BF2S Forums Without WMD we would have found another excuse to invade Iraq

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

You really should talk to your mom about skipping school one day and have her take you to the doctor to increase you prescription of Ritalin. You are entirely too tense for this forum. But HEY, don't you dare take off from school on a test day!!

LMAO lowing you're a discredited idiot as far as I'm concerned so I couldn't give a flying rats ass what you think. Oh wait cos I'm a MUSLIM SYMPATHISER YEAH ALQAEDA ALL THE WAY BABY.

Prick.

You are the one getting mad and throwing tantrum on the internet, and you call me the idiot? Seriously, talk to your mom, you need real help. The sign on the door says, "if you ca nnot keep a level head, this forum is not for you".

By the way, I am not looking for credibility on a game forum, this is mere entertainment, when I am sitting at the desk. The only credibility I seek is that from my family, co-workers and friends.

UN1441 wrote:

In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."

But no more so than many other countries, Iran for example, and the AQ linkage was BS.

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2001 found "extremely grave" human rights violations

Zimbabwe, why haven't we invaded them?

Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.

Which was total CIA BS.

Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.

Probably BS.

Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether.

So did the US, packing UNSCOM with CIA and special forces personnel, and using 'inspections' to plan strikes on Saddam.

So based on totally bogus US intel and pressure, the UNSC did vote against Iraq - but did not authorise war.
Once you strip out the BS you realise how lame and belligerent the whole business was.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-01-05 21:54:16)

Dilbert_X wrote:

UN1441 wrote:

In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."

But no more so than many other countries, Iran for example, and the AQ linkage was BS.

There were AQ terrorists in Iraq. That statement was true. It did not say that Iraq was necessarily harboring them, but it did imply it, which was probably an intentional (and incorrect) implication.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2001 found "extremely grave" human rights violations

Zimbabwe, why haven't we invaded them?

Maybe because they didn't have gobs of other UN resolutions against them for the same exact thing that they had violated?

Perhaps you should ask the UN.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.

Which was total CIA BS.

You should've read further in the article.

On December 7, 2002, Iraq filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The five permanent members of the Security Council received unedited versions of the report, while an edited version was made available for other UN Member States. On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light.

Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[2] [3] [4]. On January 27, 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[5] Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced "1,000 tonnes" of VX nerve agent—one of the most toxic ever developed.[6]

By mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections."

At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".

Dilbert_X wrote:

Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.

Probably BS.

Proven to NOT be BS. Hence why Kofi Anan's son was indicted.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether.

So did the US, packing UNSCOM with CIA and special forces personnel, and using 'inspections' to plan strikes on Saddam.

So based on totally bogus US intel and pressure, the UNSC did vote against Iraq - but did not authorise war.
Once you strip out the BS you realise how lame and belligerent the whole business was.

Go ahead and ignore that 1441 was the culmination of roughly 18 other UNSC resolutions involving sanctions, Iraqi violations thereof, etc.

You really can't see the forest for the trees, can you? Too inconvenient, I suppose.

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

You are the one getting mad and throwing tantrum on the internet, and you call me the idiot? Seriously, talk to your mom, you need real help. The sign on the door says, "if you ca nnot keep a level head, this forum is not for you".

By the way, I am not looking for credibility on a game forum, this is mere entertainment, when I am sitting at the desk. The only credibility I seek is that from my family, co-workers and friends.

how can you throw a tantrum on the internet? It doesn't make sense. I'm not going mad either. I refer you to my previous post, and you're still a prick.

Didn't know you could, until i read your non-sense. Just can't lay off the insults can you?

JohnG@lt wrote:

It was a continuation of the Gulf War which was started by Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Is this difficult to understand? We didn't go in there unprovoked.

and the US defended kuwait why...for oil. So don't give us your bullshit high-and-mighty angle in this regard. sure they provoked you - by takig 'your' oil!

Still ignoring all my arguments I see.

Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-01-06 22:45:23)

ruisleipa wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

It was a continuation of the Gulf War which was started by Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Is this difficult to understand? We didn't go in there unprovoked.

and the US defended kuwait why...for oil. So don't give us your bullshit high-and-mighty angle in this regard. sure they provoked you - by takig 'your' oil!

Still ignoring all my arguments I see.

Most of the world defended Kuwait... and it wasn't necessarily for oil but because a country was invaded without provocation... kind of like how Poland was defended back in 1939...

M.O.A.B wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

and the US defended kuwait why...for oil. So don't give us your bullshit high-and-mighty angle in this regard. sure they provoked you - by takig 'your' oil!

Still ignoring all my arguments I see.

Most of the world defended Kuwait... and it wasn't necessarily for oil but because a country was invaded without provocation... kind of like how Poland was defended back in 1939...

Saudi's asked for help as well I think. One of the reasons bin Laden got pissed off with them.

Big, big reason he got pissed with us in general. He didn't like us already on principle, but this turned 'dislike' into 'despise'

Something like that. Everyone else in the vicinity was perfectly happy with the hiding we were giving Saddam, who was not a popular guy amongst the Arab nations.

Iraq had the right to take Kuwait?

ruisleipa wrote:

no of course not, but can't you see the hypocrisy here? a) if the US REALLY wanted to remove Saddam for 'human rights' reasons or whatever they should've done it after they 'liberated' Kuwait (which, as I'm sure you know, is pretty fuckin far from a freedom loving democratic state so THAT wasn't the reason for going in). b) seems to me the whole WMD thing was just a shitty excuse to invade Iraq cos they missed their best opportunity year earlier. c) if Kuwait DIDN'T have lots of nice oil to make money for big businesses mainly in the US no way would the 'coalition' have gone in. What, say Zaire invades the Congo, can you imagine the US getting pissed and invading? Fuck no!!!

The US was prepared to go to Baghdad, however the compliance of the UN resolution by Iraq deemed it to be not a necessary action.

If you are going to bitch about securing oil fields, then I suggest when you get old enough to drive, you don't, by doing so would make you a hypocrite. Can't bitch about flowing oil, while you are pumping it in your car.

lowing wrote:

The US was prepared to go to Baghdad, however the compliance of the UN resolution by Iraq deemed it to be not a necessary action.

If you are going to bitch about securing oil fields, then I suggest when you get old enough to drive, you don't, by doing so would make you a hypocrite. Can't bitch about flowing oil, while you are pumping it in your car.

Hahahahah oh lowing you are full of it - such an expert on everything yeah? How old do you think I am? What difference does it make? Of course we need oil, I know that. So you now admit that the reason the US went to Kuwait and Iraq WAS to secure oil??? Newsflash!

lowing wrote:

The US was prepared to go to Baghdad, however the compliance of the UN resolution by Iraq deemed it to be not a necessary action.

proof for your first point please. Why was it OK that despite the UN asserted Iraq didn't have WMD the US essentially unilaterally decided to invade?

excuse the big wikipedia quote but its easiest:

By March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks. The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence. Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress, President Bush asserted peaceful measures couldn't disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War, despite multiple dissenting opinions and questions of integrity about the underlying intelligence. Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted. President Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq, while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq".