The World Wants Obama

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Reef wrote:
Why not preemptively strike Pakistan instead, since they actually have nuclear capabilities and have a large amount of Al-Qaeda hiding out in the caves?

We are.[/quote]

Sure there may be small bombings around the border area, but there’s no military in Pakistan. The attacks on Pakistan are nothing on the scale of Iraq when Pakistan obviously has a greater number of Al-Qaeda.

Anyways, it doesn’t sound like it in this article:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/22/america/policy.php

Also, back to my first point, Iraq never had any nuclear weapons. Why wasn’t Iran attacked then (although it might happen now anyways, a few years late)?

42

[quote]Reef wrote:
Didn’t Al Qaeda and Bin Laden attack the US? Does Bin Laden live in Iraq? No, I’m pretty sure he’s at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. So when did Iraq declar war? The US warned Iraq that they would attack if the UN found nuclear weapons, yet it never did and they still attacked.

[/quote]

You need to go back and do some more research. You have no clue why we attacked Iraq.

Please. This is not a beginners forum.

44

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Reef wrote:
Didn’t Al Qaeda and Bin Laden attack the US? Does Bin Laden live in Iraq? No, I’m pretty sure he’s at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. So when did Iraq declar war? The US warned Iraq that they would attack if the UN found nuclear weapons, yet it never did and they still attacked.

You need to go back and do some more research. You have no clue why we attacked Iraq.

Please. This is not a beginners forum.

[/quote]

Oh so sorry!! Please forgive me oh wise one. Please tell me why Iraq was attacked.

47

[quote]Reef wrote:
Oh so sorry!! Please forgive me oh wise one. Please tell me why Iraq was attacked.
[/quote]

I explained why in an above post.

Plus, we did not attack Pakistan because they are or were an ally. Saddam was clearly not one of our allies.

edit- Iran was not attacked because they don’t have nuclear weapons. We are trying to stop them from acquiring them, inspite of the rest of the world.

48

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Reef wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Reef wrote:
Didn’t Al Qaeda and Bin Laden attack the US? Does Bin Laden live in Iraq? No, I’m pretty sure he’s at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. So when did Iraq declar war? The US warned Iraq that they would attack if the UN found nuclear weapons, yet it never did and they still attacked.

You need to go back and do some more research. You have no clue why we attacked Iraq.

Please. This is not a beginners forum.

Oh so sorry!! Please forgive me oh wise one. Please tell me why Iraq was attacked.

Let me go get my popcorn… This should be fun.[/quote]

Haha…This is why I rarely post in this forum.

But seriously, did the war not begin because the US believed Iraq harbored weapons of mass destruction? GKhan stated the same thing - that it was to prevent Al-Qaeda from getting their hands on these weapons. However, if they don’t exist, then what’s the point?

Maybe I’m missing something since I live in America Junior or America’s hat, etc. lol. Anyways, I’m off to bed.

49

[quote]Reef wrote:

Didn’t Al Qaeda and Bin Laden attack the US?[/quote]

Yeah, so?[quote]

Does Bin Laden live in Iraq? No, I’m pretty sure he’s at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.[/quote]

It changes, but this really doesn’t matter. You are following an illogical line of reasoning.

A long time ago, and repeatedly. Including their attempted murder of a former president of the US.

Uh, no. Completely wrong, and obvious by your complete distortion of events that your opinions are not based on anything to do with reality.

The warning was for violations of the UN sanctioned agreements Saddam had signed in the peace treaty. His violation of those agreements were what authorized the attacks.

And what did we find? Missiles that went farther then he was allowed to have. Fully functioning WMD production labs. WMD chemicals, enough yellow cake uranium to produce one nuke, and plans in place for attempting to get more, and build bombs.

For some reason none of this seems to count.

50

They had weapons of mass destruction.

See “The Iran-Iraq War”. They used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds.

So we were not too far off base.

51

[quote]Reef wrote:
<<< Maybe I’m missing something since I live in America Junior or America’s hat, etc. lol. Anyways, I’m off to bed.
[/quote]

One point you’re missing is that bed you’re off to is secure because we keep it that way. Partly out of the goodness of our national heart, but mostly because it’s in our interest to do so. That’s why you’re able to forego spending billions on your own defense and then piss and moan about how we use ours.

52

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

I explained why in an above post.

Plus, we did not attack Pakistan because they are or were an ally. Saddam was clearly not one of our allies. [/quote]

So Afghanistan is an enemy or is Al Qaeda? Yes, Iraq was an enemy, but Pakistan still has Al Qaeda there. So it’s okay not to attack the terrorists there because Pakistan is an ally?

[quote]
edit- Iran was not attacked because they don’t have nuclear weapons. We are trying to stop them from acquiring them, inspite of the rest of the world.[/quote]

There’s conflicting reports about the nuclear weapon capability of Iran.

For example:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gRbpL8Gdzu3lQj1bmGxroaNs6UAA

Anyways, Iraq had no nuclear weapons and according to you, the US was trying to stop Al Qaeda from acquiring them from Iraq, but they were still attacked. So how is that different from your point about stopping Iran from acquiring them, yet Iran was not attacked instead?

53

You had the right idea about going off to bed. Try again after some sleep.

54

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
They had weapons of mass destruction.

See “The Iran-Iraq War”. They used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds.

So we were not too far off base.[/quote]

Chemical weapons are not nuclear weapons.

55

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Reef wrote:
<<< Maybe I’m missing something since I live in America Junior or America’s hat, etc. lol. Anyways, I’m off to bed.

One point you’re missing is that bed you’re off to is secure because we keep it that way. Partly out of the goodness of our national heart, but mostly because it’s in our interest to do so. That’s why you’re able to forego spending billions on your own defense and then piss and moan about how we use ours.[/quote]

Listen, I don’t hate the US. I don’t hate the troops. Those guys are true heroes, risking their lives for others. They’re just doing their job (which is the hardest job in the world) and I have the utmost respect for them. I just don’t agree with the war.

56

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Reef wrote:

Didn’t Al Qaeda and Bin Laden attack the US?

Yeah, so? [/quote] Yeah, so that’s my main point. The war should be focused on finding Bin Laden, not Iraq.[quote]

Does Bin Laden live in Iraq? No, I’m pretty sure he’s at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

It changes, but this really doesn’t matter. You are following an illogical line of reasoning.[/quote]

So then where is he?

Different war. By that thinking, why not start a war with Germany or Japan?

[quote]
The US warned Iraq that they would attack if the UN found nuclear weapons, yet it never did and they still attacked.

Uh, no. Completely wrong, and obvious by your complete distortion of events that your opinions are not based on anything to do with reality.

The warning was for violations of the UN sanctioned agreements Saddam had signed in the peace treaty. His violation of those agreements were what authorized the attacks.

And what did we find? Missiles that went farther then he was allowed to have. Fully functioning WMD production labs. WMD chemicals, enough yellow cake uranium to produce one nuke, and plans in place for attempting to get more, and build bombs.

For some reason none of this seems to count.[/quote]

Yet U.N. weapons inspectors said there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994.

58

[quote]Reef wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Reef wrote:
<<< Maybe I’m missing something since I live in America Junior or America’s hat, etc. lol. Anyways, I’m off to bed.

One point you’re missing is that bed you’re off to is secure because we keep it that way. Partly out of the goodness of our national heart, but mostly because it’s in our interest to do so. That’s why you’re able to forego spending billions on your own defense and then piss and moan about how we use ours.

Listen, I don’t hate the US. I don’t hate the troops. Those guys are true heroes, risking their lives for others. They’re just doing their job (which is the hardest job in the world) and I have the utmost respect for them. I just don’t agree with the war. [/quote]

I also wouldn’t want it to be thought that I have anything but heartfelt respect for the Canadian soldiers who are over there and especially the ones who have died. Your take on Hussein, the middle east, the potential threats and the war are wrong though, plain and simple.

This is not the 19th century. You cannot wait to find out if you’re being hasty about enemies who have indisputably been in possession of horrific unconventional weaponry and have demonstrated the willingness to use them within their own borders against their own citizens. Our domestic vulnerability was exposed. All credible threats must be neutralized. Not risking to err on the side of caution is an unacceptable practice with potentially catastrophic consequences.

If you can’t see that I don’t know what to say.

59

[quote]Reef wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
They had weapons of mass destruction.

See “The Iran-Iraq War”. They used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds.

So we were not too far off base.

Chemical weapons are not nuclear weapons.[/quote]

Nuclear weapons are also not the only kind of WMDs. Irrespective of the current argument you guys are having about Iraq. Chem and bio weapons both count.

60

[quote]Reef wrote:

Yeah, so that’s my main point. The war should be focused on finding Bin Laden, not Iraq.[/quote]

Why are we sending money to Africa to fight Aids when we should be looking for Bin Laden? Why are we fixing roads when we should be looking for Bin Laden?

Why does everybody think we can’t do 2 things at once? Yes, find Bin Laden, destroy Al-Qaeda, (which we have done a good job of so far,) but we can still do other things.[quote]

So then where is he?[/quote]

Tell me and I will kill him myself. He is living in caves, and moving constantly, protected by many of his psycho terrorist buddies. Why does anyone think this is an easy task?[quote]

Different war. By that thinking, why not start a war with Germany or Japan?[/quote] What the fuck are you talking about?

He constantly declared war against us in practically every speech he made in the past decade. That is what I was talking about. [quote]

Yet U.N. weapons inspectors said there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994.
[/quote]

Yeah, right.

[/i]“Reference strains” of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. “We thought it was a big deal,” a senior administration official said. “But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of ‘starter set.’”

New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.[/i]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

That last one should cause anyone to pause. Read it again, and if you know anything about Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, you should be scared. That is the last thing you want anyone weaponing.

The fact that anyone would downplay the significance of these finds for the sole purpose of convincing the uninformed fools like you to get the “right guy” into office has disgusted me to no end.

And I might start to trust the UN the day Kofi Annon and his son give back all the money they made on the Oil for Food scandal in Iraq.