More Proof

[TM_Direct]

.....Im sure there will be stories that said we planted them and or give valid reasons why they were there....there is no convincing some people.......they won't beleive untile marines start coming home with burns and deformities from these weapons

 

[bungrider]

yeah, i really doubt that any stories about planted weapons would have any credibility...those "embedded" reporters should keep such conspiracy theories from becoming too popular...

but honestly, though -- what will happen if no such weapons are ever found?? just like the conspiracy theorists who would argue that the US might plant weapons in iraq, i would imagine that the opposite end of the paranoia spectrum may argue that the weapons were there, and that the iraqis moved them to another country or destroyed them when the invasion began...

this whole thing will never end. it will inspire endless rags and crappy network television shows...

 

[TM_Direct]

....I agree with everything you said except for one thing:

The ONUS was on the IRAQI's to PROVE they destroyed them all...this cat and mouse game had to end and in terms of Hospitals having chemical suits, chemical facility in the middle of the desert that is purposely camouflaged from aerial satellite images and 'run by a general"......it leaves a lot of room for debate, but again, the ONUS on proof was on them and clearly there are a lot more questions about their dissarmament.

 

[bungrider]

that's a great point. the burden was on them.

but, the burden was on the US to abide by the UN resolutions...and we chose not to. how does that make us different from Iraq???

and now we have just about zero credibility to the rest of the world. and now we ALSO have a considerably higher cost of getting this thing done...

 

[TM_Direct]

Quote from bungrider:

that's a great point. the burden was on them.

but, the burden was on the US to abide by the UN resolutions...and we chose not to. how does that make us different from Iraq???

and now we have just about zero credibility to the rest of the world. and now we ALSO have a considerably higher cost of getting this thing done...

Do not reinvent ....The Un Resolution was a continuation fo the cease fire form 1991,,,,and the latest resolution warned of dire consequences....why do we suddenly care about costs? since when has the cost become such a factor? If it is such a factor does that mean you think we should just NUKE the place to end it? Afterall, we may kill innocent civilian but you seem to care about the cost of freedom., Just a thought

 

[bungrider]

I care more about the costs than anything else. It is not our job, nor our responsibility to go around installing puppet governments.

Where will it end?? We will run out of MONEY doing this.

 

[TM_Direct]

Quote from bungrider:

I care more about the costs than anything else. It is not our job, nor our responsibility to go around installing puppet governments.

Where will it end?? We will run out of MONEY doing this.

So you are in support of using cruise missiles all over Iraq, including hospitals and schools that are housing some munitions and soldiers? Are you in favor of dropping a small Nuke on Baghdad to quickly and cheaply end the war...yes or no???

 

[msfe]

Quote from bungrider:

I care more about the costs than anything else. It is not our job, nor our responsibility to go around installing puppet governments.

Where will it end?? We will run out of MONEY doing this.

"The dollar will go on down because the good empire has the same faultlines as many other empires: unsustainable living standards at the core depend on flows of wealth from the periphery," says Independent Strategy in terms that would not be out of a place in a Marxist textbook. "The US no longer earns the return needed to sustain these flows. The costs of war and unilateralism will increase the thirst for capital, but reduce the return earned by it."

In plain English, America relies on the rest of the world to finance its deficits. The rest of the world was happy to do so when the US economy was strong and returns were high, but investors will put their cash elsewhere if America looks weak economically. America borrows hundreds of millions of dollars from the rest of the world each day to cover its savings gap and, under George Bush, US dependence on foreign capital is set to increase.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,922217,00.html

 

[bungrider]

Quote from TM_Direct:




So you are in support of using cruise missiles all over Iraq, including hospitals and schools that are housing some munitions and soldiers? Are you in favor of dropping a small Nuke on Baghdad to quickly and cheaply end the war...yes or no???

no

i am in favor of not invading iraq in the first place.

i am in favor of containing saddam and his terrorist friends within Iraq. it is the responsibility of the Iraqis to decide their government, and i have no sympathy for them if they choose not to revolt against saddam. the russians had stalin for years, and this eventually ended with gorbachev. in the meantime, i don't give a fuck about the problems the iraqis have with saddam.

if saddam were to actually do something to american interests, THEN i would be in favor of a military conflict, as in 1991.

the whole pre-emptive strike will only --

1)inspire more terrorism
2)hurt the credibility of the US
3)generate deficits
4)damage the profitability of US corporations abroad, such as coca cola and IBM
5)inspire pre-emptive tactics against the US by terrorists

and oh yeah, what if the next leader is worse than Saddam???

just my .02

 

[daniel_m]

whoa there bungrider! you don't wanna get this website shutdown do you?