he so keen on lying about it all to try to "justify" a war that the UN didn't approve of?