WITH ELECTIONS COMING UP WILL BIN LADEN OR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION BE FOUND?
- Thread starter HERESY
- Start date
Actually haven't you been questioning the presence of WMD for a "while" now? It seems like whenever the subject comes up you make some type of comment saying "oh yeah, have they found them yet?" followed by a dead face. I'm sure you said somewhere along the lines, about them being found; I have already covered anti-Americans playing both sides of the field.
Everyone is jumping on the "I said it would happen before it did" bandwagon. Shit, even I know another terrorist attack is inevitable, so does damn near everyone else on this board.
I think he would have held back on the weapons. When the entire war is based on the presence of WMD, common sense would tell me he would take every measure possible not to use them. Not only that, but to destroy them, or put them in places where they would never be found.
Everyone is jumping on the "I said it would happen before it did" bandwagon. Shit, even I know another terrorist attack is inevitable, so does damn near everyone else on this board.
I think he would have held back on the weapons. When the entire war is based on the presence of WMD, common sense would tell me he would take every measure possible not to use them. Not only that, but to destroy them, or put them in places where they would never be found.
Yes I have been questioning the presence of WMD’s in Iraq smart-ass, and I still don’t believe they have any.
Miggidy wrote “I forgot to add that WMD's will not be found unless they plant them themselves.” I agree with this statement and even Mcleanbiatch agreed not too long ago that there is a strong possibility that the US would do something like this.
I’m not trying to be a psychic or a prophet. I’m not the only one that believes these things will happen. I wasn’t the first to say this shit. I honestly believe that one of these things will happen before the next election. So what?
Miggidy wrote “I forgot to add that WMD's will not be found unless they plant them themselves.” I agree with this statement and even Mcleanbiatch agreed not too long ago that there is a strong possibility that the US would do something like this.
I’m not trying to be a psychic or a prophet. I’m not the only one that believes these things will happen. I wasn’t the first to say this shit. I honestly believe that one of these things will happen before the next election. So what?
@nitro I know you didnt direct these statements towards me but I must answer them.
"Everyone is jumping on the "I said it would happen before it did" bandwagon. Shit, even I know another terrorist attack is inevitable, so does damn near everyone else on this board."
I have no reason to jump on that bandwagon since I was the first one to say *ANYTHING* about america being attacked. I said it BEFORE america was attacked. The question is not if america will attack its on people again but, WHEN?
"I think he would have held back on the weapons. When the entire war is based on the presence of WMD, common sense would tell me he would take every measure possible not to use them. Not only that, but to destroy them, or put them in places where they would never be found."
That makes NO sense at all. I thought the entire war was based on the LIBERATION of the people of iraq (sarcasm)...If you have weapons of mass destructions (direct violation) and see the enemy coming why not use them? You're already at war so why not go out with a bang? Your country is being invaded and you want to destroy weapons that may turn the tide in your favor? What's the use of destroying them or putting them in places they will never be found, when they are coming for your head trying to remove you and your regime? Common sense would tell me to take every measure possible to use them. Iraq was being invaded end of story. Defend yourself with all weapons and tactics. Why would you take every measure possible to hide your big guns but let your army be crushed by the great satan?
This man has been accused of killing his own people and attacking other countries. If he has such a HORRIBLE track record, is vicious, cold, calculating and evil why transform to "BITCHERELLA" when midnight (the invasion) hits? Saddam raped this, Saddam gassed that, Saddam killed them, Saddam tortured that....he does all that but HIDES his weapons?
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!
:HGK:
"Everyone is jumping on the "I said it would happen before it did" bandwagon. Shit, even I know another terrorist attack is inevitable, so does damn near everyone else on this board."
I have no reason to jump on that bandwagon since I was the first one to say *ANYTHING* about america being attacked. I said it BEFORE america was attacked. The question is not if america will attack its on people again but, WHEN?
"I think he would have held back on the weapons. When the entire war is based on the presence of WMD, common sense would tell me he would take every measure possible not to use them. Not only that, but to destroy them, or put them in places where they would never be found."
That makes NO sense at all. I thought the entire war was based on the LIBERATION of the people of iraq (sarcasm)...If you have weapons of mass destructions (direct violation) and see the enemy coming why not use them? You're already at war so why not go out with a bang? Your country is being invaded and you want to destroy weapons that may turn the tide in your favor? What's the use of destroying them or putting them in places they will never be found, when they are coming for your head trying to remove you and your regime? Common sense would tell me to take every measure possible to use them. Iraq was being invaded end of story. Defend yourself with all weapons and tactics. Why would you take every measure possible to hide your big guns but let your army be crushed by the great satan?
This man has been accused of killing his own people and attacking other countries. If he has such a HORRIBLE track record, is vicious, cold, calculating and evil why transform to "BITCHERELLA" when midnight (the invasion) hits? Saddam raped this, Saddam gassed that, Saddam killed them, Saddam tortured that....he does all that but HIDES his weapons?
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!
:HGK:
2-0-Sixx: Sorry if I came at you wrong, I'm just tired of seeing everyone talk about how they predicted terrorist attacks and another one is on the way. You have been pretty consistant with your arguements, but I strongly believe anti-Americans are playing both sides of the field when it comes to WMD.
[In the shoes of Saddam] I let the al-mighty American's invade on the basis of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", let them do their damage turning over every shed, silo, and military base, looking for these weapons, only to find nothing. Then I will look at the Security Council and (publicly) ask them, what are you going to to about this? I hate America so I want to beat them the only way I can. I certainly cannot do it physically, I am out-maned and out-numbered, so I must evaluate every other damaging method of beating my enemy.
On your own soil? Who the fuck would do that? Oh wait, Saddam, thats right. My arguement is that, the *SECOND* they deploy their first weapon, the war is over. Done. Finished. America won. The United States pulls every troop out of Iraq and we have shown the entire world we were 100% on point with our accusationsand now we can take action with the help of every other U.N. affiliated country in this world. Saddam might be evil, atrocious, without heart, but he is not completely stupid. If he uses weapons then he is done, not another chance for him whatsoever.
Because if this war is entirely about WMD, and that is the complete basis of the invasion which was true, then it would certainly favor Saddam to destroy/hide them and let America invade and find absolutely NOTHING. As far as Saddam might be concerned this would put a nail in America's coffin.
Because you could pull the sheets off the "great satan" revealing him to the world.
Pretty smart, huh? It's perfect!
Saddam didn't have the United Nations watching him through a magnifying glass when he tortured and killed his own people. We might never really know what was on Saddam's agenda when the invasion started, but I know some of the things he was thinking. You have the entire world focused on this single invasion, world power nations, the united nations, neighboring countries, terrorist groups, etc. They are all watching to see if America finds these so called weapons of mass destruction to which the presence of them is allegedly defenitive. WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Thats what it's all about. Now if I'm the leader of that country, and I have the U.N. breathing down my neck trying to uncover these weapons, do I:
1. Use them on the invasion.
2. Hide/Destroy them so the "reason" of the war proves 100% false. Thus directing the audience (a few billion strong) on to the United States.
To me the question is not that hard to answer. Now remember this before anyone post's in reply. I am *NOT* telling you this is what happened, I am offering you a perspective on things, one that I think is completely rational.
[In the shoes of Saddam] I let the al-mighty American's invade on the basis of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", let them do their damage turning over every shed, silo, and military base, looking for these weapons, only to find nothing. Then I will look at the Security Council and (publicly) ask them, what are you going to to about this? I hate America so I want to beat them the only way I can. I certainly cannot do it physically, I am out-maned and out-numbered, so I must evaluate every other damaging method of beating my enemy.
On your own soil? Who the fuck would do that? Oh wait, Saddam, thats right. My arguement is that, the *SECOND* they deploy their first weapon, the war is over. Done. Finished. America won. The United States pulls every troop out of Iraq and we have shown the entire world we were 100% on point with our accusationsand now we can take action with the help of every other U.N. affiliated country in this world. Saddam might be evil, atrocious, without heart, but he is not completely stupid. If he uses weapons then he is done, not another chance for him whatsoever.
Because if this war is entirely about WMD, and that is the complete basis of the invasion which was true, then it would certainly favor Saddam to destroy/hide them and let America invade and find absolutely NOTHING. As far as Saddam might be concerned this would put a nail in America's coffin.
Because you could pull the sheets off the "great satan" revealing him to the world.
Pretty smart, huh? It's perfect!
Saddam didn't have the United Nations watching him through a magnifying glass when he tortured and killed his own people. We might never really know what was on Saddam's agenda when the invasion started, but I know some of the things he was thinking. You have the entire world focused on this single invasion, world power nations, the united nations, neighboring countries, terrorist groups, etc. They are all watching to see if America finds these so called weapons of mass destruction to which the presence of them is allegedly defenitive. WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Thats what it's all about. Now if I'm the leader of that country, and I have the U.N. breathing down my neck trying to uncover these weapons, do I:
1. Use them on the invasion.
2. Hide/Destroy them so the "reason" of the war proves 100% false. Thus directing the audience (a few billion strong) on to the United States.
To me the question is not that hard to answer. Now remember this before anyone post's in reply. I am *NOT* telling you this is what happened, I am offering you a perspective on things, one that I think is completely rational.
i can't predict the future, but there's a chance bin laden will be found, as for WMDs, Powell: Iraq May Not Have Possessed WMD
"On your own soil? Who the fuck would do that? Oh wait, Saddam, thats right. My arguement is that, the *SECOND* they deploy their first weapon, the war is over. Done. Finished. America won. The United States pulls every troop out of Iraq and we have shown the entire world we were 100% on point with our accusationsand now we can take action with the help of every other U.N. affiliated country in this world. Saddam might be evil, atrocious, without heart, but he is not completely stupid. If he uses weapons then he is done, not another chance for him whatsoever."
Come on man it's not like he is launching a nuke on his own soil. Only I or the Presidents of the United states would do that. The *SECOND* america decided to go in the war was over. Done. Finished. The united states has found NOTHING so far and right now it seems they are 100% wrong. Saddam didn't use weapons and he is done, with no chance of ever getting back in power. Why not go out with a bang? You're already being invaded, your sons have been killed, your generals and comrades captured or killed and your resources are becoming scarce.
If America says "SADDAM HAD NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WE HAD INCORRECT INFO" where does that leave america?
"Because if this war is entirely about WMD, and that is the complete basis of the invasion which was true, then it would certainly favor Saddam to destroy/hide them and let America invade and find absolutely NOTHING. As far as Saddam might be concerned this would put a nail in America's coffin."
I would agree with this IF he (he meaning his army/iraq) didn't fight back. If he stood his ground, stayed at his palace and commanded his troops to NOT return fire or engage in conflict you would have a point. THAT would put the nail in america's coffin. He didn't do that. He engaged in war and when it's war you're going to use ANY weapons you have. When you are combating an enemy and you're out gunned/out manned you're going to use ANY weapon or tactic you can. I'm telling you right now if I were an iraqi soldier and I knew were weapons of mass destruction were (which i doubt they have) I would try to use them.
"Because you could pull the sheets off the "great satan" revealing him to the world."
You can do a better job by NOT fighting back.
"Pretty smart, huh? It's perfect!
Saddam didn't have the United Nations watching him through a magnifying glass when he tortured and killed his own people. We might never really know what was on Saddam's agenda when the invasion started,"
He was being watched. Come on man that was one of the MAIN complaints against him. As far as him killing his own people thats up for debate.
"but I know some of the things he was thinking."
You assume. It's no way in hell you knew what saddam was thinking. That cat could have been thinking about snorting a line elvis. He could have been thinking about God. He could have been thinking about raping his son. He could have been thinking about petting a tiger. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL WAS IN HIS HEAD!
"You have the entire world focused on this single invasion, world power nations, the united nations, neighboring countries, terrorist groups, etc. They are all watching to see if America finds these so called weapons of mass destruction to which the presence of them is allegedly defenitive. WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Thats what it's all about. Now if I'm the leader of that country, and I have the U.N. breathing down my neck trying to uncover these weapons, do I:"
America went against U.N. regulations by going to war. EVEN IF SADDAM HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION THAT DOES NOT GIVE AMERICA THE RIGHT TO INVADE. AMERICA WAS TO GO TO WAR FOR 3 REASONS:
1. MANDATE BY THE U.N.
2.IMMINENT THREAT. IMMINENT THREAT HAS BEEN DEFINED AS "CLOSE TO IMPACT" OR ABOUT TO HIT/ON IT'S WAY. IN THAT CASE AMERICA CAN RETURN FIRE (MOST LIKELY A SHIT LOAD OF NUKES WOULD BE LAUNCHED).
3. I'LL LET YOU FIGURE THIS ONE OUT.
"1. Use them on the invasion.
2. Hide/Destroy them so the "reason" of the war proves 100% false. Thus directing the audience (a few billion strong) on to the United States."
If you have them you USE them You're already in violation and these fools aren't coming to play candyland or monopoloy. They came to KILL saddam.
If you DON'T have them DON'T fire back. You have shown the world that you let an army come through,check for weapons, you didn't kill anyone and you didn't place your people in harms way. By doing this you reserve manpower and ammo.
"To me the question is not that hard to answer. Now remember this before anyone post's in reply. I am *NOT* telling you this is what happened, I am offering you a perspective on things, one that I think is completely rational."
I understand. I don't believe it's rational.
:hgk:
Come on man it's not like he is launching a nuke on his own soil. Only I or the Presidents of the United states would do that. The *SECOND* america decided to go in the war was over. Done. Finished. The united states has found NOTHING so far and right now it seems they are 100% wrong. Saddam didn't use weapons and he is done, with no chance of ever getting back in power. Why not go out with a bang? You're already being invaded, your sons have been killed, your generals and comrades captured or killed and your resources are becoming scarce.
If America says "SADDAM HAD NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WE HAD INCORRECT INFO" where does that leave america?
"Because if this war is entirely about WMD, and that is the complete basis of the invasion which was true, then it would certainly favor Saddam to destroy/hide them and let America invade and find absolutely NOTHING. As far as Saddam might be concerned this would put a nail in America's coffin."
I would agree with this IF he (he meaning his army/iraq) didn't fight back. If he stood his ground, stayed at his palace and commanded his troops to NOT return fire or engage in conflict you would have a point. THAT would put the nail in america's coffin. He didn't do that. He engaged in war and when it's war you're going to use ANY weapons you have. When you are combating an enemy and you're out gunned/out manned you're going to use ANY weapon or tactic you can. I'm telling you right now if I were an iraqi soldier and I knew were weapons of mass destruction were (which i doubt they have) I would try to use them.
"Because you could pull the sheets off the "great satan" revealing him to the world."
You can do a better job by NOT fighting back.
"Pretty smart, huh? It's perfect!
Saddam didn't have the United Nations watching him through a magnifying glass when he tortured and killed his own people. We might never really know what was on Saddam's agenda when the invasion started,"
He was being watched. Come on man that was one of the MAIN complaints against him. As far as him killing his own people thats up for debate.
"but I know some of the things he was thinking."
You assume. It's no way in hell you knew what saddam was thinking. That cat could have been thinking about snorting a line elvis. He could have been thinking about God. He could have been thinking about raping his son. He could have been thinking about petting a tiger. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL WAS IN HIS HEAD!
"You have the entire world focused on this single invasion, world power nations, the united nations, neighboring countries, terrorist groups, etc. They are all watching to see if America finds these so called weapons of mass destruction to which the presence of them is allegedly defenitive. WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Thats what it's all about. Now if I'm the leader of that country, and I have the U.N. breathing down my neck trying to uncover these weapons, do I:"
America went against U.N. regulations by going to war. EVEN IF SADDAM HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION THAT DOES NOT GIVE AMERICA THE RIGHT TO INVADE. AMERICA WAS TO GO TO WAR FOR 3 REASONS:
1. MANDATE BY THE U.N.
2.IMMINENT THREAT. IMMINENT THREAT HAS BEEN DEFINED AS "CLOSE TO IMPACT" OR ABOUT TO HIT/ON IT'S WAY. IN THAT CASE AMERICA CAN RETURN FIRE (MOST LIKELY A SHIT LOAD OF NUKES WOULD BE LAUNCHED).
3. I'LL LET YOU FIGURE THIS ONE OUT.
"1. Use them on the invasion.
2. Hide/Destroy them so the "reason" of the war proves 100% false. Thus directing the audience (a few billion strong) on to the United States."
If you have them you USE them You're already in violation and these fools aren't coming to play candyland or monopoloy. They came to KILL saddam.
If you DON'T have them DON'T fire back. You have shown the world that you let an army come through,check for weapons, you didn't kill anyone and you didn't place your people in harms way. By doing this you reserve manpower and ammo.
"To me the question is not that hard to answer. Now remember this before anyone post's in reply. I am *NOT* telling you this is what happened, I am offering you a perspective on things, one that I think is completely rational."
I understand. I don't believe it's rational.
:hgk:
Then why not just turn yourself in since you recognize that you don't have a fighting chance?
That wouldn't make any sense, especially since his 2 sons were killed deffending their land....
Saddam was not ready to roll over and die.
Even now he remains defiant about his "crimes"....
Quote:
Originally posted by miggidy
This man has been accused of killing his own people and attacking other countries. If he has such a HORRIBLE track record, is vicious, cold, calculating and evil why transform to "BITCHERELLA" when midnight (the invasion) hits? Saddam raped this, Saddam gassed that, Saddam killed them, Saddam tortured that....he does all that but HIDES his weapons?
Ummm I don't remember saying that
But I agree with it.
It's like sayin some rivals are about to take me out the game and I don't use the one weapon that can actually give me a fighting chance simply cuz it will offend the neighbors....
I could give a rats ass if using this weapon will get me in trouble, I'm about to be killed for God's sake.
It's like worrying about crabs when I already got aids from the bitch :dead:
That wouldn't make any sense, especially since his 2 sons were killed deffending their land....
Saddam was not ready to roll over and die.
Even now he remains defiant about his "crimes"....
Quote:
Originally posted by miggidy
This man has been accused of killing his own people and attacking other countries. If he has such a HORRIBLE track record, is vicious, cold, calculating and evil why transform to "BITCHERELLA" when midnight (the invasion) hits? Saddam raped this, Saddam gassed that, Saddam killed them, Saddam tortured that....he does all that but HIDES his weapons?
Ummm I don't remember saying that
But I agree with it.
It's like sayin some rivals are about to take me out the game and I don't use the one weapon that can actually give me a fighting chance simply cuz it will offend the neighbors....
I could give a rats ass if using this weapon will get me in trouble, I'm about to be killed for God's sake.
It's like worrying about crabs when I already got aids from the bitch :dead:
He was done by not using the weapons, just like he would be done if he used him. Logic would tell you that he would use them. Why? Because he's Evil as stated numerous times. Because he's fucked either way. Because he was a threat to the US and was going to attack our country (suposedly). so why wouldn't he attack our troops with these same weapons that he was going to attack our country with?