DO WE HAV ENUFF PROOF?

[nefar559]

^^^^
I pick a draw after the first round. Both old guys will be too tired to continue.

@Nefar,

Interesting article.
but....
It only speaks on speculation, and the reality is that Hussein is indeed hiding weapons.
Maybe you don't believe it and that's fine.
Let me ask you this though, "what"....
Just pretend for a minute,
"What if Saddam does have WMD's?".
What would be your solution?

For what ever reason, you know Saddam couldn't be trusted.
I understand that uncle Sam is to blame for our problems with Saddam. But we can't just simply sit on this situation.
We deal with his wicked ass first and then we deal with evil Sam later. But how can we go about disarming Saddam with out killing innocent civillians, I could care less for blood thirsty American troops?

let the inspectors do there job....let the UN handle it.
they are doing something right....i mean they did find those
empty warheads.....the inspector said on monday he found
no reason to go to war with iraq.

we konw for sure that N. Korea has nuclear
weapons...and they part of the "axis of evil"...so its really
nothing about a country have nuclear weaspons....its about
iraq having the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world....period..
iraq was and is under heavy surveillance, plus sactions..has
put the country in turmoil....do we really need to go to war?

 

[Mcleanhatch]

we konw for sure that N. Korea has nuclear
weapons...and they part of the "axis of evil"...so its really
nothing about a country have nuclear weaspons....its about
iraq having the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world....period..
iraq was and is under heavy surveillance, plus sactions..has
put the country in turmoil....do we really need to go to war?

let me ask you a question Nefar559 since i have heard you state this a few times already along with other anti-war supporters.

i have heard you say, What about N. Korea? they already have nukes why are we concentrating on bombing Sadam when Korea is the real threat. so let me ask you this question? if the US Government were to say "fuck it" we are going to let Sadam slide and go attack N. Korea because they already have nukes and Mr. Il needs to be erased from power.

Would you be in favor of a military strike against Mr. Il's N. Korea

 

[nefar559]

let me ask you a question Nefar559 since i have heard you state this a few times already along with other anti-war supporters.

i have heard you say, What about N. Korea? they already have nukes why are we concentrating on bombing Sadam when Korea is the real threat. so let me ask you this question? if the US Government were to say "fuck it" we are going to let Sadam slide and go attack N. Korea because they already have nukes and Mr. Il needs to be erased from power.

Would you be in favor of a military strike against Mr. Il's N. Korea

the only reason why i brought N Korea, was to prove it that
the iraq situation has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
don't take my shit out of proprotion..

Would you be in favor of a military strike against Mr. Il's N. Korea

i guess this is the only way rightwingers konw how to solve
problems.....next mcleanhatch will agree to shoot and bomb
"illegal immigrants" taht come into this coutry..

 

[Mcleanhatch]

so you cant/wont answer the question

 

[Mcleanhatch]

the only reason why i brought N Korea, was to prove it that
the iraq situation has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
don't take my shit out of proprotion..

i am not taking anything out of proportion. i am just asking you a question that i wouldnt ask many others hear because i believe you are more inclined to give a more genuine intelligent response to the question that i asked. and the reason that i ask it is because as i have said i have heard you and many othersfrom off of this board, people that come on TV and radio tie the two together.

was to prove it that the iraq situation has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.

who said that nuclear weapons were at the forefront of the Iraqi situation?????/

as far as from what i have heard we are talking about WMD as in
1. Chemical
2. Biological
3. and Yes Nuclear weapons

now we all know that they do have WMD (chemical and Biological) but what we are not sure about is Nuclear.

i guess this is the only way rightwingers konw how to solve
problems.....next mcleanhatch will agree to shoot and bomb
"illegal immigrants" taht come into this coutry..

quit re-directing things. i asked you a simple question and it had nothing to do with "illegal immigrants" it had to do with Iraq and N. Korea

 

[Furio]

this could all be yellow journalism. but much worse! the government dont really care. if they do have bombs and shit, they are gonna be so protected, and they will not be in harms way. ppl like us will die and be sent to war! fuck this shit!

 

[miggidy]

let the inspectors do there job....let the UN handle it.
they are doing something right....i mean they did find those
empty warheads.....the inspector said on monday he found
no reason to go to war with iraq.

Hans Blinx said that Iraq should cooperate even more.
France stressed the need to beef up the staff of inspectors.
Hmmmm..... Maybe, maybe that will help.
But you know Saddam has the upper hand. The inspectors are in his back yard searching for shit, telegraphing their next move.
That gives Saddam time to move shit around.
It's almost impossible to find anything this way.
But you never know, given enough time, Saddam can very likely be caught red handed....

we konw for sure that N. Korea has nuclear
weapons...and they part of the "axis of evil"...so its really
nothing about a country have nuclear weaspons....its about
iraq having the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world....period..
iraq was and is under heavy surveillance, plus sactions..has
put the country in turmoil....do we really need to go to war?

North Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons just yet.
They have the tools to build them, all they need is time.
But Sam ain't done shit to Korea as of late.
In the other hand, Saddam is looking for vengeance.
He can't be trusted with WMD's.
I think it's a little of both, Bush is going after Saddam first because he's the greater threat, not to mention the oil.
The US has big plans for this oil....
But war at this point with Saddam isn't necessary, yet.
Saddam doesn't have anything that poses an emediate threat to us, the public. That's a fact, if this wasn't the case then you wouldn't see Turkey, Kuwait, and South Arabia letting Sam borrow both land and air spase.
It wouldn't make sense for these countries to support a US attack against Iraq if they felt Saddam is really that dangerous.
Saddam lives just next door to them....
I think the only solution is to extradite Saddam....
But I don't think Saddam will ever comply....

 

[nefar559]

Hans Blinx said that Iraq should cooperate even more.
France stressed the need to beef up the staff of inspectors.
Hmmmm..... Maybe, maybe that will help.
But you know Saddam has the upper hand. The inspectors are in his back yard searching for shit, telegraphing their next move.
That gives Saddam time to move shit around.
It's almost impossible to find anything this way.
But you never know, given enough time, Saddam can very likely be caught red handed....

i know what Blinx said....he also said there no REASON for war.

France stressed the need to beef up the staff of inspectors.
Hmmmm..... Maybe, maybe that will help.
But you know Saddam has the upper hand. The inspectors are in his back yard searching for shit, telegraphing their next move.
That gives Saddam time to move shit around.
It's almost impossible to find anything this way.
But you never know, given enough time, Saddam can very likely be caught red handed....

why do they even have inspectors right? if they can be fooled.
its not easy to hide WMD....if US has the eviendence then why
not give it up to the inspectors, and disarm him peacefully?

In the other hand, Saddam is looking for vengeance.
He can't be trusted with WMD's.
I think it's a little of both, Bush is going after Saddam first because he's the greater threat, not to mention the oil.
The US has big plans for this oil....
But war at this point with Saddam isn't necessary, yet.
Saddam doesn't have anything that poses an emediate threat to us, the public. That's a fact, if this wasn't the case then you wouldn't see Turkey, Kuwait, and South Arabia letting Sam borrow both land and air spase.
It wouldn't make sense for these countries to support a US attack against Iraq if they felt Saddam is really that dangerous.
Saddam lives just next door to them....
I think the only solution is to extradite Saddam....
But I don't think Saddam will ever comply....

with no fly zones, coup attempts, bombing
campaings during clinton admin, you think he's not under heavly surveillance?


i agree with lot of what you say

 

[XianeX]

i have proof the world is flat and the sun moves around it in the opposite direction than what we see everyday. i took 3 picutres of the ground and turned them sideways and stacced them in the reverse order of which i took them. thats proof. they are facts.

but they dont prove shit! and facts dont necessitate truth.

misinformation and propaganda can sway the hearts of many EFFORTLESSLY. you wouldnt believe what a well place lie could do.
or even a half truth for that matter.

the games twisted up

marinara

 

[HERESY]

^^^^^^ i agree 100%

i mean look at it people. we are fighting the SAME guy we helped out less than 20 years ago......

how do WE know that the evidence is REAL? do we know or do we go by whats reported on cnn? do we go by whats reported by the associated press.......the SAME people who OWN these media outlets are members of special groups like the trilaterals and council on foreign relations.....

the SAME people who GOVERN this country hold membership with the trilaterals and council on foreign relations........

where is the UNBIASED/NEUTRAL party???????

kibbles and bits........and some of you puppies love being fed......


:H:

 

[nefar559]

kibbles and bits........and some of you puppies love being fed......
:H:

lol "kibbles and bits" lol ..........."and some of you puppies love being fed"......LMAO